Tis Interesting
The Orthodox take marriage to be one of the seven Sacraments (as opposed the the Protestant belief that there is but two Sacraments: Holy Communion, and Baptism). The Orthodox belief about marriage is such:
In the sacrament of marriage the free union between a man and a woman is sanctified by the granting of divine grace so that the relationship might attain to its purpose.What I find interesting, rather troubling from a Protestant perspective, is that all churches who claim Apostolic succession also all teach the seven Sacraments, not two. The Orthodox, the Coptics, the Anglicans, the Russians, and the Roman Catholics all teach, and appearantly have taught for 1500 years, that there are indeed seven Sacraments unto God.
Further, When the East split from the West (Orthodox split from Rome) there was absolutely no discussion or controversy concerning the number of Sacraments, nor was there any discussion nor controversy concerning the number of Sacraments when the Anglican church began. Indeed, it seems that the practice of seven Sacraments, not two, was so taken for granted that not one of the above mentioned churches even thought for a moment to alter the number of Sacraments.
It seems it wasn't until the Calvinists came along that there was a significant body of believers believing in only two Sacraments. I find this fact troublesome, as a Protestant, because it lends much weight to my belief that the Protestant Reformation was a quite radical paradigm shift, radical not in its righteous condemnation of Rome's awful abuses, but radical in its "reformation" of orthodox doctrine and practice.
In short, it seems to me that the Protestant has much work to do justifying the paradigmatic changes, and other "reformations" that came about during and after the Reformation (new views on Baptism, the Lord's Supper, the number of Sacraments, the Litergy, the Church Councels, Communion of the Saints, even Soteriology just to name a few). Again, How is it that nearly 1500 years of church practice and tradition can be overruled in some people's righteous reaction to one particular church (Romanism) that had fallen into gross error? Didn't the Reformers go too far? Ought they have looked to their Orthodox brothers who were also disgusted and offended by the sins of Rome? Did Luther and Calvin's successors take a good thing too far? What justification from church history do Protestants have for practicing only two Sacraments?
These are some of the questions that I am working on in my head.
Posted by jeremy stock at January 24, 2002 06:32 AMJeremy,
The answer to your question is that Bible-believing Christians do not believe in any sacraments. Sacraments are defined as works or institutions through which man receives grace. In other words, they dispense grace. The reformers did and do not believe that communion and baptism give grace, and are therefore not sacraments. The church of Rome claims apostolic authority of Peter and Paul, but they have overlooked the fact that both of those apostles believed in saving by grace through faith and faith only. The Bible is the sole authority on which are lives are to be based (otherwise we would not be protestant), regardless of church history. There have always been people around who believe what we do about faith, they just didn't have the protection of the Roman government.
Donnie Hass
Posted by: Donnie at February 23, 2003 01:17 PMI've been a protestant all my life. Recently I moved into a Catholic dormatory at school and have met many very devout Catholics. I had oftened felt that Catholics were missing out on a personal relationship with Christ and that they placed too much, if not all, their emphasis on the overly ritualistic sacraments. However, as I spoke with friends, priests, nuns, Bible study leaders, and even protestants I have come to the conclusion that the sacraments are some of the most Biblically founded practices of the church and true Catholics have a very personal relationship with Christ.
I agree that most Protestants still believe that Holy Communion and Baptism are considered sacramentsm, but I do agree with you that after the Reformation, the protesting Christians took things way too far and denounced many of the beliefs regarding the Sacraments. After the reformation, the Protestants did all that they could to separarate themeselves from Catholics and Catholics did the same to Protestants. I think that Protestants need to go back and study what the early fathers of the Church said about things like the Sacraments. Also, Protestants need to study the Bible more, especially the books of Acts, and realize that most of the Sacraments are firmly grounded in the Bible. Marriage may not be clearly set out as a Sacrament, but who can deny that marriage is one of the most wonderful things that unites two human beings and helps them as a couple grow closer to God? Through marriage, a couple is able to experience one of the greatest miracles in life which is the creation of new human life, a human life that is made in the image of God.
Furthermore, Protestants need to go back and understand more about the Eucharist. It is crucial to realize that even some of the initial reformers, including Luther, did not denounce the belief in the Real Presence (the belief that Bread is no longer bread but is the Flesh of Christ and same with the Blood). Also, the sacrament of Reconciliation is found in the Bible. Of course, Biblical references of Reconciliation could be interpreted differently, but look back at what the initial Christians believed. They recognized the wonderful act of confessing their sins to another human being which is an act of humbleness and, without a doubt, will help that person to more consciously avoid committing that sin in the future.
I will end with the following comment. Remember that the early Christians did not have the Bible in its written form as we do today. Many letters of the New Testament were not even written until decades after Christ died, so early Christians had to depend on the teachings of the Apostles. 2 Thessalonians 2:4 (NIV) states, "So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter." Lastly, note John 21:25 (NIV), "Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written." I think that many of us Protestants should not out right refute what the Catholic Church believes, but should embrace our brothers and sisters in Christ and take time to learn what they believe about our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.
Actually Donnie, your history is incorrect. The early Reformers did believe in what is known as sacramental theology. Read the actual works of Luther and Calvin just for starters. You will be in for perhaps an unpleasant surprise. In some instances they tried to rework the Roman theology of the sacraments but they did not dispense with it. Your view of no sacraments whatsoever was not the view of the early protestants. And with a little effort that is easily discovered.
Further, Jeremy originally mentioned the Roman Catholic, Orthodox, and Anglican churches when talking about their unanimity regarding the sacraments. Your response reflects only the Roman Catholic view of the sacraments - and one that many Roman Catholics would dispute themselves, at least in the way you have framed it. It should be noted however that the Orthodox Church has a different understanding as well as a different practice of the sacraments, as do the Anglicans from the Roman Church.
You should realize your understanding of soteriology came about late in the game, historically speaking, and is one of the radical reforms I think Jeremy was referring too when suggesting the Reformers may have gone too far. It is difficult to believe that the Church - East and West - was duped completely for 1500 years until the Protestant Reformers came along, especially as we have had five centuries to see the fruit of protestant theology.
Lastly, your last sentence is simply historically inaccurate. There was a broad consensus for at least the first 1000 years of the Church, in Rome and outside of Rome, and had anyone taught otherwise they would have been considered heretics, both in the East and the West
Michael
Posted by: Michael at June 21, 2003 05:00 PMDear Mr. Stock,
A minor correction. Anglicans do not teach the seven sacraments. Article XXV of the 39 articles:
Sacraments ordained of Christ be not only badges or tokens of Christian men's profession, but rather they be certain sure witnesses and effectual signs of grace and God's good will towards us... There are two Sacraments... Baptism and the Supper of the Lord.
Those five, commonly called Sacraments, that is to say, Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and Extreme Unction, are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel, being such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of the Apostles, partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures; but yet have not the like nature of Sacraments with Baptism and the Lord's Supper, for that they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God.
Luther's arguments against the RC sacramental system (even in the sacraments which are kept) can be found in his long essay "On the Babylonian captivity of the church". From the section on marriage:
We said that there is in every sacrament a word of divine promise, to be believed by whoever receives the sign, and that the sign alone cannot be a sacrament. Now we read nowhere that the man who marries a wife receives any grace of God... nowhere do we read that marriage was instituted by God to be a sign of anything. To be sure, whatever takes place in a visible manner may be regarded as a type or figure of something invisible (-i.e. Christ and the Church-); but types and figures are not sacraments in the sense in which we use this term.
Furthermore, since marriage existed from the beginning of the world and is still found among unbelievers, it cannot possibly be called a sacrament of the New Law and the exclusive possession of the Church. The marriages of the ancients were no less sacred than are ours...
so what ur saying is it's only the catolic church that does not allow any one to remarry
Posted by: nadia at January 4, 2004 04:24 AM