questions about Mormon beliefs

[AMDGtoo]

What is your view on Communion? Do you believe in the Eucharist too?

Monica, the Mormon view on Communion is about the same as the Protestant view–it is only a symbol–it isn’t real–it isn’t the Eucharist–the body and blood of our Lord.

Mormons have yet another “twist” to it. In their symbol, they use water–not what the early Christians used.

 

[dianaiad]

Monica, the Mormon view on Communion is about the same as the Protestant view–it is only a symbol–it isn’t real–it isn’t the Eucharist–the body and blood of our Lord.

Mormons have yet another “twist” to it. In their symbol, they use water–not what the early Christians used.

True.

On the other hand, we still use the ‘broken bread’ that Christ used, not specially baked wafers.

Does this matter? Well, if you ARE going to be that picky about tradition and doing what the ‘early Christians’ did, it does. We both seem to be doing something different from what the ‘early Christians’ did in this…so if you are going to criticise us about not using wine (and does the fact that He probably drank something like a Shiraz mean that all communion wine must come from southern Australia?) then your criticism applies equally to those who use small, UNBROKEN communion wafers over broken bread.

So; who has screwed up the most here: us for not using wine, or you for not using broken bread?

At least we have a revelation about it to justify using water rather than wine. Why did you guys change to wafers?

Just pondering stuff…

 

[lil_flower_luv]

Lil,
Please be aware that several items in that post were incorrect. Thus, the writer of that post acts in a condition of being a “false teacher” which is an unfortunate position to be in, it would seem from the Bible.

well, lil_flower, I personally would take all of that with a couple of large salt licks. The man is incorrect about pretty much everything.

I’m very sorry. I assumed the OP knew what they were talking about since they said they grew up “in the heart of ‘Mormon’ country here in the United States…Mormons as friends in school and our neighborhood.” It would help me better understand if you could show me where the OP is in error, as I respect their posts/opinion very much.

Thanks. God Bless!

 

[RebeccaJ]

True.

On the other hand, we still use the ‘broken bread’ that Christ used, not specially baked wafers.

Does this matter? Well, if you ARE going to be that picky about tradition and doing what the ‘early Christians’ did, it does. We both seem to be doing something different from what the ‘early Christians’ did in this…so if you are going to criticise us about not using wine (and does the fact that He probably drank something like a Shiraz mean that all communion wine must come from southern Australia?) then your criticism applies equally to those who use small, UNBROKEN communion wafers over broken bread.

So; who has screwed up the most here: us for not using wine, or you for not using broken bread?

At least we have a revelation about it to justify using water rather than wine. Why did you guys change to wafers?

Just pondering stuff…

The host is unleavened bread, which comes from the tradition that the bread being broken by Christ was the unleavened bread of a Jewish Passover.

The GIRM (General Instructions of the Roman Missal) requires the eucharistic bread be broken…

1. Following the example of Christ, the Church has always used bread and wine with water to celebrate the Lord’s Supper.
2. The bread for celebrating the Eucharist must be made only from wheat, must be recently baked, and, according to the ancient tradition of the Latin Church, must be unleavened.
3. The meaning of the sign demands that the material for the Eucharistic celebration truly have the appearance of food. It is therefore expedient that the eucharistic bread, even though unleavened and baked in the traditional shape, be made in such a way that the priest at Mass with a congregation is able in practice to break it into parts for distribution to at least some of the faithful. Small hosts are, however, in no way ruled out when the number of those receiving Holy Communion or other pastoral needs require it. The action of the fraction or breaking of bread, which gave its name to the Eucharist in apostolic times, will bring out more clearly the force and importance of the sign of unity of all in the one bread, and of the sign of charity by the fact that the one bread is distributed among the brothers and sisters.

 

[AMDGtoo]

Does this matter?

Yes. It does matter. You see, we believe that it is not just “tradition”. (The bread and wine becomes the body and blood of Jesus, just like He said. Potato chips and beer if used in a Communion service, don’t become Jesus’ body and blood either.)

And since Jesus is our passover, and it is thought that the Last Supper was a passover meal where mazah-or unleavened bread was used, it does seem rather fitting that our bread is in the form of unleavened hosts (that can be broken BTW).

Of course our Eastern Catholic brethern use a leavened bread that is then soaked in the wine (blood of Jesus) and then dropped in the mouth by a golden spoon.

 

[dianaiad]

The host is unleavened bread, which comes from the tradition that the bread being broken by Christ was the unleavened bread of a Jewish Passover.

The GIRM (General Instructions of the Roman Missal) requires the eucharistic bread be broken…

1. Following the example of Christ, the Church has always used bread and wine with water to celebrate the Lord’s Supper.
2. The bread for celebrating the Eucharist must be made only from wheat, must be recently baked, and, according to the ancient tradition of the Latin Church, must be unleavened.
3. The meaning of the sign demands that the material for the Eucharistic celebration truly have the appearance of food. It is therefore expedient that the eucharistic bread, even though unleavened and baked in the traditional shape, be made in such a way that the priest at Mass with a congregation is able in practice to break it into parts for distribution to at least some of the faithful. Small hosts are, however, in no way ruled out when the number of those receiving Holy Communion or other pastoral needs require it. The action of the fraction or breaking of bread, which gave its name to the Eucharist in apostolic times, will bring out more clearly the force and importance of the sign of unity of all in the one bread, and of the sign of charity by the fact that the one bread is distributed among the brothers and sisters.

I’m a little confused. Are you saying that ALL of the unleavened wafers are broken, or that only some of them are and you can use small unbroken ones when there are a lot (or perhaps that’s ‘not a lot’) of people? I’m simply asking for clarification on 321. I haven’t seen many Catholic communions, but in those I have seen, the priests used small, round, unbroken wafers.

Diana

 

[dianaiad]

Yes. It does matter. You see, we believe that it is not just “tradition”. (The bread and wine becomes the body and blood of Jesus, just like He said. Potato chips and beer if used in a Communion service, don’t become Jesus’ body and blood either.)

Well, we don’t believe in transubstantiation. It seems to me that this would a far larger matter of ‘gasping’ than your indignant proclamation that we use (gasp, horror) WATER.

OF course, that could just be me…

And since Jesus is our passover, and it is thought that the Last Supper was a passover meal where mazah-or unleavened bread was used, it does seem rather fitting that our bread is in the form of unleavened hosts (that can be broken BTW).

Well, We CAN use wine. We simply don’t. What’s the difference between using broken wafers sometimes, and unbroken wafers at other times, and using water? Consistency would seem to be important here.

Of course our Eastern Catholic brethern use a leavened bread that is then soaked in the wine (blood of Jesus) and then dropped in the mouth by a golden spoon.

A golden spoon?

On one hand, the symbolism and honor such a practice indicates is pretty obvious, and rather nice.

On the other, I just harked back to a discussion about what the 'cup of Christ" would most likely have looked like, and gold didn’t enter into it.

I guess it’s all in what the worshiper believes, here, isn’t it?

 

[TheosisM]

I’m a little confused. Are you saying that ALL of the unleavened wafers are broken, or that only some of them are and you can use small unbroken ones when there are a lot (or perhaps that’s ‘not a lot’) of people? I’m simply asking for clarification on 321. I haven’t seen many Catholic communions, but in those I have seen, the priests used small, round, unbroken wafers.

Diana

It is the latter. What usually happens is that the priest will break up a big wafer/“host” (or some other type of flat bread. In college we used a pita-like bread baked by a parishoner) into pieces, and supplement with the small “unbroken” hosts. The GIRM 321 says that the bread must be broken and distributed to at least some of those in attendance, however it is okay to supplement with the small, unbroken hosts.

 

[RebeccaJ]

only some of them are and you can use small unbroken ones when there are a lot (or perhaps that’s ‘not a lot’) of people?

This is correct.

I’m simply asking for clarification on 321. I haven’t seen many Catholic communions, but in those I have seen, the priests used small, round, unbroken wafers.

Diana

The priest uses one larger host during the consecration:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

This is broken during the portion of the Liturgy of the Eucharist called “the fraction”.

"83. The priest breaks the Eucharistic Bread, assisted, if the case calls for it, by the deacon or a concelebrant. Christ’s gesture of breaking bread at the Last Supper, which gave the entire Eucharistic Action its name in apostolic times, signifies that the many faithful are made one body (1 Cor 10:17) by receiving Communion from the one Bread of Life which is Christ, who died and rose for the salvation of the world. The fraction or breaking of bread is begun after the sign of peace and is carried out with proper reverence, though it should not be unnecessarily prolonged, nor should it be accorded undue importance. This rite is reserved to the priest and the deacon.

The priest breaks the Bread and puts a piece of the host into the chalice to signify the unity of the Body and Blood of the Lord in the work of salvation, namely, of the living and glorious Body of Jesus Christ. The supplication Agnus Dei, is, as a rule, sung by the choir or cantor with the congregation responding; or it is, at least, recited aloud. This invocation accompanies the fraction and, for this reason, may be repeated as many times as necessary until the rite has reached its conclusion, the last time ending with the words dona nobis pacem (grant us peace)."

Most people cannot actually see what the priest is doing at the altar. Sit close, and if there are transepts (pews to the side of the altar), sit there…first row works well.

 

[RebeccaJ]

A golden spoon?

On one hand, the symbolism and honor such a practice indicates is pretty obvious, and rather nice.

On the other, I just harked back to a discussion about what the 'cup of Christ" would most likely have looked like, and gold didn’t enter into it.

No one knows what the cup looked like or was made of.

I guess it’s all in what the worshiper believes, here, isn’t it?

I guess individual plastic shot cups, filled with water, could be symbolic about what the worshiper believes.

 

[dianaiad]

It is the latter. What usually happens is that the priest will break up a big wafer/“host” (or some other type of flat bread. In college we used a pita-like bread baked by a parishoner) into pieces, and supplement with the small “unbroken” hosts. The GIRM 321 says that the bread must be broken and distributed to at least some of those in attendance, however it is okay to supplement with the small, unbroken hosts.

Ok, thank you very much for the clarification!

 

[dianaiad]

No one knows what the cup looked like or was made of.

I guess individual plastic shot cups, filled with water, could be symbolic about what the worshiper believes.

As opposed to the prefilled plastic shot cups of wine, with peel back lids, that I saw for sale in a church supply website?

 

[RebeccaJ]

As opposed to the prefilled plastic shot cups of wine, with peel back lids, that I saw for sale in a church supply website?

Makes sense when you think about 16/17 year old boys up front.

 

[TheosisM]

Makes sense when you think about 16/17 year old boys up front.

Are they actually used? I never knew those existed…

My parents simply didn’t allow us to partake of the wine (noting for the non-Catholics that from the [Roman] Catholic perspective, this is okay because it is believed that Jesus is fully presented in the bread, so you aren’t “missing” anything by just having the host).

 

[RebeccaJ]

Are they actually used? I never knew those existed…

My parents simply didn’t allow us to partake of the wine (noting for the non-Catholics that from the [Roman] Catholic perspective, this is okay because it is believed that Jesus is fully presented in the bread, so you aren’t “missing” anything by just having the host).

The communion wine has to be pure (not mixed with spirits, not gone to vinegar, no added flavorings, etc). During the consecration the wine is mixed with a very small amount of water before being poured into individual chalices. We use a communal chalice. No Catholic Church would ever use the shot glass style. It is definitely not a Catholic practice.

I haven’t seen these prepared wine shots used anywhere, but I guess some non-denominations churches might find them to come in handy.

PS: I was referring to the 16/17 year old mormon boys at a mormon service…it used to ick me out watching them mess around with the bread and water. lol. where have those hands been?

 

[dianaiad]

Makes sense when you think about 16/17 year old boys up front.

If one is afraid those sixteen year olds are going to get soused on the sacramental wine, or whiz in the wafers, perhaps one should not assign those particular sixteen year olds to the job of blessing, or passing, the Sacrament (or communion or whatever.)

I did not disparage the way the Eastern Orthodox serve their communion as wafers dipped in wine and offered with a gold spoon, y’know. Far from it…even though you did rather intentionally miss the first line of that post, where I mentioned that I understood the symbolism and thought it was nice.

I think that Jesus approves quite highly of those little plastic shot glasses. The emphasis should be on what’s IN them…or on what the liquid in them represents, not on whether the container is plastic, has a lid—or is the purest gold.

There is, in my opinion, nothing wrong with either approach if the attention and faith of the partaker are where they should be.

 

[RebeccaJ]

If one is afraid those sixteen year olds are going to get soused on the sacramental wine, or whiz in the wafers, perhaps one should not assign those particular sixteen year olds to the job of blessing, or passing, the Sacrament (or communion or whatever.)

I did not disparage the way the Eastern Orthodox serve their communion as wafers dipped in wine and offered with a gold spoon, y’know. Far from it…even though you did rather intentionally miss the first line of that post, where I mentioned that I understood the symbolism and thought it was nice.

I think that Jesus approves quite highly of those little plastic shot glasses. The emphasis should be on what’s IN them…or on what the liquid in them represents, not on whether the container is plastic, has a lid—or is the purest gold.

There is, in my opinion, nothing wrong with either approach if the attention and faith of the partaker are where they should be.

Diana, I know what mormons are taught and think about having nice “showy” things at church…why your chapels and churches are beyond plain. This did come out in your comments about what the cup of Christ was made out of…or maybe you just watch too much Indiana Jones.

Nah, I was thinking of your 16/17 year old “priests”, and their grimey hands all over every single piece of bread, and coughing all over the cups of water. Don’t worry, I have the same problem with the shared chalice at Mass…all those people drinking from one cup. I can’t bring myself to do it if I’m wayyyyy in the back of church and have had hundreds of people in front of me. It is one of the reasons I sit closer to the front.

 

[dianaiad]

Diana, I know what mormons are taught and think about having nice “showy” things at church…why your chapels and churches are beyond plain. This did come out in your comments about what the cup of Christ was made out of…or maybe you just watch too much Indiana Jones.

Nah, I was thinking of your 16/17 year old “priests”, and their grimey hands all over every single piece of bread, and coughing all over the cups of water. Don’t worry, I have the same problem with the shared chalice at Mass…all those people drinking from one cup. I can’t bring myself to do it if I’m wayyyyy in the back of church and have had hundreds of people in front of me. It is one of the reasons I sit closer to the front.

Rebecca…

You need to go online and google Temple interiors if you think that we are ALL about plain. I don’t think that there are many cathedrals more full of symbology, or less ‘plain.’

As to the cup Jesus used at the Last Supper, this has nothing at all to do with “Indiana Jones,” and everything to do with whose house He was in, and the sort of dinnerware likely to be used there.

I"m sure that it was the very best in the household, but very few people outside of the Royal household drank out of golden goblets, and THEY probably didn’t do a whole lot of that sort of thing themselves, come to think of it .

 

[RebeccaJ]

Diana, I’ve been inside mormon temples, at two open houses. Sorry to say, they remind me of hotels. At any rate, I was talking about LDS churches, you know, what you call chapels.

As I said, no one knows what the cup of Christ looked like.

If you want to speculate, you can recall that Mary Magdalene poured a fortunes worth of oil over Christ. Who knows what house they were in that had such things…He had disciples from all walks of life. One who paid the Romans no doubt a large sum in order to give His body a proper burial rather than the norm for crucifixion…leaving the body on the Cross.

 

[adrift]

Adrift,

The apostle John was promised that he could stay on the earth because he wanted to still bring people to a knowledge of Christ instead of being subject to death at a normal age. That promise was to continue until the Second Coming of Christ, which hasn’t happened yet so “yes”, he goes among people in “hidden” places on the earth, among people who do not know that they are being visited by that beloved apostle, but only know that they have been visited by someone who shared a message with them about Christ.

Blessings to you, Adrift.

Thank you I wondered if I remembered correctly.