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

[lax16]

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

No, I didn’t misunderstand. By saying that the Mormon view of the Eucharist comes closest to that of Reformed Protestantism means that they don’t have a definition of their own and have to borrow from someone else. That means they are absolutely deriving their definition from Protestantism! They claim to be the one true church and yet there is no definition of the Eucharist/sacrament?

A religion that is based on writings of ancient prophets in the Book of Mormon, that is a volume of holy scripture comparable to the Bible, and with continuing revelations from modern-day prophets shouldn’t need to borrow the definition from someone else. They should have their own definition and teaching on the Eucharist/sacrament.

They celebrate sacrament every Sunday. Didn’t anyone ever ask what it was all about?

Mormonism takes many of their religious views from Protestantism! It has been discussed often on these threads.

 

[zerinus]

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

Thank you. I don’t think he is misunderstanding what I am saying. He intentionally misrepresents it in order to win an unwinnable argument, thinking that nobody else sees him except himself. He has been doing that in all of the discussions that I have had with him, that is why I don’t think I will continue my discussions with him for much longer.

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

Wrong! In post #231 I told you that:

Mormonism does NOT use the terminology “Real Presence”.

And in post #234 I further explained:

Like I said, Mormons do not use the terminology “Real Presence;” but if we had to use it, I would say that Jesus is made “present” with us through the Sacrament by the manifestation of His Spirit. If you look at all the links I have given, you will find that in all the sacramental prayers, as well as in the theological explanation of it given in the Book of Mormon, the main promise given to those who partake of the Sacrament worthily is that they will have His Spirit to always be with them. That is how Jesus is made “present” with us at all times as a result of partaking of the Sacrament. That would be a Mormon definition of “Real Presence,” if we had to have one.

In post #225 I had given you a quote from the Wikipedia which showed that each Christian Church had a different definition of “Real Presence”. It was as follows:

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

Then I explained that if every church can have a definition of “Real Presence” of their own, then I suppose Mormons can have one too, and I gave you what would be the Mormon definition of Real Presence based on Mormon theology derive from the Book of Mormon. I also, as an aside, mentioned that based on the Wikipedia article, out of all the definitions of Real Presence that various non-LDS Churches adhere to, the one that would come closest to being acceptable to Mormons would be the Reformed Christian one—not that our theology was derived from them. I had already given you what the purely Mormon theology would say, which is not identical to the Reformed one. This is what I had said:

If you look at the quote I gave from the Wikipedia, the definition of it adopted by the “Reformed Protestants” would come closest to what the Mormons would accept. This is what it said: “Reformed Protestant views instead speak of a ‘spiritual’ real presence and stress that Holy Communion is a ‘spiritual feeding’.” I think Mormons would find that definition also acceptable.

That does not mean that the Mormon doctrine is derived from the Reformed one. The real Mormon doctrine is the one I had given you from the Book of Mormon, which is not identical to the Reformed one. So, to sum it all up:

1. *]Mormons do not use the terminology of “Real Presence,” and do not feel the need to use it.
   
   *]But if we HAD to use it (e.g. to build bridges with traditional Christian theology), since every Christian church seems to have its own definition of “Real Presence,” then I think that Mormons could come up with their own definition unique to Mormonism derived from the Book of Mormon, which is what I had given.
   
   *]If we wanted to take that bridge one step further by comparing the Mormon doctrine with that of traditional Christianity, I would say the one that comes closest to (but not identical with) Mormonism is the Reformed doctrine of Real Presence, based on what was reported in the Wikipedia article.
   And this is likely to be the last time I will reply to your post, because I find you to be a dishonest debater, which even your own fellow Catholics find frustrating, and you deliberately distort and misrepresent others’ position in order to win an unwindable argument. I have no regard for that, and cannot afford to waste my time with that kind of thing.

 

[Returning_Home]

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

Agreed. The BOM, in its first edition, was wholly Trinitarian, though most Mormons can’t face it (or just don’t know it) because it undermines their position. In the second edition, however, we find changes to the theology being made, separating God from Jesus to make them merely ‘one in purpose.’

 

[lax16]

Thank you. I don’t think he is misunderstanding what I am saying. He intentionally misrepresents it in order to win an unwinnable argument, thinking that nobody else sees him except himself. He has been doing that in all of the discussions that I have had with him, that is why I don’t think I will continue my discussions with him for much longer.

**No, I have asked you to answer my questions citing your sources instead of opinion. **
Wrong! In post #231 I told you that:

And in post #234 I further explained:

In post #225 I had given you a quote from the Wikipedia which showed that each Christian Church had a different definition of “Real Presence”. It was as follows:

Then I explained that if every church can have a definition of “Real Presence” of their own, then I suppose Mormons can have one too, and I gave you what would be the Mormon definition of Real Presence based on Mormon theology derive from the Book of Mormon. I also, as an aside, mentioned that based on the Wikipedia article, out of all the definitions of Real Presence that various non-LDS Churches adhere to, the one that would come closest to being acceptable to Mormons would be the Reformed Christian one—not that our theology was derived from them. I had already given you what the purely Mormon theology would say, which is not identical to the Reformed one. This is what I had said:

If the Mormons participate in sacrament on Sunday using crackers, juice, and a table, what is the purpose? What does it mean to Mormons, not Protestants?

That does not mean that the Mormon doctrine is derived from the Reformed one. The real Mormon doctrine is the one I had given you from the Book of Mormon, which is not identical to the Reformed one. So, to sum it all up:

1. *]Mormons do not use the terminology of “Real Presence,” and do not feel the need to use it.
   
   **You have already stated that in prior posts which is why I asked what is the meaning of the sacrament Mormons have on Sundays? Move on. **
   
   *]But if we HAD to use it (e.g. to build bridges with traditional Christian theology), since every Christian church seems to have its own definition of “Real Presence,” then I think that Mormons could come up with their own definition unique to Mormonism derived from the Book of Mormon, which is what I had given.
   
   *]If we wanted to take that bridge one step further by comparing the Mormon doctrine with that of traditional Christianity, I would say the one that comes closest to (but not identical with) Mormonism is the Reformed doctrine of Real Presence, based on what was reported in the Wikipedia article.
   And this is likely to be the last time I will reply to your post, because I find you to be a dishonest debater, which even your own fellow Catholics find frustrating, and you deliberately distort and misrepresent others’ position in order to win an unwindable argument. I have no regard for that, and cannot afford to waste my time with that kind of thing.

1. 
   **Zerinus, much of Mormonism comes from Protestantism. It just doesn’t make sense that the Mormons don’t have their own definitions for their own rituals since you claim to be the one true church.
   
   I am sure you will not want to continue to reply to me on this post. You have yet to explain the Mormon practice of Sacrament and its meaning.
   
   I am taking note that you are calling me “a dishonest debater who deliberately distorts and misrepresent others’ position in order to win an unwinnable argument.” **

 

[zerinus]

You have yet to explain the Mormon practice of Sacrament and its meaning.

You will find the that explanation given in this Blog post.

 

[lax16]

You will find the that explanation given in this Blog post.

Zerinus - I think it is interesting that 3 Nephi Chapter 18 states:

*Jesus institutes the sacrament *among the Nephites- They are commanded to pray always in his name- Those who *eat his flesh and drink his blood *unworthily are damned- The disciples are given power to confer the Holy Ghost.

Jesus instituted - started - something new. Eating bread and wine together was nothing new! But Jesus as the Bread and Wine was a new concept. Why would disciples be needed to confer the Holy Ghost just to pass out bread and juice?
They would be needed to accept the responsibility of handling the ACTUAL Body and Blood of Jesus!
This absolutely sounds like the institution, the beginning, of the Real Presence of the Eucharist being passed down to man from Jesus Himself. Jesus is giving instructions on how it is to be done. Why would he explain how people are to eat meals together?

3 Nephi 20: 7-8

But he truly gave unto them bread to eat, and also wine to drink. And he said unto them: He that *eateth this bread eatheth of my body *to his soul; and *he that drinketh of this **wine drinketh of my blood *to his soul; and **his ****soul shall never hunger nor thirst, but shall be filled. **

“he truly gave unto them” = literally, actually
If I were reading the Book of Mormon to understand the definition of the Eucharist/sacrament I would think that Jesus was speaking of the Real Presence.
Only Jesus Himself could fill our soul - not bread/crackers, water/juice - JESUS!

 

[zerinus]

Zerinus - I think it is interesting that 3 Nephi Chapter 18 states:

*Jesus institutes the sacrament *among the Nephites- They are commanded to pray always in his name- Those who *eat his flesh and drink his blood *unworthily are damned- The disciples are given power to confer the Holy Ghost.

That simply repeats the language that is used in the Bible and in the Book of Mormon that Catholics would associate with “Real Presence” as they understand it. It does not mean that we accept the interpretation that Catholics put on those words. We have no problem with the words, and are happy to repeat them. What we have problem with is how Catholics interpret those words.

3 Nephi 20: 7-8

But he truly gave unto them bread to eat, and also wine to drink. And he said unto them: He that *eateth this bread eatheth of my body *to his soul; and *he that drinketh of this **wine drinketh of my blood *to his soul; and **his ****soul shall never hunger nor thirst, but shall be filled. **

“he truly gave unto them” = literally, actually

On that particular occasion the bread and wine was miraculously provided by Jesus. The disciples had not brought any bread and wine with them. That is what that verse is referring to. You have overlooked the context. Here is the verse in its context:

3 Nephi 20:

6 Now, there had been no bread, neither wine, brought by the disciples, neither by the multitude;
7 But he truly gave unto them bread to eat, and also wine to drink.

The antecedent of “But” in verse 7 is verse 6. It has nothing to do with Real Presence as you understand it.

 

[Returning_Home]

3 Nephi 20:

6 Now, there had been no bread, neither wine, brought by the disciples, neither by the multitude;
7 But he truly gave unto them bread to eat, and also wine to drink.

That sounds suspiciously like the Bible’s sentiments about the Eucharist. I wonder where that came from.

 

[lax16]

That simply repeats the language that is used in the Bible and in the Book of Mormon that Catholics would associate with “Real Presence” as they understand it. It does not mean that we accept the interpretation that Catholics put on those words. We have no problem with the words, and are happy to repeat them. What we have problem with is how Catholics interpret those words.

zerinus - Jesus is very clear. You are saying that you are not going to accept His words because it is a Catholic interpretation? Remember these verses are from the Book of Mormon not the Douay-Rheims Bible.
The reason Catholics interpret the meaning that way is because we are listening to Jesus’ words and not putting an interpretation on them.
I have no doubt that Mormons have problems with how Catholics interpret Jesus’ words, but in actuality you are reacting to the Catholic interpretation instead of Jesus’ meaning.

On that particular occasion the bread and wine was miraculously provided by Jesus. The disciples had not brought any bread and wine with them. That is what that verse is referring to. You have overlooked the context. Here is the verse in its context:

No, I did not overlook the context. I read the whole thing including the following verse (8).

3 Nephi 20:

6 Now, there had been no bread, neither wine, brought by the disciples, neither by the multitude;
7 But he truly gave unto them bread to eat, and also wine to drink.

**8 And he said unto them: He that eateth this bread eatheth of my body **to his soul; and he that drinketh of my blood to his soul; and his soul shall never hunger nor thirst, but shall be filled.

The antecedent of “But” in verse 7 is verse 6. It has nothing to do with Real Presence as you understand it.

You didn’t answer my questions. Why would Jesus initiate this if it was just a meal?
How would bread and wine fill one’s soul?
Why would Jesus say eateth of my body/drinketh of my blood if He didn’t mean it?

 

[lax16]

That sounds suspiciously like the Bible’s sentiments about the Eucharist. I wonder where that came from.

and 3 Nephi - Verse 8

And he said unto them: He that eateth this bread *eateth of my body *to his soul; and he that drinketh of this wine *drinketh of my blood *to his soul; and his soul shall never hunger nor thirst, but shall be filled.

How can this be interpreted any other way?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

and 3 Nephi - Verse 8

And he said unto them: He that eateth this bread *eateth of my body *

Wow, I guess it’s true, miracles are for the unbelievers to see, yet pride blinds men. God is so Loving that he even reveals his Truth to unbelievers if they have eyes to see and ears to hear?

Good post:thumbsup: