Why are the sacraments so important to Catholics?

How do you define "Grace"?

Do you mean that "by the sacraments you get forgiveness of sins"??

Do you mean that "by the sacraments your soul is marked"?

Do you mean that "by the sacraments you find acceptance with God"?

Do you mean that "by the sacraments you are born again"?

Do you mean that "by the sacraments you have access to God"??

------------------------------------------------

Another view is that the grace of God provides for our daily perseverance - our fellowship with the saints, encouragement in the gospel, instruction and correction, the authorit and blessing upon the institution of Marriage etc-- and that it is only in that realm that the sacraments are a means or channel of "grace".

Which view are you taking?

In Christ,

Bob

 

"The sacraments are built upon this idea, this theological principle of the good creation: that God created the world and he saw that what he made was "very good," as it says in Genesis. In other words, it isn't just the spiritual side of human life that is good whereas the material, physical life is evil. That view was rejected by the early Church. No, the Christian vision is that all of creation is a good creation, as God made it."

Someone could say "But what about the sin and the fall?." Well, that's right. The sin has radically affected all of creation, both spiritually and materially, but what about redemption? How did Christ accomplish our redemption? It was precisely by taking upon himself human nature — not just spiritually but also physically. He took on our flesh in the Incarnation and he resurrected that flesh as well; and that flesh and blood, that human body is enthroned in glory in heaven. So, our Savior did not despise living in a virginal womb for nine months, as physical as that was, nursing at his mother's breast, growing up as a young child, experiencing all the material and physical things that a child goes through. Why? Because Jesus Christ who is the redeemer of the world is also the Creator. So the one who made matter and spirit redeems matter and spirit and he uses matter and spirit to redeem us as well.

 

I think that this goes a long way in explaining how it is that the Catholic Church, the Church of Christ, is the Body of Christ, the physical, the visible expression of Christ. Theologians say that the Church is the extension of Christ's incarnation and that extension takes place through the sacraments. In other words, God does extraordinary things through ordinary means. He takes the natural to do the supernatural. So the sacraments, in sum, constitute the very heart of the Catholic faith. But I have to say something else and that is that perhaps the sacraments are the least understood dimension of the Catholic faith.

That's true for almost anybody alive in this century but, especially perhaps, it's true for modern Americans. Why? Because America may well be the least sacramental society in history. Unlike ancient Greece, unlike ancient Rome, India and other ancient civilizations, America really finds no place for religious ritual in public life. In fact, religious ritual in public life makes most Americans very, very uncomfortable because our society stresses individualism, individual rights and freedoms as opposed to the family.

I also find that Americans think in a pragmatic, in a scientific, experiential mode. They want it here and now and they want it served up piping hot. They think in terms of that which entertains and amuses and excites. So, when it comes to the sacraments, you're hard pressed to understand it; because, in American life religious ritual has almost no place.

 

Now someone could point out a few isolated fragments, I suspect. You know, on the coin is, "In God We Trust." When we say the Pledge of Allegiance we acknowledge that we are "one nation under God." We require our politicians to take an oath of office, if they are going to become President. We even require witnesses in a courtroom to take an oath and ask for God's help as they swear "to tell the whole truth." But the fact is these are isolated fragments that don't really find an integrated place in American society, and so it's hard for Americans to understand what a sacrament really is.

Now at this point, a cradle Catholic who has been born and raised and catechized could protest and say, "Now, wait a second. Sacraments are really simple. You're making complicated what is really easy to understand, because, after all, aren't sacraments just simply "outward signs instituted by Christ to give grace?" That, of course, is the catechism definition and it's a very good definition, as far as it goes. But I think as essential as a catechism definition is, it doesn't really go that far in explaining what sacraments are.

That definition explains where they come from — they are instituted by Christ. It explains what they do — they give grace, but not what they are, as sacraments, per se. Recent attempts by scholars to explain sacraments in a clearer way, I think are helpful; but they might fall short, because in the last ten, twenty, thirty years, many theologians have gone to psychology or anthropology to understand how it is humans use signs and symbols to structure social life — the handshake, the kiss, the common meal are all more than just actions. They are signs and symbols that convey a great deal of truth through the signs.

 

Now, if recent attempts to study signs and symbols through such things as kisses and handshakes and meals have been helpful, I have to say that they are also deficient when it comes to explaining what the sacraments of the new covenant are. Now before I show how, let me explain what's going on here. If you take a look at something natural, like a kiss, you could say, "That's a sign, that is in a sense almost sacramental?" Why? Because it causes what it signifies, doesn't it? Somebody could say, "Well, a kiss is just a kiss. It doesn't necessarily communicate love." That's true, not necessarily; but suppose I kiss my wife and she says, "Well, that's just a kiss and a kiss is a kiss, is a kiss."

Then suppose we proceed to kiss for five minutes or fifteen or thirty-five or forty-five minutes. What will happen? Is that kiss just simply a sign or does that kiss begin to do more than just signify? Does it also, in fact, intensify that love? Does it also magnify the love and lead to a deeper experience of that love? Well, yeah, it does. So at the natural level I do have some comparisons to make as we look the anthropological and psychological parallels to the Catholic sacraments.

Okay, well and good. But a non-Catholic could easily protest at this point and say, "Now wait a second. A kiss does signify and intensify and magnify love, but that's not the same thing as what the Catholic Church claims for its sacraments." Why? Because these signs that constitute the sacraments of the Catholic Church don't just intensify love through lip smacking. The sacraments, according to the Catholic religion, actually bring about, for instance, the Body and the Blood of God, the wiping away of original sin and the mystical infusion of the soul into the Mystical Body of Christ?

You know, the non-Catholic, I think has a point. I mean, if I am going to make a comparison between the sacraments and the signs and symbols in human society, I have to admit that the sacraments do far more than our experience or human reason could explain. I think the problem is this. The Catholic might say, "Well the comparison is very helpful to me, but oftentimes, constant exposure dulls the senses and makes it hard to understand how unique and how distinctive the Catholic sacraments really are." I mean, let's face it, what Catholics believe about the seven sacraments goes way beyond what human reason tells us and, in the case of the Eucharist, what we believe about the sacraments goes right against what our five senses and what human experience tells us.

In fact, what Catholics really believe about the sacraments is a divine mystery revealed by God, supernaturally, depending upon a supernatural gift of faith in order to believe and live out and adhere to. In other words, the sacraments are really not reducible to any social convention that you could find in society, the signs and the symbols that constitute social relations. No, the sacraments constitute the mystery of faith. They are divinely revealed. They are believed by supernatural faith, through God's grace. Simply on the basis of God's word do we believe in them. It's because we have Christ's testimony that we accept the sacraments for what they do and for what they are. It's the same as our belief in the Trinity, something that goes well beyond reason — our belief in the incarnation of God in a human body; that goes far beyond our sense experiences. Were Christ to walk into my room right now, I would never know from my five senses that this is the Eternal Logos, the Second Person of the Godhead, the Creator of the Cosmos. It's only by faith that accepts supernatural revelation by grace, God's assistance.

Now the sacraments go far beyond reason but they don't go against reason. They go beyond logic but they are not illogical; they are not contradictory. So there is still room for reason to explore and study, to grasp the intelligibility and the meaning of the sacraments. So I am not suggesting that Catholics act like zombies in some mindless, unquestioning way just simply accepting and grasping that which is absurd. No. Catholics should not be zombies. They should be faithful children who accept the testimony of their father in heaven through the Spirit but, at the same time, they ought to grow up and allow their reason to explore the intelligible meaning of the sacraments. That's what I am going to try to do.

 

Catholics believe that the sacraments impart grace that leads to a salvation by works.

 

Hebrews 6:18 That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us:

Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

NO, not everything is possible for God.
God does not lie. God does not sin. God does not do anything that is contrary to His Word, or to His nature.

Isn't it nice of you to take a verse out of context--a verse meant to be taken symbolically, and you somehow take it literally. I suppose next time that when Jesus says: "I am the door," you will think that he is made of wood?? Words have meanings, and context is important.

Get baptized; get wet. Tell me if you feel the "buzz" of the grace of God, the fire from heaven, the dove descending upon you, and whatever else you might call "grace." The Hindus get their sins washed away in the River Ganges. The Catholics get their sins washed in the rivers of the baptismal font. There is no difference.
DHK

 

Amen to that!:applause:

 

How do you define "Grace"?

Do you mean that "by the sacraments you get forgiveness of sins"??

Do you mean that "by the sacraments your soul is marked"?

Do you mean that "by the sacraments you find acceptance with God"?

Do you mean that "by the sacraments you are born again"?

Do you mean that "by the sacraments you have access to God"??

 

DHK, by your own words you make God out to be a liar

The idea that God cannot do something is a purely human notion. There is a big difference between "cannot" and "does not." God is capable of doing all things. God does not lie because he has chosen not to and in his perfection he succeeds where we men fail.

Where in Romans 6 does it ever give any hint that Paul is talking figuratively? If you are going to claim a symbolic meaning you are going to have to prove it.

Thura literally means entry way (BDAG). And so yes Jesus is literally the way into heaven as the only way in is through him.

In response, to your snide remarks no I do not get a warm fuzzy or any of the other things you mention. I do not base my faith on something as flimsy and fallilbe as human emotions or reason. My faith is created and based upon the objective promises of God.

Now back to the text at hand if God does not lie and all things are possible for God then Romans 6 must be understood as a description of the work God is doing in Baptism, because to claim any other is to make God a liar.

 

I don't make God to be a liar; if anyone does you do.
God cannot lie. The Bible states it to be so. He is not capable of lying. This is not a human notion. What you have done is taken a statement that Christ has said and taken it out of its context. The statement must be qualified as most statements are.
God cannot do those things that are against His nature. I never thought that I would see the day that I would be debating a doctrine so basic in theology as this with you.
God is just. He cannot do those things which are unjust.
God is holy. He cannot do those things which are unholy.
God is love. He cannot do those things which are unloving. etc., etc.
God cannot do that which is against his nature

Neither does God ever go against His Word.
His Word is yea and yea; and nay and nay.
He is not a man that he should lie; neither the son of man that he should repent... (Num.23:19)

You have taken a verse out of context and seemingly built your own doctrine/religion around it. The atheists would love you for it. "Can God create a rock so great that he cannot lift?"
[quoteWhere in Romans 6 does it ever give any hint that Paul is talking figuratively? If you are going to claim a symbolic meaning you are going to have to prove it.[/quote]
Romans 6:3-6 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
--Literal or figurative?
I was baptized in or into water. The medium was water, not Christ.
The answer--figurative.

4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
--Literal or Figurative?
Was Christ buried with me in the water? I didn't see him there.
There is a word in that statement, like as which denotes a similie. A similie means that the expression is figurative.
ASChrist was raised up from the dead...EVEN SO we also shall walk in newness of life. Is if literal or figurative? The evidence overwhelmingly points to figurative.

5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
--Literal or Figurative?
Was I actually planted? Was Christ with me when it happened. When something is planted it takes time to grow. If that were the case I would be dead. But it doesn't say that. It says in the likeness of his death.
It is another figurative expression. It doesn't say that I am dead, but rather that I am in the likeness of his death and shall be in the likeness of his resurrection. Nothing here is literal. It is figurative. It is full of similies, and figurative speech that shows how symbolic baptism is.

6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
--If this was literally true I would be literally dead and buried six feet under. But my body and all of its millions of cells are alive. It is not destroyed. It is a picture of what happens at salvation that is pictured in baptism.

Good, because baptism is simply a command by Jesus to the believer. The only feeling that you ought to get is the feeling of getting wet. There is no grace imparted.

Only if you read into Scripture that which is not there. Read it objectively. Read it in its context. Realize that even the very word "baptidzo" means immerse. There is a picture there. It is purely symbolic.
DHK

 

Actually Jesus never commands us to baptize. In Matthew 28 baptizing is a dative participle of means (Wallace, Greek Grammar: Beyond the basics). If it were an imperatived then we could call it command but it isn't. Second, an honest simple check of lexicons will show that Baptizo as immersion is incomplete. BDAG defines it as a washing by means of immersion, sprinkling, or pouring. Other lexicons will also show that Baptizo means to wash.

Romans 6:3-6 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
--Literal or figurative?
I was baptized in or into water. The medium was water, not Christ.
The answer--figurative.
[/QUOTE]

You aren't even dealing with the text if you want to prove it show it ffrom the text otherwise its not worth a response.

Simile, now that's funny try an equivalent result, you forgot the little "in order that," which proceeds. This "just as" is no indication of figurative language it merely illustrates that because we have been baptized into the death of Christ we will be raised in a ressurection just like him. Unless of course you are going to argue for a figurative ressurrection.

Well stop placing him in a box by trying to deny that with God all things are possible. You are saying that for God all things are not possible thus contradicting what God shared with the disciples and demonstrated through out scripture. I never said He lies, or is unjust, or unloving. I merely have stated that God being capable of perfection does not do those things which he does not desire to do, unlike us who end up doing the things we do not wish do.

Please do not change the text to fit into your theological construct. I expected greater honesty from you.

From what I can see for all of your "reasoning" you don't want to give yourself up and let God be God and his word be his Word. Everytime instead of appealing to God you appealed to your experience. Which no offense is no real evidence. I will take God's promise any day over flawed human perception.

 

Why Refer to the Divine Mysteries as Sacraments?

I want to explore the roots of the Catholic understanding of sacrament in the biblical conceptions of oath and covenant.

Now, one thing I think that we can ask ourselves that will be very, very helpful is, "Why is it that the Holy Spirit led the Early Church to refer to these divine mysteries as sacraments?" The term sacramentum is a Latin term that goes back to pre-Christian usage. Now why is it that the early Church felt it so proper to adapt a term with certain non-Christian or pre-Christian meanings to explain these divine mysteries? In other words, what's the original meaning of the term sacramentum?

Well, it's actually hardly a matter for dispute. All scholars are in agreement. Sacramentum is the Latin term used in antiquity to designate an oath. For instance, we know that in antiquity Roman soldiers, as they came into the army, actually had to swear a sacramentum, an oath to the Emperor to serve in the army. We also know that in ancient Rome, for instance, when there was a legal dispute between two people, a pledge was left by both parties at the temple for the gods and this sacred pledge constituted a sacramentum.

So, sacramentum is the term in antiquity designating oath. Now at first glance you might be tempted to say, "So what? Big deal. Oaths of initiation, these rituals and the secret societies of antiquity, I mean, how does this really help us understand a sacrament or why the Church was led by the Spirit to accept the term sacrament to explain these divine mysteries?"

 

It seems to give peace to those who want it when there is no real peace.

The RC org is huge, huge amounts of money and land, and loads of people going to hell. And it does not care because it is not of God.

Preach the Gospel. That is what I am going to do here in Lourdes.

Praise the Lion of Judah.

'If there was ever a war against terrorism, it should be against the roman catholic church'.

 

"Sacramentum" is the Latin Word for "Oath"

"So, sacramentum is the term in antiquity designating oath. Now at first glance you might be tempted to say, "So what? Big deal. Oaths of initiation, these rituals and the secret societies of antiquity, I mean, how does this really help us understand a sacrament or why the Church was led by the Spirit to accept the term sacrament to explain these divine mysteries?"

I think further study will give you greater insight, though. For instance you will find that one of the early Roman historians by the name of Pliny wrote to Trajan, a very important person in Rome, to explain who the Christians were and what they did. Pliny said to Trajan that (he was trying to summarize in a simple way so that Trajan could understand these Christians). He said, "On a certain designated day, they get together before sunrise and they sing an antiphonal hymn to Christ as God and then they bind themselves with an oath not to commit any sin."

He saw these Christians binding themselves with an oath not to commit any sin or crime. Now the Latin term is sacramentum. What is it that the Christians are binding themselves to when swearing not to sin? The sacramentum is, of course, the Eucharist which they receive and celebrate there on a Sunday morning after they sing the Psalms and songs of praise to Christ as God. In other words, when you look a little closer at the ancient meaning of sacramentum as oath, I think what you see is that you may be holding the key to understanding the sacrament, but you might be holding it upside down.

 

"Sacramentum" is the Latin Word for "Oath"

So let's take a look and understand what sacramentum really meant. I think you're going to see that one big reason why sacraments are so little understood these days is because an oath is even less understood. Where do we find oaths in modern society? I mean, how in our own experience do we relate ourselves to oaths in a meaningful way? Well, the President takes an oath of office as soon as he assumes the presidency. We also hear physicians swearing the Hippocratic Oath. We also know that immigrants who want to be naturalized as citizens have to take an oath as well. When you enter the military you frequently have to take an oath or when you register to vote, you have to take an oath.

But what is the most familiar oath that we all know about from seeing things like Perry Mason on TV? Where are oaths most common in our mental association? In the courtroom. When the witness is to take the stand, what does the witness say? Well, he is sworn in and what is the oath that he swears? "I solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God." Even clarifying or emphasizing this particular oath in modern life might not shed much light. After all, all the oaths I have just mentioned — for the President, for the doctor, for the witness for the military man, for the immigrant — all of these things might seem awkward, obsolete, out of place in modern American society, almost, in fact, like a violation of Church and state. I mean, there, in a civil courtroom, asking for God's help. How is religion accorded such a central role in such public, secular and civil activities? It certainly bothers some people.

 

"Sacramentum" is the Latin Word for "Oath"

Let's take a closer look at this best known example in the courtroom. "I solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God." What is going on there? Well, before I say what is going on, I want to mention that in my studies I found a historian who looked at the use of oaths in modern society. From his studies he discovered that Americans simply do not understand the oath they swear. They swear them, but they don't know why. They don't really understand and they don't really believe that they have any power to do what they seem to be doing.

So he refers to an oath, this Professor does, as an ancient ruin still standing. So what difference does it really make if a witness swears an oath before taking the stand in the courtroom? In other words, they are going to lie anyway, aren't they? They are going to swear the oath and they are going to sit there and lie through their teeth. So why bother swearing the oath; or why focus on this instance in order to clarify the meaning of oath as sacramentum? Well, I think if we return to the original purpose of the oath, we're going to understand that the oath is given and the oath is sworn to strengthen the promise.

Think, for instance, of the old Perry Mason shows where as the witness is about to break, the judge leans forward from the bench and what does he say? "I remind you, you're still under oath." What does that mean? I mean is the witness supposed to look up and see some ax blade dangling over his neck and identify that with oath? What do you mean, I'm under oath? Well, one practical way to understand the difference that an oath is supposed to make is to look at the lie. If I were to sit here right now and proceed to tell you all about my ten kids who are all doctors, having received advance degrees from Harvard University, I would be telling you a few white lies, perhaps harmless. They wouldn't get me in trouble. You might think I'm strange. But suppose I said those same exact things in a courtroom, on the witness stand under oath. What would those white lies be called? Perjury.

 

well Im not getting what Catholic Sacraments have to do with taking an oath.

 

I think the Catholic Sacraments as they do them is alot like the Pharisees and how they did all their rituals, hoping to somehow earn merit from them

I also think that the Catholic Church teaches people to just receive some sacrament that is supposed to somehow magically give merit to someone, when the life is not actually changed... such as baptism for instance... it is MUCH MORE than just sprinkling a little holy water on someone and that making him or her "holy" by doing so. The truth is you actually have to get your lifestyle changed and get rid of sin.

Romans 6:
1: What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
2: God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
3: Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
4: Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
5: For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
6: Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
7: For he that is dead is freed from sin.
8: Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him:
9: Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him.
10: For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.
11: Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.
12: Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.

 

Ahhh.....yes that is an oldie and a goodie, because the Faithful support the Church and the Servants of the Church do not draw a salary as such! Oh........ and because it has been in existance since Christ founded it.:godisgood:

I do not understand the peace bit....it does give great good peace being in the bosom of my dear Saviour