P
PRmerger
Guest
Are you actually saying that the ECFs’ writings contained Mormon doctrines? If you are making that claim, what Mormon beliefs did the ECFs profess?
- Status
Z
zerinus
Guest
No that is not what I am saying; and their writings did not contain Catholic doctrine either. They contained as many Catholic doctrines as Mormon ones.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Ok. Let’s see you back up your claim.
Here’s something on the Real Presence of the Eucharist, a Catholic doctrine, by Clement of Alexandria
“’Eat my flesh,’ [Jesus] says, ‘and drink my blood.’ The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients, he delivers over his flesh and pours out his blood, and nothing is lacking for the growth of his children” (The Instructor of Children 1:6:43:3 [A.D. 191]). Clement of Alexandria
Now it’s your turn. What distinctly Mormon doctrine can you cite from an ECF?
Z
zerinus
Guest
This kind of discussion can go on forever. I can see that this is going to be an endless one; and I don’t intend to go down that rout. But if it helps, I can infrom you that Mormonism can be defined so broadly that it encompasses every Christian (and non-Christian) saint that has ever lived.
S
StrawberryJam
Guest
What interests me about your post, is it seems as if you are saying non Christians could be holy. Am I misreading your post?
Z
zerinus
Guest
I believe that a non-Christian can be holy. That is my own belief. I am not presenting it as the official teaching of the LDS Church. I don’t know what the official teaching on that would be.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Ah…I was expecting that. sigh.
A poster here once said “Absence of evidence is evidence that the statement is false.”
You ought not be making claims that you cannot back up. Especially in this forum, where you will be called to task for making false statements.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Yup–non-Christians can be holy. See Luke 10:25-37
There’s probably a whole bunch of non-Christians enjoying eternity with God and lots and lots of “Christians” who just couldn’t say No to themselves and Yes to God.
Z
Zehos
Guest
To take a much more contemporary look at this situation from Joseph’s view, a slight elaboration on Toby’s view.
Remember the “Old Covenant/Testament God”? Yes, that crazy dude that was willing to smite & sink anything that really pissed him off. Well that’s ‘popping’ out of his wife, this same powerful & vengeful God. Joseph, a pretty devout & kind Jew by the looks of it (divorce her in secret), would be terrified of anything that has to do with his God, even if it was his wife. I wouldn’t have sex with a woman if I knew that my God, who you were supposed to fear 24/7, was gestating & born of her.
Other less modernized & logical support:
Look at the holy family: They don’t fit the typical family of that era, and don’t you think they’d have plenty of son’s listed if Joseph & Mary were the stereotypical parents of the age? Why assume they were common?
Remember the “Old Covenant/Testament God”? Yes, that crazy dude that was willing to smite & sink anything that really pissed him off. Well that’s ‘popping’ out of his wife, this same powerful & vengeful God. Joseph, a pretty devout & kind Jew by the looks of it (divorce her in secret), would be terrified of anything that has to do with his God, even if it was his wife. I wouldn’t have sex with a woman if I knew that my God, who you were supposed to fear 24/7, was gestating & born of her.
Other less modernized & logical support:
Look at the holy family: They don’t fit the typical family of that era, and don’t you think they’d have plenty of son’s listed if Joseph & Mary were the stereotypical parents of the age? Why assume they were common?
Z
zerinus
Guest
Okay, just so you don’t think I am lost for words on that one, I will briefly answer it for you—not that it has much relevance on the point I had made. Your question was, “What distinctly Mormon doctrine can you cite from an ECF?” The answer is the same passage that you have quoted. That is as good a Mormon doctrine as it is a Catholic one (if it is a Catholic one).
P
PRmerger
Guest
Ok, zerinus. Let’s see you back up your claim. Where does the Mormon church teach the doctrine of the Real Presence?
Z
zerinus
Guest
I don’t know what you mean by Real Presence. If you mean transubstantiation, then Mormonism does not teach that doctrine, and neither does Clement.
P
PRmerger
Guest
No, I don’t mean transubstantiation, zerinus.
Please back up your claim and show us where Mormon doctrine is paralleled by St. Clemen’ts statement, “’Eat my flesh,’ [Jesus] says, ‘and drink my blood.’ The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients, he delivers over his flesh and pours out his blood, and nothing is lacking for the growth of his children” (The Instructor of Children 1:6:43:3 [A.D. 191]).
Z
zerinus
Guest
That language is also found in the Book of Mormon:
3 Nephi 18:
28 And now behold, this is the commandment which I give unto you, that ye shall not suffer any one knowingly to partake of my flesh and blood unworthily, when ye shall minister it
29 For whoso eateth and drinketh my flesh and blood unworthily eateth and drinketh damnation to his soul; therefore if ye know that a man is unworthy to eat and drink of my flesh and blood ye shall forbid him.
30 Nevertheless, ye shall not cast him out from among you, but ye shall minister unto him and shall pray for him unto the Father, in my name; and if it so be that he repenteth and is baptized in my name, then shall ye receive him, and shall minister unto him of my flesh and blood.
Moroni 4:
1 The manner of their elders and priests administering the flesh and blood of Christ unto the church; and they administered it according to the commandments of Christ; wherefore we know the manner to be true; and the elder or priest did minister it.
But we don’t understand that to mean literally. We think that biblical passages making use of similar language are not meant to be taken literally either. I am equally convinced that Clement did not understand it to mean literally either.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Thank you for that. I must admit that I was not expecting you to respond!
H
happilycatholic
Guest
Z
zerinus
Guest
Because Clement is simply making use of the biblical language, which was not intended to be taken literally. I think that Clement had a correct understanding of the scriptural language, and therefore he knew that it was not meant to be taken literally.
H
happilycatholic
Guest
Yes, I understand your assumption based upon your understanding of Scripture. What I’m truly asking is, what is it in Scripture that causes you to believe Jesus is speaking in terms of something other than His Body and His Blood?
Catholicism aside, when I read Jesus’ words as recited in the Gospels, I don’t see any indication that Jesus was speaking figuratively and neither did the diciples that left because of what he was saying.
I also can find nowhere in writings of the Early Church where the Fathers are rebuking those who believed in the Real Presence and were celebrating the Eucharist in such a way. In fact, to the contrary IMHO.
So I’m curious as to your personal opinion of why you believe Jesus was conveying a symbol of Himself and not Himself literally in the form of Bread and Wine just as he *did *say. Or can you show me where Jesus rebuked the diciples for taking him literally? Or where the Church rebuked anyone for taking Jesus literally?
Blessings.
HC
H
happilycatholic
Guest
29 For whoso eateth and drinketh my flesh and blood unworthily eateth and drinketh damnation to his soul; therefore if ye know that a man is unworthy to eat and drink of my flesh and blood ye shall forbid him.
30 Nevertheless, ye shall not cast him out from among you, but ye shall minister unto him and shall pray for him unto the Father, in my name; and if it so be that he repenteth and is baptized in my name, then shall ye receive him, and shall minister unto him of my flesh and blood.
There is something else zerinus, could you ever take these two passages to mean that Jesus was talking specifically in the direction of those who did not believe that the Eucharist is truly His Flesh and Blood? Do you think they could be unworthy because they do not believe in the power of our Lord and Savior to make himself whole again in our presence under the appearance of bread and wine just as he said during his last supper?
I’m sure you take this to mean Eucharist without Baptism. One has to “write that into Scripture to be so” and so if you do that, then you have all but lost the literal words of Christ anyway. But what would that mean if it were what Christ said? Why is your Baptism important if you’re only eating mere bread? Why would the absence of one symbol desecrate another *symbol *? If they are all just symbols, why take them seriously anyway? Jesus condemns this very thing in the previous text. (In most common translations such as KJV and DR and most others)
I’m not sure of the book of mormon. But again, anything else would have to be written-in and outside of the teaching of Christ and the Apostles.
Blessings.
~HC
Z
zerinus
Guest
I don’t think that Jesus is speaking of something “other than His flesh and blood”. His flesh and blood, shed on the cross, are very much efficacious for our salvation. What I do contend against is the idea that the emblems of the sacrament are literally converted into His flesh and blood; or that they need to be in order to become the conveyers of the grace of God to us.
The Oriental mindset is different from the Anglo-Saxon one. They use a lot of hyperbole and exaggerated speech to convey a message that cannot be understood or taken literally. A famous one is the camel passing through the eye of the needle. Here is another typical example, of words that Jesus spoke to His disciples in the night before He died:
John 17:
11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.
This did not mean that He was literally, physically, no longer in the world. He meant that He soon would not be. There are many such examples in the Bible. Here are a couple more:
Matthew 5:
29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
30 And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
Luke 14:
26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
None of these verses are meant to be understood literally, otherwise we would all be walking about without hands and eyes, and hating everybody including ourselves! Taking the language of hyperbole too literally can have serious consequences sometimes. The great forth century theologian Origen emasculated himself in his youth out of a too literal reading of Matthew 19:12, a decision that he is said to have regretted later on in his life.
The Early Church Fathers simply used the same language in reference to the sacrament that was used in the Bible; but they understood that it was not meant to be taken literally. Your mistaken perception arises out of the fact that you like to take that language literally, and therefore think that the ECFs also who were using that same language meant it literally; when the reality of it is that they were simply using the biblical language, realizing all the while that it was not meant to be taken literally.
Yes, there is plenty of contextual evidence to suggest that it was not intended to be taken literally. On the night when Jesus instituted the sacrament, He said:
Luke 22:
19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.
This makes it clear that the purpose of the sacrament is to act as a memorial of His sacrifice. It was done in remembrance of Him. It was not done so we could literally eat His flesh and drink His blood. Paul understood that, and explained it as follows:
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.
26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew * the Lord’s death till he come.*
And Jesus did indeed correct His disciples when they misunderstood Him. John chapter 6 is a great chapter where the sacrament is discussed. After some of His disciples failed to understand him, and took His words too literally, Jesus corrected their mistake with the following words:
John 6:
63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
It is not the literal eating the flesh of Christ that saves the soul, but receiving of the Spirit of God when we partake of the sacrament through faith.
- Status