Does anyone have bad stories from their Protestant days?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ErrorCMDR
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
cthulhubryan said:
I must respectfully inform you that you are mistaken. The book of discipline tells us that while the Holy Spirit nourishes any who partake of communion it is not considered to be the actual body and blood of Our Lord. The United Methodist Church does not believe in transubstantiation.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure what you are responding to. I don’t think anyone here is claiming that the UMC believes in transubstantiation.
 
Peter_J said:
I’m not sure what you are responding to. I don’t think anyone here is claiming that the UMC believes in transubstantiation.
Click to expand...
Sorry, you are right. I got confused. According to the book of disciple the UMC does not believe in Real Presence.
 
kalt said:
Do you confess your sins in sacramental Confession to a validly ordained priest?
Click to expand...
Most certainly!
You suggest that because you do something similar, you should be able to recieve Communion in the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
I don’t think it’s similar, I think it is the same.
If you don’t believe in what the CC believes about the Eucharist (all that we believe about it) why do you care if you can’t recieve. You don’t beleive anyway! 😃
Click to expand...
I do believe what the RCC believes about the Eucharist–that it is the real body and blood of Jesus.
 
SpiritMeadow said:
Most certainly!

I don’t think it’s similar, I think it is the same.

I do believe what the RCC believes about the Eucharist–that it is the real body and blood of Jesus.
Click to expand...
I promise that I’m not mocking you, but why do you believe that this eucharist thing is the real body and blood of Jesus, Christ?
 
SpiritMeadow said:
I do believe what the RCC believes about the Eucharist–that it is the real body and blood of Jesus.
Click to expand...
You believe that it is the real body and blood of Jesus, but I’m guessing that you don’t agree with what the Council of Trent said about the Eucharist.
 
cthulhubryan said:
Sorry, you are right. I got confused. According to the book of disciple the UMC does not believe in Real Presence.
Click to expand...
That is incorrect. The Articles of Religion state we do not embrace transubstantiation - same article as the Anglican AOR. That is not the same thing as the Real Presence. This Holy Mystery was adopted at the 2004 General Conference and became church law, where the Real Presence is affirmed:
United Methodists, along with other Christian traditions, have tried to provide clear and faithful interpretations of Christ’s presence in the Holy Meal. Our tradition asserts the real, personal, living presence of Jesus Christ. For United Methodists, the Lord’s Supper is anchored in the life of the historical Jesus of Nazareth, but is not primarily a remembrance or memorial. We do not embrace the medieval doctrine of transubstantiation, although we do believe that the elements are essential tangible means through which God works. We understand the divine presence in temporal and relational terms. In the Holy Meal of the church, the past, present, and future of the living Christ come together by the power of the Holy Spirit so that we may receive and embody Jesus Christ as God’s saving gift for the whole world.
Click to expand...
 
BRIT72 said:
I promise that I’m not mocking you, but why do you believe that this eucharist thing is the real body and blood of Jesus, Christ?
Click to expand...
You question is not mocking.

In biblical exegesis there is a premise that says that the more difficult a passage is (the more it is shocking or unhelpful to the church) the more likely it is to be accurate. Nothing could be more shocking that Jesus announcing that the bread and wine were his body and blood. This was an outrage to many who heard it. Thus I believe it to be what he really said.

Now some may interpret it to be symbolic. I think it is not. How it becomes the body and blood is pure mystery or miracle if you wish. It cannot be scientifically defined of course, and any other construct, such as transubstantiation is merely the word play of humans. It is simply mystery and a matter of faith that it occurs.

Many things are matter of faith, and we need not “prove” them beyond our faith. Faith is of course what God wishes.

Hope this helps.
 
Peter_J said:
I don’t know what your problem is, or why you’re being so difficult. It’s very simple: you said that I was excusing poor behavior. Since I was not excusing poor behavior, I took offense.

And now you’re trying to twist my words to mean that I don’t consider the behavior in question “poor”?

I think I’ll take my own advice (that I gave to O.S. Luke in the previous post) and discontinue this conversation.
Click to expand...
I too fail to see what you problem is so discontinuing the conversation is fine with me. Blessings.
 
masuwerte said:
No one has yet mentioned one salient fact. One poster mentioned that other protestant denominations believed in the Real Presence etc. I believe that the same poster said that he/she would sneak into a church where he/she was unknown and receive Holy Communion illicitly. Why would you do that? Crave something that is missing in Episcopalianism? The fact that no one has yet mentioned is that only a licitly ordained Catholic priest can confect the Holy Eucharist. No other clergymen of any protestant denomination (with the exception of the Orthodox) has this power. Protestants do not possess a valid eucharist because their Holy Orders and ordinations are not valid, full stop. They lost their Apostolic Succession with Henry VIII and his heretical Bishops. No valid priesthood, no Eucharist. It’s just bread and grape juice, not the True Body and Blood of Our Lord, Jesus Christ. Only the Catholic Church (and the Orthodox) possess this miracle. Sorry. Want the True Eucharist? Become Catholic.
Click to expand...
 
hosemonkey said:
quote=masuwerte;5103710

No one has yet mentioned one salient fact. One poster mentioned that other protestant denominations believed in the Real Presence etc. I believe that the same poster said that he/she would sneak into a church where he/she was unknown and receive Holy Communion illicitly. Why would you do that? Crave something that is missing in Episcopalianism? The fact that no one has yet mentioned is that only a licitly ordained Catholic priest can confect the Holy Eucharist. No other clergymen of any protestant denomination (with the exception of the Orthodox) has this power. Protestants do not possess a valid eucharist because their Holy Orders and ordinations are not valid, full stop. They lost their Apostolic Succession with Henry VIII and his heretical Bishops. No valid priesthood, no Eucharist. It’s just bread and grape juice, not the True Body and Blood of Our Lord, Jesus Christ. Only the Catholic Church (and the Orthodox) possess this miracle. Sorry. Want the True Eucharist? Become Catholic.
Click to expand...
Nice inflamatory statements (:rolleyes:) but what does it have to do with masuwerte’s post? (I also like the way you contradicted yourself by saying “only a licitly ordained Catholic priest can confect the Holy Eucharist” and then later saying that Orthodox priests can as well. Very classy. :))
 
O.S.Luke said:
That is incorrect. The Articles of Religion state we do not embrace transubstantiation - same article as the Anglican AOR. That is not the same thing as the Real Presence. This Holy Mystery was adopted at the 2004 General Conference and became church law, where the Real Presence is affirmed:
Click to expand...
👍
 
Jimzz12 said:
I went on a Habitat for Humanity a week long trip about 12-14 years ago. Some of us went to Mass while we were there. At one point during our stay, my friend Paul, while he was fueling at a gas station had a sheriff look at him funny. After Paul paid for his gas, he went on his merry way. A little ways down the road, the same cop pulled him over and wrote him a ticket. The officer let him know why. He said it was because he saw him come from a Catholic church, and that they don’t want people like him around. There was no other reason and the officer made that clear. There was more than one witness. :eek:
Click to expand...
Yikes! :eek: That kind of thing could easily be battled in court! :mad:
 
Hosemonkey,

Thank you for your post. FWIW, I said that I would not try to receive the Eucharist while visiting at a Catholic church, out of respect for my hosts.

Also, FWIW, I honestly believe that priests in the Episcopal Church have valid apostolic succession, and are therefore able to confect the Eucharist. Furthermore, I suspect that the almighty and merciful Lord, seeing the sincere belief of a congregation without a valid priesthood, might possibly grace such a congregation with his presence. Whenever two or three are gathered together in his name, remember? Are you certain that he would not?
 
Peter_J said:
Nice inflamatory statements (:rolleyes:) but what does it have to do with masuwerte’s post? (I also like the way you contradicted yourself by saying “only a licitly ordained Catholic priest can confect the Holy Eucharist” and then later saying that Orthodox priests can as well. Very classy. :))
Click to expand...
Point out any statements that are not factual. The Church that you are a member of teaches that if Apostolic Succession is lacking, then no valid Holy Orders exist, no true eucharist can be confected. The Orthodox, though schismatic, possess true Apostolic Succsession.
 
SpiritMeadow said:
You question is not mocking.

In biblical exegesis there is a premise that says that the more difficult a passage is (the more it is shocking or unhelpful to the church) the more likely it is to be accurate. Nothing could be more shocking that Jesus announcing that the bread and wine were his body and blood. This was an outrage to many who heard it. Thus I believe it to be what he really said.

Now some may interpret it to be symbolic. I think it is not. How it becomes the body and blood is pure mystery or miracle if you wish. It cannot be scientifically defined of course, and any other construct, such as transubstantiation is merely the word play of humans. It is simply mystery and a matter of faith that it occurs.

Many things are matter of faith, and we need not “prove” them beyond our faith. Faith is of course what God wishes.

Hope this helps.
Click to expand...
Well I guess we will have to agree to disagree.
Thanks for answering my question though. 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top