Eucharist/priesthood

[Athanasias]

Hi Guys! Peace be with you always!

I understand that LDS have priests, Aronic and Melchizedek. What I am trying to understand is your position on the Eucharist. I would assume that since you have a priesthood then you would view the Eucharist as a real sacrifice. Just curious?

Thanks and God bless you,

In Jesus through Mary,

Athanasias:pope:

[Stampede]

just a quick question...Are you from RF.com?

but back you your question. by Eucharist i'm assuming you mean what we call the sacrament, the breaking of bread and water (wine for catholics).

There is the Aaronic priesthood and the Melchizedek, The Aaronic priesthood has the authority to perform the outward ordinances like the Sacrament and Baptisms. while the higher priesthood is in authority over the whole of the church and administers in the more spiritual ordinances such as blessing the sick, and temple ordinances.

We believe it (the Sacrament to us, or Eucharist to you) represents the Body and Blood of Christ. in rememberance of his sacrifice. we view this as a renewing of our baptisimal covenants to always remember him and keep his commandments. and in return we recieve the blessings of always having his spirit with us and to have his guidance in all things.

We don't view the ordinance of blessing and passing the sacrament as a sacrifice, we view it as just that, blessing and passing it by those who are in authority to do so. what it represents in our minds in the Atonement of Jesus Christ.

[THIRDpersonviewer]

I might also add an emphasis on representation of the body and blood of Christ. It is not like the Transubstantiation that Catholics believe.

[Athanasias]

just a quick question...Are you from RF.com?

but back you your question. by Eucharist i'm assuming you mean what we call the sacrament, the breaking of bread and water (wine for catholics).

There is the Aaronic priesthood and the Melchizedek, The Aaronic priesthood has the authority to perform the outward ordinances like the Sacrament and Baptisms. while the higher priesthood is in authority over the whole of the church and administers in the more spiritual ordinances such as blessing the sick, and temple ordinances.

We believe it (the Sacrament to us, or Eucharist to you) represents the Body and Blood of Christ. in rememberance of his sacrifice. we view this as a renewing of our baptisimal covenants to always remember him and keep his commandments. and in return we recieve the blessings of always having his spirit with us and to have his guidance in all things.

We don't view the ordinance of blessing and passing the sacrament as a sacrifice, we view it as just that, blessing and passing it by those who are in authority to do so. what it represents in our minds in the Atonement of Jesus Christ.

Hi and thank you for your answer. I was from RF .com. Have I ever dialogged with you before? there was a great knowledgeable LDS over at RF .com that I once debated. His name I forgot but he was awesome. I did a one on one with him if you go there you may be able to still find it unless they deleted it.

[Athanasias]

I might also add an emphasis on representation of the body and blood of Christ. It is not like the Transubstantiation that Catholics believe.

Thank you. Yes So you guys view the Eucharist as merely symbolic. Just bread and wine representing the body and blood. This sounds alot like the baptist view of the Lords supper.

God bless you!

[puf_the_majic_dragon]

Thank you. Yes So you guys view the Eucharist as merely symbolic. Just bread and wine representing the body and blood. This sounds alot like the baptist view of the Lords supper.

God bless you!

Superficially, you can make a lot of comparisons between the LDS church and other denominations. I usually find most protestant or restorationist christians comparing us to Catholics, oddly enough.

The sacrament tokens (bread and water/wine) are symbolic, yes, but the ritual itself has a much deeper meaning. If you want to know what it means to us, you can read verses 8-10 in Mosiah 18

[Moksha]

I would assume that since you have a priesthood then you would view the Eucharist as a real sacrifice. Just curious?

Thanks and God bless you,

In Jesus through Mary,

Athanasias:pope:

No, we view the Eucharist as being substitutionary. Our exact words are "In remembrance of the body and the blood of Thy Son".

[Moksha]

...by Eucharist i'm assuming you mean what we call the sacrament...

The Sacrament of the Eucharist. Also known as Communion. LDS use the term Sacrament to refer to the Sacrament of the Eucharist, and use the word ordinance to refer to the other Sacraments.

[puf_the_majic_dragon]

I would assume that since you have a priesthood then you would view the Eucharist as a real sacrifice. Just curious?

Just another thought - in partaking of the Sacrament, this would the ritual moment where we make our sacrifice to God. Where the Levitical law requires animal sacrifice at specific times and for specific reasons, we believe that in Christ's fulfillment of that law we are to offer a new sacrifice of a broken heart and a contrite spirit ( Doctrine and Covenants 59 ) and the Sacrament would be (should be) when this takes place.

[Stampede]

Hi and thank you for your answer. I was from RF .com. Have I ever dialogged with you before? there was a great knowledgeable LDS over at RF .com that I once debated. His name I forgot but he was awesome. I did a one on one with him if you go there you may be able to still find it unless they deleted it.

no i don't think i ever did a 1 on 1 with you. but we have dialogged.

I'm glad that you are interested in knowing more about us. My wife was catholic untill february and out of repsect for her parents i attented a few of thier services and it helped me understand my own faith better, helped me understand certain scripture and strengthened my own testimony as a Latter-day Saint.

[lostnfound]

Superficially, you can make a lot of comparisons between the LDS church and other denominations. I usually find most protestant or restorationist christians comparing us to Catholics, oddly enough.

The sacrament tokens (bread and water/wine) are symbolic, yes, but the ritual itself has a much deeper meaning. If you want to know what it means to us, you can read verses 8-10 in Mosiah 18

their are alot of similiaties in lds and catholics..glad to hear you see it as symbolic though

[Athanasias]

Just another thought - in partaking of the Sacrament, this would the ritual moment where we make our sacrifice to God. Where the Levitical law requires animal sacrifice at specific times and for specific reasons, we believe that in Christ's fulfillment of that law we are to offer a new sacrifice of a broken heart and a contrite spirit ( Doctrine and Covenants 59 ) and the Sacrament would be (should be) when this takes place.

Thanks for your help. Yes I agree with you that this is where we also make a spiritual sacrifice to God also but is the Eucharist itself considered to be a propitiatory sacrifice that is offered up to God on behalf of the people by your priest? You see this is what I was trying to get at. I am trying to understand your priesthood better and its functions in relation to the liturgy.

[puf_the_majic_dragon]

Thanks for your help. Yes I agree with you that this is where we also make a spiritual sacrifice to God also but is the Eucharist itself considered to be a propitiatory sacrifice that is offered up to God on behalf of the people by your priest? You see this is what I was trying to get at. I am trying to understand your priesthood better and its functions in relation to the liturgy.

No, the individual "brings" their own sacrifice and offers it themselves, it's a much more personal thing.

When someone is baptised into the LDS church they make a promise (covenant) with God to always remember Him and to take his name upon us (ie to be called "Christian" - along with everything it means to be Christlike), and in return he covenants with us that we will always have his Spirit (the Holy Spirit) to be with us. Unlike other Christian faiths where the Holy Spirit comes and goes, we believe that after baptism (and confirmation by the layong on of hands) a person can ALWAYS have the Holy Spirit with them.

The sacrament/Eucharist is where we renew that covenant. Individually we come before God offering him our repentant (broken) hearts and humble (contrite) spirits as we again make the commitment we made at baptism. But just as a person must be baptised by someone who has proper priesthood authority, the sacrament must also be officiated by those with proper priesthood authority. The priest doesn't offer the sacrifice, he enables the people to offer their own sacrifice. As in ancient Israel the priest would perform the ritual preparing and burning the lamb, the person who came to offer the sacrifice would still be the one giving up of their substance (a lamb of their own flock) and making the covenants with God.

I believe in the Catholic church that the priest giving the Eucharist represents Christ at the last supper. There is also a similar symbolism with our priesthood, but the meaning is different and I won't claim to know or understand all of it.

[NateHowe]

Thanks for your help. Yes I agree with you that this is where we also make a spiritual sacrifice to God also but is the Eucharist itself considered to be a propitiatory sacrifice that is offered up to God on behalf of the people by your priest? You see this is what I was trying to get at. I am trying to understand your priesthood better and its functions in relation to the liturgy.

In the Catholic tradition, the priest supposedly brings Christ down to the altar to become the tokens of the eucharist. Those who participate eat what is believed to be the actual blood and flesh of Christ. The entire process is a reenactment of the sacrifice of Christ - not symbolic, but supposedly literal.

By contrast, the priests in the restored Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are authorized servants of Christ who say a blessing upon the emblems of the Lord's Supper. When they do this, they place those who participate under specific covenant obligations. Those in the congregation covenant to remember Christ, keep His commandments, and take His name upon them. In return, the Lord promises His Spirit. The emblems are given in remembrance of Christ - not physically changed into anything but bread and water. They are emblems of a covenant, and the Priests have authority to facilitate the renewal of that covenant. They are not making a sacrifice in behalf of the people - the people bring their own repentant sacrifices to the table. The Priest does not stand as an intermediary between the congregation and the Lord.

Edited July 6, 2008 by NateHowe

[Athanasias]

I would like to thank both nate and puff for their helpful explanations of this subject. God bless both of you! I find the LDS position very interesting. Catholics teach that we also offer our own sacrifices of ourselves to God in the mass, however we also teach that the Mass itself is a propitiatory sacrifice(The same sacrifice as Calvary only in a unbloody way) that is offered by Christ priest on behalf of the community. So to us its both.

Here is my question through. I am trying to understand your priesthood better and why you have priest. If your priest do not offer the sacrifice of the Eucharist then why do you have priest? Perhaps I can explain my self better. Catholics, Orthodox, Armenians, Syrians etc all have ordained priest and they all see the connection between the priesthood and the Liturgical Eucharistic sacrifice that is offered by their priest. Protestants deny the sacrifice of the Eucharist and the ordained priesthood(they see everyone as a universal priest already in one sense) therefore they have pastors, elders, and preachers and not ordained priest.

You have said that your priest are not mediators and do not offer the Eucharistic sacrifice. My question would be this then: Why do you have a special ordained priesthood at all if they the are not mediators that offer a liturgical Eucharistic sacrifice on behalf of the community? Why not just have preachers and elders like the protestants? This is stumbling block for me for a few reasons. 1) Priesthood in the Old and New testament and Church history is always linked to sacrifice, especially liturgical sacrifice on behalf of a community of believers. As a matter of fact the main function of a priest himself is to offer sacrifice on behalf of the community(Heb 8:3-4). 2) Christ himself and St Paul in the New testament reveal the Eucharist to be the new covenant sacrifice that is to be offered by its new covenant priest on behalf of the community. 3) Church history also seems to see it this way as well as the Prophet Malachi in the old testament and others.

I guess this is one of my stumbling blocks about your faith. If there is no sacrifice of the Eucharist and if they are not mediators between Christ and the congregation then why are Priest needed at all since the bible and church history shows that these are the main functions of a priest? why not just have elders or pastors?

Sorry about all the questions I just always wandered this. I appreciate your helpful answers! God Bless you all!

[NateHowe]

Catholics teach that we also offer our own sacrifices of ourselves to God in the mass, however we also teach that the Mass itself is a propitiatory sacrifice(The same sacrifice as Calvary only in a unbloody way) that is offered by Christ priest on behalf of the community. So to us its both.

With great respect to the Catholic tradition, that particular aspect of the Mass makes little sense to me. Essentially, you are saying that it is a new sacrifice, a new Atonement, at every Mass. This seems contrary to Paul's warning about those who "crucify the Son of God afresh" (Hebrews 6).

In our doctrine, there was one Atonement, wrought by Jesus Christ, at one time. That Atonement is infinite in power and scope, and it was the great and last sacrifice necessary to save all men who would come unto Christ and live according to His commandments. Christ suffered once. The Atonement occurred once. Our role is not to reenact or remake the Atonement, but to accept and apply it in our lives.

Here is my question through. I am trying to understand your priesthood better and why you have priest. If your priest do not offer the sacrifice of the Eucharist then why do you have priest?

First, the Priest is not the head of the congregation, as in Catholicism or Orthodoxy. Joseph Smith wrote: "We believe in the same organization that existed in the primitive Church, namely, Apostles, Prophets, Pastors, Teachers, Evangelists and so forth." In this organization, Priesthood leaders oversee various groups of people. In our Wards, the Bishop is the head of the congregation, and he presides in the Sacrament Meeting. The Prophet and the Apostles preside over the entire Church.

However, in addition to presiding over certain groups, the Priesthood is the power to perform ordinances. In your view, the Eucharist is the ordinance of greatest importance. For us, although the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper is a supremely sacred ordinance, other saving ordinances which the Lord instituted (such as Baptism and the bestowal of the gift of the Holy Ghost) bear equal weight. Every ordinance instituted by the Savior is sacred to us, and different ordinances require different authority.

The preparatory Priesthood is named for Aaron, the great ancient Priest. Within this Aaronic Priesthood are the offices of Deacon, Teacher, Priest, and Bishop. The Aaronic Priesthood includes the authority to baptize and to administer the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper.

The higher Priesthood is named for Melchizedek, the great High Priest. Within the Melchizedek Priesthood are the offices of Elder, High Priest, Seventy, and Apostle. The Prophet, who is the President of the Church, is the presiding Apostle. The Melchizedek Priesthood includes authority to anoint and bless the sick, to preside in meetings of the Church, to administer ordinances in the Temple (such as Eternal Marriage), and many other privileges and responsibilities. Those with the Melchizedek Priesthood can also administer in the ordinances of the Aaronic Priesthood.

Priesthood is the government of God's Kingdom on Earth and the authority to perform the ordinances which Jesus Christ instituted for the benefit of mankind.

Why not just have preachers and elders like the protestants? This is stumbling block for me for a few reasons. 1) Priesthood in the Old and New testament and Church history is always linked to sacrifice, especially liturgical sacrifice on behalf of a community of believers. As a matter of fact the main function of a priest himself is to offer sacrifice on behalf of the community(Heb 8:3-4). 2) Christ himself and St Paul in the New testament reveal the Eucharist to be the new covenant sacrifice that is to be offered by its new covenant priest on behalf of the community. 3) Church history also seems to see it this way as well as the Prophet Malachi in the old testament and others.

I guess this is one of my stumbling blocks about your faith. If there is no sacrifice of the Eucharist and if they are not mediators between Christ and the congregation then why are Priest needed at all since the bible and church history shows that these are the main functions of a priest? why not just have elders or pastors?

The Atonement of Christ ended animal sacrifice as a part of true worship. The Priests in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints administer the Sacrament as instructed by revelation for the benefit of the congregation. This is in accordance with scripture. Although Christ and Paul place strong emphasis on the Lord's Supper, they do not indicate or validate the doctrines of transubstantiation or the power of the Priest over Christ during the Mass. These were later alterations to true doctrine. Priests (as all those who hold the Priesthood) are servants of the Lord and of their fellow man. They are called, as were the Priests in the Old and New Testaments, to perform the ordinances dictated by the Lord for the people at that time, under the direction of the living Prophet.

This is the great key, which Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Protestantism, and other world religions ignore: Revelation from God to His Prophets. We can point to the Bible and infer a course the Lord would have us take, but the Bible was not written as an instruction manual. It is a collection of sacred historical documents from various times and authors. It does not claim to be complete, because the Bible was not written with the conscious notion that it would be collected in its current form. Whenever the Lord has had His Church on Earth, He has organized it with a living Prophet at its head and Priesthood authority as its foundation, with Christ the chief cornerstone. That is the position of the Latter-day Saints - that God reveals His will in all pertinent matters to the Prophet. The Prophet gives us direction so that we will remain aligned with the will of God. This is the oldest pattern in the world's religious history, beginning with Adam.

[Athanasias]

With great respect to the Catholic tradition, that particular aspect of the Mass makes little sense to me. Essentially, you are saying that it is a new sacrifice, a new Atonement, at every Mass. This seems contrary to Paul's warning about those who "crucify the Son of God afresh" (Hebrews 6).

Hi Nate, thanks once again for your good responses. I now understand a bit more of where your coming from although I still am a bit confused and still have a few questions if you don't mind. In the Catholic understanding we do not teach that the Eucharist is a new sacrifice. Christ does not die again at the mass or suffer. Rather we teach that the mass is the same sacrifice as Calvary only under different form, a unbloody form(bread and wine). Christ gives us his sacrifice in that form of bread and wine to fulfill the priesthood of Melchisedek(Heb 6) who offered the sacrifice of bread and wine(Gen 17). In other words we Catholics teach that the Eucharist is the present day application of the once and for all bloody sacrifice of Calvary made present to us today. It is a real celebration of the new covenant passover sacrifice. The bloody dying form of the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross was redemption accomplished. The Eucharist unbloody form of Calvary's sacrifice is redemption applied personally to us as we eat his real flesh and blood in this new passover sacrifice and therefore take part in the new passover covenant. I hope that helps you understand our point.

In our doctrine, there was one Atonement, wrought by Jesus Christ, at one time. That Atonement is infinite in power and scope, and it was the great and last sacrifice necessary to save all men who would come unto Christ and live according to His commandments. Christ suffered once. The Atonement occurred once. Our role is not to reenact or remake the Atonement, but to accept and apply it in our lives.

I understand what you mean. Catholics teach that Christ atonement was the great and last sacrifice nessarry to save all men too. We just teach that that the this last sacrifice and atonement is apllied personally to us in the eucharist when Calvary's unbloody form is given to us.

First, the Priest is not the head of the congregation, as in Catholicism or Orthodoxy. Joseph Smith wrote: "We believe in the same organization that existed in the primitive Church, namely, Apostles, Prophets, Pastors, Teachers, Evangelists and so forth." In this organization, Priesthood leaders oversee various groups of people. In our Wards, the Bishop is the head of the congregation, and he presides in the Sacrament Meeting. The Prophet and the Apostles preside over the entire Church.

I see your point. and I would agree with much of it. Catholics also teach that the Bishop is the head of the congregation. But priest are the heads of their parish too under the Bishops authority as Timothy and Titus were under St. Paul as their Bishop initially. As a matter of fact we teach that the Bishop of Rome is the head of the entire Church. We just believe as the scripture shows that the Apostles who lead the early congregations and their successors were also priest of the new covenant. The Church is headed by the Pope(successor to St. Peter) and the Magisterium(Body of Teachers made up of clergy) as reflected in the book of Acts and church history.

However, in addition to presiding over certain groups, the Priesthood is the power to perform ordinances. In your view, the Eucharist is the ordinance of greatest importance. For us, although the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper is a supremely sacred ordinance, other saving ordinances which the Lord instituted (such as Baptism and the bestowal of the gift of the Holy Ghost) bear equal weight. Every ordinance instituted by the Savior is sacred to us, and different ordinances require different authority.

I can certainly see what you are saying. We catholics beleive that all the Sacraments are also holy and important to salvation. All the sacraments are rooted in the work of Jesus and the Cross and all of them apply the saving graces of the Cross to us personally in different ways. We do view the Eucharist as most important and central though. This is mainly because we believe that the Eucharist is Truly Jesus Christ in Corporeal form under the appearances of bread an wine (body, blood, soul and divinity) and makes his saving sacrifice present to us today in unbloody form.

The preparatory Priesthood is named for Aaron, the great ancient Priest. Within this Aaronic Priesthood are the offices of Deacon, Teacher, Priest, and Bishop. The Aaronic Priesthood includes the authority to baptize and to administer the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper.

The higher Priesthood is named for Melchizedek, the great High Priest. Within the Melchizedek Priesthood are the offices of Elder, High Priest, Seventy, and Apostle. The Prophet, who is the President of the Church, is the presiding Apostle. The Melchizedek Priesthood includes authority to anoint and bless the sick, to preside in meetings of the Church, to administer ordinances in the Temple (such as Eternal Marriage), and many other privileges and responsibilities. Those with the Melchizedek Priesthood can also administer in the ordinances of the Aaronic Priesthood.

Priesthood is the government of God's Kingdom on Earth and the authority to perform the ordinances which Jesus Christ instituted for the benefit of mankind.

This was very enlightening. thanks for the overview!

The Atonement of Christ ended animal sacrifice as a part of true worship. The Priests in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints administer the Sacrament as instructed by revelation for the benefit of the congregation. This is in accordance with scripture. Although Christ and Paul place strong emphasis on the Lord's Supper, they do not indicate or validate the doctrines of transubstantiation or the power of the Priest over Christ during the Mass. These were later alterations to true doctrine. Priests (as all those who hold the Priesthood) are servants of the Lord and of their fellow man. They are called, as were the Priests in the Old and New Testaments, to perform the ordinances dictated by the Lord for the people at that time, under the direction of the living Prophet.

Here is where we may politely dissagree. I do beleive that priest were definitely called to perform ordinances of God. We teach that too. However the main ordinance the priest were to perform has alway been sacrifice! Something to note. The entire main function of Priest and priesthood in general as revealed by God in the new and old testaments and in history and in almost all world religions has been to act as mediators and offer sacrifice to God on behalf of the people. In fact this is something that Jesus commanded his new priest the Apostles to go and do, namely to offer the new covenant sacrifice in his blood in the Eucharist. So when you say that you have priesthood but your priest do not offer liturgical Eucharistic sacrifice's to God on behalf of the people or when you say they do not act as mediators this puzzles me because that is the main function of a ordained priest. So why do you have priest then? Why not just have pastors or Elders who perform ordinances like the protestants do? This is still my stumbling block. I just don't see how you can have ordained priest but no Eucharistic sacrifices and no mediatorship? I mean those are what defines a priest, namely sacrifice and mediatorship.

In addition to what we are discussing I would also dissagree with you about the dogma of transubstantiation. I beleive the merely symbolic view of the supper was a late protestant doctrine not found in the first 1500 years of the Church. I also believe that Jesus himself and his Apostles, especially St. Paul and St. John taught it as well as the entire early Church including those who were taught by the apostles. I also believe that recent and past Eucharistic miracles that were even tested by science proves this. If you would like we could discuss this aspect further or at a later time.

I am not sure what you mean when you say "the power the Priest has over Christ during mass". Could you explain please?

This is the great key, which Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Protestantism, and other world religions ignore: Revelation from God to His Prophets. We can point to the Bible and infer a course the Lord would have us take, but the Bible was not written as an instruction manual. It is a collection of sacred historical documents from various times and authors. It does not claim to be complete, because the Bible was not written with the conscious notion that it would be collected in its current form. Whenever the Lord has had His Church on Earth, He has organized it with a living Prophet at its head and Priesthood authority as its foundation, with Christ the chief cornerstone. That is the position of the Latter-day Saints - that God reveals His will in all pertinent matters to the Prophet. The Prophet gives us direction so that we will remain aligned with the will of God. This is the oldest pattern in the world's religious history, beginning with Adam.

Actually Catholics do not ignore revelation. We teach and believe in divine revelation. We even beleive in prophecy as we have those things in our church too. We do not deny prophecy. The prophets played a great part of the old testament revelation. They also have a role in the new testament and in the church today. But the new testament revelation was given to the leaders. Bishops, Priest, Deacons, to proclaim in council (Act 15) and take charge over and not the prophets. Public revelation also ended with the death of the last apostle John while private revelation still continues today. In fact the new testament writers that were given divine revelation to write were apostles and bishops like Peter and Paul and John they were not prophets yet they proclaimed the word of God to the congregation. They held those sacred priestly offices. So we do not ignore those things. We teach them. Catholics unlike protestants would also say that scripture was never meant to be taken as a the sole mere manual either. Scripture apart from the apostolic oral traditions of the apostles and the authority of the teaching church is imcomplete. Sola scripture was a protestant doctrine not a Catholic one. However we must also never deny the truths that Gods holy revelation teaches whether found in scripture, apostolic tradition, or both. So given the priesthood is defined in scripture and in in all the worlds religions as primarily having sacrificial functions. And given the new testament by Jesus own words command the apostles to offer the Eucharist as his new covenant sacrifice. How then is one to understand you priesthood apart from the sacrifice and mediatorship?

I hope that helps you understand where I am coming from. In your response to me last you kind of strayed away from my original question of Priesthood and brought up all kinds of other stuff like transubstantiation, prophecy sola scriptura, etc that had nothing to do with my original question. I simply answered a few things that you said but I would like to get back to talking about the Priesthood and Sacrifice and the LDs reasons why their priest do not follow the biblical or historical or world pattern of functions for priest and we can get away from other more distracting topics. We can talk about those things later. I do appreciate you taking time out to answer my questions. You have been very helpful and I thank you. Lets just try to keep on topic and steer away from other things that so not have anything to do with the priesthood and sacrifice of the new testament.

May God bless you always

I look forward to hearing your thoughtful and good response. It has been a blessing talking to you.

In Jesus through Mary,

Athanasias

[xXTekXx]

I would certainly say out of personal experience that much sacrifice is required of one who holds the priesthood in the LDS church. We believe that the priesthood is the power and authority given to man to act in God's name for the salvation of his children. Without this priesthood any saving ordinance is invalid.

[puf_the_majic_dragon]

Here is a link to the lds.org page describing the priesthood and its role: LDS.org - Topic Definition - Priesthood

I suggest reading the "additional information" part, which has quite a bit of detail. Although that honestly covers mostly organizational stuff and not actualy responsibilities. For more on the actual responsibilities, I suggest reading Doctrine and Covenants 20.

In short, the duty of the priesthood is to serve. By fulfilling the duties laid out in the above D&C link, priesthood members ensure that the needs of the members are being met, that the doctrines of the Gospel are being taught correctly, and that work of God is progressing on the Earth. We also have a lay priesthood - every worthy male member can hold the priesthood and participate in the ordinances for which they hold proper authority. This encourages more active participation from the "ordinary" members, and it gives the Lord a literal army of priesthood to protect and serve the Gospel and the world (LDS member service isn't limited to just LDS members).

:edit:

I should add, the duties of the priesthood include officiating in many of the rituals and ordinances we perform, which ordinances can only be performed by those with proper priesthood authority (by order of the Almighty). Priesthood authority includes things like revelation - which is how God leads the church today, sealing - the power as Christ gave to Peter that what is "Sealed" on Earth is also "Sealed" in heaven (like duplicate records are kept), and saving ordinances like baptism, sacrament, and marriage. Without proper priesthood authority, none of these things can happen and the Church starts to stray from the true path. This is what we believe happened to the early Christian church, that proper (and complete!) priesthood authority was lost and hence our belief in the need for it to be "restored" through prophetic revelation.

Edited July 7, 2008 by puf_the_majic_dragon

[Islander]

Hi Guys! Peace be with you always!

I understand that LDS have priests, Aronic and Melchizedek. What I am trying to understand is your position on the Eucharist. I would assume that since you have a priesthood then you would view the Eucharist as a real sacrifice. Just curious?

Thanks and God bless you,

In Jesus through Mary,

Athanasias:pope:

I find it interesting, not being a RC, that from the Gospel's account emerges a liturgical concept that has very specific meanings for different brands of Christians. It appears from the records that giving thanks abd blessing the bread and the wine was part of the Jewish tradition. For the primitive Christian church the ritual became part of the fellowship and sign of the covenant. From the reading of the records in Greek and later in Latin it did not appear to be a highly ritualized affair but what it was instructed by the Savior, to do as a sign of acceptance of the covenant and in remembrance of Him. A way to make a claim on salvation and eternal life.

There is no evidence in the sources that the early Christian believe literally that is was the body and blood of Jesus. That seems to be a doctrined introduced later.

[abqfriend]

I am a Roman Catholic. The Catholic Church takes the words of Christ as literal as referred to those stated in the Last Supper accounts. Other religious traditions take them figuratively or understand them differently. Such is the diversity of religious traditiions and understanding of Sacred Scripture. The term "sacrament" is viewed differently by many religious traditions. Lutherans have "sacraments" but Lutherans have no priests.

Lutherans have both male and female ministers. Roman Catholics and the LDS Church have only male priests. The Anglican/Episcopal Church has both male and female priests.

So one can have a sacrament without having a priest-depending on one's view of what a sacrament is-and who can officiate as engaging in such sacraments- depending on the understanding of that religious tradition.

You would not find total agreement on your statement that there was no evidence that early Christians believed that it was not the Body and Blood of Christ.-

-Carol

I find it interesting, not being a RC, that from the Gospel's account emerges a liturgical concept that has very specific meanings for different brands of Christians. It appears from the records that giving thanks abd blessing the bread and the wine was part of the Jewish tradition. For the primitive Christian church the ritual became part of the fellowship and sign of the covenant. From the reading of the records in Greek and later in Latin it did not appear to be a highly ritualized affair but what it was instructed by the Savior, to do as a sign of acceptance of the covenant and in remembrance of Him. A way to make a claim on salvation and eternal life.

There is no evidence in the sources that the early Christian believe literally that is was the body and blood of Jesus. That seems to be a doctrined introduced later.

Edited July 7, 2008 by abqfriend

[Islander]

I am a Roman Catholic. The Catholic Church takes the words of Christ as literal as referred to those stated in the Last Supper accounts. Other religious traditions take them figuratively or understand them differently. Such is the diversity of religious traditiions and understanding of Sacred Scripture. The term "sacrament" is viewed differently by many religious traditions. Lutherans have "sacraments" but Lutherans have no priests.

Lutherans have both male and female ministers. Roman Catholics and the LDS Church have only male priests. The Anglican/Episcopal Church has both male and female priests.

So one can have a sacrament without having a priest-depending on one's view of what a sacrament is-and who can officiate as engaging in such sacraments- depending on the understanding of that religious tradition.

You would not find total agreement on your statement that there was no evidence that early Christians believed that it was not the Body and Blood of Christ.-

-Carol

Well, I was referring to the first 200 years or so of Christianity. We have the apostolic epistles and just a few other text from the first and second century. The Sacrament as we know it today did not seem to exist. Still by 301 AD, even when Christianity was not a "religio licita" or legally recognized/authorized religion at the seat of the empire, it appears that the sacrament was symbolic rather than literal as it appears to be taken sometime later.

I suggest that for the uninitiated, without any religious training and free from the theological interpretations of late, the commandment to "eat and drink" is taken as a symbolic gesture of the covenant and in remembrance of the Savior.

The above is simply an observation based on the sources and also to illustrate that over time given the evolution of Christianity it has come to mean different things to different people.

[abqfriend]

I as a Roman Catholic would be happy to give you direct quotes and web liniks quoting from Justin Martyr writing around AD 155 on an understanding of the Eucharist as well as from Ignatius of Antioch, who died in AD 110 and a disciple of Peter and Paul on the subject. As this is an LDS site, and I am a minority here-my purpose is not to defend the "Catholic" faith. I respect the guidelines of this site and that it's members are largely of the LDS faith tradition.

I am here to learn about the LDS church-but my point is that an understanding on the Eucharist/Lord's Supper is one of a difference of how one views The Lord's Supper and what is and what is not a "sacrament" and the term "sacrament." defined. Different religious traditions define them differently based on their religious faith traditions.

-Carol

Well, I was referring to the first 200 years or so of Christianity. We have the apostolic epistles and just a few other text from the first and second century. The Sacrament as we know it today did not seem to exist. Still by 301 AD, even when Christianity was not a "religio licita" or legally recognized/authorized religion at the seat of the empire, it appears that the sacrament was symbolic rather than literal as it appears to be taken sometime later.

I suggest that for the uninitiated, without any religious training and free from the theological interpretations of late, the commandment to "eat and drink" is taken as a symbolic gesture of the covenant and in remembrance of the Savior.

The above is simply an observation based on the sources and also to illustrate that over time given the evolution of Christianity it has come to mean different things to different people.

[Athanasias]

I find it interesting, not being a RC, that from the Gospel's account emerges a liturgical concept that has very specific meanings for different brands of Christians. It appears from the records that giving thanks abd blessing the bread and the wine was part of the Jewish tradition. For the primitive Christian church the ritual became part of the fellowship and sign of the covenant. From the reading of the records in Greek and later in Latin it did not appear to be a highly ritualized affair but what it was instructed by the Savior, to do as a sign of acceptance of the covenant and in remembrance of Him. A way to make a claim on salvation and eternal life.

There is no evidence in the sources that the early Christian believe literally that is was the body and blood of Jesus. That seems to be a doctrine introduced later.

Hi Islander,

May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with you! Yes I would agree with you that the Eucharist is a sign of the covenant and fellowship. But what I would also say the Eucharist is also a efficacious sign. I would politely dissagree with you about the ritualization though. The specific language in Greek that the Lord used and the Gospel writers wrote in in regards to the Eucharist shows this meal to be very specifically taken as a sacrifice to be offered by its priest as a fulfillment of the traditional Passover and Todah sacrifices. If fact the very word you mentioned that the Lord used "Remembrance" in Greek and Hebrew hints to the Eucharist as being a sacrifice and the real presence in a big way among his other sacrificial language. a good book to get is called "How Christ said the first Mass" published by Tan. In it it looks specifically at the old testament and extra biblical Jewish writings such as the talmud, mishna etc and shows that the Eucharist was a highly specific ritualized sacrificial meal our Lord instituted. The early Christians who were taught by the apostles all agreed that it was. It really was not until the 1500's that the Mass was viewed as anything else except a sacrifice.

As far as your statement about the Christ real corporeal presence being denied in the Eucharist in the early Church, I hate to embarrass you with a mountain of quotations but I have the writings of the early Fathers centuries 1-8 and all of them believed the Eucharist to the real flesh and blood of Jesus and not a symbol. I am beginning to wander if you ever read the early Christians? Even Secular and Protestant historians admit this in their books. Really it was not until the advent of Wycliff that this was questioned on a larger scale and not until Calvin, Zwingli, and Smith that this symbolism was accepted by a more people.

However your getting off topic. I would be happy to dialog about this with you in another post. what I was trying to see is what the point of your priesthood was if it did not offer the sacrifice of the Eucharist as Jesus commanded. True priest would offer the Eucharist as Christ himself commanded. Priesthood and its main functions are sacrifice and acting as mediators between God and the community. This is how the bible and church history and world history all define a priest in its functions. If these main functions are left out then why have a priest? why not just have Pastors and preachers like the protestants? This is what I am afraid has not been answered yet to my satisfaction. I still have a hard time understanding why you guys call your ministers priest if no Eucharistic sacrifice or mediation is made. This is what I need to understand. We can debate later about the real presense later but I do not want to debate now I want to try to understand your priesthood first.

I hope that helps!

Thanks and God bless you always for your explanations. Lets stick tot he topic though! IN Jesus through Mary,

Athanasias

Edited July 7, 2008 by Athanasias

[Islander]

Hi Islander,

May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with you! Yes I would agree with you that the Eucharist is a sign of the covenant and fellowship. But what I would also say the Eucharist is also a efficacious sign. I would politely dissagree with you about the ritualization though. The specific language in Greek that the Lord used and the Gospel writers wrote in in regards to the Eucharist shows this meal to be very specifically taken as a sacrifice to be offered by its priest as a fulfillment of the traditional Passover and Todah sacrifices. If fact the very word you mentioned that the Lord used "Remembrance" in Greek and Hebrew hints to the Eucharist as being a sacrifice and the real presence in a big way among his other sacrificial language. a good book to get is called "How Christ said the first Mass" published by Tan. In it it looks specifically at the old testament and extra biblical Jewish writings such as the talmud, mishna etc and shows that the Eucharist was a highly specific ritualized sacrificial meal our Lord instituted. The early Christians who were taught by the apostles all agreed that it was. It really was not until the 1500's that the Mass was viewed as anything else except a sacrifice.

As far as your statement about the Christ real corporeal presence being denied in the Eucharist in the early Church, I hate to embarrass you with a mountain of quotations but I have the writings of the early Fathers centuries 1-8 and all of them believed the Eucharist to the real flesh and blood of Jesus and not a symbol. I am beginning to wander if you ever read the early Christians? Even Secular and Protestant historians admit this in their books. Really it was not until the advent of Wycliff that this was questioned on a larger scale and not until Calvin, Zwingli, and Smith that this symbolism was accepted by a more people.

However your getting off topic. I would be happy to dialog about this with you in another post. what I was trying to see is what the point of your priesthood was if it did not offer the sacrifice of the Eucharist as Jesus commanded. True priest would offer the Eucharist as Christ himself commanded. Priesthood and its main functions are sacrifice and acting as mediators between God and the community. This is how the bible and church history and world history all define a priest in its functions. If these main functions are left out then why have a priest? why not just have Pastors and preachers like the protestants? This is what I am afraid has not been answered yet to my satisfaction. I still have a hard time understanding why you guys call your ministers priest if no Eucharistic sacrifice or mediation is made. This is what I need to understand. We can debate later about the real presense later but I do not want to debate now I want to try to understand your priesthood first.

I hope that helps!

Thanks and God bless you always for your explanations. Lets stick tot he topic though! IN Jesus through Mary,

Athanasias

I appreciate your ample response and your sincere question in regards to our priesthood and relationship to the Sacrament. I understand that 2nd century and later church writers expressed an understanding of the Sacrament that seems closer to your view. I just point to the most early evidence, including the letters from the living apostles of the Savior.

It is interesting that Paul notes that the Savior gave a commandment to perform this ordinance regularly. Christ clearly established the Sacrament, since three of the four Gospels and also Paul’s letter of 1 Corinthians contain concise reports. First Corinthians is of particular interest because it preceded the Gospels. Its date is about A.D. 57, some twenty-five years after Christ instituted the sacrament in the Upper Room. 6 In the letter, Paul repeated what he had reliably learned, introducing the account with these words: “For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you.” (1 Cor. 11:23). He later adds: "As often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew [i.e., testify of] the Lord´s death till he come" (1 Cor. 11:26).

The NT indicates that the injunction was observed in the early Christian Church (cf. Acts 2:42; 20:7). Paul wrote the Saints at Corinth in plainness of the simple ordinance which he had received from the Lord, stressing that it was done "in remembrance of [Jesus Christ]" (1 Cor. 11:19–26; cf. Luke 22:19; 3 Ne. 18:7).

The time and setting chosen by Jesus for administering the Sacrament among his Jerusalem disciples tie this ordinance to the older observances of the Passover, including the bread and wine he used, and to which he gave new symbolism (Matt. 26:26–28; Luke 22:15–20). Through his Atonement Christ fulfilled the purpose of the ordinance of animal sacrifice found in the Old Testament, which was to prefigure the ultimate sacrifice of the Son of God. The new ordinance replaced the need for animal sacrifice with the sacrifice on the part of Christ´s followers of a broken heart and contrite spirit (3 Ne. 9:18–20).

The sermon that Jesus delivered on the topic of the "bread of life" in the Gospel of John draws on the symbolism of the Lord even deeper for the reader.

Early Christian writings suggest no change in the ancient idea of covenant. The basic dual-party promises between God and his people still took place. What changed was the type of sacrifice that put the covenant into effect. Instead of the blood sacrifices of Abraham and Moses that pre-dates or "shadows" the ultimate sacrifice of the Son of God, the Atonement itself became the transcendent reality. In Paul’s letter to the Hebrews, is where half of the New Testament uses of the Greek word for “covenant” appear. There the Apostle speaks of a “better testament” (Heb. 7:22) or a “better covenant” (Heb. 8:6) because Jesus is superior to all former sacrifices. I think there is where LDS theology departs from traditional Christianity today, more closely resembling that of the 1st century's. In our Doctrine and Covenants as well as in the Book of Mormon, the Sacrament relates to the covenant and our remembrance of it.

I certainly understand your view. I just wanted to suggest as in the previous post that, without "help" from theological or traditional sources/interpretations and based on the Gospels and NT alone, I do not get the impression that the Sacrament was meant to be literal as it came to be interpreted a bit later.

Again,, my brother, I can certainly appreciate your view and heart-felt love for the Eucharist as yo understanding. I'm sincerely grateful your kind words. It has been trull;y a pleasure to exchange with you on the subject. Both, baptism and the Sacrament have a profound meaning and great significance to me on account of my prior history. I am a convert to the LDS church and it was as if crawling out of a very dark and deep well and into the light. So it is always refreshing to cross impressions with others in regards to these subjects.

I would let one of the pundits on the site answer your question in regards to the Sacrament and the LDS priesthood order. I think I have done enough writing for one day.

Peace be onto you and your family as well.

PS: BTW this may be a subject where we may have to split the difference...:)

Edited July 8, 2008 by Islander