Sacramental Theology or the Lack Thereof, Am I Missing Something?

[Jaltus]

I am asking this question because I have been reading Meier's A Marginal Jew and he has a section where he looks at the various feeding of the thousands stories and points to the nascent Sacramental tones in both the Markan and Johannine selections. As a Protestant, I had never really noticed the Sacramental side to Jesus praying over the bread and fish before, but Meier notes how it comes out especially in Mark's version with praying over the bread and fish separately.

It makes me think: am I blind to this type of theology since I am by affiliation less Sacramentally focused or is it that those who come from more Sacramental traditions see it when it is not there?

Honestly, I am really not sure. I'd love to hear responses from both sides. Do we Prots miss the Sacramental tone of passages because that is the way we are wired?

Do EO and RCC see Sacramental language where none is intended because that is the way they are wired?

What do you think?

_________________________________________

I am thinking about starting a parallel thread over in Biblical Languages to talk about the texts in question, but will save that for another time.

[Philosophickle]

I'm not sure that praying over the fish and bread separately implies anything sacramental. I just don't see it.

[Spirit of Fire]

I am asking this question because I have been reading Meier's A Marginal Jew and he has a section where he looks at the various feeding of the thousands stories and points to the nascent Sacramental tones in both the Markan and Johannine selections. As a Protestant, I had never really noticed the Sacramental side to Jesus praying over the bread and fish before, but Meier notes how it comes out especially in Mark's version with praying over the bread and fish separately.

It makes me think: am I blind to this type of theology since I am by affiliation less Sacramentally focused or is it that those who come from more Sacramental traditions see it when it is not there?

Honestly, I am really not sure. I'd love to hear responses from both sides. Do we Prots miss the Sacramental tone of passages because that is the way we are wired?

Do EO and RCC see Sacramental language where none is intended because that is the way they are wired?

What do you think?

_________________________________________

I am thinking about starting a parallel thread over in Biblical Languages to talk about the texts in question, but will save that for another time.

Wow! This is a very interesting question, way-to-go! I am very interested in answering this question, but before I do, I would like to hear your definition of a "sacrament."

[mikewhitney]

I figure Jesus provided a way to remember God on a day to day basis in case we get too distracted.
It is the answer to the question "what do we do everyday that might be a good time to do a reminder prayer?"
Also, maybe it is sacramental in the sense that we are reminded of our presence with God, like at the table in the temple.

[JonLanceBarker]

I figure Jesus provided a way to remember God on a day to day basis in case we get too distracted.
It is the answer to the question "what do we do everyday that might be a good time to do a reminder prayer?"
Also, maybe it is sacramental in the sense that we are reminded of our presence with God, like at the table in the temple.

I'm sure Irenaeus, St. Basil, and St. Augustine were just waiting to hear that interpretation.

[mikewhitney]

I'm sure Irenaeus, St. Basil, and St. Augustine were just waiting to hear that interpretation.

Oh. Were they hoping for something more metaphysically sophisticated?

[Maxentius]

Honestly, I am really not sure. I'd love to hear responses from both sides. Do we Prots miss the Sacramental tone of passages because that is the way we are wired?

Do EO and RCC see Sacramental language where none is intended because that is the way they are wired?

What do you think?

Well, I am not RC or EO but a small "p" protestant. I see "sacramental" language everywhere in the Scriptures. Lutherans typically enumerate two sacraments:

Holy Baptism

Holy Communion

What these have in common is that Christ instituted a means of receiving him and his grace with more than words, but words along with matter. Now, though we say there are only two sacraments, it is not a "dogma" so much as a way to discuss how we receive Christ in the sacraments, because depending on how one defines the term it can have a much wider meaning. This is also because "sacrament" can mean "mystery", in the sense of a revelation from God. So, when we see e.g. Christ feeding the 5000, we may well see an allusion to the Lord's Supper as well as the mystery of the Good Shepherd feeding his flock. When we see blood being sprinkled on the congregation from a hyssop branch in the OT, we might see Baptism or Communion, and also the mystery of God's grace toward us. In other words, even if a specific sacrament is not the subject of a particular passage, we can see the passage "sacramentally" either because it points to a specific sacrament, or it reveals a mystery to us.

[Jaltus]

Wow! This is a very interesting question, way-to-go! I am very interested in answering this question, but before I do, I would like to hear your definition of a "sacrament."

I am trying to stay away from defining it so people can answer on their own grounds.

[JonLanceBarker]

Oh. Were they hoping for something more metaphysically sophisticated?

Well, Irenaeus in particular was quite adamant in defending the Eucharist as ancient Church tradition defined it then and defines it now (the Eucharist as the Body of Christ, i.e. "no longer common bread" if you take my meaning ). Tertullian (before and after his Montanism, AFAIK) was similarly adamant about baptism being the remission of sin and the beginning of a new life in Christ (after which, of course, you may still sin and/or fall away, because of your free will). Those interpretations were apparently pretty important, because they were key in refuting the Gnostic notion that Jesus could not have been physical. IOW, if Jesus was non-physical, an illusion, then Irenaeus and Tertullian both reasoned that the very physical sacraments of baptism and the Eucharist were absolutely worthless for sanctification.

In my opinion, it's quite telling that such an interpretation of the sacraments was so valuable that Irenaeus and Tertullian both used it to defend against the Gnostic view of Jesus.

ETA: Don't get me wrong...your interpretation of sacramentality is more or less correct...it just isn't quite complete, IMO.

[mostlyharmless]

Do EO and RCC see Sacramental language where none is intended because that is the way they are wired?

What do you think?

I never saw sacramental language in scripture for around 20 years Jaltus, but now I see it a lot after I started going to an Orthodox church. Lots of really amazing things jumped out at me from scripture. Just recently I have been doing a post grad course focusing on Mark, and for my major paper I'm doing research on how it can be read as preparation and instruction for traditional baptism as practiced in the early church and as practiced by the Orthodox and RC church today. Pity I am not the first to think of this idea, even though its not widespread, but at least I came up with it independently. I got a whole lot of great ahh moments when I was writing an interpretation paper on the healing of the deaf and dumb man, and then when I researched into early church practices I found I was correct in my intuitions. Now I cant say for certain which came first the sacramental actions or the writing of Mark, but given that the church was baptizing and catechizing members for a couple of decades before it was written I am fairly confident that quite a lot of the healing and exorcising miracles in Mark were included (I'll leave the question of historicity to the liberals) to teach sacramental understandings of current church practices.

[Jaltus]

Do the feeding of the thousands in Mark carry sacramental overtones?

[JonLanceBarker]

Do the feeding of the thousands in Mark carry sacramental overtones?

In fact, that's an oft-used explanation for why Christ never runs out of Body or Blood when the Eucharist is celebrated.

(But I'm sure you knew that part.)

[One Bad Pig]

In the most literal sense, every miracle in the Bible carries sacramental overtones.

[Jaltus]

In the most literal sense, every miracle in the Bible carries sacramental overtones.

Now that is completely unhelpful.

[Abelard]

I prefer to think of this 'difference' as a communications problem. To my mind a sacrament does not confer grace, nor is it a mere symbol.

Instead it is physical act which allows the typically unseen hand of God to be perceived. Kinda like those spy movies where the secret agent uses cigarette smoke to reveal the invisible laser beams.

A sacrament reveals grace. It doesn't create grace, but it does create our ability to respond to the grace which has always been present but was previously unrecognized.