Eucharist/priesthood

[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

Originally Posted by Islander

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.

[Islander]

Originally Posted by 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

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

Originally Posted by Islander

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]

Originally Posted by Islander

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

[Islander]

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 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...

[Athanasias]

Originally Posted by Islander

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 trully 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...

Hi and thank you very much for your kindness in responding to my question. I very much appreciate your tone and love for the Lord and all things true. I don't want to debate as I think this board is not about debating but about questions. However, I would love to show you at least where I am coming from on a biblical first century level. As a Student I have written papers on the exegesis of John and the Gospels in regards to the Eucharist and the real presense. I have also done debates with other groups. Instead of debating I will simply give you a couple of links to my writings on such things so you can at least see where we Catholics are coming from.

The first is a debate I am having with a Lutheran. My opening statement should go into plenty biblically and from the Greek and early Church on why the Eucharist is a real sacrifice. It also contains a few references to the real presense in the bible.

Here is the link: Is the Mass a Holy Sacrifice? - Christian Forums


This second link is to my myspace blogs which i have written in detail about Johns Eucharist interpretations in the Gospels and the alot more.

MySpace.com Blogs - Athanasias MySpace Blog


Feel free to write me if your on myspace! Definately read the debate for the sacrificial meaning, then read the myspace blogs for the real presense, Johns doctrine of the real presense and the priesthood and other things about Mary etc.


God bless you too my friend!

[Islander]

Athanasias - I am going thru the debate right now. Quite intense my friend, but very well articulated. I like your argument!! I'll keep you posted.

[Athanasias]

Originally Posted by Islander

Athanasias - I am going thru the debate right now. Quite intense my friend, but very well articulated. I like your argument!! I'll keep you posted.

Cool. God bless you!