The greatest sacrament?

hinault

At a recent discussion concerning the sacraments, there were several very interesting contributions from those attending.

However at one stage a rather animated discussion took place as to what the greatest sacrament is. This discussion came about when one contributor stated in his presentation that "the Eucharist - the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ at Mass - is the greatest sacrament bequeathed to humanity".
Another contributor begged to differ saying that "the sacrament of confession - allowing the sincere and contrite penitent the opportunity to have their sin absolved - is the greatest sacrament bequeathed to humanity"

I can see the merits of both arguments. The Holy Mass and the transubstantiation of bread and wine in to the Real Presence, is wonderful. The fact that hundreds of thousands of Masses are celebrated daily throughout the Catholic world helps make the case for it's inclusion as the greatest sacrament.

But part of me agrees with the argument in favour of the sacrament of confession too. The sinner - and we're all sinners - cannot save themselves.
We need God's grace via confession to absolve the sins that we committed.
The fact that God gives the unworthy sinner the chance to redeem themselves and cancelling out all venial and mortal sins is truly humbling.

Your thoughts.

Amirani

As an outsider looking in, I'd imagine it's probably Eucharist. It's the fundamental basis of Christianity. I can see the argument for reconciliation, but it could be argued that receiving the Eucharist goes some way to achieving this.

I'm not aware of whether they have a different standing in scripture.

katydid

hinault wrote: »

At a recent discussion concerning the sacraments, there were several very interesting contributions from those attending.

However at one stage a rather animated discussion took place as to what the greatest sacrament is. This discussion came about when one contributor stated in his presentation that "the Eucharist - the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ at Mass - is the greatest sacrament bequeathed to humanity".
Another contributor begged to differ saying that "the sacrament of confession - allowing the sincere and contrite penitent the opportunity to have their sin absolved - is the greatest sacrament bequeathed to humanity"

I can see the merits of both arguments. The Holy Mass and the transubstantiation of bread and wine in to the Real Presence, is wonderful. The fact that hundreds of thousands of Masses are celebrated daily throughout the Catholic world helps make the case for it's inclusion as the greatest sacrament.

But part of me agrees with the argument in favour of the sacrament of confession too. The sinner - and we're all sinners - cannot save themselves.
We need God's grace via confession to absolve the sins that we committed.
The fact that God gives the unworthy sinner the chance to redeem themselves and cancelling out all venial and mortal sins is truly humbling.

Your thoughts.

I don't think you can measure sacraments on a scale of best or worst. A sacrament, to me, is "an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace" (The Anglican definition"). They are equally important and relevant.

Having said that, while the Eucharist is a sacrament, it is, to me, more than that. It is the centre of our existence of Christians, in that it is not just the sign of an inward grace, but signifies, in a very particular way, the presence of Christ in our lives.

Peregrinus

Like katydid, I'm not sure that the question makes complete sense. Ultimately there is only one sacrament, which is a graced encounter with Jesus Christ. The "seven sacraments" are particular moments or particular contexts in which we recognise that this happens, but identifying the "greatest" sacrament is a bit like identifying the "greatest" date with your girlfriend/boyfriend. Sure, you may feel that dinner dates are better than movie dates, and that both are better than going for a walk - or you may feel the reverse. But, really, the important thing here is the underlying romantic relationship. The question of which kind of date is best is valid, but maybe comparatively unimportant.

It may also depend on your personal circumstances and needs. One Christian may have an acute sense of sin, and so find great comfort in the sacrament of reconciliation. Another may really value the communion with others found in the Eucharist. Who is to say that either of them is wrong to feel as they do?

I can't resist pointing out, though, that baptism is effective for the remission of sins, so I don,t think you could say that this characteristic makes reconciliation the greatest sacrament - it's not unique to reconciliation.

Plus, the Eucharist is the re-presentation of the salvific sacrifice that redeems humanity,upon which individual salvation depends. So, if you want to get picky, you couldn't have reconciliation if you didn't already have the Eucharist. And the Catholic church teaches that the Eucharist is the "source and summit" of Christian life so, whatever about Christans of other traditions, a Catholic who nominated any other sacrament as intrinsically greater would seem to put himself at odds with his own tradition.

keano_afc

hinault wrote: »

At a recent discussion concerning the sacraments, there were several very interesting contributions from those attending.

However at one stage a rather animated discussion took place as to what the greatest sacrament is. This discussion came about when one contributor stated in his presentation that "the Eucharist - the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ at Mass - is the greatest sacrament bequeathed to humanity".
Another contributor begged to differ saying that "the sacrament of confession - allowing the sincere and contrite penitent the opportunity to have their sin absolved - is the greatest sacrament bequeathed to humanity"

I can see the merits of both arguments. The Holy Mass and the transubstantiation of bread and wine in to the Real Presence, is wonderful. The fact that hundreds of thousands of Masses are celebrated daily throughout the Catholic world helps make the case for it's inclusion as the greatest sacrament.

But part of me agrees with the argument in favour of the sacrament of confession too. The sinner - and we're all sinners - cannot save themselves.
We need God's grace via confession to absolve the sins that we committed.
The fact that God gives the unworthy sinner the chance to redeem themselves and cancelling out all venial and mortal sins is truly humbling.

Your thoughts.

No thanks. Discussion with you is about as fruitful as an England World Cup campaign.

Manach

Confession. This would not be based on my comparability weak knowledge of theology, but of its wider social impact. To know (again being rather wide with the forms so as to bring most of Christendom into this) that there a possibility of redemption that can be held out to all sinners, is one of the great hopes in this world. The opera Tannhäuser would conceptualise it with the flowering of the Papal staff as the unexpected but needed sacrament.

hinault

Peregrinus wrote: »

Like katydid, I'm not sure that the question makes complete sense. Ultimately there is only one sacrament, which is a graced encounter with Jesus Christ. The "seven sacraments" are particular moments or particular contexts in which we recognise that this happens, but identifying the "greatest" sacrament is a bit like identifying the "greatest" date with your girlfriend/boyfriend. Sure, you may feel that dinner dates are better than movie dates, and that both are better than going for a walk - or you may feel the reverse. But, really, the important thing here is the underlying romantic relationship. The question of which kind of date is best is valid, but maybe comparatively unimportant.

It may also depend on your personal circumstances and needs. One Christian may have an acute sense of sin, and so find great comfort in the sacrament of reconciliation. Another may really value the communion with others found in the Eucharist. Who is to say that either of them is wrong to feel as they do?

I can't resist pointing out, though, that baptism is effective for the remission of sins, so I don,t think you could say that this characteristic makes reconciliation the greatest sacrament - it's not unique to reconciliation.

More tedious waffle.

Peregrinus wrote: »

the Eucharist is the re-presentation of the salvific sacrifice that redeems humanity,upon which individual salvation depends. So, if you want to get picky, you couldn't have reconciliation if you didn't already have the Eucharist. And the Catholic church teaches that the Eucharist is the "source and summit" of Christian life so, whatever about Christans of other traditions, a Catholic who nominated any other sacrament as intrinsically greater would seem to put himself at odds with his own tradition.

Eh, this was a chat among Catholics, lay catholics.:rolleyes:
Actually, I'll not bother explaining/replying any further to this latest piece of drivel as it's pointless.

Well done, you've just joined the ignore list.

uck51js9zml2yt

Where is the biblical basis for all these "sacraments"?
Please don't quote me dogma!

katydid

hinault wrote: »

More tedious waffle.




Eh, this was a chat among Catholics, lay catholics.:rolleyes:
Actually, I'll not bother explaining/replying any further to this latest piece of drivel as it's pointless.

Well done, you've just joined the ignore list.

Why did you ask for people's opinions, if you're going to ignore the ones you don't like or don't understand?

hinault

Manach wrote: »

Confession. This would not be based on my comparability weak knowledge of theology, but of its wider social impact. To know (again being rather wide with the forms so as to bring most of Christendom into this) that there a possibility of redemption that can be held out to all sinners, is one of the great hopes in this world. The opera Tannhäuser would conceptualise it with the flowering of the Papal staff as the unexpected but needed sacrament.

I agree with the sentiments expressed here.

If God was "judgemental" the committing of even one sin would merit our immediate eternal damnation.

Yet in His benevolence, God offers to the sincere and contrite sinner through the sacrament of confession, the means to restore that relationship.

Kiwi in IE

hinault wrote: »

Well done, you've just joined the ignore list.

I like you Hinault. You do a great job of reinforcing negative stereotypes of religion and make me feel extremely comfortable giving out about it, while those like Katydid, Peregrinus, etc do the exact opposite.

Welcome to the club Peregrinus! It's numbers may overtake membership of the RCC before long

katydid

hinault wrote: »

Yet in His benevolence, God offers to the sincere and contrite sinner through the sacrament of confession, the means to restore that relationship.

I thought he did that when he became incarnate and died on the cross?

Peregrinus

hinault wrote: »

More tedious waffle . . . . Well done, you've just joined the ignore list.

So when people call attention to Catholic teaching, you find that "tedious waffle" and announce to the world that you're ignoring them? Telling, I think.

hinault wrote: »

Eh, this was a chat among Catholics, lay catholics.:rolleyes:

But as your own attitude illustrates, it's perfectly possible for lay Catholics to put themselves at odds with their own tradition. You're hardly the only Catholic to consider a focus on church teaching to be "tedious waffle" and to ignore it. Perhaps you had this chat with Catholics of like mind with yourself?

Peregrinus

Bodhi Colossal Custodian wrote: »

Where is the biblical basis for all these "sacraments"?
Please don't quote me dogma!

Well, I'm sure we don't need to point you to the biblical basis for baptism or the eucharist.

Confirmation: A number of passages are cited, especially Acts 2:1-4; 8:14-17; 19:1-6.

Reconciliation: Mk 2:1-10; Jn 20:21-23; 2 Cor 5:18

Sacrament of the Sick: Mk 6:12-13; Col 1:24; Jas 5:14-15

Marriage Mt 19:4; Eph 5:25, 32-33

Holy Orders: Acts 20:28; 1 Tim 4:14; 1 Pet 2:4-5

Peregrinus

katydid wrote: »

I thought he did that when he became incarnate and died on the cross?

Yes, but there's no contradiction there. Anglicans and Catholics (and most other mainstream traditions) also affirm "one baptism for the remission of sins", remember, so we can say both that we are redeemed through the sacrifice of Christ, and that we can encounter this redemption sacramentally.

looksee

hinault wrote: »

More tedious waffle.




Eh, this was a chat among Catholics, lay catholics.:rolleyes:
Actually, I'll not bother explaining/replying any further to this latest piece of drivel as it's pointless.

Well done, you've just joined the ignore list.

While I do not agree with Peregrinus's basic premise, his arguments are literate and insightful. Could you explain why you consider his opinion 'tedious waffle'? And why there is any conflict between Peregrinus's last sentence and the fact of the previous discussion being among lay catholics?

uck51js9zml2yt

looksee wrote: »

While I do not agree with Peregrinus's basic premise, his arguments are literate and insightful. Could you explain why you consider his opinion 'tedious waffle'? And why there is any conflict between Peregrinus's last sentence and the fact of the previous discussion being among lay catholics?

Its waffle because hinault can't back up his claims. Its his general response when he's out of his depth.

keano_afc

katydid wrote: »

Why did you ask for people's opinions, if you're going to ignore the ones you don't like or don't understand?

Welcome to the hinault handbook.

hinault

looksee wrote: »

While I do not agree with Peregrinus's basic premise, his arguments are literate and insightful. Could you explain why you consider his opinion 'tedious waffle'?

I beg to differ. His/her post may be literate, but insightful it certainly is not.
The content of his/her reply being tedious waffle is self evident.

If I feel the need to address this matter further, I'll remove Peregrinus from my ignore list and address the issue directly with him/her.

I generally don't discuss the content of a posters reply with another poster.

katydid

hinault wrote: »

I beg to differ. His/her post may be literate, but insightful it certainly is not.
The content of his/her reply being tedious waffle is self evident.

If I feel the need to address this matter further, I'll remove Peregrinus from my ignore list and address the issue directly with him/her.

I generally don't discuss the content of a posters reply with another poster.

I may often disagree with Peregrinus, but he certainly is insightful, and forensic in his thought process and his use of language.

It may be that his way of writing, and his thought processes are beyond you, but that's more your problem than his.

If you start a debate, and can't handle the direction in which it goes, there's no need to be petulant about it. Just accept that it has gone beyond your level of comprehension.

looksee

So that's me told off. 'Ignoring' or refusing to engage with anything a bit difficult is of course the easiest way of dealing with life.

hinault

looksee wrote: »

So that's me told off. 'Ignoring' or refusing to engage with anything a bit difficult is of course the easiest way of dealing with life.

I'm not telling you off.
Just telling you what my approach is with regard to the content of posts.

Generally I try to refrain from commenting about the content of posters posts and posters replies, with other posters here.

katydid

hinault wrote: »

I'm not telling you off.
Just telling you what my approach is with regard to the content of posts.

Generally I try to refrain from commenting about the content of posters posts and posters replies, with other posters here.

We know your approach - get all huffy if the discussion doesn't go your way, and people don't agree with you.

looksee

hinault wrote: »

I'm not telling you off.
Just telling you what my approach is with regard to the content of posts.

Generally I try to refrain from commenting about the content of posters posts and posters replies, with other posters here.

And quite honestly that is a ridiculous approach. This is a discussion board, everyone can talk to everyone about anything posted, without the permission of the OP.

Username here

looksee wrote: »

And quite honestly that is a ridiculous approach.

Ahem.....

Delirium

MOD NOTE

It would be appreciated if everyone would get back on topic.

There is no problem with posters discussing what another poster has posted, this is a discusion forum after all.

Thanks for your attention.

katydid

Delirium wrote: »

MOD NOTE

It would be appreciated if everyone would get back on topic.

There is no problem with posters discussing what another poster has posted, this is a discusion forum after all.

Thanks for your attention.

The problem is that the OP is objecting to the thoughts expressed on the topic he asked for thoughts on, so it's kind of hard to know where to go from here.

Delirium

katydid wrote: »

The problem is that the OP is objecting to the thoughts expressed on the topic he asked for thoughts on, so it's kind of hard to know where to go from here.

Nothing stopping other posters examining the topic together

hinault

looksee wrote: »

And quite honestly that is a ridiculous approach. This is a discussion board, everyone can talk to everyone about anything posted, without the permission of the OP.

Talk to whomever you wish. I've no problem with that.

Don't take umbrage when that talk doesn't get replied to or acknowledged.

And one other thing. I make a point of telling those who are going to be included on the ignore list. If they wish to continue to post replies which I cannot read/see, that's their affair.

uck51js9zml2yt

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, I'm sure we don't need to point you to the biblical basis for baptism or the eucharist.

Confirmation: A number of passages are cited, especially Acts 2:1-4; 8:14-17; 19:1-6.

Reconciliation: Mk 2:1-10; Jn 20:21-23; 2 Cor 5:18

Sacrament of the Sick: Mk 6:12-13; Col 1:24; Jas 5:14-15

Marriage Mt 19:4; Eph 5:25, 32-33

Holy Orders: Acts 20:28; 1 Tim 4:14; 1 Pet 2:4-5

There is no biblical basis for baptism other than for believers so infant baptism is out.
Being reconciled isn't an issue but when 1john says we confess our sins to God and have an advocate in Jesus, where is the room for a man to absolve sins which only God can do.
Confirmation, I've yet to hear of anyone who experienced what was experienced at Pentecost during confirmation.

Marriagw , ordained by God in the beginning. Not something peculiar to Catholicism

Healing is not confined to the elders. There is also the gift of healing which can be given to anyone. Its normal church life not anything special.
Holy orders so called are nothing but the gifts and ministries of God given to members of the church.
But of course our definition of what the church is differs.
Paul also says"_how is it when you come together EVERYONE has......" I've never seen that happening in Mass. Why not??

Safehands

hinault wrote: »

More tedious waffle.
Actually, I'll not bother explaining/replying any further to this latest piece of drivel as it's pointless.

Well done, you've just joined the ignore list.

You are going to have very few friends hinault, if you disrespect them all like that. Not a very Christian attitude.

lazybones32

hinault wrote: »

At a recent discussion concerning the sacraments, there were several very interesting contributions from those attending.

However at one stage a rather animated discussion took place as to what the greatest sacrament is. This discussion came about when one contributor stated in his presentation that "the Eucharist - the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ at Mass - is the greatest sacrament bequeathed to humanity".
Another contributor begged to differ saying that "the sacrament of confession - allowing the sincere and contrite penitent the opportunity to have their sin absolved - is the greatest sacrament bequeathed to humanity"

I can see the merits of both arguments. The Holy Mass and the transubstantiation of bread and wine in to the Real Presence, is wonderful. The fact that hundreds of thousands of Masses are celebrated daily throughout the Catholic world helps make the case for it's inclusion as the greatest sacrament.

But part of me agrees with the argument in favour of the sacrament of confession too. The sinner - and we're all sinners - cannot save themselves.
We need God's grace via confession to absolve the sins that we committed.
The fact that God gives the unworthy sinner the chance to redeem themselves and cancelling out all venial and mortal sins is truly humbling.

Your thoughts.

I'm not trying to scupper your thread but I don't look at them in terms of the greatest and the least greatest. Technically, Holy Orders is the one sacrament that allows for Confession, the Eucharist and the Sacrament of the Sick, so that could be classed as the 'greatest'. But Baptism is almost like the front door by which one must enter in order to receive the others, so the argument could be made that this is the most important.
I love the Eucharist and Confession but to me, I think Confirmation is probably the most important. When you have the Holy Spirit, you have everything. The day will come when there is no Eucharist or Confession but the Holy Spirit, The Lord, the Giver of Life and Master of prayer; He can't be taken from us.

People don't have to agree on what they consider to be the most important Sacrament (I see you getting a few subtle, and not so subtle, digs for this) because we are glorifying different attributes and aspects of God. The Eucharist is the journey and destination of the individual Christian and the Church: to be one with Christ and each other, as Jesus, the Spirit and the Father are one.

My thoughts on Matrimony are that it's - literally - a life sentence. Marriage is also called an Institution and crazy people live in institutions, so I don't rely on that Sacrament for strength or as a vehicle of God's blessing.

The Sacrament of the Sick is the most under-rated and neglected Sacrament. Why reserve it for the dying only? I've seen and heard testimonies of great healing occurring through this Sacrament but it is so rarely employed...

lazybones32

Safehands wrote: »

You are going to have very few friends hinault, if you disrespect them all like that. Not a very Christian attitude.

Why do you criticise what you perceive to be a failure of correct Christian behaviour on one person's part and ignore all others who show no tolerance, respect, etc?

Peregrinus

Bodhi Colossal Custodian wrote: »

There is no biblical basis for baptism other than for believers so infant baptism is out.
Being reconciled isn't an issue but when 1john says we confess our sins to God and have an advocate in Jesus, where is the room for a man to absolve sins which only God can do.
Confirmation, I've yet to hear of anyone who experienced what was experienced at Pentecost during confirmation.

Marriagw , ordained by God in the beginning. Not something peculiar to Catholicism

Healing is not confined to the elders. There is also the gift of healing which can be given to anyone. Its normal church life not anything special.
Holy orders so called are nothing but the gifts and ministries of God given to members of the church.
But of course our definition of what the church is differs.
Paul also says"_how is it when you come together EVERYONE has......" I've never seen that happening in Mass. Why not??

Careful, now! You’re doing the hinault thing of immediately focusing in on differences in belief or practice between different Christian traditions and then stating the position of your own tradition in fairly dogmatic terms. “Infant baptism is out”. Really? That’s the conclusion of your discussion of the importance of baptism? Marriage is not “something peculiar to Catholicism”. But whoever suggested that it was? And what does that tell us about its importance?

Hinault, to his credit, doesn’t frame his OP in Catholic terms. The notion of sacramentality is common to all or nearly all Christian traditions. It's true that there are some differences between traditions as to the particular moments or events that are identified as sacramental. It’s true that some traditions baptise infants and others do not. But what’s much more significant is that all Christian traditions do practice baptism, and reflecting on different approaches to infant baptism is of interest in this context only in so far as it might help us to think about why Christians baptise at all and what they understand its significance to be. The flat statement that practices you don’t agree with, in relation to baptism or any other sacrament, are “out” is unhelpful - it doesn’t contribute to an answer to the question raised in the OP - and also demonstrably untrue. Infant baptism may be “out” for you, but there are plainly many Christians for whom it is very much "in".

If you want to say why it’s out for you and what implications that has for your understanding of the importance of sacrament, go for it. We’re all ears. But simply pointing to differences between different Christian traditions, dogmatically asserting the validity of one tradition over the others and making no attempt to connect this with the discussion going on in the thread is, as we’ve seen in several recent comments, not a participation style which goes down well with most posters.