Sacraments: Two Views, by Alamo Bill

"Baptism and the Lord’s Supper can be viewed with two emphases: (1) what God does, or (2) what humans do. The first view understands baptism and the Lord’s Supper as “sacraments.� The latter view sees them solely as “memorials.� “Memorialism� has some interesting consequences ..."

Catholics view the sacraments as things done by God for man.  This is a major one of several reasons why many Protestants do not understand Catholic sacrements and sacramentals.  They see them as works Catholics do to get to heaven - and that is not Catholic teaching at all.  Rather, through the Sacraments, works of God for man, not works of man for God, God gives us grace.

Biblical examples of Catholic sacramentalism:

+ Act 19:11-12 KJV  And God wrought special miracles by the hands of Paul:  (12)  So that from his body were brought unto the sick handkerchiefs or aprons, and the diseases departed from them, and the evil spirits went out of them.

+ Act 5:15 KJV  Insomuch that they brought forth the sick into the streets, and laid them on beds and couches, that at the least the shadow of Peter passing by might overshadow some of them.

+ Jam 5:14 KJV  Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord

Again via the Pontificator blog, I found a fascinating article on The Anglican Scotist blog about the different views of the Bible in the Anglican Communion.

The Pontificator blog is really one of the best, and I try to keep up to date with it.  His post called “Symbol and Realityâ€? is about the Anglican [Episcopalian in the USA] view of the Eucharist, specifically those of Lancelot Andrewes and Alexander Schmemann, neither of whom I had heard of before this.  Catholics explain the Real Presence in terms of transubstantiation, while others, including many Anglicans, use the explanation consubstantiation, or impanation.  While Andrewes did not accept transubstantiation, the original blog to which Pontificator refers, figura et res, veritas et figura, at the Meam Commemorationem blog, says:

"There is no hiatus, the Eucharist IS the Body and Blood and the Sacrifice offered on behalf of the sins of the whole world. There is no doubt in the mind of Andrewes about the reality of the whole Christ in the Sacrament."

I don't have the theological background to understand all that Jeff Steel at Meam Commemorationem quotes from Schmemann regarding this issue, but it was interesting to read all the same.

Pontificator's comment includes the following: "My one question about Schmemann's ontology of symbol is whether it truly allows the difference between an icon and the eucharistic Body and Blood. ... Hence the insistence of II Nicaea that the Eucharist is not an icon of the Body and Blood but is the Body and Blood."

Certainly food for thought.

Josh S has some interesting insights on the Eucharist in the Here We Stand blog, metalutheran.blogspot.com.

[W]hen Jesus says "This is my body," the Reformed answer with "No, Jesus, you can't possibly mean that," instead of "Amen." I believe quite strongly now (Sasse's influence, maybe? ) that responding to the Words of Institution is a fundamental part of celebrating the Lord's Supper and thus why we can never celebrate with the Reformed. When the pastor says, "This is the body of Christ," the Lutheran responds with "Amen," while the Calvinist responds with "No, it's not--that's impossible!" The Reformed "no" occupies the place in the celebration that the Lutheran "yes" does. Well guess what? That's not the appropriate way to come to the Table.

Catholics and Lutherans might not agree completely on the nature of the Eucharist, but we're historically a lot closer than many other Christian denominations, and a better understanding is growing.

Earlier in this blog, I referred to the Gestapo-like raid on St John's Episcopal Church in Connecticut. There is more news:

Bishops plan to take Connecticut cleric to church court - The Beaufort Gazette
Priest Removal - 13News, WIBW.com

Andrew Smith, the bishop of Connecticut, is being taken to a religious court by 9 other Episcopal bishops.  The "Connecticut Six" - 1 priest who has been removed from his parish, and 5 others in danger of similar action against them - have asked to be taken under the supervision of a different bishop.

The Anglican Communion is being divided on a number of issues, and we may see more dramatic splits in the future.

Michael Pahls has a brilliant post on his blog at Reformed Catholicism - Classically Protestant *and* Constructively catholic, entitled The Theotokos and Doctrinal Criticism.

He discusses Catholic and Orthodox Mariology (referred to as Mariolatry by anti-Catholic Protestanst) and the problems Protestantism has with them.

Most Protestant difficulties with Roman Catholic and Orthodox Mariologies (not identical theologies, by the way) stem from a failure to understand the intrinsic connection between Mary and the Church. ...
Saying "Mary is the Mediatrix of all graces" is nearly identical to saying, "the Church is Mediatrix of all graces." ...
A sacramental understanding of the Church is, of course, a prerequisite for finding this teaching acceptable. For Roman Catholics, the Orthodox, Presbyterian/Reformed Christians, Lutherans, and Anglicans this should be old hat. ...
If it was necessary to assume Mary's physical body into heaven for her to receive an anticipatory share in the Resurrection, than the resurrection body of Jesus and of us demands an essential continuity with our present embodiment. In other words, Jesus is not merely “alive to God� in a disembodied way as more liberal Christians wish to affirm. ...
The only really good grounds on which Protestants might object to Roman Mariology  ...

See also my essay on the Theotokos on my website.

On his blog, Dave Armstrong once again has a good debate on Sola Scriptura.  See The Novel and Unbiblical Doctrine of Sola Scriptura, Part I (vs. Lutheran Steve Parks)

Pontificator also has a good post.  See “Is ‘Word Alone’ An Evangelical Possibility?â€?