Rep. Patrick Kennedy Denied Communion

[Marcia]

Yet we don't mind the laying aside of hermeneutics when it suits our own positions, such as the "men as pastors" topic. BTW, does your hymnal have "We Three Kings" in it? Totally bad hermeneutics. Even the use of the word "Lord" isn't the best hermeneutical application.

We frequently put hermeneutics aside and say "well, scripture clearly says...". Yet here scripture clearly says "my body" and "my blood" and all of a sudden, hermeneutics becomes the weapon of choice.

I showed how this is not to be the body and blood of Jesus they were to eat. For one thing, Jesus was still alive when he said "This is my body, etc."

If you think it is, then why don't you convert to Catholicism?

 

[Marcia]

So let me get this right...according to you, marcia, we are to discredit St. Ignatius, a disciple of St. John the Apostle who penned the Gospel of John, which contains the bread of life disclosure (John 6). St. Ignatius who again WAS a disciple of St. John the Apostle, we are to "ignore" anything he has to say AND we are to trust YOUR interpretation, b/c you believe it's clear?

IF Christ's promises are true...the Holy Spirit is to protect the Church, guide the Church and to remind the Church of ALL things and St. Ignatius being very much a part of the Church (hence St. John's disciple), would without a doubt give St. Ignatius more insight into St. John's "clear" meaning, than you could, some 2,000 years removed.

in XC
-

The Bible is sufficient for what we need to know, so no, we don't need the writings of Ignatius. If you need Ignatius to support this view, that shows the Bible is not enough to support your view.

 

[Marcia]

First, the whole Roman Catholic case depends upon a strictly literal interpretation of the passage, and so one way to quickly pull the rug out from its defenders is to show that they themselves do not read the text literally. They read John 6 figuratively by not maintaining that (a) Christ is some genuine conglomeration of grain as "bread" -- vv. 48, 51, (b) eating Christ's flesh is an unqualified necessity for salvation -- v. 53, (c) believers actually live within the physical body of Christ -- v. 56, and (d) by eating this bread believers shall never die in history -- v. 58. These are all the "plain" meanings of the words, yet Catholics themselves reject such silly interpretations. Moreover, they can hardly succeed in having others take them seriously if they will not apply their a priori commitment to literalism everywhere else in the Bible. Once they concede that the text determines whether it should be taken as poetic, narrative, apocalyptic, dogmatic, etc., they lose the heart of their case from John 6 (Cf. the discussion below regarding figurative interpretation in the institution of the Lord's Supper).


Second, Roman Catholic appeals to John 6 assume that Christ would have no desire to drive away some of His disciples,[70] but this assumption is false given His own reasons for speaking in parables (Matt. 13:13-16; cf. John 6: 44,65).
Third, the gospel of John provides us with a pattern of Christ's dialogues in which the hearers mistakenly interpret Christ literally, and yet Christ does not explicitly correct their misinterpretations.[71] In John 3, Nicodemus mistakenly interprets Christ literally and falsely in regard to the new birth, and Christ rebukes him for misunderstanding spiritual matters. Similarly, in John 4, the woman at the well mistakenly interprets Christ literally and falsely in regard to "living water," and Christ does not explain his words but rather redirects the discussion.


These patterns match that of the John 6 discussion, except that at least in chapter six, Christ does indicate that he is speaking figuratively, when finally he states, "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life" (v. 63). Karl Keating rejoins that the Protestant interpretation of this verse makes it a "fairy clumsy" circumlocution for "symbolic." Yet Keating himself offers an interpretation which makes the Protestant's case. He argues that Christ is not using "flesh" in the same sense as in vv. 53-59, but rather like John 3:6, in which the contrast is between a spiritual understanding over against a carnal, earthly understanding: "Christ detects in some of his listeners an unsupernatural attitude....[By "flesh," Christ] means instead carnal understanding, as distinguished from spiritual."[72] Protestants heartily agree, and as Leon Morris argues,
there is [in John 6:63] also in the manner of II Cor. 3:6 a contrast between the letter of the words and the spirit. A woodenly literal, flesh-dominated manner of looking at Jesus' words will not yield the correct interpretation. That is granted only to the spiritual man, the Spirit-dominated man. Such words cannot be comprehended by the fleshly, whose horizon is bounded by this earth and its outlook. Only as life-giving Spirit informs him may a man understand these words.

[FONT=&quot]

http://www.reformed.org/webfiles/an...bfiles/antithesis/v1n5/ant_v1n5_enduring.html

[/FONT]

 

[lori4dogs]

Marcia:

Probably better to give his words (Ignatius) some weight than to the 'Baptist Theologians' that get quoted around here. Somehow, they're opinions are revered more than a hearer of the Apostle John.

His seven letters present so clear a view of a hierachical and monarchical Church that I think this is a major reason you would want to ignore him, as well as his support for the Catholic interpretation on John 6. The authenticity of these letter has been established. Do you think he made all this stuff up?? Why would he?

His declarations as to what the make up was of the early Church is very problematic for you (unless you ignore him) because he presents a church looking VERY Catholic. For that reason alone, I suspect, you will choose to ignore him.

And as far as your insistence that Catholics believe we re-sacrifice Jesus at each mass, you have had both a Catholic and non-Catholics point out to you that this is not true.

 

[lori4dogs]

I showed how this is not to be the body and blood of Jesus they were to eat. For one thing, Jesus was still alive when he said "This is my body, etc."



If you think it is, then why don't you convert to Catholicism?

Even though scripture clearly says it is. Not once does it say it is a symbol.

 

[Marcia]

Even though scripture clearly says it is. Not once does it say it is a symbol.

I've posted careful explanations of my view using scripture. All I can do is post them again.

The most egregious part of this is, I assume, that you believe you must literally eat the body of Jesus and drink his literal blood to gain salvation.

 

[lori4dogs]

I've posted careful explanations of my view using scripture. All I can do is post them again.

The most egregious part of this is, I assume, that you believe you must literally eat the body of Jesus and drink his literal blood to gain salvation.

No need to re-post, I don't buy them. Your 'explanations' (interpretations) were not held by those who followed the apostles:

Letter to Smyrnaeans (Ignatius)

6:7-9 They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, Flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are persihing in their disputes. It would be better for them to have love so they may rise again.

No, his writings do not have the same weight as Holy Scripture (although they were considered for the canon) but they hold a lot more weight than your or mine do.

 

[lori4dogs]

And, Marcia,

The same Church whose teachings you are so quick to condemn, is the same Church that (with the guidance of the Holy Spirit) determined which books made up the canon of the NT. You trust the Catholic Church to have gotten that right but figure it is in error on everything else.

 

[Marcia]

And, Marcia,

The same Church whose teachings you are so quick to condemn, is the same Church that (with the guidance of the Holy Spirit) determined which books made up the canon of the NT. You trust the Catholic Church to have gotten that right but figure it is in error on everything else.

You are definitely wrong on that. The Holy Spirit determined the canon. The canon was used by the early Christians and authenticated by apostolic authority. God revealed the canon and men discovered it.

 

[Marcia]

.

No, his writings do not have the same weight as Holy Scripture (although they were considered for the canon) but they hold a lot more weight than your or mine do.

And by what authority do you say this?

 

[lori4dogs]

You are definitely wrong on that. The Holy Spirit determined the canon. The canon was used by the early Christians and authenticated by apostolic authority. God revealed the canon and men discovered it.

Following the Epistle of Athanasius in 367 C.E., the Catholic Church (guided by the Holy Spirit) finally reached agreement upon which writings were truly authentic and representative of Apostolic Tradition, this formed what we know today as the canonical New Testament.

 

[lori4dogs]

BTW, Marcia, who do you think authenticated the canon of the NT?

 

[Darron Steele]

And, Marcia,

The same Church whose teachings you are so quick to condemn, is the same Church that (with the guidance of the Holy Spirit) determined which books made up the canon of the NT. You trust the Catholic Church to have gotten that right but figure it is in error on everything else.

Hi Lori:

I appreciate the effort you have put in on sticking up for Catholics against the vitriol some people here are addicted to spewing against them. I really do. I got tired, and am glad to see someone doing it.

On the other hand, your statement above is not factually correct. The Orthodox make the same claim: that is was THEY who determined `what the Bible is.' You see, Catholicism did not split from Orthodoxy until 1054. It is therefore not possible that the Catholic church "determined which books" belong in the Bible.

Catholic polemicists say the Catholic church gave us the Bible, and Orthodox polemicists say that the Orthodox gave us the Bible. Now, whose claim do I accept on this? Neither.

2 Timothy 3:16a says "All Scripture is breathed out by God" (ESV). God gave us the Scriptures. The Scriptures would be Scripture whether anyone acknowledged them to be such or not. No human can turn Scripture into `not Scripture,' and no human can make what is not Scripture into Scripture.

Because of your activity here, I am sympathetic to what you do. We need people who will speak up when those who hate Catholics try to spread it. However, you only alienate people when you claim credit for Rome on something that God should get credit for. If you really feel that way, please keep it to yourself.

 

[lori4dogs]

Hi Lori:

I appreciate the effort you have put in on sticking up for Catholics against the vitriol some people here are addicted to spewing against them. I really do. I got tired, and am glad to see someone doing it.

On the other hand, your statement above is not factually correct. The Orthodox make the same claim: that is was THEY who determined `what the Bible is.' You see, Catholicism did not split from Orthodoxy until 1054. It is therefore not possible that the Catholic church "determined which books" belong in the Bible.

Catholic polemicists say the Catholic church gave us the Bible, and Orthodox polemicists say that the Orthodox gave us the Bible. Now, whose claim do I accept on this? Neither.





2 Timothy 3:16a says "All Scripture is breathed out by God" (ESV). God gave us the Scriptures. The Scriptures would be Scripture whether anyone acknowledged them to be such or not. No human can turn Scripture into `not Scripture,' and no human can make what is not Scripture into Scripture.

Because of your activity here, I am sympathetic to what you do. We need people who will speak up when those who hate Catholics try to spread it. However, you only alienate people when you claim credit for Rome on something that God should get credit for. If you really feel that way, please keep it to yourself.

Actually, when I said the Catholic Church, I was speaking of the un-divided Church. Pre-schism.

I believe you are right, God should get the credit.

 

[Marcia]

Hi Lori:

I appreciate the effort you have put in on sticking up for Catholics against the vitriol some people here are addicted to spewing against them.

....We need people who will speak up when those who hate Catholics try to spread it.

Darron, I do not hate Catholics, nor have I displayed "vitriol" in any of my posts.

 

[Darron Steele]

Darron, I do not hate Catholics, nor have I displayed "vitriol" in any of my posts.

Marcia: I did not say that you did. I was not even thinking of you when I referred to that.

I have been looking at Lori4dog's posts since the last time I was here. As that post was to start the first exchange between us, I was trying to assure her of my sympathies and gratitude for something she has been doing.

 

[lori4dogs]

Darron, I do not hate Catholics, nor have I displayed "vitriol" in any of my posts.

Marcia, I have no sense that you hate Catholics either. I appreciate the effort that you take to present your positions and for kindly responding to my posts.
I think most of us are passionate about our beliefs and sometimes we might seem abrasive in our postings. I have re-read some of my posts and found there have been things I have said that I would have liked to change. At least the tone of them.

 

[Marcia]

Marcia: I did not say that you did. I was not even thinking of you when I referred to that.

Okay, I just wanted to clarify in case people thought you were saying that about me.

I have been looking at Lori4dog's posts since the last time I was here. As that post was to start the first exchange between us, I was trying to assure her of my sympathies and gratitude for something she has been doing.

So, are you in sympathy with Roman Catholic doctrine?

 

[Marcia]

Marcia, I have no sense that you hate Catholics either. I appreciate the effort that you take to present your positions and for kindly responding to my posts.
.

I appreciate you saying that. Thanks.

I think most of us are passionate about our beliefs and sometimes we might seem abrasive in our postings. I have re-read some of my posts and found there have been things I have said that I would have liked to change. At least the tone of them

Thanks - I hope I have not sounded abrasive. I'm glad we can discuss this rationally and with grace.

 

[Tom Butler]

Getting back to the OP, there are some things I still don't understand.

If the sacraments are salvific by definition, then why does the denial of them to someone not deny them salvation? If one may be denied them and still be saved, then there seems to be some inconsistency here.

I say this because from my childhood, the RCC claimed that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. Now, that seems not to be the teaching.

It means that the writings of Cardinal Ratzenberger (Now Pope Benedict) don't mean exactly what he wrote.

"Taken literally (epi-ousios: 'super-essential'), it refers directly to the Bread of Life, the Body of Christ, the 'medicine of immortality,' without which we have no life within us"

I don't understand why Cardinal Ratzenberger would write that without taking the Eucharist, there is "no life within us," yet Rep. Kennedy may be denied the Eucharist and retain that life.

Maybe somebody can explain this for me.