Do LDS hold to "Sola Fide" or "Tradition Plus Scripture"

[arieh0310]

ben_dy:

I feel as if I should defend their practices as much as possible as we (Catholics) are likely closer to Judaism than even some schismatic ‘Christian’ sects!

Great point, I heard Rossalyn Moss say one time that there was nothing more Jewish than becoming Catholic.

amgid, the reason Catholics don’t have phylactories or tzitzits is that Christ was the completion of the ceremonial (sacraficial) law. Catholicism has kept a lot of Jewish traditions but also realizes that Christ fullfilled the ceremonial and sacraficial requirements.

The reason, and indeed the nessesity, of a catechism (which simply means teaching) is to help the faithful properly interpret Scripture. If one wonders why we can eat “unclean” foods the CCC can help. When one reads in Scripture that we must eat Christ’s flesh to have life in us the CCC spells out exactly what that means.

I am sure that current Mormons and ex-Mormons will agree that the LDS church has some sort of instruction or teaching whether or not they call it a catechism.

 

[majick275]

The LDS General Authirities sure do seem to be prolific writers for folks who don’t want a catechism. Could it be that they fear a reduction in their book sales? They all write to tell people what the scriptures mean and what they should do. Look at JFS “answers to gospel questions” and Mconkie’s “Moromon doctrine”. Waht are those if not a catechism? They just aren’t binding… that means another guy can write another book… and it means that any position that is indefensible can be dicarded as “speculation”.

 

[Asa_Ben_Judah]

Robert in SD:

There is no historical evidence supporting your conclusion that there was a "Great Apostacy.

*There is no historical evidence supporting your conclusion that there was a “Great Apostacy.” *

For LDS, the substantiation (evidence) is based upon an Article of Faith - that there was indeed an apostasy from the pure and simple doctrine of the Apostles. We could spend a lot of time proving or disproving this issue – the primary evidence I look to is the history of the church which led to the shattered unity of the Christian church today.

*There is no requirement of a “recommend” for attending mass. *

I’m not sure what your point is by comparing the two?

Well, what is the point of attending Mass if one is not to receive the Blessed Sacrament; that is the Eucharist? As I understand the situation a Roman Catholic Christian has to receive absolution from a priest via the sacrament of penance (confession) in order to be in a “State of Grace” before partaking of the Body of Christ.

LDS are required to undergo a similar process before entering the Temple to meet God, and to be instructed by Him and Angels. LDS Christians who do not hold a Temple Recommend are not in a “State of Grace” and therefore not fit to approach the altar.

In both cases where sinners approach sacred places such are defiled.

(1) Regarding the Holy Trinity

That is the point IMPLICT in scripture, EXPLICIT at Nicaea. However I would draw your attention to the Epistles of Paul, for example Ephesians Chapter 1:

Redemption in Christ

3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, 4 just as He *(that is god the Father) *chose us in Him (that is Jesus Christ) before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him (that is God the Father) in love, 5 having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His (that is god the father’s) will, 6 to the praise of the glory of His (that is god the Father’s) grace, by which He made us accepted in the Beloved.(that is Jesus Christ) (NKJV)

The emphasis in italics is mine, sorry for being pedantic, but the verse is EXPLICIT, The God LDS Christians worship, and it appears that St. Paul also, is their Father, and the God and Father of Jesus Christ, and they worship God in the name of The Son.

(2) The separation of protestant brothers and sisters from the Eucharistic table is a sad result of the reformation

Yes, it is tragic. The separation of Catholics and Non-Catholics from the Eucharistic table is a great example of where Christians lack unity. But this does not establish error on the part of the Church.**

It is precisely due to the doctrine/dogma of the “Real Presence of Christ” that those who were unable to accept it after having access to scripture, which does not support this change in teaching, were excluded from full communion. Often this exclusion was enforced in a most cruel and barbarous fashion, as you affirm a review of the Early Church Fathers reveals all of the ways in which the Church was successful in defeating the attacks upon the Church by heretical movements. However, I am prepared to overlook this in light of the times, people in the 1500’s, on both sides of the argument were to say the least ignorant, illiterate and superstitious. It was those standing against those who held power, and who worshipped God in spirit and truth who suffered terribly.

The truth will set you free…

Asa

 

[Asa_Ben_Judah]

A postscript,

there are many who attend the LDS temple for the wrong reasons, i.e. curiosity, entertainment or an ulterior motive, who come away confused and no more enlightened that when they enterered simply because God will not be mocked.

The true gospel of Jesus Christ is also a sifter sorting out the Wheat from the Tares, and we know what happens to the Tares don’t we!

So it is for Catholic Christians who do not approach the Holy Altar and receive the body and blood of Christ in a State of Grace.

We must love one another,

Asa

 

[Asa_Ben_Judah]

tkdnick:

I was trying to say that there needed to constantly be new doctrinal revelation, just curious when the last “official” one was.

The Semi-Annual General conference held 1& 2 October 2005

 

[Asa_Ben_Judah]

majick275:

The LDS General Authirities sure do seem to be prolific writers for folks who don’t want a catechism. Could it be that they fear a reduction in their book sales? They all write to tell people what the scriptures mean and what they should do. Look at JFS “answers to gospel questions” and Mconkie’s “Moromon doctrine”. Waht are those if not a catechism? They just aren’t binding… that means another guy can write another book… and it means that any position that is indefensible can be dicarded as “speculation”.

I thought your remarks to be rather churlish, the answer is for the same reason that there are prolific writers in the Roman Catholic Church!

Regards,

Asa

 

[majick275]

I’m sorry if you thought my response churlish. If you look at the posts on catechism though you will see LDS claiming that having a catechism is wrong. I was pointing out what I thought was hypocritical about that.

You also seem to be overlooking the problem with documenting LDS doctrine. The RCC has a catechism for this.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

There is no historical evidence supporting your conclusion that there was a “Great Apostacy.”

For LDS, the substantiation (evidence) is based upon an Article of Faith - that there was indeed an apostasy from the pure and simple doctrine of the Apostles. We could spend a lot of time proving or disproving this issue – the primary evidence I look to is the history of the church which led to the shattered unity of the Christian church today.

This to me seems to be an admission that there is insufficient historical evidence to support the Great Apostacy. There is a distinction between making a leap of faith as it pertains to the unknowable - such as in the case of accepting the doctrine of the trinity or the hypostatic union or the immaculate conception. But the “Great Apostacy” would seem to me to be a matter of history that is provable or disprovable. Thus, to say one must accept the GA as a matter of faith would be like asking one to accept that the sky is green. One can accept it only by looking away from the truth.

*There is no requirement of a “recommend” for attending mass.

I’m not sure what your point is by comparing the two?*

Well, what is the point of attending Mass if one is not to receive the Blessed Sacrament; that is the Eucharist? As I understand the situation a Roman Catholic Christian has to receive absolution from a priest via the sacrament of penance (confession) in order to be in a “State of Grace” before partaking of the Body of Christ.

LDS are required to undergo a similar process before entering the Temple to meet God, and to be instructed by Him and Angels. LDS Christians who do not hold a Temple Recommend are not in a “State of Grace” and therefore not fit to approach the altar.

(1) Your first assumption is close but not entirely correct. One must be in a state of grace to properly receive the Eucharist. If one believes that they are not in a state of grace - i.e. in a state of mortal sin - then one must be reconciled with Christ before properly receiving the Eucharist. The normative way in which one is reconciled with Christ is through the receipt of the sacrament of confession (or reconciliation). However, in some instances a sincere recommitment to Christ made with the intention of seeking the sacrament of reconciliation at the next possible opportunity is also sufficient.
(2) Catholics understand that one in a “state of grace” is in a right relationship with God. It is a term with implications upon one’s justification and their ultimate salvation. I have never heard it said that only LDS members holding a temple recommend are in a state of Grace. Did you mean something different? Are LDS members with Temple Cards the only persons who will be saved?
(3) Mass is efficacious even if one does not receive the sacrament. The scriptures are read, community prayers are made, and special blessings are offered to those who - for whatever reason - choose not to receive the eucharist. Without setting aside the preeminence of the sacrament, there are other good things that come from attending mass.
(4) Just to clarify, neither the church nor the mass is “defiled” if a person who is not a Catholic (or a Catholic in a state of mortal sin) decides to partake in the sacrament. Is an LDS Temple or a particular ceremony “defiled” if it is infiltrated by a non-member?

(Continued on next post.)

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Asa Ben Judah:

(1) Regarding the Holy Trinity
That is the point IMPLICT in scripture, EXPLICIT at Nicaea. However I would draw your attention to the Epistles of Paul, for example Ephesians Chapter 1:

Redemption in Christ (Text omitted for brevity)

The emphasis in italics is mine, sorry for being pedantic, but the verse is EXPLICIT, The God LDS Christians worship, and it appears that St. Paul also, is their Father, and the God and Father of Jesus Christ, and they worship God in the name of The Son.

The LDS understanding of the Trinity is that God is the literal father of Christ - i.e. that God preceded Christ, that Christ was a created being. That is not what the Bible teaches…

[1] In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
[2] He was in the beginning with God;
[3] all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made.
[4] In him was life, and the life was the light of men. (RSV:CE Jn. 1:1-4.)

The text of John clearly states that the Word made flesh - Christ was (i.e. he existed) in the beginning with God and he was God. “Father and Son” describes the relationship between the first two persons of the godhead, but one cannot conclude - except by ignoring John’s writing - that God the Father is the creator or progenitor of the Son as it is clear that both were eternal beings from the beginning. The correct understanding is that both Father and Son are God and always have been God, that one did not create the other.
Asa Ben Judah:

It is precisely due to the doctrine/dogma of the “Real Presence of Christ” that those who were unable to accept it after having access to scripture, which does not support this change in teaching, were excluded from full communion.

Scripture absolutely supports the doctrine of the Real Presence. You may not agree with the argument, but you discredit yourself by simply denying the existence of supporting Scripture passages. Consider…

[35] Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst.
[36] But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe. …
[41] The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, “I am the bread which came down from heaven.” [Jesus responds…]
[47] Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life.
[48] I am the bread of life.
[49] Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died.
[50] This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die.
[51] I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.”
[52] The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
[53] So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you;
[54] he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
[55] For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
[56] He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. …
[66] After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him.
[67] Jesus said to the twelve, “Do you also wish to go away?”
[68] Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life;
[69] and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.” (Jn 6:35-69 - portions omitted for brevity in this post.)

See also: Mt 26:26ff (Eucharist instituted); Mk 14:22ff (Eucharist instituted); 1 Cor 10:16 (Eucharist is a participation in the body and blood of Christ Jesus); 1 Cor 11:23-29 (receiving unworthily = guilty of his body and blood);

Those who do not accept the doctrine of the Eucharist presumably would not want to take part in a liturgy that - to them -is false, improper, and would amount to idolatry. So, why should the Catholic Church permit those who do not believe to partake?To do so the Church would have to close its eyes to a very real division in doctrine. It is this division in doctrine that causes the rift. It is not the Catholic Church that withholds the sacrament from believers. It is the Catholic Church that protects those who do not accept the doctrine from “receiving unworthily” lest they incur the guilt of His body and blood. 1 Cor. 11:23-29.

 

[Tmaque]

Asa Ben Judah:

It is precisely due to the doctrine/dogma of the “Real Presence of Christ” that those who were unable to accept it after having access to scripture, which does not support this change in teaching, were excluded from full communion.

It’s obvious that you are unfamiliar with the writings of the Early Church Fathers and with the NT scripture passages that support the Real Presence. To say that the Real Presence was a “change in teaching” is, really, quite ridiculous. Here are a few quotes for you:

*“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Smyrnaeans, 7,1 (c. A.D. 110).

“For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.” Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66 (c. A.D. 110-165).

“The bread over which thanks have been given is the body of their Lord, and the cup His blood…” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, IV:18,4 (c. A.D. 200). *

St Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians, 11:
*27: Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.
28: Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup.
29: For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. *

What does eating the bread unworthily profane Christ’s body if the bread is merely a symbol? Why does Paul tell us that if we fail to discern(detect the reality) the body we eat and drink judgement upon ourselves? It’s obvious that the ECF’s interpreted Paul exactly as the Catholic Church does.

There is simply no question that the early Christian church believed and taught the doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

 

[Asa_Ben_Judah]

Thank you for the responses, I am learning a lot about the RCC here and elsewhere. For many years I have felt a certain affinity to the RCC and believe that God might be calling me into this community, however, as the scripture in (1 john 4:1) states we must try the spirits to see if they are really coming from God! If I do eventually find myself becoming a Roman Catholic it will be by virtue of personal revelation. Nevertheless, you wrote:

*This to me seems to be an admission that there is insufficient historical evidence to support the Great Apostacy. *

There is plenty of historical evidence to demonstrate that there never has been a united and SINGLE ecclesiastical organisation (Church), rather, the Gospel of Christ has been a bone of contention. This is the evidence for an apostacy. I would also refer to the Catholic Father Raymond Brown’s book, ‘The Community of the Beloved Disciple’, a compelling dissertation that points to the mechanisms that precipitated the great apostasy.

Thus, to say one must accept the GA as a matter of faith would be like asking one to accept that the sky is green. One can accept it only by looking away from the truth.

The remit of the church is to bring individuals to Christ through a personal encounter with God. Every LDS is encouraged to so live as to receive a personal testimony and to not rely upon the light another has. Therefore, the restoration rendered obsolete the kind of ecclesiastical influence that you allude to above. I resent the patronising implication that LDS teaching is obviously false; if that were true I, and many of my friends and loved ones, would have left the church years ago! Too many LDS are content to follow like sheep rather than becoming spiritually self-reliant. There will always be the need of Ecclesiastical authorities, GA’s, whilst there is false religion in the world.

As Joseph Smith concluded, all of the churches cannot be right, so he asked God and he was told none of them were true within his experience/familiarity.

*(4) Just to clarify, neither the church nor the mass is “defiled” if a person who is not a Catholic (or a Catholic in a state of mortal sin) decides to partake in the sacrament. Is an LDS Temple or a particular ceremony “defiled” if it is infiltrated by a non-member?

---

NO, only the individual who approaches temple/altar unworthily is defiled. We need to remember that in truth God appears to temple worshippers within the temple and reveals truth and wisdom to the pure in heart.

The LDS understanding of the Trinity is that God is the literal father of Christ - i.e. that God preceded Christ, that Christ was a created being. That is not what the Bible teaches…

LDS know that the Bible is the Word of God as far as it has been translated/interpreted correctly. You are making an argument for a Protestant position here. This is my own personal conviction; the Bible/Scripture is the work of men who have in the past been directly inspired by God, the Prophets and Apostles, to write about their experiences with God. The Bible has also been through the hands of a lot of wicked/worldly/sophisticated men, inspired by Satan who’s motive has been to destroy the Gospel of Christ in order to build/preserves his own kingdom. Therefore, the Bible has also been corrupted. Latter-day revelation and scripture clarifies the error.

Scripture absolutely supports the doctrine of the Real Presence. You may not agree with the argument, but you discredit yourself by simply denying the existence of supporting Scripture passages.

Scripture implies Catholic Doctrine/Dogma but there is nothing absolute about scripture, it has been argued and debated over hundreds of years and men will continue to do so until they accept and receive revelation directly from God.

continued…

 

[Asa_Ben_Judah]

Those who do not accept the doctrine of the Eucharist presumably would not want to take part in a liturgy that - to them - is false, improper, and would amount to idolatry. So, why should the Catholic Church permit those who do not believe to partake?

I completely accept your point as it relates to LDS but mainstream Christians? No, I cannot accept this.

The Catholic Church invented excommunication as a means of control. Incidentally I deplore Pope John Paul’s recent exclusion of LDS as Christians unnecessary, churlish and mean-spirited, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in Rome was asked to reconsidered a decision about Mormon baptism and its validity. For years, the Catholic Church considered Mormon baptism doubtful. Now, the doubt has been resolved with this ruling. It considers Mormon baptism invalid in its decision this past Spring 2001. This means, Mormons are considered as other unbaptized persons for all purposes, including RCIA, marriage, annulment, and privilege of the faith cases. Additionally, the decision is retroactive because it is considered to be a matter of the divine law. This means that in the past any marriage involving a Catholic and a Mormon that did not receive a dispensation from the impediment of disparity of cult, the marriage will now be considered as having always been not valid. It will need a convalidation or sanction, but before this is done there must be assurances that the marriage is sound. No convalidation or sanction should be done for a marriage that is in trouble and might end in divorce. Also, if any Mormon has been received into the Catholic Church without baptism, at least conditionally, the person in question is not yet a Christian and must be baptized and subsequent sacraments repeated.

*It’s obvious that you are unfamiliar with the writings of the Early Church Fathers and with the NT scripture passages that support the Real Presence. To say that the Real Presence was a “change in teaching” is, really, quite ridiculous. *

It is also obvious that you are unfamiliar with the teachings of LDS prophets and apostles otherwise you would see the truth that the teaching on the Real Presence is one of many interpretations on scripture not based upon divine revelation.

May God continue to bless you with light and truth,

Asa

 

[Tmaque]

Asa Ben Judah:

It is also obvious that you are unfamiliar with the teachings of LDS prophets and apostles otherwise you would see the truth that the teaching on the Real Presence is one of many interpretations on scripture not based upon divine revelation.

Are you saying that the Early Church Fathers, the men taught BY the apostles, were also wrong in their understanding of the Real Presence? Does the testimony of these men who sat and listened to those taught by Christ himself mean nothing? You would have us ignore their writings, but take at face value the declarations of a man removed from the period by 1800 years?

If the only way to know truth, is by relying on divine revelation, then don’t you have the problem of discerning objectively, which revelations are true and which are not? Do you believe everyone, everywhere, claiming divine revelation? Of course not. Then what do we do? Don’t we have to start with what we know? We know that Christ lived. We know he taught men. We know those men taught others. We have their writings and know what these men believed.

I think it’s safe to say that we can trust those early Christians who knew those that knew Christ. We can trust their testimony is true. So, If I am to choose the truth of a doctrine, between those who we KNOW were taught by the apostles themselves(or by those the apostles appointed), and those who CLAIM a contradicting revelation, logic dictates that I choose the former every time.

 

[Tmaque]

Asa Ben Judah:

It is also obvious that you are unfamiliar with the teachings of LDS prophets and apostles otherwise you would see the truth that the teaching on the Real Presence is one of many interpretations on scripture not based upon divine revelation.

One more thing. Being ex-LDS from a large active LDS family, I am very familiar with the teachings of LDS prophets and apostles. I disagree with them, and I don’t think they’ve received divine revelation.

My statement was that the doctrine of the Real Presence was not a change in teaching. I even presented proof that it was not. If I’m wrong then demonstrate it to me.

Please show me where a 1st or 2nd century ECF explicitly writes that the Eucharist is a only symbol, and is not the body and blood of our Lord.

 

[Asa_Ben_Judah]

Tmaque:

Are you saying that the Early Church Fathers, the men taught BY the apostles, were also wrong in their understanding of the Real Presence?

Do you believe everyone, everywhere, claiming divine revelation? Of course not. Then what do we do? Don’t we have to start with what we know?

I think it’s safe to say that we can trust those early Christians who knew those that knew Christ. We can trust their testimony is true. So, If I am to choose the truth of a doctrine, between those who we KNOW were taught by the apostles themselves(or by those the apostles appointed), and those who CLAIM a contradicting revelation, logic dictates that I choose the former every time.

First, the great apostacy began very early as we can surmise from the conflict that existed between the Christians in Jerusalem and the churches organised by Paul. You ought to read Father Raymond Brown’s book the Community of the Beloved Disciple, in this book we learn that the churches were tearing each other apart over issues relating to such things as Christology and the nature of God.

Second, I have mentioned that truth is discerned/confirmed by personal revelation once we have weighed the claims and counter claims of those who claim a divine mandate. So I do not slavishly follow every wind of doctrine that contradicts the basic principles of the Restoration through Joseph Smith.

Third, we live in the 21st century and so we need guidance relevant to today. What the Church Father’s taught were expedient for the post-apostolic church not the post-reformation.

Do you seriously believe in your argument that the wholesale disintregration and abandonment of the main stream Christian Church is going to be reversed?

Regards,

Asa

 

[Asa_Ben_Judah]

Tmaque:

Being ex-LDS from a large active LDS family, I am very familiar with the teachings of LDS prophets and apostles. I disagree with them, and I don’t think they’ve received divine revelation.

Please show me where a 1st or 2nd century ECF explicitly writes that the Eucharist is a only symbol, and is not the body and blood of our Lord.

Dear Tod, you need to be thankful that you have the freedom to exercise your choice, one principle teaching of the LDS is that we are free to worship who, where or what we may.

The whole doctrine of the real presence is in one way a very comforting one but if we are honest we should recognise that it is very difficult to swallow.

I am sure that you will recall that the Bread and the Water are emblems of the blood and body of Christ which are partaken in an act of remembrance and renewal of covenental obligations to live as Christ lived in perfect obedience to the will of The Father. For some that is also difficult to swallow, now one reason why some LDS leave the church is because they are unable to meet the obligations of church membership and mainstream Christian Church teaching offers an easy road.

A final thought, the bottom line is this: a true Christian is a person who has come to know in a very real way that the person named Jesus in the scriptures was indeed the Promised Messiah of the Hebrew Scriptures. The church is the agency of Jesus Christ to help individuals come to that saving knowledge and maintain it. I can’t see where the Church of Jesus Christ of LDS is failing in this comission, hence LDS are true Christians even if they are not mainstream.

Regards,

Asa

 

[Asa_Ben_Judah]

Tmaque:

Please show me where a 1st or 2nd century ECF explicitly writes that the Eucharist is a only symbol, and is not the body and blood of our Lord.

I have a better proof the words in ruby text are the words of Jesushimself which in my opinion trump the Early Church Fathers with their arcane notions. Note also in that first eucharistic meal there was no real presence:

19 Then he took a loaf of bread; and when he had thanked God for it, he broke it in pieces and gave it to the disciples, saying, “This is my body, given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 20 After supper he took another cup of wine and said, "This wine is the token of God’s new covenant to save you-an agreement sealed with the blood I will pour out for you.*
21 “But here at this table, sitting among us as a friend, is the man who will betray me. 22 For I, the Son of Man, must die since it is part of God’s plan. But how terrible it will be for my betrayer!” 23 Then the disciples began to ask each other which of them would ever do such a thing.
24 And they began to argue among themselves as to who would be the greatest in the coming Kingdom. (Luke 22 NLT)

Regards,

Asa

 

[majick275]

Asa Ben Judah:

I have a better proof the words in ruby text are the words of Jesushimself which in my opinion trump the Early Church Fathers with their arcane notions. Note also in that first eucharistic meal there was no real presence:

19 Then he took a loaf of bread; and when he had thanked God for it, he broke it in pieces and gave it to the disciples, saying, “This is/B] my body, given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 20 After supper he took another cup of wine and said, "This wine is the token of God’s new covenant to save you-an agreement sealed with the blood I will pour out for you.*
21 “But here at this table, sitting among us as a friend, is the man who will betray me. 22 For I, the Son of Man, must die since it is part of God’s plan. But how terrible it will be for my betrayer!” 23 Then the disciples began to ask each other which of them would ever do such a thing.
24 And they began to argue among themselves as to who would be the greatest in the coming Kingdom. (Luke 22 NLT)

Regards,

Asa

Yep, Jesus was in fact really present in this instance. (which would by itself make this a different situation) Note what is said by Jesus himself here: “This IS my body”, Not this represents or this symbolizes or this is a similitude but this IS. He does not say that the wine is a symbol of his blood either. He says that wine is a symbol of the covenant. “sealed with the BLOOD I will pour out for you.” What Jesus pours out for his disciples is real blood that symbolizes the new covenant. I see this as just like mass. wine goes into the cup the blood of christ comes out of it. A miracle.

 

[Asa_Ben_Judah]

majick275:

Yep, Jesus was in fact really present in this instance. (which would by itself make this a different situation) Note what is said by Jesus himself here: “This IS my body”, Not this represents or this symbolizes or this is a similitude but this IS. He does not say that the wine is a symbol of his blood either. He says that wine is a symbol of the covenant. “sealed with the BLOOD I will pour out for you.” What Jesus pours out for his disciples is real blood that symbolizes the new covenant. I see this as just like mass. wine goes into the cup the blood of christ comes out of it. A miracle.

Full marks for conviction, but Jesus was certainly not inferring a literal reality with that loaf. The word ‘IS’ opens up a whole world of exegesis and bebate, hence, a tiny word with infinite scope for interpretation, which is the point, who’s interpretation is the right one? The RCC offer a compelling interpretation, I admit, but the LDS offer a compelling argument too.

P.S. the RCC in England have recently published a teachnig document “The Gift of Scripture” in which it is argued that not everything written in the Bible is historically true. I am looking forward to reading it. I will not take the interpretation of the popular press too seriously

timesonline.co.uk/article/0,13509-1811332,00.html

Please be reassured that I Love you,

Asa

 

[Tmaque]

Asa Ben Judah:

Dear Tod, you need to be thankful that you have the freedom to exercise your choice, one principle teaching of the LDS is that we are free to worship who, where or what we may.

I am thankful. The Catholic church teaches the same thing. People can worship who, where, or what they may. But, what has that to do with the subject?
Asa Ben Judah:

The whole doctrine of the real presence is in one way a very comforting one but if we are honest we should recognise that it is very difficult to swallow.

Was does the truth or falsity of the doctrine have to do with how hard it is to swallow? I agree it’s hard to accept, yet I accepted it because it’s true, I had no choice at that point.
Asa Ben Judah:

I am sure that you will recall that the Bread and the Water are emblems of the blood and body of Christ which are partaken in an act of remembrance and renewal of covenental obligations to live as Christ lived in perfect obedience to the will of The Father. For some that is also difficult to swallow, now one reason why some LDS leave the church is because they are unable to meet the obligations of church membership and mainstream Christian Church teaching offers an easy road.

You seem to be insinuating that I left the LDS Church because I was “unable to meet the obligations of church membership”. You would be totally incorrect. I submit that it’s more difficult to be a faithful Catholic than to be a faithful LDS for many reasons that I don’t want to list here. There is nothing easy about being a faithful Catholic.
Asa Ben Judah:

A final thought, the bottom line is this: a true Christian is a person who has come to know in a very real way that the person named Jesus in the scriptures was indeed the Promised Messiah of the Hebrew Scriptures. The church is the agency of Jesus Christ to help individuals come to that saving knowledge and maintain it. I can’t see where the Church of Jesus Christ of LDS is failing in this comission, hence LDS are true Christians even if they are not mainstream.

I have no problem calling LDS, or JW’s for that matter, non-mainstream “Christians”, although most Catholics in this forum would disagree with my terminology. But, I don’t know what this has to do with the subject of transubstantiation.