Clarification on Mormon Belief

[ParkerD]

ParkerD,

Can you please cite the works of Ignatius where we can see the change in Eucharistic belief, compared to…what exactly (as in, what did the apostles themselves teach that is different)? I’m leaving for work in a few minutes, so I’ll respond tomorrow, thanks.

TheosisM,
What I read in the writings of Ignatius is the use of the specific words “flesh of Christ”, and those words are never specifically used in the context of partaking of the bread in the teachings of the apostles.

I note also that Ignatius writes that some members evidently abstained from partaking of the Eucharist. I would take that to mean that they disagreed with the teaching of Ignatius and whomever else, that the Eucharist was physically changing into the flesh and blood of Christ as a person partook. A member disagreeing with that, was evidently strongly rebuked and made to feel unwelcome, and perhaps called a “heretic”–even though what they were doing was living by their internal belief and thus not being hypocritical by making an appearance of doing something they didn’t personally believe was true doctrine. I think it presents a clear case of a change occurring in doctrine, and some accepting the change and others not accepting the change. Those who didn’t accept the doctrinal shift were eventually called “heretics”, and left on the outside looking in.

 

[TheosisM]

TheosisM,
What I read in the writings of Ignatius is the use of the specific words “flesh of Christ”, and those words are never specifically used in the context of partaking of the bread in the teachings of the apostles.

I note also that Ignatius writes that some members evidently abstained from partaking of the Eucharist. I would take that to mean that they disagreed with the teaching of Ignatius and whomever else, that the Eucharist was physically changing into the flesh and blood of Christ as a person partook. A member disagreeing with that, was evidently strongly rebuked and made to feel unwelcome, and perhaps called a “heretic”–even though what they were doing was living by their internal belief and thus not being hypocritical by making an appearance of doing something they didn’t personally believe was true doctrine. I think it presents a clear case of a change occurring in doctrine, and some accepting the change and others not accepting the change. Those who didn’t accept the doctrinal shift were eventually called “heretics”, and left on the outside looking in.

Thanks Parker, okay I’m literally about to leave (this forum is too addictive), but if you could actually reference the actual writing of Ignatius that mentions all of this (especially abstaining from the Eucharist) so that I can see the context, that would be great. There are various reasons for abstaining from the Eucharist, so I’d like to see what Ignatius was talking about when this was apparently mentioned.

 

[Jay53]

TheosisM,
What I read in the writings of Ignatius is the use of the specific words “flesh of Christ”, and those words are never specifically used in the context of partaking of the bread in the teachings of the apostles.

I note also that Ignatius writes that some members evidently abstained from partaking of the Eucharist. I would take that to mean that they disagreed with the teaching of Ignatius and whomever else, that the Eucharist was physically changing into the flesh and blood of Christ as a person partook. A member disagreeing with that, was evidently strongly rebuked and made to feel unwelcome, and perhaps called a “heretic”–even though what they were doing was living by their internal belief and thus not being hypocritical by making an appearance of doing something they didn’t personally believe was true doctrine. I think it presents a clear case of a change occurring in doctrine, and some accepting the change and others not accepting the change. Those who didn’t accept the doctrinal shift were eventually called “heretics”, and left on the outside looking in.

I’d also like to see the context, but I’d also like to see how Ignatius using the words “flesh of Christ” contradicts Jesus’ own words (and the words of the Jews questioning His teaching on the subject). (All emphasis is mine.)

I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh."

52Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, “**How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” **

53So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you **eat the flesh **of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves.

54"He who **eats My flesh **and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.

55"For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink.

56"He who **eats My flesh **and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.
biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%206&version=NASB

 

[Marie5890]

Marie5890,
I would assume that there have been talks and articles on this subject many times over the years, which could probably be found using the search option on lds.org but for now I can point out a reliable source which is James E Talmage, Jesus the Christ, chapter 21 and pages 314-319.

What I wrote earlier was from my own personal inner-core experience and feelings, so thanks, Jay53, for your reaction, but I wasn’t saying I believe the doctrine of the Eucharist, per se. What needs to happen inside of us is how we treat what Christ has offered to us. Talmage explains this well, and highlights that the Jewish leaders would have understood what Jesus was saying because the symbolism of bread and water was already an important kind of symbolism from their understanding of the Old Testament teachings.

Thanks
…I dont have my copy of Talmage’s “Jesus the Christ” anymore but if the online ebook that I was able to come across is page aligned with the original book it looks like he didn’t take it on directly.

 

[Marie5890]

(I think its important to point out how this was received by some. They found it a “difficult statement” …It caused many of them to withdraw and not follow Him anymore…emphasis mine)

52 Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, "How can this man give us His flesh to eat?"

53So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves.

54"He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.

55"For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink.

56"He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.

57"As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he also will live because of Me.

58"This is the bread which came down out of heaven; not as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever."

59These things He said in the synagogue as He taught in Capernaum.

60Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this said, "This is a difficult statement; who can listen to it?"

61But Jesus, conscious that His disciples grumbled at this, said to them, "Does this cause you to stumble?

62"What then if you see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before?

63"It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.

64"But there are some of you who do not believe " For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was that would betray Him.

65And He was saying, “For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father.”

66**As a result of this many of His disciples withdrew and were not walking with Him anymore. **

 

[spockrates]

All three are real rocks, and we are all called to be rocks in the Church. Please see this post for more information:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6008635&postcount=288

TM:

In what I’m interested is learning how you know Peter is one of the rocks on which the Church is built. Is it because the Catholic Church teaches this is so? Is it because the Bible teaches this is so? Is it because reason tells you this is so? Is it some feeling of peace that tells you this is so?



You see, I’m trying to discern what method I should use to know what is true.

 

[spockrates]

Yes, Christ built A Church, his Church. The facts of history show his Church has Bishops with Apostolic succession. There are a small handful of Churches which have it. They all, also, have the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist as taught by Christ himself. When deciding which of these small handful of Churches with the historical claim to be the true Church of Christ; it is then we can turn to Matthew 16:18 and John 21:15-17. Calvinism is a 16th century invention and the Latter Day Saint movement is a 19th century American invention. The don’t believe in the real presence because they have no authority to make it happen and neither have any historical claim to be a Church started by Christ.

I believe the claim of the Protestant reformers and the Latter Day Saints was that the Catholic Church somehow dropped the ball when it came to teaching the truth. How do you answer that objection, Stephen?

 

[Stephen168]

In what I’m interested is learning how you know Peter is one of the rocks on which the Church is built…
You see, I’m trying to discern what method I should use to know what is true.

I use facts of history

 

[Stephen168]

I believe the claim of the Protestant reformers and the Latter Day Saints was that the Catholic Church somehow dropped the ball when it came to teaching the truth. How do you answer that objection, Stephen?

From history I know ‘the ball’ is the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. ‘The ball’ was dropped by religions without Apostolic succession; be it Protestant, JWs, or Mormons. The Catholics and Orthodox still have ‘the ball.’

 

[catholic-rcia]

***For many years I was taught that the Catholic Church fell after 200 A.D, then you began to hear 150 A.D then 100 AD…Then soon after the Crucifixion. Which is it? ***

St. Justin describes the Mass.
*** (The year is 150 A.D.; he is a martyr who was beheaded in 165 at Rome Italy) ***

“The people gathered together on Sunday, the ‘Lord’s Day’ participated in prayers and hymns, and listened to readings from the Old Testament and from the writings of the apostles. Then as always, bread and wine and water were offered and the words of Jesus at the Last Supper were prayed by the one presiding. The people received the body and blood of Christ, and the Holy Communion was brought to the sick. A collection was taken for the poor and the needy.”
St. Paul*** wrote***: “For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.” (1 Cor 11:26) He also wrote: “The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because the loaf of bread is one, we, though many, are one body for we all partake of the one loaf” (1 Cor 11:16-17 and 1 Cor 12).

Through the centuries, the Mass has remained fully intact. The Mass takes place every 2 minutes somewhere on the earth, 7 days a week, all year long except on Good Friday
(1 Cor 11:26).

***St. Ignatius of Antioch’s Letter to the Smyrnaeans on the Mass. (The year is 110 A.D.)

***He became the third bishop of Antioch, succeeding St. Evodius, who was the immediate successor of St. Peter. He received the martyr’s crown as he was thrown to wild beasts in the arena. He wrote:

“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not profess that the Eucharist (Jn 6:66) is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead.”
It is the Mass that has brought Christ into the present. It is the sign given as you contemplate all of chapter 6 in John’s gospel.
…In Christ

www.utahmission.com
www.chooseyourcross.com

utahmission.com/pages/Common_Questions.html

 

[spockrates]

Thank you for that interesting quote. It is “evidence” if you are already a believer. But looking at it from the eye of a skeptic, such as an atheist or an agnostic, it hardly appears to be convincing.

Predictive prophecy was what converted me when I was an agnostic, Zerinus! But do you think I was the exception rather than the rule? How many agnostics who became believers in the Bible have you met?

The Israelites were a murmuring and rebellious lot. Moses led them through the wilderness for 40 years, during which time they did nothing but rebel and murmur against him and against God every day of their lives! Many of them periodically had to be destroyed by plagues, and pestilence, and the sword for that reason until they were brought to the land they had been promised. So it did not require a lot of intelligence to know that they were going to continue along that path after they had been brought to the Promised Land.

Exactly! The Jewish people were freed slaves who wandered in the desert for 40 years. The reason they stayed in the desert was for fear of crossing the Jordan river and facing the professional armies of the Cannanites, who had warred with one another for all of their history and had fortified, walled cities to protect them.

It would not require much intelligence to assume that after 40 years in the desert they’d resign themselves to be desert nomads (as did the Arab people) and not risk their own genocide. The incredible and unexpected thing, which flies in the face of common sense, was that after so long they got the courage to risk their lives and face an enemy that was a far superior fighting force and better fortified. That’s one reason that Moses’ predictions was hard to believe.

Another reason his predictions were hard to believe is this: After crossing the Jordan river and subduing all of their enemies, the Jewish people would chose to stop worshiping their God and worship the gods of the people they defeated. If those gods could not save their enemies, what possible rational reason would they have for worshiping them? Why on earth would they turn their backs on their own victorious God and worship the gods their own god defeated? It is completely illogical, and something that no other ancient people has ever done besides them.

You see, you are asking me to play the role of the skeptic here. I am not trying to undermine somebody’s faith. But looking at it from the point of view of somebody who does not already believe, and needs to be convinced, that is hardly a credible “prediction”. It is something that any good observer, especially an experience leader like Moses, would have been able to guess.

Well, you did not ask my why someone who does not believe should believe. You asked my why I believe the Bible is trustworthy. So I’m answering your question. However, as I said, I was an agnostic until I investigated the predictive prophecies of the Old Testament. These predictions are one rational reason why I trust the Bible.

 

[Stephen168]

***For many years I was taught that the Catholic Church fell after 200 A.D, then you began to hear 150 A.D then 100 AD…Then soon after the Crucifixion. Which is it? ***

The first time I ever heard of the idea of a ‘Great Apostasy’ is was associated with Constantine in the 4th century. Now is seems to be associated with the death of the last Apostle around 100AD. I personally believe the change is due to the writings of the early church which show the Church of Christ and the Apostles to be Catholic, and not Protestant or Mormon.

 

[spockrates]

Thank you. Since that “explanation” was apparently conducted in private, I cannot comment. I think it is disingenuous of our Catholic friends to advise you in secret, and then send you to debate with me in public! I am a lone ranger; I don’t have any secret advisers! But in any case, I cannot refute or comment on what your Catholic friends have told you, since I was not privy to that conversation. But I can certainly attempt to answer the question you have asked:

Actually, it was a conversation that took place months prior to our conversation. The only person with whom I’ve had any private discussions about this discussion thread is my new Mormon friend, Parker.

We believe that the truth of all the revelations of God, not only of those specific to Mormonism but also of the Bible, can only be known with conviction and certainty by the witness of the Holy Spirit. Without that, you can no more know and be sure of the truth of the Bible than you can be of the truth of the Book of Mormon.

Yes, I see the value of receiving divine assistance. After all, Jesus said:

“No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.”

(John 6:44)

And I believe that somehow God the Father drew me to Himself, and is drawing me even now. I’m not sure what method He uses. Perhaps He, somehow, increases my desire to see Him face to face.

But you asked me why I believed the Bible to be reliable, and I’m simply doing my best to answer your question. Why I trust the Bible has a lot to do with evidence (such as predictive prophecy) that convinces me that human beings could not possibly have written it apart from divine assistance. I mean, there are not only predictions about the Jewish nation; but predictions about the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. And nearly every ancient city within a thousand miles of Jerusalem has had its future predicted with 100% accuracy 100% of the time. The predictions are specific and verifiable. Again, I’m not trying to debate with you; just answering your question, as you asked me why I put faith in the Bible.

The Book of Mormon has a promise made within it that if you read it and study it carefully, with an open mind and a sincere desire to know of its truth, God will reveal the truth of it to you by the power of the Holy Ghost. There are millions of Mormons who have put the Book of Mormon to that test, and can testify that they have received a witness that it is true. It is entirely your decision whether you want to take up that challenge or not. I also need to comment on the “instead” bit. We don’t want you to believe in the authority of the Book of Mormon “instead” of the Bible. They are equally authoritative as far as we are concerned.

Thank you, Zerinus! Since they are equally authoritative, are they equally supported? Does the Book of Mormon quote God as saying He will predict the future? Does it contain specific prophecies about the ancient people of the Americas that have come true? Perhaps the same evidence that caused me to trust the Bible will cause me to trust the Book of Mormon, too!

 

[spockrates]

Zerinus,

Spockrates is in an unenviable position that is a great struggle.

He is seeking intellectual answers for spiritual fundamentals and I expect he intellectually understands that.

But that is a hard loop to break out of (esp when one has had reason to with draw the exercise of faith) once one is stuck in it and I expect that frustrates him. I know it did me. Sort of like a mouse stuck on its exercise wheel. You try and try and try, and it just keeps circling without going forward.

(Im surprised I was ever able to break out of it to be honest, but looking back I can tell I didn’t break out of it. The Spirit broke that loop for me when I least expected it)

Spockrates could be in a similar situation at the moment. And it it will be only the Spirit that can break that loop for him.

It can be very frustration for us to watch the frustration of another knowing we can only do so much. We really are just weak human beings after all.

I’d have to agree with your assessment, Marie. Thanks for speaking on my behalf!



I suppose I’d cry if I stopped trying to make myself laugh!

http://www.andrewhalcro.com/files/images/jjetson_0.jpg

 

[spockrates]

I use facts of history

What facts are those, please?

 

[spockrates]

From history I know ‘the ball’ is the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. ‘The ball’ was dropped by religions without Apostolic succession; be it Protestant, JWs, or Mormons. The Catholics and Orthodox still have ‘the ball.’

Please tell me how you know the ball is the Eucharist.

 

[spockrates]

Spockrates,
You are a craftsman with words. There is a delight in doing that–no question about it. Socrates and Plato had that gift, as did Shakespeare and many gifted writers through the ages. I think this is a case where the craftsmanship may be part of a “stumbling block” rather than a “building block”, because trading questions and answers across the internet does not really, deep-down, match the scripturally taught learning process for gaining the complete foundation whereby the Holy Spirit can teach you all things and “bring all things to your remembrance.” …

Parker:

Not sure if you missed this post, my new friend:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6011590&postcount=294

 

[spockrates]

… Well, you did not ask my why someone who does not believe should believe. You asked my why I believe the Bible is trustworthy. So I’m answering your question. However, as I said, I was an agnostic until I investigated the predictive prophecies of the Old Testament. These predictions are one rational reason why I trust the Bible.

Zerinus:

I meant, “You did not ask me why … you asked me why …”

Sorry for the typos!

 

[zerinus]

Predictive prophecy was what converted me when I was an agnostic, Zerinus! But do you think I was the exception rather than the rule? How many agnostics who became believers in the Bible have you met?

Fair enough. If you are looking for predictions in the Book of Mormon, let’s see if I can find you some. How about 2 Nephi 29? Have a look, and tell me what you think.

 

[Stephen168]

In what I’m interested is learning how you know Peter is one of the rocks on which the Church is built… …

You see, I’m trying to discern what** method**

What facts are those, please?

You asked for a method to use to find what is true. My listing a series of facts is not a method. I said, I (Stephen168) use the facts of history to find what is true.