I echo Shaun’s sentiments, CC, and hope that you’ll find this a very hospitable and warm place.
I’m so thrilled to be having this conversation! I don’t find much in common with most Baptists on the issue, (and my theology degree is from a Baptist seminary.) But I also don’t share the Catholic view either. I’m a bit of a black sheep among modern Protestants, (though not classical ones), because I enjoy being hung up on the concept of the sacrament. It’s a term I’m more comfortable with than ordinance, which most Protestants will substitute for the word and thereby change the concept.
For those unfamiliar, a sacrament is a means by which God mediates divine grace to us. Traditionally the Church recognized seven sacraments: Baptism, Confirmation, Communion, Ordination, Confession, Last Rites/Anointing of the Sick, and Marriage. Most Protestants only recognize two: Baptism and Communion. (The term “sacrament of marriage” for Protestants doesn’t really mean a sacrament, it’s just an expression of the seriousness with which they believe the institution should be taken.) Most Protestants also believe that the mediation of the grace is a symbol. This is where they part ways with the Catholic. The Catholic, and please CC correct me if I misstate anything, holds that the sacrament, considered a “holy mystery,” is in the transubstantiation.
Where I run afoul of both is that I believe that Scripture and Church tradition both seem to indicate that there is something special and mysterious about sacramentalism. It’s this mystery that we tend to chuck in our Protestant urge to undecorate everything. Communion can’t be merely a symbol. It’s not talked about as “merely” anything. Were it merely a symbol, Jesus might as well have made his point through speaking a parable, but he didn’t. Much like the foot washing, it was something that had to be experienced. Watching communion is not the same as taking it. Hearing about it is not the same as taking it. I would also venture that taking it alone is not the same as taking it in fellowship with others. These all point to something more.
Conversely, I don’t think that the argument for transubstantiation can be substantiated beyond an article of faith. Just as Jesus said that the wine and bread were his blood and body, he also said that he was a shepherd, a way, a light, a vine, etc. I do believe in the instance of communion that he was speaking metaphorically - but metaphor is not always merely symbolic.
Cool of you, Shaun, to bring out the Didache. We would be much richer to read the works of the Church that predate C.S. Lewis and Rick Warren. And cool of you, CC, to bring up Primus inter pares.
I like not only the content but the tone of this discussion. For my part, I’m fascinated with liturgy, and in fact whenever I perform a rite of the Church I try to incorporate as much liturgical material as possible. (This has mostly shown up in marriages I’ve performed, but I’m always trying to work it in wherever I can.) And, CC, I love the phrase “dignity in ritual.” I’ll use that one!
