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

[SirThomasMore]

The trouble is that there is no scriptural basis for that.

Which doesn’t make make sense. The “one” sacrifice was offered “once,” and need not be offered again, in whatever guise you want to consider it:

Romans 6:

10 For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.

Hebrews 7:

26 For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;
27 Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people’s: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.

Hebrews 9:

25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;
26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

1 Peter 3:

18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit

The sacrifice was offered once, and once only, and need not be offered again, in any guise or shape or form again.

Which is nonsensical and unscriptural. Where does it say in the scriptures that the “same” sacrifice needs to be offered more than “once”?

Not only I don’t understand it, I don’t think you understand it. I don’t think that anybody does. I don’t think that anybody can. I find it even more difficult to see why it is so difficult for you to understand what the scriptures are saying on the subject.

But you “perpetuate” it, however you want to understand that. There is no scriptural basis for this. Where does it say that the sacrifice of Christ needs to be “perpetuated”? The word of the Lord is clear on that. The sacrifice was offered once, and the sacrament is in remembrance of that sacrifice, not a repetition, perpetuation, or reenactment of that sacrifice:

Luke 22:

14 And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the twelve apostles with him.
15 And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer:
16 For I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God.
17 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves:
18 For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come.
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.
20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

1 Corinthians 11:

23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:
24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.

Why is it so hard for you to understand that?

where in the Scriptures does it say to use wonderbread and water? where does it say teenagers are supposed to pass it? Where does it say that you must recite the incantation over the water and bread perfectly or do it again?

The CoLDS way follows an angel who taught something different than was in scripture. The Bible teaches us that if an angel does that, the angel is from Satan. Do the math, then, about your communion and your church

 

[catholic-rcia]

The trouble is that there is no scriptural basis for that.

The sacrifice was offered once, and once only, and need not be offered again, in any guise or shape or form again.

Which is nonsensical and unscriptural. Where does it say in the scriptures that the “same” sacrifice needs to be offered more than “once”?

Why is it so hard for you to understand that?

Gen. 14:18 - remember that Melchizedek’s bread and wine offering foreshadowed the sacramental re-presentation of Jesus’ offering.

scripturecatholic.com/the_eucharist.html#eucharist-IId

Luke 22:19; 1 Cor. 11:24-25 - the translation of Jesus’ words of consecration is “touto poieite tan eman anamnasin.” Jesus literally said “offer this as my memorial sacrifice.” The word “poiein” (do) refers to offering a sacrifice (see, e.g., Exodus 29:38-39, where God uses the same word – poieseis – regarding the sacrifice of the lambs on the altar). The word “anamnesis” (remembrance) also refers to a sacrifice which is really or actually made present in time by the power of God, as it reminds God of the actual event (see, e.g., Heb. 10:3; Num. 10:10). It is not just a memorial of a past event, but a past event made present in time.
In other words, the “sacrifice” is the “memorial” or “reminder.” If the Eucharist weren’t a sacrifice, Luke would have used the word “mnemosunon” (which is the word used to describe a nonsacrificial memorial. See, for example, Matt. 26:13; Mark 14:9; and especially Acts 10:4). So there are two memorials, one sacrificial (which Jesus instituted), and one non-sacrificial.

Lev. 24:7 - the word “memorial” in Hebrew in the sacrificial sense is “azkarah” which means to actually make present (see Lev. 2:2,9,16;5:12;6:5; Num.5:26 where “azkarah” refers to sacrifices that are currently offered and thus present in time). Jesus’ instruction to offer the bread and wine (which He changed into His body and blood) as a “memorial offering” demonstrates that the offering of His body and blood is made present in time over and over again.

Num. 10:10 - in this verse, “remembrance” refers to a sacrifice, not just a symbolic memorial. So Jesus’ command to offer the memorial “in remembrance” of Him demonstrates that the memorial offering is indeed a sacrifice currently offered. It is a re-presentation of the actual sacrifice made present in time. It is as if the curtain of history is drawn and Calvary is made present to us.

Mal. 1:10-11 - Jesus’ command to his apostles to offer His memorial sacrifice of bread and wine which becomes His body and blood fulfills the prophecy that God would reject the Jewish sacrifices and receive a pure sacrifice offered in every place. This pure sacrifice of Christ is sacramentally re-presented from the rising of the sun to its setting in every place, as Malachi prophesied.

Heb. 9:23 - in this verse, the author writes that the Old Testament sacrifices were only copies of the heavenly things, but now heaven has better “sacrifices” than these. Why is the heavenly sacrifice called “sacrifices,” in the plural? Jesus died once. This is because, while Christ’s sacrifice is transcendent in heaven, it touches down on earth and is sacramentally re-presented over and over again from the rising of the sun to its setting around the world by the priests of Christ’s Church. This is because all moments to God are present in their immediacy, and when we offer the memorial sacrifice to God, we ask God to make the sacrifice that is eternally present to Him also present to us. Jesus’ sacrifice also transcends time and space because it was the sacrifice of God Himself.

Heb. 9:23 - the Eucharistic sacrifice also fulfills Jer. 33:18 that His kingdom will consist of a sacrificial priesthood forever, and fulfills Zech. 9:15 that the sons of Zion shall drink blood like wine and be saved.

Heb. 13:15 - this “sacrifice of praise” refers to the actual sacrifice or “toda” offering of Christ who, like the Old Testament toda offerings, now must be consumed. See, for example, Lev. 7:12-15; 22:29-30 which also refer to the “sacrifice of praise” in connection with animals who had to be eaten after they were sacrificed.

1 Peter 2:5-6 - Peter says that we as priests offer “sacrifices” to God through Jesus, and he connects these sacrifices to Zion where the Eucharist was established. These sacrifices refer to the one eternal Eucharistic sacrifice of Christ offered in every place around the world.

Rom. 12:1 - some Protestants argue that the Eucharist is not really the sacrifice of Christ, but a symbolic offering, because the Lord’s blood is not shed (Heb. 9:22). However, Paul instructs us to present ourselves as a “living sacrifice” to God. This verse demonstrates that not all sacrifices are bloody and result in death (for example, see the wave offerings of Aaron in Num. 8:11,13,15,21 which were unbloody sacrifices). The Eucharistic sacrifice is unbloody and lifegiving, the supreme and sacramental wave offering of Christ, mysteriously presented in a sacramental way, but nevertheless the one actual and eternal sacrifice of Christ. Moreover, our bodies cannot be a holy sacrifice unless they are united with Christ’s sacrifice made present on the altar of the Holy Mass.

continued…

 

[catholic-rcia]

1 Cor. 10:16 - “the cup of blessing” or Third cup makes present the actual paschal sacrifice of Christ, the Lamb who was slain.

1 Cor. 10:18 - Paul indicates that what is eaten from the altar has been sacrificed, and we become partners with victim. What Catholic priests offer from the altar has indeed been sacrificed, our Lord Jesus, the paschal Lamb.

1 Cor. 10:20 - Paul further compares the sacrifices of pagans to the Eucharistic sacrifice - both are sacrifices, but one is offered to God. This proves that the memorial offering of Christ is a sacrifice.

1 Cor. 11:26 - Paul teaches that as often as you eat the bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death. This means that celebrating the Eucharist is proclaiming the Gospel.

1 Cor. 10:21 - Paul’s usage of the phrase “table of the Lord” in celebrating the Eucharist is further evidence that the Eucharist is indeed a sacrifice. The Jews always understood the phrase “table of the Lord” to refer to an altar of sacrifice. See, for example, Lev. 24:6, Ezek. 41:22; 44:16 and Malachi 1:7,12, where the phrase “table of the Lord” in these verses always refers to an altar of sacrifice.
Heb. 13:10,15 - this earthly altar is used in the Mass to offer the Eucharistic sacrifice of praise to God through our eternal Priest, Jesus Christ.

Rev. 1 to 22 - Jesus is described as the “Lamb” 28 times in the book of Revelation. This is because Jesus emphasizes His sacrifice in heaven and in His Holy Catholic Church.

Rev. 1:13 - Jesus is clothed in heaven with a long robe and golden girdle like the Old Testament priests who offered animal sacrifices. See Exodus 28:4.

Rev. 2:17 - the spiritual manna, our Lord’s glorious body and blood, is emphasized in the heavenly feast.

Rev. 3:20 - as Priest and Paschal Lamb, our Lord shares the Eucharistic meal with us to seal His New Covenant. Through the covenant of his body and blood, we are restored to the Father and become partakers of the divine nature.

Rev. 5:6 - this verse tells us that Jesus in His glory still looks like a lamb who was slain. Also, Jesus is “standing” as though a Lamb who was slain. Lambs that are slain lie down. This odd depiction shows Jesus stands at the Altar as our eternal priest in forever offering Himself to the Father for our salvation.

Rev. 7:14 - the blood of the Lamb is eternally offered in heaven with the washing of the robes to make them white.

Rev. 14:1, Heb. 12:22 - Zion is the city where Jesus established the Eucharist and which was miraculously preserved after the destruction of Jerusalem. See also Psalms 2:6 and 132:13. It represents the union of heaven and earth, of divinity and humanity. This is why those who enter into the Eucharistic celebration on earth enter into the presence of innumerable angels, the souls of the just made perfect, Jesus the Mediator of the Covenant and His sprinkled blood, and God the Judge of all.

Rev. 19:13 - in all His glory, Jesus’ sacrifice is eternally present as He presents Himself to the Father clothed in a robe dipped in blood. Jesus’ sacrifice is the focus in heaven and in the Mass. When the Father beholds His Son, He beholds His sacrifice for humanity.

Rev. 19:9 - we are invited to the marriage supper of the Lamb where we become one with Him by consuming His body and blood. This is the nuptial union of divinity and humanity.

Heb. 2:17; 3:1; 4:14; 8:1; 9:11,25; 10:19,22 - Jesus is repeatedly described as “High Priest.” But in order to be a priest, “it is necessary for [Jesus] to have something to offer.” Heb. 8:3. This is the offering of the eternal sacrifice of His body and blood to the Father.

Heb. 2:18 - although His suffering is past tense, His expiation of our sins is present tense because His offering is continual. Therefore, He is able (present tense) to help those who are tempted.

Heb. 5:6,10; 6:20; 7:15,17 - these verses show that Jesus restores the father-son priesthood after Melchizedek. Jesus is the new priest and King of Jerusalem and feeds the new children of Abraham with His body and blood. This means that His eternal sacrifice is offered in the same manner as the bread and wine offered by Melchizedek in Gen. 14:18. But the bread and wine that Jesus offers is different, just as the Passover Lamb of the New Covenant is different. The bread and wine become His body and blood by the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit.

Heb. 4:3 – God’s works were finished from the foundation of the world. This means that God’s works, including Christ’s sacrifice (the single act that secured the redemption of our souls and bodies), are forever present in eternity. Jesus’ suffering is over and done with (because suffering was earthly and temporal), but His sacrifice is eternal, because His priesthood is eternal (His victimized state was only temporal).

Heb. 4:14 – Jesus the Sacrifice passes through the heavens by the glory cloud of God, just like the sacrifices of Solomon were taken up into heaven by the glory cloud of God in 2 Chron. 7:1. See also Mark 16:19; Luke 24:51; and Acts 1:10.

Heb. 7:24 – Jesus holds His priesthood is forever because He continues forever, so His sacrificial offering is forever. He continues to offer His body and blood to us because He is forever our High Priest.
Heb. 8:2 - Jesus is a minister in the sanctuary offering up (present tense) His eternal sacrifice to the Father which is perfected in heaven. This is the same sanctuary that we enter with confidence by the blood of Jesus as written in Heb. 10:19. See also

 

[catholic-rcia]

Heb. 8:3 - as High Priest, it is necessary for Jesus to have something to offer. What is Jesus offering in heaven? As eternal Priest, He offers the eternal sacrifice of His body and blood.

Heb. 8:6; 9:15; cf. Heb. 12:22-24; 13:20-21 - the covenant Jesus mediates (present tense) is better than the Old covenant. The covenant He mediates is the covenant of His body and blood which He offers in the Eucharist. See Matt. 26:26-28; Mark. 14:22,24; Luke 22;19-20; 1 Cor. 11:24-25 - which is the only time Jesus uses the word “covenant” (which is the offering of His body and blood).

Heb. 9:12 – Jesus enters into heaven, the Holy Place, taking His own blood. How can this be? He wasn’t bleeding after the resurrection. This is because He enters into the heavenly sanctuary to mediate the covenant of His body and blood by eternally offering it to the Father. This offering is made present to us in the same manner as Melchizedek’s offering, under the appearance of bread and wine.

Heb. 9:14 - the blood of Christ offered in heaven purifies (present tense) our consciences from dead works to serve the living God. Christ’s offering is ongoing.

Heb. 9:22 – blood is indeed required for the remission of sin. Jesus’ blood was shed once, but it is continually offered to the Father. This is why Jesus takes His blood, which was shed once and for all, into heaven. Heb. 9:12.

Heb. 9:23 – Jesus’ sacrifice, which is presented eternally to the Father in heaven, is described as “sacrifices” (in the plural) in the context of its re-presentation on earth (the author first writes about the earthly sacrifices of animals, and then the earthly offerings of Jesus Christ’s eternal sacrifice).

Heb. 9:26 – Jesus’ once and for all appearance into heaven to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself shows that Jesus’ presence in heaven and His sacrifice are inseparable. This also shows that “once for all,” which refers to Jesus’ appearance in heaven, means perpetual (it does not, and cannot mean, “over and done with” because Jesus is in heaven for eternity). “Once for all” also refers to Jesus’ suffering and death (Heb. 7:27; 9:12,26;10:10-14). But “once for all” never refers to Jesus’ sacrifice, which is eternally presented to the Father. This sacrifice is the Mal. 1:11 pure offering made present in every place from the rising of the sun to its setting in the Eucharist offered in the same manner as the Melchizedek offering.

Heb. 10:19 - we have confidence to enter the sanctuary by the blood of Jesus on earth in the Eucharistic liturgy, which is the heavenly sanctuary where Jesus’ offering is presented to God in Heb. 8:2.

Heb. 10:22 - our hearts and bodies are (not were) washed clean by the action of Jesus’ perpetual priesthood in heaven.

Heb. 13:10 – the author writes that we have an altar from which those who serve the tent have no right to eat. This altar is the heavenly altar at which Jesus presides as Priest before the Father, eternally offering His body and blood on our behalf. See. Mal. 1:7,12; Lev. 24:7; Ez. 41:22; 44:16; Rev. 5:6; 6:9; 9:13; 11:1; 16:7.

Heb. 13:20-21 - Jesus died once, but His blood of the eternal covenant is eternally offered to equip us (present tense) with everything good that we may do God’s will.
Heb. 13:8 - this is because Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever. While His suffering was temporal (because bodily pain is temporal), Jesus and His sacrifice are eternal (because redemption, salvation, and the mediation of the New covenant are eternal).

Heb. 13:15 – the letter concludes with an instruction to continually offer up, through Christ, a sacrifice of praise to God. The phrase “sacrifice of praise” refers to the “toda” animal sacrifices that had to be consumed. See, for example, Lev. 7:12-15; 22:29-30.
1 Pet. 2:9; Rev. 20:6 - we are a royal priesthood in Jesus, and offer His sacrifice to the Father on earth as He does in heaven.
1 John 1:7 - the blood of Jesus cleanses us (present tense) from all sin. His blood cannot currently cleanse us unless it is currently offered for us.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

QUOTE=SteveVH;6769083]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.

Just a reminder that our dear Lord Jesus himself has a say into this matter when deciphering interpretations between Catholics and Mormons. Here are the words from Jesus himself, according to Jesus teachings in "let your yes mean yes and your no mean no, anything other comes from the devil.

John 6:I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world."
52
The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?”
53
Jesus said to them,** “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. **54
Whoever eats 19 my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.
55
**For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
56
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. **57
Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, **so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me. **58
This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, **whoever eats this bread will live forever.” **

 

[zerinus]

Just a reminder that our dear Lord Jesus himself has a say into this matter when deciphering interpretations between Catholics and Mormons. Here are the words from Jesus himself, according to Jesus teachings in “let your yes mean yes and your no mean no, anything other comes from the devil”. . . .

Does that apply to these verses too:

“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.)

If you are serious about what you said, it should.

 

[benidict]

Does that apply to these verses too:

“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.)

If you are serious about what you said, it should.

i feel kinda bad Z. i wish there was a way we could articulate what happens at the mass, so a light bulb would go off in your head, and you would say, AHA! not neccessarily for conversion, just so you could understand where we are coming from. i know you are not a person who only looks on the surface of things, and you are deeply spiritual. and i thank God for that. just wish i could find a way to explain this to you that would help. Peace to you and yours my friend. let us pray for one another. :hug1:

 

[SteveVH]

The trouble is that there is no scriptural basis for that.

Since this has been done since the time of the apostles, and since the New Testament was written by them, I think we’re pretty safe in following their example.

Which doesn’t make make sense. The “one” sacrifice was offered “once,” and need not be offered again, in whatever guise you want to consider it:

Really? Is this your opinion or do you have something with which to back it up? It may not make sense to you, but that is because you have no understanding of it and apparently aren’t interested in gaining any understanding of it.

Romans 6:

10 For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.

Hebrews 7:

26 For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;
27 Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people’s: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.

Hebrews 9:

25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;
26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

1 Peter 3:

18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit

And?

Not only I don’t understand it, I don’t think you understand it. I don’t think that anybody does. I don’t think that anybody can.

I will have to agree with you to some extent on this but not in the way you think. The Apostles didn’t understand either, but they believed because of the One who told them. As has already been stated, it is a deep mystery which is beyond the capability of humans to fully comprehend. Yes, I know, Mormons don’t believe in mysteries. You believe that you can fully comprehend God. Maybe this is the problem with your seeming lack of ability to grasp what we are saying. I don’t mean this in a derogatory way. I’ve just heard, time after time, how if the Catholic Church had not gotten its hands on the scriptures, that they would have been “plain and clear”. Anything which may contain “mystery” (something beyond our grasp but believed through faith) is basically rejected by Mormons, including the Godhead. You are welcome to correct me here if you think I’m wrong.
zerinus;6783008:

I find it even more difficult to see why it is so difficult for you to understand what the scriptures are saying on the subject.

They make perfect sense to me. They just don’t say what you think they do.

But you “perpetuate” it, however you want to understand that. There is no scriptural basis for this. Where does it say that the sacrifice of Christ needs to be “perpetuated”? The word of the Lord is clear on that. The sacrifice was offered once, and the sacrament is in remembrance of that sacrifice, not a repetition, perpetuation, or reenactment of that sacrifice:

Luke 22:

14 And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the twelve apostles with him.
15 And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer:
16 For I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God.
17 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves:
18 For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come.
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.
20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

1 Corinthians 11:

23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:
24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.

Why is it so hard for you to understand that?

Why do you think Jesus Himself commanded us to keep doing this?

In any regard, it seems that an inordinate amount of time has been spent explaining to you the Catholic position. It has been explained over and over and over again. Why don’t we focus, at least for a while, on what Mormons believe. Please defend the use of water (when even the BoM directs you to use wine, never mind what Jesus commanded). What are the words used by your teenage “priests”. What is the response of those receiving. Please back this up with scripture as you have demanded that we do.

 

[PaulDupre]

What I find funny is that the Mormon religion teaches that priesthood authority is dependent upon the personal righteousness of the man rather than on the perfect righteousness of Jesus (D&C 121:34-37).

So that means that the efficacy of the Mormon “sacrament” depends upon the righteousness of the 16 year-old boys blessing the Wonder Bread and water. It assumes that not one of the 16 year-old boys blessing the Wonder Bread and water was “flogging the dolphin” the night before. It assumes that none of those boys were petting (or worse) with their girlfriends on Saturday night.

They are confident that the sacrament they partake of was consecrated by perfectly righteous 16 year-old boys.

Those of us who were once 16 year-old boys know better.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Does that apply to these verses too:

“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.)

If you are serious about what you said, it should.

From a Hebrew mindset and an Aramaic idium language, you bet they apply. But if you apply your new wind of doctrine and your own interpretation some 1800 years later the two will never fit. Besides context my friend context;

let us not confuse the difference between parables, fable stories, teachings from scripture than when Jesus speaks the “Amen, Amen” I say to you… **These “Amen, Amen” **statements from Jesus **are not teachings from Jesus but revelations **which one should pay close attention to Jesus words when ever he states the “Amen, Amen”.

Or do you think Jesus is kidding or pays no importance to a subject matter when ever Jesus states the double Amen? You do know the strong emphasis of a Hebrew Rabbi when ever he speaks a double Amen or a thrice holy, especially Jesus the son of the living God.

Now re-read John 6 and the scriptures you provided armed with this understanding and know the difference between a teaching and a revelation from God.

Peace be with you

 

[SteveVH]

i feel kinda bad Z. i wish there was a way we could articulate what happens at the mass, so a light bulb would go off in your head, and you would say, AHA! not neccessarily for conversion, just so you could understand where we are coming from. i know you are not a person who only looks on the surface of things, and you are deeply spiritual. and i thank God for that. just wish i could find a way to explain this to you that would help. Peace to you and yours my friend. let us pray for one another. :hug1:

benidict, I don’t think the problem is our inability to explain, rather it is zerinus’ refusal to try and understand. If we say the sky is blue, he will say it is red. I’m all for being charitable and I admire your adherence to this principal, but there is a point at which we are participating in a pointless exercise. :banghead: At this point in the thread I am willing to stipulate that our position has been adequately explained and he does not accept it. I have no problem with that.

I think it is time that we discuss the Mormon position and I would like them to back it up using the same rules zerinus himself imposed. Prove it by using the Bible. That seems fair to me.

 

[benidict]

benidict, I don’t think the problem is our inability to explain, rather it is zerinus’ refusal to try and understand. If we say the sky is blue, he will say it is red. I’m all for being charitable and I admire your adherence to this principal, but there is a point at which we are participating in a pointless exercise. :banghead: At this point in the thread I am willing to stipulate that our position has been adequately explained and he does not accept it. I have no problem with that.

I think it is time that we discuss the Mormon position and I would like them to back it up using the same rules zerinus himself imposed. Prove it by using the Bible. That seems fair to me.

very fair indeed my brother. i am looking forward to their postition, and to see how they back it up. should be very enlightning. Peace

 

[SirThomasMore]

The problem here, is that Zen would rather follow a false prophet than the True Christ and he would rather follow an angel who preaches a different gospel than the the one True God.

Until Zen has a true desire for truth and the One True God, there is not much anyone can do except pray for him

 

[Anna_Scott]

benidict, I don’t think the problem is our inability to explain, rather it is zerinus’ refusal to try and understand. If we say the sky is blue, he will say it is red. I’m all for being charitable and I admire your adherence to this principal, but there is a point at which we are participating in a pointless exercise. :banghead: At this point in the thread I am willing to stipulate that our position has been adequately explained and he does not accept it. I have no problem with that.

I think it is time that we discuss the Mormon position and I would like them to back it up using the same rules zerinus himself imposed. Prove it by using the Bible. That seems fair to me.

Steve,

I’ve read through this thread. Catholics have put a great deal of effort into explaining the Catholic position on the Eucharist.

I agree that it is time for Zerinus to do the same and put some effort into explaining the Mormon beliefs–with supporting Scripture.

Anna

 

[MelanieAnne]

What I find funny is that the Mormon religion teaches that priesthood authority is dependent upon the personal righteousness of the man rather than on the perfect righteousness of Jesus (D&C 121:34-37).

So that means that the efficacy of the Mormon “sacrament” depends upon the righteousness of the 16 year-old boys blessing the Wonder Bread and water. It assumes that not one of the 16 year-old boys blessing the Wonder Bread and water was “flogging the dolphin” the night before. It assumes that none of those boys were petting (or worse) with their girlfriends on Saturday night.

They are confident that the sacrament they partake of was consecrated by perfectly righteous 16 year-old boys.

Those of us who were once 16 year-old boys know better.

This is an excellent point. In the Catholic Church the sacraments have their own power, it does not depend on the worthiness of the Priest. So a priest could be a terrible sinner (I’ve never witnessed such a situation, but this is a hypothetical…) and yet the Eucharist will be operational because of its own power, it does not depend on the sinlessness of the priest.

 

[zerinus]

Since this has been done since the time of the apostles, and since the New Testament was written by them, I think we’re pretty safe in following their example.

There is no evidence that it has been done “since the time of the Apostles”. The scriptures cited suggest otherwise.

Really? Is this your opinion or do you have something with which to back it up? It may not make sense to you, but that is because you have no understanding of it and apparently aren’t interested in gaining any understanding of it.

I don’t think there is anything there to “understand”. It is an incorrect principle.

And?

It is obvious, isn’t it? When it says once, it means once. It does not need to be repeated again.

Yes, I know, Mormons don’t believe in mysteries. You believe that you can fully comprehend God. Maybe this is the problem with your seeming lack of ability to grasp what we are saying. I don’t mean this in a derogatory way. I’ve just heard, time after time, how if the Catholic Church had not gotten its hands on the scriptures, that they would have been “plain and clear”. Anything which may contain “mystery” (something beyond our grasp but believed through faith) is basically rejected by Mormons, including the Godhead. You are welcome to correct me here if you think I’m wrong.

That is not correct. We do believe in mysteries; but we believe that there are no mysteries that are inherently unknowable. All truth is ultimately knowable. There is no such thing as an unknowable truth. Anything is a mystery as long as you don’t know it. Once you know it, it ceases to be a mystery. I don’t know how to make angel cakes, so it is a mystery. But if somebody taught me, then it would stop being a mystery. That is the biblical definition of mystery, and it is also the Mormon one. Try this link for references.

They make perfect sense to me. They just don’t say what you think they do.

Then we have to agree to disagree then.

Why do you think Jesus Himself commanded us to keep doing this?

As a rememberance: “this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me” (1 Corinthians 11:25). How much plainer can it get? If you still don’t understand it, then I must conclude that you don’t want to understand it.

In any regard, it seems that an inordinate amount of time has been spent explaining to you the Catholic position. It has been explained over and over and over again. Why don’t we focus, at least for a while, on what Mormons believe.

I have no problem with that at all.

Please defend the use of water (when even the BoM directs you to use wine, never mind what Jesus commanded). What are the words used by your teenage “priests”. What is the response of those receiving. Please back this up with scripture as you have demanded that we do.

Most of those questions was answered in my Blog, if you read it. It explains what the words of the prayers are, and why water was substituted for wine. As regards the response of the congregation, they sit reverently and quietly while the sacrament is being administered. And of course that is how it was done in the scriptures. On the night that the Sacrament was instituted by Christ, they sat at table with Him, He passed down the bread for them to eat, and then the wine to drink. There was nothing else done. There was none of the ritual trappings that is added in Mass. There were no chanting of repeated formulas by the congregation, no standing up and sitting down, and no recitation of the creeds. There was not any of that. All of that stuff was added later. And that is how we do it, just as it was then.

 

[catholic-rcia]

What are the parts that were added around the consecration that bother you zerinus? i give an example below.

Maybe you could list one or two so we as Catholics could comment on them.

On the tour we were asked by a young women’s group why we have and use candles in our mass We replied it “represents the light of Christ.” One girl said “I like that”. In the words of another “cool”.

When we got to the larger candles where one can light one and pray I asked if any one of them had a tragic situation going on right now in their lives, or would they like to just give thanks to God and light one as a gift. One girl came foreword and said “I would like to light one” when she lit it she prayed and I noticed a few had tears. I did not have to ask, we did not have to ask as we just knew. This candle on this day at this moment was all hers because of her love for another. Yes we as Catholics do other stuff.

WE KNEEL DOWN

Lord, you are holy indeed, the fountain of all holiness.
Let your Spirit come upon these gifts to make them holy,
so that they may become for us the body + and blood of our Lord, Jesus Christ.
Before he was given up to death, a death he freely accepted, he took bread and gave you thanks. He broke the bread, gave it to his disciples, and said:
Take this, all of you, and eat it: this is my Body which will be given up for you.
When supper was ended, he took the cup. Again he gave you thanks and praise, gave the cup to his disciples, and said:
Take this, all of you, and drink from it; this is the cup of my Blood, the Blood of the New and Everlasting Covenant. It will be shed for you and for all men so that sins may be forgiven. Do this in memory of me.

Let us proclaim the mystery of faith.
Christ has died, Christ has risen, Christ will come again .

WE STAND UP
In memory of his death and resurrection,
we offer you, Father, this life-giving bread, this saving cup. …

…Through him, with him, in him, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, all glory and honor is yours, almighty Father,
for ever and ever.
Amen.

 

[SteveVH]

That is not correct. We do believe in mysteries; but we believe that there are no mysteries that are inherently unknowable. All truth is ultimately knowable. There is no such thing as an unknowable truth. Anything is a mystery as long as you don’t know it. Once you know it, it ceases to be a mystery. I don’t know how to make angel cakes, so it is a mystery. But if somebody taught me, then it would stop being a mystery. That is the biblical definition of mystery, and it is also the Mormon one.

So what you are saying then is axactly what I have heard before. There is nothing about God that is beyond the human capacity to understand fully. It’s like learning how to bake a cake. Once someone shows you, it is no longer a mystery. This tells me more about your concept of God, than anything else. Good luck with that. The God I believe in is eternally beyond my human capacity to understand. I can only know what has been revealed, and then, I cannot grasp it in its entirety. If I could, I would be equal to God. You diminish Him and dishoner Him with this position
zerinus;6785662:

Most of those questions was answered in my Blog, if you read it. It explains what the words of the prayers are, and why water was substituted for wine. As regards the response of the congregation, they sit reverently and quietly while the sacrament is being administered. And of course that is how it was done in the scriptures. On the night that the Sacrament was instituted by Christ, they sat at table with Him, He passed down the bread for them to eat, and then the wine to drink. There was nothing else done. There was none of the ritual trappings that is added in Mass. There were no chanting of repeated formulas by the congregation, no standing up and sitting down, and no recitation of the creeds. There was not any of that. All of that stuff was added later. And that is how we do it, just as it was then.

Well, He did a lot more than just pass around bread and wine. He said "Take this and eat, this is my body which will be given for you… Take this, all of you, and drink from it, this is the cup of my blood, the blood of the New and Everlasting Covenant… ". The Catholic priest, standing in the place of Christ, repeats the words of Jesus, in other words, the substance of the elements are changed by the words of God, not the words of the priest.

So I’m sorry, you do not “do it, just as it was then”. Not even close. The Mass, just as it is done today can be demonstrated through the early church Fathers as well. It has been done since the Church began. Each part of the liturgy is meaningful and follows the example of Jesus Himself. On the road to Emmaus (Luke 24) Jesus gave us exaclty what the Catholic Church uses today, the liturgy of the Word and the liturgy of the Eucharist. He went through the scriptures, beginning with Moses and the prophets (reading of the Word) then explained the scriptures to them (homily or sermon). Then He took the bread which they had given (Offertory), broke it, blessed it (Consecration) and gave it to them (communion). It was then that their eyes were opened. They recognized Him in the breaking of the bread. Remember, they had asked him to stay with them, which he agreed to do. Yet upon giving them the bread, he vanished. So did he break His promise to stay, or did he remain “present”?

Anyway, I find myself again explaining the Catholic position. From what I see, you are not even close to doing what he commanded. I know you gave us your blog zerinus and I appreciate that, but the great majority of your references were to the BoM (which, by the way, instructed you to use wine.) You asked me to prove what we believed from the Bible and so I will ask you to do the same. At least we have common ground there.

Specifically, where does scripture (the Bible) instruct you to use water instead of wine, or to use anything available if bread and water are not available. Thanks and I look forward to the biblical references that prove your position.

 

[PaulDupre]

Well, He did a lot more than just pass around bread and wine. He said "Take this and eat, this is my body which will be given for you… Take this, all of you, and drink from it, this is the cup of my blood, the blood of the New and Everlasting Covenant… ".

It is difficult to discuss this with Mormons because, to the Mormons, the “New and Everlasting Covenant” is polygamy.

 

[zerinus]

So what you are saying then is axactly what I have heard before. There is nothing about God that is beyond the human capacity to understand fully.

Well, not in this life. I didn’t say we can comprehend all mysteries in this life. But ultimately all truth is knowable—if not in this life, then in the next.

It’s like learning how to bake a cake. Once someone shows you, it is no longer a mystery. This tells me more about your concept of God, than anything else. Good luck with that.

Like I said, that is the biblical definition of mystery. I gave you loads of biblical references. In every instance a mystery is something that you don’t know until it is revealed to you. Once you know it, then it is no longer a mystery. Now if you want to invent your own definition of mystery, go ahead; but don’t try to tell me that it is the biblical definition, because it isn’t.

The God I believe in is eternally beyond my human capacity to understand. I can only know what has been revealed, and then, I cannot grasp it in its entirety. If I could, I would be equal to God. You diminish Him and dishoner Him with this position

You are free to believe in any kind of God you like; but you are very much mistaken if you think it is the biblical one. The kind of God I believe in is defined in the scriptures as follows:

John 17:

3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

How can one truly know God if He is so incomprehensible as you portray Him to be? And don’t forget, your eternal life hangs on that knowledge! Here is another:

1 John 3:

2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.

How can we see Him as He is, and even become like Him, without ever being able to comprehend Him? Your doctrines I am afraid your own inventions. They are not what God has revealed in the Bible.

Well, He did a lot more than just pass around bread and wine. He said "Take this and eat, this is my body which will be given for you… Take this, all of you, and drink from it, this is the cup of my blood, the blood of the New and Everlasting Covenant… ".

And I have spent all the posts above explaining why He didn’t. Do you really want me to go through and explain it again?

The Catholic priest, standing in the place of Christ, repeats the words of Jesus, in other words, the substance of the elements are changed by the words of God, not the words of the priest.

Which is a heresy as far as the Bible is concerned; see previous posts.

So I’m sorry, you do not “do it, just as it was then”. Not even close. The Mass, just as it is done today can be demonstrated through the early church Fathers as well. It has been done since the Church began. Each part of the liturgy is meaningful and follows the example of Jesus Himself. On the road to Emmaus (Luke 24) Jesus gave us exaclty what the Catholic Church uses today, the liturgy of the Word and the liturgy of the Eucharist. He went through the scriptures, beginning with Moses and the prophets (reading of the Word) then explained the scriptures to them (homily or sermon). Then He took the bread which they had given (Offertory), broke it, blessed it (Consecration) and gave it to them (communion). It was then that their eyes were opened. They recognized Him in the breaking of the bread. Remember, they had asked him to stay with them, which he agreed to do. Yet upon giving them the bread, he vanished. So did he break His promise to stay, or did he remain “present”?

You are mixing an awful lot of stuff here which have no relation with each other. I would be spending hours dissecting every word to try and explain it, which I don’t think is worth doing.

I know you gave us your blog zerinus and I appreciate that, but the great majority of your references were to the BoM (which, by the way, instructed you to use wine.)

The answer to the first two specific questions you had asked come from the Doctrine and Covenants, and they adequately explained in the Blog.

You asked me to prove what we believed from the Bible and so I will ask you to do the same. At least we have common ground there.

Specifically, where does scripture (the Bible) instruct you to use water instead of wine, or to use anything available if bread and water are not available.

It doesn’t. That comes from modern revelation. Mormonism is a new dispensation of the gospel. It is a new revelation from God. It contains many doctrines which are new and not found in the Bible. But it is not contradicted by the Bible either. The Catholic Church claims that the Bible is the only revelation, so I ask you to prove your beliefs and practices from the Bible. Mormonism believes in the Bible plus additional revelation. Our doctrines are derived from those revelations, so I use them to tell you what we believe in.