I did not realize Mormons had Eucharist in their service. Interesting.
"Sacrament meeting" is a standard part of the block of Sunday services.
Upvote
0
I did not realize Mormons had Eucharist in their service. Interesting.
So Mormons have a Sacrament of the Eucharist and believe it is blood and body of Jesus Christ - again interesting - I did not know that."Sacrament meeting" is a standard part of the block of Sunday services.
So Mormons have a Sacrament of the Eucharist and believe it is blood and body of Jesus Christ - again interesting - I did not know that.
Ok, thank you and that is kind of what I thought.not exactly. Again, we do not believe in "transmutation" or the Catholic concept that the priest changes the sacrament to the actual body and blood of Christ. We take the sacrament in remembrance of his body which was "shed" for us.
Are you asking if this is like an Unorthodox service or a Utah service?
Although I believe Justin Martyr had insights into the gospel I do not accept his words as scripture. Nevertheless:
It looks like they are already changing his words to eliminate baptism by immersion. Funny you should bring this up. Our priesthood quorems are led by a president.
While we do not believe in the "transmutation" of the sacrament - we do it in remembrance of Him - we are given express council not to partake of the sacrament unless we gain a testimony.
3 Nephi 18:29
29 For whoso eateth and drinketh my flesh and blood unworthily eateth and drinketh damnation to his soul; therefore if ye know that a man is unworthy to eat and drink of my flesh and blood ye shall forbid him.
So yeah, I'd say in the important particulars the LDS church is like the early church. Thank you
Ok, thank you and that is kind of what I thought.
So in response to my earlier posting of a description byan ECF, a Saint talking about something most Catholics today would recognize as a Mass, your reply about that quote containing "important particulars" that are "like" the LDS Church you simply meant that some of the words the Saint used are "like" words heard in the LDS Church - not that the description of the service by the Saint is anything "like" what goes on regularly there today. Which was my point.
I do not use the term "church father." A lot of these men weren't even bishops. Heavenly Father is the Father of the church.
The Latin church used these kinds of terms, and they do rely on concepts these men wrote about to form a basis for much of their theology. I believe that is part of the problem.
I believe I gave a sufficient description of how the LDS service is like what Justin Martyr describes and how it is not. Again we do not believe in the "transmutation" of the sacrament. We believe it is symbolic to remind us of His sacrifice for us, and to signify that by doing so each of us is part of the body of Christ.
In many of the other particulars it seems our organization, including the president of the quorem, and other practices of the sacrament are more like the early church than you care to acknowledge.
Again does your church take the bread and wine/water to those not in attendance?
Not really. I believe it is in contradiction to the words of Christ. I believe this is exactly what he was addressing - "spiritual fathers" not earthly fathers, and told us not to call men "Father" in this way since only Heavenly Father is our Holy Father.Yes, God the Father is the Father of the Church. However scripture is also clear on the use of the word "father" in relation to spiritual fathers. This is a concept familiar to many.
They are part of the ancient church which it cares to follow. For instance a closer examination of the writings of early theologians reveals many different ideas about the godhead - none of which reveal the modern concept of the doctrine of the trinity. It evolved over time.The ECFs demonstrate Catholic continuity with the ancient Church, since it is the ancient Church.
Says you and Justin Martyr.The most ancient, demonstrable, understanding of the bread and wine is the Real Presence doctrine, not the Mormon one.
Actually I understood the initial response as a gross overstatement in attempting to connect the LDS Church with the service described by the Saint - which when asked it appears my initial understanding was correct - the connection was one of merely pointing to a couple of the various words the Saint used and saying "yeah we use those words too" kind of thing - like preside/president.I do not use the term "church father." A lot of these men weren't even bishops. Heavenly Father is the Father of the church. The Latin church used these kinds of terms, and they do rely on concepts these men wrote about to form a basis for much of their theology. I believe that is part of the problem.
I believe I gave a sufficient description of how the LDS service is like what Justin Martyr describes and how it is not. Again we do not believe in the "transmutation" of the sacrament. We believe it is symbolic to remind us of His sacrifice for us, and to signify that by doing so each of us is part of the body of Christ. In many of the other particulars it seems our organization, including the president of the quorem, and other practices of the sacrament are more like the early church than you care to acknowledge. Again does your church take the bread and wine/water to those not in attendance?
Not really. I believe it is in contradiction to the words of Christ. I believe this is exactly what he was addressing - "spiritual fathers" not earthly fathers, and told us not to call men "Father" in this way since only Heavenly Father is our Holy Father.
2 Thessalonians 2:4
4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
They are part of the ancient church which it cares to follow. For instance a closer examination of the writings of early theologians reveals many different ideas about the godhead - none of which reveal the modern concept of the doctrine of the trinity. It evolved over time.
Says you and Justin Martyr.
.
No formal robes.
Wait, last I checked, when I went to the temple for an Endowment session, I was putting on "formal robes"...
I pulled this from your citation:Sorry, that verse doesn't apply. Having spiritual fathers (as the Bible has shown) does not take away from God our Father in Heaven, nor do priests or Popes replace God or show themselves as God. Try again.
Call No Man "Father"? | Catholic Answers
And God himself declares that he will give a fatherly role to Eliakim, the steward of the house of David: "In that day I will call my servant Eliakim, the son of Hilkiah . . . and I will clothe him with [a] robe, and will bind [a] girdle on him, and will commit . . . authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah" (Is. 22:20–21).
You seem to have a misunderstanding of LDS belief. I know you may have heard such things, but they are not taught as doctrine. I do not believe God is married to a "heavenly mother" or that the Holy Ghost is a spirit offspring anymore than the rest of us are his children.From very early on we see the essentials of the Trinity: there is one God, and there are three distinct Persons. Formal defining of the doctrine do not change the foundations. Nowhere do we see ancient Christians believing that the Father is married to a Heavenly Mother, that the Father progressed to/achieved Godhood, that the Holy Ghost is a literal spirit offspring of the Father (and Mother), etc.
No, this is not a "LDS innovation." Many Protestants have rejected the Catholic view regarding the sacrament.Uh no, says history. The LDS view is an innovation found nowhere in the ancient Church of Jesus Christ. Further, the Catholic/Orthodox view finds roots in ancient Judaism as well. See "Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist" for a brief taste.
Firstly, I do not believe Justin Martyr was "a saint." I believe saints are determined by God. I believe the bishop of Rome to be the little horn of Daniel 7 who persecutes the saints of God.Actually I understood the initial response as a gross overstatement in attempting to connect the LDS Church with the service described by the Saint - which when asked it appears my initial understanding was correct - the connection was one of merely pointing to a couple of the various words the Saint used and saying "yeah we use those words too" kind of thing - like preside/president.
Whereas when I initially posted the Saints comments I was claiming that any Catholic would recognize not a couple of words, but the entire description of that service he described nearly two millennium ago as something that goes on hourly today all over the world.
A Baptist could claim they have a "Lord's Supper" and their Pastor "presides" over that too, but that is hardly the same as saying what the Saint described is replayed in EVERY Mass every hour of the day, which was my point.
No you weren't. You were putting on robes of righteousness which symbolize those in Revelation. It is to teach us - not to set us apart from anyone else - every participant dons them. Obviously they are not worn in services nor in public - except by mockers.