The Bread of Life

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti The Church's transubstantiation doctrine means that the host and the wine are the literal body and blood of Christ that are implicated in the sacrifice that accomplishes the remission of sins.

No it doesn't.
Maybe you disagree with my wording, but it is clear that the Church presumes to accomplish what Jesus accomplished with is sacrifice
While adoration and thanksgiving are effects of the Mass which relate to G-d alone, the success of impetration and expiation on the other hand reverts to man. (from the page I cited above)

Unless there has been a change in thinking on the subject since then, the doctrine of consubstantiation was finalized after the 12th century. According to the same authoritative source as before, the Catholic Encyclopedia, the doctrine of Transubstantiation,
teaches that Christ is present in the Eucharist by the change of the entire substance of bread and wine into His Body and Blood
Source: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04322a.htm

It seems this doctrine is considered "Catholic dogma."
 
You're right. The Church doesn't say that the eucharistic ritual is comparable to Jesus' sacrifice.
At least you see that.

The Church actually maintains that the two are identical.
The issue of identity points to the Mystery: "The chalice of benediction, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread, which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord? For we, being many, are one bread, one body, all that partake of one bread." 1 Corinthians 10:16-17.

Thomas
 
Maybe you disagree with my wording, but it is clear that the Church presumes to accomplish what Jesus accomplished with is sacrifice
Really, that's not at all clear to me ... what is abundantly clear to me is that the Church never claims anything other than the utter dependence upon its Founder for every grace and charism in its gift.

Thomas
 
The issue of identity points to the Mystery: "The chalice of benediction, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread, which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord? For we, being many, are one bread, one body, all that partake of one bread." 1 Corinthians 10:16-17.

Thomas
The issue is whether the Church is accomplishing with the Mass what Jesus accomplished with his sacrifice.

Really, that's not at all clear to me ... what is abundantly clear to me is that the Church never claims anything other than the utter dependence upon its Founder for every grace and charism in its gift.
Where does the Catholic Church stand on the Canons and Decrees of the Counsel of Trent? Are those still in effect?
 
The issue is whether the Church is accomplishing with the Mass what Jesus accomplished with his sacrifice.
The issue is do you understand what the Church is in relation to its Founder?

The key is in the Spousal Mystery in Scripture. Lose sight of that, and you've lost sight of everything.

Thomas
 
The issue is do you understand what the Church is in relation to its Founder?

The key is in the Spousal Mystery in Scripture. Lose sight of that, and you've lost sight of everything.
Thomas,

Previously you stated that "the Church never claims anything other than the utter dependence upon its Founder for every grace and charism in its gift." So where does Jesus (The Founder) authorize the Church to perform (on a daily basis and on a large scale) rituals that serve to accomplish a remission of sins?

Again, these rituals appear redundant with Jesus' sacrifice, which was supposed to be a singular, once-and-for-all act. Paul refers to Jesus as
He who does not need daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the sins of the people, because this He did once for all when He offered up Himself.
~Hebrews 7:27

At face value, Pauil seems to be telling us that Jesus would not need the Church to perform sacrificial rituals. Yet you seem to maintain that he authorized it. Do you see the contradiction?
 
Again, these rituals appear redundant with Jesus' sacrifice, which was supposed to be a singular, once-and-for-all act. Paul refers to Jesus as
He who does not need daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the sins of the people, because this He did once for all when He offered up Himself.
Also, from Hebrews 10:
(We) are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.

...(T)here remains no more sacrifice for sins.


There would seem to be no need for ritual sacrifice at all, yet the Church continued to persist in a bloodless practice that mimics the old sacrificial practices that are specifically rejected in Hebrews 10.
 
Thomas,

... So where does Jesus (The Founder) authorize the Church to perform (on a daily basis and on a large scale) rituals that serve to accomplish a remission of sins?
Matthew 16:19?

At face value, Paul seems to be telling us that Jesus would not need the Church to perform sacrificial rituals. Yet you seem to maintain that he authorized it. Do you see the contradiction?
But that's the problem with face value, isn't it?

Matthew 16:24
"Then Jesus said to his disciples: If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me."

Matthew 10:38
"And he that taketh not up his cross, and followeth me, is not worthy of me."

Matthew 11:29-30
"Take up my yoke upon you, and learn of me, because I am meek, and humble of heart: and you shall find rest to your souls. For my yoke is sweet and my burden light."

See also Mark 8:34 and Luke 9:23, Luke 14:27 ...

If the Cross was a literally and temporally a 'one-time event', then any sin committed after the event would require another act of expiation ... but the Mysteries of the Church are not 'one-time events' in the literal and temporal sense because they are in the eternal and thus atemporal, thus they are 'ever-present events' and as such is a Mystery which, in the spirit and in the flesh, one can enter into ...

But the real issue is:
when are you going to give up trying to outwit the Church?

It's a fruitless endeavour, it really is, I dare say better minds than yours have tried and failed, and even if I fail in my attempts to defend Her, the fault is mine, not Hers; your victory is over me, not the Church.

Thomas
 
Matthew 16:19?
It reads:
I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."
There is no mention of the Apostles or the church being authorized to perform rituals in order to accomplish a remission of sins.
 
Matthew 16:24
"Then Jesus said to his disciples: If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me."

Matthew 10:38
"And he that taketh not up his cross, and followeth me, is not worthy of me."

Matthew 11:29-30
"Take up my yoke upon you, and learn of me, because I am meek, and humble of heart: and you shall find rest to your souls. For my yoke is sweet and my burden light."
I have no idea why you cite these scriptures. Again, there is no mention of the Apostles or the church being authorized to perform rituals that accomplish a remission of sins.

Please cite a scripture that is directly relevant to the claim made by the Church that is authorized by the Founder to make "the one self-same sacrifice of the Cross." (See my Post #60)

 
Netti, I'm not suggesting you aren't Catholic. I am suggesting that the presentation of consubstantiation is a koan, like SG thinks it is. For some reason it is important. Why it is important I'm not sure, but the answer lies in either the doctrine or the history of the church. It was instituted to jump over some hurdle, to preserve something, to somehow out-manipulate the Roman governors, or to outmanipulate the original church bishops. Whatever the reason for the koan, it filters people.

Either it filters who joins the church or it sorts them as they enter. You, Netti, are a certain type of coin and will only go through this 'koan slot' (coin slot) in a certain way. You have been classified by it. I also can only pass it in a certain way, so I am also classified as I pass by. The way I respond tells you some thing about me. That classification tells the church what I think, who I am and what actions to expect from me.
Well Dream, would you like to hear what this koan means to me? :D
{I'll tell you, whether you want to hear it or not. :p}

At the last supper, Jesus said that it was to be done "in remembrance of Me."
Luke 22:19
19 And He took bread, gave thanks, broke it, gave it to them, and said, "This is My body, (T) which is given for you. Do this in remembrance (U) of Me."​
What does this make me remember about Jesus that gives us life?

In the "bread from heaven" parable at John 6:63, Jesus said,
63 The Spirit (BY) is the One who gives life. The flesh doesn't help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.​
What is it that Jesus did to heal "fleshly problems?" He said, "Your sins are forgiven!" (Mark 2:5, 10) The forgiveness of sins healed the paralysis of the flesh! "Eating the metaphorical flesh" of the Son of Man reminds me to freely forgive sins as Jesus did, to allow people to not become paralyzed by their flesh. "Drinking the blood" of the Son of Man reminds me that we have to die to this earthly, materialistic life in order to be raised to a spiritual life. We have to repent from our sins.

That's how I remember Jesus. Repentance and forgiveness. That's how the Spirit gives life.
 
See also Mark 8:34 and Luke 9:23, Luke 14:27 ...
These passages are redundant and add nothing to an analysis of the issue at hand. They are irrelevant to the question I raised about an institutional practice -- namely, ritual sacrifice -- in the face of Scripture that clearly rejects such practice.

even if I fail in my attempts to defend Her, the fault is mine, not Hers; your victory is over me, not the Church.
Thomas, I'm not interested in a victory. I'm only interested in the truth. If the truth is not on the Church's side, it requires no effort on my part to weaken its place in the world.

Further, it is of no interest to me to see the Church's stature and potential weakened. What you are seeing in these discussions is actually my way of grieving for the Church. I'm crying.
 
I have no idea why you cite these scriptures.

So it would seem. The question then is do you seek the meaning, or simply an affirmation of what you bring to the text?

Matthew 13:13
"Therefore I speak to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand."

Jeremiah 5:21
"Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not."

Isaiah 6:9-10
"And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear you indeed, but understand not; and see indeed, but perceive not ... "

John 15:5
"I am the vine: you the branches: he that abideth in me, and I in him, the same beareth much fruit: for without me you can do nothing."

I suggest the Sacraments are the means by which one can come to abide in Christ
John 14:18
"I will not leave you orphans, I will come to you."

John 6:35
"And Jesus said to them: I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall not hunger: and he that believeth in me shall never thirst."

Luke 22:19
"And taking bread, he gave thanks, and brake; and gave to them, saying: This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me."

Luke 24;30-31
"And it came to pass, whilst he was at table with them, he took bread, and blessed, and brake, and gave to them. And their eyes were opened, and they knew him... "

+++

Now At the Last Supper the word for remembrance is anamnesis:

In Plato's Meno, Socrates is challenged with what has become known as the sophistic paradox, or the paradox of knowledge:
Meno: "And how are you going to search for [the meaning of a mystery] when you don't know at all what it is, Socrates? Which of all the things you don't know will you set up as target for your search? And even if you actually come across it, how will you know that it is that thing which you don't know?"

In other words, if you don't know any of the attributes, properties, and/or other descriptive markers of any kind that help signify what something is (physical or otherwise), you won't recognise it, even if you actually come across it. And, as consequence, if the converse is true, and you do know the attributes, properties and/or other descriptive markers of this thing, then you shouldn't need to seek it out at all. The result of this line of thinking is that, in either instance, there is no point trying to gain that "something"; in the case of Plato's aforementioned work, there is no point in seeking knowledge.

In Phaedo, Plato develops his theory of anamnesis in a way of living that would enable one to overcome the misleading nature of the body through katharsis (Greek: καθαρσις; “cleansing” from guilt or defilement). For Plato the body and its senses are the source of error; knowledge can only be regained through the use of our reason, contemplating things with the soul (noesis) (see 66 b–d).

Secondly, he makes clear that genuine knowledge (gnosis), as opposed to mere true belief (doxa), is distinguished by its content. One can only know eternal truths, for they are the only truths that can have been in the soul from eternity. Though it can be very useful to have a true belief about, say, the best way to get from London to Oxford, such a belief does not qualify as knowledge; how could the human soul have known for all eternity a fact about places that have existed for less than 2,000 years?

Neoplatonism
For the later interpreters of Plato, anamnesis was less an epistemic assertion than an ontological one. Plotinus himself did not posit recollection in the strict sense of the term, because all knowledge of universally important ideas (logos) came from a source outside of time (Dyad or the divine nous), and was accessible, by means of contemplation, to the soul as part of noesis. They were more objects of experience, of inner knowledge or insight, than of recollection. Despite this, in Neoplatonism, the theory of anamnesis became part of the mythology of the descent of the soul.

Porphyry's short work De Antro Nympharum (ostensibly a commentary on the brief passage in Odyssey) elucidated this notion, as did Macrobius's much longer Commentary on the Dream of Scipio. The idea of psychic memory was used by Neoplatonists to demonstrate the celestial and immaterial origins of the soul, and to explain how memories of the world-soul could be recalled by everyday human beings. As such, psychic recollection was intrinsically connected to the Platonic conception of the soul itself. Since the contents of individual "material" or physical memories were trivial, only the universal recollection of Forms, or divine objects, drew one closer to the immortal source of being.

Anamnesis is the closest that human minds can come to experiencing the freedom of the soul prior to its being encumbered by matter. The process of incarnation is described in Neoplatonism as a shock that causes the soul to forget its experiences (and often its divine origins as well).

Philosophical data from wikipedia

Christianity, of course, breaks with Platonism — I would say advances its knowledge, by virtue of Revelation — on a number of important points.

Primarily here, rather than recollecting forgotten memory — in the Christian Tradition souls are created natures and thus limited in their knowing even in their perfect state, but as Our Lord is the Logos of God, the divine nous incarnate, then when He enters the soul, the soul is filled with supernatural knowledge which transcends its natural capacity to know, and even transcends the sensible capacity to know what it knows ... this we call the beatific vision.

If Union with the Divine is the object of true philosophy, it is the property of the ascetic, for what is generally forgotten is that philosophy contained a very important and vital aspect: theurgy — the necessary ascetic disciplines to attain knowledge.

The flight of the alone to the Alone, as the Neoplatonists would have it, was simply beyond the capacity of most of humanity, who do not possess sufficient intellectual rigour and the will to self-discipline to attain such a state of asceticism, are a priori condemned to perdition — so too is the implicit message of the doctrine of Pelagius that Augustine refuted so strongly — for if Pelagius is right, then we are all lost ...

This is why the gnostics split humanity into pneumatics, psychics and hylics — only pneumatics are saved, psychics are saved by attachment to a pneumatic, and hylics, the vast majority of humanity, are irredeemably written off and lost.

If however, there is One who might establish a Sacrament, a sacred act which, if repeated or recollected in spirit and in truth, becomes sacred in itself by the union of that act with the One who instituted it. For the Ancients, even the utterance of the Divine Name was a sacramental act, as they believed that He who gave the Name is in the Name when the Name is uttered.

Now the obvious argument is that anamnesis means simply recollection, but two things should be born in mind: The one is that Our Lord established the Act of Remembrance, and He was no ordinary man; so the second is that, in remembering Him, in a sense in the act of the soul lifting itself toward Him, he comes to the soul.

So one might argue that the Sacraments of the Church are the Gift of God in that they enjoin the person to God, by the descent of God upon the person participating in the sacrament, which means every single living being can participate simply by the honest desire to do so, and that this Mystery of the Descent into the Soul transcends, to a super-natural degree, beyond even that of the communion of the most exalted mystic with God, for there is not one mystic of the Church who shows anything othger than the most profound reverence to the Rite.

Thomas
 
But the real issue is:
when are you going to give up trying to outwit the Church?

It's a fruitless endeavour, it really is, I dare say better minds than yours have tried and failed, and even if I fail in my attempts to defend Her, the fault is mine, not Hers; your victory is over me, not the Church.

Thomas
Namaste Thomas,

I wonder why it is called a broken record when it keeps playing over and over and over....we really wish it was broken.

Thomas, I love your discussion and your thoughts, but when you get sanctimonious it is just sickening.

The fact is, this is your belief. Any detractors or others that disagree you just don't buy their belief, no different than them not buying yours.

Truth is 1.2 billion Catholics....the only one and true religion. It amounts to a half the Christians in the world. Significant yes...but according to you it has been around the longest, the facts are on its side, it has all its ducks in a row...yet that other billion Christians rejects it, has a different understanding....and where do they come from...well the Catholic Church of course...they either left centuries ago to create a new denomination or they are leaving today to find another.

Now this is a guy who is in a scout troop that used to be 100% catholic, and now we are 60% protestant. (pissed a few off when we earn the Cardinal's troop Archdiocese award, we had to quit entering so some Cahtolics could win) So I talk to a number of Catholics...and if they are any indication about 70% of that 1.2 billion is only there by a thread...

And the reason, the reason is the attitude displayed in your last few posts in this discussion.

Nobody is trying to outwit the church, the church is doing that just fine themselves.
 
Seattlegal said:
That's how I remember Jesus. Repentance and forgiveness. That's how the Spirit gives life.
I will put that one in my pocket. It seems my memory of the NT been getting reorganized and is also getting old, so I cannot really comment upon what you are saying. I'm surprised that I've forgotten so much. What you are saying looks good to me though.
 
Namaste Thomas,
Do me and yourself a favour Wil, as you obviously don't mean it, so don't say it. It just underscores the hypocrisy of your comments.

At least Netti-Netti gathers her resources and offers an argument. You just wade in to derail the dialogue with insult and ridicule ... you used to have something to say.

I wonder why it is called a broken record when it keeps playing over and over and over....we really wish it was broken.
You mean any opinion is welcome, as long as it's yours?

Thomas, I love your discussion and your thoughts...
No, sadly, you don't. I think you just say that to impress yourself and others.

The fact is, this is your belief. Any detractors or others that disagree you just don't buy their belief, no different than them not buying yours.
And yet where I offer philosophy and theology as a reasoned and seasoned foundation of belief, you can respond with nothing but sophistry and bile.

A word of wisdom: If you can't think of anything constructive to say — best say nothing.

Nobody is trying to outwit the church, the church is doing that just fine themselves.
I rather think you've outwitted nothing but the falsehood of your 'unity' stance.

The one thing I will thank you for is a timely reminder why it's a waste of my time posting anything with a reasoned, philosophical foundation here ... what more should I expect?

Thomas
 
Now At the Last Supper the word for remembrance is anamnesis:
:)
ana= "in the midst, among, between."
mimneskomai= "to remind, to be mindful, to be remembered"

The ana part brings to mind this scripture:
Matt 18
Again, I assure you: If two of you on earth agree about any matter that you [p] pray for, it will be done for you [q] by My Father in heaven. 20 For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there among them."
So one might argue that the Sacraments of the Church are the Gift of God in that they enjoin the person to God, by the descent of God upon the person participating in the sacrament, which means every single living being can participate simply by the honest desire to do so, and that this Mystery of the Descent into the Soul transcends, to a super-natural degree, beyond even that of the communion of the most exalted mystic with God, for there is not one mystic of the Church who shows anything othger than the most profound reverence to the Rite.

Thomas
One could easily say "gathering" as easily as you could say "church" in this case. I especially appreciate the spontaneous gatherings. :)
 
Back
Top