Protestants: Why don't you follow his command? "Eat My Flesh and Drink My Blood"

  • Thread starter Thread starter St.Eric
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
TobyLue:
Back up you guys! OS Luke said he has been ordained for 20 years not that he was ordained at the age of 20.

Lets use charity. I have to agree that many times we Catholics due to our eagerness to defend the teachings tend to loose it. I know I used to do it whenever any JW’s would knock at my door until my wife pointed it out to me. We want all non-catholics to stick around. We don’t want them to leave. Let’s not be like some non-catholic forums where a Catholic goes to defend the CC’s position and he is ridiculed. I think apologies are due to OS Luke.

I hope those that are defending positions that are against what the CC teaches stop, think. and look at the history of such teachings. Do your beliefs reflect those of the early Church, before we had the canon, the ECF’s or do your beliefs suddenly propped up sometime after the reformation?
Click to expand...
Assuming OS Luke is honest, his birthdate on his profile in April, 1965, he states he has been ordained for 20 years…so… he would have been 20 years old when he was ordained. I don’t see why I would need to apologize. I am pointing out facts. If he did in fact go through the seminary, take exams, psych exams, etc. Then it was an awfully short seminary assuming he started it when he was 18. My point still stands- a 2 or 3 year seminary is not very long at all. I do not see the malice in pointing out this fact.
 
Better still, Maybe OS Luke would like to clarify this for us.
1965 to 2006 is 40/41 years old depending on month born. If ordained a minister at age 21, then how long was the seminary?:hmmm:
 
40.png
TobyLue:
Better still, Maybe OS Luke would like to clarify this for us.
1965 to 2006 is 40/41 years old depending on month born. If ordained a minister at age 21, then how long was the seminary?:hmmm:
Click to expand...
Ditto :hmmm:
 
I attended the University of Tennessee for a B.S. degree, I attended Emory University for a M.Div degree. I was ordained a deacon, attended seminary, did a year of clinical pastoral education. After seminary I served two years on probation, was examined by ordination boards and underwent physical and psychological examinations, as well as spiritual direction, and upon completion of that was ordained an elder/presbyter.

I’m not unique among United Methodist pastors. The only difference is that now probabationary/pastoral formation is no longer two years after seminary, but now three.

I’ve actually served in parish ministry since 1985, as a licensed pastor (similar to a Canon IX pastor in the Episcopal Church). I was rounding numbers when I said 20. I apologize.

Can I ask what this has to do with Real Presence? :ehh: If someone really wants confirmation of my pastoral/educational record, if they will PM me I will put them in touch with our episcopal office. Good grief.

I think this thread has denigrated where you’re more concerned with discrediting or denigrating me and my faith tradition than to have a discussion about matters theological and faithful. Eleven (11) posts just about me and my credentials? Shouldn’t this be more about Him than me (that is the thread topic, isn’t it?)?

O+
 
O.S. Luke:
I attended the University of Tennessee for a B.S. degree, I attended Emory University for a M.Div degree. I was ordained a deacon, attended seminary, did a year of clinical pastoral education. After seminary I served two years on probation, was examined by ordination boards and underwent physical and psychological examinations, as well as spiritual direction, and upon completion of that was ordained an elder/presbyter.

I’m not unique among United Methodist pastors. The only difference is that now probabationary/pastoral formation is no longer two years after seminary, but now three.

I’ve actually served in parish ministry since 1985, as a licensed pastor (similar to a Canon IX pastor in the Episcopal Church). I was rounding numbers when I said 20. I apologize.

Can I ask what this has to do with Real Presence? :ehh: If someone really wants confirmation of my pastoral/educational record, if they will PM me I will put them in touch with our episcopal office. Good grief.

I think this thread has denigrated where you’re more concerned with discrediting or denigrating me and my faith tradition than to have a discussion about matters theological and faithful. Eleven (11) posts just about me and my credentials? Shouldn’t this be more about Him than me (that is the thread topic, isn’t it?)?

O+
Click to expand...
Thanks for the reply. You are the one that threw out the credentials, I was merely inquiring, no one is denigrating anyone. Please don’t be so sensitive. I guess I am more familiar with theology programs that end with a doctorate, i.e., 6-8 years of seminary/theology. That is why I questioned what type of program you attended. No, it doesn’t have anything to do with the OP, but again, you made the claim and I was curious about it. Please, I would appreciate it if you would refrain from the false accusations of being “denigrated” here. Nothing of the sort has happened. Thank you.
 
Kitty Chan:
As far as I can “remember” the Pastor would say

This is my body broken for you, eat and remember
This is my blood, drink and remember

I went over this on another thread, the prayers are the same, the thoughts are the same, the reasons are the same, no one eats or drinks unworthy, the same.

Difference is juice/wine bread/ wafers and symbol / actual flesh

Even when the Pastor says this is My Body, Im thinking Body, on cross death suffering, blood spilling after being whipped. How much more literal do I need to be?

Envision its blood in the glass? Or chunks of flesh broken off?

Everytime someone explains this I cannot see where this arguement is. Is it envisioning a chunk of the body in your hand? Or is it as I see it, I looking at the bread and thinking of Christs Body, and thinking of what Hes about to go through.

any thoughts, regarding this specifically?
Click to expand...
I don’t think it is about “envisioning a chunk of flesh in your hand” or “blood in the glass,” rather, it is about believing/knowing you are eating his true flesh and drinking his true blood.
 
40.png
St.Eric:
Thanks for the reply. You are the one that threw out the credentials, I was merely inquiring, no one is denigrating anyone. Please don’t be so sensitive. I guess I am more familiar with theology programs that end with a doctorate, i.e., 6-8 years of seminary/theology. That is why I questioned what type of program you attended. No, it doesn’t have anything to do with the OP, but again, you made the claim and I was curious about it. Please, I would appreciate it if you would refrain from the false accusations of being “denigrated” here. Nothing of the sort has happened. Thank you.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you forgot your own words:
Assuming OS Luke is honest, his birthdate on his profile in April, 1965, he states he has been ordained for 20 years…so… he would have been 20 years old when he was ordained. I don’t see why I would need to apologize. I am pointing out facts. If he did in fact go through the seminary, take exams, psych exams, etc. Then it was an awfully short seminary assuming he started it when he was 18. My point still stands- a 2 or 3 year seminary is not very long at all. I do not see the malice in pointing out this fact.
Click to expand...
“I don’t see why I need to apologize… If he did in fact…” I guess I know what attitude I need to take on this board. Duly noted.

If you read the requirements for an M.Div, you see that it is a 3-4 year degree. In the UMC, there are then 3 more years of probationary work in the parish and in spiritual and vocational formation. It’s as long as what most Catholic dioceses require for the priesthood. Several of my fellowship seminary students were studying for the Catholic priesthood through the Aquinas Center. Different courses, but they took the same number of course hours for the Master of Divinity degree - 90 hours.

I’d appreciate it if you’d take a second look at what you said. What did I do to deserve this scrutiny? I am not a Catholic basher. Thank you.

O+
 
Ok you two. Knock it off. Let’s agree on both parts they are a lack of communications. Okay?
 
O.S. Luke:
Perhaps you forgot your own words:

“I don’t see why I need to apologize… If he did in fact…” I guess I know what attitude I need to take on this board. Duly noted.

If you read the requirements for an M.Div, you see that it is a 3-4 year degree. In the UMC, there are then 3 more years of probationary work in the parish and in spiritual and vocational formation. It’s as long as what most Catholic dioceses require for the priesthood. Several of my fellowship seminary students were studying for the Catholic priesthood through the Aquinas Center. Different courses, but they took the same number of course hours for the Master of Divinity degree - 90 hours.

I’d appreciate it if you’d take a second look at what you said. What did I do to deserve this scrutiny? I am not a Catholic basher. Thank you.

O+
Click to expand...
I can see you are not a Catholic basher. I don’t believe anyone on this thread has made such a claim. I also believe your claims about your credentials. We are all subject to scrutiny. And, men of the cloth are held to even more scrutiny:

1 Thessalonians 5:21 NIV •
Test everything. Hold on to the good.

1 John 4:1 NIV • Test the Spirits ] Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.

Revelation 16:14 NIV •
They are spirits of demons performing miraculous signs, and they go out to the kings of the whole world, to gather them for the battle on the great day of God Almighty.

God Bless!
 
40.png
St.Eric:
I hear over and over again how Catholics beleive and pratice things that are not in the bible. Here is one dogma of the RCC that is in the bible over and over again- We must truly eat his flesh and drink his blood if we are to have life in us. Yet, with only a couple of exceptions, protestants discount this command either entirely or they discount the literal interpretation and claim it is only symbollical at best. Why? Convince me. Convince us Catholics that we are wrong on this issue. Why do you take the scriptires literally on so many other issues and yet on this most important issue, you calim it is now only symbolic?

Save all of the other debates for other threads. Let’s talk about being cannibals here!

Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist
Jn 6:35-71 - Eucharist promised
Mt 26:26ff (Mk 14:22ff., Lk 22:17ff.) - Eucharist instituted
1Cor 10:16 - Eucharist = participation in Christ’s body & blood
1 Cor 11:23-29 - receiving unworthily his body & blood
Ex 12:8, 46 - Paschal lamb had to be eaten
Jn 1:29 - Jesus called “Lamb of God”
1 Cor 5:7 - Jesus called "paschal lamb who has been sacrificed
Jn 4:31-34; Mt 16;5-12 - Jesus talking symbolically about food
1Cor 2:14-3:4 - explains what “the flesh” means in Jn 6:63
Ps 14:4; Is 9:18-20; Is 49:26; Mic 3:3; 2Sm 23:15-17; Rv 17:6, 16 -
to symbolically eat & drink one’s body & blood = assault

“Oh Sacred Heart of Jesus, truly present in the Holy Eucharist, we place our trust in you!”/QUOTE) Does verse 63 of Jn 6 in any way spiritualize this teaching on the eating of Bread: “the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit”?
Click to expand...
 
40.png
yearner:
40.png
St.Eric:
I hear over and over again how Catholics beleive and pratice things that are not in the bible. Here is one dogma of the RCC that is in the bible over and over again- We must truly eat his flesh and drink his blood if we are to have life in us. Yet, with only a couple of exceptions, protestants discount this command either entirely or they discount the literal interpretation and claim it is only symbollical at best. Why? Convince me. Convince us Catholics that we are wrong on this issue. Why do you take the scriptires literally on so many other issues and yet on this most important issue, you calim it is now only symbolic?

Save all of the other debates for other threads. Let’s talk about being cannibals here!

Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist
Jn 6:35-71 - Eucharist promised
Mt 26:26ff (Mk 14:22ff., Lk 22:17ff.) - Eucharist instituted
1Cor 10:16 - Eucharist = participation in Christ’s body & blood
1 Cor 11:23-29 - receiving unworthily his body & blood
Ex 12:8, 46 - Paschal lamb had to be eaten
Jn 1:29 - Jesus called “Lamb of God”
1 Cor 5:7 - Jesus called "paschal lamb who has been sacrificed
Jn 4:31-34; Mt 16;5-12 - Jesus talking symbolically about food
1Cor 2:14-3:4 - explains what “the flesh” means in Jn 6:63
Ps 14:4; Is 9:18-20; Is 49:26; Mic 3:3; 2Sm 23:15-17; Rv 17:6, 16 -
to symbolically eat & drink one’s body & blood = assault

“Oh Sacred Heart of Jesus, truly present in the Holy Eucharist, we place our trust in you!”
Click to expand...
Does verse 63 of Jn 6 in any way spiritualize this teaching on the eating of Bread: “the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit”?
Click to expand...
If you think that that’s what John 6:63 means, then Jesus basically just went on a rampage saying how we *needed * to eat His flesh and then turned around to contradict Himself and said that everything He just told them was pointless. Doesn’t seem to add up to me, especially considering the witness of the Early Church.
 
40.png
yearner:
Code: 
Does verse 63 of Jn 6 in any way spiritualize this teaching on the eating of Bread: "the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit"?
Click to expand...
The short answer is no. Christ is saying “the” flesh- meaning the flesh of men, men in general. You need to see the whole thing in context:

John 6:53-66

53Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. 57Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever.” 59He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.

Many Disciples Desert Jesus
60On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”
61Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? 62What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! 63The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit[e] and they are life. 64Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. 65He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him.”

66From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.

…And what do his WORDS tell us to DO? In verses 53-58 his WORDS command (keep my commandments) us to DO something. In verses 61-62 Jesus convicts the disciples of their disbelief. Verses 63-65 he explains how human flesh is to no avail but his words give life and his words tell us that his flesh and blood are to be eaten and they will give eternal life. HE then convicts the disciples again of their disbelief. And verse 66- he allows those who do not believe to leave him. He did not have to explain the parable, because he was speaking clearly and literally.
 
Former baptist prospective,

Today the baptist church is split in many different directions, you have the fundamental circle, the very fundamental cirlce… and so on.

I was talking to my grandmother whom was a life long Baptist now Methodist, and we were talking about the real presence of Christ in the Lords Supper, she did not object, she said there is a difference between a real presence theolgy and it actually turning into the flesh of christ.

I beleive the older Baptist would believe in the real presence theology meaning that the spirist lives within the bread.

We Catholics are the only ones that believe in Transubstanciation I believe, and the Lutherans and Anglicans believe in Substantciation.

To a modern day fundamental nothing that special happens out of the ordinary.

The funny thing is we as CHurch are attacked for our “man made doctrines” all the time, but when you get to the nuts and bolts of the bible it is always the protestant that have come up with their own unique and differing theolgies and view points of what the bible really means… just a thought for all of those protesters.
 
40.png
St.Eric:
The short answer is no. Christ is saying “the” flesh- meaning the flesh of men, men in general. You need to see the whole thing in context:

John 6:53-66

53Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. 57Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever.” 59He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.

Many Disciples Desert Jesus
60On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”
61Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? 62What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! 63The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit[e] and they are life. 64Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. 65He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him.”

66From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.

…And what do his WORDS tell us to DO? In verses 53-58 his WORDS command (keep my commandments) us to DO something. In verses 61-62 Jesus convicts the disciples of their disbelief. Verses 63-65 he explains how human flesh is to no avail but his words give life and his words tell us that his flesh and blood are to be eaten and they will give eternal life. HE then convicts the disciples again of their disbelief. And verse 66- he allows those who do not believe to leave him. He did not have to explain the parable, because he was speaking clearly and literally.
Click to expand...
I am a former evangelical and now a Lutheran… I am a seeker, a “yearner”, looking for Truth. I love the Catholic view of the Eucharist but still question Vs 63 because “flesh” needs to take on a different meaning than the context of Jesus discussion. Also, He admits He is speaking spiritually. What am I missing?
 
40.png
yearner:
I am a former evangelical and now a Lutheran… I am a seeker, a “yearner”, looking for Truth. I love the Catholic view of the Eucharist but still question Vs 63 because “flesh” needs to take on a different meaning than the context of Jesus discussion. Also, He admits He is speaking spiritually. What am I missing?
Click to expand...
Speaking from the flesh, man cannot live without eating and drinking. Terri Schavo lived for 13 days and then she died.

Without eating and drinking, you will surely die.

Spiritually speaking, without spiritual food, you will surely die. Look around at all the people living to satisfy the flesh.

Gal 5
19 Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery,fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, 20 idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, 21 envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Just look at the 6 o’clock news and read the newspapers.

In all, everything you eat, everything you drink: give thanks to God and remember Jesus death and resurrection.

Without Jesus, this world doesn’t have a prayer.
 
40.png
yearner:
I am a former evangelical and now a Lutheran… I am a seeker, a “yearner”, looking for Truth. I love the Catholic view of the Eucharist but still question Vs 63 because “flesh” needs to take on a different meaning than the context of Jesus discussion. Also, He admits He is speaking spiritually. What am I missing?
Click to expand...
Here are some great sites for you to discover the “Real Presence”:

www.therealpresence.org

www.scripturecatholic.com/the_eucharist.html

And you will find a series called “Eucharist: Source & Summit” by Fr. Corapi near the bottom of this page:

www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/realpres/a12.html

You will find it listed in the section entitled “Audio Programs”. You will need RealPlayer to listen though.

Many others have started out yearning for truth and are when they listen to that voice they are led by the Holy Spirit to the Catholic Church. May God bless you on your journey!
 
I don’t have an argument on it either way. I havent even had my first communion yet so I am not going to argue theology with anyone. With that said however, my love of Christ plays out in me humbly submitting to His Church and its teachings it has carried down since the time of Christ.

Anyways I am confused. Are we supposed to take the Bible literally or symbolically? I had the “call no man father” argument thrown at me by a protestant, where the guy said we are to take the whole Bible literally. Then I came here and Protestants are saying to take parts of the Bible symbolically. If we are to take it both literal in places and symbolically in places, who decides what verses are symbolic or literal? I mean this in no offense to anyone, but to me it seems that this particular Protestant I talked with takes it literal when it helps his case against Catholicism and then symbolically when it comes to his own faith. Just something I was confused on.

God Bless
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top