Why Is The Eucharist Needed To Apply The Cross?

[Budge]

[quote]Catholics (both Eastern and Western) believe that the Eucharist is not a "new" sacrifice; instead, it is the [b]mystical anamnesis[/b] of the once for all oblation of Christ offered at Calvary.[/quote]

Dont agree.

in fact when I see phrases like "mystical anamnesis" I know the snowjob has begun.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Budge' post='1239763' date='Apr 12 2007, 07:53 AM']Dont agree.

in fact when I see phrases like "mystical anamnesis" I know the snowjob has begun.[/quote]
You know, Budge, back before people decided that theological language was too technical, most people could understand it. My point being that there is a tradition in Christianity which has rejected formal theology as irrelevant, while the much broader and longer tradition is that theology is important to understand Revelation. Since the longer tradition extended back into Greek and Roman times, it uses Greek and Roman terminology. You complain that our language is a "snowjob," but that's only because you refuse to learn it. For us, it's quite natural and not really confusing at all.

Claiming that we're trying to use big words to mask something can only come from a refusal to acknowledge that big words have a valid place in language and from a preconceived notion that we Catholics are trying to hide something from you. We've put it all out there in plain language and you've rejected it without trying to understand it. I suppose maybe someone thought it was time to give you something you had to try to understand.

God bless,

Micah

[Budge]

[quote]For us, it's quite natural and not really confusing at all.[/quote]

Come on be honest with me how many people who havent been to theological graduate school could define this off the top of their head?

""mystical anamnesis"

1Ti 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane [and] [b]vain babblings[/b], and oppositions of science falsely so called:

That phrase is definitely VAIN babblings. Mystical is one of those words that can be used nearly for anything as New Agers have found out.



The gospel was made simple enough for illiterate people to understand even.

[Sojourner]

It is simple. We believe that the the Eucharist is exactly what Jesus said it is: His Body and His Blood, offered up for us.

You are the one muddying the waters by insisting that it is something other than the plain meaning of the words Jesus used in instituting the Eucharist.

[Sojourner]

oh and you have yet to answer the other questions posed earlier in the thread by myself and Winchester.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Budge' post='1239790' date='Apr 12 2007, 10:55 AM']Come on be honest with me how many people who havent been to theological graduate school could define this off the top of their head?

""mystical anamnesis"

1Ti 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane [and] [b]vain babblings[/b], and oppositions of science falsely so called:

That phrase is definitely VAIN babblings. Mystical is one of those words that can be used nearly for anything as New Agers have found out.
The gospel was made simple enough for illiterate people to understand even.[/quote]
It is simple budge, you are baptised and live out the promises your parents made for you, confess your sins when you are wrong, go to Mass and Holy Communion, obey the commandments, love your fellow man, and die and go to heaven. Catholics have had no problem with that for 2000 years.

It really is simple, if thats all you want it to be. But even the Apostles asked questions of Jesus for things to be more defined and explained.

But in 2000 years of being catholics, we have been studying and thinking so we actually have proper names and definitions.
Anamnesis at Mass simply put means we are there with Jesus.

CSLEWIS said if someone tells you there is a simple answer, it is usually simply wrong. Catholicism is as simple or as deep and rich as you want, becuase the Church is universal for all.

[123]

[quote]1Ti 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane [and]vain babbling, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

That phrase is definitely VAIN babbling. Mystical is one of those words that can be used nearly for anything as New Age rs have found out.[/quote]


The obstacle for that verse, and your statement, is [b]vain[/b] no one said anything about repetition, but vain repetition is a different story. Also, btw, vanity is doing something for human glory. A majority of Catholics I know aren't repetitive for human glory, but to put it to memory or to heart.

Furthermore, the verse you manipulated uncovers your own guilt of repetition. What Christian hasn't been repetitive? All kinds of Christians, even Jw's and Mormons, say the Lord's Prayer. This prayer is never changed, and is the most repetitive out of all Catholic and Protestant prayers, in the world.

Edited April 12, 2007 by GloriaIesusChristi

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='Budge' post='1239790' date='Apr 12 2007, 10:55 AM']Come on be honest with me how many people who havent been to theological graduate school could define this off the top of their head?

""mystical anamnesis"

1Ti 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane [and] [b]vain babblings[/b], and oppositions of science falsely so called:

That phrase is definitely VAIN babblings. Mystical is one of those words that can be used nearly for anything as New Agers have found out.
The gospel was made simple enough for illiterate people to understand even.[/quote]I don't believe this is even a standard phrase, as your post suggests. Apotheoun was simply applying an adjective to "anamnesis."

Anamnesis is a Greek term which, among other things, is defined as:
[quote]1) 1. the recollection or remembrance of the past; reminiscence.
5) (often initial capital letter) a prayer in a Eucharistic service, recalling the Passion, Resurrection, and Ascension of Christ.
[Origin: 1650–60; < NL < Gk anámnésis remembrance, equiv. to ana(mi)mn(skein) to remember (ana ana- + mimnskein to call to mind) + -sis -sis][/quote]

Ironically, you yourself have felt the need to bring up Greek terms in your own defense of Budgianity. Based on searching your posts, you've done so around 20 times! In fact, you even complimented someone for using Greek:
[quote name='Budge']Hey Im glad you bring Greek into discussion.

You do put more substance into your posts.

Im glad to hvae someone who takes things a bit further.

so keep up the good work[/quote]So, does the use of Greek terms amount to "vain babblings" or does it "put more substance" into a post? Either way, your ability to criticize would be a lot more effective without the obvious self-contradiction.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Budge' post='1239790' date='Apr 12 2007, 08:55 AM']Come on be honest with me how many people who havent been to theological graduate school could define this off the top of their head?[/quote]
I haven't been to theological graduate school.

I'm not saying that it's easy for everyone, but how many people who have never heard of the Bible could tell you who Jesus is? Learning the language of the Scriptures, learning the background, the history, the beauty...those are all part of understanding the Bible. Just because a person doesn't understand those things easily doesn't mean that they are unnecessary. It would take a while for a person to catch on to exactly what even some of the simple phrases in the Bible mean, but you don't say that they should stop trying and complain about how hard it is to understand sometimes. Claiming that our language is confusing, when so many of us understand it fine, only shows that you're not willing to try. Well some people also aren't willing to try to understand the Bible, but will you let them off the hook because of that?

[quote]""mystical anamnesis"

1Ti 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane [and][b]vain babblings[/b], and oppositions of science falsely so called:

That phrase is definitely VAIN babblings. Mystical is one of those words that can be used nearly for anything as New Agers have found out.[/quote]

Just because New Agers use faulty versions of it doesn't make the original faulty. You said that the phrase is "definitely vain babblings," but what authority do you have to make that judgment? I could just as easily say that most of the things you say here are vain babblings. Just because you don't understand something and refuse to understand it doesn't make it incomprehensible.

[quote]The gospel was made simple enough for illiterate people to understand even.[/quote]

Illiterate people can't read, Budge.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Budge' post='1239790' date='Apr 12 2007, 07:55 AM']The gospel was made simple enough for illiterate people to understand even.[/quote]
So this is your response to the unanimous voice of Sacred Scripture and Apostolic Tradition in connection with the doctrine of the Eucharistic memorial of Christ's one oblation.

I must admit that I have never seen anyone make being illiterate a virtue. That said, why should I accept the vain babblings of an illiterate person over the teaching of Christ as contained in the Gospels, and as passed on within the Church by the Apostles and the Fathers?

Honestly, you need to present an actual argument if you intend to convince any one of your position.

God bless,
Todd

[123]

[quote][i]I haven't been to theological graduate school[/quote][/i]


Me neither...

[Apotheoun]

The term "mystical" is based upon the root for the word "mystery" (Greek: [i]mysterion[/i]), a word used frequently by St. Paul in his epistles. Now, I suppose that I should listen to Budge and no longer pay any attention to St. Paul's "vain babblings" about the "mystery of Christ." It really helps to be illiterate.

[johnnydigit]

hi i'm new. probably a little overzealous of me to jump right into the lion's pit but i'll give it a shot.

Budge, it seems like you have all the answers layed out before you, probably even before you created this thread. the reason why you're not getting satisifed is because you are choosing to believe the answers that support your interpretation. the catholic interpretation you already know, but you don't accept.

i find it commendable that you have taken the effort to read the catechism, but again, it is not acceptable to your understanding. the key points that we would regurgitate to you are just like forgotten or skipped lines when scanning through a text. there probably is no reasonable argument in existence to convince you of the teachings. at this point i think it would only be by the grace of God that all the pieces of the puzzle will "click" into the complete picture for you as it did for many of us. until then, the pieces are just a scattered jumble.

perhaps if i were you, i would thank God for the knowledge He has given you, and sincerely ask for an understanding of the ultimate truth, whether or not it is the Catholic Church, but at least as a consolation, a better understanding of the Catholic Church so that you can move on to find what you are searching for.

=========================

ok so in regards to the topic, as has been explicitly quoted before, Jesus said to "do this in memory of me," that "as often as you drink this cup.." so the Eucharistic celebration is first a memorial of the cross, and not so much an "application that is needed" as in your original question.

now second what is equally as important, is that this memorial is not just a symbol, unlike the Passover feast, which was merely a memorial of the event, afaik. the Eucharistic celebration is not only a memorial, but it includes a direct and realtime connection with Jesus and heaven, via his true body and blood. we are directly connected to heaven, to the crucifixion, to Jesus, spiritually and bodily through his real presence he makes available. if it weren't real, the connection would not be real, it would be merely a memorial.

it's like watching a race that was won on videotape. the event only occured once and for all. the winner became the world champion. you can watch it as many times as you wish in remembrance, but the difference with the Eucharist is that when you watch the tape, it is like God connects your soul directly to the winning of the race, back in time and space to that moment he crossed the finish line, your soul's presence is there, directly in communion with the winner, with all the stadium people (heaven), all while sitting at your couch in front of the tv.

so again if it were merely a symbol, there would be no real connection, just an emotional memory, a placebo. you take the red pill, you go to the matrix. you take the blue pill, you eat another cookie and go home. we see it as the red pill, you as the blue. what's interesting to note is that as your faith grows, so does the reality of the Eucharist. it has been called "a window to heaven." the reality of the presence of Jesus grows in you. the Gospel grows to reality in you. God grows to reality in you. you want more and more, just as scripture and the Church Fathers describe. that's the best i can do to explain the mystery of the faith, that which none of us can fully understand or explain with just words.

[Budge]

[quote]the catholic interpretation you already know, but you don't accept.[/quote]

you got it.

Let me bring up this to answer your point...

Why do I need to receive Christ, via [mod]The Most Holy Eucharist -Aloysius[/mod]when I have received Jesus Christ via faith, and I dont need refill ups on that one, that is for good!

The Bible says DIRECTLY that CHRIST [via the Holy Spirit] LIVES IN EVERY CHRISTIAN.

[b]
Gal 2:20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, [b]but Christ liveth in me:[/b] and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.[/b]

Going way back to the begining why is the Eucharist even necessary?

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Budge' post='1243109' date='Apr 14 2007, 04:11 PM']you got it.

Let me bring up this to answer your point...

Why do I need to receive Christ, via wafer when I have received Jesus Christ via faith, and I dont need refill ups on that one, that is for good!

The Bible says DIRECTLY that CHRIST [via the Holy Spirit] LIVES IN EVERY CHRISTIAN.

[b]
Gal 2:20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, [b]but Christ liveth in me:[/b] and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.[/b]

Going way back to the begining why is the Eucharist even necessary?[/quote]
It's already been explained to you that the Eucharist is not a "refill up," Budge.

The Bible verse you used doesn't include that "via the Holy Spirit" part you included. Would you care to reference that? You see, we believe that Christ lives in us through the Holy Spirit, who works in the sacraments.

So, going way back to the beginning, yes, the Eucharist is necessary.