Does anyone have bad stories from their Protestant days?

[emeraldcoast]

kalt:
Kalt,

It is very hard to reply to your post when we can not quote them.

God Bless!

 

[SonofMonica]

That’s obviously not been updated since This Holy Mystery was adopted. UMCOM is always 10 years behind anyway. This Holy Mystery is the OFFICIAL statement:

Actually, if you’ll go to the URL, This Holy Mystery is right below the part I posted. The very next line, in fact.

O.S. Luke, I mean this in an inquisitive manner and not derisive in any way, but what is the point in believing in “the Real Presence” if it is not taking John 6 literally, and the elements are not literally Christ’s Body and Blood? I mean, scripture doesn’t talk about the Real Presence, or about Christ being present “in the sacrament.” It simply says “This IS my body… This IS the cup of my blood.” In other words, why bother trying to find a different way that Christ is truly present other than the way scripture says he is present? Since Christ is truly omnipresent, what significance could there be in the Real Presence, if you are not truly eating the Paschal Lamb sacrificed on the altar?

Thanks,

Mark

 

[BareKnuckler]

Yes, its not as much a story as it is a regular topic. I am sure it happens in the RCC and the Orthodox church same, but when I was a baptist, I did see a lot of people becoming Christians and then going to school and being very “opposite” of the basic christian beliefs. They’d talk about getting laid, fighting, and other things, and sometimes talk about God in a bad way when around other christians, and say G-D, and J-C, a lot, and sometimes they’d become Christians to impress a family member that was ‘religious’ or friends. I know, they never told me this, but when you’ve known a person for years, and have tried to have a theological discussion with them, and they tell you their not very “spiritual” or “religious” a day after their saved, you get that idea, + I know for a fact 2 of them did.

I am not a Catholic now, or a protestant, but thats just about all I can sum up of being bad back then, except maybe 1 or 2 other things.

 

[O.S.Luke]

Actually, if you’ll go to the URL, This Holy Mystery is right below the part I posted. The very next line, in fact.

O.S. Luke, I mean this in an inquisitive manner and not derisive in any way, but what is the point in believing in “the Real Presence” if it is not taking John 6 literally, and the elements are not literally Christ’s Body and Blood? I mean, scripture doesn’t talk about the Real Presence, or about Christ being present “in the sacrament.” It simply says “This IS my body… This IS the cup of my blood.” In other words, why bother trying to find a different way that Christ is truly present other than the way scripture says he is present? Since Christ is truly omnipresent, what significance could there be in the Real Presence, if you are not truly eating the Paschal Lamb sacrificed on the altar?

Thanks,

Mark

We agree more than we disagree. You are exactly right - the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ. Period. No explanation necessary. None was necessary for nearly 1200 years until rationalism became en vogue. People didn’t need the Real Presence explained then.

You are thinking in Western, rationalistic, Aristotelian logic. Sacraments are mysteries - they defy explanation. Why attempt to use philosophy and logic to describe a mystery that by definition is miraculous and thus defies natural law? The Real Presence at the Eucharist is Jesus. Why go into Thomistic terminology to limit things to substance and accidents. How does the bread and wine still taste like bread and wine while being Christ’s Body and Blood?

Why does it matter? We can’t possibly begin to grasp but a very small understanding of the miracle of the Eucharist. It is, in my opinion, absurd to explain it away with the dogma of transubstantiation. I think the EO’s have it right - let the mystery be a mystery. That is what This Holy Mystery tries to do - the Real Presence of Christ is to be experienced, not explained.

O+

 

[SonofMonica]

We agree more than we disagree. You are exactly right - the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ. Period. No explanation necessary. None was necessary for nearly 1200 years until rationalism became en vogue. People didn’t need the Real Presence explained then.

Now be fair, many councils were convened to combat heresy. The Church didn’t need to explain a lot of things until heretics starting denying them.

You are thinking in Western, rationalistic, Aristotelian logic. Sacraments are mysteries - they defy explanation.

You offer no reason why I should think irrationally or illogically. It comes with the “thinking.” Sacraments defy explanation because you say so? The Church has explained them. And the UMC has attempted to explain them at quite some length (a la This Great Mystery) differently-referring to their own tradition (small-T) and John Wesley, even when they contradict the ecumenical councils of the whole Church.

Why attempt to use philosophy and logic to describe a mystery that by definition is miraculous and thus defies natural law?

Your Methodist-Fu is weak. Your own Wesleyan Quadrilateral lists Scripture, tradition, reason, and personal experience as all-important tools in the Christian’s arsenal of interpretation.

The Real Presence at the Eucharist is Jesus. Why go into Thomistic terminology to limit things to substance and accidents. How does the bread and wine still taste like bread and wine while being Christ’s Body and Blood?

You’re missing a very important distinction. For Catholics there is no Real Presence at the Eucharist apart from God’s omnipresence. For Catholics, Jesus is the Eucharist. Methodism attempts to explain how the Real Presence is at (or in) the Eucharist, but does not attempt to explain that the Eucharist is God.

Why does it matter?

First, Catholics look at the consecrated host, and literally say “That is Jesus. I can worship that on the altar because it is Jesus Christ, literally, even though it doesn’t look like him.” Either Catholics are correct or they are idolaters. That’s why it matters.

Second is because the same Church that starting calling Christ’s passover a sacrament (latin for “oath,” as in the same oath that always accompanied a sacrifice to God and a family meal to go along with every covenant relationship in biblical times, hence the sacrifice of the Mass) is the same Church that said this:
Council of Trent:

And because that Christ, our Redeemer, declared that which He offered under the species of bread to be truly His own body, therefore has it ever been a firm belief in the Church of God, and this holy Synod doth now declare it anew, that, by the consecration of the bread and of the wine, a conversion is made of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of His blood; which conversion is, by the holy Catholic Church, suitably and properly called Transubstantiation.

And this:
Council of Trent:

If any one saith, that, in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist, the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denieth that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood-the species Only of the bread and wine remaining-which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation; let him be anathema.

Those are pretty good reasons, IMO.

We can’t possibly begin to grasp but a very small understanding of the miracle of the Eucharist.

Accepted and agreed. But we do know certain things by virtue of the words of Jesus and the faith handed down from the apostles and what may be logically deduced by logic and the guidance of the Holy Spirit who was sent to guide the Church into truth. The Church has spoken quite a deal about the Eucharist, and with some authority, regardless of whether you or any protestant sect denies it.

It is, in my opinion, absurd to explain it away with the dogma of transubstantiation.

I find your statement contradictory with your talk of it being purely a mystery. If it is purely a mystery, how is it absurd to accept any one explanation? Who are you to call anyone’s idea (especially that of an ecumenical council of the Church) absurd?

I think the EO’s have it right - let the mystery be a mystery. That is what This Holy Mystery tries to do - the Real Presence of Christ is to be experienced, not explained.

You are positing that a very large document, the purpose of which is to explain the Eucharist, does nothing except say that it cannot be explained. I’ve read it, and that’s not what it says.

Moreover, where does scripture (which UMC’s articles of religion state contains all things necessary for salvation) say anything about the Real Presence of Christ? Jesus does explain the nature of the Eucharist, when he says it truly is his body and blood and that you truly do have to eat his body and blood. If you have bread and wine one instant, and the next instant you have flesh and blood, then it is not absurd to say that a change must have occurred. It is logically (not just by virtue of Western Thomistic logic, but semantic logic and all other known forms of logic) an imperative.

Respectfully…

 

[valient_Lucy]

I have to be honest. I don’t like the idea of this thread. Yes, I had a few bad experiences when I was a Protestant, but I also had many wonderful experiences. It is from Protestantism I first learned to love Jesus, and learned the importance of seeking the truth. I would never had been able to become Catholic if not for these two things. My mother and grandmother taught me these things, and they were (and are) faithful Protestants. I will forever be thankful for all of the good things that I learned in the Protestant churches, and to my Protestant family members for introducing me to Our Lord.

 

[Stephen_C]

I have to be honest. I don’t like the idea of this thread. Yes, I had a few bad experiences when I was a Protestant, but I also had many wonderful experiences. It is from Protestantism I first learned to love Jesus, and learned the importance of seeking the truth. I would never had been able to become Catholic if not for these two things. My mother and grandmother taught me these things, and they were (and are) faithful Protestants. I will forever be thankful for all of the good things that I learned in the Protestant churches, and to my Protestant family members for introducing me to Our Lord.

Amen!

 

[piejesu]

I also find the premise of this thread to negative and counter productive to what is good and right and edifying for the building up of Christ’s Church. I wish the forum moderators would be a little more discriminatory about the thread titles. It is disappointing.

As a convert I have found with great delight that everything I ever held to be true about the infinite mercy and love of God is confirmed in the teachings of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. It’s easy to focus on negative things. Unfortunately it is also part of our fallen nature. Let’s love one another as Christ loves His church. Let the world wallow in negativism.

Do not love the world or the things in the world. If any one loves the world, love for the Father is not in him. 1Jh 2:15

 

[jlhargus]

I was 10 or 11 and had been raised a Jehovah’s Witness. I was at home alone and cut myself with a kitchen knife. I knew that it was bad enough to be looked at but my mom was over at her friend’s house, dad was at work and my older brother was – who knows, not around.

I wrapped up my bleeding finger and ran to each of the adjacent houses, no one home. I ran across the street, no one home. I was getting scared and the bleeding wouldn’t stop – of course I just sprinted 75 yards so that might have had something to do with it. So anyway.

There was “That House” … You know the one. You don’t really know who lives there. It was painted bright pink about 15 years ago. There are about 75 million steps to go up from the side walk to the side door. The yard has never been mowed since the place was built in 1952. There might be wild lions sitting in an old Studebaker in all that brush for all I know. Well the finger was throbbing and I needed help.

So I started making my way up the steps. It seemed to take forever and the closer I got to the now faded pink rancher the more uneasy I felt. I had arrived to the side door. A huge metal security door; in this neighborhood? What were they keeping in there? The light fixture was hanging by one screw and I could see the aged wiring. I just stood there with my heart racing in my ears. I gripped my finger all the tighter through the blood soaked kitchen towel. I was so scared that I decided to leave.

Just as I turned to go the door opened quickly. The scent of beef bullion cubes rushed out like it came from a space ship air lock. I turned back around and saw a most pleasant and pretty young woman. Then a voice came from with the shaded darkness of the house, “Who’s there?” It was an old woman’s voice but not grandmotherly. The young woman said, “It’s one of the neighbor boys, he’s hurt.” “Brining him on in."

The security door creaked loudly as she swung it outward and I sheepishly walked in. The scent of beef bullion was cubes stronger now and the dilapidation of the outside was not hiding any treasures on the inside. As my eyes adjusted to the dim light in the room I saw the elderly woman laying on her couch. She covered the couch and then some. Her voice softer now, “Come on over let me see.” Then to the young woman, “Get some water and a Band-Aid.” I walked over and knelt by the couch and she tended to my finger. She was gentle and my fears were easing, though the stench of the place was still a bit overwhelming. Then it happened.

Just as the young pretty woman returned to the living room and I turned my head to see her, the elderly woman grabbed me and pulled me into her warm, soft, gushy, over ample breasts, and belly fat. I just about pooped myself and yelped. I pulled away and was trying to bolt to the door and she pulled me back in and held me even tighter. Then she rolled her eyes back in her head and looked up to the ceiling and said in a very loud voice, “JESUS HEAL THIS BOYYYYYYY!!!” I was so freaken scared my eyes were about to bug out of my head then I just froze. The old woman continued in her loud healing type prayers for several minutes. After just a few seconds I realized I wasn’t going to be eaten or killed so I relaxed a little. After she finished she asked me if I believed in Jesus. I told her I was a JW and then I got the cold shoulder from her. The pretty one was still nice. She found out where my mom was and called her to come get me.

I got 9 stitches, a cool girl impressing scar, and a great story out of the deal.

JL: That was a great story, I enjoyed it very much.

 

[Peter_J]

Yes, its not as much a story as it is a regular topic. I am sure it happens in the RCC and the Orthodox church same, but when I was a baptist, I did see a lot of people becoming Christians and then going to school and being very “opposite” of the basic christian beliefs. They’d talk about getting laid, fighting, and other things, and sometimes talk about God in a bad way when around other christians, and say G-D, and J-C, a lot, and sometimes they’d become Christians to impress a family member that was ‘religious’ or friends. I know, they never told me this, but when you’ve known a person for years, and have tried to have a theological discussion with them, and they tell you their not very “spiritual” or “religious” a day after their saved, you get that idea, + I know for a fact 2 of them did.

That’s an all-too-common situation.

I’m reminded of

“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. [They] are so unlike your Christ.”

• Mahatma Gandhi

 

[O.S.Luke]

You offer no reason why I should think irrationally or illogically. It comes with the “thinking.” Sacraments defy explanation because you say so?

Actually, I am paraphrasing Catholic scholars Edward Schillebeeckxx and Louis Bouyer. I was fortunate to study under both. Sacraments ultimately do defy explanation because they are the action of God’s grace - the Supernatural - working through the ordinary to dispense the extraordinary.

You are positing that a very large document, the purpose of which is to explain the Eucharist, does nothing except say that it cannot be explained. I’ve read it, and that’s not what it says.

I was speaking specifically about the Real Presence. I didn’t say the whole document said it could not be explained.

Moreover, where does scripture (which UMC’s articles of religion state contains all things necessary for salvation) say anything about the Real Presence of Christ? Jesus does explain the nature of the Eucharist, when he says it truly is his body and blood and that you truly do have to eat his body and blood. If you have bread and wine one instant, and the next instant you have flesh and blood, then it is not absurd to say that a change must have occurred. It is logically (not just by virtue of Western Thomistic logic, but semantic logic and all other known forms of logic) an imperative.

Sorry. Logic ultimately doesn’t apply to the supernatural - which is in the realm of miracles and, by definition, sacraments (God’s sign-actions). You are AT BEST limited by language. To say that the bread and wine becomes the Body and Blood of Christ is simply sufficient. Do we need explanations why they still taste like bread and wine? Or is faith enough?

It is anamnesis. It is eucharistia. It is Jesus Christ really in our midst. It’s either Real, or it’s not. It is not absurd to say that a change has taken place - but it is absurd to try and explain it further. Natural law does not apply. Rationality doesn’t work with miracles. God irrationally loves us, and irrationally sacrifices his Son for us, and irrationally shares Himself in the sacrament.

Sorry Son of Monica. I respect, but do not buy, your argument.

Pax vobiscum.

 

[Peter_J]

We agree more than we disagree. You are exactly right - the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ. Period. No explanation necessary. None was necessary for nearly 1200 years until rationalism became en vogue. People didn’t need the Real Presence explained then.

You are thinking in Western, rationalistic, Aristotelian logic. Sacraments are mysteries - they defy explanation. Why attempt to use philosophy and logic to describe a mystery that by definition is miraculous and thus defies natural law? The Real Presence at the Eucharist is Jesus. Why go into Thomistic terminology to limit things to substance and accidents. How does the bread and wine still taste like bread and wine while being Christ’s Body and Blood?

Why does it matter? We can’t possibly begin to grasp but a very small understanding of the miracle of the Eucharist. It is, in my opinion, absurd to explain it away with the dogma of transubstantiation. I think the EO’s have it right - let the mystery be a mystery. That is what This Holy Mystery tries to do - the Real Presence of Christ is to be experienced, not explained.

O+

O.S. Luke,

I think you’re missing the point a little bit. The real issue here (no pun intended) is that there are some Evangelical (or Evangelical-ish) Protestants who reconcile themselves to the term “Real Presence” by saying “Christ is present everywhere, hence he is [really] present in the Eucharist”. This, to me, is a form of false ecumenism – making it sound like they agree with what RCs, EOs, high-church Anglicans, etc. believe (notwithstanding the difference that exist among those latter groups, e.g. Transubstantiation).

 

[O.S.Luke]

Moreover, where does scripture (which UMC’s articles of religion state contains all things necessary for salvation) say anything about the Real Presence of Christ?

The scripture is replete with the Real Presence. How could you say otherwise?

 

[SonofMonica]

The scripture is replete with the Real Presence. How could you say otherwise?

Please see post #212 above by Peter J. He’s better expressing what I’m getting at.

As an analogy, imagine if you were promoting a doctrine of the Trinity that did not comport with Catholic doctrine. It would be incorrect for you to say “but scripture is replete with the Trinity.” In fact, scripture does not mention the Trinity at all. It mentions several things that taken together have caused the Catholic Church to define the dogma of the Trinity.

Because “Real Presence” is not a term used in scripture, you can’t redefine it as something else and then claim Real Presence in scripture. What’s in scripture is the foundational support for the Catholic doctrine of the Real Presence.

That’s what I’m trying to say.

 

[SonofMonica]

I’m not trying to be trite or uncharitable, O.S. Luke, but if you were to stand up in a UMC church and tell folks to worship the bread and grape juice as God, you’d see the result Peter J and I are talking about. Because Real Presence is a Catholic term to begin with, to define it as something else and claim Methodists believe in it is indeed false ecumenism, and is quite unhelpful. The UMC does not believe the elements of communion are Jesus Christ, and does not support the worship, or even the exposition or carrying about, of the same.

 

[Roy5]

O. S. LUKE - Methodists and Communion

 You apparently still are insisting that Methodists somehow believe in the real presence of Christ in communion. Of course, all Christians believe that Christ is present everywhere, certainly at every worship service, communion or no communion.

  However, Article XVIII of Methodism's articles of faith reads in part: "Transubstantiation, or the change of the substance of bread amd wine in the Supper of our Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ, but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of the sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions. The body of Christ is given, taken and eaten in the Supper only after a heavenly and spiritual manner....The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up or worshiped."  

   That seems to me to be clear.

   Are you, by chance, a member of the Order of St. Luke? I know this group is trying to push Methodism toward more liturgical worship.

 

[O.S.Luke]

I’m not trying to be trite or uncharitable, O.S. Luke, but if you were to stand up in a UMC church and tell folks to worship the bread and grape juice as God, you’d see the result Peter J and I are talking about. Because Real Presence is a Catholic term to begin with, to define it as something else and claim Methodists believe in it is indeed false ecumenism, and is quite unhelpful. The UMC does not believe the elements of communion are Jesus Christ, and does not support the worship, or even the exposition or carrying about, of the same.

You’re not being trite or uncharitable. I am not sure what your point is or what you’re trying to say. I’ve been a pastor for 20 years, and never had any trouble teaching or pastoring any church regarding the sacraments, mainly because it was not news to them.

Methodists embrace the Real Presence. It is an official teaching. Our sacramental theology is no different than the Anglicans. No, we are not Catholic. Never said we were. Never have tried to be.

So I am confused about what you’re trying to say. Or not say.

 

[O.S.Luke]

O. S. LUKE - Methodists and Communion

 You apparently still are insisting that Methodists somehow believe in the real presence of Christ in communion. Of course, all Christians believe that Christ is present everywhere, certainly at every worship service, communion or no communion.

  However, Article XVIII of Methodism's articles of faith reads in part: "Transubstantiation, or the change of the substance of bread amd wine in the Supper of our Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ, but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of the sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions. The body of Christ is given, taken and eaten in the Supper only after a heavenly and spiritual manner....The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up or worshiped."  

   That seems to me to be clear.

   Are you, by chance, a member of the Order of St. Luke? I know this group is trying to push Methodism toward more liturgical worship.

The Article is clear. No, we do not embrace transubstantiation (neither do the Orthodox or Anglicans), and This Holy Mystery makes that clear as well. We do embrace the Real Presence of Christ at the Eucharist. This is where I think Catholics stumble when dealing with other traditions that embrace the Real Presence. All who embrace transubstantiation believe in the Real Presence. But not all who embrace the Real Presence believe in transubstantiation.

I am in the Order of St. Luke. It would be more accurate to say that the Order is trying to reclaim the liturgical worship of early Methodism.

 

[O.S.Luke]

Please see post #212 above by Peter J. He’s better expressing what I’m getting at.

As an analogy, imagine if you were promoting a doctrine of the Trinity that did not comport with Catholic doctrine. It would be incorrect for you to say “but scripture is replete with the Trinity.” In fact, scripture does not mention the Trinity at all. It mentions several things that taken together have caused the Catholic Church to define the dogma of the Trinity.

Because “Real Presence” is not a term used in scripture, you can’t redefine it as something else and then claim Real Presence in scripture. What’s in scripture is the foundational support for the Catholic doctrine of the Real Presence.

That’s what I’m trying to say.

You’re straining at gnats. Christ was pretty clear when he said, “This is my body… this is my blood.” No metaphorical language. Christ is really present. Real Presence.

I take those words literally. I simply don’t think Aristotelian philosophy is the right discipline in which to explain the supernatural.

 

[O.S.Luke]

The epiclesis, from the Great Thanksgiving, Word and Table I, II, and III:

Pour out your Holy Spirit upon us, and on these gifts of bread and wine.
Make them be for us the body and blood of Jesus Christ,
that we may be for the world the body of Christ, redeemed by his blood.

Those are the words I have said for 20 years celebrating the Eucharist at the table. No one has stoned me yet.

O+