Comparing and contrasting Mormon/Catholic views on the Sacrament/Eucharist

[ParkerD]

Lax16,
Here are my responses to your other comments or questions:

This is interesting because I did some reading on the altar in Jerusalem vs. the altars in the early church(es). The altar in the temple was a very large square with a ramp and stairs. It had to be large enough to allow for animal sacrifices. There was also a perpetual fire (Lev 6:5).
The altars in the early churches were much smaller and rectangular in shape. They looked like tables because we are called to the “Lord’s Supper”.

It can just as well be that those much smaller altars were being used for “hidden” ordinances such as marriages. When the Lord is described as giving the Last Supper to the apostles, He is not described as using an altar for placing the bread or the wine on it first. They did use a table and sat around the table.

1. It appears to me from 1 Corinthians 11 that Paul was telling the members to ensure they were worthy as they partook of the “bread” and the “cup”, and that part of being worthy was that they would not be in a situation where one person was “hungry” and another person was “drunken” (meaning had plenty to eat). It appears that they were excluding some members who were poor (v. 22), and were certainly not commemorating the Lord’s supper in a righteous way.

(This was my earlier response. Next is your question that followed that response.)

Why was Paul so passionate about it then?

I don’t understand the why behind your question. Why wouldn’t Paul be passionate in his teaching? There is evidence that he was consistently a very passionate teacher, and that he personalized his teaching. He would be just as passionate about a person “putting on Christ” and thus “becoming like Christ” as if he believed as you have attributed him to have believed. His teaching about love and charity (1 Corinthians 13) shows that he was very passionate about that topic, and that it was central to his message about becoming “like Christ”.

I am assuming you are aware that the Early Church Fathers believed in the Real Presence and wrote about it extensively. But most important, we know that the belief in the Real Presence was in existence because it was finally challenged by Berengar of Tours in 1088. Obviously, the Early Church accepted the belief because it went unchallenged for one thousand years!

The ECF were protecting their interests, and defending their beliefs. That comes across in the way they wrote. The quote attributed to Ignatius where he wrote that some were “abstaining” from the “Eucharist” (as translated by Catholics instead of the word “thanksgiving”) shows that just because he accepted the belief does not mean everyone accepted the belief, and in fact shows that everyone did not accept the belief and therefore abstained from doing something against their own conscience.

Just because there may not have been a documented written challenge to the belief (remembering that the documents were being preserved by the very same people who were in the position of defending their own beliefs and trying to persuade others likewise) does not mean there was no such challenge, and the quote from Ignatius shows that there was an undercurrent of a challenge happening during the very time he was writing about.

 

[catholic-rcia]

Lax16,
Here are my responses to your other comments or questions:

It can just as well be that those much smaller altars were being used for “hidden” ordinances such as marriages. When the Lord is described as giving the Last Supper to the apostles, He is not described as using an altar for placing the bread or the wine on it first. They did use a table and sat around the table.

.

A bit about the table
blog.adw.org/2010/01/the-seating-plan-at-the-last-supper/

 

[lax16]

Lax16,
Here are my responses to your other comments or questions:

It can just as well be that those much smaller altars were being used for “hidden” ordinances such as marriages. When the Lord is described as giving the Last Supper to the apostles, He is not described as using an altar for placing the bread or the wine on it first. They did use a table and sat around the table.

**I tried to find info on marriages in the early church but was not successful. It makes me wonder where they did perform the ceremonies. Yes, it was always to meant to commemorate the sacrifice of Jesus for us all, hence the need for an altar/table. **

(This was my earlier response. Next is your question that followed that response.)

I don’t understand the why behind your question. Why wouldn’t Paul be passionate in his teaching? There is evidence that he was consistently a very passionate teacher, and that he personalized his teaching. He would be just as passionate about a person “putting on Christ” and thus “becoming like Christ” as if he believed as you have attributed him to have believed. His teaching about love and charity (1 Corinthians 13) shows that he was very passionate about that topic, and that it was central to his message about becoming “like Christ”.

But Parker, you are missing the fact that the early Church did believe in the Real Presence so that is why Paul is so passionate. You cannot separate the two!

The ECF were protecting their interests, and defending their beliefs. That comes across in the way they wrote. The quote attributed to Ignatius where he wrote that some were “abstaining” from the “Eucharist” (as translated by Catholics instead of the word “thanksgiving”) shows that just because he accepted the belief does not mean everyone accepted the belief, and in fact shows that everyone did not accept the belief and therefore abstained from doing something against their own conscience.

Just because there may not have been a documented written challenge to the belief (remembering that the documents were being preserved by the very same people who were in the position of defending their own beliefs and trying to persuade others likewise) does not mean there was no such challenge, and the quote from Ignatius shows that there was an undercurrent of a challenge happening during the very time he was writing about.

What interests did the Early Church Fathers have other than protecting the Church from heresy?
Everything from the Didache (passed on and possibly written “pre-apostasy”) to the writings of the Apostles and Jesus’ own words point to the dogma of the Real Presence. Once again, connect the dots.

 

[RebeccaJ]

It’s easier to be LDS if you just make up dots that aren’t there, and take away the ones that are.

That way you can make the picture look like what you want it to.

 

[zerinus]

Hello ParkerD and Zerinus -

I have been reading this thread and find it to be very informative.

I have some questions that do not seem to have been addressed as of yet.

Why did the early Churches (that have been and are being discovered by archaeologists) have altars if it was not for the sacrifice of the mass?

If you go to Mormon churches you will find a table that is used for blessing the Sacrament and administering it to the congregation. Where do you draw the line between a table and an altar?

Do Mormons believe that the first Christians were in error even though the Apostles were still alive? (as opposed to when the last Apostle died allowing for the Apostasy)

Well, according to the New Testament the errors certainly began during the life of the Apostles. 1 Corinthians 11 in particular points out some errors that the early Christians were falling into in administering and partaking of the Sacrament in the days of Paul, which he writes to correct them on.

If the Apostles Peter and Paul used this Church when in Antioch and it contained an altar, do you think they were wrong even though the Great Apostasy had not yet occurred?

It appears the oldest Church to be discovered (so far) is outside of Antioch. It is called the Cave Church of St. Peter.
It is believed that the cave was dug by the Apostle Peter himself and was used by the very first Christians, including Paul.

Here is a link with pictures of the church:sacred-destinations.com/turkey/antioch-cave-church-of-peter

This is really more of a legend than reliable fact. The idea that Peter personally dug this cave is a bit farfetched, to say the least. And although there may be truth in the belief that the cave itself had been used in the earliest days of Christianity for worship, there is little likelihood that the stone architecture surrounding it is of the same age. It could have been built at a much later period. Indeed the altar looks a lot newer than the rest of the stone architecture of the place. You are attempting to read a lot more into it than can be justifiably concluded.

Ignatius of Antioch, disciple of the Apostle John, in a letter to the Smyrnaens speaks of the Eucharist (about 110 AD). Also many of the early Church Fathers speak of the Eucharist.
It is also mentioned in the didache which is from the very early Church and spells out how the Eucharist is to be celebrated.

Biblical references that the First Apostles spoke of the Eucharist:
Matthew/Mark/Luke - in the gospel narratives
Luke 22:19
Luke 24:30
Matt 26:29
1 Cor 10:16
1 Cor 11:17-34

And that proves what exactly?

There is archaelogical, scriptural, non-scriptural, and traditional proof that the early Church believed in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist and celebrated it from the beginning.

Lots of flaws in that argument. First of all you haven’t produced any such “evidence”. Quoting a bunch of scriptures without comment, and showing a few photos which can have a thousand different interpretations does not “prove” anything. Secondly, you need to define what you mean by “real presence”. There are lots of Christian churches who believe in some form of “real presence,” but they mean different things by it. You need to tell us exactly what you mean by it.

What interests did the Early Church Fathers have other than protecting the Church from heresy?
Everything from the Didache (passed on and possibly written “pre-apostasy”) to the writings of the Apostles and Jesus’ own words point to the dogma of the Real Presence. Once again, connect the dots.

See above.

 

[lax16]

If you go to Mormon churches you will find a table that is used for blessing the Sacrament and administering it to the congregation. Where do you draw the line between a table and an altar?

It’s like a table for all to join together for the Lord’s Supper and an altar for the Eucharist.

Well, according to the New Testament the errors certainly began during the life of the Apostles. 1 Corinthians 11 in particular points out some errors that the early Christians were falling into in administering and partaking of the Sacrament in the days of Paul, which he writes to correct them on.

Yes, but if the apostasy happened after the last apostle died, you should be okay with went on before, no?

This is really more of a legend than reliable fact. The idea that Peter personally dug this cave is a bit farfetched, to say the least. And although there may be truth in the belief that the cave itself had been used in the earliest days of Christianity for worship, there is little likelihood that the stone architecture surrounding it is of the same age. It could have been built at a much later period. Indeed the altar looks a lot newer than the rest of the stone architecture of the place. You are attempting to read a lot more into it than can be justifiably concluded.

How do you know? Are you an expert in this field? I am not. I agree the altar looks new, however if you read carefully you would see that it says the frescoes on the side of the altar are original.

And that proves what exactly?

Lots of flaws in that argument. First of all you haven’t produced any such “evidence”. Quoting a bunch of scriptures without comment, and showing a few photos which can have a thousand different interpretations does not “prove” anything. Secondly, you need to define what you mean by “real presence”. There are lots of Christian churches who believe in some form of “real presence,” but they mean different things by it. You need to tell us exactly what you mean by it.

It is not my job to prove anything. I am engaging in a conversation and presenting ideas and the research of others. We put things together and come up with a conclusion: scripture + archaeology + ancient writings (the Didache) + oral tradition + 2000 years of a religion = Catholicism

Please provide at least one of a thousand different interpretations of the photograph.
Please provide proof outside of your opinion for the lack of the Real Presence.

thanks!
See above.

 

[zerinus]

It’s like a table for all to join together for the Lord’s Supper and an altar for the Eucharist.

You missed the point. We don’t have an altar in LDS Churches, we just have a table; and we don’t offer any “sacrifices” on it either. And what you think are altars in the earliest Christian Churches may in fact have been nothing more than tables, like in the LDS Church today.

Yes, but if the apostasy happened after the last apostle died, you should be okay with went on before, no?

Maybe yes and maybe no. But in either case, you have not shown that they had altars (instead of just tables), or offered “sacrifices” on them.

How do you know? Are you an expert in this field? I am not. I agree the altar looks new, however if you read carefully you would see that it says the frescoes on the side of the altar are original.

Original to when? First century? Second century? Third century? Seventh century? Twelfth century? Did the Christians of the first or second century have the resources, the money, the manpower, the freedom from government interference and persecution to build elaborate and expensive stone architectures? It is a well-known fact that these sites in later periods became shrines or centers of pilgrimage, and a lot of the building work was done on them at much later times, usually with the help of the money donated by pilgrims and devotees.

It is not my job to prove anything. I am engaging in a conversation and presenting ideas and the research of others. We put things together and come up with a conclusion: scripture + archaeology + ancient writings (the Didache) + oral tradition + 2000 years of a religion = Catholicism

The trouble is that a lot of the stuff you have put together doesn’t add up.

Please provide at least one of a thousand different interpretations of the photograph.

I told you. When was the stonework of the place build? First, second, third, eighth, twelfth centuries? Do you have a documented history of the place? Can you say you know for certain when it was built? Do you honestly believe that Peter himself dug this cave?

Please provide proof outside of your opinion for the lack of the Real Presence.

You didn’t tell me what you mean by Real Presence. Different churches understand Real Presence differently. Here is a quote from the Wikipedia about how it is understood in different Churches:

Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christians see the Real Presence in terms not of a physical or “carnal” presence, but of transubstantiation/ metousiosis. Anglicans generally argue for contentment with the mode of objective presence to remain a mystery. Lutherans expound a presence “in, with and under the forms” of bread and wine. Methodists postulate the par excellence presence as being a “Holy Mystery”. Reformed Protestant views instead speak of a “spiritual” real presence and stress that Holy Communion is a “spiritual feeding”. Certain other Protestant traditions (for instance, Baptists and contemporary evangelicals) simply reject outright the doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

With such a widely differing views on Real Presence in the Christian world, which one do you think the Mormons should adopt? The Catholic one? Why? Why not a Baptist one, or Methodist one, or Lutheran one? Why not create a definition of our own? I am in favor of that option! Since every church has its own definition of Real Presence, then Mormons can have one of their own too, don’t you think so?

 

[SteveVH]

You missed the point. We don’t have an altar in LDS Churches, we just have a table; and we don’t offer any “sacrifices” on it either. And what you think are altars in the earliest Christian Churches may in fact have been nothing more than tables, like in the LDS Church today.

Maybe yes and maybe no. But in either case, you have not shown that they had altars (instead of just tables), or offered “sacrifices” on them.

Original to when? First century? Second century? Third century? Seventh century? Twelfth century? Did the Christians of the first or second century have the resources, the money, the manpower, the freedom from government interference and persecution to build elaborate and expensive stone architectures? It is a well-known fact that these sites in later periods became shrines or centers of pilgrimage, and a lot of the building work was done on them at much later times, usually with the help of the money donated by pilgrims and devotees.

The trouble is that a lot of the stuff you have put together doesn’t add up.

I told you. When was the stonework of the place build? First, second, third, eighth, twelfth centuries? Do you have a documented history of the place? Can you say you know for certain when it was built? Do you honestly believe that Peter himself dug this cave?

You didn’t tell me what you mean by Real Presence. Different churches understand Real Presence differently. Here is a quote from the Wikipedia about how it is understood in different Churches:

Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christians see the Real Presence in terms not of a physical or “carnal” presence, but of transubstantiation/ metousiosis. Anglicans generally argue for contentment with the mode of objective presence to remain a mystery. Lutherans expound a presence “in, with and under the forms” of bread and wine. Methodists postulate the par excellence presence as being a “Holy Mystery”. Reformed Protestant views instead speak of a “spiritual” real presence and stress that Holy Communion is a “spiritual feeding”. Certain other Protestant traditions (for instance, Baptists and contemporary evangelicals) simply reject outright the doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

With such a widely differing views on Real Presence in the Christian world, which one do you think the Mormons should adopt? The Catholic one? Why? Why not a Baptist one, or Methodist one, or Lutheran one? Why not create a definition of our own? I am in favor of that option! Since every church has its own definition of Real Presence, then Mormons can have one of their own too, don’t you think so?

I find it amazing that any Mormon would require so much historical evidence from another when the entire basis of your beliefs rests on no historic evidence whatsoever, from the apostasy to the golden plates to the Nephites and the Laminites. Your entire faith rests on the claim of one man with a glaring lack of evidence for anything that he said.

The Mass has been a part of Christianity since the beginning and every Mass requires, by its very nature, an altar. It’s really as simple as that. The real point is that there is no evidence which would be satisfactory to you so this entire exercise is pretty much pointless. What would you accept as solid evidence and what difference would it make to you? If we could prove there were altars during the time of the Apostles would it change your mind about your own beliefs? I very much doubt it. You would just find another reason not to believe.

I know that you are here to defend the Mormon faith and I can admire that. However, when you refuse to acknowledge truth it not only hurts your position, but it robs you of that truth.

 

[SteveVH]

With such a widely differing views on Real Presence in the Christian world, which one do you think the Mormons should adopt? The Catholic one? Why? Why not a Baptist one, or Methodist one, or Lutheran one? Why not create a definition of our own? I am in favor of that option! Since every church has its own definition of Real Presence, then Mormons can have one of their own too, don’t you think so?

Since there was only one Church for the first 1500 years of Christianity I think the safe bet would be to adopt its version, since the whole thing began with them and therefore they have the right to define it. This is much like the discussion of the title “Christian” which seems to now include anyone who wishes to call themselves Christian whether or not they hold the original Christian beliefs or anything even resembling Christian beliefs. Mormons would be a great example of that.

 

[MelanieAnne]

I find it amazing that any Mormon would require so much historical evidence from another when the entire basis of your beliefs rests on no historic evidence whatsoever, from the apostasy to the golden plates to the Nephites and the Laminites. Your entire faith rests on the claim of one man with a glaring lack of evidence for anything that he said.

The Mass has been a part of Christianity since the beginning and every Mass requires, by its very nature, an altar. It’s really as simple as that. The real point is that there is no evidence which would be satisfactory to you so this entire exercise is pretty much pointless. What would you accept as solid evidence and what difference would it make to you? If we could prove there were altars during the time of the Apostles would it change your mind about your own beliefs? I very much doubt it. You would just find another reason not to believe.

I know that you are here to defend the Mormon faith and I can admire that. However, when you refuse to acknowledge truth it not only hurts your position, but it robs you of that truth.

My take ~ if everyone actually KNEW the history of the Early Church, the one that Jesus founded, they would all be Catholic!

All the rest of the confusion comes from other people. There is only ONE CHURCH founded by Jesus, the rest were founded by other people, and none of them were God, as Jesus was. Jesus is God. He came to found a Church. (And as a side note, He didn’t come to write a book!) That Church, today, is the Catholic Church. Shouldn’t THAT tell us something?

Jesus founded the Church that is, in the present day, known as the Catholic Church. There’s a MESSAGE there.

 

[SteveVH]

My take ~ if everyone actually KNEW the history of the Early Church, the one that Jesus founded, they would all be Catholic!

All the rest of the confusion comes from other people. There is only ONE CHURCH founded by Jesus, the rest were founded by other people, and none of them were God, as Jesus was. Jesus is God. He came to found a Church. (And as a side note, He didn’t come to write a book!) That Church, today, is the Catholic Church. Shouldn’t THAT tell us something?

Jesus founded the Church that is, in the present day, known as the Catholic Church. There’s a MESSAGE there.

EXACTLY!

 

[lax16]

You missed the point. We don’t have an altar in LDS Churches, we just have a table; and we don’t offer any “sacrifices” on it either. And what you think are altars in the earliest Christian Churches may in fact have been nothing more than tables, like in the LDS Church today.

**What is the history of the table in LDS ward houses? When did LDS ward houses become churches? What is the table used for?
You can say that altars “may in fact have been nothing more than tables” and I will respond that altars “may in fact have been altars.”
That doesn’t prove anything. I am providing the research/archaeology/expertise of others - you are, once again, providing your opinion. **

Maybe yes and maybe no. But in either case, you have not shown that they had altars (instead of just tables), or offered “sacrifices” on them.

**They are referred to today as altars, and also in various documents that I have read about historical churches. It is possible that altars were called something else, but I have not yet come across that information. Have you? **

Original to when? First century? Second century? Third century? Seventh century? Twelfth century? Did the Christians of the first or second century have the resources, the money, the manpower, the freedom from government interference and persecution to build elaborate and expensive stone architectures? It is a well-known fact that these sites in later periods became shrines or centers of pilgrimage, and a lot of the building work was done on them at much later times, usually with the help of the money donated by pilgrims and devotees.

**Huh? Have you looked at the link? It was a barren cave-like church with a tunnel. Several hundred years later the facade was added and a few other things as well. It is extremely simple.
I am convinced you did not look at the link and read the information. The frescoes - which are paintings - are supposed to be original. It would not be expensive, labor intensive, or overly time-consuming to paint a fresco on the side of an altar.
The rest of your comments prove that you did not read the information provided on the link. It states that the additions (facade) were added later. (I am really getting the feeling you consider yourself an expert on all things and have nothing else to learn). **

The trouble is that a lot of the stuff you have put together doesn’t add up.

**Once again, your (very biased, uninformed) opinion. (yawn, yawn!) Come on Zerinus, back up your comments with something other than your opinion. I would like to learn something new, not just debate with someone who doesn’t provide any new information. **

I told you. When was the stonework of the place build? First, second, third, eighth, twelfth centuries? Do you have a documented history of the place? Can you say you know for certain when it was built? Do you honestly believe that Peter himself dug this cave?

**I provided the link. I don’t know if Peter dug the cave himself (does that matter?) but it is said he and Paul used the church when in Antioch and we know from scripture that they were in that region spreading the gospel.
If the church does date back to then, it was pre-apostasy!!
Are you aware that there are very old churches, buildings, civilizations etc all over the world that are analyzed by experts?
Please google for information and read it for yourself. Don’t shoot the messenger that brings you the news that some religions actually have archaeological proof of their history. **

You didn’t tell me what you mean by Real Presence. Different churches understand Real Presence differently. Here is a quote from the Wikipedia about how it is understood in different Churches:

Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christians see the Real Presence in terms not of a physical or “carnal” presence, but of transubstantiation/ metousiosis. Anglicans generally argue for contentment with the mode of objective presence to remain a mystery. Lutherans expound a presence “in, with and under the forms” of bread and wine. Methodists postulate the par excellence presence as being a “Holy Mystery”. Reformed Protestant views instead speak of a “spiritual” real presence and stress that Holy Communion is a “spiritual feeding”. Certain other Protestant traditions (for instance, Baptists and contemporary evangelicals) simply reject outright the doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

With such a widely differing views on Real Presence in the Christian world, which one do you think the Mormons should adopt? The Catholic one? Why? Why not a Baptist one, or Methodist one, or Lutheran one? Why not create a definition of our own? I am in favor of that option! Since every church has its own definition of Real Presence, then Mormons can have one of their own too, don’t you think so?

**That is why you are LDS. You take the original idea and change it. But the point is, the concept of the Real Presence existed long before JS came along. But then again, he didn’t have anything to do with the Mormon definition of the Real Presence or lack there of. The question is: Where do Mormons get their teachings on this?
Zerinus, I am a practicing Catholic. I believe in the Real Presence. I guess we can discuss all of the different religions and their teachings on the subject, but since this thread is about comparing and contrasting Mormon/Catholic views on the Eucharist we will have to take that to another thread.

ps - It is very interesting that you as a Mormon are requiring so much proof! **

 

[zerinus]

In the future try to format your posts properly so that they become easier to answer.

That is why you are LDS. You take the original idea and change it. But the point is, the concept of the Real Presence existed long before JS came along.

The concept of the Real Presence as understood by the Catholics has no basis in scripture.

But then again, he didn’t have anything to do with the Mormon definition of the Real Presence or lack there of. The question is: Where do Mormons get their teachings on this?

 

[lax16]

In the future try to format your posts properly so that they become easier to answer.

I have tried without much success, but will keep trying to figure out how to format my posts better. Sorry for the trouble.

The concept of the Real Presence as understood by the Catholics has no basis in scripture.

**Of course it does, but you are of the OPINION that you know better than what Christ meant when He told us to celebrate the Eucharist as he clearly instructed in all of the gospels. Please cite scripture to prove your point. **

Mormonism does not use the terminology “Real Presence”.

Then what is the table used for at your ward house? Don’t you celebrate sacrament with crackers and juice? Why? Does it come from the Book of Mormon? Do you re-enact the Last (or for you, the First) Supper as Jesus asks us to in remembrance of Him? Please explain the sacramental portion of your worship on Sundays.

With such a widely differing views on Real Presence in the Christian world, which one do you think the Mormons should adopt? The Catholic one? Why? Why not a Baptist one, or Methodist one, or Lutheran one? Why not create a definition of our own? I am in favor of that option! Since every church has its own definition of Real Presence, then Mormons can have one of their own too, don’t you think so?

**Great! What did Zerinus decide the Mormons should adopt as the view on the Real Presence and its definition? Or is it already spelled out in official church doctrine? **

And I am a Mormon, and I very much disbelieve in “Real Presence” as the Catholics understand it.

**I already know your opinion, I was hoping you could provide a little more info on why the Mormons don’t believe in it. Is it in the Book of Mormon? Did an apostle have a revelation about it? Did Joseph Smith?
PLEASE provide sources for the teaching of “sacrament” that the Mormons follow. **

 

[PaulDupre]

**I already know your opinion, I was hoping you could provide a little more info on why the Mormons don’t believe in it. Is it in the Book of Mormon? Did an apostle have a revelation about it? Did Joseph Smith?
PLEASE provide sources for the teaching of “sacrament” that the Mormons follow. **

The Mormons simply assumed that the prevailing 19th-century American view of “the Lord’s supper” (the Protestant view) was the correct one and so incorporated it into their post-Christian religion. Mormonism grew out of Protestantism, though the Mormons will not admit it.

The Book of Mormon view of the Lord’s supper is totally Protestant.

 

[zerinus]

Then what is the table used for at your ward house? Don’t you celebrate sacrament with crackers and juice? Why? Does it come from the Book of Mormon? Do you re-enact the Last (or for you, the First) Supper as Jesus asks us to in remembrance of Him? Please explain the sacramental portion of your worship on Sundays.

The explanation is given in the Doctrine and Covenants as well as in the Book of Mormon. You can read here the explanation given in the D&C, and here is an explanation from the Book of Mormon. See here for a more theological explanation, also from the Book of Mormon.

Great! What did Zerinus decide the Mormons should adopt as the view on the Real Presence and its definition? Or is it already spelled out in official church doctrine?

Like I said, Mormons do not use the terminology “Real Presence;” but if we had to use it, I would say that Jesus is made “present” with us through the Sacrament by the manifestation of His Spirit. If you look at all the links I have given, you will find that in all the sacramental prayers, as well as in the theological explanation of it given in the Book of Mormon, the main promise given to those who partake of the Sacrament worthily is that they will have His Spirit to always be with them. That is how Jesus is made “present” with us at all times as a result of partaking of the Sacrament. That would be a Mormon definition of “Real Presence,” if we had to have one. If you look at the quote I gave from the Wikipedia, the definition of it adopted by the “Reformed Protestants” would come closest to what the Mormons would accept. This is what it said: “Reformed Protestant views instead speak of a ‘spiritual’ real presence and stress that Holy Communion is a ‘spiritual feeding’.” I think Mormons would find that definition also acceptable.

I already know your opinion, I was hoping you could provide a little more info on why the Mormons don’t believe in it. Is it in the Book of Mormon? Did an apostle have a revelation about it? Did Joseph Smith?
PLEASE provide sources for the teaching of “sacrament” that the Mormons follow.

That really has been discussed and repeated so many times that to repeat it again would be like the proverbial beating the dead horse. The short answer is that Mormons understand John 6 differently from Catholics. We don’t think that Jesus meant that we should literally eat His flesh and drink His blood. That is all I need to say about that.

 

[lax16]

The explanation is given in the Doctrine and Covenants as well as in the Book of Mormon. You can read here the explanation given in the D&C, and here is an explanation from the Book of Mormon. See here for a more theological explanation, also from the Book of Mormon.

Okay.

Like I said, Mormons do not use the terminology “Real Presence;” but if we had to use it, I would say that Jesus is made “present” with us through the Sacrament by the manifestation of His Spirit. If you look at all the links I have given, you will find that in all the sacramental prayers, as well as in the theological explanation of it given in the Book of Mormon, the main promise given to those who partake of the Sacrament worthily is that they will have His Spirit to always be with them. That is how Jesus is made “present” with us at all times as a result of partaking of the Sacrament. That would be a Mormon definition of “Real Presence,” if we had to have one. If you look at the quote I gave from the Wikipedia, the definition of it adopted by the “Reformed Protestants” would come closest to what the Mormons would accept. This is what it said: “Reformed Protestant views instead speak of a ‘spiritual’ real presence and stress that Holy Communion is a ‘spiritual feeding’.” I think Mormons would find that definition also acceptable.

**Reformed Protestants have the closest definition? But Mormonism has its foundation in a book that claims to be a record from thousands of years ago! Please make that connection for me. I don’t think there were Reformed Protestants around when the Nephites and Lamanites were around.
If the Book of Mormon has the “fulness of the everlasting gospel” why would Mormons need to use a Reformed Protestant definition about Jesus’ presence at Holy Communion? **

That really has been discussed and repeated so many times that to repeat it again would be like the proverbial beating the dead horse. The short answer is that Mormons understand John 6 differently from Catholics. We don’t think that Jesus meant that we should literally eat His flesh and drink His blood. That is all I need to say about that.

I must have missed those posts. You are right, many topics have been repeated over and over. Unfortunately, I have never read any posts by Parker, Diana, whyme or you on the subject. Do you remember which thread they were on?

 

[MelanieAnne]

The Mormons simply assumed that the prevailing 19th-century American view of “the Lord’s supper” (the Protestant view) was the correct one and so incorporated it into their post-Christian religion. Mormonism grew out of Protestantism, though the Mormons will not admit it.

The Book of Mormon view of the Lord’s supper is totally Protestant.

Excellent! One less thing to blame the Catholics for!

 

[lax16]

Excellent! One less thing to blame the Catholics for!

Yes, that and the definition of the (spiritual) Real Presence!

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

Reformed Protestants have the closest definition? But Mormonism has its foundation in a book that claims to be a record from thousands of years ago! Please make that connection for me. I don’t think there were Reformed Protestants around when the Nephites and Lamanites were around.
If the Book of Mormon has the “fulness of the everlasting gospel” why would Mormons need to use a Reformed Protestant definition about Jesus’ presence at Holy Communion?

I think you misunderstood what he’s saying. He doesn’t believe that the Mormon view of their Eucharist comes from Reformed Protestantism, but that, if one had to say what the Mormon view of what happens at their Eucharist is, it would be closest to the Reformed view, not that they are deriving anything from Reformed theology.