Difficult Question about Sacraments (Communion)

[jinc1019]

I am not Mormon and grew up in an area of the country (New England) with very, very few Mormons. With that said, I am very interested in your faith and would love to have a few questions answered.

The most important question is the following:

I would like to know how the LDS Church, or any other branch of Mormonism, deals with the issue of the Real Presence of the Eucharist. I know Mormons in the LDS Church do not believe in the Real Presence, but this is because you believe it is a later creation, one that came after the apostles were dead. From what I understand, many of you also believe it is apart of the "Great Apostasy."

But, all of the evidence I have seen suggests the Real Presence, which is obviously very important for Catholics, was a theological belief and central tenet of the earliest form of the Church.

For instance, below is a post provided to me by "Rolltide" here on Catholic Answers with quotes from Ignatius of Antioch, one of the earliest Church fathers who was actually trained by John the Apostle and ordained by St. Peter himself:

"I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible" (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).

"Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).

"Take care, then who belong to God and to Jesus Christ - they are with the bishop. And those who repent and come to the unity of the Church - they too shall be of God, and will be living according to Jesus Christ. Do not err, my brethren: if anyone follow a schismatic, he will not inherit the Kingdom of God. If any man walk about with strange doctrine, he cannot lie down with the passion. Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: for there is one Flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of His Blood; one altar, as there is one bishop with the presbytery and my fellow servants, the deacons." -Epistle to the Philadelphians, 3:2-4:1, 110 A.D.

Also, from The Didache, a First Century source:

"Let no one eat and drink of your Eucharist but those baptized in the name of the Lord; to this, too the saying of the Lord is applicable: 'Do not give to dogs what is sacred'".

-Ch. 9:5

There are lots of other quotes as well, but I think you can understand my point!

Doesn't this prove that Joseph Smith was wrong, at least about this one thing? The Real Presence cant be part of the "Great Apostasy" if apostles are actually teaching this, can it?

[Guest]

I am not Mormon and grew up in an area of the country (New England) with very, very few Mormons. With that said, I am very interested in your faith and would love to have a few questions answered.

The most important question is the following:

I would like to know how the LDS Church, or any other branch of Mormonism, deals with the issue of the Real Presence of the Eucharist. I know Mormons in the LDS Church do not believe in the Real Presence, but this is because you believe it is a later creation, one that came after the apostles were dead. From what I understand, many of you also believe it is apart of the "Great Apostasy."

But, all of the evidence I have seen suggests the Real Presence, which is obviously very important for Catholics, was a theological belief and central tenet of the earliest form of the Church.

For instance, below is a post provided to me by "Rolltide" here on Catholic Answers with quotes from Ignatius of Antioch, one of the earliest Church fathers who was actually trained by John the Apostle and ordained by St. Peter himself:

"I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible" (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).

"Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).

"Take care, then who belong to God and to Jesus Christ - they are with the bishop. And those who repent and come to the unity of the Church - they too shall be of God, and will be living according to Jesus Christ. Do not err, my brethren: if anyone follow a schismatic, he will not inherit the Kingdom of God. If any man walk about with strange doctrine, he cannot lie down with the passion. Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: for there is one Flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of His Blood; one altar, as there is one bishop with the presbytery and my fellow servants, the deacons." -Epistle to the Philadelphians, 3:2-4:1, 110 A.D.

Also, from The Didache, a First Century source:

"Let no one eat and drink of your Eucharist but those baptized in the name of the Lord; to this, too the saying of the Lord is applicable: 'Do not give to dogs what is sacred'".

-Ch. 9:5

There are lots of other quotes as well, but I think you can understand my point!

Doesn't this prove that Joseph Smith was wrong, at least about this one thing? The Real Presence cant be part of the "Great Apostasy" if apostles are actually teaching this, can it?

No. You read those verses and interpret it as one thing. The LDS read those same verses and interpret it as another.

The sacrament bread in LDS theology is a "remembrance" of the atoning sacrifice of Christ where he gave his body and spilled his blood. It is also a renewal of baptismal covenants. We don't hold to a literal "body and blood" of Christ in the Eucharist.

Let's take Romans 7:3.

"I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible".

It is pretty clear what Body of Christ means - His Atonement. And his blood - love incorruptible. If you hold it to a literal meaning, then the verse wouldn't make sense. It would mean that Paul has no taste for corruptible food - as in anything that he puts in his mouth, chews, and swallows. Of course, that's not what he means. He means he has no taste for things that are merely for mortality - he desires things that leads to eternal life.

This goes hand in hand with Jesus words in John 6 - I am the bread of life. He who comes to me shall not hunger. He who believes in me shall not thirst.

No, Jesus wasn't talking about him being a literal bread either. And hunger and thirst are not literal biological functions.

So yeah, nothing here points to the necessity of Jesus Christ's substance being literally present in the Eucharist.

Of course, these teachings do not stand alone. It all starts with the error of the Trinitarian concept. Real Presence is only possible in Trinitarian teaching.

Edited November 15, 2012 by anatess

[skippy740]

This is more about the Sacrament in our Gospel Principles manual that you may find of interest:

Gospel Principles Chapter 23: The Sacrament

[jinc1019]

No. You read those verses and interpret it as one thing. The LDS read those same verses and interpret it as another.

The sacrament bread in LDS theology is a "remembrance" of the atoning sacrifice of Christ where he gave his body and spilled his blood. It is also a renewal of baptismal covenants. We don't hold to a literal "body and blood" of Christ in the Eucharist.

Let's take Romans 7:3.

"I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible".

It is pretty clear what Body of Christ means - His Atonement. And his blood - love incorruptible. If you hold it to a literal meaning, then the verse wouldn't make sense. It would mean that Paul has no taste for corruptible food - as in anything that he puts in his mouth, chews, and swallows. Of course, that's not what he means. He means he has no taste for things that are merely for mortality - he desires things that leads to eternal life.

This goes hand in hand with Jesus words in John 6 - I am the bread of life. He who comes to me shall not hunger. He who believes in me shall not thirst.

No, Jesus wasn't talking about him being a literal bread either. And hunger and thirst are not literal biological functions.

So yeah, nothing here points to the necessity of Jesus Christ's substance being literally present in the Eucharist.

Of course, these teachings do not stand alone. It all starts with the error of the Trinitarian concept. Real Presence is only possible in Trinitarian teaching.

I appreciate the response but I don't think you understand the point. First of all, I was quoting the Bible, I was quoting early Church sources, such as the Didache and Ignatius...So it doesn't matter what Jesus said or didn't say in the Bible on the matter because that's not what I am talking about. Further, John 6:43-60 sets up a story where diciples of Jesus are greatly offended at a teaching of the Real Presence, and some even leave the Church because of it; in that passage, he asks them to eat His body and drink his blood...Why would they be offended if they know it's all just figurative language? They wouldn't.

But I don't want to discuss what the Bible says, so let's move away from that. My point is that Joseph Smith said there was an apostasy and that the early Church moved away from the real teachings of Christ. In his reformed version of the early Church, however, the Eucharist does not have a literal, Real Presence, as you pointed out above, but as I showed you, the early Church leaders believed it did. You really have to do linguistic gymnastics to get around that fact.

[jinc1019]

This is more about the Sacrament in our Gospel Principles manual that you may find of interest:

Gospel Principles Chapter 23: The Sacrament

Thank you very much for this. From what I am reading here, Joseph Smith is saying that God told him that the sacrament is purely symbolic...not the Real Presence. Very interesting and definitely the answer I was looking for.

[Anddenex]

I appreciate the response but I don't think you understand the point. First of all, I was quoting the Bible, I was quoting early Church sources, such as the Didache and Ignatius...So it doesn't matter what Jesus said or didn't say in the Bible on the matter because that's not what I am talking about. Further, John 6:43-60 sets up a story where diciples of Jesus are greatly offended at a teaching of the Real Presence, and some even leave the Church because of it; in that passage, he asks them to eat His body and drink his blood...Why would they be offended if they know it's all just figurative language? They wouldn't.

But I don't want to discuss what the Bible says, so let's move away from that. My point is that Joseph Smith said there was an apostasy and that the early Church moved away from the real teachings of Christ. In his reformed version of the early Church, however, the Eucharist does not have a literal, Real Presence, as you pointed out above, but as I showed you, the early Church leaders believed it did. You really have to do linguistic gymnastics to get around that fact.

Linguistic gymnastics? Do you mean like saying "So it doesn't matter what Jesus said...in the Bible...that's not what I am talking about."

Then, the very next sentence you begin quoting the Bible as a reference, while telling someone who quoted the Bible they didn't understand your point.

John 6: 43 - 60, is a symbolic verse. The symbolism is easily shown in verses 47 - 50, 58. The Lord begins addressing eternal life, and that he is the bread of life. He then explains the manna they ate, but are dead. He then says, if they eat of his bread they shall not die.

Are they still living who partook of the flesh and blood of Christ? Is it assumed that none of the children of Israel who ate manna have received eternal life? If not, is Christ a liar? No, because he was speaking symbolically.

Also, please remember, quoting early Church members to an LDS, depending on the source, often times proves further witness of an Apostasy.

[Vort]

No, it does not "prove" Joseph Smith wrong, not in any sense. If anything, it demonstrates that the "Real Presence" doctrine is an invention, parsing words for the mere sake of hair-splitting, a popular activity among Roman Catholics and other Christians in ancient times and still today. Such over-attention to the mode of expression while ignoring the meat of what is being said is a sign that people are missing the point and an evidence of what Joseph Smith called the "great apostasy". Sadly, it is seen at times today among the Latter-day Saints, even among members of this list, present company not excepted.

[Gramajane]

To teach that the sacrament is literally the body and blood of Jesus Christ, wouldn't that be to practically teach cannibalism?

Certainly it would be against the teachings of Moses, since that included not even ingesting the blood of animals etc. ?

---- It seems to me that possibly you don't really have a question,

but that you would like to try to change LDS beliefs/teachings?

--- hint- "not going to happen". but have a nice day ! :)

[SanctitasDeo]

I would add: The Church Fathers were not apostles. The apostasy had pretty much already happened. They were wise men who tried to follow the Spirit as best they could, but the priesthood was already gone.

In the story from John 6, the followers of Christ were offended not because he was saying that his body was bread--they were offended because he was saying that salvation only comes through him. To them, that seemed blasphemous. Peter's answer shows this. Peters already knows that Jesus is the Christ, so he is not offended because that is what Christ is saying.