teddyaware Posted August 7, 2020 Posted August 7, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said: Yes, I agree that the Stations of the Cross are not necessary for salvation. However, let's talk about the role of the Crucifixion in Mass and the Sacrament of Communion. First, I want to show how important this sacrament is. Like the temple is the pinnacle for LDS worship and ritual, so is the Eucharist for Catholicism. From the catechism: It is the source and summit and everything in Catholicism points toward it. It is our most important ritual. Or, as the catechism succinctly states: I hope it is clear now how important the Eucharist is for us. I assume it is the equivalent for us as temple worship is for you. Ok, now let's examine the Crucifixion of Christ in the Eucharist. There are very substantial (giggle at my pun, Mark...) differences between what the Eucharist means for Catholics and what LDS sacrament means for LDS. I want to be clear about this so that the importance of the crucifixion in the Eucharist isn't waved away by someone saying that the LDS have communion, too. They are only comparable on a superficial level. First, we believe that the bread and wine become truly become the Blood, Body, Soul, and Divinity of Christ. This is not figurative or just a memorial. From the catechism: First, notice that the catechism again points out how important the Eucharist is. Then it asserts that Christ is there, is real, and is "wholly and entirely present." This obviously is major difference from LDS sacrament, but it also has huge implications for the role of the crucifixion in the Eucharist. The Eucharist is a memorial of the Crucifixion of Christ. But it is also much more. It is not just a memory of a past event. In the Eucharist, the Crucifixion of Christ is a current event happening right now on the altar. It is His very body and His very blood given to us as a sacrifice. The catechism continues: The Crucifixion of Christ is present on the altar. It is as if we are kneeling at the cross, looking up at Christ Crucified. The original Crucifixion and the Eucharist are the same: It is one single sacrifice, differentiated only in the manner of offering: bloody vs bloodless. Now, you obviously don't believe this, which is fine, like I obviously don't believe what happens in LDS temples. However, the question wasn't about which theology/faith/religion was correct. The issue was your claim that it is an "undeniable fact" that no other church places more importance on the crucifixion than the LDS church. I agree with Daniel2 that is very subjective to say which one places more importance. I'm attacking, however, your use of "undeniable." When looking at the Catholic Church's claims, the importance of the crucifixion looms large. To sum up: The Eucharist is the most important part of Catholicism. It is the source, summary, and summit of our faith. In the Eucharist, Christ's Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity are truly and literally present. The sacrifice of the Crucifixion and the Eucharist are one and the same. The Eucharist is the Crucifixion. During Mass, we kneel at the foot of the cross as Christ sacrifices Himself for us. I'd say that this makes the Crucifixion pretty important in Catholicism. What do you think now that you know more about our beliefs and practices? In my posts, I am speaking quite specifically of ritual re-enactments of the crucifixion of Christ in which Latter-Day Saints must participate in order to obtain the fullness of salvation in the highest degree of glory of the Celestial Kingdom of God. Without these aforementioned rituals, there can be no entry into the Celestial Kingdom, no eternal marriages, and no eternal families. In saying this, I’ve already said too much. The Latter-Day Saints believe the fullness of the spiritual value of the infinite and eternal atoning sacrifice of Christ can be received by partaking of the consecrated emblems of his flesh and blood. If the fullness of Christ’s salvative power is available to the Latter-Day Saints through the partaking of the consecrated emblems of his sacrificed flesh and blood, there is no need for the emblems to be transformed into actual flesh and blood because all possible spiritual benefit is already transmitted to those who partake of the emblems in faith. Because the fullness of the virtue and benefit of Christ’s sacrifice is fully present and available when the Latter-Day Saint’s celebrate the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, what possible additional benefit could there be in consuming actual flesh and blood? Christ says as much when, after speaking of partaking of his flesh and blood to his doubting disciples, he taught... 63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. (John 6) Edited August 7, 2020 by teddyaware 1
MiserereNobis Posted August 8, 2020 Posted August 8, 2020 (edited) 21 hours ago, teddyaware said: In my posts, I am speaking quite specifically of ritual re-enactments of the crucifixion of Christ in which Latter-Day Saints must participate in order to obtain the fullness of salvation in the highest degree of glory of the Celestial Kingdom of God. Without these aforementioned rituals, there can be no entry into the Celestial Kingdom, no eternal marriages, and no eternal families. In saying this, I’ve already said too much. I feel like you've set up an argument like this: The church that places the most importance on the crucifixion will have a ritual reenactment of the crucifixion that is required the celestial kingdom and eternal families. The LDS church has this. Therefore, the LDS church places the most importance on the crucifixion. As you can see, it's a self-serving argument with an arbitrary choice of the criteria that determines which church places the most importance. Why does it have to be a required ritual reenactment? I can easily respond, as I've pointed out, that the heart of Catholicism is a ritual enactment (not re-enactment) of the crucifixion, and participation in it is also required of Catholics. Now, I'm not saying your church doesn't place importance on the crucifixion. Again, I'm arguing against your initial statement: "the undeniable fact that no Christian Church on earth places more importance on the symbolism of Christ’s crucifixion than does the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints." I feel like an analogy would be someone saying, "it is an undeniable fact that Mozart was the best classical composer." Another person could respond with, "well, wait a minute, what about Beethoven?" And then they argue details back and forth. Can't they just say both composers are incredible? I don't know what goes on in your temples. Early on I decided out of respect that I wouldn't look things up on the internet. I'll accept your word that there is some overwhelming focus there on the symbolism of the crucifixion that makes up for the dearth of focus found in your public expressions. So, with that, can you agree that both of our churches place high focus on the crucifixion and not quibble about who who has more? 21 hours ago, teddyaware said: The Latter-Day Saints believe the fullness of the spiritual value of the infinite and eternal atoning sacrifice of Christ can be received by partaking of the consecrated emblems of his flesh and blood. If the fullness of Christ’s salvative power is available to the Latter-Day Saints through the partaking of the consecrated emblems of his sacrificed flesh and blood, there is no need for the emblems to be transformed into actual flesh and blood because all possible spiritual benefit is already transmitted to those who partake of the emblems in faith. Because the fullness of the virtue and benefit of Christ’s sacrifice is fully present and available when the Latter-Day Saint’s celebrate the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, what possible additional benefit could there be in consuming actual flesh and blood? Christ says as much when, after speaking of partaking of his flesh and blood to his doubting disciples, he taught... 63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. (John 6) I don't plan on addressing this because it is outside of what I was arguing. I brought up transubstantiation so that you (and others) could understand that we believe the Eucharist is the same sacrifice as the one on the cross. I will say, though, that there are excellent rebuttals to your points here (especially the assumptions upon which they rest, which aren't fully accurate Catholic beliefs). I will leave them for 3DOP if he so desires -- he's pretty good at pulling up quotes from Santa Saints (oh, autocorrect!) and Church Fathers. I'll also add that many of the best minds of western civilization of the past 2000 years were Catholics and argued for and explained Catholic beliefs. We may be wrong, but our beliefs are not idiotic or simple. It's not like that quote in John has never been considered before. Just sayin' Edited to fix a hilarious autocorrect issue. Edited August 8, 2020 by MiserereNobis 3
mfbukowski Posted August 8, 2020 Posted August 8, 2020 10 hours ago, MiserereNobis said: Yes, I agree that the Stations of the Cross are not necessary for salvation. However, let's talk about the role of the Crucifixion in Mass and the Sacrament of Communion. First, I want to show how important this sacrament is. Like the temple is the pinnacle for LDS worship and ritual, so is the Eucharist for Catholicism. From the catechism: It is the source and summit and everything in Catholicism points toward it. It is our most important ritual. Or, as the catechism succinctly states: I hope it is clear now how important the Eucharist is for us. I assume it is the equivalent for us as temple worship is for you. Ok, now let's examine the Crucifixion of Christ in the Eucharist. There are very substantial (giggle at my pun, @mfbukowski) differences between what the Eucharist means for Catholics and what LDS sacrament means for LDS. I want to be clear about this so that the importance of the crucifixion in the Eucharist isn't waved away by someone saying that the LDS have communion, too. They are only comparable on a superficial level. First, we believe that the bread and wine become truly become the Blood, Body, Soul, and Divinity of Christ. This is not figurative or just a memorial. From the catechism: First, notice that the catechism again points out how important the Eucharist is. Then it asserts that Christ is there, is real, and is "wholly and entirely present." This obviously is major difference from LDS sacrament, but it also has huge implications for the role of the crucifixion in the Eucharist. The Eucharist is a memorial of the Crucifixion of Christ. But it is also much more. It is not just a memory of a past event. In the Eucharist, the Crucifixion of Christ is a current event happening right now on the altar. It is His very body and His very blood given to us as a sacrifice. The catechism continues: The Crucifixion of Christ is present on the altar. It is as if we are kneeling at the cross, looking up at Christ Crucified. The original Crucifixion and the Eucharist are the same: It is one single sacrifice, differentiated only in the manner of offering: bloody vs bloodless. Now, you obviously don't believe this, which is fine, like I obviously don't believe what happens in LDS temples. However, the question wasn't about which theology/faith/religion was correct. The issue was your claim that it is an "undeniable fact" that no other church places more importance on the crucifixion than the LDS church. I agree with @Daniel2 that it is very subjective to say which one places more importance. I'm attacking, however, your use of "undeniable." When looking at the Catholic Church's claims, the importance of the crucifixion looms large. To sum up: The Eucharist is the most important part of Catholicism. It is the source, summary, and summit of our faith. In the Eucharist, Christ's Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity are truly and literally present. The sacrifice of the Crucifixion and the Eucharist are one and the same. The Eucharist is the Crucifixion. During Mass, we kneel at the foot of the cross as Christ sacrifices Himself for us. I'd say that this makes the Crucifixion pretty important in Catholicism. What do you think now that you know more about our beliefs and practices? For what my opinion is worth on this subject, I affirm that this is a correct description of the importance of the Catholic Eucharist in relation to the crucifixion. Each Mass recapitulates the entire atonement. Well said @MiserereNobis ! 2
3DOP Posted August 8, 2020 Posted August 8, 2020 (edited) 15 hours ago, MiserereNobis said: I feel like you've set up an argument like this: The church that places the most importance on the crucifixion will have a ritual reenactment of the crucifixion that is required the celestial kingdom and eternal families. The LDS church has this. Therefore, the LDS church places the most importance on the crucifixion. As you can see, it's a self-serving argument with an arbitrary choice of the criteria that determines which church places the most importance. Why does it have to be a required ritual reenactment? I can easily respond, as I've pointed out, that the heart of Catholicism is a ritual enactment (not re-enactment) of the crucifixion, and participation in it is also required of Catholics. Now, I'm not saying your church doesn't place importance on the crucifixion. Again, I'm arguing against your initial statement: "the undeniable fact that no Christian Church on earth places more importance on the symbolism of Christ’s crucifixion than does the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints." I feel like an analogy would be someone saying, "it is an undeniable fact that Mozart was the best classical composer." Another person could respond with, "well, wait a minute, what about Beethoven?" And then they argue details back and forth. Can't they just say both composers are incredible? I don't know what goes on in your temples. Early on I decided out of respect that I wouldn't look things up on the internet. I'll accept your word that there is some overwhelming focus there on the symbolism of the crucifixion that makes up for the dearth of focus found in your public expressions. So, with that, can you agree that both of our churches place high focus on the crucifixion and not quibble about who who has more? I don't plan on addressing this because it is outside of what I was arguing. I brought up transubstantiation so that you (and others) could understand that we believe the Eucharist is the same sacrifice as the one on the cross. I will say, though, that there are excellent rebuttals to your points here (especially the assumptions upon which they rest, which aren't fully accurate Catholic beliefs). I will leave them for 3DOP if he so desires -- he's pretty good at pulling up quotes from Santa and Church Fathers. I'll also add that many of the best minds of western civilization of the past 2000 years were Catholics and argued for and explained Catholic beliefs. We may be wrong, but our beliefs are not idiotic or simple. It's not like that quote in John has never been considered before. Just sayin' Hey M, Excellent post, and you are correct. It would distract from the thread subject to address Jn 6:63. The question is not whether we have a TRUE Sacrament. The question is WHAT we believe about the Mass and how it relates to the Crucifixion. If anybody says they want to see what we could possibly say in defense of our beliefs in the Real Presence, let them show the first interest and start a thread. I am reasoning here from the very fact that we are debating, as proof that the claim that LDS emphasize the crucifixion more than Catholics IS deniable. That does not prove that "the fact" even if it is deniable, is untrue. I am open to being persuaded that "the fact" that LDS emphasize the crucifixion more than any other religion is true. I tend to doubt it, but I wouldn't be displeased to learn that what I tend to think about the matter is otherwise. It does no harm to Catholic claims. It is like arguing about monotheism. Who is the most monotheist? I find Catholics arguing with Muslims about it, saying that we are equally monotheistic. WHAT FOR? Is the true religion necessarily the most rigorously monotheistic? I concede that Islam is more rigorously monotheistic than the Catholic Church. I hold that we are adequately, truly, and proportionately monotheistic. The Muslims are more monotheistic because they will not allow that more than one person can be God. What next? Do I join Islam, while waiting to see if there arises a religion that is even MORE monotheistic? 3DOP Edited August 8, 2020 by 3DOP 3
Michael G. Reed. Posted August 23, 2020 Posted August 23, 2020 It's great to see such a cordial and informative discussion on this thread about this topic. It has been a long time... and I see old friends still here. Btw... I'm less antagonistic now and avoid arguments. Perhaps I am getting old, midlife crisis, or just humbled due to these times. Oh! Did someone say Cross!? Hope your well.
3DOP Posted August 23, 2020 Posted August 23, 2020 14 hours ago, Michael G. Reed. said: It's great to see such a cordial and informative discussion on this thread about this topic. It has been a long time... and I see old friends still here. Btw... I'm less antagonistic now and avoid arguments. Perhaps I am getting old, midlife crisis, or just humbled due to these times. Oh! Did someone say Cross!? Hope your well. Hello Michael... So I saw your post this morning before Mass, resurrecting the thread as it were. I am glad because I have just now come across an idea that might be interesting to all of the readers here. Today, Aug. 23 is the feast day for St. Philip Benizi, who was widely reknowned in the 13th Century for his prudence, piety, and wisdom along with some miracles too. What I wanted to draw attention to is his death. The Church composes its own concise history of the saints, usually of no more than a page which gives the faithful at least a thumbnail sketch of all of the saints who have gone before us. But here is what it says: "At length, in the year 1285, he died a most holy death at Todi, while in the act of kissing the image of his crucified Lord, which he used to call his book." 2
mfbukowski Posted August 24, 2020 Posted August 24, 2020 21 hours ago, Michael G. Reed. said: Dont think think this was shared yet No, I don't think so either. I wanted to post some of the photos from this- the funeral shot and other display of crosses in use in the LDS community in the early days, before Joseph F Smith and Elder McConkie- but I did not have the technical expertise to do so. I have some photos I took myself of the East doors of the LA temple which include crosses as ornamentation- these are shots from about a year ago- and of course that temple was dedicated by President McKay, so those escaped being censored in the design of the temple, perhaps? Those east doors open into the cafeteria area and are only used for deliveries, so perhaps they were seen as having virtually no symbolic meaning, but strictly decorative. Who knows? Trying to dig them out those pics, but they are there for all to see.
Recommended Posts