Calling on all Protestants on this forum!

[Neithan]

“ding-a-lings”? hahaha. c’mon dennis, that’s not harsh at all.

It is a bit erratic, but I’ve seen a lot more useless threads than this one.

 

[gr8full]

I’m just wondering why you are so interested in having Protestants supply you with historical fact? Are you doubting the Catholic Church? I’m a Protestant here on the Catholic forum because I’m doubting my Protestant roots. And, btw, it’s been my experience that many, many Protestant churches do not teach from historical documents other than their own interpretation of the Bible. Thats kinda how it all got started in a nutshell isn’t it? Someone’s own interpretation of the Bible? Not trusting the Church? My intention is to just understand where you’re coming from on this. I’m still eager to learn more about the Church. I’ve read some books from some very sincere and brilliant authors, but I think I’ve learned more from reading these forums. Thanks to all of you.

 

[Exporter]

Exporter:

I skipped around reading down to post# 200 and I want to tell you people thaat this is the most useless thread I have read in 4 months. What was it that attracted such a group of ding-a-lings to this thread?

---

By Dennis K.
"dennisknappQuote:
Originally Posted by Exporter
I skipped around reading down to post# 200 and I want to tell you people thaat this is the most useless thread I have read in 4 months. What was it that attracted such a group of ding-a-lings to this thread?

It was a good thread until it got diverted, but your words are harsh. Why would you say something like this? It not charitable or relevant.

dennisknapp says this thread was good until it “got diverted”, so it DID “get diverted”. Then I was correct that the thread became “unproductive”. The truth is this: I read and could not determine what the various posters were talking about! It showed a lack of concentration IMO.

So I said just what I thought. I used a “childish” descriptive term, ding-a-ling. It may be wrong of me to assume everyone knows what that term means so I will tell you. It means one who lacks concentration! If that is harsh to anyone - so be it. I have heard Johnny Carson say that.

 

[SirShaun]

gr8full:

I’m just wondering why you are so interested in having Protestants supply you with historical fact? Are you doubting the Catholic Church?

I have no doubt that Dennis completely believes in the Roman Catholic Church, and has researched the issues he’s asking about. I don’t think that’s the point of this thread at all. I think (Dennis can correct me if I’m wrong) the point is to get those of us who respect the Roman Catholic Church for it’s rich history to see if that same rich history exists in our own churches, and if not, why not.

Look at it this way: Jerome spoke Greek. He learned how to speak Greek from those who spoke Greek in their day to day lives. He also spoke Hebrew, and learned Hebrew from those who spoke Hebrew in their day to day lives. Jerome grew up in the same cultural climate that the New Testament was written in, and later moved to Palestine where he lived for years in the same cultural climate that the Old Testament was largely written in. Jerome had access to historical records that have since turned to dust. Some of the cities he visited have even since been rebuilt. If Jerome finds a doctrine Protestants teach (say, for example, that Mary had other children) to be unfounded in the language of New Testament, and also in the history books avaliable to him at the time, and the major authorities of his day cheered him (or at least didn’t rebuke him) for saying so, then what amazing new fact could someone in the fifteenth century have found that reversed this notion? (I’ll give you a hint: no new archeological excavations shed any light on it, no new manuscripts of relivant portions that were unknown to Jerome were found, and no new prophets were sent with a message on the subject.)

But by the same token, if Augustine, who grew up in the same cultural climate as the New Testament was written, and was considered one of the foremost theologins of his time, and learned how to read Greek, considered the idea that the Eucharist stopped being bread and wine bondage and legalizm, and was not rebuked for saying so, but cheered on every count as being a masterful theologin, and the issue was either still debated or still considered that way when the Schizm of the East and West (as is evedenced by the fact that the Eastern Church doesn’t teach the same) then what new discovery could have been made in the fourteen or fifteen hundreds to reverse that stance?

The answer to both questions, obviously, is they’re new inventions of a more modern era. That doesn’t make them in and of themselves wrong, just makes sure we all know where we’re comming from.

dennisknapp:

It was a good thread until it got diverted, but your words are harsh. Why would you say something like this? It not charitable or relevant.

I prefer to think this thread has been upgraded, addressing a broader range than you originally intended. (Though I still think most of this thread has stayed within the confines of your original question, just maybe not the way you’d originally hoped.)

I have found this thread to be the most useful thread on the Forum so far, helping me to sharpen my focus and lead organize my thoughts, as well as giving me some perspective on some opposing views.

Exporter:

I skipped around reading down to post# 200 and I want to tell you people thaat this is the most useless thread I have read in 4 months. What was it that attracted such a group of ding-a-lings to this thread?

I can’t speak for anyone else, but what originally attracted me to this thread is the original question: there are several ideas I came to which at some point or other I thought I was the first person to think of them, until I read the Church Fathers. Some of these it was because the Protestant Churches don’t, in general, make a big deal out of them, others it was because they aren’t taught today at all. I would hold my tongue out of a firm belief that anything that comes from only one person is probobly wrong. Then when I found similar statements to mine in the Church Fathers, I started to think that maybe I wasn’t so wrong. When I read Dennis’s original question, I realized I had not applied the same process to my protests against the Church, and decided to do so.

 

[dennisknapp]

SirShaun:

But by the same token, if Augustine, who grew up in the same cultural climate as the New Testament was written, and was considered one of the foremost theologins of his time, and learned how to read Greek, considered the idea that the Eucharist stopped being bread and wine bondage and legalizm, and was not rebuked for saying so, but cheered on every count as being a masterful theologin, and the issue was either still debated or still considered that way when the Schizm of the East and West (as is evedenced by the fact that the Eastern Church doesn’t teach the same) then what new discovery could have been made in the fourteen or fifteen hundreds to reverse that stance?
.

Augustine was no expert in Greek and he even says so. Also, where do he say, “considered the idea that the Eucharist stopped being bread and wine bondage and legalizm”? I don’t get that from his writtings. Do you have an example?

And I would say that the issue is closed because the Church has spoken on it. You may not agree, but I side with Augustine when he said, "“It is clear, faith admits it, the Catholic Church approves, it is true.” (s. 117.6)

Peace to you Sir Shaun

 

[SirShaun]

dennisknapp:

How exactly do you see the historic Church (Eastern and Western) disagreeing on this issue?

I did some research online for you on this, and found on the website oca.org/pages/orth_chri/Orthodox-Faith/Worship/Holy-Eucharist.html (which is the website for the Orthodox Church in North America) the following statement:

“Thus, the bread of the eucharist is Christ’s flesh, and Christ’s flesh is the eucharistic bread. The two are brought together into one.”

That sounds to me like consubstantiation. I wouldn’t take it as an official statement, but at least as something that is not considered unorthodox. So, yes, I would have to say I see the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches as divided as to if the bread stays bread, as well as the other two issues I brought up (but you never questioned those, so I assumed we agree that those are disputed between the two).

 

[dennisknapp]

SirShaun:

I did some research online for you on this, and found on the website oca.org/pages/orth_chri/Orthodox-Faith/Worship/Holy-Eucharist.html (which is the website for the Orthodox Church in North America) the following statement:

“Thus, the bread of the eucharist is Christ’s flesh, and Christ’s flesh is the eucharistic bread. The two are brought together into one.”

That sounds to me like consubstantiation. I wouldn’t take it as an official statement, but at least as something that is not considered unorthodox. So, yes, I would have to say I see the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches as divided as to if the bread stays bread, as well as the other two issues I brought up (but you never questioned those, so I assumed we agree that those are disputed between the two).

What are the other two issues?

BTW what do you think of Deacon Ed’s reply about the Eucharist?

“Again, the term is not used because it depends on a philosophy that is foreign to the East (both Orthodox and Eastern Catholic). However, the underlying belief, that the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Jesus is common to both. The problem is that the term “transubstantiation” is a description of what happens – and neither the Orthodox nor the Eastern Catholics attempt to do that. We simply accept the basics. At the same time, we do not hold to consubstantiation because the Church Fathers made it clear that it was no longer bread and wine but really the Body and Blood of Jesus.”

He is an Eastern Catholic and they tend to side with the Eastern Orthodox on this issue.

Peace

 

[SirShaun]

dennisknapp:

Augustine was no expert in Greek and he even says so. Also, where do he say, “considered the idea that the Eucharist stopped being bread and wine bondage and legalizm”? I don’t get that from his writtings. Do you have an example?

I didn’t say he was an expert, just that he knew it. He apeals to the Greek of the New Testament and LXX all through City of God, and talks about how the Greek words and phrases are constructed, but you’re right, he was no expert. Sometimes, he translates things wrong, or in a way that would be an awkward reading for the Greek. He a few times in various works admits to being no expert on the subject, and I doubt he regularly read his New Testament in Greek. Being in the process of learning Greek and Hebrew myself (and I doubt I’ll ever be an expert either, but that’s not my goal, as I don’t even consider myself an expert in English) it is obvious in reading City of God that he’s definatly more framiliar with Greek than Hebrew, but he’s framiliar with the basics of grammar and vocabulary in both. (At times, he makes mistakes with Hebrew that are a little odd, giving derivations to words that sound similar, because that’s how far his knowledge on that side goes, but rarely if ever makes that mistake in texts comming from the Greek.)

Christian Doctrine Book III, Chapter 9: “… such, for example, as the sacrament of baptism, and the celebration of the body and blood of the Lord. And as soon as any one looks upon these observances he knows to what they refer, and so reveres them not in carnal bondage, but in spiritual freedom. Now, as to follow the letter, and to take signs for the things that are signified by them, is a mark of weakness and bondage; so to interpret signs wrongly is the result of being misled by error. He, however, who does not understand what a sign signifies, but yet knows that it is a sign, is not in bondage.”

However, even if I were to go to this extreem (which I don’t) I would also agre with his next sentence: “And it is better even to be in bondage to unknown but useful signs than, by interpreting them wrongly, to draw the neck from under the yoke of bondage only to insert it in the coils of error.”

So I’m not condemning anyone here, and neither was Augustine.
dessisknapp:

And I would say that the issue is closed because the Church has spoken on it. You may not agree, but I side with Augustine when he said, "“It is clear, faith admits it, the Catholic Church approves, it is true.” (s. 117.6)

Your question, so far as I have read, has never been if the case is closed. I always assumed you thought the case was closed, and never hoped to convert you, or anyone on this forum. Your question was if there was evedence to the contrary of what the Roman Catholic Church taught in the Early Church. I consider the case open, otherwise I wouldn’t be here. I’m not looking for a fight, not looking to preach, and I definately don’t want to teach anone else on issues I’m unsure of, but the question you had, to those of us who are not Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox to post historical evidence for our beliefs, is what I am attempting to answer. And giving you a chance to tell me if and how I am wrong, to correct me.
dessisknapp:

Peace to you Sir Shaun

 

[SirShaun]

dennisknapp:

What are the other two issues?

Papal Infalibility and Immaculate Conception of Mary.

[BTW what do you think of Deacon Ed’s reply about the Eucharist?

“Again, the term is not used because it depends on a philosophy that is foreign to the East (both Orthodox and Eastern Catholic). However, the underlying belief, that the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Jesus is common to both. The problem is that the term “transubstantiation” is a description of what happens – and neither the Orthodox nor the Eastern Catholics attempt to do that. We simply accept the basics. At the same time, we do not hold to consubstantiation because the Church Fathers made it clear that it was no longer bread and wine but really the Body and Blood of Jesus.”

He is an Eastern Catholic and they tend to side with the Eastern Orthodox on this issue.

Peace

I think he speaks for himself as to the particulars of why he doesn’t accept the termonology. As an Eastern Catholic, then I’d say that as far as doctrine, if he doesn’t side with Rome, then there isn’t even total agreement under those who agree the Pope is the one head of the Church, which I think would bother you as more than me (and it would bother me quite a bit), so I’m not even going to go down that road. I obviously disagree with his assertion that the Church Fathers were unanamous (or at least, I infer he hears them as such) and clear that it is no longer bread and wine, since that’s been my statement all along, that there were those among their number who taught the very opposite. I in essense agree that it’s a tragedy that we are confined to communicate what we believe with eachother through such clucky, man derived contraptions as words and analogies rather than telepathically giving eachother all our beliefs and the reasons for them in a split second like the characters out of the Dark Crystal, but I try to make the best of it, and communicate within the confines of what God as provided what I believe, what I don’t, and what I haven’t decided yet, and to the extent I feel it could be relivant, why. I also agree with the sentement I run across among the Fathers and Eastern Orthodox (and pick up in that snippet) that it’s more important to do it, and once we’re doing it, then it’s okay to look into the ifs and whats and whys and hows, but that they aren’t as important as doing it, and that we not stop doing it just because we’re looking into the ifs and whats and hows and whys, and so long as we aren’t dissapointed if God decides not to reveal the ifs and whats and hows and whys for his own purposes.
[/quote]

 

[dennisknapp]

SirShaun:

Papal Infalibility and Immaculate Conception of Mary.

I think he speaks for himself as to the particulars of why he doesn’t accept the termonology. As an Eastern Catholic, then I’d say that as far as doctrine, if he doesn’t side with Rome, then there isn’t even total agreement under those who agree the Pope is the one head of the Church, which I think would bother you as more than me (and it would bother me quite a bit), so I’m not even going to go down that road. I obviously disagree with his assertion that the Church Fathers were unanamous (or at least, I infer he hears them as such) and clear that it is no longer bread and wine, since that’s been my statement all along, that there were those among their number who taught the very opposite. I in essense agree that it’s a tragedy that we are confined to communicate what we believe with eachother through such clucky, man derived contraptions as words and analogies rather than telepathically giving eachother all our beliefs and the reasons for them in a split second like the characters out of the Dark Crystal, but I try to make the best of it, and communicate within the confines of what God as provided what I believe, what I don’t, and what I haven’t decided yet, and to the extent I feel it could be relivant, why. I also agree with the sentement I run across among the Fathers and Eastern Orthodox (and pick up in that snippet) that it’s more important to do it, and once we’re doing it, then it’s okay to look into the ifs and whats and whys and hows, but that they aren’t as important as doing it, and that we not stop doing it just because we’re looking into the ifs and whats and hows and whys, and so long as we aren’t dissapointed if God decides not to reveal the ifs and whats and hows and whys for his own purposes.

I think you should read On the development of Christian Doctrine, by John Henry Newman. He can answer your questions 20 times better than I can. Read it and tell me what you think.

Peace

 

[mdmealey]

SPOKENWORD:

So be it.I will let Christ judge me for my ignorance. You take your History and I,ll take my heart and my faith and we will see where it leads us. God Bless.

When you leave behind history, you leave behind Jesus. After all, your entire faith is based on an historical event–the birth, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus–that occurred nearly 2,000 years ago.

Truth withstands all scrutiny, even historical scrutiny. I personally would not be so keen to meet Jesus after willfully persisting in ignorance about the history of my own self-professed faith.

People who insist they don’t need the past are usually afraid of it.

 

[selvaraj]

Yes, calling all the Protestants in this forum is must, because most of the new Protestant generations has no chance to know about the true Catholics. And also most of the Protestants even dont know Martin Luther was a Catholic Priest and who married a Former Nun. If they know about this and about their founder they may realise.

 

[TPJCatholic]

dennis,

Don’t you think most people remain in the faith they were born into? You make a sound point that Protestants should be able to site the reasons they believe as they, with evidence to back it up. Yet, that is true for people from all faiths, including Catholics. Your point is at the foundation of why there are so many cafeteria Catholics today–they do not know their own faith.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

SPOKENWORD:

I believe that the bible is Gods inspired Word and is sufficient for me.History is recorded in the Bible. God Bless.

You admit that history is recorded in the Bible. The Bible? Which Bible? Which translation? Which interpretation?

Who got to translate? Why? With what authority?

Who got to interpret? Why? With what authority?

Well, you can see that there is quite a few different histories. As many different histories as there are different Bibles.

As opposed to The Church.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Exporter:

Look at medical schools, jet engine mechanic’s schools. Do they have to spend time learning how the Greeks practiced medicine, and the mechanic spending time learning the ancient methods of propulsion?

Yes. Ideas (like people) have origins and histories. Only by understanding origins and histories can one wisely navigate the stormy seas of change.

Well, I would say that how doctors are schooled and how mechanical technicians are schooled are different. Doctors are not mechanics.

 

[alanjeddy]

I am imploring, begging, beseeching any Protestant to provide positive evidence for thier beliefs that are not shared in common with historical Christianity.

Please provide evidence for:

Communion is only symbolic; not salvific.

That baptism is only symbolic; not salvific.

Marian doctrine is a late innovation of the Roman Catholic Church.

That Apostolic Succession was not taught in the early Church.

You know Dennis, as a christian I can not understand how learned protestant theologians can deny that Jesus was talking about His real presence in the Eucharist, boby,blood, soul and divinity in John 6. If He were talking about a symbolic presence His Jewish audience never would have left Him. They were scandalised by what Jesus was saying. If we go back to the Greek i believe the word used for to eat is Torga which specifiacally means to gnaw or rip flesh flesh apart in order to consume it. What are your thoughts on this?

Alan

 

[Roy5]

Protestants come in all styles. The ones with which I am most familiar are not fundamentalists but ‘big tent’ Christians. What I mean is that they are ready to include under their canopy those with very different viewpoints, especially when it comes to matters of theology.

Their basic suppositions include these: (1) The universe is just too complex for anyone to understand it, so they offer individuals considerable latitude, encourage freedom of thought, and feel no compulsion to agree with other members; (2) They seek to follow the ethical teachings of Christ but aren't that concerned about theological fine points and are uncomfortable with creeds that seem to put their minds in straight jackets and limit their search for truth; (3) They respect other faiths - Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, etc. - but are troubled by any expression of religion which claims to be the one and only true religion (such as traditional Catholicism, Jehovah Witnesses, orthodox Islam, fundamentalist Protestantism, Mormonism, etc.); (4) Quoting scripture, they claim to walk by faith and not by knowledge; (5) Most of them doubt/discard various parts of scripture (for example, Adam and Eve, Noah and the flood, that Joshua was told to annihilate all the inhabitants of Jericho, that God commanded Saul to kill every Amalekite) and either devalue or reject entirely such doctrines as the perpetual virginity of Mary, eucharistic transubstantiation, the Pope as the Vicar of Christ,  etc. They view such doctrines as relics of medievalism; (6) They emphasize the importance of changes in religion that reflect changing times, whether it's the ordination of women or the acceptance of birth control; (7) They favor a democratic church where the wishes of the members plays a central role.

 Keep smiling.

 

[Neithan]

Protestants come in all styles. The ones with which I am most familiar are not fundamentalists but ‘big tent’ Christians. What I mean is that they are ready to include under their canopy those with very different viewpoints, especially when it comes to matters of theology.

Their basic suppositions include these: (1) The universe is just too complex for anyone to understand it, so they offer individuals considerable latitude, encourage freedom of thought, and feel no compulsion to agree with other members; (2) They seek to follow the ethical teachings of Christ but aren’t that concerned about theological fine points and are uncomfortable with creeds that seem to put their minds in straight jackets and limit their search for truth; (3) They respect other faiths - Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, etc. - but are troubled by any expression of religion which claims to be the one and only true religion (such as traditional Catholicism, Jehovah Witnesses, orthodox Islam, fundamentalist Protestantism, Mormonism, etc.); (4) Quoting scripture, they claim to walk by faith and not by knowledge; (5) Most of them doubt/discard various parts of scripture (for example, Adam and Eve, Noah and the flood, that Joshua was told to annihilate all the inhabitants of Jericho, that God commanded Saul to kill every Amalekite) and either devalue or reject entirely such doctrines as the perpetual virginity of Mary, eucharistic transubstantiation, the Pope as the Vicar of Christ, etc. They view such doctrines as relics of medievalism; (6) They emphasize the importance of changes in religion that reflect changing times, whether it’s the ordination of women or the acceptance of birth control; (7) They favor a democratic church where the wishes of the members plays a central role.

Keep smiling.

You’ve captured the teachings of Modernism quite succinctly here!

Unfortunately, this line of thinking was recognised and condemned as heretical over a hundred years ago by the Church.

Keep searching.

 

[paarsurrey]

I walk by Faith and not by sight.

Hi

Please don’t mind.
Your above sentence shows as if you are blind, but you are not. So why are you not guided by reason supported by Word of GodAllahYHWH or Revelation?

Thanks

 

[Roy5]

Can those of us who are seeking truth post here? Maybe I can shed some light on the attractiveness of liberal Protestantism as it attracts me. I don’t mean the fundamentalist variety.

  Liberal Protestantism, sometimes called 'big tent' Protestantism, doesn't claim to echo the messages of the ancient Fathers, for example. It's main point seems to be that Christianity is a living, dynamic faith, and that as such it needs to be a faith compatible with modern science as well as common sense. Changing with new information - and with the times - is not ipso facto bad.

   Thus, while it embraces Christ and his teachings, and preaches the two commandments emphasized by Jesus - (1) love God; (2) love your neighbor - it doesn't feel a need to agree with all the Biblical stories. For example, do they really believe in Noah and the Ark? Certainly not. Probably there was a major flood somewhere and a legend sprouted from it. 

    Did Jesus walk on water? Maybe, but unlikely. His disciples and early followers were so impressed that they embellished his personal story with all sorts of miracles. That happened to Moses, Buddha, Muhammad, etc.

    Did God the Father demand that his son be murdered painfully before we could be saved from our sins? Hm! Smacks of paternal sadism plus ugly human sacrifice. Wouldn't a loving Father have worked out a different route for our salvation? There is something just too weird and cruel about this scenario.

    You get the idea. It appears that 'big tent'  Protestants don't insist on theological uniformity, but permit freedom of individual thought. That has a strong appeal to millions of modern, well-educated Christians who want to hold on to their faith but need room for differences of opinion.