The original term for this sacrament, penance, is from the Latin 'paenitentia seconda' which translates as 'second conversion'. (As opposed to the paenitentia prima or first conversion, which is baptism.) This use of 'penance' roots it as a ritual celebration of a process of conversion for those who commit serious sin after baptism. This comares with the sense of punishment, which is the common usage (The Chambers dictionary lists 'repentance' as an obsolete meaning, and describes the current meaning as "an act of humiliation of punishment ...").
Theological thought about the secrament developed considerably at Vatican II, and the council adopted a theology of the sacrament in terms of its original baptismal and communal context. This led to greater emphasis being placed on the sacrament as one of reconcilliation with God , the community and self. The term 'reconcilliation' highlights this emphasis. This does not imply that the term 'penance' is wrong. But there are depths of meaning which ordinary use of the word does not convey. The official title which the Church uses is still Penance.
The term 'confession' is based on medieval practices, which empasised the actual confessing sins to a priest. A number of factors lead to this influence, - one was the consideration given to which part of the ritual of penance led to God's fogiveness being imparted. In common usage in New Zealand today, the three terms are generally synonamous. This may point to a lack of understanding of the way the sacrament is about being reconcilled with God and the community.
Christian belief in God's forgiveness is based on the mercy of God as revealed in scriptures and through tradition. The person of Jesus is a visible and tangible sign of this mercy. In Jesus life and teachings, forgiveness plays an important role (there are numerous scriptural references). But the forgiveness which we see in Jesus life is not simply an 'emotional action'. Rather, it is an action which enables the person
who has been forgiven to take some further action.. When a human being experiences the depths of God's mercy, their capacity to love and be merciful to others is increased - with this increase comes a call to act in a forgiving and merciful way. In a sense this is an extension of the original baptismal calling, giving that baptism is, among other things, the first conversion.
The need for a ritual for forgiveness came about in the early church because of the problem of dealing with people who had sinned in a serious and public way, and in doing so had harmed the community. Originally, there were some sins that were considered so serious that in some people's eyes they could never be forgiven. Gradually a more merciful approach was taken. But still the community needed some way to be reconciled with people who had sinned in this way. Various penetential practices were developed. For serious sin, these usually included some form of separation from the community, and thus inability to participate in Eucharist. When the period of separation was over the sinner was ritually reconcilled with the community, and re-admitted to the Eucharist, in a ceremonly that renewed their baptismal committment.
Current theological thinking sees the sacrament of Reconcilliation in a similar light - it is focussed on healing persons and their relationships with God and others rather than on the sins they have committed. In a sense, if I have hurt a member of my community in some way, the focus is on restoring the relationship rather than on the particular actions which I did. Of course, the two are not totally unrelated - part of being reconcilled is in not doing the same thing again and again. But the foucs is on the overall state of the relationship rather than the minute detail of particular interactions.
It follows from this that the principal ecclesial effect of the sacrament of reconcilliation is reconcilliation with God and this is intrinsically linked to reconcilliaton with the Church (ie the People of God).
Some sin is individual - a person does something which harms the relationship between them and either God or their community. But sin can also be social - no one individual makes decisions which harm people, but organisations (communities, governments, businesses) do things which are sinful. And even indiviudal sin does not occur in a closed system - it is carried out within the social context in which people live. Vatican II recoginised these factors in placing stress on the social and eccclesian character of sin and conversion. In line with this, the council also stressed expression of this character in the celebration of the sacrament and the pastoral ministry associated with it. This is emphasis is expressed in a number of ways. The most obvious are the forms of the Rite of Penance known as Rite Two and Rite Three, which involve many people celebrating the sacrament at the same time, and receiving respectively individual and joint absolution. But the emaphasis also shown in Rite One. Pre-Vatican II, this involved going indivdually to a place, usually a church and receiving the sacrament while separated from the priest by a grille. The current form of the rite, however, makes it clear that the normal form of Rite I involves a dialogue with the priest, and an environment which facilitates this (ie face-to-fact) is preferred. In this way, the sacrament is an act of worship, even though only two members of the community. (Interesting to note that while this is the norm, it is not overly stressed - in a sense, the Church has been sensitive to the impact of the change on individual penetitants who have a lifetime of experience of private confession, while encouraging the community overall to move forward in their practice of the sacrament.)
Reflection on the nature of the sacrament provides a number of key insights. The marrying of the communal and individual aspects is of some interest. As a child, I experienced the rigidly private confessional, and very enthusiastically adopted the options of face-to-face confession and Rite Two when they became available. But as I have deepened an understanding of the need for reconcilliation in the themes of my life rather than the minute details, individual reflection and guidance of the state of my relationships has become more important. This does not always have to be sacramental, but still I experience the need to approach a priest for reconcilliation at particular times to in a sense mark the 'end' of a period of conversion. And it is in individual recepit of the sacrament that I have felt most able to honestly ask for absolution. Also interesting is that I have sought reconcilliation not just with God and the Church - but also with other people who are not (necessarily) members of the church. When I have harmed these people, certainly I have failed to live up to the standards of behaviou expected by the church of it's members, but the harm done (at least appears) to be less than the harm done to the individuals who were directly affected.
The nature of social sin, and the nature of our communal rites of reconcilliation is also interesting. The communal rites involve people hearing the Word together and examining their conscenciouses at the same time and in the same place. The communal emphasis is based on the assembly as a sign of the presence of Christ. It does not, within the rite, attempts any serious examination of aspects of social sin. This is wise - social issues are so complex that agreement of what is and is not sinful may nevery be reached, and it is more likely that a community will undergo a process of conversion slowly as various individuals are converted, than reach a new understanding at the same time. But it is potentially a source of confusion about what exactly is meant by the idea of communal celebration.
A theology assignment from 1999
Friday 24 September 1999
Thursday 16 September 1999
Understanding Sacraments - Week 3 - Confirmation
The various forms of confirmation which developed through Christian history can be put into three distinct historical groupings. The first was linked to the conclusion of the rite of baptism by the bishop, and involved both anointing and laying on of hands. It is particularly associated with the Roman practice during the patristic area. By the early 5th century, it was associated with a specific imparting of the Holy Spirit.
The second development occurred when Gallic bishops in the fifth century ratified baptisms which they had not done, in conjunction with the laying on of hands as in the Roman practice. It was here in Gaul that the word 'confirmation' was first used to name the post-baptismal rite, and it was used in the sense of the bishop confirming the earlier baptism.
The third development comes from the Reformation, when confirmation was used as a rite to conclude a period of catechical study. This included personal affirmation of baptism and was followed by admission to Eucharist.
The Roman ritual of baptism described in the Apostolic traditions, contained two post-baptismal anointings with chrism oil. The first was performed by the presbyter, deacon or deaconess, and occurred in a private room where the actual water baptism took place. The second was performed by the bishop in the church in sight of the assembly. Various historical factors were, however, at work. The number of catechumens and their geographical distribution grew more rapidly than the number of bishops - it became increasingly more difficult for a bishop to be present at every baptism. So the practice grew of performing the water baptism and first anointing some little time, sometimes years, before the second anointing, while considering that someone who had received only the first was baptised. The ritual associated with the second anointing became more elaborate than its original function of episcopal confirmation and bridging between baptism and Eucharist required. Thus, in people's eyes, the two parts were increasingly seen as different, but the second was remembered to be a sacrament. Thus the double post-baptismal anointing become a significant contributing factor in the gradual development of 'confirmation' as a separate sacrament from baptism, which was firmly in place by the end of the 11th century.
Another driving force behind saying confirmation was a separate sacrament arose from the difficulty in convincing parents to actually take their children to the bishop for the final part of the ceremony of baptism. Given that the children were already baptised, it was not clear why involvement of the bishop was necessary. Bishop Faustus of Riez explained the need by saying that confirmation was needed by people baptised as children to provide a kind of 'strengthening', or growth in grace. This idea was picked up by the Psuedo-Isodorean Decretals and attributed it to earlier popes and thus given a degree of authority which it did not necessarily deserve.
In the Church's understanding of the sacraments today, there are three sacraments involved in the process of initiation. The first is baptism. The second is confirmation. And Eucharist the one which completes the process - a person who is entitled to receive Eucharist is fully a member of the Church. Further, Eucharist is seen as 'food for the journey'. It nourishes the on-going faith of members of the Church. Understanding of the relationship between these three, which seems clear when all are considered, is difficult for people who are accustomed to confirmation occurring some years after both baptism and admission to Eucharist.
In principle, it is dangerous to try to use scriptural passages alone to prove any particular liturgical practice or theological view. Scripture is a produce of its times, and the saying and actions it contains must be interpreted in light of when they were set, and what the written record was intended to convey to its initial audience. This is principle holds with respect to showing the existence of confirmation as a separate sacrament in the first century apostolic Church. There are several passages which look as though they are candidates. Acts 8 tells of Samaritans who had been baptised earlier and to whom Peter and John go to complete the baptism by prayer and laying on hands, thus invoking the Holy Spirit. The stories of Jesus baptism, which contain one part involving baptism with water and a second section involving laying on hands. Neither of these stand up to more detailed scrutiny, however. In the first case, scholars say that the passage is in fact about the need for unity which comes from visible union and communion among all the faithful, and that the stress on the earlier baptism is intended too distinguish baptism in Jesus from other forms of baptism that existed at the time in the minds of the audience. The stories of Jesus own baptism contain the two parts again to emphasis the difference between the earlier baptism by John the Baptist, and Christian baptism.
The statement “Confirmation is a sacrament looking for a theology” is one which is often glibly used without adequate explanation. In fact, Confirmation has (at least) three different theologies , but the Church has particular problems with each. The first (affirmation of baptism by the bishop) is not supported by its implementation, and the second (strengthening in the Holy Spirit) and third (mature commitment) do not sit well with the historical development of confirmation as one of the sacraments of initiation.
Another key insight is that in saying that there are problems surrounding the theology of confirmation, the church is not rejecting the ideas of a sacrament of maturity or strengthening in the Holy Spirit as such. Rather, it is saying that these are not the principal ecclesial effect of confirmation. It may be appropriate for them to be the ecclesial effect of other (as yet undiscovered) sacraments.
The role of the local bishop is also important. This is certainly clear from the sacrament’s historical development, and the role of the local bishop outlined in Lumen Gentium.
A theology course essay from 1999
The second development occurred when Gallic bishops in the fifth century ratified baptisms which they had not done, in conjunction with the laying on of hands as in the Roman practice. It was here in Gaul that the word 'confirmation' was first used to name the post-baptismal rite, and it was used in the sense of the bishop confirming the earlier baptism.
The third development comes from the Reformation, when confirmation was used as a rite to conclude a period of catechical study. This included personal affirmation of baptism and was followed by admission to Eucharist.
The Roman ritual of baptism described in the Apostolic traditions, contained two post-baptismal anointings with chrism oil. The first was performed by the presbyter, deacon or deaconess, and occurred in a private room where the actual water baptism took place. The second was performed by the bishop in the church in sight of the assembly. Various historical factors were, however, at work. The number of catechumens and their geographical distribution grew more rapidly than the number of bishops - it became increasingly more difficult for a bishop to be present at every baptism. So the practice grew of performing the water baptism and first anointing some little time, sometimes years, before the second anointing, while considering that someone who had received only the first was baptised. The ritual associated with the second anointing became more elaborate than its original function of episcopal confirmation and bridging between baptism and Eucharist required. Thus, in people's eyes, the two parts were increasingly seen as different, but the second was remembered to be a sacrament. Thus the double post-baptismal anointing become a significant contributing factor in the gradual development of 'confirmation' as a separate sacrament from baptism, which was firmly in place by the end of the 11th century.
Another driving force behind saying confirmation was a separate sacrament arose from the difficulty in convincing parents to actually take their children to the bishop for the final part of the ceremony of baptism. Given that the children were already baptised, it was not clear why involvement of the bishop was necessary. Bishop Faustus of Riez explained the need by saying that confirmation was needed by people baptised as children to provide a kind of 'strengthening', or growth in grace. This idea was picked up by the Psuedo-Isodorean Decretals and attributed it to earlier popes and thus given a degree of authority which it did not necessarily deserve.
In the Church's understanding of the sacraments today, there are three sacraments involved in the process of initiation. The first is baptism. The second is confirmation. And Eucharist the one which completes the process - a person who is entitled to receive Eucharist is fully a member of the Church. Further, Eucharist is seen as 'food for the journey'. It nourishes the on-going faith of members of the Church. Understanding of the relationship between these three, which seems clear when all are considered, is difficult for people who are accustomed to confirmation occurring some years after both baptism and admission to Eucharist.
In principle, it is dangerous to try to use scriptural passages alone to prove any particular liturgical practice or theological view. Scripture is a produce of its times, and the saying and actions it contains must be interpreted in light of when they were set, and what the written record was intended to convey to its initial audience. This is principle holds with respect to showing the existence of confirmation as a separate sacrament in the first century apostolic Church. There are several passages which look as though they are candidates. Acts 8 tells of Samaritans who had been baptised earlier and to whom Peter and John go to complete the baptism by prayer and laying on hands, thus invoking the Holy Spirit. The stories of Jesus baptism, which contain one part involving baptism with water and a second section involving laying on hands. Neither of these stand up to more detailed scrutiny, however. In the first case, scholars say that the passage is in fact about the need for unity which comes from visible union and communion among all the faithful, and that the stress on the earlier baptism is intended too distinguish baptism in Jesus from other forms of baptism that existed at the time in the minds of the audience. The stories of Jesus own baptism contain the two parts again to emphasis the difference between the earlier baptism by John the Baptist, and Christian baptism.
The statement “Confirmation is a sacrament looking for a theology” is one which is often glibly used without adequate explanation. In fact, Confirmation has (at least) three different theologies , but the Church has particular problems with each. The first (affirmation of baptism by the bishop) is not supported by its implementation, and the second (strengthening in the Holy Spirit) and third (mature commitment) do not sit well with the historical development of confirmation as one of the sacraments of initiation.
Another key insight is that in saying that there are problems surrounding the theology of confirmation, the church is not rejecting the ideas of a sacrament of maturity or strengthening in the Holy Spirit as such. Rather, it is saying that these are not the principal ecclesial effect of confirmation. It may be appropriate for them to be the ecclesial effect of other (as yet undiscovered) sacraments.
The role of the local bishop is also important. This is certainly clear from the sacrament’s historical development, and the role of the local bishop outlined in Lumen Gentium.
A theology course essay from 1999
Tuesday 14 September 1999
Understanding sacraments week 2 - Baptism
In general, the ‘graced reality’ or ‘ecclesial effect’ of a sacrament is the new or changed (ie deepened) relationship between the recipient and the Church.
The sacrament of baptism has a number of effects: permanent membership of the Church, incorporation into Christ’s death and resurrection and thus a share in his priesthood and the mission of that priesthood, adoption into the life of the Trinity and thus reception of the Holy Spirit. As with all sacraments, baptism involves aspects of healing was well as elevation - traditionally this healing was understood as forgiveness of Original Sin’. Today, this is more commonly understood as part of a process of conversion – forgiveness of past sins and turning away from sin to live a new life in Christ.
Vatican II, in examining the sacrament of baptism, concluded that the principal ecclesial effect is the membership of the Church. The recipient is incorporated into the Body of Christ and becomes a graced reality of the Church.
Church teaching on the necessity for baptism is complicated. Early scriptural sources are insistent that ‘baptism’ is necessary for salvation, but are perhaps a little light on what exactly they mean by baptism. To people who believe in an all-powerful and loving God, it seems untenable that people of good will who die before having a particular ceremony performed by the church on earth should be denied salvation. This is particularly so when it seems ‘unfair’ that they did not have the opportunity for the ceremony or the knowledge of needing it. This conflict has been known from very early times – witness the ideas of baptism by blood and baptism by desire which were developed. But it is still difficult to get away from the blunt statements of the scriptures.
Current thinking suggests that baptism is necessary for the salvation of anyone who has accepted the Gospel and who knows of their need for baptism. This avoids the troublesome cases of infants who die before being baptised, and people who were never exposed to the Gospel. There are still issues around catechumens (and even non-catechumens) who die between receiving the desire for baptism and actual reception of the sacrament. These can be addressed in two ways. First there is the statement that while God has bound salvation to the sacraments, God is not bound by the sacraments – in short, anything is possible for God.
Another approach (not from the reading, but I’m sure I’m not the first to suggest it) comes from seeing baptism as a process of conversion. A person who desires baptism has started on the process. This process has a high-point, a named moment of significance if you like, when it is publicly acknowledged by the Church and the person is visibly and publicly incorporated into the Body of Christ. But the actual moment of ultimate salvation comes when God and the recipient are ready – when the recipient has experienced ‘enough’ of the process so to speak.
Baptism can be both an aid and an obstacle to ecumenism. Recognition of baptism performed by other Christian churches, involving the use of both water and a Trinitarian formulae, makes it clear that the Catholic Church accepts that it has belief in the risen Christ in common with other ecclesial bodies. In a sense, it is accepting that their faith is as valid, if not as complete, as the faith which it teaches.
But baptism does not happen to the individual in the context of Christianity in general. Each person who is baptised is received into a specific, local church community. My baptism in a Roman Catholic church in small corner of Wellington guarantees my acceptance, on a certain level, in any Roman Catholic parish in the world (provided I can avoid ex-communication!). It establishes a relationship between me and all these other local communities, even though we have never met. And this relationship at lease seems materially different to the relationship which the world’s Catholic parishes have with someone baptised with all propriety into a Presbyterian congregation.
Unlike other sacraments, baptism is relatively clearly understood by the Church, and its theology is well developed. The practice of infant baptism appears to be justified by the primary ecclesial effect of the sacrament being Church membership. Church membership is a valuable thing, and there appears to be no reason for denying children of it.
The traditional answer to questions about how an infant can have the faith which baptism pre-supposes is that the faith of the community, concretely expressed by the parents and god-parents, in some way guarantees the faith of the child. This appears a little unsatisfactory – it is not difficult to name the baptised children of devout Catholic parents and god-parents who are become confirmed atheists, and remain so for the rest of their lives. But again, viewing baptism as a process of conversion may help. Catholicism rigorously defends the rights of unborn children, seeing them as persons in their own right from the moment of conversion. But we do not baptise unborn children. Our experience (lived out in two thousand years of tradition) suggests that they have not yet experienced enough of the process to be ready for baptism. In terms of theoretical sacramental theology, before birth they are not able to experience the presence and action of Christ expressed in the sacrament. But at some time after birth (determined by their parents/caregivers and the local community) they are judged to be ready and able to experience this. We cannot necessarily say how Christ will be communicated to them, but we can believe that it will occur. The communication will, however, occur at a level which they can understand. In this framework, infant baptism appears to make more sense.
A theology assignment from 1999
The sacrament of baptism has a number of effects: permanent membership of the Church, incorporation into Christ’s death and resurrection and thus a share in his priesthood and the mission of that priesthood, adoption into the life of the Trinity and thus reception of the Holy Spirit. As with all sacraments, baptism involves aspects of healing was well as elevation - traditionally this healing was understood as forgiveness of Original Sin’. Today, this is more commonly understood as part of a process of conversion – forgiveness of past sins and turning away from sin to live a new life in Christ.
Vatican II, in examining the sacrament of baptism, concluded that the principal ecclesial effect is the membership of the Church. The recipient is incorporated into the Body of Christ and becomes a graced reality of the Church.
Church teaching on the necessity for baptism is complicated. Early scriptural sources are insistent that ‘baptism’ is necessary for salvation, but are perhaps a little light on what exactly they mean by baptism. To people who believe in an all-powerful and loving God, it seems untenable that people of good will who die before having a particular ceremony performed by the church on earth should be denied salvation. This is particularly so when it seems ‘unfair’ that they did not have the opportunity for the ceremony or the knowledge of needing it. This conflict has been known from very early times – witness the ideas of baptism by blood and baptism by desire which were developed. But it is still difficult to get away from the blunt statements of the scriptures.
Current thinking suggests that baptism is necessary for the salvation of anyone who has accepted the Gospel and who knows of their need for baptism. This avoids the troublesome cases of infants who die before being baptised, and people who were never exposed to the Gospel. There are still issues around catechumens (and even non-catechumens) who die between receiving the desire for baptism and actual reception of the sacrament. These can be addressed in two ways. First there is the statement that while God has bound salvation to the sacraments, God is not bound by the sacraments – in short, anything is possible for God.
Another approach (not from the reading, but I’m sure I’m not the first to suggest it) comes from seeing baptism as a process of conversion. A person who desires baptism has started on the process. This process has a high-point, a named moment of significance if you like, when it is publicly acknowledged by the Church and the person is visibly and publicly incorporated into the Body of Christ. But the actual moment of ultimate salvation comes when God and the recipient are ready – when the recipient has experienced ‘enough’ of the process so to speak.
Baptism can be both an aid and an obstacle to ecumenism. Recognition of baptism performed by other Christian churches, involving the use of both water and a Trinitarian formulae, makes it clear that the Catholic Church accepts that it has belief in the risen Christ in common with other ecclesial bodies. In a sense, it is accepting that their faith is as valid, if not as complete, as the faith which it teaches.
But baptism does not happen to the individual in the context of Christianity in general. Each person who is baptised is received into a specific, local church community. My baptism in a Roman Catholic church in small corner of Wellington guarantees my acceptance, on a certain level, in any Roman Catholic parish in the world (provided I can avoid ex-communication!). It establishes a relationship between me and all these other local communities, even though we have never met. And this relationship at lease seems materially different to the relationship which the world’s Catholic parishes have with someone baptised with all propriety into a Presbyterian congregation.
Unlike other sacraments, baptism is relatively clearly understood by the Church, and its theology is well developed. The practice of infant baptism appears to be justified by the primary ecclesial effect of the sacrament being Church membership. Church membership is a valuable thing, and there appears to be no reason for denying children of it.
The traditional answer to questions about how an infant can have the faith which baptism pre-supposes is that the faith of the community, concretely expressed by the parents and god-parents, in some way guarantees the faith of the child. This appears a little unsatisfactory – it is not difficult to name the baptised children of devout Catholic parents and god-parents who are become confirmed atheists, and remain so for the rest of their lives. But again, viewing baptism as a process of conversion may help. Catholicism rigorously defends the rights of unborn children, seeing them as persons in their own right from the moment of conversion. But we do not baptise unborn children. Our experience (lived out in two thousand years of tradition) suggests that they have not yet experienced enough of the process to be ready for baptism. In terms of theoretical sacramental theology, before birth they are not able to experience the presence and action of Christ expressed in the sacrament. But at some time after birth (determined by their parents/caregivers and the local community) they are judged to be ready and able to experience this. We cannot necessarily say how Christ will be communicated to them, but we can believe that it will occur. The communication will, however, occur at a level which they can understand. In this framework, infant baptism appears to make more sense.
A theology assignment from 1999
Thursday 9 September 1999
Understanding Sacraments, week 1 - An overview of sacaments
A theology assignment from 1999
Instances where Christ is present and acts in some way are both communicative and saving. They are communicative because, in some, way they communicate information about the nature of Christ to the people who are present. How this is done depends on a range of factors – primarily the situation and the ability of the people to understand the various forms of communication which are open. Typically, however, it occurs via signs and symbols.
Christ’s presence and action is also saving, in the sense of changing participants from what they are to what they could be. They are enable to have contact with the divine in some way, which is not something which humans beings are able to do in the normal course of events.
The traditional term ‘sanctifying grace’ refers to this transformation. However, because the sacraments are the means by which human experience is changed in this way, the term ‘sacramental grace; is also used. The only difference between the two is that sacramental grace is only present through the sacraments. [Question – is this circular – aren’t the sacraments defined as the moments when this transformation occurs.]
The terms ‘raw experience’ and ‘lived experience’ denote two types of event that occur in human lives. A raw experience is simply a part of the pattern of activity of everyday life, with no particular meaning or significance attached to it. A lived experience is one where the experience is transformed into an event of particular significance. An example is a team meeting. The raw experience consists of going to a particular room at the same day and time each week, exchanging routine pleasantries with colleagues, receiving a briefing about the state of current projects and the business in general, and reporting about the current state of my particular work. The meeting is not normally memorable. The experience becomes lived when something occurs which adds significant meaning to it for the participants. For example, a team member provides a lavish home-made morning tea, or the manager announces a major change in the business purpose.
As an aside, I suspect that there is another dimension to these experiences. The individual team meetings I attended in January and February have no particular significance attached to them. But the overall impression, that team meetings in early 1998 were particularly tedious, with continual low-level interpersonal conflict between the manager and a particular colleague, and poor communication of overall business issues, remains. I have drawn some particular significance from the sum of these raw experiences, which was not available from any of them, and it has indeed been the stimulus for re-telling the stories associated with the period (ie, material for lunch-time gossip with a former colleague). As the course progresses, it may be interesting to reflect on the way that this summation of raw experiences is lived out sacramentally. (Or I may be barking up the wrong tree totally.)
Ritual is essentially a re-telling of stories, using any or all of the languages (eg English, body language, actions) available to the participants. The way that humans react to a lived experience is essentially ritualistic. For instance, a team meeting may have become a lived experience because a colleague is publicly humiliated manager because they were not able to describe the status of their projects. Remembering this, I may re-tell the events to other colleagues not present, or dissect them with others who were there to determine appropriate action to take. When I realise that a team meeting is approaching, I honour the memory of the significant event by my own actions in preparing carefully for the meeting.
A sacramental celebration is a visible, public acknowledgement which, according to Bernard Cook, has basic aspects of:
• involving the ultimate meaning of human life, and
• a divine saving presence which calls forth a human response, and
• some transformation of the human, both as an individual and as part of a community.
Thus, there are three basic relational aspects of the sacramental celebration. These are the relationship between:
• the divine and the individual human
• the divine and the community of humans
• the individual and the community.
It is through these relational aspects that the sacraments are both communicative and saving or transforming. The relationships imply that certain things must happen in this life, however. For the human to relate to God (the divine) on a personal left, the human must in a sense be equal to the divine. The natural human state is not Godly. So, the divine must either bring itself to human level, or must elevate the human to Godself. The first option contradicts the definition of the divine. Thus, the transforming aspect of a sacramental celebration means that the divine must uplift or elevate the human to a state where the human can relate to the divine.
It is not enough, however to simply elevate the human in isolation from his or her or their humanity. Some aspect of brokeness from God (sin) is intrinsically part of what it is to be human. For the human to relate to the divine therefore requires healing of this brokeness as well as elevation. Catholic belief is that these aspects of elevation and healing occur in the sacraments through the human being incorporated into Christ, because Christ is where God became both fully divine and fully human, and in Christ, God enabled humanity to ultimately overcome sin.
General consideration of sacraments provides a number of key insights. The description of sacraments as moments of significance to the individual and the community and involve both of these and the divine in relationship is particularly helpful. It gives a basis for understanding sacraments beyond the level of ‘a mystery’ (meaning something that teachers were not prepared to even try explaining), or some sort of magic (a description which is never used, but is difficult to deny without a sound theoretical basis).
Instances where Christ is present and acts in some way are both communicative and saving. They are communicative because, in some, way they communicate information about the nature of Christ to the people who are present. How this is done depends on a range of factors – primarily the situation and the ability of the people to understand the various forms of communication which are open. Typically, however, it occurs via signs and symbols.
Christ’s presence and action is also saving, in the sense of changing participants from what they are to what they could be. They are enable to have contact with the divine in some way, which is not something which humans beings are able to do in the normal course of events.
The traditional term ‘sanctifying grace’ refers to this transformation. However, because the sacraments are the means by which human experience is changed in this way, the term ‘sacramental grace; is also used. The only difference between the two is that sacramental grace is only present through the sacraments. [Question – is this circular – aren’t the sacraments defined as the moments when this transformation occurs.]
The terms ‘raw experience’ and ‘lived experience’ denote two types of event that occur in human lives. A raw experience is simply a part of the pattern of activity of everyday life, with no particular meaning or significance attached to it. A lived experience is one where the experience is transformed into an event of particular significance. An example is a team meeting. The raw experience consists of going to a particular room at the same day and time each week, exchanging routine pleasantries with colleagues, receiving a briefing about the state of current projects and the business in general, and reporting about the current state of my particular work. The meeting is not normally memorable. The experience becomes lived when something occurs which adds significant meaning to it for the participants. For example, a team member provides a lavish home-made morning tea, or the manager announces a major change in the business purpose.
As an aside, I suspect that there is another dimension to these experiences. The individual team meetings I attended in January and February have no particular significance attached to them. But the overall impression, that team meetings in early 1998 were particularly tedious, with continual low-level interpersonal conflict between the manager and a particular colleague, and poor communication of overall business issues, remains. I have drawn some particular significance from the sum of these raw experiences, which was not available from any of them, and it has indeed been the stimulus for re-telling the stories associated with the period (ie, material for lunch-time gossip with a former colleague). As the course progresses, it may be interesting to reflect on the way that this summation of raw experiences is lived out sacramentally. (Or I may be barking up the wrong tree totally.)
Ritual is essentially a re-telling of stories, using any or all of the languages (eg English, body language, actions) available to the participants. The way that humans react to a lived experience is essentially ritualistic. For instance, a team meeting may have become a lived experience because a colleague is publicly humiliated manager because they were not able to describe the status of their projects. Remembering this, I may re-tell the events to other colleagues not present, or dissect them with others who were there to determine appropriate action to take. When I realise that a team meeting is approaching, I honour the memory of the significant event by my own actions in preparing carefully for the meeting.
A sacramental celebration is a visible, public acknowledgement which, according to Bernard Cook, has basic aspects of:
• involving the ultimate meaning of human life, and
• a divine saving presence which calls forth a human response, and
• some transformation of the human, both as an individual and as part of a community.
Thus, there are three basic relational aspects of the sacramental celebration. These are the relationship between:
• the divine and the individual human
• the divine and the community of humans
• the individual and the community.
It is through these relational aspects that the sacraments are both communicative and saving or transforming. The relationships imply that certain things must happen in this life, however. For the human to relate to God (the divine) on a personal left, the human must in a sense be equal to the divine. The natural human state is not Godly. So, the divine must either bring itself to human level, or must elevate the human to Godself. The first option contradicts the definition of the divine. Thus, the transforming aspect of a sacramental celebration means that the divine must uplift or elevate the human to a state where the human can relate to the divine.
It is not enough, however to simply elevate the human in isolation from his or her or their humanity. Some aspect of brokeness from God (sin) is intrinsically part of what it is to be human. For the human to relate to the divine therefore requires healing of this brokeness as well as elevation. Catholic belief is that these aspects of elevation and healing occur in the sacraments through the human being incorporated into Christ, because Christ is where God became both fully divine and fully human, and in Christ, God enabled humanity to ultimately overcome sin.
General consideration of sacraments provides a number of key insights. The description of sacraments as moments of significance to the individual and the community and involve both of these and the divine in relationship is particularly helpful. It gives a basis for understanding sacraments beyond the level of ‘a mystery’ (meaning something that teachers were not prepared to even try explaining), or some sort of magic (a description which is never used, but is difficult to deny without a sound theoretical basis).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)