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

[zerinus]

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.

That presupposes that everything that Jesus said was to be taken literally. Does that include these verses?

“If thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out . . .” (Matthew. 5:29.)
“Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.” (Matthew 23:24.)
“. . . all things are possible to him that believeth.” (Mark 9:23.)
“If any man come to me and hate not his father and mother . . .” (Luke 14:26.)
“Behold, the world is gone after him.” (John 12:19.)
“And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, . . .” (John 17:11.)

Why employ double standards, when it is clear that not everything that Jesus said was meant to be taken literally?

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.

No, you are still ignoring what Jesus said in the rest of that passage:

John 6:

60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?
61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?
62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

All the Catholics that I have spoken to persist in ignoring and turning a blind eye to that passage, although they have no answer to give to it. Why?

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.”

So you think it is wrong for Jesus to show Himself to others after His resurrection? How about this:

1 Corinthians 15:

3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.

Why is it okay for those people to have seen Jesus after His resurrection, but not the Nephites?

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.

The highlighted bit is what doesn’t make sense to me. What is the basis of that belief? And what does it really mean? I can’t understand it.

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?

Do they have “Remembrance Day” or “Veterans Day” where you live, which is the day that is set aside to remember war veterans who are dead? Why do you think they have set aside a special day for that, when you could say “I remember them anyway”? Why do you have to put a different meaning on wards than the obvious ones that the author should have intended? If Jesus wanted you to understand something other than “remember” by “remember,” He would have said so. What right do you have to put words in Jesus’ mouth which He never uttered?

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”.

Yes, but it is also possible to lose that Spirit by not doing what is right:

“And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, . . .” (Ephesians 4:30.)
“Quench not the Spirit.” (1 Thessalonians 5:19).

When we partake of the Sacrament regularly, we don’t just remember Him at that time; we make a promise that we will always remember Him, and we will take upon us His name, and will keep his commandments. It is a combination of all of those factors which guarantees that we will always have His Spirit to be with us. If we do not fulfill those requirements, then we “grieve the Spirit” as Paul says, and we will not always have His Spirit to be with us.

 

[SirThomasMore]

No Mormon has yet been able to explain why, when Jesus gives a command as he does with the Eucharist, and shows us how He wants it done,. mormons choose to do their own thing yet, in baptism, where no such command or instruction is given, they believe it MUST be done a certain way.

Jesus was very clear in his instructions. No “angel” can change what Jesus instructed.

I, too, have given both. When I was LDS, I both did the sacrement prayer and passed it out. If the prayer is not done word for word perfect, it must be repeated. That seems a bit odd. Then, you take your trays of bread and water and pass them out. Bread first, then water. There are usually kids running around and lots of noise.People take their bread or water and pass down the tray. It is not reverant at all. It has not spirit to it. It is like you are passing around a tray of cookies at a board meeting.

I am now a Eucharistic Minister. The blessing of the Eurcharist is not a 2 minute prayer that must be perfect, but a 15-minute worship of God and Christ and a concentration on Scripture and Prayer. When we pass out the Eucharist, we hold it up to the recipient and say, “the Body of Christ” and they say, “Amen”. With the wine, we say, “The Blood of Christ” and they say Amen. There is a great reverance because it IS the Body of Christ. Many people refuse to even touch it, allowing the Priest or Eucharistic Minister to place it on their tongue. There is a feeling that we are ALL taking Christ into us…and that makes us all equal, all one with Christ. And we know that all day, all over the world, millions of Catholics are doing the same thing…and we are together with them as well. We are Catholic…ie. Universal…and we are doing things the way Jesus (not some random angel) told us to do. We are continuing the tradition and worship that HE started over 2000 years ago.

And THAT is why I am Catholic.

 

[MelanieAnne]

No Mormon has yet been able to explain why, when Jesus gives a command as he does with the Eucharist, and shows us how He wants it done,. mormons choose to do their own thing yet, in baptism, where no such command or instruction is given, they believe it MUST be done a certain way.

Jesus was very clear in his instructions. No “angel” can change what Jesus instructed.

I, too, have given both. When I was LDS, I both did the sacrement prayer and passed it out. If the prayer is not done word for word perfect, it must be repeated. That seems a bit odd. Then, you take your trays of bread and water and pass them out. Bread first, then water. There are usually kids running around and lots of noise.People take their bread or water and pass down the tray. It is not reverant at all. It has not spirit to it. It is like you are passing around a tray of cookies at a board meeting.

I am now a Eucharistic Minister. The blessing of the Eurcharist is not a 2 minute prayer that must be perfect, but a 15-minute worship of God and Christ and a concentration on Scripture and Prayer. When we pass out the Eucharist, we hold it up to the recipient and say, “the Body of Christ” and they say, “Amen”. With the wine, we say, “The Blood of Christ” and they say Amen. There is a great reverance because it IS the Body of Christ. Many people refuse to even touch it, allowing the Priest or Eucharistic Minister to place it on their tongue. There is a feeling that we are ALL taking Christ into us…and that makes us all equal, all one with Christ. And we know that all day, all over the world, millions of Catholics are doing the same thing…and we are together with them as well. We are Catholic…ie. Universal…and we are doing things the way Jesus (not some random angel) told us to do. We are continuing the tradition and worship that HE started over 2000 years ago.

And THAT is why I am Catholic.

I’ll add to that the fact that during the Consecration, the entire congregation, the altar servers, and the cantor ~ in other words EVERYONE in the building ~ are on their knees, something that is never seen in a Mormon church. The only person who is not kneeling during this time is the Priest, and he genuflects at specific points of the Consecration prayer.

Up in the choir loft, where I am usually sitting during Mass, there are no kneelers. But I kneel during the Consecration anyway. Yes, the floor is wood and therefore a bit hard, but it’s really no big deal and as someone I know once pointed out “it’s SUPPOSED to be a sacrifice”. This is the most sacred part of the Mass, so it is hardly unusual that someone would be kneeling. What would be odd is if they were NOT.

I think it is appropriate to note, as well, that Jesus is the one and only “High Priest”, and it is, effectively, Jesus that is blessing the Eucharistic elements, through the person of the Priest. Just as it is Jesus who absolves the sin of the penitent in the Confessional, through the person of the Priest. It is not the Priest who does these things, it is Jesus, acting through the Priest.

 

[SirThomasMore]

excellent points

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

I’m curious as to what Eastern Catholics do at the Consecration/Epiclesis, since they and Eastern Orthodox are standing throughout the entire liturgy. Do they kneel at it? It’s been a while since I’ve attended a Divine Liturgy, however I know that there is at least some sort of reverence shown at that point (perhaps a prostration, sign of the cross, etc), but it may not necessarily be kneeling. Can’t remember though.

 

[SteveVH]

I’m curious as to what Eastern Catholics do at the Consecration/Epiclesis, since they and Eastern Orthodox are standing throughout the entire liturgy. Do they kneel at it? It’s been a while since I’ve attended a Divine Liturgy, however I know that there is at least some sort of reverence shown at that point (perhaps a prostration, sign of the cross, etc), but it may not necessarily be kneeling. Can’t remember though.

I couldn’t tell you what the EO do in the way of posture, but I have to say I do love the term “Divine Liturgy”. It really captures exactly what happens at Mass. We are joined by heaven, all of the angels and saints. It is truly a “Divine Liturgy” and much more descriptive than the “Mass”, which I believe means “to be sent”. In any event, the same thing occurs in both Churches and there is nothing more beautiful or more powerful.

 

[SteveVH]

That presupposes that everything that Jesus said was to be taken literally. Does that include these verses?

“If thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out . . .” (Matthew. 5:29.)
“Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.” (Matthew 23:24.)
“. . . all things are possible to him that believeth.” (Mark 9:23.)
“If any man come to me and hate not his father and mother . . .” (Luke 14:26.)
“Behold, the world is gone after him.” (John 12:19.)
“And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, . . .” (John 17:11.)

Why employ double standards, when it is clear that not everything that Jesus said was meant to be taken literally?

I don’t know how believing that what he said in John 6 is presupposing that everything Jesus said is to be taken literally. He spoke in parables, metaphorically, allegorically, idiomatically and literally. It just so happens that in John 6 he spoke so literally that those that heard him left him. They, at that time, in that culture, in their native language (Aramaic) heard exactly what he said. When they left him he didn’t run after them to correct some misperception. As a teacher he would surely have had a responsibility to clear that up. Instead, he turned to his apostles and asked “will you also leave?”. They didn’t respond with “Hey, we get it, we understand you”. Their response was “To whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.” They believed this “hard teaching” because of the one who said it, not because they understood it through reason. They saw with eyes of faith. The question we must answer today is whether we will go or stay.

No, you are still ignoring what Jesus said in the rest of that passage:

John 6:

60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?
61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?
62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

All the Catholics that I have spoken to persist in ignoring and turning a blind eye to that passage, although they have no answer to give to it. Why?

I’ll be happy to answer your question. He wasn’t saying that he was speaking in metaphores. What he was saying was don’t think carnally, but rather spiritually. In other words, look with the eyes of faith. We would indeed eat his flesh and drink his blood, but not in a bloody manner. He was not asking them to rip the flesh off of his body. It would be in the form of bread and wine, sacramentally, but it would be real food and real drink indeed. It would be just what he said it was at the Last Supper, his body and blood.

So you think it is wrong for Jesus to show Himself to others after His resurrection? How about this:

1 Corinthians 15:

3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.

Why is it okay for those people to have seen Jesus after His resurrection, but not the Nephites?

First of all, I have not said that I think it is wrong for Jesus to show himself after his resurrection. As you have demonstrated above many saw him after his resurrection. I was only observing that the passage you cited from Nephi sounded a lot like doubting Thomas. While I don’t think the Nephites ever existed, if they did, I would see nothing wrong with him appearing to them. It just seems strange to me that if that was the case, he would command multitudes of people to insert their hands into his wounds. In the biblical account, he only allowed it because Thomas, and only Thomas, doubted that it was him. Why would it be different in… wherever they lived?

I have a meeting to get to but will answer the rest of your questions when I return.

 

[catholic-rcia]

No Mormon has yet been able to explain why, when Jesus gives a command as he does with the Eucharist, and shows us how He wants it done,. mormons choose to do their own thing yet, in baptism, where no such command or instruction is given, they believe it MUST be done a certain way.

Jesus was very clear in his instructions. No “angel” can change what Jesus instructed.

I, too, have given both. When I was LDS, I both did the sacrement prayer and passed it out. If the prayer is not done word for word perfect, it must be repeated. That seems a bit odd. Then, you take your trays of bread and water and pass them out. Bread first, then water. There are usually kids running around and lots of noise.People take their bread or water and pass down the tray. It is not reverant at all. It has not spirit to it. It is like you are passing around a tray of cookies at a board meeting.

I am now a Eucharistic Minister. The blessing of the Eurcharist is not a 2 minute prayer that must be perfect, but a 15-minute worship of God and Christ and a concentration on Scripture and Prayer. When we pass out the Eucharist, we hold it up to the recipient and say, “the Body of Christ” and they say, “Amen”. With the wine, we say, “The Blood of Christ” and they say Amen. There is a great reverance because it IS the Body of Christ. Many people refuse to even touch it, allowing the Priest or Eucharistic Minister to place it on their tongue. There is a feeling that we are ALL taking Christ into us…and that makes us all equal, all one with Christ. And we know that all day, all over the world, millions of Catholics are doing the same thing…and we are together with them as well. We are Catholic…ie. Universal…and we are doing things the way Jesus (not some random angel) told us to do. We are continuing the tradition and worship that HE started over 2000 years ago.

And THAT is why I am Catholic.

Thanks for that…. right from the heart! . You are 100% Correct. This is not taken lightly by those who are LDS and become Catholic. I have heard the same story from many for 12 years. Along with many who were Catholic, left the church and returend. In many cases it was the Eucharist that brought them back.

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

I couldn’t tell you what the EO do in the way of posture, but I have to say I do love the term “Divine Liturgy”. It really captures exactly what happens at Mass. We are joined by heaven, all of the angels and saints. It is truly a “Divine Liturgy” and much more descriptive than the “Mass”, which I believe means “to be sent”. In any event, the same thing occurs in both Churches and there is nothing more beautiful or more powerful.

Agreed. Every Catholic/Orthodox church/cathedral is a temple, Heaven on Earth, where God is literally present in a special way (reminding us of the OT temple).

 

[SteveVH]

The highlighted bit is what doesn’t make sense to me. What is the basis of that belief? And what does it really mean? I can’t understand it.

SteveVH
It means that the sacrifice of Christ, once, for all, is made present to us at that very moment.

This is a really important point and highlights a major difference in our views, IMO. We are not “remembering” Christ’s sacrifice as something from the past. When the bread and wine are consecrated, and when we receive, his sacrifice is made present to us and we participate in it, as the “Body of Christ”. Eternity folds over time and space and we are there, at the last supper and are standing under the cross. I feel like I’ve said this before.

Do they have “Remembrance Day” or “Veterans Day” where you live, which is the day that is set aside to remember war veterans who are dead?

Yes.
zerinus;6776557:

Why do you think they have set aside a special day for that, when you could say “I remember them anyway”?

It is a day to honor them.

Why do you have to put a different meaning on wards than the obvious ones that the author should have intended?

“…than the obvious ones that the author should have intended?” How do you know what they “should” have intended?

If Jesus wanted you to understand something other than “remember” by “remember,” He would have said so. What right do you have to put words in Jesus’ mouth which He never uttered?

If he meant anything other than “eat my flesh and drink my blood” he would have said so, yet you seem to have no problem giving those words a different meaning. Jesus didn’t speak English, nor did the Apostles write in English. I’m sure in one of my earlier posts I have mentioned that to “remember” something in that time, culture and language meant to “return”. Of course, we remember also in the modern sense of the word, but that is not the only purpose of the Eucharist in the Catholic faith. It is how we are fed spiritually and it brings us eternal life. I am not putting words into Jesus mouth. I’m saying his words have different meaning than you are attributing to them.

“In the sense of Sacred Scripture the memorial is not merely the recollection of past events but the proclamation of the mighty works wrought by God for men. In the liturgical celebration of these events, they become in a certain way present and real. This is how Israel understands its liberation from Egypt: every time Passover is celebrated, the Exodus events are made present to the memory of believers so that they may conform their lives to them.” (CCC par. 1363)

"In the New Testament, the memorial takes on new meaning. When the Church celebrates the Eucharist, she commemorates Christ’s Passover, and it is made present: the sacrifice Christ offered once for all on the cross remains ever present… " (CCC par. 1363)

In other words, it is not a memory in the common sense of the word. It is not the memory of something past, but the experience of something truly present.

 

[zerinus]

I don’t know how believing that what he said in John 6 is presupposing that everything Jesus said is to be taken literally. He spoke in parables, metaphorically, allegorically, idiomatically and literally.

Because the context of the passage, as well as the context of the rest of the Bible (NT especially), makes it clear that it is a metaphor or hyperbole like the rest, and not meant to be understood literally.

It just so happens that in John 6 he spoke so literally that those that heard him left him. They, at that time, in that culture, in their native language (Aramaic) heard exactly what he said. When they left him he didn’t run after them to correct some misperception. As a teacher he would surely have had a responsibility to clear that up. Instead, he turned to his apostles and asked “will you also leave?”. They didn’t respond with “Hey, we get it, we understand you”. Their response was “To whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.” They believed this “hard teaching” because of the one who said it, not because they understood it through reason. They saw with eyes of faith. The question we must answer today is whether we will go or stay.

Jesus’ disciples consisted not only of people who genuinely believed in Him, but also of a lot of hangers-on who followed Him around for less genuine reasons. Jesus had a way of saying provocative things to get rid of the non-genuine ones, and retain the true believers in Him, who were willing to put their trust in Him no matter what He said or did. Here is a typical example:

Matthew 8:

19 And a certain scribe came, and said unto him, Master, I will follow thee whithersoever thou goest.
20 And Jesus saith unto him, The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head.
21 And another of his disciples said unto him, Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father.
22 But Jesus said unto him, Follow me; and let the dead bury their dead.

The incident of eating His flesh is a case in point. And despite what you might say, Jesus did correct their misunderstanding in John 6:63.

I’ll be happy to answer your question. He wasn’t saying that he was speaking in metaphores. What he was saying was don’t think carnally, but rather spiritually. In other words, look with the eyes of faith. We would indeed eat his flesh and drink his blood, but not in a bloody manner. He was not asking them to rip the flesh off of his body. It would be in the form of bread and wine, sacramentally, but it would be real food and real drink indeed. It would be just what he said it was at the Last Supper, his body and blood.

That explanation simply does not make a logical connection with the context. The connection with the context is in relation to His teaching that they should eat His flesh. That is where the connection is made.

First of all, I have not said that I think it is wrong for Jesus to show himself after his resurrection. As you have demonstrated above many saw him after his resurrection. I was only observing that the passage you cited from Nephi sounded a lot like doubting Thomas. While I don’t think the Nephites ever existed, if they did, I would see nothing wrong with him appearing to them. It just seems strange to me that if that was the case, he would command multitudes of people to insert their hands into his wounds. In the biblical account, he only allowed it because Thomas, and only Thomas, doubted that it was him. Why would it be different in… wherever they lived?

You are again ignoring the changed circumstances. The Jews to whom He appeared in Palestine after His Resurrection were people who had observed and associated with Him in the flesh for many years, and had been eyewitnesses of His crucifixion. The Nephites had not had that privilege. His offering to show His body to them was as a means of allowing them to feel and experience Him physically and tangibly as much as it was possible during that brief period of time, which they had not had the privilege of as the Jew had had during His mortal ministry in Palestine.

 

[zerinus]

This is a really important point and highlights a major difference in our views, IMO. We are not “remembering” Christ’s sacrifice as something from the past. When the bread and wine are consecrated, and when we receive, his sacrifice is made present to us and we participate in it, as the “Body of Christ”. Eternity folds over time and space and we are there, at the last supper and are standing under the cross. I feel like I’ve said this before.

I think I am beginning to understand what you are trying to say now. In Catholicism the Mass is a physical reenactment of the sacrifice of Christ. The priest physically sacrifices Christ on the altar anew every time he celebrates the Mass. That of course is something that we totally reject and disagree with.

Yes.

It is a day to honor them.

In America, where they do everything differently, it is called Veterans Day; but in the rest of the world it is called Remembrance Day. It is a day set aside to remember the war dead. Of course, by “remembering” them we also “honor” them; but it is called a day of “remembrance,” not a day of “honoring”. It is Remembrance Day, not Honoring Day.

“…than the obvious ones that the author should have intended?” How do you know what they “should” have intended?

Because when somebody says something, we understand him according to the obvious lexical meaning of the words used. Remembering means remembering, not eating, or flying, or boxing, or wrestling, or swimming, or playing, …

If he meant anything other than “eat my flesh and drink my blood” he would have said so, yet you seem to have no problem giving those words a different meaning. …

Because the context implies otherwise.

In other words, it is not a memory in the common sense of the word. It is not the memory of something past, but the experience of something truly present.

You are referring to Mass as a sacrifice; see above.

 

[SirThomasMore]

I think I am beginning to understand what you are trying to say now. In Catholicism the Mass is a physical reenactment of the sacrifice of Christ. The priest physically sacrifices Christ on the altar anew every time he celebrates the Mass. That of course is something that we totally reject and disagree with.

Yes, we know that you reject the One True God

In America, where they do everything differently, it is called Veterans Day; but in the rest of the world it is called Remembrance Day. It is a day set aside to remember the war dead. Of course, by “remembering” them we also “honor” them; but it is called a day of “remembrance,” not a day of “honoring”. It is Remembrance Day, not Honoring Day.

Are you serious? In is by remembering them that we DO honor them

Because when somebody says something, we understand him according to the obvious lexical meaning of the words used. Remembering means remembering, not eating, or flying, or boxing, or wrestling, or swimming, or playing, …

Not true. There are many ways to remember people. I do certain special things to remember my grandfather. I do different special things to remember my great grandmother.

You are referring to Mass as a sacrifice; see above.

It is

 

[catholic-rcia]

I think I am beginning to understand what you are trying to say now. In Catholicism the Mass is a physical reenactment of the sacrifice of Christ. The priest physically sacrifices Christ on the altar anew every time he celebrates the Mass. That of course is something that we totally reject and disagree with.

.

You already understand, you just cannot accept it. You feel as if you have to much to loose to go there. But Jesus asks us to go there. It is hard I know. Sincereily. But what you gain is very much worth it. He works out of the grey areas, all of the fears melt away. You ask yourself why did I wait?

Reenactment? Not at all as you have been taught many times here. It’s the real thing, what happened 2000 years ago has the power to save us today. It moves throughout time, it is not bound by time as we understand it. I myself was taught this and my eyes began to open. I let go.
*in the present you are rejecting the authentic Priesthood from Christ, yet you still do not get it or want to accept it. Christ died “once for ALL” Catholics not only know this but have always preached it. You are coming from a lack of knowledge I believe, in what the Church has always taught. *
*You yourself know this because of the Catholic Church, without the 2000 year Old Mass you would not know this. The Mass brings His birth, His teachings, His Passion, His death, and His Glorious resurrection into the here and now. Why? Because souls are saved one at a time throughout time until He comes again. If it all kept changing this would be confusing, God is not the author of confusion.,satan is. *
*When we celebrate Christmas we are there, when we celebrate Easter we are there. When Jesus prayed for strength in the garden we are there, when He walked the path to His Crucifixion to take away the sins of the world, to nail them to the Cross we are there. When we celebrate Mass its all there. When we celebrate Mass on Sunday we will be there. *
**
Can you imagine this? This type of Christian Church? When we celebrate Mass this coming Sunday we will be celebrating the entire life of Christ. Not just remembering rather we will be with Him, He will be there. Does this not shine with light? Do you know how big this is?
**

• I have never been let down by Jesus at a Mass. He just keeps getting bigger and bigger and it is mind boggling to comprehend. I would not and could not imagine this life without Mass. When the LDS here in Utah speak to me about the falling away, about the great apostasy from the truth I want to explode. Not out of anger at all, rather out of love. Like my God, my Lord, do they know what they are saying? He always reminds me of how much He loves them. He always reminds me of my own pride and ego and how fast I can get off the path. So what to do? Just love. If it’s not out of love its nothing. You can’t pull people to Jesus. They have to come on their own while risking a lot.*

*After I was baptized in Logan Utah 12 years ago, many of those whom I was baptized with were previously LDS. We got together soon after and put this together. It is a tri-fold. *
http://utahmission.com/pages/Common_Questions.html

After 12 years nothing in my mind has changed. Truth stays truth. What has happened for me is that many dots have been better connected. All together they form an Image of Christ, much more than a picture of Him. Baptism into a death. Prayer. Eucharist. Confession. Blessed Sacrament Chapel. The Communion of Saints. Our Mother. Kneeling. The sign of the Cross. The Crucifix. Stations of the Cross. Advent. Christmas. Lent. Easter. Trinity. Priesthood. Celibacy. Sacrifice, Love. Denying ones self. True Humility. On and On

 

[NewSeeker]

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

That’s quite true. After the LDS sacrament, the unconsumed bread and water are thrown out. But before it’s tossed and after the sacrament is administered, it sits up there covered on the altar. When I was a Mormon priest, my fellow priests and I would continue sitting behind the altar for the rest of the service. I don’t know how common that was then, but now I think the priests are excused to sit with their families. Anyway, If we were hungry while sitting up there, we’d sneak our hands under the cloth to snag some of the blessed bread to snack on. When no one was looking, of course. We shouldn’t have done it, but then again we were only 16-17 year old boys. But is it really such a big deal in the end? It’s just bread. Doing such a thing with the consecrated Host after Mass would be a sacrilege. An utter blasphemy. In the Mormon sacrament, profaning the bread insults Jesus’s memory. In Catholicism, profaning the bread insults His memory but also defiles His body.

NS

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

I think I am beginning to understand what you are trying to say now. In Catholicism the Mass is a physical reenactment of the sacrifice of Christ. The priest physically sacrifices Christ on the altar anew every time he celebrates the Mass. That of course is something that we totally reject and disagree with.

I assume that this has already been explained to you. Catholics do not believe that the priest physically sacrifices Christ on the altar anew every time he celebrates Mass. Catholics reject and disagree with such a heretical notion.

 

[SteveVH]

I think I am beginning to understand what you are trying to say now. In Catholicism the Mass is a physical reenactment of the sacrifice of Christ. The priest physically sacrifices Christ on the altar anew every time he celebrates the Mass. That of course is something that we totally reject and disagree with.

Did I say that? I actually thought you knew better but apparently you really don’t know what we believe. Let me help clear this up for you. No, the priest does not sacrifice Christ anew every time he celebrates Mass. This is one of the most lame arguments out there and it has been explained thousands upon thousand of times. The priest offers THE ONE SACRIFICE of Christ. Christ’s sacrifice, once, for all, is eternal and it is made present to us at the Mass, every day, all over the world, until he returns in glory. It is not just something that happened two thousand years ago that we sit around and remember while having a snack. This is the most sacred event in the universe and I would appreciate it if you would have a little more respect. You don’t have to believe it but the Church has believed this and taught this since the time of the apostles. You would have to completely ignore history not to know this. The concept isn’t new, there are mountains of material out there explaining exactly what we believe. So please.

Because when somebody says something, we understand him according to the obvious lexical meaning of the words used. Remembering means remembering, not eating, or flying, or boxing, or wrestling, or swimming, or playing, …

Thank you. I thought it meant wrestling.

You know zerinus, I was hoping that this thread would not deteriorate into slinging you know what at each other. You are obviously not a novice at this and it makes it difficult and gets us nowhere when you drag up tired, worn out arguments, when I know you know better. I was hoping to learn from each other while respecting each others beliefs.
I have always wondered what others believe is happening when they say they receive “communion” or in your case, the “Sacrament”. The reason for my inquiry is because this is so central to Catholic belief that there would be no Church without it.

You have a “priesthood” that does not offer sacrifice, which is the primary purpose of a priest. You use water (or, according to other Mormon posters, apple juice and saltine crackers) instead of wine which was commanded by Jesus himself. So I wondered just what you thought was really going on here. I wanted to understand, not to make snide remarks in an effort to belittle you. That tact gets us nowhere. Can we get back to having an intelligent and respectful conversation?

Thank you.

 

[SteveVH]

That’s quite true. After the LDS sacrament, the unconsumed bread and water are thrown out. But before it’s tossed and after the sacrament is administered, it sits up there covered on the altar. When I was a Mormon priest, my fellow priests and I would continue sitting behind the altar for the rest of the service. I don’t know how common that was then, but now I think the priests are excused to sit with their families. Anyway, If we were hungry while sitting up there, we’d sneak our hands under the cloth to snag some of the blessed bread to snack on. When no one was looking, of course. We shouldn’t have done it, but then again we were only 16-17 year old boys. But is it really such a big deal in the end? It’s just bread. Doing such a thing with the consecrated Host after Mass would be a sacrilege. An utter blasphemy. In the Mormon sacrament, profaning the bread insults Jesus’s memory. In Catholicism, profaning the bread insults His memory but also defiles His body.

This amazes me. First of all, having teenage boys as “priests” with absolutely no training to speak of and no idea of the function of a priest is beyond my comprehension. Catholic priests have undergone years of training in theology, philosophy, and other disciplines, make solemn vows, and literally give up the things of this world in order to serve only our Lord. The primary function of a priest is to offer sacrifice, yet no sacrifice is offered in the Mormon church. I have been accused on this thread of giving “different meaning” to words, yet it seems absolutely fine for the LDS to give any meaning they may choose to words such priest, sacrament, apostle, bishop, etc. The more I learn about Catholicism, the deeper in love I fall. The more I Iearn about LDS, the further I want to run. I’m finding it difficult to maintain my composure.

Are there any other Mormons out there who who can help here? Please.

 

[zerinus]

I assume that this has already been explained to you. Catholics do not believe that the priest physically sacrifices Christ on the altar anew every time he celebrates Mass. Catholics reject and disagree with such a heretical notion.

Did I say that? I actually thought you knew better but apparently you really don’t know what we believe. Let me help clear this up for you. No, the priest does not sacrifice Christ anew every time he celebrates Mass. This is one of the most lame arguments out there and it has been explained thousands upon thousand of times. The priest offers THE ONE SACRIFICE of Christ. Christ’s sacrifice, once, for all, is eternal and it is made present to us at the Mass, every day, all over the world, until he returns in glory. . . .

It seems to me that you are both shying away from the teachings of your own church. The catholic doctrine does indeed teach that the Mass is perpetuation of the sacrifice of Christ. Here is a quote from the Catholic Catechism:

1367 The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: “The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different.” “And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and offered in an unbloody manner. . . . this sacrifice is truly propitiatory.”

1382 The Mass is at the same time, and inseparably, the sacrificial memorial in which the sacrifice of the cross is perpetuated and the sacred banquet of communion with the Lord’s body and blood.

1388 . . . As the Second Vatican Council says: “That more perfect form of participation in the Mass whereby the faithful, after the priest’s communion, receive the Lord’s Body from the same sacrifice, is warmly recommended.”

1651 . . . They should be encouraged to listen to the Word of God, to attend the Sacrifice of the Mass, to persevere in prayer, . . .

The language of the Catechism is unmistakable. It categorically identifies the Mass as a sacrifice, period. It is not a “memorial” of that sacrifice, not even a “re-enactment” of it; it is itself a sacrifice. And that sacrifice is that of Jesus Christ, who is repeatedly or perpetually offered every time the Mass is celebrated. There is a big difference between saying that something is a “memorial” of something, and saying that it is the thing itself. The Catechism defines the Mass as being the thing itself. If we reduce the above passages to its core elements, the meaning becomes clearer:

The victim [Christ] . . . now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different. . . . the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and offered in an unbloody manner. . . . this sacrifice is truly propitiatory.

The Mass is at the same time . . . the sacrificial memorial in which the sacrifice of the cross is perpetuated.

They should be encouraged to . . . attend the Sacrifice of the Mass, . . .

The latest Oxford English Dictionary defines “perpetuate” to mean: “make something continue indefinitely”. The slightly older 1990 edition of the Concise Oxford Dictionary defines “perpetuate” to mean: “make perpetual”; and it defines “perpetual” to mean: “1 eternal; lasting forever or indefinitely. 2 continuous, uninterrupted. 3 frequent, much repeated”. The Collins English Dictionary defines “perpetuate” to mean: “to cause to continue”. The Mass is designed to perpetuate the sacrifice of Christ. It makes it to continue. It makes it “continuous and uninterrupted” and “frequent and much repeated”. That is the definition of the Mass.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

It seems to me that you are both shying away from the teachings of your own church. The catholic doctrine does indeed teach that the Mass is perpetuation of the sacrifice of Christ. Here is a quote from the Catholic Catechism:

1367 The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: “The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different.” “And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and offered in an unbloody manner. . . . this sacrifice is truly propitiatory.”

1382 The Mass is at the same time, and inseparably, the sacrificial memorial in which the sacrifice of the cross is perpetuated and the sacred banquet of communion with the Lord’s body and blood.

1388 . . . As the Second Vatican Council says: “That more perfect form of participation in the Mass whereby the faithful, after the priest’s communion, receive the Lord’s Body from the same sacrifice, is warmly recommended.”

1651 . . . They should be encouraged to listen to the Word of God, to attend the Sacrifice of the Mass, to persevere in prayer, . . .

The language of the Catechism is unmistakable. It categorically identifies the Mass as a sacrifice, period. It is not a “memorial” of that sacrifice, not even a “re-enactment” of it; it is itself a sacrifice. And that sacrifice is that of Jesus Christ, who is repeatedly or perpetually offered every time the Mass is celebrated. There is a big difference between saying that something is a “memorial” of something, and saying that it is the thing itself. The Catechism defines the Mass as being the thing itself. If we reduce the above passages to its core elements, the meaning becomes clearer:

The victim [Christ] . . . now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different. . . . the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and offered in an unbloody manner. . . . this sacrifice is truly propitiatory.

The Mass is at the same time . . . the sacrificial memorial in which the sacrifice of the cross is perpetuated.

They should be encouraged to . . . attend the Sacrifice of the Mass, . . .

The latest Oxford English Dictionary defines “perpetuate” to mean: “make something continue indefinitely”. The slightly older 1990 edition of the Concise Oxford Dictionary defines “perpetuate” to mean: “make perpetual”; and it defines “perpetual” to mean: “1 eternal; lasting forever or indefinitely. 2 continuous, uninterrupted. 3 frequent, much repeated”. The Collins English Dictionary defines “perpetuate” to mean: “to cause to continue”. The Mass is designed to perpetuate the sacrifice of Christ. It makes it to continue. It makes it “continuous and uninterrupted” and “frequent and much repeated”. That is the definition of the Mass.

My good zerinus, the very quotes you use to prove us wrong proves that you are incorrect. It is in NO WAY a re-scarifice of Christ, at all. It is the SAME sacrifice, as the quotes say.

Taken from the quotes you are using:

“The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice”

"As the Second Vatican Council says: “That more perfect form of participation in the Mass whereby the faithful, after the priest’s communion, receive the Lord’s Body from the same sacrifice, is warmly recommended”

The word to be emphasized there is the word the SAME sacrifice, meaning it is not a re-sacrifice.

We do not re-sacrifice Jesus. It is the same Sacrifice that as the one on Calvary a little less than 2000 years ago.