Bono
Atlas Icon
Posts: 11,703
|
 |
« Reply #2 on: May 16, 2007, 04:51:30 PM » |
|
*Cardinal Ribeiro rises slowly*
Brethren,
Cardinal Frick raises an important question. To answer it, I must first expound my view of the sacraments in general; then, I will address some individual concerns regarding some of them in specific.
I believe that the issue of Sacraments has been the cause of many needless division within the Church of Jesus Christ, in part because many of us have read past each other. I believe the issue is chiefly not one of soteriology, but one of ecclesiology. The sacraments should not be regarded as acts of humans towards God, but as God's acts towards us. From the days of Saint Augustine, the Sacraments have been regarded as “visible words.” Or perhaps better, they are “enacted Word", since they are not just visible, but ritual acts. . The sacrament of baptism, for example, does not consist in water, but in the action of placing water upon the body, in association with an act of speech (“I baptize you in[to] the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Hoy Spirit”). Sacraments are therefore not only seen; they are experienced as activity.
Sacraments have also been identified as "signs and seals". This is drawn from Saint Paul in Romans 4:11 "and he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised, so that he might be the father of all who believe without being circumcised, that righteousness might be credited to them". This is not to mean, however, that sacraments are wholly symbolic. In Scripture, signs are frequently associated with “wonders” and “miracles.” A “sign” is not usually a mere pointer, symbolizing something radically other from the sign; the sign is itself an “instance” or embodiment of the truth and power of God. Thus when Jesus performed “signs of the kingdom,” these acts were more than symbolic pictures pointing to something else; they were themselves embodiments of the kingdom which had come in Himself. Jesus’ healings, for example, were not only “symbols” of the kingdom; they were gifts of that kingdom. So are sacraments--while they do not offer salvation in and out of themselves, disregarding the need for inner regeneration of the sinner, as if they were magical, they are also not merely "food for thought". They are God's way of including us in the promises of His kingdom. Nowhere is this clearer than in the case of infant baptism - a rite which the infant cannot intellectually appreciate, and will not literally remember. The sacraments are God’s actions toward us, by which He incorporates us and renews us in the covenantal salvation He promises His people. So, while Sacraments do not grant salvation in and out of themselves, they signal and anticipate membership into the Visible form of the Kingdom of Jesus Christ on Earth.
Now I will address a few individual issues. With regards to the Supper, I believe the doctrine of transubstantiation is at least in need of review. Serious idolatrous abuses have resulted of practices associated with the excessive dogmatism with which the Church held this doctrine. I have striven to correct them within my Diocese, but it is hard to do so. I would encourage the Church to not try to probe too deeply into mysteries which God chose not to reveal, but to recognize that when God shuts His Holy Mouth, the student of scripture should not dare to tread further.
Finally, I dare to say that we need a serious review of Baptismal theology. This is one issue I believe both Protestant and Catholic teachings seriously miss the Biblical mark. Protestants miss the mark by thinking Baptism effects no change at all in the baptized individual, thinking the Sacrament to be nothing more than a ceremonial rite of passage. However, while Catholic theology has rightly recognized that Baptism effects a true change upon the individual, it has been wrong by placing that change in the inner man, as if the mere act of shedding water on a person was enough to effect regeneration on a fallen sinner. This, in my opinion, contradicts the order of Jesus' comment to "repent and be baptized", indicating that for adults, repentance and thus regeneration by necessity precedes Baptism. My conclusion is that Baptism does effect a change in the individual, but that change is outward and not inward--Baptism is the initial proclamation of a person's membership in the Kingdom of Jesus Christ on Earth--like circumcision was the entering rite for God's people of the past! It proclaims for the world to hear that the Baptized person his part of the Body of Christ--with all the blessings and curses inherent to such membership.
|
