Mormons, Please Explain Your Thoughts on the Eucharist!

[RebeccaJ]

If he didn’t get the question answered here, maybe he did on the other forum where he asked the exact same question, that time to a primarily LDS audience.

Gospel Principles is the name of our reference that gives basic explanations of LDS beliefs and practices. There is a chapter that specifically discusses the Sacrament. If the OP still has questions, I could arrange for a couple of very nice LDS Missionaries to visit him in person and answer his question in more detail!

You do realize, the proselytizing of Catholics is against forum rules, right?

 

[Peter_Plato]

It is important before ceding ground to any claims that call into question Apostolic origin of the Gospels, in particular, that the entire issue is understood in perspective. What is to be gained and lost by accepting merely “the possibility” that Gospel authorship was open to (name removed by moderator)ut from many hands, when such a view has not been clearly shown.

This article by Scott Hahn discusses the larger picture:
ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PBCGOSPL.HTM

In particular:
*If the opportunity presents itself, the exegete may look for the sound elements in the method of “form criticism,” and use them to acquire a fuller understanding of the Gospels. However he must move with caution in this area, because the method is often interlaced with inadmissible philosophical and theological principles, which frequently vitiate either the method itself or its judgments on literary questions.

Erroneous Premises

Some proponents of this method, motivated by rationalistic prejudices, refuse to recognize the existence of a supernatural order. They deny the intervention of a personal God in the world by means of Revelation in the strict sense, and reject the possibility or actual occurrence of miracles and prophecies. Some start out with an erroneous concept of faith, regarding faith as indifferent to, or even incompatible with, historical truth. Some deny, a priori as it were, the historical nature and historical value of the documents of Revelation. And finally, some minimize the authority of the Apostles as witnesses to Christ. Belittling their office and their influence in the primitive community, these people exaggerate the creative power of the community itself.

All these opinions are not only contrary to Catholic doctrine, but also devoid of scholarly foundation and inconsistent with the sound principles of the historical method.*

 

[RebeccaJ]

It is important before ceding ground to any claims that call into question Apostolic origin of the Gospels, in particular, that the entire issue is understood in perspective. What is to be gained and lost by accepting merely “the possibility” that Gospel authorship was open to (name removed by moderator)ut from many hands, when such a view has not been clearly shown.

This article by Scott Hahn discusses the larger picture:
ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PBCGOSPL.HTM

In particular:
If the opportunity presents itself, the exegete may look for the sound elements in the method of “form criticism,” and use them to acquire a fuller understanding of the Gospels. However he must move with caution in this area, because the method is often interlaced with inadmissible philosophical and theological principles, which frequently vitiate either the method itself or its judgments on literary questions.

Erroneous Premises

Some proponents of this method, motivated by rationalistic prejudices, refuse to recognize the existence of a supernatural order. They deny the intervention of a personal God in the world by means of Revelation in the strict sense, and reject the possibility or actual occurrence of miracles and prophecies. Some start out with an erroneous concept of faith, regarding faith as indifferent to, or even incompatible with, historical truth. Some deny, a priori as it were, the historical nature and historical value of the documents of Revelation. And finally, some minimize the authority of the Apostles as witnesses to Christ. Belittling their office and their influence in the primitive community, these people exaggerate the creative power of the community itself.

All these opinions are not only contrary to Catholic doctrine, but also devoid of scholarly foundation and inconsistent with the sound principles of the historical method.

Again, I am not calling into question the Apostolic claims of the Gospel. The Gospel of John is without question, rooted in the teachings of the Apostle John.

I don’t know how I can make it any clearer than that.

 

[Peter_Plato]

John, not being written by John, is agreed upon by Bible scholars.

This is the statement in question. It “could” and very likely “was” written by John. There is very little reason, from an historical perspective, to move away from this position. To make a bold statement like, “John, not being written by John,” leaves open a wide range of possibilities. Better to make a positive claim about authorship (with qualifications) than a negative one that could entail anything.

 

[RebeccaJ]

This is the statement in question. It “could” and very likely “was” written by John. There is very little reason, from an historical perspective, to move away from this position. To make a bold statement like, “John, not being written by John,” leaves open a wide range of possibilities. Better to make a positive claim about authorship (with qualifications) than a negative one that could entail anything.

Thanks, you make a good point, and I will adjust how I convey what I mean going forward.

 

[Peter_Plato]

The OP asked:

And I think he got his answer. Not sure, but I don’t think he meant this to be a debate/theological discussion. I think this has the potential to turn nasty.

Just my $.02.

Peace.

It is a theological question, why should it not be a theological discussion?

The question was (actually two questions):

Doesn’t this prove that Joseph Smith was wrong, at least about this one thing? It can’t] be part of the “Great Apostasy” if apostles are actually teaching this, can it?

There are two parts to the second question, which must be answered before the first one is.

1. Were the Apostles actually teaching that the Eucharist was the Body and Blood of Christ?
2. What was actually meant by the teaching and is it compatible with Mormon theology?

I think this has the potential to turn nasty.

How so?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Thanks, you make a good point, and I will adjust how I convey what I mean going forward.

Thank you for being so congenial about my points! :tiphat:

 

[Fatboys]

Not at all.

I am the bread of life. Your forefathers ate the manna in the desert, yet they died. But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”

Then* the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”*

Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever.” He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.

On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?” (John 6:43-60)

If, as you claim, the teaching was only symbolic, why did the followers claim it was a “hard teaching” and many stopped being his disciples at that point? Why would Jesus let them go if he meant it to be only symbolic? He didn’t call them back with a qualification that it wasn’t to be taken so literally. He let them go and in fact repeated what he said in even stronger language.

See also

wordonfire.org/WOF-TV/Commentaries-New/Fr-Barron-comments-on-the-Real-Presence-of-Christ.aspx

Because they did not believe what he taught about him being able to give them eternal life. Not that they thought they were to canniblize him. That is just silly in my mind.

 

[loozcannon]

It is a theological question, why should it not be a theological discussion?

The question was (actually two questions):

Doesn’t this prove that Joseph Smith was wrong, at least about this one thing? It can’t] be part of the “Great Apostasy” if apostles are actually teaching this, can it?

There are two parts to the second question, which must be answered before the first one is.

1. Were the Apostles actually teaching that the Eucharist was the Body and Blood of Christ?
2. What was actually meant by the teaching and is it compatible with Mormon theology?

I dunno, the way I read it was he was asking a question, and got an answer. That should be the end of the story.

How so?

And because I know the majority of posters here are well meaning, I’ve just seen it before where it goes from healthy debate (which is encouraged) to prosletyzing.

As I said, just my $.02, for what it’s worth.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Because they did not believe what he taught about him being able to give them eternal life. Not that they thought they were to canniblize him. That is just silly in my mind.

Let’s spell cannibalize properly before we apply it to what Jesus was saying.

I am sure the disciples who left Jesus after this teaching about his flesh and blood thought, not only that it was silly, but also, disgusting, which is precisely why they left. However, Jesus clearly restated his teaching and did not qualify it in order to make it less offensive. That is a fact. He meant what he said.

There is much more to the mystery of the Eucharist than can be dismissed by association to cannibalistic practices. What we eat “becomes” a part of us. That is written into the very metaphysics of nature and creation. Jewish proscriptions against eating the flesh of certain animals and drinking their blood, were in place because they believed by so doing there was a danger of becoming more bestial and less human. Jesus is making it clear that he is offering himself in sacrifice that we might share in his divinity by eating and drinking him. This is divine food being offered to us.

We do not share in God’s “divine” nature by our own efforts but through a completely unmerited gift from God. We cannot make ourselves into gods, but must rely on God to make us sanctified.

 

[Nan_S]

One of the reasons Catholics maintain we are not sacrificing Jesus again and again week after week is because of the way we view heaven. God in Heaven is eternally constant and unchanging, and resides outside of Time where past, present, and future (as we know them) all exist simultaneously. To imply that God could evolve or change would mean that the God of today was somehow different from the God of yesterday, and would mean that God would contradict Himself.

Therefore, since the sacrifice of the Eucharist was made once, we do not re-sacrifice Jesus. Rather, we (who are living within Time) re-connect each week with God (who is outside of Time), and re-present the one sacrifice which is now in Heaven, made once for all eternity.

And now my question:

In Mormon theology, do Jesus and Elohim and the Holy Ghost live within Time where things can change, or outside of Time where change is not possible? Are there different layers of Heaven encompassing both within and without Time? If so, did Elohim and Jesus start in that part of Heaven where Time exists, and then upon meriting their godhead move to the eternal unchanging part of Heaven?

Or am I just completely off base here?

If I’ve got this right, the Mormon view of Time in Heaven and how Jesus is affected by Time is quite different from the Catholic view. It would be completely understandable that Mormons would view Catholics as repeatedly sacrificing Jesus if you believed that Jesus was living within Time like we are, and the concept of making contact with an eternally unchanging Jesus outside of Time was alien to your theology.

 

[Janderich]

In Mormon theology, do Jesus and Elohim and the Holy Ghost live within Time where things can change, or outside of Time where change is not possible? Are there different layers of Heaven encompassing both within and without Time? If so, did Elohim and Jesus start in that part of Heaven where Time exists, and then upon meriting their godhead move to the eternal unchanging part of Heaven?

Or am I just completely off base here?

If I’ve got this right, the Mormon view of Time in Heaven and how Jesus is affected by Time is quite different from the Catholic view. It would be completely understandable that Mormons would view Catholics as repeatedly sacrificing Jesus if you believed that Jesus was living within Time like we are, and the concept of making contact with an eternally unchanging Jesus outside of Time was alien to your theology.

We believe time is only measured unto man. Only while here in mortality do we experience time as continually marching into the future. We believe that before this mortal existence and after it we will not be bound by time as we are now. God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost live in eternity and are not bound by time. Past, present, and future are continually before them.

Now that being said, we would reject your notion of a “eternal unchanging part of Heaven”. Just because eternity is out of time as we know it does not mean there is no change. We just cannot currently comprehend how this works. But progression is an eternal principle.

 

[RebeccaJ]

we will not be bound by time as we are now.

Will you be bound by time in a different manner than now?

 

[Fatboys]

One of the reasons Catholics maintain we are not sacrificing Jesus again and again week after week is because of the way we view heaven. God in Heaven is eternally constant and unchanging, and resides outside of Time where past, present, and future (as we know them) all exist simultaneously. To imply that God could evolve or change would mean that the God of today was somehow different from the God of yesterday, and would mean that God would contradict Himself.

Therefore, since the sacrifice of the Eucharist was made once, we do not re-sacrifice Jesus. Rather, we (who are living within Time) re-connect each week with God (who is outside of Time), and re-present the one sacrifice which is now in Heaven, made once for all eternity.

And now my question:

In Mormon theology, do Jesus and Elohim and the Holy Ghost live within Time where things can change, or outside of Time where change is not possible? Are there different layers of Heaven encompassing both within and without Time? If so, did Elohim and Jesus start in that part of Heaven where Time exists, and then upon meriting their godhead move to the eternal unchanging part of Heaven?

Or am I just completely off base here?

If I’ve got this right, the Mormon view of Time in Heaven and how Jesus is affected by Time is quite different from the Catholic view. It would be completely understandable that Mormons would view Catholics as repeatedly sacrificing Jesus if you believed that Jesus was living within Time like we are, and the concept of making contact with an eternally unchanging Jesus outside of Time was alien to your theology.

Where in history do any pope or catholic leader teach God and the space time continum?

 

[Fatboys]

Let’s spell cannibalize properly before we apply it to what Jesus was saying.

I am sure the disciples who left Jesus after this teaching about his flesh and blood thought, not only that it was silly, but also, disgusting, which is precisely why they left. However, Jesus clearly restated his teaching and did not qualify it in order to make it less offensive. That is a fact. He meant what he said.

There is much more to the mystery of the Eucharist than can be dismissed by association to cannibalistic practices. What we eat “becomes” a part of us. That is written into the very metaphysics of nature and creation. Jewish proscriptions against eating the flesh of certain animals and drinking their blood, were in place because they believed by so doing there was a danger of becoming more bestial and less human. Jesus is making it clear that he is offering himself in sacrifice that we might share in his divinity by eating and drinking him. This is divine food being offered to us.

:bowdown:

Sorry oh great one

We do not share in God’s “divine” nature by our own efforts but through a completely unmerited gift from God. We cannot make ourselves into gods, but must rely on God to make us sanctified.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Where in history do any pope or catholic leader teach God and the space time continum?

The liturgy, east and west, Catholic and Orthodox.

 

[Nan_S]

Where in history do any pope or catholic leader teach God and the space time continum?

Throughout all the writings of the Early Church Fathers, who reference the great philosophers from the era before Christ (and therefore predating The Great Apostacy), God is shown to be greater than Time itself, eternally unchanging, ever consistent, ever faithful, never contradictory. The hour is late and it has been a while since I pulled the references, but if no one else posts them by tomorrow evening I’ll get them out.

In those instances in scripture when God is said to have changed His mind (from the point of vew of men, anyway), God knew beforehand that he was going to challenge man with threats to do something and that he was going to retract those threats when man responded; but man did not know, and needed to be challenged by severe threats before he would bend his stubborn ego.

Catholic theology says God is greater than everything, including Time. If time exists, then change must exist. Change in location, change in situation, change in status are all dependent upon and required by Time. But God does not change; He is neither dependent upon nor bound by Time. Furthermore, we maintain that God created everything, including Time. Therefore, God has to exist outside of time and “before” time began, and will continue “after” time ends, the Alpha and the Omega.

Previous Mormons have told me that they believe differently: Time is co-existent with and co-dependent upon an eternal spiritual force which is God. God is bound by time, and time is bound by God. Joseph Smith said that Elohim/God the Father and Jesus/God the Son are eternal looking forwards, but they are not infinite looking backwards; they are flesh-and-bone descendents of God-before-them who were found worthy of being assimilated into the eternal mysterious one-ness which is God. (This was told to me by Mormons; I didn’t make it up on my own.)

I find this God-bound-by-time concept to be one that diminishes God. If Time (which is NOT God) is able to hold God bound, then Time is the master of God and God must be something less than all-powerful.

 

[KathleenGee]

God is the Creator of time and space.

He lives outside of our linear time frame. He is transcendent. He simply Is.

We will never become a god.

 

[Nan_S]

God is the Creator of time and space.

He lives outside of our linear time frame. He is transcendent. He simply Is.

We will never become a god.

When we celebrate the Eucharist we do NOT redo the sacrifice of Jesus. We do not “kill” Jesus again and again week after week. Instead we re-connect with the unchanging transcendent God, we draw our attention back to the great gift which was given to us once and for all time.

Think of it like calling home to talk to your parents. They became your parents once and will always remain so. Picking up the phone every week to talk to them re-connects you, but it doesn’t re-establish a relationship which never ceased. Having Sunday dinner with your grandparents re-connects you, but also doesn’t re-do the establishment of your relationship.

 

[RebeccaJ]

God is the Creator of time and space.

He lives outside of our linear time frame. He is transcendent. He simply Is.

We will never become a god.

Transcendence being the key word here. Mormonism does not hold a belief in a transcendent God. It would be impossible that they could, considering their beliefs of WHO God is.