LDS Teachings re: the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist

[Fraxinus]

Greetings. I am a Catholic, but have been having some troubles with some Catholic doctrines, which has caused me to research other Christian denominations. Although I have been able to locate plausible rebuttals of many Catholic positions, there is one which I am having some trouble finding thorough opposition to. Please accept my questions at face value as I am seeking truth and understanding, not seeking argument.

I am presently reading the book The Inevitable Apostasy by Tad R. Callister, and am finding it quite enlightening and helpful. In the book, he points out that LDS theology is opposed to the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation. I was hoping for him to discuss within his book one of the main proof-texts for what Catholics call The Real Presence: John 6:48-69, but he does not.

In these verses, Christ tells those listening that they must eat his flesh and drink his blood. His statement is met with shocked disbelief. Even many of his disciples said to themselves, “This is an hard saying; who can hear it?” – John 6:60. At this point, many turn away from Christ and no longer follow him. (John 6:66)

At other points, we see Christ teach using parables, and we see him explain the parable afterwards. Yet in this instance, Christ simply watches many disciples walk away from him after hearing him say this. He does not call them back to explain, nor does he chastise them for mistakenly believing that he meant his words literally. He simply allows them to walk away. “From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.” – John 6:66. This seems to indicate to me that those who went away did indeed understand Christ correctly – that he was putting forth the teaching that they needed to literally eat his flesh and drink his blood – abhorrent practices to the Jews of the time.

Can you help me to understand what was going on here if not the plain meanings of the words? And why Christ would seemingly allow many to lose their salvation over a seeming misunderstanding of his words? Please share with me the official LDS teachings on these verses and this topic.

Thank you for helping me to understand.

[gabelpa]

I don't understand your questions, we know transubstantiation does not happen, and we have the Last Supper that explains exactly what Jesus meant. I don't see the confusion.

[Blackmarch]

Greetings. I am a Catholic, but have been having some troubles with some Catholic doctrines, which has caused me to research other Christian denominations. Although I have been able to locate plausible rebuttals of many Catholic positions, there is one which I am having some trouble finding thorough opposition to. Please accept my questions at face value as I am seeking truth and understanding, not seeking argument.

I am presently reading the book The Inevitable Apostasy by Tad R. Callister, and am finding it quite enlightening and helpful. In the book, he points out that LDS theology is opposed to the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation. I was hoping for him to discuss within his book one of the main proof-texts for what Catholics call The Real Presence: John 6:48-69, but he does not.

In these verses, Christ tells those listening that they must eat his flesh and drink his blood. His statement is met with shocked disbelief. Even many of his disciples said to themselves, “This is an hard saying; who can hear it?” – John 6:60. At this point, many turn away from Christ and no longer follow him. (John 6:66)

At other points, we see Christ teach using parables, and we see him explain the parable afterwards. Yet in this instance, Christ simply watches many disciples walk away from him after hearing him say this. He does not call them back to explain, nor does he chastise them for mistakenly believing that he meant his words literally. He simply allows them to walk away. “From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.” – John 6:66. This seems to indicate to me that those who went away did indeed understand Christ correctly – that he was putting forth the teaching that they needed to literally eat his flesh and drink his blood – abhorrent practices to the Jews of the time.

Can you help me to understand what was going on here if not the plain meanings of the words? And why Christ would seemingly allow many to lose their salvation over a seeming misunderstanding of his words? Please share with me the official LDS teachings on these verses and this topic.

Thank you for helping me to understand.

I believe one of the key verses is verse 58;

58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.

here he shows that it's not a physical thing as was the manna of the time of moses.

Likewise with the woman of the well, whom he told that should any drink of this they should not thirst again-

He was not talking about the physical need for water (or bread/food) in these verses, but what is necessary for the spirit- his words, his teachings, and his commandments. Eating/partaking of these is symbolic of internalising them and making them a part of you.

[SanctitasDeo]

I think that He is doing a couple of things here. First, as has been said, He is saying that to follow him, you must make His teaching and sayings a part of you. If you go through the earlier parts of the chapter, you can see that the Jews are misunderstanding what He is saying, which is why He uses such a shocking example. I like Blackmarch's example of verse 58. It hearkens back to Christ's conversation with the Samaritan woman at the well about the living water. He is talking about the same thing there.

The important thing to understand is that the Jews (especially the Pharisees and Saducees) really believed that the Law (they called it the daughter of God) is the mediator and can give salvation. So when Christ said that everyone has to ingest Him, He was saying that salvation doesn't come through the Law, nor through the new Law/interpretation of the law that He was giving. He was saying that salvation comes through Him. That was unacceptable to many.

Secondly, Christ makes a comparison between the earlier manna and the Bread of Life. I think that part of his purpose is to announce himself as Jehovah. Jehovah gave the Israelites manna in the wilderness. And here, instead of acting as Moses, facilitating the transfer of manna (and the law and revelation) from their God to the people, He is God. He is Jehovah, and the Jews had a very hard time accepting something like that. That was blasphemy punishable by death, from their point of view.

So he wasn't watching those who misunderstood him walk away. They understood him very well, and could not accept what he said. That is why there is such poignancy at the end of the chapter when he asks the apostles if they will also go away. Peter's answer is amazing. He understands and has a witness through the Spirit that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God.

[Dravin]

I don't understand your questions, we know transubstantiation does not happen, and we have the Last Supper that explains exactly what Jesus meant. I don't see the confusion.

The confusion stems from a significant cultural/doctrinal lens people are filtering things through. Kinda like I can read Jeremiah 1:5 and see evidence of a pre-earth life and another simply sees evidence of God's omnipotence or possibly even evidence of predestination. Or an even more divisive example, scriptures that talk about Christ's oneness with the Father. Clear cut unity to me, clear cut Trinity to another.

[Fraxinus]

Looking at it that way, and looking at the rest of the chapter, it seems as though this verse:

John 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

Could be taken to mean that coming to Christ is eating his flesh, and believing in him is drinking his blood?

[Justice]

This is a tough question to answer, because it will require you to embrace a new idea.

The Bible was in the hands of the Catholic church for many generations. The Catholic church held this belief (of transubstantiation). The Catholic church dictated what was accepted as doctrine and what wasn't. They even dictated the interpretations of those doctines. So much so, that for a period of many generations if anyone was found with a Bible in their possession they were put to death. They wanted control of the text and all reading and interpreting.

This is one of the primary reason why a restoration was needed. The precious truths that had been altered or lost needed to be revealed from heaven again.

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 is the purest teaching of the purpose for the sacrament found in the Bible. Clearly, Christ was yet alive and was not advocating canibalism. The bread was to be a symbol of His flesh and they were to eat it in remembrance of Him.

The Book of Mormon teaches the sacrament much more clearly than does the Bible. If you're interested in reading what it has to say, let us know and we'll provide a link or paste the text in.

But, as far as your interpretation of the scriptures you posted and asked, there are other ways to interpret them.

[Fraxinus]

Thanks for the reply, Justice. What you say about the Catholic church agrees with what Callister writes.

My question was about the fact that it seems as though those listening to Christ were horrified at what he was saying - which would support that he was not speaking metaphorically about the need to eat his flesh and drink his blood.

But I think that I am seeing other ways in which these verses can be read.

Thanks to everyone who has replied and to everyone who might reply later.

Callister's book is really opening my eyes to many things and showing me a depth to LDS theology which I hadn't known about.

[SanctitasDeo]

Quote:

John 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

Could be taken to mean that coming to Christ is eating his flesh, and believing in him is drinking his blood?

It could. It could also be a reference to his own Sermon on the Mount, where he says, "Blessed are those who hunger and thirst after righteousness, for they shall be filled."

[Moksha]

In these verses, Christ tells those listening that they must eat his flesh and drink his blood. His statement is met with shocked disbelief. Even many of his disciples said to themselves, “This is an hard saying; who can hear it?” – John 6:60. At this point, many turn away from Christ and no longer follow him. (John 6:66)

Can see where this would be a hard thing to comprehend for those of a literal mindset. Turning cannibal would be an unappealing task, especially for Jews following the Kasruth dietary laws or even those acquainted with Western Civilization.

For a group of people so often offered parables as a form of communication, surely some among them must have picked up on the symbolism of such a statement and did not think a form of cannibalism was required.

Personally, it sounded like he was calling for a form of grokking (taking in the total essence of a subject through all the senses as a form of deep understanding - ie, laying on the grass, feeling the grass, smelling the grass, tasting the grass and contemplating the grass to fully understand the grass).

[JohnnyRudick]

Greetings. I am a Catholic, but have been having some troubles with some Catholic doctrines, which has caused me to research other Christian denominations. Although I have been able to locate plausible rebuttals of many Catholic positions, there is one which I am having some trouble finding thorough opposition to. Please accept my questions at face value as I am seeking truth and understanding, not seeking argument.

I am presently reading the book The Inevitable Apostasy by Tad R. Callister, and am finding it quite enlightening and helpful. In the book, he points out that LDS theology is opposed to the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation. I was hoping for him to discuss within his book one of the main proof-texts for what Catholics call The Real Presence: John 6:48-69, but he does not.

In these verses, Christ tells those listening that they must eat his flesh and drink his blood. His statement is met with shocked disbelief. Even many of his disciples said to themselves, “This is an hard saying; who can hear it?” – John 6:60. At this point, many turn away from Christ and no longer follow him. (John 6:66)

At other points, we see Christ teach using parables, and we see him explain the parable afterwards. Yet in this instance, Christ simply watches many disciples walk away from him after hearing him say this. He does not call them back to explain, nor does he chastise them for mistakenly believing that he meant his words literally. He simply allows them to walk away. “From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.” – John 6:66. This seems to indicate to me that those who went away did indeed understand Christ correctly – that he was putting forth the teaching that they needed to literally eat his flesh and drink his blood – abhorrent practices to the Jews of the time.

Can you help me to understand what was going on here if not the plain meanings of the words? And why Christ would seemingly allow many to lose their salvation over a seeming misunderstanding of his words? Please share with me the official LDS teachings on these verses and this topic.

Thank you for helping me to understand.

I don't know if what I am trying to point out here can be redily seen in this short note but look at these verses.

John 6:56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood,

dwelleth in me, and I in him.

John 6:57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the

Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.

So is Jesus saying here that He eats the Father literally?

6:58 was already pointed out.

In this context this verse takes on new perspective.

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.

[Guest]

My question was about the fact that it seems as though those listening to Christ were horrified at what he was saying - which would support that he was not speaking metaphorically about the need to eat his flesh and drink his blood.

Yes, they were horrified because they do not and could not believe that Jesus Christ is Jehovah. Because, to eat His flesh and drink His blood is to be one with Christ which means that Jesus Christ is not a prophet but Jehovah Himself. For those who walked away, this is the epitome of blasphemy.

[coyotemoon722]

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.

Brief stop, not a derail but I never realized how powerful this verse of scripture is, thank you. It's amazing how you can miss out on the meaning of a single verse when you're just reading through the scriptures.

[Justice]

My question was about the fact that it seems as though those listening to Christ were horrified at what he was saying - which would support that he was not speaking metaphorically about the need to eat his flesh and drink his blood.

Some were... not all. Perhaps those who were misunderstood, and they possibly did so with hard hearts, and so Christ let them.

It could have been a weeding out process; it could have been one of His ways of looking for true believers... or maybe looking for those who were looking for an excuse to not believe.

[Sean1427]

Fraxinus,

A good book written by an LDS author that compares teachings and doctrines of the Catholicism and Mormonism is in the "Know Your Religion Series," volume 1, "A Comparative Look at Mormonism and Catholicism," by Alonzo L. Gaskill. In this book there is a footnoted section that treats the subject of the Eucharist. While the author is LDS and the book is targeting an LDS audience, the book makes no attempt to persuade its readers one way or another. The author simply compares different teachings and doctrines and footnotes come from both LDS and Catholic sources. Its foreward is by Rev. Patrick LaBelle, O. P., the director of The Catholic Community at Stanford University who states "Dr. Gaskill has shown us in this work . . . how to us how to understand the faith of another tradition with precision and accuracy, and at the same time, he allows his readers to learn more about their own faith in the process, I believe thath it would be a good idea to make this a regular text for Catholics who want to learn more about their own church." Two reviews for the book are by Father Joseph Rooney, S.J., of St. Andreas Catholic Church, and Jorge de Azevedo, a lay Roman Catholic. As a Mormon who served an LDS mission in a Catholic country and who has members of the family who are Catholic, I found that I was mistaken about much of what I thought I knew about the Catholic teachings and doctrines. If you're interested in reading what it has to say but can't find a book, contact me privately through this site, and we can arrange to get you the pertinent section. It's short so it won't be any problem.

[Fraxinus]

Thanks for the recommendation, Sean. I see that Amazon.com has the book in question. I plan to order it soon.