Calling on all Protestants on this forum!

[mean_owen]

dennisknapp:

While Anglicans do not see them as say an Evangelical does, they do view them differently than Catholics do.

All I want is evidence, from the early Church, for the way these views differ from those of the historical Church.

Dennis- I’ve tried addressing this twice, but you keep ignoring my question. Was there diversity of belief, or was there not, in the church regarding the Assumption of Mary prior to to it becoming dogma in 1950? If there was no diversity of opinion, then why the need to declare it dogma nearly 2000 years later? If there was diversity of opinion, then that is what I’m talking about- the early church didn’t see the need to set it down in stone, and neither do we.

Similarly, for communion the wine becomes the body and blood,and that’s that. Did the early church really use Aquinas’ terminology for what goes on during the consecration of the elements (“accidents” and all that), and if so, why does he get credit for it? If they didn’t, then, I guess the Catholics aren’t in line with the early church. Is that right?

 

[catsrus]

I am a faithful Catholic who would like to interject a note:

Therefore she is truly the mother of God and yet remained a virgin."

I was originally catechized in the evangelical lutheran church in 1963. I was taught that Mary was NOT ever virgin by way of that old mis-interpreted standby, Matt 13:55,56.

Either way, Lutherans believe that Jesus is present in the Eucharist.

I was also taught that communion was symbolic only.

Things have changed?

 

[dennisknapp]

mean_owen:

Dennis- I’ve tried addressing this twice, but you keep ignoring my question. Was there diversity of belief, or was there not, in the church regarding the Assumption of Mary prior to to it becoming dogma in 1950? If there was no diversity of opinion, then why the need to declare it dogma nearly 2000 years later? If there was diversity of opinion, then that is what I’m talking about- the early church didn’t see the need to set it down in stone, and neither do we.

Similarly, for communion the wine becomes the body and blood,and that’s that. Did the early church really use Aquinas’ terminology for what goes on during the consecration of the elements (“accidents” and all that), and if so, why does he get credit for it? If they didn’t, then, I guess the Catholics aren’t in line with the early church. Is that right?

I am not ignoring you question.

I am simply asking for evidence. I know doctrine develope but not if they are contradictions. Aquinas did not contradict the previous 1200 years when he formulated his theory.

Do you have evidence for your beliefs in the early Church aside from an assertion that there was a “diversity of opinion?”

 

[SPOKENWORD]

dennisknapp:

Again, this is an assertion and a jab.

This statement assumes that all I have is history while you have “heart” and “faith.” This is not true and only avoids the topic at hand.

All I am asking for is evidence, not a personal attack against my faith.

I apoligize Dennis for my comment. The truth is im riding on fumes in all forums.I believe my time is coming to bow out for Im just tired of trying to defend what I believe. Again sorry. God Bless.

 

[Katholikos]

wabrams:

.

So, since Constantine made Christianity the official religion of the empire around 358 AD and there was basically one officially sanctioned church until 1054 AD, that kind of makes the Catholic Church the victors for 700 years, right?

Constantine died in 337. Would you like to try again?

You posit that God has no role in history, that it simply happens by chance? The Jews knew God through their history. That’s what the OT is all about. Catholics see the hand of God in history as well.

JMJ Jay

 

[Katholikos]

SPOKENWORD:

I apoligize Dennis for my comment. The truth is im riding on fumes in all forums.I believe my time is coming to bow out for Im just tired of trying to defend what I believe. Again sorry. God Bless.

Give up your struggle to remain out of the historic Church founded by Jesus Christ and come home this Christmas. Report to the nearest confessional. Protestantism is just too illogical. Believe what Jesus Christ taught – be Catholic! We’ll form a welcoming committee.

 

[New_Heart]

Scott_Lafrance - And that is just in regards to Jesus. It doesn’t take into consideration anything or anyone else. So while I agree that the bible is all true, not all truth is found in the bible.

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

John 17:11-17 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are. While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled. And now come I to thee; and these things I speak in the world, that they might have my joy fulfilled in themselves. I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil. They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

It seems to me from reading my Bible that the whole of Scripture from beginning to end is about Jesus. According to what is recorded concerning His prayer in John 17 it is God’s Word that is truth. And in John 14 He says that He is the Truth. Since He is God manifest in the flesh shouldn’t Jesus know what the Truth is? He says nothing of extra writings.
Joh 8:40; 2Sa 7:28; Ps 12:6; 19:7; 119:144,151-152; Eph 4:21; 2Ti 2:25-26

It will take all of eternity and then some to get even an inkling of the magnitude of what Jesus has revealed while He lived on earth and the inspiration of those He used to record what He wanted us to know in this life.

I hope this helps.

 

[Shibboleth]

JimO:

Again, I’d like to be clear that there is a very significant difference between Consubstantiation and Transubstantiation that transcends the scientific elements of the concepts. Although science could not have addressed the molecular definition of substance 500 or 1,000 or 1,950 years ago, Divine Revelation did not need that understanding to express such a sublime concept that would stand the test of time and the efforts of man to understand the universe. When confronted with the philosophy of Transubstantiation, I find that many people who can’t believe it sound just like the disciples in John 6:60 “This sort of talk is hard to endure! How can anyone take it seriously?”

You state that Lutherans believe that Jesus is present in the Eucharist, yet we believe that Jesus is the Eucharist. Jesus is present in many places and in many people, but those places and those people do not literally become Christ’s Body and Blood. The few Lutherans that I have had discussions with over the years always want to downplay the difference, because, I believe, that they didn’t want to deal with the implications by admitting that there is a real and substantial difference.

Blessings

These is a real difference, I did not say that there wasn’t.

Here is the situation. In the day of words like substantiation and consubstantiation there was this belief in essences. People believed that there was something in the globules mass of bread that made it bread. There was an essence of breadness. This essence existed outside of the perceiver. If that essence of breadness was lost then the bread ceased to be bread.

Now under normal circumstances, when the essence of a thing was lost it would no longer contain that which was a product or confined to the essence. If I throw a piece of bread in the fire the essence of that thing would be destroyed and the physical manifestations of that thing would also cease to be.

So the Lutherans and the Catholics bantered over whether or not the essence of what makes bread what it is continued or was lost. Lutherans – essence of bread remains while gaining the body and blood of Christ; Catholics – the essence of bread leaves and the essence of Body and Blood of Christ now exist in it’s place, yet through extraordinary means the physical appearances of the essence of bread still remain.

Well, now we know that there is no such thing as an essence of bread. Bread exists because it is a composite of particles in a particular arrangement. The perceivable aspects of that bread come from wind, light…etc interacting with those particles.

When we throw bread in a fire the essence of the bread is not lost but a massive chemical reaction occurs releasing some particles as energy and rearranging those that still exist.

Now that we understand this we are stuck with a new question. If bread no longer exists after substantiation – what is lost that no longer makes it bread? We know that it is not the perceivable aspects – is it the molecular makeup? Perhaps – or perhaps.

So I ask you what leaves the bread that no longer makes it bread?

 

[mean_owen]

dennisknapp:

I am not ignoring you question.

I am simply asking for evidence. I know doctrine develope but not if they are contradictions. Aquinas did not contradict the previous 1200 years when he formulated his theory.

Do you have evidence for your beliefs in the early Church aside from an assertion that there was a “diversity of opinion?”

Dennis- you’re looking for a fight from the wrong person. I did not say there wasn’t evidence that some in the early church believed in the Assumption. Now, I suppose I could pretend to be an expert and look up references both for and against the Assumption, but what would that mean? It would neither prove nor disprove my point, which is that the Assumption wasn’t dogma for most of the history of Christianity, and then it was. Christians were baptized, confirmed, ordained, and buried for almost 2000 years without their belief in the Assumption being considered essential to their salvation. Since the Anglicans split from the Romans quite some time before Pious XII made his declaration, it shouldn’t be too suprising that they have the more primitive (i.e. before the split) belief.

As far as Thomas and transubstantiation goes, yes, it was just a development of the doctrine. Yet, the description is based on a view of matter that we don’t use today anymore than they did in the 1st few centuries BC. Again, I suppose you could tell me to prove that the Church Fathers didn’t use Thoman terminology, but I don’t see the point. The point is that we don’t use it to describe matter now (except for this one instance), so maybe it’s not so adequate today. I see no problem with leaving it at the body and blood of Christ.

 

[dennisknapp]

Shibboleth:

These is a real difference, I did not say that there wasn’t.

Here is the situation. In the day of words like substantiation and consubstantiation there was this belief in essences. People believed that there was something in the globules mass of bread that made it bread. There was an essence of breadness. This essence existed outside of the perceiver. If that essence of breadness was lost then the bread ceased to be bread.

Now under normal circumstances, when the essence of a thing was lost it would no longer contain that which was a product or confined to the essence. If I throw a piece of bread in the fire the essence of that thing would be destroyed and the physical manifestations of that thing would also cease to be.

So the Lutherans and the Catholics bantered over whether or not the essence of what makes bread what it is continued or was lost. Lutherans – essence of bread remains while gaining the body and blood of Christ; Catholics – the essence of bread leaves and the essence of Body and Blood of Christ now exist in it’s place, yet through extraordinary means the physical appearances of the essence of bread still remain.

Well, now we know that there is no such thing as an essence of bread. Bread exists because it is a composite of particles in a particular arrangement. The perceivable aspects of that bread come from wind, light…etc interacting with those particles.

When we throw bread in a fire the essence of the bread is not lost but a massive chemical reaction occurs releasing some particles as energy and rearranging those that still exist.

Now that we understand this we are stuck with a new question. If bread no longer exists after substantiation – what is lost that no longer makes it bread? We know that it is not the perceivable aspects – is it the molecular makeup? Perhaps – or perhaps.

So I ask you what leaves the bread that no longer makes it bread?

I think we need to stick to the spirit of this tread, and that is historical evidence for Protestant belief not held in common with the historical Church in early Church history.

 

[SPOKENWORD]

Katholikos:

Give up your struggle to remain out of the historic Church founded by Jesus Christ and come home this Christmas. Report to the nearest confessional. Protestantism is just too illogical. Believe what Jesus Christ taught – be Catholic! We’ll form a welcoming committee.

Thanks Dr.Jay,Thats just what I needed to get out of my depression. God Bless

 

[wabrams]

Katholikos:

Constantine died in 337. Would you like to try again?

JMJ Jay

So are you just going to belittle me or help me refresh my memory with the correct answer?

 

[dennisknapp]

mean_owen:

Dennis- you’re looking for a fight from the wrong person. I did not say there wasn’t evidence that some in the early church believed in the Assumption. Now, I suppose I could pretend to be an expert and look up references both for and against the Assumption, but what would that mean? It would neither prove nor disprove my point, which is that the Assumption wasn’t dogma for most of the history of Christianity, and then it was. Christians were baptized, confirmed, ordained, and buried for almost 2000 years without their belief in the Assumption being considered essential to their salvation. Since the Anglicans split from the Romans quite some time before Pious XII made his declaration, it shouldn’t be too suprising that they have the more primitive (i.e. before the split) belief.

As far as Thomas and transubstantiation goes, yes, it was just a development of the doctrine. Yet, the description is based on a view of matter that we don’t use today anymore than they did in the 1st few centuries BC. Again, I suppose you could tell me to prove that the Church Fathers didn’t use Thoman terminology, but I don’t see the point. The point is that we don’t use it to describe matter now (except for this one instance), so maybe it’s not so adequate today. I see no problem with leaving it at the body and blood of Christ.

I am not looking for a fight. I am just seeking evidence. Why is this such a hard thing to come by?

All I have recieved thus far is no evidence at all or red-herrings that veer off topic.

This thread is not about doctrinal development or the in and outs of Marian doctrine or substance of the Eucharist, but of seeking evidence for certain strongly held Protestant beliefs in the early Church–that’s all.

 

[dennisknapp]

wabrams:

So are you just going to belittle me or help me refresh my memory with the correct answer?

Please, no belittling here. This will get us nowhere.

Thanks!

 

[Church_Militant]

SPOKENWORD:

Thanks Dr.Jay,Thats just what I needed to get out of my depression. God Bless

Pray the Rosary…works for me EVERY time!

 

[SPOKENWORD]

Church Militant:

Pray the Rosary…works for me EVERY time!

Ive prayed enough rosaries that stretched out would probably take me across this country. Maybe thats why im starting to tire. God Bless

 

[Shibboleth]

I have given you why Lutherans believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary, I have given you a link to extensive reasons why Lutherans do not find the Pope supreme Pontiff based on history – whether you agree with it or not. I have informed you that Lutherans believe in the real presence of Christ, albeit differently that Catholics.

What else is it that you would like and I will give it to you?

 

[dennisknapp]

Shibboleth:

I have given you why Lutherans believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary, I have given you a link to extensive reasons why Lutherans do not find the Pope supreme Pontiff based on history – whether you agree with it or not. I have informed you that Lutherans believe in the real presence of Christ, albeit differently that Catholics.

What else is it that you would like and I will give it to you?

Evidence from the early Church. This is all I am asking for. Do your belief agree with those held by the early Church?

And let me be clear, I think Lutherian beliefs are closer to the historical Churches position than a Evangelical Baptists, but there are differences. Where is the evidence for these differences?

For example, Lutherians believe in sola fide, where is this in the early Church?

 

[mean_owen]

dennisknapp:

I am not looking for a fight. I am just seeking evidence. Why is this such a hard thing to come by?

All I have recieved thus far is no evidence at all or red-herrings that veer off topic.

This thread is not about doctrinal development or the in and outs of Marian doctrine or substance of the Eucharist, but of seeking evidence for certain strongly held Protestant beliefs in the early Church–that’s all.

Dennis- You mentioned Marian doctrine, so how can development or the “ins and out’s” not figure in?

Anywho, it was precisely my point that the Marian doctrines weren’t terribly strongly held (falling in the category of adiaphora), because the evidence wasn’t so strong either way.

But since you want some evidence for why some are of the opinion that the evidence isn’t so great, here’s what I could find:

First of all, there is very little evidence for the Assumption of Mary from the early church- if by that you’re referring to the first 3 centuries AD. The earliest reference I could find was by Bishop Epiphanius:

But if some think us mistaken, let them search the Scriptures. They will not find MaryÕs death; they will not find whether she died or did not die; they will not find whether she was buried or was not buried … Scripture is absolutely silent [on the end of Mary] … For my own part, I do not dare to speak, but I keep my own thoughts and I practice silence … The fact is, Scripture has outstripped the human mind and left [this matter] uncertain … Did she die, we do not know … Either the holy Virgin died and was buried … Or she was killed … Or she remained alive, since nothing is impossible with God and He can do whatever He desires; for her end no-one knows.Õ (Epiphanius, Panarion, Haer. 78.10-11, 23. Cited by juniper Carol, O.F.M. ed., Mariology, Vol. II ).

Sounds like it could go either way.

Then it looks like it was mentioned in some book called De Transitu Virginis (or Liber qui appellatur Transitus sanctae Mariae; folks seem to be talking about the same book), which was rejected around 494 to 496 A.D. by Pope Gelasius, in Decretum de Libris Canonicis Ecclesiasticis et Apocryphis.

Most of the traditions seem to have developed somewhat later.

 

[mean_owen]

Oops, I forgot: the Epiphanius reference was from the 370’s.