MiserereNobis Posted March 25, 2014 Posted March 25, 2014 Well, lets have a conversation. So Christ died on the cross and that was the atonement of the physical body. When did the atonement of the spiritual body take place? What I am offering is some perspective. Mormons separate the atonement of physical and spiritual bodies. Mainstream Christians do not. So your question really does not make sense in the framework of mainstream Christianity. 2
Damien the Leper Posted March 25, 2014 Posted March 25, 2014 (edited) Well, lets have a conversation. So Christ died on the cross and that was the atonement of the physical body. When did the atonement of the spiritual body take place? What I am offering is some perspective. Catholics and Orthodox do not separate the physical body from the spiritual. Therefore, your point is moot. ETA: Woops! MisrereNobis answered before I did. Edited March 25, 2014 by Valentinus 1
mfbukowski Posted March 25, 2014 Posted March 25, 2014 Mormons separate the atonement of physical and spiritual bodies. Mainstream Christians do not. So your question really does not make sense in the framework of mainstream Christianity.I think there is some misunderstanding there. We don't separate them either.
mfbukowski Posted March 25, 2014 Posted March 25, 2014 Not going to happen in my neck of the woods. You practically live on a different planet comparably.Yes, planet Utah is a strange place.
JLHPROF Posted March 25, 2014 Posted March 25, 2014 I think there is some misunderstanding there. We don't separate them either. Agreed - there is no separation of a physical and spiritual atonement.
BookofMormonLuvr Posted March 25, 2014 Posted March 25, 2014 Once I had the cross and its symbolism properly explained to me by a Protestant- "It's empty to symbolize Jesus overcoming the cross, death, and sin." The recalcitrant attitude I had from my LDS background was removed. I have and always will have an aversion to crucifixes.
3DOP Posted March 25, 2014 Posted March 25, 2014 Jesus said, "If you love me, keep my commandments," not, "If you love me, wear a cross." But to me, it's neither here nor there. I do have some heartburn with cross bling, however. http://www.struts.co.uk/party-fancy-dress-shop/fancy-dress-sales/60s-70s-abba-fancy-dress/60s-70s-accessories/70s-pimp-jumbo-bling-medallion-necklace Seems like this is the inevitable result of using the cross as jewelry, even if it is to express religious belief. Yes Bernard. Good illustration of your point. The cross should not be used as jewelry. If that guy went to our church he would eventually figure out that he should leave the pectoral cross for the bishops. We wouldn't allow anyone dressed like that to do anything in an official capacity like serving Mass, teaching, ushering, or leading the Rosary. I know someone who wore a much less ornate cross than that and a priest suggested that it was improper. If medals, scapulars, and crucifixes cannot be worn beneath the clothing, it is because they are too big. I am not criticizing bishops or religious, like the Dominicans, who often use a large Rosary as a sort of cincture around the waist of their robes, in memory of St. Dominic to whom the Rosary is thought to have been given. There is supposed to be a crucifix above the altar in every Catholic Church because it is on the altar that Calvary is reenacted in the Sacrifice of the Mass. As I said, I was making a joke because the thing about guillotines or guns seems to make it seem like we honor the death instrument. It isn't because we are honoring the instrument of death that the crucifix adorns the churches. Especially in the case of the Mass, there is a distinct theological reason for the strategic placement of the crucifix. 3
MiserereNobis Posted March 26, 2014 Posted March 26, 2014 Yes Bernard. Good illustration of your point. The cross should not be used as jewelry. If that guy went to our church he would eventually figure out that he should leave the pectoral cross for the bishops. We wouldn't allow anyone dressed like that to do anything in an official capacity like serving Mass, teaching, ushering, or leading the Rosary. I know someone who wore a much less ornate cross than that and a priest suggested that it was improper. If medals, scapulars, and crucifixes cannot be worn beneath the clothing, it is because they are too big. I am not criticizing bishops or religious, like the Dominicans, who often use a large Rosary as a sort of cincture around the waist of their robes, in memory of St. Dominic to whom the Rosary is thought to have been given. There is supposed to be a crucifix above the altar in every Catholic Church because it is on the altar that Calvary is reenacted in the Sacrifice of the Mass. As I said, I was making a joke because the thing about guillotines or guns seems to make it seem like we honor the death instrument. It isn't because we are honoring the instrument of death that the crucifix adorns the churches. Especially in the case of the Mass, there is a distinct theological reason for the strategic placement of the crucifix. Excellent post. The sad thing is, as I'm sure you know, the liturgical or other madness that happened post-Vatican II has left many Catholics not even understanding why there is a crucifix on or above the altar. Do you (or Valentinus or anyone) happen to know if a crucifix or an icon of the crucifixion is required on Orthodox altars? I know so little of the Eastern Church, unfortunately.
Damien the Leper Posted March 26, 2014 Posted March 26, 2014 (edited) Excellent post. The sad thing is, as I'm sure you know, the liturgical or other madness that happened post-Vatican II has left many Catholics not even understanding why there is a crucifix on or above the altar. Do you (or Valentinus or anyone) happen to know if a crucifix or an icon of the crucifixion is required on Orthodox altars? I know so little of the Eastern Church, unfortunately. I have attended both Russian and Greek Orthodox churches and in both cases there was either a Cross above the altar, above the iconostasis or within the icons themselves. The Byzantine Church I attended, that is in communion with Rome, has the crucifix above the altar and above the iconostasis. The Byzantine Church Edited March 26, 2014 by Valentinus 3
stemelbow Posted March 26, 2014 Posted March 26, 2014 I think there is some misunderstanding there. We don't separate them either. We don't? Then who keeps telling me that there is physical and spiritual death that need to be made up for/atoned for? How does resurrection play into all of this?
MiserereNobis Posted March 26, 2014 Posted March 26, 2014 I have attended both Russian and Greek Orthodox churches and in both cases there was either a Cross above the altar, above the iconostasis or within the icons themselves. The Byzantine Church I attended, that is in communion with Rome, has the crucifix above the altar and above the iconostasis. The Byzantine Church What a beautiful church! And in communion with Rome, too 1
Damien the Leper Posted March 26, 2014 Posted March 26, 2014 What a beautiful church! And in communion with Rome, too Why doesn't Rome have the iconostasis? I haven't figured that out yet.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted March 26, 2014 Posted March 26, 2014 Mormons separate the atonement of physical and spiritual bodies. Mainstream Christians do not. So your question really does not make sense in the framework of mainstream Christianity.Never said we did separate the 2. I a simply stated that there is an atonement of the physical body. When did the atonement of the spiritual body take place? Like I said I am trying to have a conversation. I am not trying to play a gotcha or anything like that.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted March 26, 2014 Posted March 26, 2014 We don't? Then who keeps telling me that there is physical and spiritual death that need to be made up for/atoned for? How does resurrection play into all of this? Good question. What is your understanding of it?
stemelbow Posted March 26, 2014 Posted March 26, 2014 Good question. What is your understanding of it? Resurrection is crucial for atonement. Without it our physical death would not be overcome. We would not reach a major purpose of our lives/probation or whatever you want to call it--receive a fleshy immortal body like unto God's.
3DOP Posted March 26, 2014 Posted March 26, 2014 (edited) Why doesn't Rome have the iconostasis? I haven't figured that out yet. Modern Catholics tear out the altar rails and require the priests to face them while they pray the prayers of the Mass aloud because the congregation supposedly needs to hear every word. Everything is about democratizing the liturgy, blurring the distinctions between priest and people. Modern Catholics would despise an iconostasis. It would fly in the face of everything the New Rite stands for. Maybe if we had previously had an iconostasis and people had understood better the symbolic link to the priest entering the Holy of Holies, the faithful might have resisted the modernizing of their churches a little more successfully. In the Old Roman Rite, which I attend exclusively, we are to understand that after the Sanctus, the prayers of the priest are whispered and he faces the tabernacle to symbolize that which seems even more vivid in the Eastern Rites (because of the iconostasis). You might be interested in the instruction given in my missal beginning immediately after the Sanctus (Holy, holy, holy):From all time, the Canon has been recited silently. The congregation present can contribute nothing to the sacrificial act itself; the people are present before a mystery which it is for the priest alone to accomplish. The priest has entered alone into the Holy of Holies to pray and offer sacrifice for the whole church. 1962 Roman Catholic Daily Missal, Angelus Press, 2004, p.885 Great question Valentinus. I think it is probably just a question of different liturgical customs, but as I hope you see, both rites originally found a way to symbolize the same thing. Maybe the iconostasis will save the Eastern rites from the wholesale changes that have diminished the importance of the priest in the largest part of the Latin Rite. 3DOP Edited March 26, 2014 by 3DOP 3
MiserereNobis Posted March 26, 2014 Posted March 26, 2014 Never said we did separate the 2. I a simply stated that there is an atonement of the physical body. When did the atonement of the spiritual body take place? Like I said I am trying to have a conversation. I am not trying to play a gotcha or anything like that. Your statement appears contradictory. If you don't separate the two, then why are you asking about when the physical atonement and spiritual atonement took place? That question implies they are different. It's kinda like if I said, "there is no difference between the earth and the sky, but where does the earth end and the sky begin?" But, to answer the question from the Catholic perspective, the atonement took place on the Holy Cross when Jesus died. 2
Damien the Leper Posted March 26, 2014 Posted March 26, 2014 Modern Catholics tear out the altar rails and require the priests to face them while they pray the prayers of the Mass aloud because the congregation supposedly needs to hear every word. Everything is about democratizing the liturgy, blurring the distinctions between priest and people. Modern Catholics would despise an iconostasis. It would fly in the face of everything the New Rite stands for. Maybe if we had previously had an iconostasis and people had understood better the symbolic link to the priest entering the Holy of Holies, the faithful might have resisted the modernizing of their churches a little more successfully. In the Old Roman Rite, which I attend exclusively, we are to understand that after the Sanctus, the prayers of the priest are whispered and he faces the tabernacle to symbolize that which seems even more vivid in the Eastern Rites (because of the iconostasis). You might be interested in the instruction given in my missal beginning immediately after the Sanctus (Holy, holy, holy):1962 Roman Catholic Daily Missal, Angelus Press, 2004, p.885 Great question Valentinus. I think it is probably just a question of different liturgical customs, but as I hope you see, both rites originally found a way to symbolize the same thing. Maybe the iconostasis will save the Eastern rites from the wholesale changes that have diminished the importance of the priest in the largest part of the Latin Rite. 3DOP Wonderful response!.At Mater Misericordiae, the altar is against the eastern wall and the Priest faces it during the Eucharist. The congregation didn't hear the prayers or the consecration of the elements such as the epiklesis and anamnesis. It was wonderful to attend. We spent the half hour before the actual service praying the Rosary. 1
3DOP Posted March 26, 2014 Posted March 26, 2014 Wonderful response!.At Mater Misericordiae, the altar is against the eastern wall and the Priest faces it during the Eucharist. The congregation didn't hear the prayers or the consecration of the elements such as the epiklesis and anamnesis. It was wonderful to attend. We spent the half hour before the actual service praying the Rosary. Thanks Valentinus. I didn't think the Eastern rites were usually fond of the Rosary...excellent...good report...beautiful churches too. Because of the promises of Our Lady of Fatima regarding Russia, I am expecting an eventual reunification of Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics, with us Romans learning a lot from our Eastern brethren. 1
mfbukowski Posted March 26, 2014 Posted March 26, 2014 (edited) We don't? Then who keeps telling me that there is physical and spiritual death that need to be made up for/atoned for? How does resurrection play into all of this?That is to distinguish between the end of our lives here (called physical death) and the death of the spirit, which would have happened without the atonement. No atonement, no life after death. One atonement allows us to survive death and be resurrected because it takes away our sins. So it's one process with implications for life here and in the hereafter. So the distinction is just to make it clear which side of the veil we are speaking of, our meaty existence or our continuation as spirit matter. Resurrection is reunification of spirit matter with meaty matter. So it's one process while we transform through, like caterpillar to moth and back again. One being in transformation. Edited March 27, 2014 by mfbukowski 1
mfbukowski Posted March 27, 2014 Posted March 27, 2014 Why doesn't Rome have the iconostasis? I haven't figured that out yet.It used to be the veil of the temple separating the people from the Holy of Holies. Rome has slowly removed it; in the east they have kept it 2
mfbukowski Posted March 27, 2014 Posted March 27, 2014 Modern Catholics tear out the altar rails and require the priests to face them while they pray the prayers of the Mass aloud because the congregation supposedly needs to hear every word. Everything is about democratizing the liturgy, blurring the distinctions between priest and people. Modern Catholics would despise an iconostasis. It would fly in the face of everything the New Rite stands for. Maybe if we had previously had an iconostasis and people had understood better the symbolic link to the priest entering the Holy of Holies, the faithful might have resisted the modernizing of their churches a little more successfully. In the Old Roman Rite, which I attend exclusively, we are to understand that after the Sanctus, the prayers of the priest are whispered and he faces the tabernacle to symbolize that which seems even more vivid in the Eastern Rites (because of the iconostasis). You might be interested in the instruction given in my missal beginning immediately after the Sanctus (Holy, holy, holy): 1962 Roman Catholic Daily Missal, Angelus Press, 2004, p.885 Great question Valentinus. I think it is probably just a question of different liturgical customs, but as I hope you see, both rites originally found a way to symbolize the same thing. Maybe the iconostasis will save the Eastern rites from the wholesale changes that have diminished the importance of the priest in the largest part of the Latin Rite. 3DOPI hadn't seen this before my reply. Great answer.
Damien the Leper Posted March 27, 2014 Posted March 27, 2014 Thanks Valentinus. I didn't think the Eastern rites were usually fond of the Rosary...excellent...good report...beautiful churches too. Because of the promises of Our Lady of Fatima regarding Russia, I am expecting an eventual reunification of Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics, with us Romans learning a lot from our Eastern brethren. Mater Misericordiae is a Roman church with only Latin Eucharist. Fr. Terra is wonderful.
Recommended Posts