What are the differences between Sacraments and Ordenances?

Wrong on several different levels. Not all Baptists dedicate babies. And the reason Baptists typically don't use the word sacrament is because of what it means. We don't see it taught in the Bible. It may just be that you are not familiar with the issues here.

I see people do stuff like this all the time.

 

I was once told

If you don't do the Sacraments you will go to hell, if you don't do the Ordinances you will be chastened

was an interesting statement that gets me confused today, mainly because I don't know if he was joking or not

 

>And the reason Baptists typically don't use the word sacrament is because of what it means. We don't see it taught in the Bible.

If (for example) marriage doesn't set the apart for special service to God and a special blessing from God then why make a big deal out of who should marry whom? If it only involves rule keeping then a Hindu or Moslem is as valid and no more advantageous than Christian marriage?

 

Not sure how in the world this is relevant here. The question about sacraments or ordinances doesn't have anything to do with setting apart for special service or special blessing. It has to do with whether or not an act is a means of grace or not. The Bible teaches that it is not. It is an ordinance, not a sacrament.

There are many things that are important, that are more than rule keeping, that have nothing to do with sacraments v. ordinances. That would perhaps be a worthy discussion, but certainly out of place here since it is off topic.

 

Really? Where?

 

Hold on to your hats, people, I agree with Pastor Larry! The basic difference to my mind is that a sacrament effects something in the participant whereas an ordinance reflects what has already happened to the participant.

 

Not quite: for a wedding to be a sacrament, as opposed to a 'mere' legal ceremony, Catholic ecclesiology demands a priest do perform it. You are correct about baptism, but only in extremis; the usual rule is that only a priest or deacon may perform the sacrament unless it is an emergency (eg: stillborn/ dying baby) and no clergy may be found - in those circumstances anyone may baptise provided they have the necessary matter (water+"I baptise you in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit") and the necessary intention (to baptise in the Name of the Father etc). Of course, all of this this stems from the (traditional) Catholic belief that baptism is (usually) necessary for salvation and that unbaptised infants go to Limbo - a view which I do not share (and neither does the present Pope, I gather).

 

Marcia quoteth thusly:

and DonnA similarly:

I have to say that I detect a slight flaw in your argument, ladies, particularly with regard to a baby being baptised: how much more gracious can you get (in Catholic soteriology), whereby God bestows His grace of regeneration on a new-born infant who has done and can do nothing to earn salvation; surely that is the epitome of grace?

 

Heh heh! This reminds me of 'dry baptism' joke about the exchange between the Baptist pastor and the Catholic priest re their understandings of baptism and confirmation. The Baptist went first: "well, we don't baptise infants, we dedicate them", and then went on to explain what that involved. The priest chuckled and said "Sounds like a dry baptism to me." Then he went on to tell the pastor what they did at confirmation, and it was the Baptist's turn to chuckle and say, "Sounds like a dry baptism to me!"

 

This is correct only if you are talking about Catholics. However, the RCC recognizes all all trinitarian water baptisms as valid, meaning that if a Bapist, Methodist or Anglican seeks membership in the RCC he does not have to be baptised again by a priest. The original non-Catholic baptism is considered sacramental. Same thing with a marriage between two non-Catholic Christians. The RCC recognizes this as a sacramental marriage.

 

Agreed re baptism, but I'm not sure about marriage: when I was contemplating swimming the Tiber a few years back, I was told that Mrs B and I would need to go through a 'convalidation' ceremony to make it (retrospectively) sacramentally valid before we could receive Holy Communion

 

All over. The ordinances are symbolic (a remembrance, an outward profession). They are never, in Scripture, said to convey grace to the participant or recipient.

 

Because, to them, it wasn't a valid Catholic marriage

Several factors:

1. I was not convinced that the RCC, anymore than the EOC, is the valid successor of the Undivided Church.

2. There is a degree of forensic legalism within the RCC that puts me off eg: if you don't go to Mass on a Sunday, it's a mortal sin and you're doomed to Hell unless you go to confession and say five Our Fathers, four Hail Marys and three Hello Dollys. The convalidation point was indicative of that

3. My wife would have to be convinced that the RCC is the right Church for us as a family; she is Plymouth Brethren in background and was brought up rabidly anti-Catholic so that's a bit of a chasm for he to leap!

 

Partly practicalities: there are no non-ethnic (ie: not Russian or Greek) Orthodox churches within about 70 miles of where I am. The nearest English-speaking Orthodox parish is an Antiochene one near Dorchester. Also, partly, for me Anglicanism is more...well...authentically English and suits me best. That, admittedly, sounds very post-modern and is probably the weakest reason for being part of the CofE.

 

I have to agree with Matt as just one of my reasons that I decided not to swim the Tiber when he said:

Matt Black said: There is a degree of forensic legalism within the RCC that puts me off eg: if you don't go to Mass on a Sunday, it's a mortal sin and you're doomed to Hell unless you go to confession​

That just really didn’t sit well with me either. Even though I agree that we, Protestant/Catholic or Orthodox, should make ever effort to attend Church, still one shouldn’t be threatened with Hell, for succumbing to our Passion and being lazy and not going to Church.

Also, St. Paul does say that we should not only discern the body and blood of Christ, but also properly prepare ourselves before we partake in the Eucharist. Thus if I attend Divine Liturgy (same as Mass for the Roman Catholic), and I feel I should abstain from approaching the chalice, the Church then respects and applauds my decision. Furthermore, I believe, but not sure, but one is really only required to partake in the Eucharist once or twice a year. Some I’ve noticed only partake during certain Fasts, like the one we’re in now…The Dormition Fast.

Matt Black said: Partly practicalities: there are no non-ethnic (ie: not Russian or Greek) Orthodox churches within about 70 miles of where I am. The nearest English-speaking Orthodox parish is an Antiochene one near Dorchester. ​

I would add that the Antiochian Patriarchate (which I’m apart of) here in the US are a lot more open to American converts, in regard to English speaking services only, Americans are welcomed in any Orthodox Church regardless of Jurisdiction. Most of our services are in English, but we do hear some Greek, Arabic and Russian from time to time, which is quite interesting. Since our parish was founded by Lebanese, it’s been some getting used to eating Lebanese food…

In XC
-

 

I don't think DonnA is a "lady" if I recall correctly.

I think the problem with bapitzing a baby being a sacrament is that the baby has no idea what's going on, and is being baptized in order to receive the grace.