Can you talk me out of becoming a Catholic?

[Contarini]

Gabriel_of_12:
The Catholic faith does, because the bread and wine are no longer, to the Lutheran the bread and wine remain as bread and wine. Transubstantiation clarifies the true presence of Jesus body and blood in the Eucharist, while the Lutherans (and other protestants) position believe the bread and wine “co-habit” (consubstantiaton) with the true presence of Jesus Christ? which is a very hard concept to believe (accept) from a Catholic perspective, that Jesus co-habits with natural bread and wine? I believe more clarification is needed in this Lutheran belief.

Gabriel,

I for one find transubstantiation to be a “clarification” that makes things a lot more confusing.

Edwin

 

[gcnuss]

The Catholic faith does, because the bread and wine are no longer, to the Lutheran the bread and wine remain as bread and wine. Transubstantiation clarifies the true presence of Jesus body and blood in the Eucharist, while the Lutherans (and other protestants) position believe the bread and wine “co-habit” (consubstantiaton) with the true presence of Jesus Christ? which is a very hard concept to believe (accept) from a Catholic perspective, that Jesus co-habits with natural bread and wine? I believe more clarification is needed in this Lutheran belief.

 

[Contarini]

I agree, Lee (loved his movies, BTW)! But don’t you think there is a difference between the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox church in this: The Catholic Church, being more widespread, appears to have taken Jesus more seriously when He said:
“All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

(Matthew 28:18-20)Granted, this is not THE test for God’s Church (Evangelicals and Latter Day Saints both take the command seriously) but obeying this parting command of Christ is one of the minimum requirements of His real Church. Don’t you think?

No, not if it is intended to mean the kind of colonialist enterprises in which Catholics and Protestants have engaged in the past few centuries. Note: I am not condemning the modern missionary movements. They did not cause colonialism, and given that it was happening anyway I’m glad that the missionaries went along. Sometimes they were agents of imperialism, but probably more often they opposed it or at the very least softened its effects. And Russian missionary activity also went along with colonial expansion. I’m simply saying that most often Christians have traveled to other countries spreading the Gospel when members of their culture were traveling to those regions anyway for either imperialistic or commercial reasons (even the Nestorian missions, which I think are an example to us all, seem to have gone along with commercial activity). Thus, I don’t think that the more extensive missionary activity of Western Christians counts as evidence that one of the Western churches must be the true Church.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

If the nearest EO church is a three-hour drive from my home, should I seriously think about quitting my job, selling my home, and moving my family to Indianapolis or Chicago?

No, not necessarily. I’m not telling you to become Orthodox, anyway. The fact that the nearest Orthodox church is about a 40-minute drive from *my *home is a reason why I am unlikely to become Orthodox anytime soon. But you asked for reasons not to become Catholic. I think that the rival claims of Orthodoxy constitute such a reason. In my case, they constitute a reason to stay Anglican for the time being, although given the shaky doctrinal basis of Anglicanism I’m not happy with this long-term. I want either to resolve my issues with the Catholic Church, or eventually to become Orthodox.

I think it’s interesting that your immediate “lines of defense” have little or nothing to do with doctrine. In other words, I wonder how closely you have really investigated the claims of Catholicism doctrinally. If you haven’t looked at how the Orthodox disagree with those claims, I don’t think you’ve done a thorough job at all.

I’m not sure you need to, just as your apparent ignorance of the Lutheran position on the Real Presence may be irrelevant. It may be enough that within Western Christianity the claims of Catholicism are a lot stronger than the claims of whatever Protestant churches you are familiar with.

Again, I will be happy to hear that you have become Catholic. But you asked for reasons not to, and I figure that complicating your picture a bit may be good for you.

Edwin

 

[JonNC]

=Gabriel of 12;6775872]
The Catholic faith does, because the bread and wine are no longer, to the Lutheran the bread and wine remain as bread and wine. Transubstantiation clarifies the true presence of Jesus body and blood in the Eucharist, while the Lutherans (and other protestants) position believe the bread and wine “co-habit” (consubstantiaton) with the true presence of Jesus Christ? which is a very hard concept to believe (accept) from a Catholic perspective, that Jesus co-habits with natural bread and wine? I believe more clarification is needed in this Lutheran belief.

Peace be with you

And also with you, my friend.

Just to add to what Pastor Gary said, when discussing our belief regarding the real presence, I find that Melanchthon’s description in the Apology of the Augsburg Confession says it very well;

we confess that we believe, that in the Lord’s Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly tendered, with those things which are seen, bread and wine, to those who receive the Sacrament. This belief we constantly defend, as the subject has been carefully examined and considered. For since Paul says, 1 Cor. 10:16, that the bread is the communion of the Lord’s body, etc., it would follow, if the Lord’s body were not truly present, that the bread is not a communion of the body, but only of the spirit of Christ. 55] And we have ascertained that not only the Roman Church affirms the bodily presence of Christ, but the Greek Church also both now believes, and formerly believed, the same. For the canon of the Mass among them testifies to this, in which the priest clearly prays that the bread may be changed and become the very body of Christ. And Vulgarius, who seems to us to be not a silly writer, says distinctly that bread is not a mere figure, but 56] is truly changed into flesh.

In this excerpt, he makes no statement regarding the disposition of the bread and wine, referring only to what we see, leaving in tact the fact that it is, indeed, a mystery how this happens. Further, he cites scripture, the universal Church both east and west, and the Church fathers in support of the real presence.

In addition, the following quote comes from a Lutheran / Vatican document regarding the Eucharist:

In order to confess the reality of the eucharistic presence without reserve the Catholic Church teaches that "Christ whole and entire"34 becomes present through the transformation of the whole substance of the bread and the wine into the substance of the body and blood of Christ while the empirically accessible appearances of bread and wine (accidentia) continue to exist unchanged. This “wonderful and singular change” is “most aptly” called transsubstantiation by the Catholic Church.35 This terminology has widely been considered by Lutherans as an attempt rationalistically to explain the mystery of Christ’s presence in the sacrament; further, many suppose also that in this approach the present Lord is not seen as a person and naturalistic misunderstandings become easy.

The Lutherans have given expression to the reality of the Eucharistic presence by speaking of presence of Christ’s body and blood in, with and under bread and wine—but not of transsubstantiation. Here they see real analogy to the Lord’s incarnation: as God and man become one in Jesus Christ, Christ’s body and blood, on the one hand, and the bread and wine, on the other, give rise to a sacramental unity. Catholics, in turn, find that this does not do sufficient justice to this very unity and to the force of Christ’s word “This is my body”.

The ecumenical discussion has shown that these two positions must no longer be regarded as opposed in a way that leads to separation. The Lutheran tradition agrees with the Catholic tradition that the consecrated elements do not simply remain bread and wine but by the power of the creative Word are bestowed as the body and blood of Christ. In this sense it also could occasionally speak, as does the Greek tradition of a “change”.36 The concept of transsubstantiation for its part is intended as a confession and preservation of the mystery character of the Eucharistic presence; it is not intended as an explanation of how this change occurs37 (see the appendices on “Real Presence” and “Christ’s Presence in the Eucharist”).

prounione.urbe.it/dia-int/l-rc/doc/e_l-rc_eucharist.html

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Gabriel of 12;6775872:

I suspect that terminology gets in the way of understanding when we try to explain the Eucharist. From a Lutheran point of view, the Real Presence is a mystery – we don’t know how it comes to be, only that it is. A Lutheran well-versed in Lutheran theology does not refer to it as “consubstantiation.”

We can’t explain in rational terms how our Lord’s body and blood come to us as what appears to our human senses to be bread and wine. We trust fully in his words that it is so. My only argument with “transubstantiation” is that it attempts to force a divine mystery into a humanly constructed box. Why should a Greek metaphysical concept replace faith as the way in which I perceive the Real Presence?

Just a couple of thoughts.

Hi Pastor,
My argument is even narrower. It is typical of humans to try to do this. One could make the same claim regarding Sacramental Union. While Transubstantiation is a reasonable human description of the real presence, my only argument with it is the binding of the conscience of believers regarding it. In and of itself, Transub. should not be an impediment to reconciliation, at least it wouldn’t be for me.

Jon

 

[gcnuss]

(snip)
While Transubstantiation is a reasonable human description of the real presence, my only argument with it is the binding of the conscience of believers regarding it. In and of itself, Transub. should not be an impediment to reconciliation, at least it wouldn’t be for me.

Jon,

No argument from me.

 

[spockrates]

Not all of Protestantism. We Lutherans affirm the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. We take literally the words “this is my body” and “this cup is the new covenant in my blood.” Here is article X of the Augsburg Confession: Of the Supper of the Lord they teach that the Body and Blood of Christ are truly present, and are distributed to those who eat the Supper of the Lord; and they reject those that teach otherwise.

Can’t get too much clearer than that.

Fascinating! Do all Lutheran denominations hold to the same doctrine of transubstantiation that Catholics do?

 

[spockrates]

Your welcome No, I don’t believe that the Catholic Church has three rocks as its foundation, only one Holy Catholic and Apostolic church Jesus built upon Peter. Your 3 rock foundation is not what Matthew 16 reveals Jesus building his Church upon. The Catholic church is the body of Jesus Christ which is a mystery that can not be defined from 3 foundations. Foudation is apart from what Jesus builds upon Peter. …

Perhaps you have missed, or do not recall, 424 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church?



THE PROFESSION OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH

CHAPTER TWO
I BELIEVE IN JESUS CHRIST, THE ONLY SON OF GOD

The Good News: God has sent his Son

422 'But when the time had fully come, God sent forth his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons.'1 This is ‘the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God’:'2 God has visited his people. He has fulfilled the promise he made to Abraham and his descendants. He acted far beyond all expectation - he has sent his own ‘beloved Son’.3

423 We believe and confess that Jesus of Nazareth, born a Jew of a daughter of Israel at Bethlehem at the time of King Herod the Great and the emperor Caesar Augustus, a carpenter by trade, who died crucified in Jerusalem under the procurator Pontius Pilate during the reign of the emperor Tiberius, is the eternal Son of God made man. He ‘came from God’,4 ‘descended from heaven’,5 and ‘came in the flesh’.6 For 'the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father. . . And from his fullness have we all received, grace upon grace.'7

424 Moved by the grace of the Holy Spirit and drawn by the Father, we believe in Jesus and confess: 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.'8 On **the rock of this faith **confessed by St. Peter, Christ built his Church.9

scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s2c2.htm#424

 

[spockrates]

Me, I am not sure theologically. I approach communion as though it is the body and blood of Christ and then leave what does and doesn’t happen up to the Lord.

But for your information, several Protestant traditions do believe in the real presence. Here is a little Wiki article for your browsing.

From what I understand, the Assembly of God does not, or am I mistaken.

 

[JonNC]

Fascinating! Do all Lutheran denominations hold to the same doctrine of transubstantiation that Catholics do?

Actually, the doctrine of Transubstantiation, as described by The Catholic Church, is not the Lutheran position, mainly and perhaps only because it tries to describe in metaphysical terms the mystery of the real presence. We’re willing to say the bread and wine are changed into the real and substantial body and blood of Christ. We are willing to say this occurs by the power of the Holy Spirit when the pastor/priest speaks the words of institution . We’re reluctant to express the event in terms of substance and accidents, not because it isn’t necessarily true, but because it isn’t expressed by Christ in those terms.

Jon

 

[spockrates]

I don’t see why it “seems” that way to you at all. I can’t see much historical or theological basis for such a belief.

Just curious: Do you consider John’s Gospel a reliable historical document?

Many Protestants have come to believe that it is not. But Lutherans clearly believe that it is, and many others believe it in a somewhat more spiritualized sense. And even those who don’t are not usually “basing” their Protestantism on this, but on something like sola fide or sola scriptura.

Yes, I should not speak of what I do not know! I should have said that I personally find the understanding of the Eucharist a compelling reason. If the Catholics have it right, that rules out many Protestant alternatives for me.

I do–I think that the interpretation saying that “eating my flesh” means “believing in me” is actually supported in the text itself. I don’t think that on purely exegetical grounds one can determine whether John’s general lack of overt sacramentalism is because the sacramentalism is all-pervasive (the Catholic view) or because John is genuinely non-sacramental.

I believe in the Real Presence because of Sacred Tradition, with Scripture (as the most undisputedly authoritative part of Sacred Tradition) testifying to it in at least three places (counting all the institution narratives as one place). In order of clarity, I would put 1 Cor. 10:16 first (together with the passage about “not discerning the body and blood of the Lord”), the Institution Narratives second, and John 6 third. In other words, I read John 6 Eucharistically because I read it in the context of the early Fathers (though even there, Augustine spiritualizes it to some extent) and other passages which I take to be clearer. I do not find the Catholic apologists’ interpretation of John 6 convincing. The claim that “eat my flesh” figuratively means to insult or abuse someone is worth something, but I don’t think it’s enough. I seriously doubt that we know enough about the linguistic context of John 6 to put too much weight on such an argument, especially given the questions about whether any of the long speeches in John are anything like verbatim transcripts of what Jesus said.

Edwin

I suppose God uses different methods to reach different people. We’re all coded differently. The code written on my heart is predisposed to authority of Christ’s words in Sacred Scripture.

 

[spockrates]

No, not necessarily. I’m not telling you to become Orthodox, anyway. The fact that the nearest Orthodox church is about a 40-minute drive from *my *home is a reason why I am unlikely to become Orthodox anytime soon. But you asked for reasons not to become Catholic. I think that the rival claims of Orthodoxy constitute such a reason. In my case, they constitute a reason to stay Anglican for the time being, although given the shaky doctrinal basis of Anglicanism I’m not happy with this long-term. I want either to resolve my issues with the Catholic Church, or eventually to become Orthodox.

I think it’s interesting that your immediate “lines of defense” have little or nothing to do with doctrine. In other words, I wonder how closely you have really investigated the claims of Catholicism doctrinally. If you haven’t looked at how the Orthodox disagree with those claims, I don’t think you’ve done a thorough job at all.

I’m not sure you need to, just as your apparent ignorance of the Lutheran position on the Real Presence may be irrelevant. It may be enough that within Western Christianity the claims of Catholicism are a lot stronger than the claims of whatever Protestant churches you are familiar with.

Again, I will be happy to hear that you have become Catholic. But you asked for reasons not to, and I figure that complicating your picture a bit may be good for you.

Edwin

Yes, like Socrates, I’m embarrassing myself by showing my ignorance.

 

[spockrates]

Actually, the doctrine of Transubstantiation, as described by The Catholic Church, is not the Lutheran position, mainly and perhaps only because it tries to describe in metaphysical terms the mystery of the real presence. We’re willing to say the bread and wine are changed into the real and substantial body and blood of Christ. We are willing to say this occurs by the power of the Holy Spirit when the pastor/priest speaks the words of institution . We’re reluctant to express the event in terms of substance and accidents, not because it isn’t necessarily true, but because it isn’t expressed by Christ in those terms.

Jon

Yes, thank you for speaking up for Lutheranism, Jon. Glad you did! (I don’t want us to misrepresent your denomination.) I thought Lutherans did not agree with Catholics regarding the true nature of the Eucharist.

 

[JonNC]

Yes, like Socrates, I’m embarrassing myself by showing my ignorance.

Many times, we learn first and best by showing our ignorance…

… so long as we are willing to listen to those who may know more.

Jon

 

[spockrates]

Many times, we learn first and best by showing our ignorance…

… so long as we are willing to listen to those who may know more.

Jon

Not only am I willing, but I’m also *terrified *to do otherwise! My feeling is the same as Socrates’, who said:

I have long been wondering at my own wisdom, finding it beyond belief, and I think that I ought to stop and ask myself, “What am I saying?” For, there is nothing worse than self-deception, where the deceiver is always at home and always with you. It is quite terrible, and therefore I ought often to retrace my steps and endeavor to “look fore and aft” in the words of … Homer.

(Cratylus, 428)

I mean, if I am deceived about anything, how will I ever know that I am deceived if someone is not kind enough to show me? Knowing one is deceived is the only cure for deception, I think. For as soon as one knows he has fallen for a lie, he no longer falls for it!

 

[AmateurPianist]

From what I understand, the Assembly of God does not, or am I mistaken.

Good question.

Now bear in mind that the particular Assemblies Church that I attend is not what I would call “hard core Assemblies”. It has chosen to adopt its “unique interpretation” of some of the more controversial “Fundamental Truths”

Back to your question. From the “16 fundamental truths”:

The Lord’s Supper, consisting of the elements --bread and the fruit of the vine-- is the symbol expressing our sharing the divine nature of our Lord Jesus Christ (2 Peter 1:4 [KJV/NIV]), a memorial of his suffering and death (1 Corinthians 11:26 [KJV/NIV]), and a prophecy of His second coming (1 Corinthians 11:26 [KJV/NIV]), and is enjoined on all believers “till He come!”

So now (in the sense of adopting my own unique interpretation) let us see what this does and does not say.

I do observe that this uses the word “symbol” and “memorial”. But at the same time it does not use the word “only”. And (as I have learned from Catholic apologists in discussion of Bible and Faith alone), one can not assume the word “only” if it is not used in the text.

And (as I have learned from Catholic apologists here) 1 Cor 11:25 uses the word “remembrance”. But again this text does not necessarily mean “only remembrance”.

So (using the same logic as I have learned from Catholic apologists) this fundamental truth and a belief in the “real presence” are not totally contradictory. So we are good.

Seriously, I don’t sense this is a big issue in my church that I attend either way, and if it is not with them, it is not with me…particularly since my belief in a Real Presence is more one of approach than one of theology anyway.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

QUOTE=spockrates;6777536]Perhaps you have missed, or do not recall, 424 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church?

:
424 Moved by the grace of the Holy Spirit and drawn by the Father, we believe in Jesus and confess: 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.'8 On the rock of this faith confessed by St. Peter, Christ built his Church.9
[/INDENT]

Congratulations spockrates, If your analogy here were true? then you would have proved the CCC conflicts with itself?

Here read Paragraph 881 from the CCC " The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the “rock” of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock"

I assure you the CCC never contradicts itself nor conflicts with itself in anyway;

Look at your paragraph 424 again; it is dealing with the “WE” believe in Jesus and confess… the rock of “THIS” faith… and then we know what takes place from Matthew 16 of Peter of whom Jesus built his Church upon Rock, yes the faith and confession of Simon Peter is not refuted, the confession initiates the result of Jesus building his Church upon Peter. Again the CCC never contradicts itself, as you try to force a contradiction with your faith only analogy that Jesus built his church upon, which is never supported by the CCC, scripture, Apostolic Tradition.

Nice try though; Maybe no one has informed you yet; but the Vatican II documents and language are still being studied by the greatest minds and lawyers the world can offer, from which the CCC is a fruit from.

Peace be with you.

 

[spockrates]

Congratulations spockrates, If your analogy here were true? then you would have proved the CCC conflicts with itself?

No contradiction in saying there is more than one rock on which Christ’s Church stands, is there?

Here read Paragraph 881 from the CCC " The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the “rock” of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock" I assure you the CCC never contradicts itself nor conflicts with itself in anyway;

Look at your paragraph 424 again; it is dealing with the “WE” believe in Jesus and confess… the rock of “THIS” faith… and then we know what takes place from Matthew 16 of Peter of whom Jesus built his Church upon Rock, yes the faith and confession of Simon Peter is not refuted, the confession initiates the result of Jesus building his Church upon Peter. Again the CCC never contradicts itself, as you try to force a contradiction with your faith only analogy that Jesus built his church upon, which is never supported by the CCC, scripture, Apostolic Tradition.

Yes, of course, Peter is the REPRESENTATIVE of Christ on which His Church stands, just as Peter’s confession of faith is the TRUTH on which His Church stands, and just as Christ Himself is the PERSON on which His Church stands. So I’m thinking there are three rocks, rather than one, on which His Church stands. But do you think His Church can stand apart from Christ? or apart from His representatives on earth? or apart from the truth itself?

Nice try though; Maybe no one has informed you yet; but the Vatican II documents and language are still being studied by the greatest minds and lawyers the world can offer, from which the CCC is a fruit from.

Peace be with you.

Please don’t be so quick to judge, my good Arc Angel! and don’t think I’m claiming any victory over truth, either. The truth is that, even if there are three rocks making the foundation of Christ’s Church, Jesus was only speaking of one of these three. For He used the words “on this rock,” rather than “on these rocks”:

And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

(Matthew 16:18)

And the Catechism agrees with Him, as He did not say “on only this rock.”

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

No contradiction in saying there is more than one rock on which Christ’s Church stands, is there?

Absolutely, there is nothing wrong with “YOU” stating “there is more than one rock on which Christ’s church stands”. Where you get into problems with that interpretation is trying to state the Catholic Church believes or teaches your personal interpretation, of Jesus building his church upon 3 rocks.

Yes, of course, Peter is the REPRESENTATIVE of Christ on which His Church stands, just as Peter’s confession of faith is the TRUTH on which His Church stands, and just as Christ Himself is the PERSON on which His Church stands. So I’m thinking there are three rocks, rather than one, on which His Church stands. But do you think His Church can stand apart from Christ? or apart from His representatives on earth? or apart from the truth itself?