Rep. Patrick Kennedy Denied Communion

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?

We have plenty of examples of Christ after a teaching asking His disciples if they understood and then elaborating on such teachings if need be...but even when the disciples said this is a "hard teaching", meaning hard to understand, Christ offered no elaboration...He meant what He had said...and the reality of this teaching became apparent to the disciples during the Last Supper when Christ offered the bread as His body and the wine as His blood to His disciples.

In XC
-

 

Jesus often did not correct misunderstandings of his teachings. Even his parables confounded many, and he would not explain, or explain only to a select few. In this case, he did not explain because he knew that they did not believe who he was; therefore, he said nothing to further explain (look at verse 64).

It is metaphor when you look at the context. Jesus is relating himself to the manna, except he is better than the manna - he's the bread of life that gives eternal life, whereas manna only gave physical life.

Also, it does not say that people left because of this. This is why they left:

They left because of what Jesus says in v. 65.

 

The wine and bread represent the blood and body of Christ. To have the wine and bread actually be the body and blood of Christ would be to sacrifice Jesus over and over, whereas in scripture, there was only a one-time sacrifice.

 

Not that I take this interpretation, but it has some biblical support: "Take and eat, this IS my body"... "This is MY blood of the covenant... drink". It doesn't say "this is like my body / blood", it says "this is my body / blood". We frequently play the "scripture literally" harp, everywhere except for here.

Again, I'm not saying I agree with it, I'm just saying it's got scriptural support.

 

It is not scriptural support if it's bad hermeneutics. Obviously, it was not Jesus' body or blood because he was sitting there alive. In fact, that makes it a better argument for the wine and bread to be representative of his body.

 

A logical arguement - but it seems that with your logic you are limiting God.

Aren't all things possible to God?

 

This is my thinking as well.

Here is more biblical support:
St. Paul says: "Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord... not discerning the body of the Lord" (1 Corinthians 11, 27‑29).

If Christ is only metaphorically present in the Eucharist, communicating unworthily offends indeed His person but not His body and blood. This is confirmed by what the Apostle said earlier: "The chalice of benediction... is it not the communication of the blood of Christ? And the bread, which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord?" (1 Cor 10:16). We cannot communicate in the body and in the blood of Christ in the Eucharist unless they are really there.

And no, the Lord is not re-sacrificed each time we celebrate the Eucharist.
I like the way it is stated in the canon of the Anglican mass. . . . 'who made there, by His one oblation of Himself once offered, a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world . . .'
Before you say 'well that is apples and oranges' you are Catholic, not Anglican. This same rite has been approved in the Anglican Use parishes of the Catholic Church.

 

. . . and Marcia, I'm not here to try to convince you of the Catholic, Anglican, Orthodox, Lutheran interpretation of these passages. I'm aware you have come to your conclusions by your reasoning. I'm hoping that you see that there is biblical support for the beliefs of these churches in the Eucharist and that it is a reasonable way to interpret these passages.

 

That phrase "limiting God" always gets me. God does not go against his nature and he is not illogical. Logic and reason are based in God's character.

Language itself uses logic and reason or we wouldn't have language.

I am going by the text that God gave us to determine what John 6 means. One also examines it in light of other scripture. One doesn't just interpret it the way they want and ignore the rest of scripture.

 

it's also important to note that regardless of what Marcia believes is bad hermeneutics, this has been the Churches teaching since the beginning...the fathers of the Church testify to this fact and even the major Reformers also held to the Real Presence regarding the Eucharist.

and would it be safe to assume Marcia that you would be numbered among those that left Jesus in John 6 regarding this teaching or would you have been the one to set this hard teaching straight with the Apostles?:smilewinkgrin:

In XC
-

 

Lori, I noticed that you did not respond to my refutation of your John 6 argument. The passage itself says why the people left and it's not because of what you or others who have the RC view of John 6 say.

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.

The Roman Catholics think so. It's in the Catechism, #1365, 1366, 1367. If the wafer and wine are actually the blood and body of Christ, then he is being sacrificed again. Either the elements are actually Christ or they are not. Also, I've had Catholics tell me that they are "saved" every Sunday when they go to Mass and take the Eucharist. They believe this this gives them a salvific grace. This is also against the teachings of the Bible.

As far as I know, the Anglicans hold that Christ is present mystically in the wine and wafer, but not physically present, as the Catholics believe.

 

I didn't respond because I don't agree. I understand how you come to your conclusion but I think it is wrong.

Take a look at John chapter six again:

Not only do we have the double "amen" for solemn emphasis in this chapter, but we also have the keyword "unless".

Have you ever noticed that when Jesus used the word "unless", it was accompanied by a dire warning that His word must be obeyed, "Or you shall not enter the Kingdom of Heaven", or similar wording?

Matthew 5:20, "...Unless your justice exceeds that of the Scribes and the Pharisees...."
Matthew 18:3, "...Unless you turn and become like little children...."
Luke 13:3,5, "...Unless you repent...." (you will all perish).
John 3:3, "...Unless a man be born again...."
John 3:5, "...Unless a man be born again of water and the Spirit...."
John 6:53, "...Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you shall not have life in you, (implied, "no life everlasting", as shown by the very next verse, John 6:54), "He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has life everlasting and I will raise him up on the last day".

As far as your conclusion that Jesus in re-sacrificed in every mass. The reason why there is the Mass is because the cross must be applied to us. Catholic theologian Dr. Ludwig Ott wrote:

"While the Sacrifice on the Cross is an absolute sacrifice, as it is neither the commemoration of a past sacrifice nor the archetype of a future sacrifice, the Sacrifice of the Mass is a relative sacrifice, as it is essentially linked to the Sacrifice on the Cross. The Council of Trent teaches: Christ left a visible Sacrifice to His Church: in which that bloody sacrifice which was once offered on the Cross should be made present, its memory preserved to the end of the world, and its salvation-bringing power applied to the forgiveness of the sins which are daily committed by us."

And the last sentence of his statement answers the other question.

 

Also, Marcia, there are many former Anglicans who are now part of Anglican Use parishes which are part of the Catholic Church. They subscribe to the Catholic catechism. They use an Anglican liturgy for the Eucharist. The part of the 'canon' I quoted in post you are referring to is out of the liturgy of one of these Anglican Use Catholic churches.

And as far as what Anglicans believe about the Eucharist I would ask you, which Anglicans? There are liberal ones, evangelical ones, Anglo-Catholic ones, charismatic ones, etc. The liberal ones believe like I suspect you do, that not much of anything happens in the Eucharist.

 

And I showed from the passage that Jesus is talking about believing in Him.

Or is Jesus contradicting himself? Because he says in verse 35:

and in verse 40:

and in verse 47

So Jesus must be lying here, because according to you, we do not have eternal life unless we eat the literal body of Jesus and drink the literal blood.

Verses 50 and 51 must be interpreted in light of the above, unless you want to say Jesus is contradicting himself. Verse 35 also ties this together: belief in Jesus is to never thirst.

 

"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?

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.

 

"And I showed from the passage that Jesus is talking about believing in Him."

Believing He is the Bread of Life!

 

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?

 

And that draws that debate to an end.:thumbs: That really should not have to be explained.

 

It's called EASTER, boy! Git it right!:laugh:

Sorry, AD.

Here is my question to all: So the Bishop of Rhode Island bans the wonderful Kennedy from communion. This means that all priests serving under him are NOT to serve communion to him. So, in theory, no priest in RI can serve communion to Mr. Kennedy. But....

Can Mr. Kennedy be served communion in, say, Maryland? Oregon? Would a priest not under the supervision of the Bishop of Rhode Island be obligated to serve or NOT serve communion?

Just curious....

p.s. SN: you got pwned by lori4dogs when you implied that catholics believe that the pope is sinless. You might as well admit to the pwnage and if you did, you would walk even taller than you normally do around here.