On the number of the Sacraments
Excerpt from The Christian Faith, by Claude Beaufort Moss, D.D.
[NOTE TO READER: I thought I would put this out here because it sets forth a position that makes a lot of sense to me, and conforms very well to the Anglican 39 Articles of Religion. In fact, I feel comfortable adopting it for my own at this stage in my theological life. Enjoy! -Fr. McGrath.]
The number of the sacraments has been reckoned differently at different periods. It is universally agreed that Baptism and the Eucharist stand in a class by themselves. They are distinguished by two marks: an outward and visible sign ordained by Christ Himself, and their necessity to salvation for all men. ("Generally" necessary to salvation does not means "usually", but "universally" necessary).
There are other rites of the Church, mentioned in the New Testament, which are commonly called sacraments. Peter Lombard (about 1150) was the first to define the number of sacraments as seven: Baptism, the Eucharist, Confirmation, Ordination, Marriage, Penance, and Unction of the Sick. This number is accepted by both the Orthodox and the Roman Communions. The Council of Trent laid down that there are seven sacraments, neither more nor less, all ordained by Christ Himself; but it distinguished the two greater sacraments from the five lesser. [My Note: Trent also anathematized those who make the 7 sacraments of equal importance.]
The Church of England, in Article 25, says that the five "commonly called sacraments" have not like nature of sacraments with Baptism and the Lord's Supper: it does not say that they are not sacraments. ("Commonly called" cannot mean "commonly but wrongly called": compare with "The Nativity of Christ, commonly called Christmas Day" in the BCP!) As far as the article goes, it agrees with the Council of Trent.
That there are seven sacraments is not a dogma, except in the Roman Communion. But it is convenient to speak of seven sacraments: we need not hesitate to do so. It is certain that Confirmation and Ordination are outward visible signs conveying grace; though we have no proof that they were commanded by our Lord Himself, they rest on the authority of the Apostles, directed by the Holy Ghost (Acts viii. 17; II Tim. i. 6). Marriage is called a sacrament because St. Paul calls it "a great mystery", (mysterion) being the Greek word for sacrament. Some have denied that Penance is a sacrament, because it has no outward sign; others, that Unction is a sacrament, because it is for the healing of the body. (I am inclined to think, with some medieval writers, that the Anointing of a King [I Kings i.39; etc.] is a true sacrament conveying grace.)
But though there are differences about the precise number of the sacraments, it is necessary to hold that Confirmation, Ordination, Matrimony, Penance or Absolution, and Unction are means by which God's grace is bestowed upon us, ex opere operato; that is, that the reception of Divine grace is guaranteed in these cases by a Divine promise.
Luther taught that there were only three sacraments, the same three which, according to St. Thomas Aquinas, are necessary to salvation: Baptism, the Eucharist, and Penance.
Excerpt from The Christian Faith, by Claude Beaufort Moss, D.D.
[NOTE TO READER: I thought I would put this out here because it sets forth a position that makes a lot of sense to me, and conforms very well to the Anglican 39 Articles of Religion. In fact, I feel comfortable adopting it for my own at this stage in my theological life. Enjoy! -Fr. McGrath.]
The number of the sacraments has been reckoned differently at different periods. It is universally agreed that Baptism and the Eucharist stand in a class by themselves. They are distinguished by two marks: an outward and visible sign ordained by Christ Himself, and their necessity to salvation for all men. ("Generally" necessary to salvation does not means "usually", but "universally" necessary).
There are other rites of the Church, mentioned in the New Testament, which are commonly called sacraments. Peter Lombard (about 1150) was the first to define the number of sacraments as seven: Baptism, the Eucharist, Confirmation, Ordination, Marriage, Penance, and Unction of the Sick. This number is accepted by both the Orthodox and the Roman Communions. The Council of Trent laid down that there are seven sacraments, neither more nor less, all ordained by Christ Himself; but it distinguished the two greater sacraments from the five lesser. [My Note: Trent also anathematized those who make the 7 sacraments of equal importance.]
The Church of England, in Article 25, says that the five "commonly called sacraments" have not like nature of sacraments with Baptism and the Lord's Supper: it does not say that they are not sacraments. ("Commonly called" cannot mean "commonly but wrongly called": compare with "The Nativity of Christ, commonly called Christmas Day" in the BCP!) As far as the article goes, it agrees with the Council of Trent.
That there are seven sacraments is not a dogma, except in the Roman Communion. But it is convenient to speak of seven sacraments: we need not hesitate to do so. It is certain that Confirmation and Ordination are outward visible signs conveying grace; though we have no proof that they were commanded by our Lord Himself, they rest on the authority of the Apostles, directed by the Holy Ghost (Acts viii. 17; II Tim. i. 6). Marriage is called a sacrament because St. Paul calls it "a great mystery", (mysterion) being the Greek word for sacrament. Some have denied that Penance is a sacrament, because it has no outward sign; others, that Unction is a sacrament, because it is for the healing of the body. (I am inclined to think, with some medieval writers, that the Anointing of a King [I Kings i.39; etc.] is a true sacrament conveying grace.)
But though there are differences about the precise number of the sacraments, it is necessary to hold that Confirmation, Ordination, Matrimony, Penance or Absolution, and Unction are means by which God's grace is bestowed upon us, ex opere operato; that is, that the reception of Divine grace is guaranteed in these cases by a Divine promise.
Luther taught that there were only three sacraments, the same three which, according to St. Thomas Aquinas, are necessary to salvation: Baptism, the Eucharist, and Penance.
posted by Anglicans Aweigh at 4:36 PM
7 Comments:
Just small quibble -- the Orthodox have never dogmatically defined the number of sacraments.
Indeed, from the minmalist point of view, Fr. Meyendorff of blessed memory wrote frequently that all the sacraments (mysteries) are "contained" within the Eucharist, which dove tails nicely with Fr. Zizu's Eucharistic Eclessiology. Thus, in a sense, he would say that the Church itself is a single mystery of salvation.
OTOH, other Orthodox would number Coronations, Consecrations of Churches, and other occassional services as "sacraments" on par with Holy Orders for example.
Yet quite commonly, the many Orthodox go along with the usual number seven.
Therefore, I do like the typical Anglican summation of "two sacraments of the Gospel and five commonly called sacraments," which leaves the number at 2 or 7 or indefinite, depending how one wants to count. And that, quite probably , is the most exact answer humanly possible.
Thank you, d.b., that is indeed helpful. I too like the typically Anglican summation of 2 Sacraments of the Gospel plus 5 rites that may be, and are commonly called 'sacraments'.
As a student of The Hymnal 1940, I have also noticed that the section from 185-228 is called SACRAMENTS AND OTHER RITES OF THE CHURCH; it contains hymns for 'Holy Baptism', 'Confirmation', 'Holy Communion', 'Matrimony', 'Ember Days and Ordination', 'For the Departed' (for use with the Burial Office), and 'Consecration of a Church'.
Paying attention to subtilties of language used here, leads me to appreciate how closely The Hymnal, 1940 conforms to Article XXV. In 1940 the Doctrine of our Church was taken seriously (less so today, I'm afraid).
Fr.,
Could you do a post contrasting the Hymnal 1940 and the 1982 Episcopagan?
For example, what happened to the "Amens" at the end of hymns? Aren't the hymns often used in place of plainchant Introits, Grails, etc., which are prayers (aren't they?)
Fr. McGrath - I have a similar request to Death Bredon's above: Could you do a post comparing the 1928 BCP to the 1979 book of the same name? I have a vague understanding of the differences, but not well enough to answer questions that are asked of me in any great detail.
Thanks!
( BTW, I really liked this post! )
Thank you, Father, for the post from C.B. Moss, who is one of my all-time favorite Anglican theologians. I didn't realize he was an American bishop (I thought he was English). Like you, I also very much appreciate Moss for being able to conform to the 39 Articles, the BCP, and the traditional Anglican formularies. These are, alas, much undervalued in the Continuing Churches.
Yes, The Hymnal 1940, the old ECUSA Canons, and many other similar documents were very carefully drawn up to conform to the traditional Anglican formularies.
Regarding the question about the differences between '28 and '79, these differences are most obvious in the rites of Baptism, Confirmation, and ordination. While the Eucharist was highly finessed in '79, the other rites were a clear and unmistakable break from the Anglican-Cranmerian tradtion.
Fr. Rob, ACC Priest
Fr. Rob, you are correct - he was not American - my apologies: it was just my American Imperialism that briefly claimed him for one of ours, and I have now corrected my subtitle. I agree that the 39 Articles are undervalued by the Continuing Church, and I don't see why, for if we are truly a Continuing Anglican Church and not an innovating Church along the lines of faux Sarum or Anglo-Romanism, then we need the Articles. The Articles cannot be separated out from the Book of Common Prayer, for they express in theological language the same Doctrine which is expressed by the Book of Common Prayer Offices in the language of Worship.
Amen to that last point, Father. I can't count how many times I've heard the Articles denigrated or suggested that they be cast aside. I'm glad there are a few priests in each Anglican jurisdiction who see the usefulness and place of the Articles in our common heritage.
Post a Comment
<< Home