The Importance of the Holy Sacrament

[Leo Volont]

The Importance of the Holy Sacrament

As a proponent of Catholicism I think I have largely been remiss in not emphasizing enough the importance of the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, the Body and Blood of Christ in the Bread and Wine of the Holy Mass. One of Catholicism’s great Prophets and Visionaries, Saint John Bosco, saw in a Vision that the Catholic Church would be surrounded and pounded by enemies until, with the Death of a Beleaguered Pope (which may well refer to Pope John Paul II), a New Pope would take Charge and insist upon a focus upon only Two Points: The Importance of the Eucharist, and Devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary.

I have focused almost entirely upon the Devotion to the Blessed Virgin who has been something of My Patroness in many of my Dreams and Visions. But in reading many Protestant Postings which wonder whether Salvation comes with Faith or with Baptism, it occurred to me that the Majority of Nominal Christians in the World entirely dismiss the Holy Sacrament as a trivial excrescence. They don’t even mention it anymore.

Yes, that Enemy of All True Christianity, Paul, is somewhat responsible here. Remember in Corinthians where Paul quite insists that the Holy Sacrament is entirely subjective, and will likely do more harm than good, becoming a poison if taken by a sinner, and in his next breath declaring all Christians to be unworthy sinners. It was a deadly formula which had ever since caused Christians to shy away from the Holy Sacrament – for the Protestants to fearfully dismiss it almost entirely, and for the Catholics to put the Holy Sacrament under the strictest restrictions.

However, if the Holy Saints of Christ-Like Powers and the True Holy Spirit of God have more in common with each other than Devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary, it is in their Conviction that the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist has joined their Substance in the Very Substance of the Cosmic Christ.

Which is not to say that the Eucharist confers Salvation. But the Eucharist may allow for the Grace of the Vine of Christ to run within us, to transform us, and to enable us to achieve that Moral and Spiritual Perfection which could allow us to be Acquitted when we stand before Christ, that Dreadful Judge who Remembers Humanity primarily for the Pain and Suffering it inflicted upon Himself.

Indeed, when a survey was taken of Former Protestant Ministers who had given up their Careers in order to Convert to Catholicism, it was found that the Reason given for their Conversion was unanimously only One Primary Concern, that the Only True Church must be The Church that still Celebrates the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist that was enjoined upon His Church by Christ Himself. That the Protestant Churches have rejected the Eucharist is sufficient sign that they have Rejected Christ. Why, compare the Protestant Cross with the Catholic Crucifix. The Protestants seem to have lost Christ!

 

[duendy]

Originally the SACRAMENT was/is an hallucinogenic plant/substance/drink/annointing oil which once ingested gives spiritual inspiration, and emotional release and expression

What the Church did was appropriate the name and symbolism--from the pagan origins--yet replace the actual with an emty meaningless 'sacrament' that gives the user of it absolutely ZILTCH experience, not really even placeboic in comparison with the real one it replaced

The original sacramant is CENTRAL to myth and religous understanding.

but we must also realize this.
That the sacramant alone is not enough. ALSO there has to be--in modern lingo--Set&Setting. That is the preliminary insight into the Intelligence of Nature. where the ascetic sacramanealists went wrong (and i am not here talking about the Chrurch as such which totally prohibited actual hallucinogenic sacraments), such as the Orphics, the Essenes etc., is that they already had ideas that their destiny was away from earth, into their idea of a spirit-realm. whether their beliefs were prior to their use of sacramants (which were hallucinogenic) or inspired by their way of experincing the sacrament (ie., emphasizing interiorization, rather than participation), is not really that important as such. what needs to be understood is that what one BRINGs to the taking of a sacramant is as important as what one takes from it. For me, Nature must be central. when the dogma becomes anti-natrue, then that is a string hint something is wrong!

 

[Cris]

We know that Christianity is a weave of extracts from earlier mythologies and for certain the sacrament will be no different, just like virgin births, saviors, super heroes, miracles, gods, and the like. From a very brief search the sacrament concept seems to be about an inititiation ceremony, a rite of passage. Pretty much a ceremony to be performed as part of club membership.

If anyone has any detailed references to sacrament mythology then that would be interesting to hear.

 

[okinrus]

duendy, the term sacrament wasn't used by early christians, and is a late Latin word(Webster). Early Christians only spoke Greek or Aramaic. I'm not sure what you mean by "copied" the name. "Etymology: Middle English sacrement, sacrament, from Old French & Late Latin; Old French, from Late Latin sacramentum, from Latin, oath of allegiance, obligation, from sacrare to consecrate"

 

[Medicine*Woman]

okinrus: duendy, the term sacrament wasn't used by early christians, and is a late Latin word(Webster). Early Christians only spoke Greek or Aramaic. I'm not sure what you mean by "copied" the name. "Etymology: Middle English sacrement, sacrament, from Old French & Late Latin; Old French, from Late Latin sacramentum, from Latin, oath of allegiance, obligation, from sacrare to consecrate"
*************
M*W: I can remember a time when I cherished the sacraments of the early christians. I enjoyed the devotion of many saints and gods. That's what attracted me to Catholicism. I wanted the rules. I wanted the worship of saints. I longed for the obligation of the consecration. I was looking for rules in my life and Catholicism had them all.

 

[duendy]

duendy, the term sacrament wasn't used by early christians, and is a late Latin word(Webster). Early Christians only spoke Greek or Aramaic. I'm not sure what you mean by "copied" the name. "Etymology: Middle English sacrement, sacrament, from Old French & Late Latin; Old French, from Late Latin sacramentum, from Latin, oath of allegiance, obligation, from sacrare to consecrate"

no. forget the 'name' a term for it in ancient Greek Earth religion of Dionysos--from which much Christian symbolism was appropriated from, the term for sacraments was 'orgia', which both meant the ritual ecstatic abandonment ANd the actual 'wine' (ie., mixed with hallucinogenic herbs0 drunk by the celebrants.

What happened when that was reformed by the philosophical branch of the Orphics (see at google From Orphism to Gnosticsm), was the latter still used the sacrament, but diluted it, eventually phasing it out, and not CELEBRATING the experience of ecstasy, but using it as a form of 'katharsis' or 'purification. In other words they ascetically interpreted life to mean a 'trap' from which they must purify themselves and escape to their 'original home' the 'spirit'. This philosophy greatly influenced both Plato et al, and christianity

 

[duendy]

We know that Christianity is a weave of extracts from earlier mythologies and for certain the sacrament will be no different, just like virgin births, saviors, super heroes, miracles, gods, and the like. From a very brief search the sacrament concept seems to be about an inititiation ceremony, a rite of passage. Pretty much a ceremony to be performed as part of club membership.

If anyone has any detailed references to sacrament mythology then that would be interesting to hear.

The whole history of ritual of a community togthere and consuming a food, drink, substance, etc and ecstatically experiencing is PRIMAL. it is with the rise of the patriarchy that this freedom is more and more oppressed. Even today!

"The rite ..has an ecological function in the life of the group. The entheogenic or proprioceptive state induced [by partaking of the sacrament] is designed to foster perception of the group's or the individual's place in the world. The mythology, the words of the mother, calls up memories (mnemosyne-realization) of the evolutionary ecology [the myth IS the rite]"
(Shamanism and the Drug Propaganda: Patriarchy and the Drug War, by Dan Russell)

"During the 'cups', through entheogenic and erotic ecstasy, the dead earth was brought back to life. By dancing with the ghosts, ancient Eros, the fructifying power, was reborn.....the dead are Cthonioi, 'earth people'..............whatever the sacramental vehicle was for joining the dead in their spring resurrection, it wasn't distinguished from the food.....[this food of the dead] gives mana/wakan/orenda/menos (ibid)

The pharmakon, dionysos, was the herb eaten, sacrificed to satisfy the soul. The pharmakos, Pentheus, the herb's mythic double, atavistically, psychologically, identified with the herb, became the scapegoat sacrificed to satisfy the community, once the pharmakon was prohibited, once the community was convinced that healing and rebirth were second hand, not entheogenic, not sacramental, but sacrifical, political. The psychological transition was simultaneously political, religious and medical--none of the elements can be separated from one another (ibid)

 

[okinrus]

no. forget the 'name' a term for it in ancient Greek Earth religion of Dionysos--from which much Christian symbolism was appropriated from, the term for sacraments was 'orgia', which both meant the ritual ecstatic abandonment ANd the actual 'wine' (ie., mixed with hallucinogenic herbs0 drunk by the celebrants.

To my knowledge, the term "origia" wasn't used either. Christians from that period, I believe, refered to the Eucharist as either Eucharista or simply "bread and wine."

What happened when that was reformed by the philosophical branch of the Orphics (see at google From Orphism to Gnosticsm), was the latter still used the sacrament, but diluted it, eventually phasing it out, and not CELEBRATING the experience of ecstasy, but using it as a form of 'katharsis' or 'purification. In other words they ascetically interpreted life to mean a 'trap' from which they must purify themselves and escape to their 'original home' the 'spirit'. This philosophy greatly influenced both Plato et al, and christianity

The use of bread as sacrificial wafers was common for Jews, and even during Abraham's time bread and wine were used as sacrifice.!

 

[duendy]

To my knowledge, the term "origia" wasn't used either. Christians from that period, I believe, refered to the Eucharist as either Eucharista or simply "bread and wine."

d__the word is spelt wrong in that passage--a typo. its corrct spelling is "orgia' where the English word 'orgy' comes from, and has been given a trivialzied prurient meaning of outrageous behaviour. But what it originally mean from the Greek earth religion of Dionysos was a ritual of sensual abandon, as explained in the passages i quoted in previous post.
The Dionysians also used bread and wine! but their wine was also laced with hallucinogenic herbs.
What hallucinogens do is disinhibit sensuality. The ancinet celebrants would associate this feeling with being 'possessed' by the god, Dionysos. But to understand this you have to understand who Dionysos is, and what 'he' represents.
He was the 'god of many names'. I.e., he has manny associations. These include the actual sacred hallucinogenic plant/dring/sacrament, son/lover of Goddess. Nature, god of masks (meaning that we dont really have A static self, we are a constatnly changing not-self of transitory masks we present to the world and ourselves. He was called 'Liber' the root meaning of the term 'liberation', the 'Loosener', god of dance, of theatre, and so on. so all of that one becomes 'possessed by. the original term from where it;'s been translated to possession, was from 'entheusiasm.

so, okinrus, i am trying to communicate to you that therer existed the primal idea of not WORSHIPPING an IDEA of 'God' but an ACTUAL experience of BEING 'god'. a sense of being more than one's ordinary self, which is really the real meaning of 'ec-stasis'.....i define it as feeling inside but also expanded outside the bodymind. Feeling more integrated with the environment/Nature in an ecstatic way

The use of bread as sacrificial wafers was common for Jews, and even during Abraham's time bread and wine were used as sacrifice.!

So, dig it Okinrus. the early christians were VERy aware of pagan ritual, and used the motifs and the rituals whilst amalgamting it to Judaism. Can you not see the competition of movements that offered direct experience/ecstasy??........But where the christians differ from EARTh religious ecstasy, is they take as their MAIN role model, Orphism (remember that overview from previous post), which is more acetically attuned. So the christians SECRET use of hallucinogenic sacramants is more geared to 'purification'....when even that becomes prohibited--ie., the actual ingestion of a hallucinogenic sacrament. then we are merely left with the dry symbols which are divisive anyway. Ie., the indoctrination of 'pure' versus' 'impure' 'light' versus 'dark'.......this manifests as prejudice by that mindset of people, Nature, and one's own natrual being

 

[Sarkus]

Being an ex-Catholic, I was led to believe that the importance of the Sacrament, the wafer and wine, was in TRANSUBSTANTIATION - the actual change of the wafer/wine into the actual body/blood of Christ.

Thus do Catholics extol the virtues of cannabilism.

Yet the more I speak to friends/relatives that are still Catholic, the more I realise they see it as nothing more than a symbol of the body/blood of their saviour - which it so obviously is to almost everyone else.

So which is it? Symbol or Cannibalism? Or is there another option that I'm missing?
And does believing it to be nothing more than a symbol reduce your standing in the eyes of your God compared to those who don't?

 

[duendy]

Being an ex-Catholic, I was led to believe that the importance of the Sacrament, the wafer and wine, was in TRANSUBSTANTIATION - the actual change of the wafer/wine into the actual body/blood of Christ.

d__when we analyze that word, we find trans-substance--the change into another substance. so look closely......all that approriation is doing is diluting the ORIGINAL meaning which is ACTULA change of body mind of actual PERSON eating and drinking a sacramnet that being hallucinogenic actually changes the substance of the person, sos they FEEL as if possesmsed by the 'god' they have ingested! ie., 'you' the Dionysian celebrant 'change into the body of Dionysos'...and as explained in previous post this change means a lot. it is not some limited IDEA of A idealized god, but Nature iself, for amongst 'his' many names he was god of Nature

so, what the Christians did--with their hallucinogen-missin 'sacrament' is dogmatize only the superficiality. basically you just get words! you eat, and dring the piffling portions handed out, ,,,haven waited in a queue, and then sheepishly retreat--'humbly'--to pew. and that....is THAT.

Thus do Catholics extol the virtues of cannabilism.

d__what do you mean?

Yet the more I speak to friends/relatives that are still Catholic, the more I realise they see it as nothing more than a symbol of the body/blood of their saviour - which it so obviously is to almost everyone else.

d__that's all it is. an empty symbolism with no SUBSTANCE

So which is it? Symbol or Cannibalism? Or is there another option that I'm missing?
And does believing it to be nothing more than a symbol reduce your standing in the eyes of your God compared to those who don't?

as i'vve said it is just symbolism. you aren't eating a 'god' as the Dionysians weren't--as in a flesh and bones god. you ARe eating the god in the form of vegetal matter, which could i spose include the notion of cannabilism, though i'd have to look at the definition of the term

the central point is that...you've been conned. the actual spiritual ecstasy has been denied to you be church and state.
and in our modern times, any mention of it and we get the ridicule of the Hippies. As though they were the ones who discovered the hallucinogenic experience.

 

[okinrus]

Yet the more I speak to friends/relatives that are still Catholic, the more I realise they see it as nothing more than a symbol of the body/blood of their saviour - which it so obviously is to almost everyone else.

Neither. Cannibalism is eating dead flesh, but the Eucharist is God's living flesh.

And does believing it to be nothing more than a symbol reduce your standing in the eyes of your God compared to those who don't?

Well, not necessarily. But benefits of the Eucharist are proportional to the amount of trust you have in it. Someone who believes the Eucharist is only a symbol shouldn't really be receiving the Eucharist. The priest says "The Body of Christ" and the person receiving says "Amen". To receive while believing it to be a symbol is to consent to something they don't believe in.

 

[duendy]

which could mean you are just playing a game of words and symbols.
are you satisfied with that? either doing it, or giving 'THAT' up?

do you not feel a deeper need that you may have lost? or don't you really care?

 

[Medicine*Woman]

okinrus: Cannibalism is eating dead flesh, but the Eucharist is God's living flesh.
*************
M*W: I used to believe this, too, until one day from the Sacristy of the High Altar at St. Peter's, I heard a little voice screaming to be freed.
*************
okinrus: But benefits of the Eucharist are proportional to the amount of trust you have in it.
*************
M*W: True, if you're a catholic, but then I realized that I, too, have a body of living flesh, and I should worship it.
*************
okinrus: Someone who believes the Eucharist is only a symbol shouldn't really be receiving the Eucharist. The priest says "The Body of Christ" and the person receiving says "Amen". To receive while believing it to be a symbol is to consent to something they don't believe in.
*************
M*W: I wanted to believe the Eucharist was an honest to goodness transubstantiation, but it was hard to when the wafer started to scream and wiggle around in my mouth.

 

[okinrus]

M*W: I used to believe this, too, until one day from the Sacristy of the High Altar at St. Peter's, I heard a little voice screaming to be freed.

Freed from what?

M*W: True, if you're a catholic, but then I realized that I, too, have a body of living flesh, and I should worship it.

Well, by all means. Take pride in what you do, but don't have pride in yourself.

 

[Silas]

Strange thing to say, okrinus. Why shouldn't she take pride in herself?

 

[okinrus]

Well, to have pride(and I don't mean the jolly kind) in oneself is wrong. It's like you acheiving something, and then believing your own greatness brought it about. Instead of rejoicing in your accomplishments, you rejoice in yourself and you sink.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

okinrus: Freed from what?
*************
M*W: Freed from the deception of it all.
*************
okinrus: Well, by all means. Take pride in what you do, but don't have pride in yourself.
*************
M*W: I fully understand the difference.

 

[duendy]

"pride" is one of the "Seven Deadly Sins" which is also part of their guilting propaganda............!i AM proud to see through their spin

 

[Leo Volont]

Being an ex-Catholic, I was led to believe that the importance of the Sacrament, the wafer and wine, was in TRANSUBSTANTIATION - the actual change of the wafer/wine into the actual body/blood of Christ.

Yet the more I speak to friends/relatives that are still Catholic, the more I realise they see it as nothing more than a symbol of the body/blood of their saviour - which it so obviously is to almost everyone else.

So which is it? Symbol or Cannibalism? Or is there another option that I'm missing?
And does believing it to be nothing more than a symbol reduce your standing in the eyes of your God compared to those who don't?

Catholic Doctrine absolutely insists that the Eucharist is the Real Blood and Real Body of Christ. There are numerous Eucharistic Miracles which demonstrate that very Fact.

The problem with many American Catholics is that they have been raised in a Protestant and Secular Culture. Back during the High Middle Ages when the Civilization of Christendom was entirely Catholic, vertically, horizonally and every other way, then every Catholic understood the Corpus Cristi -- that the Eucharist was the Real Blood and Body. But now people only know what they see on TV. I myself am a Convert to Catholicism, and my Sponsor had also been a Convert to Catholicism. We observed something. Most people born to Catholicism never paid much attention and know very little about it. They don't care. They never needed to care. It is like people born as American Citizens... they don't know anything about the Constitution except what Charlton Heston tells them -- that it is okay to own guns so they can kill Government Officials they don't like.

So it doesn't surprise me that these Catholics you speak of talk more like Protestants than Educated Catholics. They are Pickles in the Protestant Brine, and not much more can be expected of them. Afterall, 55% of American Catholic voted against the Catholic Candidate and for the Most Protestant Candidate that ever ran for the White House. They couldn't have done worse if they had voted for the Antichrist. And then with all of the Sex Scandal Bishops, the American Catholic Church is one huge giant collosal screw up. If I was the Vatican, I would decertify the entire United States of America and sign it over to Satan, and take the Write Off.