It was one of the mistakes of our fathers in the age of orthodoxy that they all too often identified the thought form with the Biblical content of a doctrinal statement. -- Hermann Sasse: *We Confess: the Sacraments* p. 14.
It means that the thought form in which we attempt to make sense of a Biblical teaching (especially in how one teaching relates to another) is not the same thing as the teaching itself. Classic instance from the ancient Church is that the East and West differed in how the Trinity was thought of: in the East, one began with the Trinity of persons; in the West, one began with the unity of Godhead. Yet the dogma that God is one being or essence in three persons was upheld by both sides. It's easy to dogmatize the way one teaches about a given dogma; and thus to reject other ways of teaching the same dogma as false.
In that same chapter Sasse says that the Lutheran Confessions follow the form of the early church in trying to define the nature of a Sacrament and the number of Sacraments. He says it is totally impossible to understand the Christian Sacrament as derived from the history of religions. The Christian Sacrament is what it is because Jesus Christ instituted it.
Pastor Weedon: In this chapter Sasse seems to say that Means of Grace is a better term than Sacrament. His logic is that Gospel preaching, Absolution and Confession, Baptism, Eucharist are all means of grace and that there is no Scriptural definition of Sacrament. He likes the fact that the Gospel can always be found in the Means of Grace. Do you agree with Sasse?
Well, I think means of grace carries less baggage, but my own criticism of that term is that IT absolutizes what was only a metaphor: means. Note the "as through means" in AC V:2. And then when it comes to "grace" folks are more confused than on the meaning of "sacrament." So, while I admit that "sacrament" can be a problem when we first lay down a definition in general and then make the individual gifts from the Lord conform to it, I don't think it's quite solved by simply subbing "means of grace."
Ahem, Trent are you forgetting that in Eucharist, Schmemann speaks about the Sacrament of the gathering, the sacrament of the Words, the sacrament of the prayers, etc.?
Pastor Weedon, Sorry I was not clear. I was referring to Fr. Alexander's dislike of the term "means of grace", not sacrament, which he does use throughout all his works.
8 comments:
What does this mean?
--helen
It means that the thought form in which we attempt to make sense of a Biblical teaching (especially in how one teaching relates to another) is not the same thing as the teaching itself. Classic instance from the ancient Church is that the East and West differed in how the Trinity was thought of: in the East, one began with the Trinity of persons; in the West, one began with the unity of Godhead. Yet the dogma that God is one being or essence in three persons was upheld by both sides. It's easy to dogmatize the way one teaches about a given dogma; and thus to reject other ways of teaching the same dogma as false.
In that same chapter Sasse says that
the Lutheran Confessions follow the
form of the early church in trying
to define the nature of a Sacrament
and the number of Sacraments. He
says it is totally impossible to
understand the Christian Sacrament
as derived from the history of
religions. The Christian Sacrament
is what it is because Jesus Christ
instituted it.
Pastor Weedon:
In this chapter Sasse seems to say
that Means of Grace is a better
term than Sacrament. His logic
is that Gospel preaching, Absolution
and Confession, Baptism, Eucharist
are all means of grace and that there
is no Scriptural definition of
Sacrament. He likes the fact that
the Gospel can always be found in the
Means of Grace. Do you agree with
Sasse?
Well, I think means of grace carries less baggage, but my own criticism of that term is that IT absolutizes what was only a metaphor: means. Note the "as through means" in AC V:2. And then when it comes to "grace" folks are more confused than on the meaning of "sacrament." So, while I admit that "sacrament" can be a problem when we first lay down a definition in general and then make the individual gifts from the Lord conform to it, I don't think it's quite solved by simply subbing "means of grace."
Maybe its just a little Fr. Alexander rolling around in your head...he sure does not like the term! :)
Ahem, Trent are you forgetting that in Eucharist, Schmemann speaks about the Sacrament of the gathering, the sacrament of the Words, the sacrament of the prayers, etc.?
Pastor Weedon,
Sorry I was not clear. I was referring to Fr. Alexander's dislike of the term "means of grace", not sacrament, which he does use throughout all his works.
Post a Comment