I'm sure you're thinking, well duh, 3+4=7. But did you know that's how we got precisely 7 sacraments? Yup! Here's the abbreviated history of how this happened (as told to my class by Lizette, my Christian Lit professor). This guy, Peter Lombard (author of the Book of Sentences, which are 4 theology textbooks used at the Vatican, written in the 12th ce.), was trying to figure out how to teach his students about sacraments in an orderly manner, and he wanted them to actually be able to call specific things "sacraments" (the term was thrown around a lot more before his time - anything that was "sacramental," aka anything that is a sacred sign that both signifies and causes grace, was referred to as a sacrament - the word was being used for almost everything, since tons of things can be pointed back to what we now know to be THE sacraments). Now, Lombard really liked the number 7, and he really wanted to be able to make it work. You see, 3 is the number of the divine (trinity), and 4 is the number of nature (1 more than 3, the divine is part of it and had to come immediately before it to make it possible). These 2 numbers, which describe God and us (we are part of nature) are the 2 things needed for sacraments to take place - God's grace comes to us through the sacraments (in a different and more direct way than any other time we encounter His grace). Therefore, the number 7 is the perfect number of sacraments. Now, there's nothing wrong with this, but it is undeniably kind of silly. But why not? God can and does work in mysterious ways - he can inspire the silly and the serious.
Now, Lombard had to actually figure out what 7 liturgical events/actions/happenings would make up these 7 sacraments. Obviously, the 3 initiation events (Baptism, Confirmation, and Eucharist) were going to be part of them - they are how we are fully part of the communion of believers. And then Confession was necessary to be able to partake of the Eucharist, so that needed to be there. And sure, Last Rites (now Anointing of the Sick) were important for the idea of life everlasting, so those should be part. Holy Orders could be one - if the priest is supposed to remind us of Jesus, that makes sense. And them... hmmm... well, Marriage is important(ish) - it's only between the 2 people, but God is love and there need to be witnesses and Jesus gave us the Church, His Bride, and the Holy Spirit unites the 2 into 1, so why not (see how much that one has to be justified? theologians are ridiculous). We couldn't have only 6 sacraments, since that number falls one short of 7 - that's just no good, that's like saying, if 3 is God's number, that there are 2 Gods. And no, funerals just did not make the cut - the person was already dead, if they didn't get Last Rites, well, too bad for their soul, grace can't directly come to it if it's not here, and the number is 7, not 8 - this isn't paradise!
Now, of course, this is making light of how it happened - but it is true that that's the order he picked them in, and funerals were considered but did not make as much sense with the other 7 with the idea of a sacrament being a sign that both signifies and causes grace. Though I do think that these 7 are the most important, most significant liturgical events they could have chosen, and God can inspire in odd ways, I also think Lombard is ridiculous, basing his foundational reasoning of 7 sacraments purely on the fact that the number 7 was a good number - numerology is stupid, but it does seem to have gotten us somewhere at a different point in history, so okay. This is why Alley and I coined the term for this ridiculously silly divine inspiration as "inspired retardedness." hahaha
No comments:
Post a Comment