Quote:
Originally Posted by Athanasias
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 Lordīs 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 Christīs 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...
