Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: Dr. Eckleburg; Religion Moderator; metmom; Quix; Iscool
Hardly -- unlike some other groups, we Catholics do share. Catholic.com's copyright permission page allows excerpts but requires attribution. They say if the author is not shown, then attribute it to Catholic.com.

And 1096 and 1097 are not taken verbatim.

Here is what is written:
You’ll notice that in the passage quoted the word for begins verse 26 just after the phrase containing the term anamnesis. Verse 26 explains the meaning of doing this in memory. It says that anamnesis involves a proclamation of the Lord’s death in this act of consecration. But how does eating and drinking proclaim the Lord’s death as verse 26 says? Proclaiming a message usually involves preaching, teaching or speaking in some form. But recall the old saying that "actions speak louder than words." I suggest that it is through anamnesis that the Lord’s death is proclaimed. The eucharistic actions of the Church proclaim the Lord’s death by making the Lord present to the worshiping community of faith.

In Greek culture, anamnesis was a term used to denote the movement of an abstract idea into this material world. Plato, for example, used it as one of his key ideas. For him, knowledge was an act of anamnesis, or "remembering," whereby the realities of the world of forms (ideas) came to people in this world. So, anamnesis meant more of a process in which something in another world came to be embodied in this physical world.

The Corinthians lived in a Greek culture and it would have been natural for them to understand anamnesis as describing this transfer from the heavenly world to the material world. Even more importantly, if Jesus used Hebrew or Aramaic at the Last Supper, Paul (or whoever first translated the words of consecration into Greek) chose the term anamnesis. By doing so, he was allowing that anamnesis could have the meaning that Greek-speaking people associated with that term, namely, a transfer from the heavenly world to this earthly, material world.

Remember that Paul was a Jewish Pharisee (cf. Phil. 3:5), and very possibly a rabbi (cf. Acts 22:2) before his conversion. All this means that when he used anamnesis, he may have used it with a Hebrew meaning as well as a Greek one. The Hebrew word for "memorial" is zikaron and it has a similar connotation to anamnesis in Greek culture. It is more than mental recollection. The celebration of the Passover was believed to involve a participation in the original exodus from Egypt. The purpose of this being an annual and perpetual event for the children of Israel was that every generation could experience the liberation from slavery that the first generation in Egypt had experienced. Thus, zikaron connotes a participation in an event of the past rather than simply a mental recollection of that event.

Whether you approach this question from the Greek or Hebrew side, the result supports the notion of the Real Presence. When Paul quotes Jesus as saying eis ten emen anamnesin, he understands the meaning both in Greek and Hebrew senses. When Jesus said, "do this eis ten emen anamensin," he was not saying to simply remember him. He was telling his twelve apostles to perform the same actions that he did in order to bring the reality of him back to this world.

1,152 posted on 01/28/2011 12:57:58 AM PST by Cronos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1139 | View Replies ]


To: Cronos

You lifted whole sentences. Anyone can read that for themselves.

And regardless of the permission granted, you still did NOT attribute your excerpts as you yourself now admit is required.

Are you incapable of writing original thoughts?


1,154 posted on 01/28/2011 1:04:52 AM PST by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1152 | View Replies ]

To: Cronos; Dr. Eckleburg; Religion Moderator; metmom; Quix; Iscool; 1000 silverlings; Alex Murphy; ...
Hardly -- unlike some other groups, we Catholics do share.

It's irrelevant whether other groups share or not. That's not the point.

The problem with your posting material without attribution in each post is twofold.

One is that it puts FR at risk of copyright infringement.

The other is that it leaves others under the impression that what you posted was YOUR work, not the work of others. That's commonly known as plagiarism.

Whole paragraphs can be google searched and show up verbatim. Rearranging the order of the paragraphs does not make the material your own.

And posting one blanket post that all previous material is from such and such a site, does not seem like it would cover FR's tail.

Both actions are wrong and unworthy of someone who calls themselves a Christian.

It's not really all that hard to copy and paste the site and url. Anyone who can find the site and copy and paste paragraphs of material, has demonstrated the computer skills to be able to add the site name and url in each post while they're at it. There's no excuse for not doing so.

1,180 posted on 01/28/2011 5:29:12 AM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1152 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson