Bread and Water in the LDS Sacrament

[RevTestament]

7 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

(don't forget that it was the Catholic Church that put the Bible together 300 years after Christ... the doctrines were all there prior to the official promulgation of the Bible).  The Bible is the canonical scripture that supports the doctrines given by the Apostles.

I was under the impression that Constantine commissioned the first "Bible." 

Apostles did not baptize with "holy" water, and every single discussion of water in connection with baptism in the Bible reveals baptism by submersion...  The early Catholic too baptized by submersion.

[MiserereNobis]

7 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Apostles did not baptize with "holy" water, and every single discussion of water in connection with baptism in the Bible reveals baptism by submersion...  The early Catholic too baptized by submersion.

Catholics do not require holy water for baptism.  Likewise, there is no prohibition against baptism by immersion in Catholicism -- immersion is also considered valid.

[MiserereNobis]

12 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

I was under the impression that Constantine commissioned the first "Bible." 

Impressions don't always match history

Do some research on the Synod of Hippo and the Council of Carthage (397).

[RevTestament]

18 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Impressions don't always match history

Do some research on the Synod of Hippo and the Council of Carthage (397).

They are after Constantine. Are you saying Constantine did not commission a Bible?

[RevTestament]

25 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Catholics do not require holy water for baptism.  Likewise, there is no prohibition against baptism by immersion in Catholicism -- immersion is also considered valid.

To represent that Roman Catholics got their modern practice of baptism from the apostles is just not true. That is my point. There is no early record of infant baptism. That started with the introduction of the doctrine of original sin. There was no baptism with holy water, and baptism was by submersion. Holy water represents a change in matter. Do you agree?

[MiserereNobis]

3 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

To represent that Roman Catholics got their modern practice of baptism from the apostles is just not true. That is my point. There is no early record of infant baptism. That started with the introduction of the doctrine of original sin. There was no baptism with holy water, and baptism was by submersion. Holy water represents a change in matter. Do you agree?

But holy water is NOT required for baptism, so there is no change in matter.  Also, baptism by immersion is still totally acceptable, it's just not the norm.

[MiserereNobis]

5 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

To represent that Roman Catholics got their modern practice of baptism from the apostles is just not true.

Well, obviously on this Catholics and Mormons disagree

ETA: "modern" is an odd word choice here, by the way...

Edited June 4, 2017 by MiserereNobis

[MiserereNobis]

15 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

They are after Constantine. Are you saying Constantine did not commission a Bible?

The canonical Bible was put together 60 years after Constantine's death.

ETA: Like I said, do some research on the Synod of Hippo and the Council of Carthage in 397.

Edited June 4, 2017 by MiserereNobis

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

This representation of the Catholic belief of transubstantiation is similar to representing LDS exaltation by saying "Mormons are going to get their own planet and have celestial sex for eternity."

I still have a hard time understanding why that would be a bad missionary approach.

Except for the "one planet" thing.....talk about thinking small.........

[RevTestament]

12 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Well, obviously on this Catholics and Mormons disagree

ETA: "modern" is an odd word choice here, by the way...

OK. Circa 1100 AD is when baptism by sprinkling with holy water became the thing. The baptismal font of the Lateran was eliminated, and baptism by sprinkling with "holy" water largely replaced immersion. Is that fair enough, or did I get something terribly wrong?

[MiserereNobis]

3 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

OK. Circa 1100 AD is when baptism by sprinkling with holy water became the thing. The baptismal font of the Lateran was eliminated, and baptism by sprinkling with "holy" water largely replaced immersion. Is that fair enough, or did I get something terribly wrong?

First of all, you keep focusing on holy water, but this is the third time that I am pointing out that holy water is not required for baptism.  The matter of baptism is water, "holy" or not.  So please drop the holy water angle, because it is incorrect.  Holy water is NOT required for baptism.

As far as immersion, I've already said that it has always been valid, so the question is really if non-immersion is valid.  While I'm not going to argue this point with you, I will say that your date of 1100 is wrong.  Here is a nice source of information concerning non-immersion baptism in the early Church:

Quote

Hippolytus of Rome said, "If water is scarce, whether as a constant condition or on occasion, then use whatever water is available" (The Apostolic Tradition, 21 [A.D. 215]). Pope Cornelius I wrote that as Novatian was about to die, "he received baptism in the bed where he lay, by pouring" (Letter to Fabius of Antioch [A.D. 251]; cited in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 6:4311). 

Cyprian advised that no one should be "disturbed because the sick are poured upon or sprinkled when they receive the Lord’s grace" (Letter to a Certain Magnus 69:12 [A.D. 255]). Tertullian described baptism by saying that it is done "with so great simplicity, without pomp, without any considerable novelty of preparation, and finally, without cost, a man is baptized in water, and amid the utterance of some few words, is sprinkled, and then rises again, not much (or not at all) the cleaner" (On Baptism, 2 [A.D. 203]). Obviously, Tertullian did not consider baptism by immersion the only valid form, since he says one is only sprinkled and thus comes up from the water "not much (or not at all) the cleaner." 

And then there is this:

Quote

Then there is the artistic evidence. Much of the earliest Christian artwork depicts baptism—but not baptism by immersion! If the recipient of the sacrament is in a river, he is shown standing in the river while water is poured over his head from a cup or shell. Tile mosaics in ancient churches and paintings in the catacombs depict baptism by pouring. Baptisteries in early cemeteries are clear witnesses to baptisms by infusion. The entire record of the early Church—as shown in the New Testament, in other writings, and in monumental evidence—indicates the mode of baptism was not restricted to immersion. 

Other archaeological evidence confirms the same thing. An early Christian baptistery was found in a church in Jesus’ hometown of Nazareth, yet this baptistery, which dates from the second century, was too small and narrow in which to immerse a person. 

Again, my point is not really to argue about immersion vs. non-immersion, because obviously Catholics and LDS disagree about it.  I just want you to see that non-immersion baptism has a long history in Christianity, and is not "modern."

[RevTestament]

27 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

But holy water is NOT required for baptism, so there is no change in matter.  Also, baptism by immersion is still totally acceptable, it's just not the norm.

LDS don't require bread to be used for "communion"/sacrament, but you consider use of anything else a change in matter. When millions of Catholics have been baptized by sprinkling with "holy" water, I'm just wondering how you can maintain it is not a change in matter?

[MiserereNobis]

1 minute ago, RevTestament said:

LDS don't require bread to be used for "communion"/sacrament, but you consider use of anything else a change in matter. When millions of Catholics have been baptized by sprinkling with "holy" water, I'm just wondering how you can maintain it is not a change in matter?

We must be talking past each other because I'm not sure how you're not understanding me.  Baptism must be by water.  It can be with holy water (meaning water mixed with salt and blessed by a priest) or with regular water.  BOTH are valid matter for baptism.  Thus, there is no "change" as you are claiming.  I can be baptized in a river or in a chapel from a basin.  BOTH are valid baptisms.  It's not like in the early Church you could only be baptized by "non-holy" water and now there has been a change that states you have to be baptized by holy water.  Such a change has NOT occurred.  To say it again, you can baptized by immersion in "non-holy" water and that baptism is completely and totally valid in Catholicism.  So, yes, there has been no change.

The matter for baptism is water.  The matter for Eucharist is unleavened wheat bread and pure grape wine.  These are two different sacraments (ordinances) so I'm not sure why you bring one up when we are discussing the other.

Again, I think we may be talking past each other or I am not understanding you.

[RevTestament]

19 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

First of all, you keep focusing on holy water, but this is the third time that I am pointing out that holy water is not required for baptism.  The matter of baptism is water, "holy" or not.  So please drop the holy water angle, because it is incorrect.  Holy water is NOT required for baptism.

I'm not trying to start an argument. I like you. But I guess we'll just have to disagree. Holy water has salt added to it, and dates back to pagan rites. I will drop the subject because I am really not trying to offend you, but it is not "just water." I consider it a change, but I understand your view.

Quote

As far as immersion, I've already said that it has always been valid, so the question is really if non-immersion is valid.  While I'm not going to argue this point with you, I will say that your date of 1100 is wrong.  Here is a nice source of information concerning non-immersion baptism in the early Church:

And then there is this:

Again, my point is not really to argue about immersion vs. non-immersion, because obviously Catholics and LDS disagree about it.  I just want you to see that non-immersion baptism has a long history in Christianity, and is not "modern."

I didn't see a date in your link. I do believe it was within 200 yrs of 1100 that baptism by sprinkling largely replaced immersion, but I will consider contrary historical evidence. I will concede that other orthodox churches may have adopted non-immersion forms before the Roman Catholic Church.

However, like you I don't really care to debate the topic, so will drop it. Have a good evening MiserereNobis.

[MiserereNobis]

Just now, RevTestament said:

However, like you I don't really care to debate the topic, so will drop it. Have a good evening MiserereNobis.

And a good evening to you, too, RevTestament

 

[Jane_Doe]

2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

This representation of the Catholic belief of transubstantiation is similar to representing LDS exaltation by saying "Mormons are going to get their own planet and have celestial sex for eternity."

MN, could you explain how this is a mischaracterization?  I've tried before to understand, but admittedly failed.  Could you help me out?  I really would like to understand our Catholic brothers and sisters better. 

[mfbukowski]

On 6/2/2017 at 8:45 AM, MiserereNobis said:

Finally, feel free to share your personal experiences with receiving sacrament.  In Catholicism, it is the pinnacle of Mass as it is the literal reenactment of Christ's atonement.  For me, it shows the infinite love of God.  The transcendent God becomes immanent, and He choses for His immanence such basic elements as bread and wine, just like when He chose to incarnate into a lowly carpenter's family.  And then, when I receive communion, He comes into me and becomes a part of me.  It is beautiful and humbling.

Just found this- I am sure all the questions have been answered already

In Catholicism of course since transubstantiation occurs, obviously the elements have to be the same.

For us since the sacrament is symbolic, that is not necessary.  The elements are irrelevant- it is the action in remembrance of Christ is what matters.  Physical substance does not enter the picture, it is purely spiritual content.

For me, the experience of the sacrament is no different than the Eucharist.

For me, the wheat in the bread consisting of individual grains represent all of us ground up by the world, annointed with oil and baked in the crucible of purification into one people, one with Christ made ourselves into the Body of Christ.  I feel joy in the presence of the congregation as other parts of the Body of Christ, all participating in an active way, each with his or her own function and calling, just as the body functions, and here we are unified in love.

I feel unified with God strongly- I feel his presence.   I feel he is within me and "without" me (outside me) in the congregation which surrounds me.  Every little sound, or even a child's cry actually enforces the impression of our humanity in the presence of God.  And yes, the transcendent becomes immanent as our Father becomes literally our Father- the person beside me in full humanity is Christ himself/herself.

There is the vertical upward attention fused with the horizontal awareness as in meditation- the pure crystaline light from above turned outward through the surrounding congregation..  Full awareness of the center and the surroundings all at once, every nuance, every ripple of energy expressed as matter singing the same song.

For us, the atonement is enacted in the temple and includes us in a very personal way.  We are as Adam and Eve going through every step of progression individually.

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, PeterPear said:

Unlike in Catholicism, we don't believe the sacramental bread and water upon consumption actually turn into the flesh and blood of Christ. We're not cannibals. And neither was Christ advocating such.

That Catholic belief is based off the false interpretation of scripture. Many turned away from the Lord during his ministry because they couldn't understand the symbolism of what he was teaching, comparing the manna He gave to the Children of Israel to consuming His own flesh:

51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?

53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?

The sacrament is symbolic. Not a literal consumption of Christ's flesh and blood.

This is why the Lord revealed through the Prophet Joseph Smith that:

".. it mattereth not what ye shall eat or what ye shall drink when ye partake of the sacrament, if it so be that ye do it with an eye single to my glory—remembering unto the Father my body which was laid down for you, and my blood which was shed for the remission of your sins."

It's unfortunate that Catholicism is so ritualistic that the sacrament cannot be administered only with specific items. Not that it has the Priesthood Authority to do so anyway. A point completely missed.

This is trash.

If I had my way you would be thrown off the board for this .... cr...ud.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

OK. Circa 1100 AD is when baptism by sprinkling with holy water became the thing. The baptismal font of the Lateran was eliminated, and baptism by sprinkling with "holy" water largely replaced immersion. Is that fair enough, or did I get something terribly wrong?

Yes, holy water is not required.   In fact in case of an emergency or the imminent death of the child, anyone may baptize 

Why would you not take his word for it?

Quote

The remote matter of baptism, then, is water, and this taken in its usual meaning. Theologians tell us consequently that what men would ordinarily declare water is valid baptismal material, whether it be water of the sea, or fountain, or well, or marsh; whether it be clear or turbid; fresh or salty; hot or cold; colored or uncolored. Water derived from melted ice, snow, or hail is also valid. If, however, ice, snow, or hail be not melted, they do not come under the designation water. Dew, sulfur or mineral water, and that which is derived from steam are also valid matter for this sacrament. As to a mixture of water and some other material, it is held as proper matter, provided the water certainly predominates and the mixture would still be called water. Invalid matter is every liquid that is not usually designated true water. Such are oil, saliva, wine, tears, milk, sweat, beer, soup, the juice of fruits, and any mixture containing water which men would no longer call water. When it is doubtful whether a liquid could really be called water, it is not permissible to use it for baptism except in case of absolute necessity when no certainly valid matter can be obtained.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm#vi

[mfbukowski]

On 6/2/2017 at 8:15 PM, MiserereNobis said:

Ok, I saw this quote before, I guess for whatever reason I just didn't take it literally as to mean you can eat anything.  Thanks for clarifying!

In our ward we have a few children with celiac disease, and so along with the bread a few pieces of rice chex cereal are also blessed and passed.

 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

The canonical Bible was put together 60 years after Constantine's death.

ETA: Like I said, do some research on the Synod of Hippo and the Council of Carthage in 397.

Agreed.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

But holy water is NOT required for baptism, so there is no change in matter.  Also, baptism by immersion is still totally acceptable, it's just not the norm.

The Los Angeles cathedral has a baptismal font for immersion baptisms.  http://www.olacathedral.org/cathedral/art/baptismalfont.html

[mfbukowski]

On 6/2/2017 at 10:16 AM, MiserereNobis said:

Interesting.  Has anyone had the LDS sacrament with something other than water or bread?  Is there some sort of rule that you have to use water and bread on Sunday despite this scripture?

We actually had a case where someone forgot to bring bread for a scout camp out and the bishop ok'd using a chocolate bar

When authorized, we can bless the sacrament wherever we are since all worthy males hold the priesthood,

[mfbukowski]

On 6/2/2017 at 10:18 AM, MiserereNobis said:

Because of this, the priest adds a little bit of water to the wine during Mass.

Ah yes as an altar boy I remember carrying those cruets up and watching the priest pour the full cruet of wine into the chalice and add the water.

[mfbukowski]

On 6/2/2017 at 10:46 AM, Tacenda said:

I can imagine wine in our little Sacrament cups with little ones spilling, even adults spilling on themselves. Oh the stains. I don't go to enough churches not of my faith. Do they serve the wine like that, or in one large cup for all to receive. Then there is the problem with germs or contracting colds etc.

How many hands does a temple worker shake?