Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

What? No authority needed to pass the sacrament?


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

So if you're only trying to convince yourself, you're in good shape ;) 

Why the personal insults?

Link to comment
2 hours ago, JAHS said:

President Heber J. Grant

Thanks. The link takes me to the home page. Can you be more specific?

Link to comment
1 minute ago, Bernard Gui said:

Why the personal insults?

Hardly an insult. Just having a little fun.

However, this thread has been interesting. The OP is stated as fact. Many have engaged in conversation and debate about the interpretation of the scriptures you cited and you have seemed annoyed the entire time, digging in your heels, not to discuss, but prove why you're right. It seems that generally an OP is meant to open discussion but you seem annoyed by it.

Link to comment
13 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Jesus gave the sacrament individually to the 12 and then told them to do the same thing to the multitude. There is nothing in the context that would indicate they passed it among themselves. Deacons do this because they hold the Priesthood and are authorized to assist the Priests. 

My take from the scriptures describing the Last Supper is that Jesus passed it to them one by one, as He did when He washed the feet of the disciples and passed the sop to Judas. Yes, i think there are a lot of good reasons why the deacons assist and the bishop relies on the priesthood structure as he presides over the meeting rather than build an auxiliary system (except in extenuating circumstances).

Link to comment
13 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

CFR, please. Deacons, teachers, and priests were not pressed into service in the 40s.

I don't have a CFR, but I think it constitutes and extenuating circumstance when women can pick up a normally priesthood function (I've seen it elsewhere, such a clerks and secretaries).

Link to comment
12 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I would have to disagree with you on that. To me it is very plain.

The only thing that that verse plainly says is that the 12 disciples administered the sacrament in some way.  It doesn't say whether or not they handed it to every person individually or simply handed it to the person closest to them and then had everyone pass it along from one person to the next until all had had a chance to partake.  It doesn't say how the sacrament was administered at all.  It definitely doesn't say that the sacrament was administered in the same way that we currently administer it today.

You have to make a lot of assumptions for that verse to say what you are arguing it says.  It's just not in there.

 

Link to comment
13 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

What cultural reasons are you referring to? 

BTW, it is the duty of the 12 Apostle to administer the sacrament per D&C. The bishops, priests, teachers, and deacons do the local work with their authorization when they are ordained and set apart..

This is a hypothetical. Were a bishop to go outside the priesthood structure he has for running the sacrament meeting just to keep up with the times or make a statement (calling and assigning or even setting apart women to pass the sacrament for example), that in my mind would be improper and taking focus off of the sacrament.

Link to comment
12 hours ago, Rain said:

If we are going to go solely on this passage then we need to go with only the apostles passing the sacrament as well. Note that he doesn't say anything about delegating when apostles are not there.

So one of the apostles needs to do this.

It also does not mention HOW he gives it. It mentions nothing abut giving it to someone else before the people get it. 

It also doesn't mention if they were in tight rows or lose scattered (am not reading more than the passage quoted here so feel free if it specifically says elsewhere how they sat) 

So he specifically says "even as I have done" to the diciples. No mention of any seventies, elders, priests, deacons or teachers. 

Again with the deciples.

I am with Hamba on this. I am open to others passing under the direction of the prophet. I'm also open that only those ordained can pass.

This passage shows only that the apostles were supposed to bless and give the bread and water. We know not a thing about how it was given. With the lack of info given in the passage it could have been done exaxtly as mentioned above in a Catholic church. It could have been done by the apostles winding around the people. Since it only mentions one cup one of the apostles could have given it to the first person and then that one cup was passed person to person by everyone there. Maybe each apostle gave it to 12 different people within the crowd and they in turn gave it to others. 

There is a glaring lack of the how in this passage so we really can't use it as much of a reference for today.

I am not making the claim that what they did is exactly what we do today. I am simply saying that there is scriptural evidence that supports passing the sacrament is part of the priestly ordinance. That’s all. 

We should also note this when the first modern apostles were called. We have the authority to administer the sacrament because of the priesthood keys held by the First Presidency and Quorum of Twelve which are conferred on bishops and Aaronic priesthood holders at the local level. 

Quote

An apostle is an elder, and it is his calling to baptize;
And to ordain other elders, priests, teachers, and deacons;
And to administer bread and wine--the emblems of the flesh and blood of Christ--

I also note the precedent in the temple...when sacred things are commanded to be “given,” they are taken individually to each member personally by the ordained officiators who stand in the place of God and his authorized representatives. I think that is a type  and symbol of how personal and individualized the Atonement of Jesus Christ is. 

Someone noted how they thought it was a beautiful thing to see people come to the altar and havin the Host placed on their tongues by the priest. It is a beautiful scene. I think the way we do it is also beautiful and symbolic of many unique aspects of our theology. 

Edited by Bernard Gui
Link to comment
19 hours ago, ksfisher said:

26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.
27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

(Matthew 26)

The same pattern, that of administering first the bread and then the wine, is also followed by the Savior in 3 Nephi 18.  

Following the pattern that the Savior set forth would seem to place us on sound docrtrinal footing in this matter.

Thank you. You have stated it much better than I have. I am reminded how sacred things are given personally by officiators in the temple.

Link to comment
29 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Hardly an insult. Just having a little fun.

However, this thread has been interesting. The OP is stated as fact. Many have engaged in conversation and debate about the interpretation of the scriptures you cited and you have seemed annoyed the entire time, digging in your heels, not to discuss, but prove why you're right. It seems that generally an OP is meant to open discussion but you seem annoyed by it.

You may be misreading annoyance where none exists. 

Edited by Bernard Gui
Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

You may be misreading annoyance where none exists. 

Perhaps.

You may not intend it, but it comes through in your responses.

FTR- While I don't agree, I have no problem with your opinion about the interpretation of 3 Nephi. The only issue I have is that you seem to think your interpretation is absolute fact, and not merely your opinion. I apologize if I've misread you.

Link to comment
5 hours ago, CV75 said:

My take from the scriptures describing the Last Supper is that Jesus passed it to them one by one, as He did when He washed the feet of the disciples and passed the sop to Judas. Yes, i think there are a lot of good reasons why the deacons assist and the bishop relies on the priesthood structure as he presides over the meeting rather than build an auxiliary system (except in extenuating circumstances).

Yes. The deacon receives the tray from the priest and then distributes it to the members. The members don’t go up and take the tray from the priest and pass it along the rows. This is compatible with 3 Nephi 18. 

Edited by Bernard Gui
Link to comment
30 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Perhaps.

You may not intend it, but it comes through in your responses.

FTR- While I don't agree, I have no problem with your opinion about the interpretation of 3 Nephi. The only issue I have is that you seem to think your interpretation is absolute fact, and not merely your opinion. I apologize if I've misread you.

.

No worries. Lots of things come through responses, even yours. But enough derailing. BTW, you are mistaken that I have not said this is my opinion.

Edited by Bernard Gui
Link to comment
50 minutes ago, bluebell said:

The only thing that that verse plainly says is that the 12 disciples administered the sacrament in some way.  It doesn't say whether or not they handed it to every person individually or simply handed it to the person closest to them and then had everyone pass it along from one person to the next until all had had a chance to partake.  It doesn't say how the sacrament was administered at all.  It definitely doesn't say that the sacrament was administered in the same way that we currently administer it today.

You have to make a lot of assumptions for that verse to say what you are arguing it says.  It's just not in there.

 

We’re going round and round, but for brevity and clarity of what I see in the verses, Jesus sent for the emblems, he personally broke the bread, blessed the emblems, and gave (passed, if you will) them to the disciples. He then told them to follow his example and give them to the multitude the way he had done to them with his approval.

Another example of this pattern of administering sacred ordinances is how ordained officiators take sacred things to each individual member in the temple. The pattern and wording is strikingly similar. I think the way we do this with our sacrament is compatible and the deacons are performing a priestly duty for which they are ordained. You may not see it this way.

Edited by Bernard Gui
Link to comment
7 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Yes. The deacon receives the tray from the priest and then dopistrupibutes it to the members. The members don’t go up and take the tray from the priest and pass it along the rows. This is compatible with 3 Nephi 18. 

Yes, compatible with but not directed by. I think the scriptures that teach about the various priesthood offices, duties, responsibilities, keys etc. are of greater support for the bishop presiding over the sacrament meeting and using the priesthood office structure rather than auxiliary assignments and callings to assist him. I recognize that there are extenuating circumstances requiring exceptions.

In the spirit of the Church supporting the family, a priesthood holder having permission to hold the sacrament in his home (which is unusual according to Handbook 2) would pass it individually to family members unless he was unable to do so, at which point a female member might assist.

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

That hadn't occurred to me, but I think you're right in seeing it in this manner.

I want to give more thought to the symbolism of the way we administer our ordinances.

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Yes, compatible with but not directed by. I think the scriptures that teach about the various priesthood offices, duties, responsibilities, keys etc. are of greater support for the bishop presiding over the sacrament meeting and using the priesthood office structure rather than auxiliary assignments and callings to assist him. I recognize that there are extenuating circumstances requiring exceptions.

In the spirit of the Church supporting the family, a priesthood holder having permission to hold the sacrament in his home (which is unusual according to Handbook 2) would pass it individually to family members unless he was unable to do so, at which point a female member might assist.

Yes. Thanks for the example of sacrament in the home. I think it’s significant that someone from the congregation doesn’t take it on themselves to save out some bread and cups of water to pass on to someone who is not in the meeting...as an extension of passing down the row. 

 In the wards in which I have done this, priesthood holders are assigned to take the sacrament to the homes under the direction of the bishop. We even had a little kit supplied by the Church for this purpose. Priests loved doing this act of service.

Link to comment
13 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Here's where we disagree. Jesus administered personally to the 12 and authorized them to administer personally to the multitude...

So, the deacons, teachers, and priests stand in the place of Jesus and act in his name (as do all when they perform ordinances), administering and giving the emblems of his atonement to the members of the Church, having received his authority to do so. I think 3 Nephi 18 is a canonical reference that supports this. You may disagree....

I don't think it is clear that Jesus personally passed the sacrament to all 12 disciples, or if he passed it to them (in general) and they passed it to each other, as depicted in most last supper videos made by the church.

Further, with a careful reading of 3 Nephi 18, it appears that Jesus had the disciples pass the sacrament to the congregation before they ever were ordained

Quote

 

3 And when the disciples had come with bread and wine, he took of the bread and brake and blessed it; and he gave unto the disciples and commanded that they should eat.

4 And when they had eaten and were filled, he commanded that they should give unto the multitude.

5 And when the multitude had eaten and were filled, he said unto the disciples: Behold there shall one be ordained among you, and to him will I give power that he shall break bread and bless it and give it unto the people of my church, unto all those who shall believe and be baptized in my name.

 

In verse 4, he commanded them to give to the multitude.  But it becomes clear in verse 5 that he had not yet ordained them to administer the sacrament.  This is pretty compelling evidence that no ordination is required to pass to the multitude.  Jesus himself broke and blessed the sacrament, as he was the only one with authority to do so at the time; but as the only one with authority, he himself did not pass it to the multitude.  He allowed other's who were not ordained to do so.  

Just as it says in verse 5, the same person who is ordained to break and bless the sacrament [the priest] is the only one ordained to give it to the multitude.  Jesus set that example.  He broke, blessed, and gave the sacrament to the multitude as the only one with authority to do so.  It is clear that how it is distributed throughout the multitude requires no authority. 

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, pogi said:

In verse 4, he commanded them to give to the multitude.  But it becomes clear in verse 5 that he had not yet ordained them to administer the sacrament.  This is pretty compelling evidence that no ordination is required to pass to the multitude.  Jesus himself broke and blessed the sacrament, as he was the only one with authority to do so at the time; but as the only one with authority, he himself did not pass it to the multitude.  He allowed other's who were not ordained to do so.  

Verse 5 speaks only about an ordination necessary to bless the sacrament.  It does not say anything, either way, about the authority needed to pass the sacrament to the multitude.

We could look at this today and say that while our deacons and teachers have the authority to pass the sacrament to the congregation, they lack the authority necessary to bless.

Link to comment
9 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Verse 5 speaks only about an ordination necessary to bless the sacrament.  It does not say anything, either way, about the authority needed to pass the sacrament to the multitude.

We could look at this today and say that while our deacons and teachers have the authority to pass the sacrament to the congregation, they lack the authority necessary to bless.

Verse 5 speaks of authority or power to “give” the sacrament.  BG has interpreted that to mean pass. That. Seems to be the basis of his whole argument that authority is required to pass based on these passages. 

No where in scripture does it speak of authority to pass, unless you interpret “give” in vs 5 as pass.  And in this instance it is clear that only the priest who blesses the sacrament is the only one with authority to “give”.

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

We’re going round and round, but for brevity and clarity of what I see in the verses, Jesus sent for the emblems, he personally broke the bread, blessed the emblems, and gave (passed, if you will) them to the disciples. He then told them to follow his example and give them to the multitude the way he had done to them with his approval.

Another example of this pattern of administering sacred ordinances is how ordained officiators take sacred things to each individual member in the temple. The pattern and wording is strikingly similar. I think the way we do this with our sacrament is compatible and the deacons are performing a priestly duty for which they are ordained. You may not see it this way.

I also agree that what we do in our wards is compatible with the verse in question.  

But, since the verse doesn't ever say how the sacrament was distributed, we could other things and still be compatible with it.  If girls took the trays from the priests and handed them out to the congregation (something I'm not advocating for), it would still be compatible with this verse.

Link to comment

 

2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I am not making the claim that what they did is exactly what we do today. I am simply saying that there is scriptural evidence that supports passing the sacrament is part of the priestly ordinance. That’s all. 

We should also note this when the first modern apostles were called. We have the authority to administer the sacrament because of the priesthood keys held by the Firsy Presidency and Quorum of Twelve which are conferred on bishops and Aaronic priesthood holders at the local level. 

I also note the precedent in the temple...when sacred things are commanded to be “given,” they are taken individually to each member personally by the ordained officiators who stand in the place of God and his authorized representatives. I think that is a type  and symbol of how personal and individualized the Atonement of Jesus Christ is. 

Someone noted how they thought it was a beautiful thing to see people come to the altar and havin the Host placed on their tongues by the priest. It is a beautiful scene. I think the way we do it is also beautiful and symbolic of many unique aspects of our theology. 

OK, so so my assumption is that somehow the women in initiatory were given the authority to administer those things. Is that true?  If so does it apply to those women doing the endowments as well?  Are they "ordained" or something else?  If they are not ordained then what you are saying above only applies to half of us. 

I have to disagree that there is "evidence".  I see how you see it as evidence.  I see it as something that points out we really don't have evidence to make a call on it - in other words, it is missing so much that it is only evidence that that situation doesn't fit our situation.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Rain said:

 

OK, so so my assumption is that somehow the women in initiatory were given the authority to administer those things. Is that true?  If so does it apply to those women doing the endowments as well?  Are they "ordained" or something else?  If they are not ordained then what you are saying above only applies to half of us. 

I have to disagree that there is "evidence".  I see how you see it as evidence.  I see it as something that points out we really don't have evidence to make a call on it - in other words, it is missing so much that it is only evidence that that situation doesn't fit our situation.

I'm reminded of these quotes by Elder Oaks...

Quote

In an address to the Relief Society, President Joseph Fielding Smith, then President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, said this: “While the sisters have not been given the Priesthood, it has not been conferred upon them, that does not mean that the Lord has not given unto them authority. … A person may have authority given to him, or a sister to her, to do certain things in the Church that are binding and absolutely necessary for our salvation, such as the work that our sisters do in the House of the Lord. They have authority given unto them to do some great and wonderful things, sacred unto the Lord, and binding just as thoroughly as are the blessings that are given by the men who hold the Priesthood.”

We are not accustomed to speaking of women having the authority of the priesthood in their Church callings, but what other authority can it be? When a woman—young or old—is set apart to preach the gospel as a full-time missionary, she is given priesthood authority to perform a priesthood function. The same is true when a woman is set apart to function as an officer or teacher in a Church organization under the direction of one who holds the keys of the priesthood. Whoever functions in an office or calling received from one who holds priesthood keys exercises priesthood authority in performing her or his assigned duties.

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2014/04/the-keys-and-authority-of-the-priesthood?lang=eng

 

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...