Ordinances, Sacraments, Rituals, Practices, etc.

[Taalcon]

From all your talk about my "interpretations" as you call them, you clearly did not go and read Ephesians like I requested. Paul is very clear and precise on this subject.

I did read it. Again. What you don't seem to grasp is that others legitimately can understand the same passages of scripture plausibly, and significantly different than you do.

[Rei]

John 6:25-70

In particular, v.53ff. "53Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. "

[Eaquae Legit]

Also, EL, please point out the part where it says that only Christ's literal flesh and blood is capable of removing sin.

Lol, I never said that. "Capable of removing sin" is not what Jesus told us.

[Crazy Tom: C Toon]

Rei:

Please continue reading. He clearly referrs to the manna in the desert, also, as His flesh, and therefore, he clearly does not mean His literal flesh and blood, which would be cannibalistic. Also, remember (what is it, Hebrews? Corinthians?) the story of th Final Passover, where Christ took bread, saying "this is My body, which is for you, do this in remembrance of me" in the same way also he took the cup... etc. he clearly does not mean for it to be a literal, cannibalistic devouring of his body and blood.

EL, please clarify, then, what you meant with you post

[Rei]

Rei:
he clearly does not mean for it to be a literal, cannibalistic devouring of his body and blood.

Concerning manna, Jesus is comparing himself to manna not to say that, "No really guys, just kidding about eating me, I really meant bread lol", but rather how his followers really really ARE supposed to eat his body and blood literally or face spiritual death.

For being so obvious, it sure wasn't clear to his followers. If Christ takes things literally, he's doing a pretty dang good job of being very literal here. Eating Christ's literal body and blood in remembrance of his atoning sacrifice is still doing so in remembrance.

If you are going to interpret Scripture, then do so. But accept that this is what you are doing and we will stop jumping on you quite so much.

As for clarifying EL's post, here is what it says:

You know what, CTCT? God says very directly and literally in the Bible that we have to eat his flesh and drink his blood, or we have no life in us. When people complained, he told them too bad, that's the way it is. You pick and choose what you want to be literal based on your own preconceived ideas of what God "meant". Drop the hypocrisy and admit that what you believe is very largely based on subjective interpretation of scripture.

Where does it say "capable of removing sin"?

[Crazy Tom: C Toon]

Luke 22, 1 Corinthians 11, Hebrews 9. All mention the passage of the Final Pasover, where Christ specifically says that he took bread saying "THIS IS MY BODY, WHICH I GIVE TO YOU, do this in rememberance of me," etc. etc. Christ took his literal body into heaven when he resurrected; how could we be consuming it here on Earth? also, how could Christ have any body at all left, considering how many times we have eaten it? Evidence seems pretty overwhelming against transsubstantiation.

[Satya]

He presented His body as a sacrifice; as a lamb would have been eaten, thus we eat. For eating the food and drink of earth, man dies. For eating the food and drink of heaven (the perfect sacrifice), we live. I think one side of this argument is misunderstanding the word literally.

[Eaquae Legit]

I'm not sure if you mean me, Satya. But I do mean literally. The consecrated Eucharist becomes the Real Presence, the body and blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. It is considered appropriate and merit-worthy to pray to and reverence the consecrated Eucharist as Jesus himself. As if he stood in the room. Because he is. When I say "literally" that is exactly what I mean.

Now, it still looks like bread. It still tastes like bread (and rather dull bread at that). But the key is in the word "transubstantiation." It is the substance which changes, not the form. The Eucharist retains the outward form of bread and wine. If you put it under a microscope or something, it will still look like bread and wine. The wine, I can tell you from experience, still definitely contains alcohol. But we believe that in this one very special case, "walks like a duck, quacks like a duck" does not actually mean "it's a duck." The denominations that believe in transubstantiation believe that despite the outward appearance, what the Eucharist is, what it really is, is the body and blood of Christ. We don't understand it fully - it's considered one of the great mysteries of the faith - but we believe in the scriptural accounts and the instructions Jesus gave us.

Substantia has never been something that is testable. Any tests you could do would only reveal information about the forma. I can never prove that the Eucharist is Jesus, but equally it could never be disproved.* The theology is heavily Greek-influenced and quite a fascinating read. It's also very, very old. Christians were being thrown to the lions by Romans for being cannibals a thousand years before marriage was sanctified, and they died rather gruesome deaths rather than explain "No, no, it's just bread, we're just remembering him."

Luke 22, 1 Corinthians 11, Hebrews 9. All mention the passage of the Final Pasover, where Christ specifically says that he took bread saying "THIS IS MY BODY, WHICH I GIVE TO YOU, do this in rememberance of me," etc. etc. Christ took his literal body into heaven when he resurrected; how could we be consuming it here on Earth? also, how could Christ have any body at all left, considering how many times we have eaten it? Evidence seems pretty overwhelming against transsubstantiation.

Matthew 26 and Mark 14 also contain accounts of the Last Supper. You'll note that in 1 Corinthians, Paul reminds them that those who eat the bread or drink the cup in an unworthy manner will be responsible for the body and blood of the Lord (11:27). You're asking questions that have been answered many times over in the past two thousand years as if they're new and shocking.

You say you believe in a God who made the whole world, out of nothing, in six days (but he made it look like 14 billion years for the heck of it). You say he exists outside of time and space. Presumably you believe in the miracle of the loaves and the fishes. But you can't swallow that he could work similar miracles with his own flesh? The Eucharist exists in kairos, the eternal present of God. It's not separate from the crucifixion, as if we're killing him over and over. It's the same thing, the exact same thing. We enter into his death and resurrection, in his own time.

I'm familiar with the same scriptures you are, that's the point we've been trying to make. You are interpreting, and it's not at all clear to anyone but you that "this is exactly what the Bible means".




* No one needs to make any jokes about invisible unicorns. I'm quite well aware of them, thank you.

[Satya]

I hate to make all that effort in vain EL, but no, I wasn't talking to you.

[Crazy Tom: C Toon]

You say you believe in a God who made the whole world, out of nothing, in six days (but he made it look like 14 billion years for the heck of it). You say he exists outside of time and space. Presumably you believe in the miracle of the loaves and the fishes. But you can't swallow that he could work similar miracles with his own flesh? The Eucharist exists in kairos, the eternal present of God. It's not separate from the crucifixion, as if we're killing him over and over. It's the same thing, the exact same thing. We enter into his death and resurrection, in his own time.

I'm familiar with the same scriptures you are, that's the point we've been trying to make. You are interpreting, and it's not at all clear to anyone but you that "this is exactly what the Bible means".

The reason why I do not believe God did this little miracle is first of all because the Priest is the one doing this miracle, not God. Secondly, when it referrs to not taking the bread in an unworthy manner, it refers to the person, not the bread. In other words, do not have sins on your conscience; ask forgiveness, make things right with people before you take the communion. Third, it says nowhere that Christ literally urned the bread into His flesh. It just says that he broke bread. If it meant it your way, it probably would have said something like, "and, transforming the bread into his own flesh, he gave it to them saying..."

Now, it still looks like bread. It still tastes like bread (and rather dull bread at that). But the key is in the word "transubstantiation." It is the substance which changes, not the form. The Eucharist retains the outward form of bread and wine. If you put it under a microscope or something, it will still look like bread and wine. The wine, I can tell you from experience, still definitely contains alcohol. But we believe that in this one very special case, "walks like a duck, quacks like a duck" does not actually mean "it's a duck." The denominations that believe in transubstantiation believe that despite the outward appearance, what the Eucharist is, what it really is, is the body and blood of Christ. We don't understand it fully - it's considered one of the great mysteries of the faith - but we believe in the scriptural accounts and the instructions Jesus gave us.

this sounds raher like consubstantiation, not transsubstatiaion. I thought you were Caholic?

[Jayelle]

That is totally transubstantiation. What did you think that it meant? Did you think that Catholics really taste blood?

...cause they don't.

[Crazy Tom: C Toon]

I say it sounds like consubstantiation because (Lutherans?) believe that Christ is present in, on, and around the elements. this is what that sounded like, that's all

[human.]

The reason why I do not believe God did this little miracle is first of all because the Priest is the one doing this miracle, not God.

But this is the reason why I never took the Bible literally. It was men who wrote it, not the Christian god.

[Taalcon]

The reason why I do not believe God did this little miracle is first of all because the Priest is the one doing this miracle, not God.

While I myself am not a believer in Transubstantiation (but respect those who do), I don't understand your logic, CrazyTom. Do you believe that that the miracles attributed to the Prophets in the Bible were done by the power of God working through them, or that they themselves did the miracle?

Those who believe in a Priesthood generally believe that ordinances and sacraments performed under their hands are performed with the authority of God working through them as a medium.

As an example from LDS scripture, is when the Lord says, "And I will lay my hand upon you by the hand of my servant ... and you shall receive my Spirit, the Holy Ghost, even the Comforter, which shall teach you the peaceable things of the kingdom" (D&C 36:2).

Holders of the priesthood are generally understood by those in their respective traditions as authorized representatives of God, physically doing what the Lord himself would do were he bodily physically present among them. The same as the Israelite priests in the Old Testament - they took upon themselves the name of YHWH, and were His representatives among the people.

[Eaquae Legit]

I hate to make all that effort in vain EL, but no, I wasn't talking to you.

Well, that is nice. Hopefully it will help someone else then.

****

Consubstantiation is that the substance of Jesus exists alongside the substance of bread (or within in, if you prefer). He does not himself become fully, bodily present.

Jesus said "This is my body." He took bread and broke it, as we still do today, and then consecrated it. The consecration is when it became his body, when he declared it his body. When he broke it, it was still just bread. Also, be careful with your terms: the Eucharist is transubstantiated, never transformed. The form remains the same.

Also, what Taal said.

[Azarel]

CTCT: Who has said the priest is the one performing the miracle in communion. When I attend mass with my Catholic wife, I see the Priest offer the Bread and Wine upwards and say Through your goodness we have this bread to offer, which earth has given and human hands have made. It will become for us the bread of life. and also...
Through your goodness we have this wine to offer, fruit of the vine and work of human hands. It will become our spiritual drink.

...Spiritual drink... So as EL has pointed out, the form remains as is, but after offering the said 'work of human hands' becomes not only something physical, but spiritual and therefore it nourishes some part of us not reached by food.

I myself am Baptist by upbringing, and not a full member of any congregation at the moment, though I am enjoying Pentecostal services right now, and particularly as they have communion every week. Having spent 2 years with Catholics recently, I am glad to finally be permitted to share communion with people.

The reason I am glad is because I believe it is important to 'Do this, in remembrance of me' because it unites us as believers in not only Jesus, but in the sacrifice he was destined for to remove the barrier of sin in place and bring us closer to God.

I believe that the Catholic view of Communion is acceptable NOT because the Catholics say so, but because I believe in a God who can create ANYTHING he decides to, be it parting the red sea, forming a galaxy, or bringing a very real spiritual (or indeed a physical) element to the Bread and Wine.

I personally have the opinion that Jesus used two of the most common items when people meet together in hospitality (Bread and Wine) and told them to deliberately remind themselves of his actions and message after he was gone. I believe that although Communion has it's important place in Church, any Christians meeting together are able to share communion in fellowship to remember Jesus.

Jesus said "This is my body." He took bread and broke it, as we still do today, and then consecrated it. The consecration is when it became his body, when he declared it his body. When he broke it, it was still just bread. Also, be careful with your terms: the Eucharist is transubstantiated, never transformed. The form remains the same.

This again is acceptable as Jesus, is the WORD of God. When God speaks, things are created. Therefore, as Jesus (being 'the Word', and 'one with the father') was speaking, it goes to say that what he said, became so.

For instance, when Jesus told his disciples they would find a man (not a woman, but a man) carrying water, they would find the place they spend the meal of passover. Or like the time he told them they would find a Colt (donkey) tied up, to take it and bring it to him, I mean, you ever wonder why no one is said to have protested or chased them down for taking the animal? The authority with which God speaks is not like Dictators or voted officials, so easily corrupted or misused. It is solid, real authority able to calm storms and bring people back from the dead. Like Lazarus being brought back from the dead 4 days after dying. The significance of this is that they waited 4 days to officially declare people dead, this way, the pharasees could not dispute the miracle.

Anyway I digress, the point being, Churches and denominations cling strongly to rituals because they revere God. Some may seem over the top, some may not be explained well, but the world would be more peaceful if they were respected. I encourage my Wife in her Catholicism, even though I do not fully grasp the depth of their ritualism and in all honesty I find it too much sometimes. But in other times, I am glad of the structure and guidance. Of course the Protestant in me usually jumps up and down like a crazy 'animal from the muppets' person but, that's the way it is.

[Crazy Tom: C Toon]

OK, EL, please clarify:

You do not believe in consubstantiation, but transsubstantiation. however, you do not believe that the bread literally becomes flesh, it looks and tastes and feels and has the same chemical composition as bread, but is not bread? what? seems to me this gets into metaphysics.

Also, about the miracles thing: maybe you noticed? miracles don't really happen today (except for those bleeding heart liberal preachers who pretend to do miracles on TV)

[Locke_]

What is a miracle and what is not a miracle is not to be decided by us, nor when they will or have occurred.

Is it not miraculous that because a mountain-climber was sick and injured in Afghanistan, he now builds schools around that country? (and in a time when much nonlove is show to and from the nation?)
http://www.amazon.com/Three-Cups-Tea-Mi ... 753&sr=1-1

Is it not miraculous that a doctor roams continents to plant public health facilities?
http://www.amazon.com/Mountains-Beyond- ... 799&sr=1-1

Is it not miraculous that ten members of a foreign church congregation risked getting and ended up arrested last week for trying to bring 33 orphans out of Haiti?

And these are only three attempts at man helping fellow men. Miracles occur everyday. Jesus and God have left it up to us to perform them, through our fragile and short living minds and bodies. It would be easy to say that miracles no longer exist if you only call biblical and divinely intervened acts miraculous. But that is not what God intended for us or the progress of his people.

[Jayelle]

Also, about the miracles thing: maybe you noticed? miracles don't really happen today (except for those bleeding heart liberal preachers who pretend to do miracles on TV)

That's really sad that you believe that. Miracles absolutely happen today.

[Taalcon]

Also, about the miracles thing: maybe you noticed? miracles don't really happen today (except for those bleeding heart liberal preachers who pretend to do miracles on TV)

That's really sad that you believe that. Miracles absolutely happen today.

Completely agreed.

[Jayelle]

Hey Taal - a bit of a side note to do with rituals and practices of your church...
Do LDS have a specific version of the bible they use? I noticed what you quoted in the evolution thread was King James. Is that the standard/endorsed version for the LDS church?

[Taalcon]

JL:

It's the 'official' version institutionally in English, inasmuch as the Church publishes an edition of the KJV that includes footnotes, cross-references to the other standard works of the Church, etc. Copyright is as much a reason for using that translation as anything else. In other languages/countries, they use what's available, but without access to the cross-references, etc.

For my own study, I use many translations. Favorites are the NAB and the NRSV. And the Spanish Reina-Valera

[Eaquae Legit]

OK, EL, please clarify:

You do not believe in consubstantiation, but transsubstantiation. however, you do not believe that the bread literally becomes flesh, it looks and tastes and feels and has the same chemical composition as bread, but is not bread? what? seems to me this gets into metaphysics.

Also, about the miracles thing: maybe you noticed? miracles don't really happen today (except for those bleeding heart liberal preachers who pretend to do miracles on TV)

Where on earth would you get the idea that it's not metaphysical? Good grief, you're trying to convince me that I'm wrong without even understanding the arguments. God is fantastically complex beyond our wildest imaginations. Why would understanding his truth be simplistic?

Consubstantiation is the doctrine that the spirit or presence of Jesus becomes infused in the substantia of bread, which does not cease being bread in either substantia or forma.

Transubstantiation is the doctrine that the Real Presence of Jesus supplants the substantia of the bread, which merely retains the forma or accidentiae of bread. Jesus himself in all his physical and spiritual glory becomes the substantia. That is the difference. It's not actually bread anymore, it just looks like it.

I use the Latin terms because I find they carry less baggage than modern English. They have more precision, they're technical terms. I'd suggest when you get further along in your Latin that you take a medieval Latin theology course - the formulae and vocabulary are highly specific and still used today by theologians of many denominations.

[Crazy Tom: C Toon]

Also, about the miracles thing: maybe you noticed? miracles don't really happen today (except for those bleeding heart liberal preachers who pretend to do miracles on TV)

That's really sad that you believe that. Miracles absolutely happen today.

Completely agreed.

By miracles, I mean events that transcend natural and physical law e.g. walking on water, restoring sight, etc.

EL: since I am so woefully ignorant, please defing the difference b/t substantia and forma. Because as far as I can tell, you are saying the bread both is and is not bread.

[Taalcon]

By miracles, I mean events that transcend natural and physical law e.g. walking on water, restoring sight, etc.

So are we. In my experience, the most sacred miracles occur privately, and intimately as a consequence of Faith - not in order to create it.

[Eaquae Legit]

That wasn't meant as a slur. It's not something taught in most Latin classes because it's not relevant, but since you have an interest in theology, it would aid your studies. Usually it's Classical Latin that gets taught, which is quite different when you get into philosophy and theology. Since it's something I have a relatively rare familiarity with, I figured I'd offer some advice.

Forma is the outward appearance of a thing. Shape, size, texture, taste, colour, etc. are all accidents of a thing. They are attributes, generally detectable by the senses.

Substantia is what a thing is, what its essence is.

With most physical matter, substantia is harmonious with forma. The famous "walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, is a duck" snowclone is a great illustration of this. But imagine for a moment some crazy sci-fi technology could transplant your mind and self and memories into a duck. Would it still be just a duck, even though it waddled and quacked just like one? It's not a perfect analogy, but hopefully you get the general picture of it.

[Wil]

By miracles, I mean events that transcend natural and physical law e.g. walking on water, restoring sight, etc.

So are we. In my experience, the most sacred miracles occur privately, and intimately as a consequence of Faith - not in order to create it.

Basically what he ^ said. What makes you think that those things don't happen? Just because you don't know about them? Just because these miracles that might happen to people aren't common knowledge? Just because they don't happen to you or those around you? I believe those most worthy of receiving the most amazing of miracles are the ones least likely to proclaim them to the world.

Those against spirituality seem to think that others should prove to them that certain things are possible in this world and not that they should look for it themselves. In reality, there is nothing that says there isn't more, and that these miracles could not be brought forth. These things need not be proven to those that disbelieve for they can prove it to themselves with a little open-mindedness and effort.

[Crazy Tom: C Toon]

I get it, but I see nothing in the Bible to support this idea.

Also, EL, even though we disagree on so many points, I still voted u for best mod. Just cuz yr so cool and far better educated than most people I debate with.

[Eaquae Legit]

Thank you.

I wouldn't say there's "nothing." There's plenty to support it. However, it is also possible to read things another way. You look at passages and see just bread, but I look at them and see Eucharist. Who is correct will really have to wait until either we die or Jesus comes again. Give that a try when you're debating. Instead of "there's nothing to support that idea", try "I don't interpret that the same way".

[Crazy Tom: C Toon]

OK then. where does the Bible mention a change in the substantia of the bread in your interpretation?

[Eaquae Legit]

He said "This is my body." He called his body bread and bread his body.

[Taalcon]

And I hope to be corrected if this isn't accurate, but my understanding is that Catholics don't base this doctrine solely on the Biblical source alone, but also through a reliance on the transmission and interpretation of Sacred Tradition of the Apostolic Fathers of the Church. There are other Catholic doctrines which are not recorded in the Biblical Scriptures, but are held to be authoritative on the merits of the Tradition.

In a similar (yet also very different) vein, LDS don't require a doctrine to be spelled out (or even present) in the Biblical texts to be believed, or even to be important. We don't believe God ever declared that he had finished speaking to man in the same manner he did anciently, nor that the compilation we currently have as the Bible ever contained all that God ever caused to be recorded, or wanted us to know. We also see no precedent or requirement for a permanently closed scriptural canon.

This is exemplified in a passage in the Book of Mormon, in which the Lord, speaking through a prophet, speaks to those who refused to listen to or accept more than had already been recorded. "And I do this [continue to speak and allow scripture to be written] that I may prove unto many that I am the same yesterday, today, and forever; and that I speak forth my words according to mine own pleasure. And because that I have spoken one word ye need not suppose that I cannot speak another; for my work is not yet finished; neither shall it be until the end of man, neither from that time henceforth and forever." (2 Nephi 29:8-9)

[Eaquae Legit]

You've got it pretty much right, Dave. Scripture and Tradition are given very similar weight, in no small part because we recognise the role Tradition played in the forming of the scripture canon. Nothing in Tradition or in the Magesterium (the third "pillar") can contradict scripture, but we recognise that there was an active, vibrant Christian community while Paul was travelling or John was having visions, and we take that into account as well.

We believe in a living Tradition, that the Holy Spirit continues to guide and direct the Christian Church. We didn't get one static book, we were given continual access to the living Word Himself. What is contained in the Bible is God's truth and things that go against it can't be doctrine, but doctrine can exist without explicit scriptural description.

Really, there's a reason I have such a fondness for Mormons.

[jotabe]

This is one of the main points of my conflict with the Catholic dogma. I never got to accept that it was meant literally, but symbolically. Even better, a mystical participation on the sacrifice, which is actually halfway... the bread becoming part of his mystical body, same as the church.

In any case, the whole "essence and form" deal reeks of Aristotle. Christianism was heavily contaminated early on with Greek rationalism. While introducing rationalism in a religion isn't in itself a bad thing, the problem arises when this rationalism becomes part of the dogma... because rational thinking evolves, but making dogma evolve can be next to impossible.
Essence and form are concepts that have been long disregarded as pseudoscientific nonsense.

Digression: Think of the burka: it's actually an awesome piece of clothing for the peoples of desert, it covers the whole body protecting it from the abrasion of the environment. It's good sense in primitive society to protect with it the most valuable members of the tribe/clan, that is, women, as they are the ones that will enable the survival across generations. Then, such a rational thing becomes religious commandment, to enforce this protection, and eventually the actual reason for the need of this piece of clothing gets lost. And the protection becomes jail and means to opression.

[Taalcon]

For those interested on the LDS view of communion/sacrament of the Lord's supper:

We partake of it weekly. It is associated with a covenant we make before God.

When we're baptized, we covenant a few things with the Lord as a way of 'officially' acknowledging our acceptance of Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior, and showing our dedication to serving Him. Baptism becomes a sign of this covenant, performed through his designated representatives (holders of the Priesthood). It's sort of like the process of becoming a citizen of another nation and showing through submitting to the process that you recognize the authority of that nation - because in a very real way, that's what we're doing!

In baptism, We witness that we are willing to take upon ourselves the name of Jesus Christ, to always remember Him, and to keep His commandments. (Sort of like a pledge of allegiance to the Lord Jesus Christ). In return for obedience to this covenant, the Lord promises that we will have a remission of sins, become a citizen of His kingdom, and to have His spirit to be with us.

For the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, A holder of the priesthood offers the words of the Sacramental Covenant over the elements before passing it to the congregation.

While our personal and public prayers are never memorized or recited, certain ordinances have specific covenant language connected to it, as given by the Lord. The Sacrament of the Lord's supper is one of them.

When we partake of the sacrament, we view it as a renewal of the covenant made at Baptism - again, you could also view it as a sort of 'pledge of allegiance' to the Savior and His Kingdom. When we partake in a spirit of faith and repentance, elements of the covenant we had personally broken are renewed.

Below are the words connected with the symbolic covenantal elements used: the Bread and Cup

Bread
O God, the Eternal Father, we ask thee in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ, to bless and sanctify this bread to the souls of all those who partake of it, that they may eat in remembrance of the body of thy Son, and witness unto thee, O God, the Eternal Father, that they are willing to take upon them the name of thy Son, and always remember him and keep his commandments which he has given them; that they may always have his Spirit to be with them. Amen.

Cup ( water is generally used now instead of wine)
O God, the Eternal Father, we ask thee in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ, to bless and sanctify this wine [water] to the souls of all those who drink of it, that they may do it in remembrance of the blood of thy Son, which was shed for them; that they may witness unto thee, O God, the Eternal Father, that they do always remember him, that they may have his Spirit to be with them. Amen.