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

[SteveVH]

In an effort to remain within forum rules concerning “staying on topic”, and considering that it is nearly impossible for a Mormon and a Catholic to have a coherent discussion of the Mormon Sacrament without also discussing the Eucharist, I propose that the “topic” include both.

I will ask that EVERYONE be respectful of each other’s beliefs and use charity at all times. The subject matter concerns something very holy to both faiths. Let’s not forget that. One other thing. Please keep your posts as short and to the point as possible. Lengthy posts with scripture quotes that go on forever are tiresome, difficult to respond to and usually ignored for the most part anyway.

I will try and give a brief overview of the Catholic perspective of the Eucharist, to the best of my ability, and would ask a Mormon to please do the same concerning their Sacrament.

Catholics believe that the Eucharist was prefigured at the attempted sacrifice of Abraham’s only son, Issac (“God himself will provide the lamb”); foretold at the Passover (the Passover lamb); prepared for in the “Bread of Life” discourse in John, Ch. 6; instituted at the Last Supper by Jesus himself and fulfilled at the crucifiction. We believe that when he said “Take this, all of you, and eat it. This is my body which will be given up for you… Drink from it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant which will be shed for many for the forgiveness of sins” he meant exactly what he said.

We believe that the substance (not the form) of the simple elements of bread and wine (think Melchizedek) are truly changed into the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ when a duly ordained priest repeats the words of Christ and calls upon the Holy Spirit to change them.

When we receive the concecrated “host”, we enter into the most intimate relationship possible on this earth with our Lord and Savior. We consume him, that he may consume us. We enter into “communion” with him and with each other and become the “Mystical Body of Christ”. This sacrament is the source and summit of our faith. Without the Eucharist, there is no Catholic Church.

I welcome any Mormon to give their brief explanation of the Mormon Sacrament. Let’s see what we can learn from each other.

 

[zerinus]

In an effort to remain within forum rules concerning “staying on topic”, and considering that it is nearly impossible for a Mormon and a Catholic to have a coherent discussion of the Mormon Sacrament without also discussing the Eucharist, I propose that the “topic” include both.

I entirely agree.

Catholics believe that the Eucharist was prefigured at the attempted sacrifice of Abraham’s only son, Issac (“God himself will provide the lamb”);

Mormons agree.

. . . foretold at the Passover (the Passover lamb);

Mormons agree.

. . . prepared for in the “Bread of Life” discourse in John, Ch. 6;

Mormons agree.

. . . instituted at the Last Supper by Jesus himself and fulfilled at the crucifiction.

Mormons agree.

We believe that when he said “Take this, all of you, and eat it. This is my body which will be given up for you… Drink from it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant which will be shed for many for the forgiveness of sins” he meant exactly what he said.

Mormons disagree!

We believe that the substance (not the form) of the simple elements of bread and wine (think Melchizedek) are truly changed into the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ when a duly ordained priest repeats the words of Christ and calls upon the Holy Spirit to change them.

Mormons disagree!

When we receive the concecrated “host”, we enter into the most intimate relationship possible on this earth with our Lord and Savior. We consume him, that he may consume us. We enter into “communion” with him and with each other and become the “Mystical Body of Christ”. This sacrament is the source and summit of our faith. Without the Eucharist, there is no Catholic Church.

Mormons largely agree, but might have expressed it in different terms.

I welcome any Mormon to give their brief explanation of the Mormon Sacrament. Let’s see what we can learn from each other.

I wrote a piece in my Blog explaining the Mormon doctrine of the Sacrament two years ago which will answer that question. I am afraid it is a bit long and gives lengthy quotes; but it has the advantage of being reasonably comprehensive and will I think answer most of the questions you ask. You can read it here. Take a look, and tell me what you think.

 

[zerinus]

I wrote a piece in my Blog explaining the Mormon doctrine of the Sacrament two years ago which will answer that question. I am afraid it is a bit long and gives lengthy quotes; but it has the advantage of being reasonably comprehensive and will I think answer most of the questions you ask. You can read it here. Take a look, and tell me what you think.

P.S. I had written that blog two years ago when I had some heated discussions with Catholics on the subject, and had not edited it since. I have just gone back and reedited it, and made it better. If you had read it before, I would like you to read it again, and give me your feedback.

 

[zerinus]

P.S. I had written that blog two years ago when I had some heated discussions with Catholics on the subject, and had not edited it since. I have just gone back and reedited it, and made it better. If you had read it before, I would like you to read it again, and give me your feedback.

Bump for SteveVH!

 

[SteveVH]

I entirely agree.

Mormons agree.

Mormons agree.

Mormons agree.

Mormons agree.

Mormons disagree!

Mormons disagree!

Mormons largely agree, but might have expressed it in different terms.

I wrote a piece in my Blog explaining the Mormon doctrine of the Sacrament two years ago which will answer that question. I am afraid it is a bit long and gives lengthy quotes; but it has the advantage of being reasonably comprehensive and will I think answer most of the questions you ask. You can read it here. Take a look, and tell me what you think.

Zerinus, sorry I haven’t been able to respond to your posts yet. It’s been one of those days. It looks like we have some common ground. I’m interested in what you disagree with but haven’t been able to read your blog yet. I am looking forward to it and hope to post soon. The timing on starting a new thread couldn’t have been worse, but the circumstances were unforseen. Please be patient with me, I will get to it.

 

[SteveVH]

I wrote a piece in my Blog explaining the Mormon doctrine of the Sacrament two years ago which will answer that question. I am afraid it is a bit long and gives lengthy quotes; but it has the advantage of being reasonably comprehensive and will I think answer most of the questions you ask. You can read it here. Take a look, and tell me what you think.

I finally got to read your blog. You obviously put wome work into this and I have to say you represent your faith well. It is very helpful to me to have such a resource to further our discussion. If you don’t mind I would rather focus on one point at a time.

I realize that you must refer to the Mormon materials that you accept as “scripture” in order to explain your position. As you are aware, no doubt, I do not accept them as scripture. Rather than debate the validity of the BoM and D&C, I will try to focus more on your conclusions. We do find common ground in the Bible, however, and I think you would agree that scripture should not conflict with scripture.

While stipulating that we are in agreement concerning the need for a validly ordained priest (we’ll save that for another time) You state that:

• The next significant clause occurs in verse 7 (3 Nephi 18:7), where we are taught that it is done "in remembrance of my body…"*.The first part of that clause “in remembrance of my body…” also occurs in the Bible: Luke 22:19"And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.

It seems to me that there is a distinction between "remembrance of my body" and "remembrance of me". Your reference to 3 Nephi 18:7 reads in full "in remembrance of my body, which I have shown to you".

Luke 22:19 is distinctly referring to the sacrifice of Christ upon the cross. The 3 Nephi reference to "which I have shown to you" imparts a different meaning than my body which is given for you. I may be reading way to much into this, but to ask someone to remember you because you have shown them your body is different than asking them to remember you because you have given your life for them. Just seems like a rather odd way to put it. Is there something to this or am I straining gnats?

 

[SteveVH]

Zerinus: You reference the BoM as a clarification of 1 Cor. 11:24 regarding Jesus’ command to “Do this in remembrance of me”. "And it shall be a testimony unto the Father that ye do always remember me. And if ye do always remember me ye shall have my Spirit to be with you." The conclusion you draw from this is that Christ is not literally asking us to “eat his flesh and drink his blood” but rather that you are blessed spiritually when you partake of the sacrament worthily.

I “remember” Jesus every single day and received the Holy Spirit in Baptism, which was strengthened in my Confirmation. In the Catholic tradition, the Eucharist brings us into an intimate relationship with Jesus’ entire being. Yes the Holy Spirit is present (as well as the Father, for they are One) but it is much more than simply remembering him. While I don’t have a quick reference at hand, I have been taught that the Jewish idea, indeed the meaning of “remembering” was to “return to”. The Eucharist makes present the one sacrifice of Christ, now, at this moment. We are literally present at the last supper and stand beneath the cross at the moment he gave his life for us.

What does “remember” mean to you. Is it like remembering something or someone from the past, or does it carry a different meaning for you in the context of the “Sacrament”.

 

[zerinus]

Luke 22:19 is distinctly referring to the sacrifice of Christ upon the cross. The 3 Nephi reference to "which I have shown to you" imparts a different meaning than my body which is given for you. I may be reading way to much into this, but to ask someone to remember you because you have shown them your body is different than asking them to remember you because you have given your life for them. Just seems like a rather odd way to put it. Is there something to this or am I straining gnats?

You are reading “way too much” into that! The different words mean basically the same things. “Remembrance of me” and “remembrance of my body” means the same thing. So in John 6 when Jesus talks about “eating His flesh” He is not referring to His body? They all of course mean the same thing. The Sacrifice was of His body, which means Himself. Bear in mind that the Nephites did not have the privilege of seeing and being with Jesus during His mortal ministry. That took place in Palestine, while the Nephites were on a different continent. So when Jesus visited them after His resurrection He made a point of actually showing His body to them, with the signs of the scars on His hands and feet and side. The Book of Mormon makes a special point of mentioning that several times:

3 Nephi 10:

18 And it came to pass that in the ending of the thirty and fourth year, behold, I will show unto you that the people of Nephi who were spared, and also those who had been called Lamanites, who had been spared, did have great favors shown unto them, and great blessings poured out upon their heads, insomuch that soon after the ascension of Christ into heaven he did truly manifest himself unto them—
19 Showing his body unto them, and ministering unto them; and an account of his ministry shall be given hereafter. Therefore for this time I make an end of my sayings.

3 Nephi 11:

14 Arise and come forth unto me, that ye may thrust your hands into my side, and also that ye may feel the prints of the nails in my hands and in my feet, that ye may know that I am the God of Israel, and the God of the whole earth, and have been slain for the sins of the world.
15 And it came to pass that the multitude went forth, and thrust their hands into his side, and did feel the prints of the nails in his hands and in his feet; and this they did do, going forth one by one until they had all gone forth, and did see with their eyes and did feel with their hands, and did know of a surety and did bear record, that it was he, of whom it was written by the prophets, that should come.

Moroni 9:

25 My son, be faithful in Christ; and may not the things which I have written grieve thee, to weigh thee down unto death; but may Christ lift thee up, and may his sufferings and death, and the showing his body unto our fathers, and his mercy and long-suffering, and the hope of his glory and of eternal life, rest in your mind forever.

That experience of seeing and touching for themselves was very important for the Nephites, who had not had the privilege being with Jesus during His mortal ministry, and observing Him in action or witnessing His crucifixion. When it says “my body, which I have shown unto you,” it is referring to that experience that the Nephites had had with Jesus when He appeared to them after his resurrection.

Zerinus: You reference the BoM as a clarification of 1 Cor. 11:24 regarding Jesus’ command to “Do this in remembrance of me”. "And it shall be a testimony unto the Father that ye do always remember me. And if ye do always remember me ye shall have my Spirit to be with you." The conclusion you draw from this is that Christ is not literally asking us to “eat his flesh and drink his blood” but rather that you are blessed spiritually when you partake of the sacrament worthily.

That is right.

I “remember” Jesus every single day and received the Holy Spirit in Baptism, which was strengthened in my Confirmation. In the Catholic tradition, the Eucharist brings us into an intimate relationship with Jesus’ entire being.

That is a vague and ambiguous statement. What is it supposed to mean? I really don’t know.

Yes the Holy Spirit is present (as well as the Father, for they are One) but it is much more than simply remembering him. While I don’t have a quick reference at hand, I have been taught that the Jewish idea, indeed the meaning of “remembering” was to “return to”. The Eucharist makes present the one sacrifice of Christ, now, at this moment. We are literally present at the last supper and stand beneath the cross at the moment he gave his life for us.

Again, I don’t really know what that is supposed to mean.

What does “remember” mean to you. Is it like remembering something or someone from the past, or does it carry a different meaning for you in the context of the “Sacrament”.

It is not the “remembrance” in itself that brings us into a special relationship with Christ, but “having His Spirit to be always with us”. That is the promise that we are given contingent on “always remembering . . .”. The “remembrance” facilitates the reception, and continued presence of that Spirit. And that is how the “spiritual feeding” takes place. It is the spiritual water that Jesus promised the Samaritan Woman at Jacob’s well, which if she drank, she should not thirst again, but it should be in her “a well of water springing up into everlasting life” (John 4:13-14). The constant remembrance facilitate the drinking of that water. That is what the sacrament means.

 

[catholic-rcia]

You are reading “way too much” into that! The

My wife and I were asked by a nun, Sister Maryland if we would consider taking Holy Communion to a dying man in the hospital, a World war two Veteran. We said yes, as I was just off my own conversion to Baptism. Little did I know what we were in store for. I have taken Communion to the dying ever since. Some I got to know, others I got to just be with, those who could no longer speak. My first encounter with the Consecrated Host took place after Mass. Our Father was supposed to place it on the Alter for me so I could pick it up afterwards.

He forgot. So he showed me how to open the Tabernacle in case he forgot again in the future. Here I am at the Tabernacle where in our old Parish was directly under the Crucifix. As he opened it I felt for the very first time in my life what it means to be un worthy. (Do you want to talk about a burning in your heart?) I could here the words spoken at Mass “Lord I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the words and I shall be healed” I heard the words, “Rich I love you, its ok, take it, give it” This is a side miracle, how Jesus would have me, a sinner be part of this and love my wife and I all the way through it. The pain of being with a dying man who could only look into our eyes, the pain of such silence, who wants to be here. Then you make a special place for the Host, you pray deeply, you start “ Peace be with you Surge”, he motions with all he has, and you can hear his words “and also with you” …let us call to mind our sins…Lord Jesus you forgive sinners, Christ have mercy….You continue on, you learn to want to be there because you have helped to bring Christ to one in need of Him, you have stepped aside yourselves and it just happens.

Eucharist is alive and it never stops giving

The experience of Holy Communion weather receiving it or giving it is the most profound Miracle the Church that Christ built has to offer us mere mortals. It truly is transforming. No body can argue against this miracle using the Holy Scriptures, the Old and New Testaments. Jesus clearly spoke on it, in clear words to His Disciples; the translation can not be mocked or distorted in any way. The only question really is do you believe in Miracles? All of the Miracles of healing made way for it. Eucharist is the food that feeds us, it is our daily bread. When you come to a slight understanding of this miracle yet reject it, try to prove it false with human reasoning it is Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Eucharist is true food from Christ, it is a Miracle given that has brought His church into the hear and now, and which Miracle do you want to be able to fully explain?

Spiritual food. We know as Catholics. Why? Because we partake of it, that’s how you know. I have been blessed to help many Mormons come to the table of our Lord. They have all told me that there is nothing like it in the world. “Do (this) in memory of me” We do it exactly the way our Lord and God told us to do it, and we believe in it heart and soul.

Can I fully explain it? I have to leave this up to God. I don’t have to know everything so I can sleep better at night. All I know is that it has produced thousands of Saints spanning 2000 years. People who came to know they were sinful, then they came to know their Savior, they then proceeded to die to themselves, their pride and their ego because its not at all about progression, about going up to an exalted state. No it’s about going down on to your knees, into the dirt, calling upon His mercy. How else can you truly expect to be embraced by Jesus, by His Father?

By receiving Christ in the Eucharist sinners can become saints, they are able to pick up their Crosses as instructed, to die well for Him, in Him and through Him. Jesus left us His Church, He feeds His Church with His body and His Blood, soul and Divinity. Who says His flesh is of no avail as our flesh is? Those who eat His Body and drink His blood worthily will live forever just as He told us. Worthily meaning you know you are a patient of Jesus, that He is the doctor. You have this understanding with Him. Thus “Lord I am not worthy to receive you, only say the words and I shall be healed …”Your sins have been absolved, go in peace and sin no more” Its Confession that makes us worthy to receive Him in the Eucharist, so that we know how much we are loved.

While all of the others left the 12 stayed. They believed, He had the words of eternal life. Who does not wish for a Miracle? In all honesty we can get it daily; we all get it daily, because we believe.

The way you have tried to explain Eucharist is very New Age. Like the miracle of the Multiplication of the Fish and loaves. Some now say that it was everyone giving what they had. The Church protects the deposit of faith once given. Even from some New Agers inside the Church. I do not have to weave as you. I receive Jesus and I know it. Revelation so to speak. Along with the entire story of salvation al the way back to the tree in the middle of the garden.

In Christ
Rich
www.utahmission.com

 

[tundramom]

Rich,
Thank you for posting this. I needed to read this today. EXACTLY why I am Catholic.

I remember so distinctly kneeling in the pews while my husband got up to receive. The hunger I felt for those months leading up to my reception into the Catholic church were agonizing yet I would not change them for the world. At the Easter Vigil that year, I wept. There have been other times that I have wept. Would that all of us would know this hunger and overwhelming sense of relief at receiving our Lord in the Eucharist!

Steph

 

[TOmNossor]

All,
I skimmed Zerinus’s article and I think I am close to him in my affirmation of the real presence. I probably place a little more upon the emblems of the sacrament than he does, but I stop short of allowing that the consecrated LDS sacrament is permanently changed into God OR even changed into God for the recipient who is not ready to receive God. That being said, I believe God is present.
Before deciding that Brigham Young offered me more than I thought I could embrace as a LDS I spoke of “holy envy” for the Catholic Eucharist. I still find the real presence within Catholic Eucharist to be a beautiful doctrine though I am not fond of the term “Transubstantiation.”
I do not have much to argue about here.
Below is something I wrote about the LDS Sacrament.

In this address LOP pointed me to about 6m to 1y ago Brigham Young certainly does not make it a point to tell his audience that the LDS sacrament is only a symbol. Eating and drinking life to ourselves (if we partake worthily) is very similar to some of the early references to the sacrament and of course has its roots in John 6.
It is my position that LDS do not treat our sacrament as do Catholics. We should not believe that the bread and water are permanently changed into the real presence. But, I think it possible to believe that the emblems of the sacrament properly received convey Christ real presence to the prepared recipient. Thus, the priest is only PART of the conveying of the real presence. The real presence is only present with proper reception. I think it possible to suggest that John 6 is better read this way than in the Catholic way, but I have not thought about this much.
Here is the quote.

Brigham Young:

…we are here today, engaged in the administration of the ordinance of the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. How does it appear to you, and what are your sensations, when the servants of the Lord present to you the emblems of His body? Do you believe you receive life? Do you realize that you receive any benefit? Do you feel that you will receive fresh strength, or additional, knowledge, through this holy ordinance? Or, do you do it because others do it? Do you partake of these tokens of the love of the Redeemer because it is a mere custom?..

When we obey the commandments of our heavenly Father, if we have a correct understanding of the ordinances of the house of God, we receive all the promises attached to the obedience rendered to His commandments. Jesus said—Verily, verily I say unto you, except ye eat the flesh of the Son of God, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Again, “He that eateth me,” “shall live by me.” Again, “Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh, my blood, hath eternal life.” “For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.” Can you understand these sayings of the Saviour?..

I will now tell you what the Saviour meant by those wonderful expressions touching his body and blood. It is simply this—“If you do not keep the commandments of God, you will have no life of the Son of God in you.” Jesus, as they were eating, took the bread, and blessed it, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup and gave thanks, and gave it to them; saying, Drink ye all of it; for this is my blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.” What were they required to drink it for? What are we partaking of these emblems for? In token of our fellowship with him, and in token that we desire to be one with each other, that we may all be one with the Father. His administering these symbols to his ancient disciples, and which he commanded should be done until he came, was for the express purpose that they should witness unto the Father that they did believe in him. But on the other hand, if they did not obey this commandment, they should not be blessed with his spirit.

It is the same in this, as it is in the ordinance of baptism for the remission of sins. Has water, in itself, any virtue to wash away sin? Certainly not; but the Lord says, "If the sinner will repent … earth and buried, and again be delivered from the water, in the likeness of being born-if in the sincerity of his heart he will do this, his sins shall be washed away. Will the water of itself wash them away? No; but keeping the commandments of God will cleanse away the stain of sin.

In this light do I view all the ordinances of the house of God. I do not know of one commandment that may be preferred before another; or of one ordinance of the house of God, from the beginning to the end of all the Lord has revealed to the children of men, that is not of equal validity, power, and authority with the rest. So we partake of bread and wine, obeying the commandments of the Lord; and by so doing we receive the blessing.

Charity, TOm

 

[twopekinguys]

Rich,
Thank you for posting this. I needed to read this today. EXACTLY why I am Catholic.

I remember so distinctly kneeling in the pews while my husband got up to receive. The hunger I felt for those months leading up to my reception into the Catholic church were agonizing yet I would not change them for the world. At the Easter Vigil that year, I wept. There have been other times that I have wept. Would that all of us would know this hunger and overwhelming sense of relief at receiving our Lord in the Eucharist!

Steph

Steph,

Here is a picture of our Sanctuary showing the Tabernacle, and Crucifix.

The carving above the Tabernacle was hand carved by one of the Augustinians when they were here.

The steps leading up to the Tabernacle (3) are carved with “Sanctus” on each one.

The main Crucifix hanging from the wall is approximately 18’ tall, and 10’ wide.

Approaching the Tabernacle in our church is truly awe inspiring. (At least for me)

 

[catholic-rcia]

Steph,

Here is a picture of our Sanctuary showing the Tabernacle, and Crucifix.

The carving above the Tabernacle was hand carved by one of the Augustinians when they were here.

The steps leading up to the Tabernacle (3) are carved with “Sanctus” on each one.

The main Crucifix hanging from the wall is approximately 18’ tall, and 10’ wide.

Approaching the Tabernacle in our church is truly awe inspiring. (At least for me)

Let me see if this works, first time attaching an image. This Crucifix is life size and was created by a Utah State Art Professor. I will get a image of our Blessed Sacrament Chapel later. There is no way we are going to convince Mormons here about what we have. This would take a complete conversion and Baptism.

 

[tundramom]

Thank you for posting the pictures! I’d love to see them in person. You are right Rich. Only the Holy Spirit can do the work involved in conversion.

I attend a retreat center at least annually that has a life sized crucifix. Here’s the website. www.franciscanretreats.net

Steph

 

[PaulDupre]

Having been an LDS priest (who administered the “sacrament” on many occasions) and later a Catholic Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion, I will explain what I see as the essential difference:

The Eucharist is believed by Catholics and Orthodox to be the actual body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. If there is any of the host left over after mass, it is returned reverently to the tabernacle to be consumed at a later mass. It must not be profaned in any way. Likewise the precious blood (under the appearance of wine) must be consumed entirely and not profaned in any way. The Eucharistic ministers will consume any small leftover amounts after mass. Any remnant drops at the bottom of the chalice are mixed with water and consumed so that no trace remains.

By contrast, after Sacrament Meeting any leftovers of the LDS “sacrament” are thrown in the garbage.

That is the difference.

Paul

 

[SteveVH]

My wife and I were asked by a nun, Sister Maryland if we would consider taking Holy Communion to a dying man in the hospital, a World war two Veteran. We said yes, as I was just off my own conversion to Baptism. Little did I know what we were in store for. I have taken Communion to the dying ever since. Some I got to know, others I got to just be with, those who could no longer speak. My first encounter with the Consecrated Host took place after Mass. Our Father was supposed to place it on the Alter for me so I could pick it up afterwards.

catholic-rcia:

Thanks for the beautiful story. I too have brought communion to the sick and dying and it is truly a remarkable experience. One lady I remember in particular suffered severely from Alzheimer’s disease. I’m not sure if she really even knew I was in the room until…
the Eucharist was presented to her. She immediately went to her knees, crossed herself and opened her mouth. Once she had received, she would remain on her knees with her eyes closed until we helped her to her feet.

 

[catholic-rcia]

catholic-rcia:

Thanks for the beautiful story. I too have brought communion to the sick and dying and it is truly a remarkable experience. One lady I remember in particular suffered severely from Alzheimer’s disease. I’m not sure if she really even knew I was in the room until…
the Eucharist was presented to her. She immediately went to her knees, crossed herself and opened her mouth. Once she had received, she would remain on her knees with her eyes closed until we helped her to her feet.

Thank you for that. If you have any more please share them. Someday another will be bringing Holy Communion to us, if we get to live to a ripe old age. I will remember this story and if I can I will do the same. I am sure Eucharist will be much sweeter when all we have left in this life is to receive Him, in order to be soon received by Him.

** Luke 24:30-31, 33, 35 **

---

---

---

---

---

When he was at table with them, he took bread, blessed it, and broke it, and gave it to them. Then their eyes were opened, and they recognized him; and he vanished from their sight. That same hour they got up and returned to Jerusalem; and they found the eleven and their companions gathered together. Then they told what had happened on the road, and how Jesus had been made known to them in the breaking of the bread.

“We cannot separate our lives from the Eucharist; the moment we do, something breaks. The Eucharist involves more than just receiving; it also involves satisfying the hunger of Christ. He says “come to me”. He is hungry for souls. Nowhere does the Gospel say: “Go Away” but always “Come to Me”….The Eucharist is connected with the passion. If Jesus had not established the Eucharist we would have forgotten the crucifixion….To make sure that we do not forget, Jesus gave us the Eucharist as a memorial of His love.”
…………Mother Teresa

“A golden thread of gospel grace runs through the whole web of the Old Testament. Christ is the opener of Scripture; and even after his resurrection, he led people to know the mystery concerning himself, not by advancing new notions, but by showing how the Scripture was fulfilled in Him, and turning them to the earnest study of it. Those that have experienced the pleasure and profit of communion with him, cannot but desire more of his company. He took bread, and blessed it, and broke it, and gave to them. This he did with his usual authority and affection, with the same manner, perhaps with the same words. Here he teaches us to crave every meal, our daily bread - (John chapter 6; John chapters 14-17) See how Christ by his Spirit and grace makes himself known to the souls of his people through the breaking of the bread. He opens the Scriptures to them. He meets them at his table, in the ordinance of the Lord’s supper. But the work is completed by the opening of the eyes of their mind; yet it is but short views we have of Christ in this world, but when we enter heaven, we shall see him for ever.” …Thomas Kempis

 

[SteveVH]

You are reading “way too much” into that! The different words mean basically the same things. “Remembrance of me” and “remembrance of my body” means the same thing. So in John 6 when Jesus talks about “eating His flesh” He is not referring to His body? They all of course mean the same thing. The Sacrifice was of His body, which means Himself. Bear in mind that the Nephites did not have the privilege of seeing and being with Jesus during His mortal ministry. That took place in Palestine, while the Nephites were on a different continent. So when Jesus visited them after His resurrection He made a point of actually showing His body to them, with the signs of the scars on His hands and feet and side. The Book of Mormon makes a special point of mentioning that several times:

Fair enough as far as reading too much into it. As to your conclusion that “Remembrance of me” and “remembrance of my body” means the same thing. So in John 6 when Jesus talks about “eating His flesh” He is not referring to His body? I don’t follow your reasoning. What a strange thing for Jesus to say (“eating His flesh”) if he didn’t mean it. John 6, is so emphatic that it will be Jesus’ flesh and blood that are to be consumed that I really don’t know how he could have made it more clear. Those that walked away obviously heard it that way and couldn’t handle it, not that I blame them. What a thing to say! The Apostles, who stayed with him didn’t say “Hey we get it, we understand what you are saying”. They said “To whom shall we go, you have the words of eternal life”. They believed because of the One who told them in spite of their lack of understanding through reason alone. They saw with eyes of faith.

14 Arise and come forth unto me, that ye may thrust your hands into my side, and also that ye may feel the prints of the nails in my hands and in my feet, that ye may know that I am the God of Israel, and the God of the whole earth, and have been slain for the sins of the world.
15 And it came to pass that the multitude went forth, and thrust their hands into his side, and did feel the prints of the nails in his hands and in his feet; and this they did do, going forth one by one until they had all gone forth, and did see with their eyes and did feel with their hands, and did know of a surety and did bear record, that it was he, of whom it was written by the prophets, that should come.

Sounds a lot like doubting Thomas who would not believe unless he placed his hands into Jesus’ wounds. “Blessed are those who have not seen, yet believe.”

That is a vague and ambiguous statement. What is it supposed to mean? I really don’t know.

Sorry I didn’t better communicate. What I am trying to get to is what you think it means when Jesus said “Do this in remembrance of me”. In the Catholic tradition it means much more than to “remember”** in the common and modern sense of the word. It means that the sacrifice of Christ, once, for all, is made present to us at that very moment. I can “remember” Jesus, and do, all the time. I don’t have to receive the Eucharist in order to remember him. This is something different. How is it different for you? Have I made this clear as mud for you?

It is not the “remembrance” in itself that brings us into a special relationship with Christ, but “having His Spirit to be always with us”

. That is the promise that we are given contingent on “always remembering . . .”. The “remembrance” facilitates the reception, and continued presence of that Spirit. And that is how the “spiritual feeding” takes place. It is the spiritual water that Jesus promised the Samaritan Woman at Jacob’s well, which if she drank, she should not thirst again, but it should be in her “a well of water springing up into everlasting life” (John 4:13-14). The constant remembrance facilitate the drinking of that water. That is what the sacrament means.

I have no problem with the fact that Jesus’ is with us spiritually, indeed he is. My point in telling you in an earlier part of my post that I received the Holy Spirit in Baptism is to make a distinction. His Spirit (The Holy Spirit) is with me always because of my baptism, the gifts thereof being strengthened in Confirmation. In the Eucharist he is present in a different way. It is how he fulfills his promise to his Church not to leave us orphans and to remain with us always. And yes, when Christ is present within us it is “a well of water springing up to everlasting life”.**

 

[SteveVH]

It is my position that LDS do not treat our sacrament as do Catholics. We should not believe that the bread and water are permanently changed into the real presence.

Then do you believe that it is temporarily changed inot the real presence?
TOmNossor;6775121:

But, I think it possible to believe that the emblems of the sacrament properly received convey Christ real presence to the prepared recipient. Thus, the priest is only PART of the conveying of the real presence. The real presence is only present with proper reception. I think it possible to suggest that John 6 is better read this way than in the Catholic way, but I have not thought about this much.

The Catholic position would absolutely disagree with you. Christ’s presence in the Eucharist is not dependent upon man’s preparation. He is truly present, as are the graces that flow from him. Whether or not one receives the grace that is available is dependent upon one’s spiritual disposition. That is why Paul warns us "Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord" (1 Cor 11:27) What you are saying is that the Lord would not be present if one was unworthy. Paul says just the opposite. He is present and that is why one would have to answer for it. Other translations make it even clearer, saying that you would bring “condemnation” upon yourself if you received unworthily. Why would you be condemned if He was not present?

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut here. It is appreciated.

 

[SteveVH]

Thank you for that. If you have any more please share them. Someday another will be bringing Holy Communion to us, if we get to live to a ripe old age. I will remember this story and if I can I will do the same. I am sure Eucharist will be much sweeter when all we have left in this life is to receive Him, in order to be soon received by Him.

While I would love to share stories about the Eucharist, and believe they may contribute to an understanding of the Catholic position, I fear we may get off topic. I think this would be a great idea for another thread, possibly on one of the other forums. I pray that someone will bring the Eucharist to me if I live to a ripe old age. Thanks so much for your comments here.