Rep. Patrick Kennedy Denied Communion

[lori4dogs]

Jesus said of himself "I am the vine..."
Jesus said of hmself " I am the door..."
Jesus said of himself "I am the bread..."
John the Baptist said of Jesus "Behold the Lamb of God..."

Yet Jesus was literally none of these, and no one insists that he was.

But when it comes to "flesh" and "blood" as related to communion does it suddenly become literal. Sounds like cherry-picking to me.

When Jesus said 'I am the door' and 'I am the vine' he spoke in metaphorical language. Not so with 'this is my body, this is my blood' and 'I am the bread of Life'.

 

[lori4dogs]

A basic rule of Bible interpretation is, if something is said only once in Scripture, it could be taken figuratively, but if it is repeated three times, it is meant to be taken literally. Jesus repeated His message in John Chapter 6 nine different ways, or nine times.

 

[lori4dogs]

"I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall not hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst."
This is one of two verses that non-Catholics always use to show that Jesus was speaking metaphorically for the whole chapter. "He who believes in Me shall never thirst", means to believe in what He said. If anyone denies what He said, he does not believe in Him. In order to support this belief, they then have to show (as seen in the above posts) that Jesus also spoke metaphorically in Mt 26:26-28, Mk 14:22-24, and Lk 22:19-20, however in none of these verses is there one bit of evidence to support this belief in metaphorical speech. The claim that, 'He must have been speaking metaphorically, in all other passages where Jesus or Paul claims that the Eucharist is the very body and blood of Jesus' certainly was not what Johns disciple Iganatius understood.

I guess just never mind about how Ignatius of Antioch understood the Eucharist, eh?

 

[Marcia]

"This passage is talking about taking communion in an unworthy manner. The Christians were feasting and getting drunk. This was dishonoring the sacrifice of Jesus."

I know it is about taking communion in an unworthy mannery but how can you be 'guilty of the body and blood of Christ' if it is not there?

It is saying that they are guilty for dishonoring the sacrifice of Christ. If that is really his body and blood, he has been sacrificed again, which goes against scripture.

The above statement is preceded by this:

23For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; 24and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, "This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me."
25In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me."

Clearly, Lori, Jesus was not sharing his body or his blood because he was sitting there alive!!! How can you say this is his body and blood? Was he actually drawing blood from his veins or tearing flesh off his body? It is clearly representing his sacrifice.

Also, have you ever noticed that after Christ resurrection and He was with the disciples in the upper-room at Emmaus:

Luke 24:13-35

13 Now on that same day two of them were going to a village called Emmaus, about seven miles from Jerusalem,
14 and talking with each other about all these things that had happened.
15 While they were talking and discussing, Jesus himself came near and went with them,
16 but their eyes were kept from recognizing him.
17 And he said to them, "What are you discussing with each other while you walk along?" They stood still, looking sad.
18 Then one of them, whose name was Cleopas, answered him, "Are you the only stranger in Jerusalem who does not know the things that have taken place there in these days?"
19 He asked them, "What things?" They replied, "The things about Jesus of Nazareth, who was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people,
20 and how our chief priests and leaders handed him over to be condemned to death and crucified him.
21 But we had hoped that he was the one to redeem Israel. Yes, and besides all this, it is now the third day since these things took place.
22 Moreover, some women of our group astounded us. They were at the tomb early this morning,
23 and when they did not find his body there, they came back and told us that they had indeed seen a vision of angels who said that he was alive.
24 Some of those who were with us went to the tomb and found it just as the women had said; but they did not see him."
25 Then he said to them, "Oh, how foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have declared!
26 Was it not necessary that the Messiah should suffer these things and then enter into his glory?"
27 Then beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them the things about himself in all the scriptures.
28 As they came near the village to which they were going, he walked ahead as if he were going on.
29 But they urged him strongly, saying, "Stay with us, because it is almost evening and the day is now nearly over." So he went in to stay with them.
30 When he was at the table with them, he took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to them.
31 Then their eyes were opened, and they recognized him; and he vanished from their sight.
32 They said to each other, "Were not our hearts burning within us while he was talking to us on the road, while he was opening the scriptures to us?"
33 That same hour they got up and returned to Jerusalem; and they found the eleven and their companions gathered together.
34 They were saying, "The Lord has risen indeed, and he has appeared to Simon!"
35 Then they told what had happened on the road, and how he had been made known to them in the breaking of the bread.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with what we are discussing. It means that he let them see who he was as they were getting ready to eat bread.

 

[Marcia]

Marcia, I understand how you interpret this passage, I believed the same as you for many years. I found that this was NOT what the early Church believed, as Agnus Dei has pointed out. Again, you ignore Ignatius of Antioch who was instructed by John. You have not responded to that yet. Should we ignore someones writings who sat directly at the feet of an Apostle? Here we have a passage that has several interpretations. Shouldn't someones opinion who was present to ask John count for something?

Yes, we can ignore Ignatius. Whatever Ignatius may have thought or written, it is not scripture and so I do not use that to make my judgment. Scripture is clear enough on it; we don't need Ignatius.

I think other interpretations are misinterpretations. It is a clear passage and not confusing at all and it does not support the view you are advocating.

 

[Matt Black]

No, it is not Scripture - BUT it is an interpretation of the Scripture under discussion here which was given by a disciple (Ignatius) of the chap who recorded the Lord's words (John) and therefore Ignatius is eminently more qualified than you or I to accurately interpret this passage. So we can't and shouldn't ignore Ignatius.

And the Catholics don't re-sacrifice Jesus each Mass - they re-represent His sacrifice made once for all each Mass. A subtle but big difference.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Yes, we can ignore Ignatius. Whatever Ignatius may have thought or written, it is not scripture and so I do not use that to make my judgment. Scripture is clear enough on it; we don't need Ignatius.

I think other interpretations are misinterpretations. It is a clear passage and not confusing at all and it does not support the view you are advocating.

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
-

 

[Revmitchell]

Speaking of John chapter 6...Jesus being often called "Rabi" which means..."Teacher"...would have been inclined to explain His teachings to His Apostles when they didn't comprehend and certainly to those disciples that left...why would Jesus let all those disciples who had walked with him to leave over a simple misunderstanding of teaching?


-

Because Jesus was not concerned with pragmatism. He knew their hearts.

 

[Johnv]

It is not scriptural support if it's bad hermeneutics.

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.

 

[rbell]

Jesus said of himself "I am the vine..."
Jesus said of hmself " I am the door..."
Jesus said of himself "I am the bread..."
John the Baptist said of Jesus "Behold the Lamb of God..."

Yet Jesus was literally none of these, and no one insists that he was.

But when it comes to "flesh" and "blood" as related to communion does it suddenly become literal. Sounds like cherry-picking to me.

Bingo!

Again, you ignore Ignatius of Antioch who was instructed by John. You have not responded to that yet. Should we ignore someones writings who sat directly at the feet of an Apostle?

And again we have the crux of the issue with Catholics--they put something on par with Scripture. That should not be.

When Jesus said 'I am the door' and 'I am the vine' he spoke in metaphorical language. Not so with 'this is my body, this is my blood' and 'I am the bread of Life'.

Sorry, you're stretching on that one. And no...I don't care if Ignatius disagrees with me. Scripture doesn't. End of discussion.

 

[Revmitchell]

A basic rule of Bible interpretation is, if something is said only once in Scripture, it could be taken figuratively, but if it is repeated three times, it is meant to be taken literally. Jesus repeated His message in John Chapter 6 nine different ways, or nine times.

This is not a basic rule by anyone credible or relevant. It is not even common.

 

[lori4dogs]

Marcia said: ' If that is really his body and blood, he has been sacrificed again, which goes against scripture.'

The sacrifice at calvary happened once and for all time, and to quote someone who has commented on this board, . . . .'it moves out from there through time and space in all directions.' That is the Catholic teaching. No re-sacrifice.

 

[rbell]

Marcia said: ' If that is really his body and blood, he has been sacrificed again, which goes against scripture.'

The sacrifice at calvary happened once and for all time, and to quote someone who has commented on this board, . . . .'it moves out from there through time and space in all directions.' That is the Catholic teaching. No re-sacrifice.

When forced to choose between "Catholic teaching" and Scriptural meaning, I'll choose the latter, ten times out of ten.

 

[lori4dogs]

When forced to choose between "Catholic teaching" and Scriptural meaning, I'll choose the latter, ten times out of ten.

Catholic teaching IS scriptural meaning

 

[Jkdbuck76]

Hey, kids. Can Mr. Kennedy be served in another state?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Hey, kids. Can Mr. Kennedy be served in another state?

As what? filet mignion?

 

[rbell]

Catholic teaching IS scriptural meaning

Ladies and gentelmen, now you understand why the Protestant Reformation was neccesary.

 

[Marcia]

"I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall not hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst."
This is one of two verses that non-Catholics always use to show that Jesus was speaking metaphorically for the whole chapter. "He who believes in Me shall never thirst", means to believe in what He said.

No, it means to believe in Him, which he also says elsewhere.

I guess just never mind about how Ignatius of Antioch understood the Eucharist, eh?

Right.

 

[Marcia]

Marcia said: ' If that is really his body and blood, he has been sacrificed again, which goes against scripture.'

The sacrifice at calvary happened once and for all time, and to quote someone who has commented on this board, . . . .'it moves out from there through time and space in all directions.' That is the Catholic teaching. No re-sacrifice.

But
1) What does it mean that it "moves out from there through time and space in all directions?" This is not in the Bible and what does it mean?

2) The bread and wine are supposed to be the actual flesh and blood of Jesus, so it is another sacrifice. Otherwise, it's not his blood and flesh, it's just representative.

 

[Marcia]

No, it is not Scripture - BUT it is an interpretation of the Scripture under discussion here which was given by a disciple (Ignatius) of the chap who recorded the Lord's words (John) and therefore Ignatius is eminently more qualified than you or I to accurately interpret this passage. So we can't and shouldn't ignore Ignatius.

So we are to take his words as authority though it's not scripture? No, thanks.

And the Catholics don't re-sacrifice Jesus each Mass - they re-represent His sacrifice made once for all each Mass. A subtle but big difference.

How is it different? They are tearing up the flesh of Jesus and eating it. I call that a sacrifice - more than a sacrifice. It's horrific to think this is what we need to do to be saved.