Calling on all Protestants on this forum!

[Church_Militant]

SPOKENWORD:

Hi C.M.Yes,It was founded by the spirit of God. It has Jesus Christ as its Head,and a bunch of christians as the rest of his body. God Bless.

LOL! I think you know that I meant the actual church that you attend and the PEOPLE who started it. You’re such a ratfink…LOLhttp://pages.prodigy.net/indianahawkeye/newpage16/7.gif
My favorite tea drinkin’ partner and personal ratfink that I love in Our Lord.

 

[maryj]

hello, came here in search of an answer to a methodist friend “why is it that I can’t receive communion at the catholic church, being methodist, but all are welcome at the table at the methodist church?” Little did I realize what a truck load of information I would receive!!! I believe I’ll stay and hang around to read more… maybe even put in my own two cents. Sounds to me that there is a lot of knowledgeable people here, whether they agree or disagree with each others beleifs. here is what I believe…

Blessed are those who don’t see and yet still believe…
Thanks for letting me join your discussion. God bless us all.

 

[Jim_B]

maryj:

hello, came here in search of an answer to a methodist friend “why is it that I can’t receive communion at the catholic church, being methodist, but all are welcome at the table at the methodist church?” Little did I realize what a truck load of information I would receive!!! I believe I’ll stay and hang around to read more… maybe even put in my own two cents. Sounds to me that there is a lot of knowledgeable people here, whether they agree or disagree with each others beleifs. here is what I believe…

Blessed are those who don’t see and yet still believe…
Thanks for letting me join your discussion. God bless us all.

Dear MaryJ,

Welcome. I am a Catholic who voted for the Methodist in this last presidential election! We Catholics invite your friend to discover that Jesus is truly present in the Eucharist. Since you are a firm believer in “Blessed are those who don’t see and yet still believe…” You are already favorably disposed to believe that Jesus has given us the greatest gift we can imagine - Himself.
I invite you to read post #189 (just scroll up) and share it with your friend.

God Love Ya!
Jim B

 

[SirShaun]

Sorry it took me so long to get back. I had a few family emergencies, and my computer at work crashed so I couldn’t get on from their either.

dennisknapp:

Tertullian
“[T]here is not a soul that can at all procure salvation, except it believe whilst it is in the flesh, so true is it that the flesh is the very condition on which salvation hinges. And since the soul is, in consequence of its salvation, chosen to the service of God, it is the flesh which actually renders it capable of such service. The flesh, indeed, is washed [in baptism], in order that the soul may be cleansed . . . the flesh is shadowed with the imposition of hands [in confirmation], that the soul also may be illuminated by the Spirit; the flesh feeds [in the Eucharist] on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may be filled with God” (The Resurrection of the Dead 8 [A.D. 210]).

Augustine

“Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, ‘This is my body’ [Matt. 26:26]. For he carried that body in his hands” (Explanations of the Psalms 33:1:10 [A.D. 405]).

“I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table. . . . That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ” (Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]).

…
“What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith; yet faith does not desire instruction” (ibid., 272).

Dennis, I hate to say it, but you’re a little bit of a hypocrite here. Previously, you have gotten after people for saying that, in context, the Church Father’s they quoted don’t say what modern Protestants are saying. You were right, of course, but here Augustine and is not saying what you modern Catholics are saying. In the quotes you provide, he goes on to say something along the lines of “there is more to be said on this.” So, he does say more on it, in Christian Doctrine, he explicitly says it is figurative, and not really flesh and blood. Taken as a whole, even with the quotes you provide, I still think Augustine’s stance on Communion was much closer to the stance at the Baptist Church I attend than what is taught in the Roman Catholic Church.

Tertullian’s quote, as you provide it, the words “in the Eucharist” are provided by you, and not in the original. Even with them, however, his point in this message is to provide spiritual proof by making allegories. Using an allegory to make an allegory is not unheard of. (For example, if someone said “People who are alergic to bees and keep hives are like the goats on Jesus’s left hand: they have no idea what is in store for them when they get stung.” No one would argue that the person saying that actually believed they were goats that go “neh” and walk on all fours with cloven hooves on Jesus’s left hand in the parable.) I stick by his more definite quote, which I provided before, and won’t repeat out of respect for your intelligence.

Regarding your other quotes, first and foremost, almost none of them are related to my protests. (If you disagree, please elaborate on which you think are related, and how.) Second, even if they were related to my protests, then it still doesn’t prove your assertion. Your assertion is that these things were never taught. You must then demonstrate either that I am taking my quotes out of context, or that the teachers I quote were rebuked for teaching these things. I’m all ears if you can do that. That’s why I posted them, rather than keeping them to myself and feeling smug. I’m here to learn, but I feel like I’m teaching, and this message has gone on further than I wanted it to anyway.

 

[Lilyofthevalley]

Dennis, nothing about faith can be “proven”. Faith is about believing in something in which there is no proof. So if you asking for evidence you will never find it in religion.
Sure, you can refer me to a Catholic Encyclopedia, but when looking for evidence we are to look at unbiased sources, correct?

 

[dennisknapp]

SirShaun:

Sorry it took me so long to get back. I had a few family emergencies, and my computer at work crashed so I couldn’t get on from their either.

Dennis, I hate to say it, but you’re a little bit of a hypocrite here. Previously, you have gotten after people for saying that, in context, the Church Father’s they quoted don’t say what modern Protestants are saying. You were right, of course, but here Augustine and is not saying what you modern Catholics are saying. In the quotes you provide, he goes on to say something along the lines of “there is more to be said on this.” So, he does say more on it, in Christian Doctrine, he explicitly says it is figurative, and not really flesh and blood. Taken as a whole, even with the quotes you provide, I still think Augustine’s stance on Communion was much closer to the stance at the Baptist Church I attend than what is taught in the Roman Catholic Church.

Tertullian’s quote, as you provide it, the words “in the Eucharist” are provided by you, and not in the original. Even with them, however, his point in this message is to provide spiritual proof by making allegories. Using an allegory to make an allegory is not unheard of. (For example, if someone said “People who are alergic to bees and keep hives are like the goats on Jesus’s left hand: they have no idea what is in store for them when they get stung.” No one would argue that the person saying that actually believed they were goats that go “neh” and walk on all fours with cloven hooves on Jesus’s left hand in the parable.) I stick by his more definite quote, which I provided before, and won’t repeat out of respect for your intelligence.

Regarding your other quotes, first and foremost, almost none of them are related to my protests. (If you disagree, please elaborate on which you think are related, and how.) Second, even if they were related to my protests, then it still doesn’t prove your assertion. Your assertion is that these things were never taught. You must then demonstrate either that I am taking my quotes out of context, or that the teachers I quote were rebuked for teaching these things. I’m all ears if you can do that. That’s why I posted them, rather than keeping them to myself and feeling smug. I’m here to learn, but I feel like I’m teaching, and this message has gone on further than I wanted it to anyway.

I hope all is well with your family. It is good to have you back.

I never said that the early Christians had to have a fully developed theology, just that the development could not contradict what came before. And while Augustine did speak of the Eucharist in symbolic terms, this does not encompass his whole theology.

In Sermon 228B.2 Augustine instructs the newly baptized regarding the Eucharist to, “recognize in the bread what hung on the cross, and in the cup what flowed from his side.”

According to Pamela Jackson in Augustine through the Ages, "Augustine built on the understanding of the Eucharist which he inherited. Accepting the tradition that it was the sacrifice of Christians, he deepened the theological reflection on how it was a sacrifice. He considered the graces communicated through the Eucharist, especially how it effected the unity of the church. Finally, he was the first to speak of sacramental rites as signs, thereby providing the foundation for later sacramental theology. His writings include both rich reflection on the symbolic dimentions of the Eucharist and affirmation of Christ really present in the Eucharist.

See also *Explanation of the Psalms, *33.1, 98.9 and *The City of God, *17.20.

My problem with some Protestant views of the Eucharist, especially a soley symbolic view, is that it stands against all previous understandings that came before. Therefore, for me it has no validity because it is an innovation. It is divorced from the true teaching that has been handed down throught the ages in the Church.

Peace

 

[dennisknapp]

Lilyofthevalley:

Dennis, nothing about faith can be “proven”. Faith is about believing in something in which there is no proof. So if you asking for evidence you will never find it in religion.
Sure, you can refer me to a Catholic Encyclopedia, but when looking for evidence we are to look at unbiased sources, correct?

I don’t understand your point.

 

[Lilyofthevalley]

You are asking for proof from Protestants. How can there be any proof on matters of faith?

 

[dennisknapp]

Lilyofthevalley:

You are asking for proof from Protestants. How can there be any proof on matters of faith?

You are not understanding the point of this thread. I am asking for historical evidence for what Christians believed in the early Church and if those beliefs agree with certain Protestant beliefs now.

You do agree that we can find historical evidence of what people thought and practiced in the past, don’t you?

This is all I am asking for.

Peace

 

[Lilyofthevalley]

You do agree that we can find historical evidence of what people thought and practiced in the past, don’t you?​

Possibly. It depends on the source. For example, just for example sake, I have nothing against The Mormons.
The Mormons have not consistantly held the same beliefs and some beliefs have changed over time. BUT if you go to a Mormon source they will attempt to show they have ALWAYS believed a certain way because there is a certain slant to preserve their version of truth.
I am sure The Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Methodists and Evangelicals do the same. That is not an exclusive practice to any denomination or religion.

 

[dennisknapp]

Lilyofthevalley:

You do agree that we can find historical evidence of what people thought and practiced in the past, don’t you?​

Possibly. It depends on the source. For example, just for example sake, I have nothing against The Mormons.
The Mormons have not consistantly held the same beliefs and some beliefs have changed over time. BUT if you go to a Mormon source they will attempt to show they have ALWAYS believed a certain way because there is a certain slant to preserve their version of truth.
I am sure The Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Methodists and Evangelicals do the same. That is not an exclusive practice to any denomination or religion.

I am not speaking of refering to a Catholic Encyclopedia but valid historical documents. Unless you feel that they too are invalid?

If that is the case, then your argument would not just include matters of faith but everything else we know of the past. For we were not there and have to rely on documentation for our knowledge of the past. So, no July 4th 1776, 1492, Alexander the Great, etc…ad infinitum.

Peace

 

[Lilyofthevalley]

If you are refering to an unbiased source then that is a different story.
There is a saying about history and facts too, though.
As for devotions to Mary if it helps people get closer to God, that’s their business. I know some folks get upset about devotions to Mary but I don’t see what the fuss is about.
Frankly, the way people attack or criticize one another about religion makes me really wonder if religion is a good thing.

 

[Neithan]

People attack or criticize one another over anything and everything. To blame religion for conflict is a grade-school argument that ignorant atheists love to espouse, as it is one of the few self-righteous comforts they find in abandoning faith. Religion doesn’t increase the frequency of wars in human history, it only provides an alternate excuse for them. If we had no understanding of religion we would still kill each other, you can be 100% sure of that. 20th century history should be enough evidence of this fact.

Religion’s benevolence far outweighs any corruptions or abuses of it which arise from the sins of humanity. For me, the corruptions and evils which arise from religion provide valuable insight into the age-old question of how a perfectly good God has created a world in which evil pervades. Christianity’s ideals are all perfectly good, and yet no religion has been so twisted and abused for ends entirely the opposite of original intention.

 

[Shibboleth]

Almost all wars are because of want of wealth and land. Leaders know the power of symbols. Hitler used them to the fullest. Napoleon stated once that he could make a man want to die for a few strips of ribbon – in other words a medal of some kind.

Leaders that have want of greed or land will use anything at their disposal – sometimes those things are religious symbols and ideals.

 

[dennisknapp]

Lilyofthevalley:

If you are refering to an unbiased source then that is a different story.
There is a saying about history and facts too, though.
As for devotions to Mary if it helps people get closer to God, that’s their business. I know some folks get upset about devotions to Mary but I don’t see what the fuss is about.
Frankly, the way people attack or criticize one another about religion makes me really wonder if religion is a good thing.

May I ask if you are an agnostic? And if you are, how do you know for sure?

Peace

 

[Katholikos]

SPOKENWORD:

I have never considered my church to be denominational.I dont belong to any denomination. Im just a follower of Jesus Christ.

God the Father made a Covenant with His People called Israel. Then God the Father sent His Son, Who made a New Covenant in His Blood (Luke 22:20) with the New Israel – the People of God, the ekklesia – the Catholic Church. As St. Cyprian (A.D. 200 - 258) said in his treatise On the Unity of the Church, you cannot have God for your Father unless you have the Church for your Mother.

stthomasaquinas.net/cyprian-unity.html

JMJ Jay

 

[Lilyofthevalley]

To blame religion for conflict is a grade-school argument that ignorant atheists love to espouse, as it is one of the few self-righteous comforts​

After reading this post the “benfits” of religion are,still, questionable. It appears to give some people the right to be arrogant.​

No, Dennis, I am not agnostic just disgusted with religion.I take my children to church to hear, allegedly, the head of the household and spiritual leader is THE man. Wasn’t there a study about how women are in church more than men? Who regulary attends church services? Women. MAtter of fact the majority of people who attend church where I bring my children are women. The men stay home and sleep in.
I am, almost, convinced, religion is a way of keeping people in their place. It wasn’t until lately, it’s been used to liberate people~example Underground Railroad and THe Quakers and Mennonites.​

Plus these folks who state the only thing in creation which will see heaven is man. Have these folks BEEN to heaven? How the hell do they know the only beings in heaven are people???

 

[WhatIf]

:clapping:

dennisknapp:

And finally Augustine:

Augustine

“It is this one Spirit who makes it possible for an infant to be regenerated . . . when that infant is brought to baptism; and it is through this one Spirit that the infant so presented is reborn. For it is not written, ‘Unless a man be born again by the will of his parents’ or ‘by the faith of those presenting him or ministering to him,’ but, ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit.’ The water, therefore, manifesting exteriorly the sacrament of grace, and the Spirit effecting interiorly the benefit of grace, both regenerate in one Christ that man who was generated in Adam” (*Letters *98:2 [A.D. 412]).

“Those who, though they have not received the washing of regeneration, die for the confession of Christ—it avails them just as much for the forgiveness of their sins as if they had been washed in the sacred font of baptism. For he that said, ‘If anyone is not reborn of water and the Spirit, he will not enter the kingdom of heaven,’ made an exception for them in that other statement in which he says no less generally, ‘Whoever confesses me before men, I too will confess him before my Father, who is in heaven’” [Matt. 10:32] (*The City of God *13:7 [A.D. 419]).

:clapping: FOOD FOR THOUGHT. KEEP FEEDING.

 

[jaydog77]

Lilyofthevalley:

To blame religion for conflict is a grade-school argument that ignorant atheists love to espouse, as it is one of the few self-righteous comforts​

After reading this post the “benfits” of religion are,still, questionable. It appears to give some people the right to be arrogant.​

No, Dennis, I am not agnostic just disgusted with religion.I take my children to church to hear, allegedly, the head of the household and spiritual leader is THE man. Wasn’t there a study about how women are in church more than men? Who regulary attends church services? Women. MAtter of fact the majority of people who attend church where I bring my children are women. The men stay home and sleep in.
I am, almost, convinced, religion is a way of keeping people in their place. It wasn’t until lately, it’s been used to liberate people~example Underground Railroad and THe Quakers and Mennonites.​

Plus these folks who state the only thing in creation which will see heaven is man. Have these folks BEEN to heaven? How the hell do they know the only beings in heaven are people???

Crazy thread eh? This is an interesting point, since it touches on a lot of humanist/atheist arguments about religion and Christianity in particular. One tactic they use a lot is to seize on a quote as if it hangs in a vacuum and taken alone might look silly. Man as head of the household is one such quote often used. Unfortunately, atheists don’t go on to read that man and woman in marriage are one flesh, and man should treat his wife as if she were a part of his literal body. And that this relationship presumed a man that is accountable to God so has to behave in a certain manner. Finally, Christians believe this came from God, so if God said so believing it isn’t a problem. But you approach religion with a feminist/liberal/humanist/atheist (which is itself a religion) axe to grind rather than evaluating it fully and accepting or rejecting. You say men stay home sleeping? So your problem is with some men, not religion in general or Christianity in particular.

As far as “liberation”, if the religion teaches that God said all mankind has rejected Him, His Laws and His ways, and that wages of sin is death and eternal separation from him, the ultimate liberation is in accepting His gift of eternal life. Your liberation already presumes this life is all there is, so all “belief” must serve the temporal material condition of man. While this is important (as we are commanded to feed the hungry, clothe the poor etc), it is not the most important.

Finally, only human beings will be in heaven because God said so. If He exists outside of the time/space/matter of creation and sets the rules, He’d probably know right? Again, you can reject it or accept it but if it hinges for you on Rover being in heaven too I doubt you were all that serious on the subject to begin with.

The most destructive, murderous and dangerous religion on earth is atheism (see Nazi and Communist slaughters of hundreds of millions this century alone and their official state religion of atheism). Of course you probably don’t believe it’s a religion. But of course to be atheist you have to BELIEVE time/space/matter came into existence on its own (scientifically impossible), that God doesn’t exist (can’t prove that), that non-living material somehow magically became living material (scientifically impossible, completely illogical and impossible to prove) and that this is all there is.

 

[dennisknapp]

Lilyofthevalley:

To blame religion for conflict is a grade-school argument that ignorant atheists love to espouse, as it is one of the few self-righteous comforts​

After reading this post the “benfits” of religion are,still, questionable. It appears to give some people the right to be arrogant.​

No, Dennis, I am not agnostic just disgusted with religion.I take my children to church to hear, allegedly, the head of the household and spiritual leader is THE man. Wasn’t there a study about how women are in church more than men? Who regulary attends church services? Women. MAtter of fact the majority of people who attend church where I bring my children are women. The men stay home and sleep in.
I am, almost, convinced, religion is a way of keeping people in their place. It wasn’t until lately, it’s been used to liberate people~example Underground Railroad and THe Quakers and Mennonites.​

Plus these folks who state the only thing in creation which will see heaven is man. Have these folks BEEN to heaven? How the hell do they know the only beings in heaven are people???

I still don’t understand your point. I am talking about theological truth claims and if they have evidence in historical documentation.

Peace