overthroweth the nature of the sacrament

[chuckd]

WCF 29.6 That doctrine which maintains a change of the substance of bread and wine, into the substance of Christ's body and blood (commonly called transubstantiation) by consecration of a priest, or by any other way, is repugnant, not to Scripture alone, but even to common sense, and reason; overthroweth the nature of the sacrament, and hath been, and is, the cause of manifold superstitions; yea, of gross idolatries.

I believe this is saying that: since a sacrament is a sign of something, making the sign = the thing signified, it destroys the meaning of the word.

Do Catholics simply have a different understanding of what a sacrament is? I read this elsewhere where Humbert of Silva Candida taught:
A signum which was not also essentialiter res in no way would be a sacrament.

 

[jwithnell]

The context of the mass -- with its altars, priests, and funeral linens -- shows the idolatrous nature of the practice. The sign and seal language points to the finished work of Christ applied to the believer.

 

[RamistThomist]

I believe this is saying that: since a sacrament is a sign of something, making the sign = the thing signified, it destroys the meaning of the word.

That is correct. A sign is supposed to point to something. If the sign is the thing signified, it isn't really pointing to something.

 

[chuckd]

That is correct. A sign is supposed to point to something. If the sign is the thing signified, it isn't really pointing to something.

Then clearly they have a different understanding of what a sacrament is.

 

[Scott Bushey]

There’s a fine line. The sign isn’t empty, either. We don’t err like Rome or the Lutherans, i.e consubstantiation or transubstantiation; nor like those credos who just attribute ‘ordinance’ to it.
The sign and the thing signified cannot be completely void of each other’s relationship to each other. It would be like trying to separate white from rice.

All of these described demarcations, this to include Rome and the Lutherans, are not easily explained nor understood; there is a level of mysticism here. Consider the Trinity.
The supper and it’s elements and water and formula are mysterious to a degree.

Was the water at the pool of Bethesda empty. Was the angel stirring the water, a significant thing? why was this stirring, important? Is the baptismal formula important?
Granted, the fulcrum here is faith; yet, one cannot say, in an absolute sense that God does not use the means, as He decrees, i.e Tied to the moment if He so wills; and in my opinion, often does.

Many Reformed err on the specifics of the sacraments and can be found shying away too much to the left or right, assuming that spiritualizing the sacrament jettisons them into the Roman or Lutheran error and I can understand this. As mentioned, the lines are very close.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Mud and spit. Were the mud and spit empty rites?

God uses means….

Mark 7:32–35 (ESV): And they brought to him a man who was deaf and had a speech impediment, and they begged him to lay his hand on him. 33 And taking him aside from the crowd privately, he put his fingers into his ears, and after spitting touched his tongue. 34 And looking up to heaven, he sighed and said to him, “Ephphatha,” that is, “Be opened.” 35 And his ears were opened, his tongue was released, and he spoke plainly.

Mark 8:23–25 (ESV): And he took the blind man by the hand and led him out of the village, and when he had spit on his eyes and laid his hands on him, he asked him, “Do you see anything?” 24 And he looked up and said, “I see people, but they look like trees, walking.” 25 Then Jesus laid his hands on his eyes again; and he opened his eyes, his sight was restored, and he saw everything clearly.

John 9:6–7 (ESV): Having said these things, he spit on the ground and made mud with the saliva. Then he anointed the man’s eyes with the mud 7 and said to him, “Go, wash in the pool of Siloam” (which means Sent). So he went and washed and came back seeing.

 

[Scott Bushey]

WCF 27:2
II. There is in every sacrament a spiritual relation, or sacramental union, between the sign and the thing signified; whence it comes to pass that the names and effects of the one are attributed to the other.