Missionary Work In The After-Life

[cdowis]

We take Christ at His word -- the Eucharist is His Body.

And He is literally a door or a vine.

We accept it as a symbol of His sacrificed body and blood but I respectfully recognize that we have beliefs that you find very difficult, as well.

Edited September 21, 2012 by cdowis

[SamIam]

This brought up another question for me (ha, I'm full of questions for you LDS folk). How, according to the LDS view, is satan so powerful? In Catholicism, the angels are pure spiritual beings (of a different ontological type than us) whose intelligence and abilities are far beyond our own. An angel gone bad is going to be able to use the gifts God created him with for terrible consequences. The greater the initial ability, the greater the harm caused when that ability is used for evil.

I've done some cursory research on exorcisms and it appears that the fallen angels are very powerful indeed -- the know the thoughts and the past actions of the exorcist and try to use it against him, to confuse him and control him. Scary stuff to read and probably near unbelievable to experience.

A symbolism of how Satan's power works is found in Job:

Job 1:8-12

8 And the Lord said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my

a

servant

Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?

9 Then Satan answered the Lord, and said, Doth Job fear God for nought?

10 Hast not thou made an hedge about him, and about his house, and about all that he hath on every side? thou hast blessed the work of his hands, and his substance is increased in the land.

11 But put forth thine

a

hand

now, and touch all that he hath, and he will

b

curse

thee to thy face.

12 And the Lord said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath is in thy

a

power

; only upon himself put not forth thine hand. So Satan went forth from the presence of the Lord.

There is a "hedge" that God places around the righteous. Then, save for moments of trial and affliction to test his children, Satan is bounded by God's authority to only function according to the degrees that further God's work. That is the rule for the righteous.

For those that choose to be unrighteous, they must give themselves over to Satan by degrees, until he has them fully in his power. This giving over is accomplished by Satan tempting them and them choosing him. He is not permitted to wholesale exercise his destructive power independent of the constraints of heaven and agency but must abide by the boundaries God places on him. Were it not so, it would not be well with any of us.

There are different classes of angels. Spirits that have never had a body and serve Satan. Spirits that are yet to posses a body and serve God and Resurrected beings that serve God. Means of identifying them is discussed in the Doctrine and Covenants, though far more detail is provided in Josephs entries by those who where his scribes. Nonetheless, all angels have rules for their interactions with mortals be they good angels or bad.

[MiserereNobis]

Would a Catholic describe the Eucharist as sacrificing Christ afresh on the altar?

A properly catechized Catholic would describe the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass as that -- a Sacrifice. It is not sacrificing Christ "afresh," but is joining in the eternal (timeless) Sacrifice of the Cross. There is one Sacrifice, and it is on the Cross and on the altars.

Unfortunately, recently many Catholics are poorly catechized and view the Mass more as a supper than a sacrifice, but the sacrificial nature is clearly defined and is dogma. Please see the quote from the Catechism above.

[MiserereNobis]

Actually it is more. It is a re-enactment of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ---a totally unbiblical doctrine.

That is exactly what I meant and exactly what is shown in the Catechism quote I provided.

By the way, you are as stuck on the Bible as the end-all for all doctrines as Protestants are... you sure you're not an EV?

As an outsider, I have lots of issues with the way in which the Mass is conducted. They have taken the original Sacrament, and embellished it so the simplicity, spirituality, and beauty of the original is lost. They have also changed the doctrine from a simple act of memorial or remembrance of the sacrifice of Jesus to all kinds of unauthorized doctrines such as transsubstantiation and re-enactment of the Lord's sacrifice.

Which is why you are not Catholic, but Mormon

For me, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, in the traditional form, is an unbelievably beautiful event, appealing to all of our senses to lift us heavenward to the supernatural and holy. Polyphonic hymns, Gregorian chant, incense, bells, vestments, beautiful architecture... it all takes us to God. The Good, the True, and the Beautiful all raise us to God.

Personally, the Puritan nature of LDS meetings does not appeal to me, but of course I agree that personal aesthetics has little to do with truth. However, you did bring up your point of view that the LDS communion is beautiful, so I'm just adding mine.

[mfbukowski]

That is exactly what I meant and exactly what is shown in the Catechism quote I provided.

By the way, you are as stuck on the Bible as the end-all for all doctrines as Protestants are... you sure you're not an EV?

Which is why you are not Catholic, but Mormon

For me, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, in the traditional form, is an unbelievably beautiful event, appealing to all of our senses to lift us heavenward to the supernatural and holy. Polyphonic hymns, Gregorian chant, incense, bells, vestments, beautiful architecture... it all takes us to God. The Good, the True, and the Beautiful all raise us to God.

Personally, the Puritan nature of LDS meetings does not appeal to me, but of course I agree that personal aesthetics has little to do with truth. However, you did bring up your point of view that the LDS communion is beautiful, so I'm just adding mine.

We get that other stuff, and I think much more, in the temple.

[mfbukowski]

Oh boy! Extra credit questions:

Yes, as when stating a certain thing will happen or be the case in the future.

Yes, as when asking someone who knows the truth what the truth is.

[sounds like Bill Clinton]That depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is.

Completely, as when a particular cause or effect has its own cause and effect in each case.

Sometimes, and sometimes to corroborate what scientists think the truth is.

Richard Rorty, Contingency Irony and Solidarity p 5

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contingency,_Irony,_and_Solidarity

Calmoriah- you are going to like this!

To say that truth is not out there is simply to say that where there are no sentences there is no truth, that sentences are elements of human languages, and that human languages are human creations.

Truth cannot be out there - cannot exist independently of the human mind - because sentences cannot so exist, or be out there. The world is out there, but descriptions of the world are not. Only descriptions of the world can be true or false. The world on its own - unaided by the describing activities of human beings - cannot.

This takes on an amazing significance when we think of God as a human and language his gift to us from our Father, just as our human parents taught us to speak. It is the way we organize worlds, together with Him.

This is what God is, not some transcendent ontological, Platonic Form.

[MiserereNobis]

I am not sure if speaking about how diligent Catholic priests are at abstaining from sex is a good direction to take this.

Oh, mfb, this is beneath you.

[mfbukowski]

Miserere

What you are fighting really is the whole 2000 year history of philosophy in the West- Catholicism cannot exist without Neoplatonism- which justifies and makes all your doctrines "rational" from the Trinity to the Real Presence and the whole conflict inherent in turning a Platonic Form into a loving Father who hears and answers prayers.

There is no possible resolution there. You can either have a God who is transcendent or a God who is a Father, not both, and the conflict there is central and it's resolution has never been found or created. All you can do to resolve the paradox is to call it a "mystery" and go and eat lunch. There is no possible solution

On the other hand, we are on the winning side of the 2000 year history of Western philosophy- the tacit assumptions of American Pragmatism totally infuse our faith, and that philosophy is not even 2 HUNDRED years old, and is still strong and vital in various contemporary iterations like linguistic constructivism.

Even the atheists I have quoted differ from us not in philosophy, but in their misunderstanding of the nature of God. What they argue against is YOUR conception of an transcendent God, not our conception of an immanent, Perfected Human God.

We essentially worship the concept of the potential of humanity, while your worship is based in the depravity of mankind.

That is the precise difference between "humility" to us and "humility" to you. For us humility is about learning how to be better. For you humility is about your nothingness in comparison to God The Platonic Form of Goodness, which you can never approach.

Your Ideal is unapproachable while our Ideal is our Father, and we all want to grow up to be like our Fathers- don't we?

For us, all we have to do is learn how to become like him. For you, that is an impossibility because he has an Ineffible Divine Nature that is so far above us, we cannot even understand it.

Big difference.

[MiserereNobis]

Miserere

I think if you understand our sacrament service is only the "mass of the catechumens" it will make more sense.

Our temple worship is "the rest"- it involves us deeply and directly and personally in Christ's sacrifice for us.

That does make more sense to me. Thank you.

[mfbukowski]

Oh, mfb, this is beneath you.

I agree it was a cheap shot. I probably should not have said it. But the intention was to say something real about actually thinking that celibacy is ideal human behavior. It is not.

But I do apologize for putting it that way.

[mfbukowski]

That does make more sense to me. Thank you.

Good. Maybe we are making a little progress.

[MiserereNobis]

Mass

1. Procession of Priest, Scripture, and Cross to the altar.

2. Choir and congregation sing.

3. Opening Prayer ("Let us pray.") by priest.

4. 1st reading (short)

5. Chorister sings with congregation response.

6. 2nd reading (short)

7. Priest gives sermon

8 Eucharist begins

(singing, recitation/prayer (done by priest), passing eucharistic emblems (priest/lay members)

9. Closing prayer ("Let us pray.")

Yes, this is the "general" format of the new order of Mass. I readily admit that the focus on the Eucharist is more pronounced in the traditional order, which I attend.

LDS Sacrament

1. LDS priesthood make their way onto the stand. (No formal procession)

2. Opening Hymn

3. Opening prayer by member of congregation

4. 1st "talk" (longer than 1st reading)

5. Occasional special musical performance.

6. 2nd "talk" (longer than 1st reading)

7.Sacrament hymn, prayer (done by priesthood), and passing of sacramental emblems (by priesthood)

8. Closing prayer by member of congregation.

Doesn't the sacrament come after 3, before the talks?

[MiserereNobis]

I agree it was a cheap shot. I probably should not have said it. But the intention was to say something real about actually thinking that celibacy is ideal human behavior. It is not.

But I do apologize for putting it that way.

Thank you.

Often the ideal is not the most practical, as I think so in this case. The most practical is marriage, which is why Paul says it is better to marry than to burn (I know we differ on the interpretation of this). The ideal is consecration to the Lord, which in the western Church is required of priests, and western and eastern Churches is required of bishops. Religious orders require it as well, since the purpose of joining an order is to give one's self fully to God.

[zerinus]

That is exactly what I meant and exactly what is shown in the Catechism quote I provided.

Which is unscriptural. Paul tells us that the sacrifice of Jesus Christ needed to be offered once, not multiple times:

Hebrews 9:

25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;

26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

1 Peter 3:

18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

In mass, however, the priest literally sacrifices Christ an infinite number of times. That is false doctrine and contrary to revealed religion.

By the way, you are as stuck on the Bible as the end-all for all doctrines as Protestants are... you sure you're not an EV?

Don't forget that I am equally stuck in the Book of Mormon!

Which is why you are not Catholic, but Mormon

For me, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, in the traditional form, is an unbelievably beautiful event, appealing to all of our senses to lift us heavenward to the supernatural and holy. Polyphonic hymns, Gregorian chant, incense, bells, vestments, beautiful architecture... it all takes us to God. The Good, the True, and the Beautiful all raise us to God.

Personally, the Puritan nature of LDS meetings does not appeal to me, but of course I agree that personal aesthetics has little to do with truth. However, you did bring up your point of view that the LDS communion is beautiful, so I'm just adding mine.

Each to his own I suppose.

[MiserereNobis]

And He is literally a door or a vine.

We accept it as a symbol of His sacrificed body and blood but I respectfully recognize that we have beliefs that you find very difficult, as well.

Well, there are times in scripture when we take things literally and times when we take them figuratively. The LDS church and the Catholic Church both do this for different verses. You rely on your leadership to guide the interpretation, as we rely on ours (the Magisterium and Sacred Tradition).

At least we can both agree, unlike Protestants, that the Bible requires authoritative interpretation

[mfbukowski]

If three persons can be One God then an infinite number of sacrifices could be One Sacrifice I suppose.

I think that is essentially what Catholics believe- that the mass SHARES in the one sacrifice- like it's a part of the whole.

But don't quote me on it

It's not all that different than us being One with Christ, as in John 17. I don't think anyone is counting how many that makes which equals One.

Edited September 21, 2012 by mfbukowski

[MiserereNobis]

In mass, however, the priest literally sacrifices Christ an infinite number of times. That is false doctrine and contrary to revealed religion.

No, there is only One Sacrifice. The Sacrifice of the Cross and the Sacrifice of the altars are one. It is a protestant misrepresentation of the Mass to say that we crucify Christ over and over again. His Sacrifice was eternal and the Mass is a re-presentation of that (not a representation) and re-creation of it. It makes it present to us.

From the Catechism, in answer to the question "What is This Sacrament called?":

1330 The memorial of the Lord's Passion and Resurrection.

The Holy Sacrifice, because it makes present the one sacrifice of Christ the Savior and includes the Church's offering. the terms holy sacrifice of the Mass, "sacrifice of praise," spiritual sacrifice, pure and holy sacrifice are also used, since it completes and surpasses all the sacrifices of the Old Covenant.

And again, further on:

1364 In the New Testament, the memorial takes on new meaning. When the Church celebrates the Eucharist, she commemorates Christ's Passover, and it is made present the sacrifice Christ offered once for all on the cross remains ever present

1366 The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial and because it applies its fruit:

[Christ], our Lord and God, was once and for all to offer himself to God the Father by his death on the altar of the cross, to accomplish there an everlasting redemption. But because his priesthood was not to end with his death, at the Last Supper "on the night when he was betrayed," [he wanted] to leave to his beloved spouse the Church a visible sacrifice (as the nature of man demands) by which the bloody sacrifice which he was to accomplish once for all on the cross would be re-presented, its memory perpetuated until the end of the world, and its salutary power be applied to the forgiveness of the sins we daily commit.

1367 The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: "The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different." "In this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner."

I know you disagree with these statements, obviously, but I'm asking you to present Catholic doctrine according to the Catholics, not according to the Protestants' distortions of our beliefs. We do not believe that Christ is being sacrificed over and over.

[mfbukowski]

Words.

What a mess they cause.

People kill each other over this stuff.

[Ahab]

Words.

What a mess they cause.

People kill each other over this stuff.

And yet we're told man doesn't live by bread alone but by every word of God.

In life or death we're always going to go on existing. I would prefer to live like God lives, whatever that's called.

[mfbukowski]

I have no clue what "makes present" means. Does a video make things present? Does a play? What else in human experience is "made present"? If there is nothing, how is one to attach a meaning or a context to this phrase? What is it like to make something "present"?

And how does the nature of man demand such a thing when it is not understandable?

I suppose it takes a Catholic to understand it and I am not one. Apparently for a reason.

Edited September 22, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Calm]

Calmoriah- you are going to like this!

You are right.

[Calm]

Doesn't the sacrament come after 3, before the talks?

It is in every meeting I've been to.

[ed2276]

Doesn't the sacrament come after 3, before the talks?

Yes. I was trying to demonstrate that the content of the services generally matched up, and so put the LDS sacrament out of order beside the Eucharist.

[zerinus]

No, there is only One Sacrifice. The Sacrifice of the Cross and the Sacrifice of the altars are one. It is a protestant misrepresentation of the Mass to say that we crucify Christ over and over again. His Sacrifice was eternal and the Mass is a re-presentation of that (not a representation) and re-creation of it. It makes it present to us.

It is a sacrifice. That is how it is defined in the Catechism. Around four years ago I wrote a piece in my Blog about this which explains it as well as I could. You can read it here.

[MiserereNobis]

It is a sacrifice. That is how it is defined in the Catechism. Around four years ago I wrote a piece in my Blog about this which explains it as well as I could. You can read it here.

I did not deny it was a sacrifice and I quoted the same passages from the Catechism as you do in your blog. Yes, I agree many Catholics are poorly catechized and do not realize the doctrine that it is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass (the new order of the Mass has much to do with this -- in the traditional rite, it is much more explicit).

I agree 100% with the person who commented on your blog:

You're right! The Mass is a sacrafice... but not just 'a' sacrafice, but 'the' sacrafice. Singular. Every Mass is a re-presentation of the one sacrafice on calvary. You are purposely being disingenuous; you frequent CA forums too much to be ingnorant of this subject. Not to mention the tortured (at best) reading of the catechism.

Nothing to see here, folks.

Move along!

It is THE sacrifice, not A sacrifice. It is singular. The Catechism clearly states that, the Church has clearly taught that, and I find it ridiculous that a Mormon would come along and try to tell us Catholics how to interpret our own Catechism and our own doctrine... wait, aren't Mormons always upset at EVs for doing that?

As I said above, you may disagree with this doctrine (obviously), but you need to present it correctly and not as a straw-man. Do not use Protestant misrepresentations. We do not sacrifice Christ "over and over anew." The Mass participates in the one eternal sacrifice of the Cross and makes it present to us. At the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, we are at the foot of the Cross, looking up in sorrow, adoration, and thanksgiving for what God is accomplishing for us on the Cross.