1500 years and nobody thought of it?

[mschrank]

How do Protestants deal with the historical fact that for 1500 years, nobody ever dreamed of any of the ideas they consider “truth”?

For example, the Eucharist is not the body of Christ. Hmm, well, Jesus, or someone, sure fooled those stupid Orthodox and Catholics! And even most of the early “Reformers” such as Martin Luther!

 

[Archerette74]

Plenty of people thought of it …

It was called heresy!

 

[Joel_Tunnah]

They look at other areas of human activity, such as science/technology, and see “progress” and growth of understanding.
It’s a correct view if you’re talking about medicine, but does it apply to Revelation? I don’t think so, but then that’s why I’m Catholic.

 

[ralphinal]

They look at other areas of human activity, such as science/technology, and see “progress” and growth of understanding.
It’s a correct view if you’re talking about medicine, but does it apply to Revelation? I don’t think so, but then that’s why I’m Catholic.

Actually it does happen in faith. People like Augustin and Aquinas add to our understanding. We are better able to define core beleifs like the Trinity. We better understand the mercy of God and what it means to have faith.

What never happens is that Truth cannot change. Take medicine as an example. We have a much better understanding than they had 1,000 years ago. Everything functions the same way though. They did not know the truth so they created things. Anatomy did not change, our knowledge of it did. If the Catholic Church contains the Fullnes of Truth, then all that can change is our understanding of it. There can be no new truths. If we are wrong, then it is all wrong, as we have no idea what can be trusted to be true anymore, including the Bible itself.

 

[mschrank]

If we are wrong, then it is all wrong, as we have no idea what can be trusted to be true anymore, including the Bible itself.

That’s what I think. The real alternative to Catholicism is not Protestantism or Islam or JWism or Mormonism or even Atheism, but a pagan kind of zany-verse where Truth in any form does not exist and the gods do as they please.

 

[johnnydigit]

i’ve been told that although some things may be true of the RCC like the canon of scripture, it’s been in error on a lot of other things. if they don’t buy Matthew 16, they don’t have to buy anything about the Church…

 

[vern_humphrey]

i’ve been told that although some things may be true of the RCC like the canon of scripture, it’s been in error on a lot of other things. if they don’t buy Matthew 16, they don’t have to buy anything about the Church…

Odd, isn’t it, how people who proclaim Sola Scriptura must reject scripture to arrive at their beliefs?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

How do Protestants deal with the historical fact that for 1500 years, nobody ever dreamed of any of the ideas they consider “truth”?

For example, the Eucharist is not the body of Christ. Hmm, well, Jesus, or someone, sure fooled those stupid Orthodox and Catholics! And even most of the early “Reformers” such as Martin Luther!

Protestantism believes that - what they (or the vast majority) don’t believe, is the doctrine of transubstantiation. Which is reasonable enough, since no Father did either: the very word was unknown until the 12th century. To this day, it is only one of several Orthodox ideas about the Eucharistic change - they don’t give it the exclusive status that RC dogma does.​

There is far more to RCism than the RC distinctives - most RC doctrine is common to RCs & Protestantism & Orthodoxy: it is really “mere Christianity” - not peculiar to the RCC, or even to “Papal Catholicism” (so to call it).

So maybe RCs who ridicule Protestantism need to do some homework.

 

[surgei]

Odd, isn’t it, how people who proclaim Sola Scriptura must reject scripture to arrive at their beliefs?

Rejection of Peter as Supreme Pontiff is not rejection of scripture. What is rejected is the perspective taken by the RC that Matt and other “proof texts” are what the catholics claim them to be. To use your own logic, “Where are the petrine scriptures supported by fathers as petrine?”
The Fathers look upon all of the Apostles as petras, that is stones.
Our understanding of the Eucharist is unchanged since apostolic times. To the point, often it is word for word explenation that modern apologists come up with on their own. By elevating it to the level of dogma, are you not saying that without believing it then one cannot be saved? Why are the Fathers so clear on eucharist and other dogmas while remaining so hidden on such a needed doctrine?
How can the Orthodox and the Orientals continue in truth to the point of having valid sacraments when they have been seperated from the guardian of the truth? What of the Churches of India started by Thomas the apostle? They did not even have the councils in any way, and yet it is Rome who seeks comunion with them not them communion with Rome?
What does scripture say is the pillar of truth, pope or church?
Where does it say in scripture or tradition that the this charism you claim for Peter is passed to his heirs?

These are very agressive questions. They should not be percieved as uncharitable. I am simply pointing out that their are some logical flaws in your perspective.

 

[mschrank]

Let’s not play semantics, yes, Thomas Aquinas developed the idea of Transubstantion, but before that, nobody belived that the Eucharist was simply a memorial of something passed, or a piece of bread.

If you can find some, in all intellectual honesty, if anyone in the Early Christian Era saying that it is just bread, than I’d be surprised and would even start to take your protest a bit more seriously.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Rejection of Peter as Supreme Pontiff is not rejection of scripture.

Right – and cows can fly.

 

[surgei]

Let’s not play semantics, yes, Thomas Aquinas developed the idea of Transubstantion, but before that, nobody belived that the Eucharist was simply a memorial of something passed, or a piece of bread.

If you can find some, in all intellectual honesty, if anyone in the Early Christian Era saying that it is just bread, than I’d be surprised and would even start to take your protest a bit more seriously.

Transubstantiation is a Greek term not Aquinestic. It apears long before him by the way.

 

[SolaFide]

Actually it does happen in faith. People like Augustin and Aquinas add to our understanding. We are better able to define core beleifs like the Trinity. We better understand the mercy of God and what it means to have faith.

What never happens is that Truth cannot change. Take medicine as an example. We have a much better understanding than they had 1,000 years ago. Everything functions the same way though. They did not know the truth so they created things. Anatomy did not change, our knowledge of it did. If the Catholic Church contains the Fullnes of Truth, then all that can change is our understanding of it. There can be no new truths. If we are wrong, then it is all wrong, as we have no idea what can be trusted to be true anymore, including the Bible itself.

Actually you are partly right. Origen and Augustine came up with it. Origen and Augustine were both heavily influence by Plato and his “dualistic” philosophies. The Gnostics were also heavily influenced by Plato and Neo-Platonic thought.

The idea of “dualism” is that the physical is bad and the spiritual is good (very simplistic explanation here) and so the whole idea of “transubstantiation” was a Platonic (read: secular philosophy) that Origen and Augustine “glommed” onto and repackaged it for Hellenistic thought.

For those of you who think the disciples believed it…WRONG! Let me ask you this: If the disciples actually believed they were eating Jesus’ flesh and drinking his blood in the eucharist: why, oh why would they tell the believers to abstain from blood? I mean if it were soooooo necessary for salvation to believe this, why would they tell the believers not to drink blood?

Act 15:22 Then it pleased the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas, namely, Judas who was also named Barsabas,[4] and Silas, leading men among the brethren.
Act 15:23 They wrote this letter by them:

The apostles, the elders, and the brethren, 

To the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia: 

Greetings.

Act 15:24 Since we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, “You must be circumcised and keep the law”–to whom we gave no such commandment–
Act 15:25 it seemed good to us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,
Act 15:26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Act 15:27 We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who will also report the same things by word of mouth.
Act 15:28 For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things:
Act 15:29 that you abstain from things offered to idols,** from blood**, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well.
Farewell.

 

[vern_humphrey]

As for the early recognition of the role of Peter and his successors – look to Acts, where we clearly see Peter as the leader of the Apostles. Look to the Epistles of Clement. Look to Irenaeus.

 

[vern_humphrey]

For those of you who think the disciples believed it…WRONG! Let me ask you this: If the disciples actually believed they were eating Jesus’ flesh and drinking his blood in the eucharist: why, oh why would they tell the believers to abstain from blood? I mean if it were soooooo necessary for salvation to believe this, why would they tell the believers not to drink blood?
.

They did not tell the gentiles to abstain from the Blood of Christ, but from blood as the gentiles took it – the blood of sacrificed animals. A close analogy would be Moses’ proscription of seething a kid in the milk of its mother – not something intrinsically wrong, but rather a pagan religious practice.

To see how early Christians regarded the Eucharist, read the First Apology of Justin.

 

[SolaFide]

Right – and cows can fly.

Really now? Why would the Apostle Paul write a whole letter to the Romans and greet more than two dozen people in Rome in this letter and if Peter were the Bishop of Rome as the RCC suggests why doesn’t Paul greet Peter? That seems to be a grave oversight bordering on insult if Peter was, indeed, the Bishop of Rome.

Also if Peter was pope then why would Paul dare to say that the “leaders” of the church who “seemed” to be something it made no matter to him and that God shows no partiality with men:

Gal 2:1Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and also took Titus with me.
Gal 2:2 And I went up by revelation, and communicated to them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to those who were of reputation, lest by any means I might run, or had run, in vain.
Gal 2:3 Yet not even Titus who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised.
Gal 2:4 And this occurred because of false brethren secretly brought in (who came in by stealth to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage),
Gal 2:5 to whom we did not yield submission even for an hour, that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.
Gal 2:6 But from those who seemed to be something–whatever they were, it makes no difference to me; God shows personal favoritism to no man–for those who seemed to be something added nothing to me.

and he lists James, Peter and John as supposed “pillars” in the church…not just Peter.

Gal 2:7 But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter
Gal 2:8 (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles),
Gal 2:9 and when **James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, **perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.
Gal 2:10 They desired only that we should remember the poor, the very thing which I also was eager to do.

This would indicate that Peter was an apostle to the Jews, not the Gentiles. Paul was the Apostle to the Gentiles.

Also, if Peter was such a bastian of religious fortitude why did Paul have to rebuke him for his un-Christlike behavior for not acting in line with the truth of the Gospel?

Gal 2:11 Now when Peter had come to Antioch,** I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed;**
Gal 2:12 for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision.
Gal 2:13 And the rest of the Jews also **played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy. **

What?!!! The first Pope lead people into error and hypocrisy? Well, maybe it’s because he wasn’t the pope.

 

[SolaFide]

As for the early recognition of the role of Peter and his successors – look to Acts, where we clearly see Peter as the leader of the Apostles. Look to the Epistles of Clement. Look to Irenaeus.

Yes, look to Acts. Who was the leader of the Jerusalem council? James, not Peter.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Really now? Why would the Apostle Paul write a whole letter to the Romans and greet more than two dozen people in Rome in this letter and if Peter were the Bishop of Rome as the RCC suggests why doesn’t Paul greet Peter? That seems to be a grave oversight bordering on insult if Peter was, indeed, the Bishop of Rome.

At the time, Peter was not in Rome.

Also, if Peter was such a bastian of religious fortitude why did Paul have to rebuke him for his un-Christlike behavior for not acting in line with the truth of the Gospel?

Paul rebuked Peter for his social behavior – shunning the gentiles. Peter is often show as human and prone to human flaws – Christ did not choose a perfect man, He chose a human man.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Yes, look to Acts. Who was the leader of the Jerusalem council? James, not Peter.

It helps to know the contemporary world and its practices when interpreting the Bible.

The Jewish practice was for the junior man to speak first – using the ritual words, “It is my decision.” Then the next junior would speak, using the same words, with a different or modified decision, and so on.

At the Council of Jerusalem, the junior man’s pronouncement required no modifications and was accepted.

 

[SolaFide]

They did not tell the gentiles to abstain from the Blood of Christ, but from blood as the gentiles took it – the blood of sacrificed animals. A close analogy would be Moses’ proscription of seething a kid in the milk of its mother – not something intrinsically wrong, but rather a pagan religious practice.

To see how early Christians regarded the Eucharist, read the First Apology of Justin.

Wow, so they could say. Abstain from sexual immorality …except of course unless you’re really in love.

What hypocrisy it would’ve been to have Jesus say he fulfilled the law, including that against blood, and then have his very disciples violate it. Why don’t Catholics understand what would’ve been the sheer hypocrisy of Christ’s words if He had actually meant to ingest his flesh and blood?? You make out your own Lord to be a liar.