The Cross

[Calm]

56 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

What symbol would be appropriate to wear as a remembrance of the resurrection and the atonement? 

Any symbol chosen imo.  Symbols are about imposed meaning, not something inherent to them.

Edited June 29, 2019 by Calm

[Calm]

44 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

It’s more of a “just because” cultural rule than anything. 

I think it has been moved into a more proactive rejection given what recent prophets have said about our lives being our chosen symbol of our faith where others have chosen the cross (this doesn't rule out also choosing one's life to be a symbol of commitment to being a disciple of Christ).

Edited June 29, 2019 by Calm

[MustardSeed]

17 minutes ago, Calm said:

I think it has been moved into a more proactive rejection given what recent prophets have said about our lives being our chosen symbol of our faith where others have chosen the cross (this doesn't rule out also choosing one's life to be a symbol of commitment to being a disciple of Christ).

Yes I think you are right about that. 

[Jane_Doe]

2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

But this isn't about devotion to God or belief in Christ or belief in the atonement. This is specifically about "the cross." To use your example, I wouldn't dismiss your devotion to your family because you didn't have any pictures of them. However, if you told me that pictures of your family are super important to you, but then I didn't see any of those pictures, I would certainly question that.

That's what's going on here (and maybe that's where we are all talking past each other). I'm reacting to the claim that the cross is significant for LDS. As far as I can see it is not significant at all. However, I readily and easily admit that the sacrifice of Christ is significant. Those are two different yet related things.

And I don't think I'm splitting hairs here since the topic of this thread is "the cross" and the recent discussion has been about how the cross is significant to LDS. If we're talking about the cross, I just don't see it. If we're talking about the atonement of Christ, well, that's not the direct subject of this thread and discussion.

Anybody who knows me at work knows I love my family and I love God-- I talk about them lot with much enthusiasm and love.  My desk doesn't have to be decorated to somehow "prove" my love to them.  I don't need to have a decorative picture of my daughter on my desk to "prove" I love her, nor do I need a decorative picture of a cross to "prove" I love God.  That's my point.

 

If your point was simply to talk about the importance of external decorations (separated from the symbolism/meaning/significance, just the decoration itself as a decoration ).... yeah LDS Christians don't put a lot of emphasis there.    Certainly a lot less than iconography heavy faiths like Catholic Christians and Orthodox Christians.  LDS Christians don't do a lot of outward displays of inward devotions.  

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Yes I think you are right about that. 

I should mention I also think there is more accommodation of converts and members who do choose to wear them.  It is assumed imo that it is for sentimental reasons in most cases rather than as a declaration of faith.  Used to hear a lot of stories about missionaries and others instructing investigators and converts to get rid of their crosses.  Probably still happens, but hopefully not as much or as insistent as I have heard of in the past.

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

LDS Christians don't put a lot of emphasis there.    Certainly a lot less than iconography heavy faiths like Catholic Christians and Orthodox Christians.  LDS Christians don't do a lot of outward displays of inward devotions.  

I like to view it as our daily language is more verbal as opposed to visual, but there is still bowing our heads and folding arms, a ritualistic movement (accompanied by words of course) we may do several times a day  as well as pictures in our buildings and leaders encouraging and providing many options of art for reminders.  Garments are external, but perhaps not "displays".

[MiserereNobis]

50 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Explain to me how it becomes a sacrifice if if transubstantiation is true. The Eucharist bread becomes the body of Christ. Let's stipulate that. Where's the sacrifice?

Here’s a good succinct article for you:

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/is-the-mass-a-sacrifice

 

[mfbukowski]

27 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Here’s a good succinct article for you:

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/is-the-mass-a-sacrifice

 

Thanks for the explanation of what you believe, and the reference.

[MustardSeed]

2 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

LDS Christians don't do a lot of outward displays of inward devotions.  

Not in the form of crosses, but we spend some cash on our lds artwork and we wear garments. 

I was wondering why these and not the cross.  There appears to be no formal answer, just opinions, which is fine. 

[Calm]

27 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

spend some cash on our lds artwork

There are even a few more symbolic artworks offered in the online store as opposed to the more realistic prints or photos that most church artwork is, though it is more nonliteral interpretation as opposed to purely symbolic art. Thry still doesn’t need a title if you are familiar with the topics.

It would be nice if this was a new direction as I don’t remember much of this in the past as a wRd librarian. 

https://store.lds.org/ProductDisplay?top_category5=&top_category4=&top_category3=&urlRequestType=Ajax&productId=3074457345616680978&catalogId=3074457345616676768&top_category2=&categoryId=3074457345616681771&errorViewName=ProductDisplayErrorView&urlLangId=-1&langId=-1&top_category=&parent_category_rn=3074457345616681768&storeId=10151

If that doesn’t work, it’s Lehi exhorting his posterity. Also Tree of Life:

https://store.lds.org/ProductDisplay?top_category5=&top_category4=&top_category3=&urlRequestType=Ajax&productId=3074457345616683492&catalogId=3074457345616676768&top_category2=&categoryId=3074457345616681771&errorViewName=ProductDisplayErrorView&urlLangId=-1&langId=-1&top_category=&parent_category_rn=3074457345616681768&storeId=10151

This is not a style I ever expected to see in the Church distribution store.  Makes me happy....Smell of a kiss.  Not sure why it is under Church History.

https://store.lds.org/ProductDisplay?top_category5=&top_category4=&top_category3=&urlRequestType=Ajax&productId=3074457345616683357&catalogId=3074457345616676768&top_category2=3074457345616681768&categoryId=3074457345616681774&errorViewName=ProductDisplayErrorView&urlLangId=-1&langId=-1&top_category=&parent_category_rn=3074457345616681768&storeId=10151

Here is another surprising one...The Atonement.

https://store.lds.org/ProductDisplay?top_category5=&top_category4=&top_category3=&urlRequestType=Ajax&productId=3074457345616683354&catalogId=3074457345616676768&top_category2=3074457345616681768&categoryId=3074457345616681776&errorViewName=ProductDisplayErrorView&urlLangId=-1&langId=-1&top_category=&parent_category_rn=3074457345616681768&storeId=10151

Edited June 30, 2019 by Calm

[Calm]

I have the Cross on my bedroom wall now I think of it (I didn’t miss the Cross symbolism, it is the Tree of Life and the Light of the sword that speak to me, rather than its shape so I have to look at it to think “oh yeah, the Cross).

https://www.ldsart.com/cherubim-and-a-flaming-sword

 

[MustardSeed]

35 minutes ago, Calm said:

There are even a few more symbolic artworks offered in the online store as opposed to the more realistic prints or photos that most church artwork is, though it is more nonliteral interpretation as opposed to purely symbolic art. Thry still doesn’t need a title if you are familiar with the topics.

It would be nice if this was a new direction as I don’t remember much of this in the past as a wRd librarian. 

https://store.lds.org/ProductDisplay?top_category5=&top_category4=&top_category3=&urlRequestType=Ajax&productId=3074457345616680978&catalogId=3074457345616676768&top_category2=&categoryId=3074457345616681771&errorViewName=ProductDisplayErrorView&urlLangId=-1&langId=-1&top_category=&parent_category_rn=3074457345616681768&storeId=10151

If that doesn’t work, it’s Lehi exhorting his posterity. Also Tree of Life:

https://store.lds.org/ProductDisplay?top_category5=&top_category4=&top_category3=&urlRequestType=Ajax&productId=3074457345616683492&catalogId=3074457345616676768&top_category2=&categoryId=3074457345616681771&errorViewName=ProductDisplayErrorView&urlLangId=-1&langId=-1&top_category=&parent_category_rn=3074457345616681768&storeId=10151

This is not a style I ever expected to see in the Church distribution store.  Makes me happy....Smell of a kiss.  Not sure why it is under Church History.

https://store.lds.org/ProductDisplay?top_category5=&top_category4=&top_category3=&urlRequestType=Ajax&productId=3074457345616683357&catalogId=3074457345616676768&top_category2=3074457345616681768&categoryId=3074457345616681774&errorViewName=ProductDisplayErrorView&urlLangId=-1&langId=-1&top_category=&parent_category_rn=3074457345616681768&storeId=10151

Here is another surprising one...The Atonement.

https://store.lds.org/ProductDisplay?top_category5=&top_category4=&top_category3=&urlRequestType=Ajax&productId=3074457345616683354&catalogId=3074457345616676768&top_category2=3074457345616681768&categoryId=3074457345616681776&errorViewName=ProductDisplayErrorView&urlLangId=-1&langId=-1&top_category=&parent_category_rn=3074457345616681768&storeId=10151

Wow.  The Kiss print is such a departure from the typical stuff we’ve seen at DB.  The Atonement is beautiful. 

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

I have the Cross on my bedroom wall now I think of it (I didn’t miss the Cross symbolism, it is the Tree of Life and the Light of the sword that speak to me, rather than its shape so I have to look at it to think “oh yeah, the Cross).

https://www.ldsart.com/cherubim-and-a-flaming-sword

 

Not to mention the circle and four right angles symbolizing the world and four directions among other things.  Great piece of art!  There is the eternal universe right there.

[Joshua Valentine]

6 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Yes Mommy I will try to remember. I am terribly embarrassed. The only reason I even commented was to support Teddy. He was right. Board nannying is also prohibited.

 

My bad mfbukowski.  I did not mean to use the second-person as specifically you, mfbukowski, and come off as pointing my finger, but as a more general ¨LDS who may want to use Temple claims to make points when they cannot be substantiated¨. I meant it as an exploration of reasonable discussion, not in any way a claim to righteous authority and condemnation.

Back to the topic. In what way are you saying that Teddy ¨was right¨? That LDS do not wear the Cross as a symbol because it is sacred? or that:

 

On 4/20/2019 at 8:28 AM, teddyaware said:

the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints places more symbolic importance and salvative efficacy on the symbolism of Christ’s crucifixion than does any other Christian church.

Thanks.

[Bernard Gui]

20 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

I'm not claiming you [plural LDS] are lying about what happens in the temple. My pushback is against teddyaware's claim that the cross has greater significance in the LDS church than in any other Christian church. He's making a comparison here. Please admit that that is a very bold claim since the LDS church doesn't use crosses in anything public, including one the outside of temples. Contrast that to Catholicism, where we literally cross ourselves every time we do anything religious, where our churches are covered, both inside and out, with crosses, where it is liturgically required to have a crucifix on the altar because the Eucharist is the literally reenactment of the crucifixion, where the priest becomes an "alter Christus", another Christ," during the consecration of the Eucharist -- it is Christ offering Himself up again. The cross and crucifix are literally EVERYWHERE in Catholic thought, prayer, architecture, liturgy, theology, music, etc, etc.

So again, it is a bold and extraordinary claim that the cross is more significant for LDS when I do not see a cross anywhere publicly. I'll take your word for it that crucifixion and its symbolism are everywhere inside the temple. But that is only a part of your religion. The rest of your religion is what is public and from what I see there are basically no crosses there, but instead the existence of a taboo against the symbolism of the cross.

To restate: my core issue isn't whether or not there are crosses in the temple liturgy. It is the claim that the cross is more important to LDS than other Christians. I find that hard to believe for the reasons stated above.

ETA:

I didn't see or hear anything about a cross the times I have attended sacrament meeting. How is the cross preeminent when it is absent?

I think the Catholic veneration of the cross is commendable, but it’s sad we tally crosses to measure our comparative Christianness. I’m not Interested in that endeavor. Teddyaware must speak for himself.

The point of my OP was to show where and how LDS refer to the cross in our most sacred ordinance. I will amend it in the future to include reference to the temple where it is the heart of the endowment and sealing ordinances and covenants. I don’t think anything can be gained by debating who loves the cross the most. What counts most is how we keep the Two Great Commandments.

Edited June 30, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

11 hours ago, Stargazer said:

But it is not seen.

Now faith is the assurance that what we hope for will come about and the certainty that what we cannot see exists.

[Bernard Gui]

20 hours ago, Calm said:

I have been wracking my brain trying to think of a direct reference to a cross outside of what happened on the Cross.  Thank you for confirming my impression.  A cross is not on clothing though there are other marks, we do not move to form a cross.  There are many references to Christ's death, imo, verbal references and things that might lead us to think of the Cross but use of a cross itself as it seen throughout Catholic and many other Christian faiths....not seeing that myself either, Stargazer.

 

Numerous works of art and videos depicting the crucifixion are available plus the Christus statues, although there are far items more available for the Resurrection...which is reinforces the notion that LDS emphasize the risen Christ.

What do we think of this?.....

”Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments”

When do we cross the line?

Edited June 30, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

23 hours ago, Joshua Valentine said:

 

My bad mfbukowski.  I did not mean to use the second-person as specifically you, mfbukowski, and come off as pointing my finger, but as a more general ¨LDS who may want to use Temple claims to make points when they cannot be substantiated¨. I meant it as an exploration of reasonable discussion, not in any way a claim to righteous authority and condemnation.

Back to the topic. In what way are you saying that Teddy ¨was right¨? That LDS do not wear the Cross as a symbol because it is sacred? or that:

 

Thanks.

All endowed members wear sacred symbols 24/7. They are constant and  intimate reminders of the crucifixion and Atonement of Jesus and our commitments to Him. Faithful but unendowed Saints aspire to wear them as they prepare to make sacred covenants in the temple. They are at the heart of our faith. What more is needed?   

Edited July 1, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[mfbukowski]

20 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Here’s a good succinct article for you:

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/is-the-mass-a-sacrifice

 

Of course the OT was written in Hebrew, and then that was translated into Greek, but the words Jesus spoke were in Aramaic 

Do you think these allusions made it through translations? And it doesn't bother you that the comments by the Church Fathers seemed to be quite late, and therefore removed from the apostles?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_languages

Quote

The very first translation of the Hebrew Bible was into Greek. This is known as the Septuagint (LXX), which later became the received text of the Old Testament in the Catholic church and the basis of its canon. This began sometime in the 2nd or 3rd century BC, with the first portion of the Hebrew Bible, the Torah, being translated into Koine Greek. Over the next century, other books were translated (or composed) as well. This translation became known as the Septuagint and was widely used by Greek-speaking Jews, and later by Christians. It differs somewhat from the later standardized Hebrew (Masoretic Text). This translation was promoted by way of a legendthat seventy separate translators all produced identical texts.

In the same spirit, the author of the article says this:

Quote

 So the same word that is used for the sacrifice under the Old Covenant is used for the sacrifice of the Mass in the New.

But they were written in two different languages so how can they be the "same word"? It is also said that that the translation of the Greek is "do this" or "offer this", and it seems only to imply "sacrifice".  (As in "do this in memory of me"- does not mention "sacrifice")

I don't know.  I just don't think the article presents a strong argument.   But as I said, I honor your beliefs and beliefs are rarely about logical arguments- they are about acting in faith.

 

Edited June 30, 2019 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

13 hours ago, Joshua Valentine said:

 

My bad mfbukowski.  I did not mean to use the second-person as specifically you, mfbukowski, and come off as pointing my finger, but as a more general ¨LDS who may want to use Temple claims to make points when they cannot be substantiated¨. I meant it as an exploration of reasonable discussion, not in any way a claim to righteous authority and condemnation.

Back to the topic. In what way are you saying that Teddy ¨was right¨? That LDS do not wear the Cross as a symbol because it is sacred? or that:

 

Thanks.

No problem- the way I was taking it, it just did not seem like a comment from you- but I see now that your intent was not the way I interpreted it.

Regarding Teddy, I was merely pointing out to other members that he had a point.   No, we do not wear it because it is too sacred, we do not wear it because of odd customs promulgated in the 1950's.  Before that the cross was used about as much as in any other Christian group.  

And since you have suggested that it is senseless to discuss the temple rites, I won't go there.  This is not about winning a senseless argument which is ultimately a ....$%& .. contest of no importance.  

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

All endowed members wear sacred symbols 24/7. They are constant intimate reminders of the crucifixion and Atonement of Jesus. Faithful but unendowed Saints aspire to wear them as they prepare to make sacred covenants in the temple. What more is needed?  They are at the heart of our faith. 

Yes this is it, well said considering what can and cannot be said.  But again, it is not going to convince anyone who has not been in the temple.

Oh well, that's ok with me.  We do get to talk to each other, if others don't understand the culture then so be it.

[3DOP]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Of course the OT was written in Hebrew, and then that was translated into Latin and then that was translated into Greek

Do you think these allusions made it through all three languages?  And it doesn't bother you that the comments by the Church Fathers seemed to be quite late, and therefore removed from the apostles?

Hi Mark.

Good questions.

Prior to the conversion of of the Empire to Christianity, the Church was definitely guided by a spirit of reluctance to share its most precious mysteries. This would be reflected by its well-known division of the sacred liturgy in to the "Mass of the Catechumens", for those seeking intitiation in to the faith, and the "Mass of the Faithful", which was strictly reserved for those who had been initiated in to the sublime truths of the realities of the "breaking of the bread" as it is called in the Book of Acts. 

"Our Lord had said: 'Give not that which is holy to dogs; neither cast ye your pearls before swine.' These words, contained in principle, the discipline of secrecy, which was observed in the Church till the conversion of the western world was completed. The holiness of the Sacraments, the sublimity of the Christian doctrines, necessitated an extreme reserve on the part of the faithful, living amongst people whose moral degradation and brutal corruption were such as our Saviour had foretold. But it was most of all imperative to hide from the stare and sacrilege of pagans the most holy Eucharist, that 'great pearl of the sacred Body of the Lamb,' as Venantius Fortunatus calls it...the eucharistic mystery, the arcanum by excellence, was, even then, kept back from the fortunate candidates for holy Baptism. This explains the varied precautional expressions, the reticence, the studied obscurity of phraseology used by the fathers in their discourses to their flock, and this for years after the times of Constantine and Theodosius." (emphasis mine, in the original, only the word "arcanum" was italicized, not the entire text.)

----The Liturgical Year, Dom Prosper Gueranger O.S.B., Vol. 10, Time After Pentecost, Book I, instruction from the Tuesday before the Feast of Corpus Christi, pp. 157, 158, St. Bonaventure Publications, July 2000

The relative silence of the Church on this subject of the Eucharist in the centuries of persecution notwithstanding, very early witnesses apparently understood the prophecy of Malachi as referring to sacrifice in association with what we now call, the Mass. These would include the Didache in the first century, Sts. Justin Martyr and Irenaeus in the second century, and St. Cyprian of Carthage in the 3rd Century (Cyprian does not mention Malachi specifically, the earlier witnesses do). Whether current Catholic translations of Malachi are the most precise or not, it appears that they are consistent with how the early church understood the prophecy of Malachi. I am more concerned to know what the early church taught and believed about Malachi's words, than whether biblical scholarship can make us have doubt that the translations are the best. I doubt if Malachi knew how the Church would interpret his words. But it seems certain he had to know that his words pointed to a future scenario where the Jewish sacrifice or oblation or offering or whatever word he would have preferred, became obsolete, in favor of the oblation, offering, or sacrifice of the Gentiles, where a more acceptable [insert word of choice], was made. 

I doubt if we Catholics can be sure what the non-Catholic is even thinking if we argue with them about whether the Mass is a sacrifice. Call it what you like. The Mass is the fulfillment of the prophecy of Malachi according to what the early Church believed.

-----------------

For Your Information: I am intrigued about the book you mentioned somewhere by this Dr. Peter Tyler, who I don't know, that links Wittgenstein and St. Teresa of Avila! Wow. My son-in-law has just finished his Ph.D. thesis on a well-known (to Italians) Italian poet of the early 19th Century, named Giacomo Leopardi. His proposition is that this obviously not Catholic poet, was in many respects, not what future generations of Italians claimed, a proto-Marxist who only opposed the established Christian order. I suspect that like Wittgenstein, Leopardi was a free thinker, exposed to Catholicism, who never really understood it very well, but had inspirations that should not be rejected by faithful Catholics just because he appears to be non-Catholic. I haven't read Martino's paper yet, but I am wondering if I could look at Wittgenstein like Martino seems to look at Leopardi.

Regards,

Rory

Edited June 30, 2019 by 3DOP

[mfbukowski]

10 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

Hi Mark.

Good questions.

Prior to the conversion of of the Empire to Christianity, the Church was definitely guided by a spirit of reluctance to share its most precious mysteries. This would be reflected by its well-known division of the sacred liturgy in to the "Mass of the Catechumens", for those seeking intitiation in to the faith, and the "Mass of the Faithful", which was strictly reserved for those who had been initiated in to the sublime truths of the realities of the "breaking of the bread" as it is called on the Book of Acts. 

"Our Lord had said: 'Give not that which is holy to dogs; neither cast ye your pearls before swine.' These words, contained in principle, the discipline of secrecy, which was observed in the Church till the conversion of the western world was completed. The holiness of the Sacraments, the sublimity of the Christian doctrines, necessitated on extreme reserve on the part of the faithful, living amongst people whose moral degradation and brutal corruption were such as our Saviour had foretold. But it was most of all imperative to hide from the stare and sacrilege of pagans the most holy Eucharist, that 'great pearl of the sacred Body of the Lamb,' as Venantius Fortunatus calls it...the eucharistic mystery, the arcanum by excellence, was, even then, kept back from the fortunate candidates for holy Baptism. This explains the varied precautional expressions, the reticence, the studied obscurity of phraseology used by the fathers in their discourses to their flock, and this for years after the times of Constantine and Theodosius." (emphasis mine, in the original, only the word "arcanum" was italicized, not the entire text.)

----The Liturgical Year, Vol. 10, Time After Pentecost, Book I, instruction from the Tuesday before the Feast of Corpus Christi, pp. 158, 159, St. Bonaventure Publications, July 2000

The relative silence of the Church on this subject of the Eucharist in the centuries of persecution notwithstanding, very early witnesses apparently understood the prophecy of Malachi as referring to sacrifice in association with what we now call, the Mass. These would include the Didache in the first century, Sts. Justin Martyr and Irenaeus in the second century, and St. Cyprian of Carthage in the 3rd Century (Cyprian does not mention Malachi specifically, the earlier witnesses do). Whether current Catholic translations of Malachi are the most precise or not, it appears that they are consistent with how the early church understood the prophecy of Malachi. I am more concerned to know what the early church taught and believed about Malachi's words, than whether biblical scholarship can make us have doubt that the translations are the best. I doubt if Malachi knew how the Church would interpret his words. But it seems certain he had to know that his words pointed to a future scenario where the Jewish sacrifice or oblation or offering or whatever word he would have preferred, became obsolete, in favor of the oblation, offering, or sacrifice of the Gentiles, where a more acceptable [insert word of choice], was made. 

I doubt if we Catholics can be sure what the non-Catholic is even thinking if we argue with them about whether the Mass is a sacrifice. Call it what you like. The Mass is the fulfillment of the prophecy of Malachi according to what the early Church believed.

-----------------

For Your Information: I am intrigued about the book you mention by this Dr. Peter Tyler, who I don't know, that links Wittgenstein and St. Teresa of Avila! Wow. My son-in-law has just finished his Ph.D. thesis on a well-known (to Italians) Italian poet of the early 19th Century, named Giacomo Leopardi. His proposition is that this obviously not Catholic poet, was in many respects, not what future generations of Italians claimed, a proto-Marxist who only opposed the established Christian order. I suspect that like Wittgenstein, Leopardi was a free thinker, exposed to Catholicism, who never really understood it very well, but had inspirations that should not be rejected by faithful Catholics just because he appears to be non-Catholic. I haven't read Martino's paper yet, but I am wondering if I could look at Wittgenstein like Martino seems to look at Leopardi.

Regards,

Rory

God bless   

Good to see you!   Wow there's a lot in that post- blessed bovine! (Holy cow!)

We of course see the notion of the "Mass of the Catechumens" typically held in a separate building than in the cathedral or bascilica, sometimes called a "baptistry" as we see in some European cathedrals  as paralleling our distinction between chapels and the temple, and yes I am quite familiar with the principle.  There is a wonderful article on the similarities between how cathedrals are constructed and the design of temples- I am trying to remember the author, but cannot come up with the name at the moment.

Wittgenstein was in fact very sympathetic toward Catholicism in principle- he himself said that though he was not interested in organized religion he felt that he was VERY "religious" in his mode of thought, and indeed he was!  I just did a quick google search and found this article that might help you in your interest- there is a lot where this came from!  https://www.dominicanajournal.org/wittgenstein-and-the-eucharist/

I was a Wittgensteinian before I was LDS and actually found W. indispensable to having any "logical" religious understanding at all.  The key is his notion odf "language games" in which each intellectual discipline can be seen in having it's own "language" exactly because of different contexts

Essentially in his later years especially, due to his views on what language was capable and incapable of doing, it is argued, he became in some sense a "mystic" in seeing that language could not be a "mirror of reality" since obviously all language is symbolic!  In our minds, the word "chair" is paired with a thing we sit in, but words are NOT things, and there is always ambiguity even in the most simple ideas.  Think of the variety of objects one might call a "chair" and it becomes obvious.  So meaning is not based on words but on context- we interpret what kind of "chair" we are talking about from the context.  And contexts ARE what a "language game" is.

If you seriously interested in reading some later Wittgenstein I would suggest starting with Philosophical Investigations - and here is a pdf of the entire book!  https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bw-duXxYihdvWVlFaUhzclY5Vmc/view   Free!

Reading W is not like reading other philosophers- do not expect him to put forth arguments- except indirectly- or trying to "prove" his "doctrines"- instead he leads you to conclusions with thought experiments- it feels as though you are working through a "workbook" with someone who is helping you- along with himself- to find the answers.   People sometimes find that style difficult, when we want to get to the "conclusion" but what W teaches is not "ideas"- what he teaches is HOW TO THINK in the way he does.

I would really like to get into this with you but I have some questions about your post

Which specific "prophecy" of Malachi did you have in mind?

Who is Martino?

 

[3DOP]

57 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Good to see you!   Wow there's a lot in that post- blessed bovine! (Holy cow!)

We of course see the notion of the "Mass of the Catechumens" typically held in a separate building than in the cathedral or bascilica, sometimes called a "baptistry" as we see in some European cathedrals  as paralleling our distinction between chapels and the temple, and yes I am quite familiar with the principle.  There is a wonderful article on the similarities between how cathedrals are constructed and the design of temples- I am trying to remember the author, but cannot come up with the name at the moment.

Wittgenstein was in fact very sympathetic toward Catholicism in principle- he himself said that though he was not interested in organized religion he felt that he was VERY "religious" in his mode of thought, and indeed he was!  I just did a quick google search and found this article that might help you in your interest- there is a lot where this came from!  https://www.dominicanajournal.org/wittgenstein-and-the-eucharist/

I was a Wittgensteinian before I was LDS and actually found W. indispensable to having any "logical" religious understanding at all.  The key is his notion odf "language games" in which each intellectual discipline can be seen in having it's own "language" exactly because of different contexts

Essentially in his later years especially, due to his views on what language was capable and incapable of doing, it is argued, he became in some sense a "mystic" in seeing that language could not be a "mirror of reality" since obviously all language is symbolic!  In our minds, the word "chair" is paired with a thing we sit in, but words are NOT things, and there is always ambiguity even in the most simple ideas.  Think of the variety of objects one might call a "chair" and it becomes obvious.  So meaning is not based on words but on context- we interpret what kind of "chair" we are talking about from the context.  And contexts ARE what a "language game" is.

If you seriously interested in reading some later Wittgenstein I would suggest starting with Philosophical Investigations - and here is a pdf of the entire book!  https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bw-duXxYihdvWVlFaUhzclY5Vmc/view   Free!

Reading W is not like reading other philosophers- do not expect him to put forth arguments- except indirectly- or trying to "prove" his "doctrines"- instead he leads you to conclusions with thought experiments- it feels as though you are working through a "workbook" with someone who is helping you- along with himself- to find the answers.   People sometimes find that style difficult, when we want to get to the "conclusion" but what W teaches is not "ideas"- what he teaches is HOW TO THINK in the way he does.

I would really like to get into this with you but I have some questions about your post

Which specific "prophecy" of Malachi did you have in mind?

Who is Martino?

 

I was speaking of the whole book of Malachi as the only prophecy with which I am familiar. I meant all of the last book in the Old Testament for non-Catholics; Mal. 1:11 primarily, and other references in Catholic translations to "sacrifice" elsewhere in his short prophecy, if you will. I do not think we Catholics should insist to non-Catholics, that the English word "sacrifice", as used in English Catholic translations of Malachi are paramount. What is more important is if early witnesses connected the prophecy of Malachi about whatever word you prefer, sacrifice, oblation, or offering is fulfilled in the Eucharistic celebration called "breaking of bread" in the Acts of the Apostles.  

Sorry about Martino. Martino is my son-in-law who believes that the poet Leopardi, an apparent skeptic as to God and certainly not Catholic, has much to offer to Catholics who will consider his musings. If I understand him correctly, his doctoral thesis attempts to dispel some stereotypes about Leopardi, that would make him seem like an atheistic communist, that he believes are a twisting and misunderstanding of his poetry. I have an instinctive aversion to Wittgenstein as well as Leopardi, except that someone I know thinks that perhaps that their ideas are in many ways, compatible with, and possibly instructive for thoughtful Catholics. I know Leopardi's life a little. Pretty hard, and it shaped him. It sounds like Wittgenstein experienced some trials in his upbringing which was the same as his four brothers, three of whom are thought to have committed suicide. Maybe we need to consider the anguish and pain in souls that seem to reject the beliefs we who have not suffered what they have, hold dear. Job is our biblical example, and he was extraordinary in his suffering, placing it in the context of God's providence in this life. But what of those who do not so succeed in retaining faith while suffering? Are their reflections from a worldview of infidelity always insignificant for the faithful?

Anyway...maybe I shouldn't have brought up my son-in-law. I could have proposed the same ideas without making it personal. It is not improbable that somebody (me) just wanted people to know that "truck driver boy" and now, "factory boy", somehow raised a child that some smart guy wanted to marry. I was warning myself that I was tooting my horn. Why don't I always listen to my better self?

Monday looms, and first shift is at 0330. We get Thursday and Friday off. Hurrah. See you all then maybe.

Edited July 1, 2019 by 3DOP

[Bernard Gui]

4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Yes this is it, well said considering what can and cannot be said.  But again, it is not going to convince anyone who has not been in the temple.

Oh well, that's ok with me.  We do get to talk to each other, if others don't understand the culture then so be it.

True. I’m not that worried about convincing others. The Spirit does the convincing, IMO.

Edited July 1, 2019 by Bernard Gui