A Christological Matrix is basically a lens or filter through which we understand something, however, it is more than a lens or a filter. A lens or filter, one might think, is something to get rid of because it gets in the way of the actual object, but instead, this Christological Matrix is the “the thing itself” (the grace) because the Christ story/language embodies and lives the gift of God. In other words, the Christological Matrix forms our understanding of grace in the most basic way because it constitutes the very language and direct interaction that we have with God. This is why the Eucharist is so important.

As for a variety of definitions, that shouldn’t be a surprise. Lots of different humans have different categories to understand revelation, experience, etc. Think of it in terms of different denominations.

Liturgy \Lit”ur*gy\, n. (etymology elided)
An established formula for public worship, or the entire
ritual for public worship in a church which uses prescribed
forms; a formulary for public prayer or devotion. In the
Roman Catholic Church it includes all forms and services in
any language, in any part of the world, for the celebration
of Mass.
[1913 Webster]

Sacrament \Sac”ra*ment\, n.
1. The oath of allegiance taken by Roman soldiers; hence, a
sacred ceremony used to impress an obligation; a solemn
oath-taking; an oath. [Obs.]
[1913 Webster]

2. The pledge or token of an oath or solemn covenant; a
sacred thing; a mystery. [Obs.]
[1913 Webster]

3. (Theol.) One of the solemn religious ordinances enjoined
by Christ, the head of the Christian church, to be
observed by his followers; hence, specifically, the
eucharist; the Lord’s Supper.
[1913 Webster]

Sacramental \Sac`ra*men”tal\, a.
1. Of or pertaining to a sacrament or the sacraments; of the
nature of a sacrament; sacredly or solemnly binding; as,
sacramental rites or elements.
[1913 Webster]

Serviceable definitions, though not brilliant ones. Note the concreteness. Liturgy is defined as a formula of worship, a ritual. Sacrament is defined as a solemn ordinance. I can comprehend these nouns in a way that I cannot comprehend yours. Even the old standard “visible sign of an invisible grace” does more for me than “grace/gift/experience,” which seems like it could apply, or not apply, to just about anything.

I do not claim that even my layman’s understanding of these words is exactly equivalent to what the dictionary says. I am far equating the sacraments to old religious habit. However, the standard definitions are still more useful to me, because I understand them more readily than I understand your “Christological matrix.” (What does that even mean?)

I sometimes think your job as a theologian would be easier if you just coined new words instead of heaping delicate subtleties on words that are already well-worn. When you redefine or reemphasize an old word, and then use it technically, your job of communicating an idea becomes harder: you are working against your reader’s own vocabulary. That’s a very delicate rhetorical task.

If I can find a hundred variant definitions of “sacrament,” what am I, as a Christian but not a theologian, supposed to make of them all?

One, grace is understood in terms of gifting. And two, there are two acts when talking of grace, grace which we do not control, but the second we do, called reciprocating. It is through both grace and reciprocation that the action of gift and re-gifting is completed.

Importantly, if we separate sacrament from liturgy, then we fall into past notions of embodiment and language. In effect, liturgy as language becomes a conveyer of knowledge rather than language being the actual knowledge itself. So, if starting from an understanding that liturgy is an experience of grace because language is our way of knowing (since it is language that forms us, rather than us forming language), then, in a sense, liturgy is grace embodied. The liturgy — the act of remembrance and the constituting of the body of Christ — itself is given to us. With this language (language in the fullest sense of the word - ie. senses, organization, etc.) Christians interpret the rest of their encounters with grace. Quite simply, it is through the memory of Jesus that we understand grace to exist. Therefore, even if we may not experience a mystical feeling, that does not mean grace does not exist in that moment, for even at the fundamental level of ordering our humanity, grace exists.

Halden,
I have a hard time separating liturgy from sacrament because it is through liturgy that we have a clear, Christian understanding of grace in a holistic way.

I also want to avoid understanding language as a conveyer of terms or experience - it is experience of grace and therefore grace itself.

I, like you, understand it in communal terms because it is communal, and therefore any experience we do have is read through previous ontological space and relationship - reflection on creation itself is only understood through the language of the community. Our being in the world, and reflection on humanity’s life in creation, is done at the most common denominator, our body. Our literal, physical body. When we do a physical action, even if it isn’t already previously written down, it can be liturgical if it embodies or recognizes grace.

For instance, when I go back to Alaska, I like to spend time in the mountains and sometimes by myself. When I respond to the revelation of creation by moving amongst it, raising hands, singing/humming, or other things, this can be a liturgical experience because something is physically being recognized and the grace of God is washing over my being. However, I could not respond as I do without being given the language to do so, without the memory of action in liturgical space, without still maintaining relationships with others in the Christian community.

I have Chauvet’s book now. I got it on the basis of your quotes. Looks like good stuff.