Why I left Mormonism and didn't become a Protestant --the Eucharist

  • Thread starter Thread starter Catholic20064
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Catholic20064

Guest
As a Mormon we had the Lord’s Supper every Sunday. It was a memorial meal in which we ate bread and drank water in remembrance of the sacrifice of the Lord.

When I first began attending mass I could see how much more reverence that Catholics had for what Catholics termed “the Eucharist” – a term I had never heard before. Catholics used the same words Jesus used at the last supper – “this is my body”, “this is my blood.” They used unleavened bread and wine just as Christ had used in the New Testament. Then I read John 6 which talked about needing to eat the body of Christ and drink his blood in order to have a true relationship with him. Paul in the New Testament also referred to the body of Christ and the blood of Christ in relation to the Lord’s Supper. It wasn’t just a symbol like the Mormons and the Protestants taught.

I think of all of the differences between Catholicism and Mormonism and Protestantism this is the one that caused me to become Catholic.
 
It is wonderful to hear your story of conversion and what you find great about the Catholic Church. I love it!
Do you think it is possible than posting the heading that you did you could have just posted Why I converted to Catholicism! It would be a much better Christian approach.
God Bless.
 
Great Story and Welcome Home 👍

I suspect that for a great many people it is this, the Eucharist, that is the biggest reason for their conversion. It is certainly the thing that kept drawing me home.

Peace
James
 
ConstantineIII said:
It is wonderful to hear your story of conversion and what you find great about the Catholic Church. I love it!
Do you think it is possible than posting the heading that you did you could have just posted Why I converted to Catholicism! It would be a much better Christian approach.
God Bless.
Click to expand...
It wouldn’t be appropriate for the Non-Catholic Religions section. I’m interested in the response from non-Catholics regarding why they don’t accept the Eucharist as the body and blood of Christ. I’d like to know why they think Catholics are wrong about this.
 
How is it done in a Mormon church? I’ve read that it’s youths who perform prayers over the bread and water, but, what do they say? …And why is it necessary they get the words exactly right (I’ve also read this), if they don’t believe much in it?
 
adstrinity said:
How is it done in a Mormon church? I’ve read that it’s youths who perform prayers over the bread and water, but, what do they say? …And why is it necessary they get the words exactly right (I’ve also read this), if they don’t believe much in it?
Click to expand...
Mormons believe that when they take the sacrament after repenting of their sins that they are renewing their baptismal covenants and forgiven. The sacrament is very important to Mormons and that is why the prayers have to be said perfectly. They just don’t believe the bread and the liquid are changed into the body and blood of Christ like Catholics do. They see it as a symbol.
 
Catholic20064 said:
I’m interested in the response from non-Catholics regarding why they don’t accept the Eucharist as the body and blood of Christ. I’d like to know why they think Catholics are wrong about this.
Click to expand...
IIRC, from your posts on a “perpetual virginity” thread, you seem (to me) like a genuine fellow looking for answers. There are a lot of threads on the Eucharist….and I have participated in more than a handful. I think that the Catholics are wrong b/c I think they misunderstand:
a) the institution passages
b) John 6; and
c) Paul’s comments on the Lord’s Supper to the Corinthians.

I also think that the historical record shows that their view was not held by the church at the very start. I’ll let you tell me if you want greater detail wrt any of those matters. Cheers.
 
Radical said:
IIRC, from your posts on a “perpetual virginity” thread, you seem (to me) like a genuine fellow looking for answers. There are a lot of threads on the Eucharist….and I have participated in more than a handful. I think that the Catholics are wrong b/c I think they misunderstand:
a) the institution passages
b) John 6; and
c) Paul’s comments on the Lord’s Supper to the Corinthians.

I also think that the historical record shows that their view was not held by the church at the very start. I’ll let you tell me if you want greater detail wrt any of those matters. Cheers.
Click to expand...
I’m certainly looking for more information since the Biblical record seems so clear. I can see how John 6 could be interpreted differently, but the Lord’s Supper passages seem pretty clear.
 
Catholic20064 said:
I’m certainly looking for more information since the Biblical record seems so clear. I can see how John 6 could be interpreted differently, but the Lord’s Supper passages seem pretty clear.
Click to expand...
Which Lord’s Supper passages? 1 Corinthians or the institution passages?
 
Catholic20064 said:
Both, but especially the institution passages.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the clarification. I will start with the institution passages and move on to 1 Corinthians if you are still interested. I am not sure why you think that the last supper passages are so clear. In those passages, Christ held up bread and said, “Take , eat ; this is my body” .

I have seen Catholics here quote that passage and then claim “is” means “is”. On those occasions, I have responded like this:

The “is always means is” argument strikes me as being extremely unsophisticated or …who can’t think of a figure of speech that utilizes “is” in that figurative manner? So let me ask this question:

Why should we take the “is” of “this is my body” to mean “actually is” and not do the same for the “is” in the following verses:

"For whoever does the will of my Father who is in heaven, he is my brother and sister and mother.” Matt 12:50

“For whoever does the will of God, he is my brother and sister and mother." Mark 3:35

Why shouldn’t I, (except for a tendency to apply common sense) conclude that the substance of Mary and the other members of Christ’s family are miraculously present behind/under/whatever the accidents of any disciple’s body?

Also, I think your claim that those passages are so very clear has the following difficulties:

a) regarding the cup, Christ said, “But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom. “ Christ still referred to the cup as the “fruit of the vine” and not his blood after he had designated it to be his blood. Such is consistent with the cup being (figuratively) his blood, but still literally wine.

b) What is eaten still smells, tastes, feels and looks like bread and, as such, it is still bread. At least, that is what common sense will tell you. In contrast, it seems to me that you must disregard what common sense and your senses would tell you and resort to (questionable) philosophy in order to justify your claim of transubstantiation.

c) I can’t help but notice that the words used by Matthew, Mark and Luke differ slightly from one to the next. As such, it seems that the Spirit’s guidance that was involved in the production of these passages was for the purpose of accurately conveying the idea and not a word for word translation of what was said. Jesus, at the last supper, introduced an act of solemn symbolic meaning and in accordance with the mood of the occasion used few words….and that is what the gospels convey (to me). I don’t know how you could legitimately say that my view here is so impossible that your interpretation of the passages must be the only reasonably possible one.
 
Radical said:
IIRC, from your posts on a “perpetual virginity” thread, you seem (to me) like a genuine fellow looking for answers. There are a lot of threads on the Eucharist….and I have participated in more than a handful. I think that the Catholics are wrong b/c I think they misunderstand:
a) the institution passages
b) John 6; and
c) Paul’s comments on the Lord’s Supper to the Corinthians.

I also think that the historical record shows that their view was not held by the church at the very start. I’ll let you tell me if you want greater detail wrt any of those matters. Cheers.
Click to expand...
How absurd with all due respect. The CC has had it all wrong all these centuries,until someone like you came around nearly 2,000 years later? And I am not going to go through the same ordeal where you truly believe the ECF believed and taught a symbolic Eucharistic,which is absolutely insane. I call it revisionism in order to prove a modern novelty.
 
Catholic20064 said:
I don’t know how the Didache supports the teaching of the Real Presence.
Click to expand...
The Didache was the teaching of the Apostles–a sort of very early catechism which dates back to the early Church. It shows that the Church believed in the Real Presence from the get-go.

As for picking Bible verses apart and comparing them to others out of context and on other topics, that’s called “reaching”. It means, Radical that you are trying to shoehorn into the Bible what you want to believe. When Jesus said “This is my body; this is my blood” he meant exactly that. Everyone from the 1st century until quite recently believed that and practiced that. Most Christians in the world believe in some form of real presence. It’s only a small minority of 18th/19 century founded sects that don’t. History, Sacred Tradtion, and the plain reading of Scripture are all against you here.
 
Della said:
The Didache was the teaching of the Apostles–a sort of very early catechism which dates back to the early Church. It shows that the Church believed in the Real Presence from the get-go.

As for picking Bible verses apart and comparing them to others out of context and on other topics, that’s called “reaching”. It means, Radical that you are trying to shoehorn into the Bible what you want to believe. When Jesus said “This is my body; this is my blood” he meant exactly that. Everyone from the 1st century until quite recently believed that and practiced that. Most Christians in the world believe in some form of real presence. It’s only a small minority of 18th/19 century founded sects that don’t. History, Sacred Tradtion, and the plain reading of Scripture are all against you here.
Click to expand...
I’ve read the Didache. It doesn’t say anything about the Real Presence.
 
Radical said:
Thanks for the clarification. I will start with the institution passages and move on to 1 Corinthians if you are still interested. I am not sure why you think that the last supper passages are so clear. In those passages, Christ held up bread and said, “Take , eat ; this is my body” .

I have seen Catholics here quote that passage and then claim “is” means “is”. On those occasions, I have responded like this:

The “is always means is” argument strikes me as being extremely unsophisticated or …who can’t think of a figure of speech that utilizes “is” in that figurative manner? So let me ask this question:

Why should we take the “is” of “this is my body” to mean “actually is” and not do the same for the “is” in the following verses:

"For whoever does the will of my Father who is in heaven, he is my brother and sister and mother.” Matt 12:50

“For whoever does the will of God, he is my brother and sister and mother." Mark 3:35
Click to expand...
For one thing, those passages are clearly not meant to be taken literally, just by what is being said.

For another, the Greek word for “is” that is used in the Institution passages is the same as the word for “is” used in the account of Jesus’ baptism, where God says, “this is my beloved Son.” Both instances are presentational and literal, meaning that the one God is presenting actually is his Son, and that the bread and wine presented actually are the body and blood. The verses you quote are not even in the same context. In the case of the Institution narrative, is actually means is.

For another, in John 6, Jesus says that the bread he will give is his flesh. While the Institution narratives use the Greek word “soma” which means body, John 6 uses “sarx” which means meat specifically. In John 6 many of Jesus’ followers left and returned to their former lives because they could not accept the teaching that they had to eat his flesh. Jesus did not say “represents” and nor did he mean it, and nor did he tell those who walked away that he meant it symbollically. John chapter 6 states the belief in the Real Presence very clearly and makes it very clear that the belief began during the lifetime of Jesus.

For another, Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:27, says that we would have to answer for the body and blood if we took it unworthily. If it were only a symbol, we wouldn’t have anything to answer for, would we?
Radical said:
Why shouldn’t I, (except for a tendency to apply common sense) conclude that the substance of Mary and the other members of Christ’s family are miraculously present behind/under/whatever the accidents of any disciple’s body?

Also, I think your claim that those passages are so very clear has the following difficulties:

a) regarding the cup, Christ said, “But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom. “ Christ still referred to the cup as the “fruit of the vine” and not his blood after he had designated it to be his blood. Such is consistent with the cup being (figuratively) his blood, but still literally wine.
Click to expand...
You forget John 15:5, where Jesus tells us he is the vine. Therefore, the fruit of the vine/Jesus is Jesus’ blood. Jesus is also referring (in the Institution narrative you quote) to the completion of his sacrifice, which event had not yet occured.
Radical said:
b) What is eaten still smells, tastes, feels and looks like bread and, as such, it is still bread. At least, that is what common sense will tell you. In contrast, it seems to me that you must disregard what common sense and your senses would tell you and resort to (questionable) philosophy in order to justify your claim of transubstantiation.
Click to expand...
No. We believe. If you believe that Jesus is who he said he is, and that he doesn’t lie, then you believe what Jesus said, and Jesus said the Eucharist IS his body and blood. Or you don’t believe it, which means you have reservations about believing what Jesus said.

Transubstantiation means that the change is in substance, not appearance. Look, smell, taste, feel, are all appearances.
 
The Eucharist is one of but hundreds of reasons to leave Mormonism!! We could write a book thicker than “War and Peace” listing the reasons why one should leave that group!:rolleyes:
 
gurneyhalleck1 said:
The Eucharist is one of but hundreds of reasons to leave Mormonism!! We could write a book thicker than “War and Peace” listing the reasons why one should leave that group!:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
And yet the Mormons, unlike Protestants, recovered the idea of seven sacraments. They no doubt rejected the real presence because they grew up in a Protestant society that didn’t accept it either, but they take the Lord’s Supper more seriously than the Protestants do. The Book of Mormon can be read to support the real presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper, but they don’t choose to read it that way.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top