Ordinances, Sacraments, Rituals, Practices, etc.

[LilBee91]

I've been musing lately over the necessity of adhering to certain practices or participating in certain rituals/sacraments (whatever you want to call them). The Abrahamic faiths certainly have a strong element of this--though Judaism seems to use its rituals to enforce a way of life, whereas Christian baptism is more for salvation after this life. And beyond the Five Pillars, I know little of Islamic practices, so I can't really comment on that. The more established/organized sects of Christianity seem to emphasize the importance of participating in the sacraments of their church, otherwise they really have no point for their hierarchies and claims to authority. I was just wondering what you pwebbers thought.

Are ordinances and such necessary for attaining the desirable afterlife? For being a good member of a faith?
And if so, does it matter in what specific creed/church you participate in these practices? e.g. does it matter if you're baptized Catholic or Orthodox or Baptist?

This discussion pretty much depends on what creed you follow, I suppose, but it's always interesting to see how other people view things. This really isn't a general faith vs. works question. It's more whether faith and following the teachings is more/less important that doing it as part of the right sect/church. Basically I just want us to reenact the Reformation or something.

[random]There aren't enough smilies in the religion forum.[/random]

[Eaquae Legit]

It does depends.

In the Catholic faith, there are many, many rituals but only seven sacraments. They are Baptism, Confirmation, Reconciliation, Holy Eucharist, Marriage, Holy Orders, and the Anointing of the Sick.

Of there, we believe only the first is strictly necessary, but having said that, there are a lot of ways to be baptised. If you are baptised by anyone (though I ideally by a priest or pastor) in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, that is counted. If you die for your faith, even if you never had a chance to be baptised, that is called the baptism of blood, and it counts. If you intend to be baptised and, say, get hit by a car and die before you can be, it's called baptism by desire, and it counts. So really, the concept has a lot of wiggle-room. It does not matter where you were baptised, or by whom, Catholics absolutely will not re-baptise you unless there is serious reason to doubt the baptism actually happened, in which case a conditional baptism is done (If you have not been baptised, I baptise you etc.).*

The remaining sacraments are considered very good and efficacious for living a holy life, but not in extremis necessary. Confirmation is the sealing of the gifts of the Holy Spirit, Reconciliation is the absolving of grave sins, the Eucharist is the sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ, Marriage is marriage, Holy Orders is the ordination of priests, and the anointing of the sick is a healing and absolution.

The thing to remember with Catholic (and Orthodox) sacraments is that they are not just symbols. The traditional definition of a sacrament is a sense-perceptible sign that effects what it signifies. That is, baptism does not merely symbolise the washing away of sin - the sin truly is forgiven and a new life begins. In Confirmation, the anointing the bishop does is not a symbol - it is the sealing of the gifts.

This is the barest of sacramental theology here. The sacraments form roughly a full third of the Catechism.

As far as necessity goes, only the first is strictly necessary, but like I said, it's almost impossible to not be baptised if you wish to be. The others are part of Catholic life, and still very important. It's not that you go to hell for not being confirmed, but Confirmation helps you on the way. You won't go to hell if you've never been to Reconciliation, but you die with a heavy weight on your soul which could be avoided. Being a "good" Catholic involves participation in these sacraments. They're good for you.

The more established/organized sects of Christianity seem to emphasize the importance of participating in the sacraments of their church, otherwise they really have no point for their hierarchies and claims to authority.

This type of cynicism irritates me. Nothing personal. But I like to think that today most of the men who make up the bishops and cardinals are sincere and devout. They emphasise the sacraments because they believe that they were instituted by God and someone needs to carry them out.

In the end, though, I rather that someone be a good member of their faith than a bad Catholic. Catholicism teaches that non-Catholics can be saved, but they're missing out on the full richness of grace that is available.



* N.B. We officially did away with limbo a couple years ago, before anyone asks. It was never doctrine anyway.

[LilBee91]

The more established/organized sects of Christianity seem to emphasize the importance of participating in the sacraments of their church, otherwise they really have no point for their hierarchies and claims to authority.

This type of cynicism irritates me. Nothing personal. But I like to think that today most of the men who make up the bishops and cardinals are sincere and devout. They emphasise the sacraments because they believe that they were instituted by God and someone needs to carry them out.

Sorry--I didn't mean to sound cynical. I meant more that there wouldn't be as much organization if it weren't for ordinances, not that ordinances were needed to maintain the organization.

And I had no idea Catholics were so generous about baptism. I think I grew up around too many Protestants.

[Crazy Tom: C Toon]

To continue EL's summary, Catholics, as he said, have Seven sacraments. Protestants either have two sacraments (baptism and communion), or none (baptism and communion become purely symbolic).

As for the pillars of Islam, I don't remember much (I was taught waaaay back in 4th grade). I seem to recall (please correct me if I'm wrong), that a pilgrimage is one requirement of the Islamic faith. Don't quote me on that, because I don't remember, really.

[human.]

The five pillars of Islam are professing that there is one God, Allah, and Muhammad is his Prophet, pray five times a day, give alms, fast during the month of Ramadan, and make a pilgrimage to Mecca if it is not a tax on others and if you can afford it, called the Hajj. Just to clarify. =]

When I was a Christian I never understood the function of infant baptism (I was a Methodist). Nor did I understand the practice of confirmation before the age of 18. Being baptized as an infant I didn't understand because I wasn't the one choosing to be baptized. I was taught that baptism symbolized rebirth. As in, starting life again with a clean slate and a conscience that should dictate that you adhere to the morals and religious behaviors set down by your interpretation of the Bible and God's actions. But I didn't choose that, but I was expected to live by it? Or was it expected to keep me from going down a bad path in the first place. It seemed almost like the latter. As if prevention was the goal because when an infant was baptized in my church, the pastor had the parents/guardians and the rest of the congregation recite this phrase.. I forget it now, but it went along the lines of "we will support this child in his/her Christian faith and pledge to help guide him/her throughout her life and be there when he/she needs help, etc, etc." I think other churches say it too because we read it from one of the books they kept under the chairs (I forget the names now). But I felt like it was more so that people had made the commitment to watch over the child and make sure he grew up in a good and moral (and religious) environment. I mean, that's cool with me, but I just don't like the fact that the child wasn't making that decision.

I don't understand confirmation because I went through it at age 12. What do I know at age 12? I know that the enemy's gate is down. I know that math is fun and my friends and I all love to play four square. I know the boy in the seat next to me is really cute and I want to wear his hat. But I can't possibly comprehend God and Christianity at 12 years old. It was so remote to me. I prayed every day, sure. But I didn't know what I was saying. And no one ever responded to me or commended me so how did I know I was doing it right? And I absolutely love praise and worship time, but what are the songs really saying? I don't know what they mean, not really. I went through confirmation and they taught me the basics of the history of religion. We visited a Catholic church, we went on a retreat. But we never really talked about god and his meaning in my life and the world was. While other confirmation classes might be better at this, I just don't understand how we can expect 12-year olds to be able to question and comprehend the greatness (meaning large) of the faith that they practice. Some might, but definitely not a majority. Questioning the world isn't a priority for most kids at that age. I mean, I did. But not in depth, not enough for this type of decision. I just always thought that confirmation should be a personal decision made whenever someone actually feels moved to do it, instead of a class that takes the place of Sunday school for six months.

So I think my biggest qualm was the act of deciding that that was what you wanted to do.

[Crazy Tom: C Toon]

Absolutely 100% right about everything Human, congratulations.

I personally am against infant baptism because I do not view it as a sacrament. Many people believe that an infant baptism will insure that the soul WILL go to heaven. However, I believe that baptism should only be done to those sure of their faith and solid in their belief and understanding. now I have no problem with just a sort of ceremonial baptism to wish the child a religious life, but I DO have a problem with the belief that this baptism guarantees an afterlife in heaven.

As for "confirmation" if you mean "confirmation of the faith" meaning confirmation that you are, indeed, Methodist, that decision should be made by the person himself, and at a time of his choosing. If the church elders refuse his admission into the church body, then this is fine as well because the elders apparently see a flaw in the faith of the applicant.

Human: do you, out of curiosity, hold to the belief that things such as baptism actually have an inherent power to guarantee some favor in the afterlife?

Lastly, since this thread covers the topic of sacraments, rituals, etc., I know that the Catholics hold to a transsubstantiational view of communion i.e. the bread and wine become the literal body and blood of Christ after being blessed by a priest. I personally hold that this ritual holds no other significance than a symbolic affirmation of the faith, but what do you guys think? (you who do communion in church)

[Jayelle]

I personally am against infant baptism because I do not view it as a sacrament. Many people believe that an infant baptism will insure that the soul WILL go to heaven.

As someone who baptized their infant, I wholly disagree. I did not baptize her so that if she dies at age 2 she'll go to heaven. I baptized her as a commitment to raise her in a Christian home, a commitment of the Church to help us with that, and a commitment of her godparents to assist with that. It has nothing to do with insurance.
I chose to baptize my daughter, despite the fact that I was baptized as a teenager and raised for much of my life in a Mennonite Church.
My mind was changed by a few things, most prominently being that in churches that do infant baptism there is confirmation. In many churches that practice adult baptism, there is an informal ceremony of child dedication. To me, it's just changing where the water is.
Secondly, for those that argue that Jesus was baptized as an adult, I say that in the book of Acts there are entire families who are baptized at once. That included children.

There are countless other reasons, but I agree with both child and adult baptism.

[Eaquae Legit]

Lastly, since this thread covers the topic of sacraments, rituals, etc., I know that the Catholics hold to a transsubstantiational view of communion i.e. the bread and wine become the literal body and blood of Christ after being blessed by a priest. I personally hold that this ritual holds no other significance than a symbolic affirmation of the faith, but what do you guys think? (you who do communion in church)

Yes, Catholics are even more scandalously literalist in their Bible interpretation. Creation in six days? That's just science. "My flesh is true food, my blood is true drink, unless you eat of this bread, you have no life in you" is cannibalism.

[Crazy Tom: C Toon]

I wasn't disagreeing with you. Remember when I said this?

Now I have no problem with just a sort of ceremonial baptism to wish the child a religious life, but I DO have a problem with the belief that this baptism guarantees an afterlife in heaven.

I also do not necessarily think that only adults should be baptized. People can come to salvation at any age at all. The problem with child baptism is that sometimes they proclaim that they are saved only to be like parents or friends, and not out of any actual commitment. But if the church authority (usually the elders) agree that the child is, indeed, saved, I see no problem with allowing baptism.

[human.]

Human: do you, out of curiosity, hold to the belief that things such as baptism actually have an inherent power to guarantee some favor in the afterlife?

Well.. No.. Because I don't practice a religion.. and so things like baptism have no meaning to me other than I understand the meaning they have to those who participate in them/those whose faith they are a part of. I was just sharing my feelings on them from years ago. Though my feelings haven't really changed, just my interest in the topic has dissipated dramatically (which I feel is to be expected). Personally, I don't have an opinion about a life after this one because I can neither comprehend it nor do I believe that it exists. But you know, supposing I'm wrong, I sure hope getting baptized twice and confirmed way back when helps me out.. Haha. I'm just kidding, there. But yeah, so I don't think they have any power. To me, they are simply acts that hold meaning in the hearts and minds of the people who see them as such. Which, honestly, I think is good. It's good to have trust in the actions that you commit and the consequences (not just negative) they will have.

(Edit: and I agree about the "they do it to be like parents friends" part. Because that's exactly why I went through confirmation.)

[Eaquae Legit]

I don't know if you quite realise that "child baptism" generally means infants. I'm fairly sure that by the time a child is 6-7 years old, a church will refuse to baptise because they are old enough to have intent, but probably don't have it (i.e., are not adult in their desires).

Infant baptism is efficacious for salvation. It removes the stain of original sin and plants the seed of the grace of God. There is more to it, of course, but what you need to know about Baptism is that it is not a symbol. The actor in the sacrament is not the child - how could an infant possibly make a decision? The actor is God. God decides to pour out his grace on the baptisee.

[Jayelle]

I don't know if you quite realise that "child baptism" generally means infants. I'm fairly sure that by the time a child is 6-7 years old, a church will refuse to baptise because they are old enough to have intent, but probably don't have it (i.e., are not adult in their desires).

Actually, that's not true in the Anglican church. We've had kids around that age be baptized, though most are under two. It's not as vital that they are infants.

[Eaquae Legit]

You know, I'm less certain about the ages this morning myself. I was remembering something from when I was younger, but I'm not sure I got it right. I'd have to get back to you.

[Crazy Tom: C Toon]

Infant baptism is efficacious for salvation. It removes the stain of original sin and plants the seed of the grace of God. There is more to it, of course, but what you need to know about Baptism is that it is not a symbol. The actor in the sacrament is not the child - how could an infant possibly make a decision? The actor is God. God decides to pour out his grace on the baptisee.

How can you know that God does bestow that grace on an infant? Also, baptism cannot possibly remove the stan of original sin because baptized babies still grow up to be sinners (everybody does).

The person only chooses baptism when he feels he has been chosen by God. obviously, this can create a lot of unwarranted baptisms, but since they are really only symbolic anyway, then it doesn't really matter.

gtg, ill post later

[Eaquae Legit]

Infant baptism is efficacious for salvation. It removes the stain of original sin and plants the seed of the grace of God. There is more to it, of course, but what you need to know about Baptism is that it is not a symbol. The actor in the sacrament is not the child - how could an infant possibly make a decision? The actor is God. God decides to pour out his grace on the baptisee.

How can you know that God does bestow that grace on an infant? Also, baptism cannot possibly remove the stan of original sin because baptized babies still grow up to be sinners (everybody does).

The person only chooses baptism when he feels he has been chosen by God. obviously, this can create a lot of unwarranted baptisms, but since they are really only symbolic anyway, then it doesn't really matter.

gtg, ill post later

My tone was deliberate. How do you know that baptisms are really only symbolic? If you are going to make sweeping blanket statements about what God is or what the Bible says, others will do the same.

As it is, the original sin is, more or less anyway, the tendency of human beings to act contrary to their nature and do evil. Sacramental Baptism removes the stain, that is, the guilt of it, but the effect remains in us.

[jotabe]

How can you know that God does bestow that grace on an infant? Also, baptism cannot possibly remove the stan of original sin because baptized babies still grow up to be sinners (everybody does).

John 20:23, he kinda agreed to it.

And that's plus the matter of the apostolic succession (even though i am not a Catholic anymore, truth is that only ones that can claim it are Catholics, Orthodox and Anglicans).

[Crazy Tom: C Toon]

I don't understand how John 20:23 says ANYTHING about infants receiving the grace of God. all that happens here is Jesus blesses his apostles.

If by "apostolic succession" you mean that people can become apostles today, that is COMPLETELY bogus. Jesus never personally blessed any of THEM!

As it is, the original sin is, more or less anyway, the tendency of human beings to act contrary to their nature and do evil. Sacramental Baptism removes the stain, that is, the guilt of it, but the effect remains in us.

The baptism removes the GUILT of sin?! How much would you have to hate your child to do that to them?! Do you WANT your child to be blithely slaughtering innocents?

Just kidding. I get what you mean, that baptism removes the inherent guilt of original sin from children, but this simply isn't true because the Bible does not say it is.

... and man's nature IS evil. Jeremiah 9:3 is pretty clear on the subject. All good comes ONLY through God.

[Eaquae Legit]

I am refusing to get into the issue of man's nature with you. It will go nowhere, and this is not the thread for it.

[Crazy Tom: C Toon]

... meaning you have no proof for your side and no argument against mine?
Never mind. as you said: not the right thread.

We have talked a lot about Christian/Catholic sacraments/ordinances. Are there any Muslims or Jews who have similar rites and sacraments?

[Eaquae Legit]

I was going to write "Yes, you got me, I have no evidence at all" but I'm trying to cut down on the snark a bit. Hon, when you've been around longer, you'll find there's a reason I tend to do most of the modding in here. It's sorta my career. I don't want to get into it because I value keeping threads more or less on track, and because I simply don't want to get into it. I've been reading the other thread and I believe nothing I say will have any effect. I'm not interested.

[Crazy Tom: C Toon]

Ok, sorry. Never use that "when you've been around longer..." argument, because age has nothing to do with it. (unless you are talking about my being around PWeb longer?), in which case I don't really mind.

Anyway, Jews, Muslims, or other, please show yourselves and talk to us!

[Eaquae Legit]

When you've been around pweb longer. Age can have something to do with some arguments, but not in this case.

I don't think we have any active Muslim pwebbers, and most of our Jewish members are lurkers or have left.

[Crazy Tom: C Toon]

darn. That would have been nice to learn about the requirements of those religions...

[LilBee91]

Infant baptism is efficacious for salvation. It removes the stain of original sin and plants the seed of the grace of God. There is more to it, of course, but what you need to know about Baptism is that it is not a symbol. The actor in the sacrament is not the child - how could an infant possibly make a decision? The actor is God. God decides to pour out his grace on the baptisee.

What is the Catholic position on infants that die without baptism? They can't really have baptism by blood or desire. Are they stuck with the stain of original sin forever, or does God's grace cover them in some other way?

[Eaquae Legit]

1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

1260 "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery." Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them," allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

Catechism of the Catholic Church, http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P3M.HTM (The italics do not appear online but are present in my print copy.)

So yes, we do not understand the mechanism, but we trust to the gratuitousness of God's grace with regards to unbaptised infants. The only way we can trust is baptism, but that does not mean that God is bound by it. This is perfectly consistent with the understanding that those who are ignorant of its necessity can still be saved.

[Crazy Tom: C Toon]

How do Catholics define the limit of God's mercy? If you believe that you trust Him to be merciful with the unbaptized, why is he not merciful to the pagan, or the atheist?

[Rei]

May I refer you again to article 1260: "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery." Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

[jotabe]

I think i read somewhere in the catechism that, despite the Church being the only door too salvation, then God can chose to save whomever he feels like, in exercise of his divine authority.

[Crazy Tom: C Toon]

I think that if anybody realized that the only way to avoid eternal torture was to be ceremonially dipped in water, they would go ahead and do it. So except for the people with extreme hydrophobia, God saves everybody? is that your point?

[zeroguy]

The Abrahamic faiths certainly have a strong element of this

Dharmic ones can have quite a bit, too. Tibetan Buddhism is quite heavy on ritual, as I recall (or maybe it was just vajrayana?). Other forms of buddhism have at least some oft-heard chants; some (most?) have (deliberately) no meaning and serve the purpose of the motions and sounds being more... meditative in purpose, or getting one's mind in a certain state. Jains practice quite a few rituals as well, and I'd wager Hinduism and other similar paths are similar in that respect.

[jotabe]

I think that if anybody realized that the only way to avoid eternal torture was to be ceremonially dipped in water, they would go ahead and do it. So except for the people with extreme hydrophobia, God saves everybody? is that your point?

Not much better than people who ceremonially says "Jesus, i am a sinner, you are my personal lord and saviour."

[Rei]

I think that if anybody realized that the only way to avoid eternal torture was to be ceremonially dipped in water, they would go ahead and do it. So except for the people with extreme hydrophobia, God saves everybody? is that your point?

I think you need to read article 1260 again. While God has given us baptism as a gateway to the path of salvation, God is not limited to saving people via that gateway. Baptism does not ensure salvation, either, although it does plant the seed of grace, which may grow if nurtured. If the seed is not tended to, however, it may not grow into anything. That is why getting baptised as an insurance thing doesn't work.

[Crazy Tom: C Toon]

I think you need to read article 1260 again. While God has given us baptism as a gateway to the path of salvation, God is not limited to saving people via that gateway. Baptism does not ensure salvation, either, although it does plant the seed of grace, which may grow if nurtured. If the seed is not tended to, however, it may not grow into anything. That is why getting baptised as an insurance thing doesn't work.

Pardon me for saying, but article 1260 is NOT holy writ. I is simply a statement of what the Catholics like to believe.

Not much better than people who ceremonially says "Jesus, i am a sinner, you are my personal lord and saviour."

I agree completely. That is why I loathe all the so-called "Christians" who claim to be saved but aren't, and it is obvious (Like C.S. Lewis, who endorses salvation even for those who worship Satan)

[Jayelle]

I agree completely. That is why I loathe all the so-called "Christians" who claim to be saved but aren't, and it is obvious (Like C.S. Lewis, who endorses salvation even for those who worship Satan)

First of all, WTF? CS Lewis endorses salvation to Satan-worshippers?

Secondly, if you actually take the bible as seriously as you say you do, what right do you have to judge who God saves and who he doesn't? The Bible repeatedly says a) not to judge b)that God is merciful and c) that we don't know the mind of God.

[Crazy Tom: C Toon]

I know. I don't judge who God saves, He does. God might easily save C S Lewis for his own purposes. I simply do not think that Lewis is currently in a salvific frame of mind.

Also, if you have read the Narnia series, you may have realized the allegorical parallels for the characters (C S Lewis himself has attributed to this I believe). In one novel, h "Lion" aka God, tells one child that he will accept some guy because he followed the Witch aka Satan with a whole heart. So he is saying that as long as you follow your religion faithfully, you are really worshipping God even though you don't know it. I think this is a load of bull.