Communion at Protestant churches

[Beyrak]

In my understanding of the way lineages work, all the children of a parent can trace their history back to include anything that is true of the parent. So, if protestant churches like Lutherans and Anglicans are offshoots of Catholicism, then anything that is true of Catholicism before those respective denominations emerged would be part of their history also.

No. If you are ex-communicated, you are separated from the Church and if you start a new organization as a splinter group, your genesis starts at that point.

Now in the case of the Orthodox Church, they still have the Apostolic Succession and their faith is complete, minus the revelations the Roman Catholic Church has approved since their split.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

No. If you are ex-communicated, you are separated from the Church and if you start a new organization as a splinter group, your genesis starts at that point…

Ah, sort of like the reverse of an adoption. Well, adoption changes legal status for the purposes of inheritance, but it doesn’t actually change bloodlines. The genes are the genes, whether you recognize them as family or not is really irrelevant to what the truth is.

 

[Beyrak]

Ah, sort of like the reverse of an adoption. Well, adoption changes legal status for the purposes of inheritance, but it doesn’t actually change bloodlines. The genes are the genes, whether you recognize them as family or not is really irrelevant to what the truth is.

True. But the point is in this case, protestants have rejected the Church and and created their own sect with their own knew beliefs, editing the Bible to make their beliefs plausible, and making it up as they go further splintering into new and different beliefs as time passes and now have 30,000 splinter group sects.

 

[Nella]

True. But the point is in this case, protestants have rejected the Church and and created their own sect with their own knew beliefs, editing the Bible to make their beliefs plausible, and making it up as they go further splintering into new and different beliefs as time passes and now have 30,000 splinter group sects.

This is an outright lie. Protestants didn’t create their own beliefs. Many of them are sola scriptura. We are not sola scriptura but Scripture ranks first on the three legged stool. How do Protestants edit the Bible?? Are you referring to the aprocrypha? Those books are very much debatable as if they belong to scripture or not. Everything you contend here is merely a matter of opinion. I could say that the RCC became no longer in succession to Peter when it made the Immaculate Conception idea dogma because it is not Scriptual. It would be my opinion though and you would be the first to point that out.

 

[viper78912]

1Cor.8:1-13.”Therefore, if food causes my brother to sin, I will never eat meat again, so ….”
The issue of meat offered to idols cropped up when the meat eating Apostles and followers faced a dilemma when they visited Ephesus and Corinth. Meat was offered to goddess Diana, Artemis, etc. The alternative was to abstain from meat and become vegetarians.
Paul clarified, “So about the eating of meat sacrificed to idols; we know that ‘There is no idol in the world” and that there is no God but one” (v.4).
Offer it to “One God, the Father,
From whom all things exist,
And One Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom we exist.” (v6.). This solved their problem.
Jesus Christ died for the World (John3.16).
“But whoever has doubts is condemned if he eats, because this is not from faith; for whatever is not from faith is sin.”(Romans14.23).
Paul clinched the issue with his declaration, “Therefore, if food causes my brother to sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I may not cause my brother to sin.” (v.13).
Paul turned vegetarian. How many of us are following Paul, spurning meat and adopting vegetarianism?
As further clarified, “Whoever eats, eats for the Lord, since he gives thanks to the God; while whoever abstains, abstains for the Lord and gives thanks to God.” (Romans14.6).
“That is why Christ Died and Came to Life, that He might be Lord of both the dead and the living.”(Romans14.9).
‘For the Kingdom of God is not a matter of food and drink, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.”(Romans14.17).
Incidentally, Billy Graham wrote the foreword in the eulogy for Pope John Paul II.

 

[LilyM]

This is an outright lie. Protestants didn’t create their own beliefs. Many of them are sola scriptura. We are not sola scriptura but Scripture ranks first on the three legged stool. How do Protestants edit the Bible?? Are you referring to the aprocrypha? Those books are very much debatable as if they belong to scripture or not. Everything you contend here is merely a matter of opinion. I could say that the RCC became no longer in succession to Peter when it made the Immaculate Conception idea dogma because it is not Scriptual. It would be my opinion though and you would be the first to point that out.

You CAN’T have a three-legged stool where one leg is higher than the other two … all legs have to be EQUAL height

 

[Abira]

You CAN’T have a three-legged stool where one leg is higher than the other two … all legs have to be EQUAL height

lol lol… very sharp

I know what nella means though

S

 

[dthurmond]

I would love to get into the Vatican Archives… then have the knowledge to read and interpret from the original tongue… the original scriptures, the hidden documents pertaining to the “one true church”… I love history and have often wondered why those archives that are rumoured to be quite extensive are kept under lock and key where the “world” has no access to the contents. There, maybe we would find, the “one truth”.

 

[Nella]

I would love to get into the Vatican Archives… then have the knowledge to read and interpret from the original tongue… the original scriptures, the hidden documents pertaining to the “one true church”… I love history and have often wondered why those archives that are rumoured to be quite extensive are kept under lock and key where the “world” has no access to the contents. There, maybe we would find, the “one truth”.

good point. Why would they be kept under such secrecy if they contain so much truth. Sounds kind of like the masons.

 

[Harsalter]

This is an outright lie. Protestants didn’t create their own beliefs. Many of them are sola scriptura.

Sola scriptura and 30,000 different churches and hundreds of thousands different pastors interpreting them differently.

You have a habit of calling people liars as you have done it twice to two different posters in this thread alone. But it is you who seems to have the truth confused with fantasy.

 

[Harsalter]

Now in the case of the Orthodox Church, they still have the Apostolic Succession and their faith is complete, minus the revelations the Roman Catholic Church has approved since their split.

I watched Fr. Corapi last night on a recorded program on my TiVo. He put it best when he said that the eastern rite, Orthodox, Byzantine, etc are as Catholic as the RCC. Guess that puts the protestants all alone in that life raft drifting further & further from the main ship.

 

[Abira]

am I in the right thread still??? communion at protestant churches anyone?

 

[Kitty_Chan]

drifting further??

what about the deal everyone quotes from the cc about who is going to end up in Heaven?

the part about that the Catholic church accepts Protestants even though they dont have the so called full experience?

How does that reconcile with drifing further away?

Also, wasnt Paul also getting at whatever causes people to split away from Christ should be done away with so we remain one?? That differences should not divide??

Protestants say Catholics dont have it, Catholics say Protestants dont have it. I guess the Angels are going to be able to roll bowling balls up those streets of gold, because if we are to believe these opionions those streets are going to be empty.

 

[Kitty_Chan]

am I in the right thread still??? communion at protestant churches anyone?

Until we all take communion together, we will stay divided, period.

but there is too much discussion on the table settings and choice of vintage.

And who best understands the Host.

:banghead:

 

[Grace_Seeker]

Grace Seeker;2584110:

Originally Posted by Beyrak

No. If you are ex-communicated, you are separated from the Church and if you start a new organization as a splinter group, your genesis starts at that point…

Ah, sort of like the reverse of an adoption. Well, adoption changes legal status for the purposes of inheritance, but it doesn’t actually change bloodlines. The genes are the genes, whether you recognize them as family or not is really irrelevant to what the truth is.

True. But the point is in this case, protestants have rejected the Church and and created their own sect with their own knew beliefs, editing the Bible to make their beliefs plausible, and making it up as they go further splintering into new and different beliefs as time passes and now have 30,000 splinter group sects.

So you are saying that Protestants have walked away, disowning their family of origin. And in response their family of origin similarly disowns them. But now, when some of the offspring of those who walked away remember that we are all descendants of the same original bloodlines you not only want to deny our legitimacy, but also deny our history? Is that what you are saying?

I’m not asking you to recognize us as legitmate heirs and in the family of Catholicism. I recognize that our name has changed and we have different history from each other now. But I do think that we ought not to foget that we are still related, have the same Father in heaven, and for 1500 years the same history here on earth. We ought not to go around disavowing our commonalities, just because we also have some honest differences.

We may disagree on who is right and who is wrong on particular interpretations of doctrine. But we cannot deny the truth that we still have much in common, and that includes the majority of our history.

You CAN’T have a three-legged stool where one leg is higher than the other two … all legs have to be EQUAL height

This is an interesting statement given that Catholics teach that the Pope is the FIRST among EQUALS…

 

[Grace_Seeker]

True. But the point is in this case, protestants have rejected the Church and and created their own sect with their own knew beliefs, editing the Bible to make their beliefs plausible, and making it up as they go further splintering into new and different beliefs as time passes and now have 30,000 splinter group sects.

This is an outright lie. Protestants didn’t create their own beliefs. Many of them are sola scriptura.

You have a habit of calling people liars as you have done it twice to 2 different posters in this thread alone. But it is you who seems to have the truth confused with fantasy.

Would you have felt better if Nella had simply said: “It isn’t true that Protestants create their own beliefs.”? I think it is less inflamatory language.

I’m sure that Beyrak was not trying to post an outright lie. I also think that it is reasonable for Nella to question the veracity of Beyrak’s statement.

For instance, do Protestants create their beliefs any differently than do Catholics?

This disagreement with others who have interpreted the faith before us is not unique to Protestanism. It is also part of the history of the Catholic church.

For instance, an ecumenical council is held to discuss the nature of God and the Nicene creed is produced. Yet, it isn’t sufficient. Another ecumenical council has to be called because Nicea did not go far enough. There remain unaddressed questions. So we have the Council of Ephesus.

But then the decision actually made by the Council of Ephesus is that Christ did NOT have two natures and the idea that Christ’s humanity was absorbed by his divinity was, even though rejected by Pope Leo I, “official” Catholic teaching for 2 years until the Council of Chalcedon.

Chalcedon then reverses the action taken by the Council of Ephesus and the present view (nearly universally held by all Christians, protestants as well as Catholic and Orthodox) that Christ has two complete natures that are comingled and yet in no way abolished by their union that come together in the one person of Jesus replaces the view declared doctrine at the Council of Ephesus.

Was this the Catholic church rejecting the Catholic church? Was this the Catholic church creating its own beliefs. Was this the Catholic church editing the Bible to make their own beliefs plausible? Was this the Catholic church making it up as they go along and splintering the Church?

Well, one could in fact say “Yes” to all of this.
Yes, the Catholic church at Chalcedon did reject what the Catholic church had done at Ephesus.
Yes, the Catholic church was creating its own beliefs (they were not the beliefs of another religion) that it would teach to its faithful believers.
Yes, the Catholic church was editing by highlighting those verses that supported the view that it found supportive of its position and (as Dioscorus had done to Leo earlier) ignoring other points of view.
Yes, in doing so, the Church was splintered and east and west almost parted company at that point in time.

But, while one could say “Yes” to all of those things, I don’t choose to.

What I think that Leo I and the Catholic church was doing was being true to scripture. If that meant declaring decisions made in the past to be in error and in need of correction, then that is what it means. I applaude Leo for doing so.

Leo DID NOT create beliefs. What he did was declare what he saw in scripture. He stood up for scripture even though it was contrary to the declared decision of the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus. He had the guts to not only say that it was wrong, but to label it for what it was – a Robber council.

Now my guess is that there were those who still supported the teachings of Eutyches and the authority of Cyril and Dioscorus. If Theodosius had not died and there had been no opportunity to call the Council of Chalcedon, then Leo might not have had the opportunity to provide the leadership he did. The erroneous views of Eutyches might have become part of the history and the tradition of the Catholic church for many more years than they were. It might have been left to some other Catholic priest a thousand years later to return to scripture and announce his own personal protestation of the interpretations that had become the accepted teachings of the church. Would that not make those who made such protests Protestants?

I don’t think that such protestants as Leo I were rejecting the Church and creating their own beliefs. And I don’t think that later Protestants who protested against the interpreations of the Catholic church in their day were rejecting the Church and creating their own beliefs either. Rather they are finding the convicition regarding their beliefs in scripture, just like Leo I showed us to do way back in 451.

BTW 1500 years of tradition that we Protestants are party to.

 

[dthurmond]

Would you have felt better if Nella had simply said: “It isn’t true that Protestants create their own beliefs.”? I think it is less inflamatory language.

I’m sure that Beyrak was not trying to post an outright lie. I also think that it is reasonable for Nella to question the veracity of Beyrak’s statement.

For instance, do Protestants create their beliefs any differently than do Catholics?

This disagreement with others who have interpreted the faith before us is not unique to Protestanism. It is also part of the history of the Catholic church.

For instance, an ecumenical council is held to discuss the nature of God and the Nicene creed is produced. Yet, it isn’t sufficient. Another ecumenical council has to be called because Nicea did not go far enough. There remain unaddressed questions. So we have the Council of Ephesus.

But then the decision actually made by the Council of Ephesus is that Christ did NOT have two natures and the idea that Christ’s humanity was absorbed by his divinity was, even though rejected by Pope Leo I, “official” Catholic teaching for 2 years until the Council of Chalcedon.

Chalcedon then reverses the action taken by the Council of Ephesus and the present view (nearly universally held by all Christians, protestants as well as Catholic and Orthodox) that Christ has two complete natures that are comingled and yet in no way abolished by their union that come together in the one person of Jesus replaces the view declared doctrine at the Council of Ephesus.

Was this the Catholic church rejecting the Catholic church? Was this the Catholic church creating its own beliefs. Was this the Catholic church editing the Bible to make their own beliefs plausible? Was this the Catholic church making it up as they go along and splintering the Church?

Well, one could in fact say “Yes” to all of this.
Yes, the Catholic church at Chalcedon did reject what the Catholic church had done at Ephesus.
Yes, the Catholic church was creating its own beliefs (they were not the beliefs of another religion) that it would teach to its faithful believers.
Yes, the Catholic church was editing by highlighting those verses that supported the view that it found supportive of its position and (as Dioscorus had done to Leo earlier) ignoring other points of view.
Yes, in doing so, the Church was splintered and east and west almost parted company at that point in time.

But, while one could say “Yes” to all of those things, I don’t choose to.

What I think that Leo I and the Catholic church was doing was being true to scripture. If that meant declaring decisions made in the past to be in error and in need of correction, then that is what it means. I applaude Leo for doing so.

Leo DID NOT create beliefs. What he did was declare what he saw in scripture. He stood up for scripture even though it was contrary to the declared decision of the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus. He had the guts to not only say that it was wrong, but to label it for what it was – a Robber council.

Now my guess is that there were those who still supported the teachings of Eutyches and the authority of Cyril and Dioscorus. If Theodosius had not died and there had been no opportunity to call the Council of Chalcedon, then Leo might not have had the opportunity to provide the leadership he did. The erroneous views of Eutyches might have become part of the history and the tradition of the Catholic church for many more years than they were. It might have been left to some other Catholic priest a thousand years later to return to scripture and announce his own personal protestation of the interpretations that had become the accepted teachings of the church. Would that not make those who made such protests Protestants?

I don’t think that such protestants as Leo I were rejecting the Church and creating their own beliefs. And I don’t think that later Protestants who protested against the interpreations of the Catholic church in their day were rejecting the Church and creating their own beliefs either. Rather they are finding the convicition regarding their beliefs in scripture, just like Leo I showed us to do way back in 451.

BTW 1500 years of tradition that we Protestants are party to.

One day, I want to be like you and have the time to truly study the History and the Word of God!..Until then, I will keep doing what I’m doing.

study to shew thyself approved

 

[Kitty_Chan]

Im gonna just change the name to nicely put once again

 

[dthurmond]

Here is an interesting article on Martin Luther. I’m still trying to find one that digs deep into what his theses stated on communion. I’ve not found it yet.

mars.wnec.edu/~grempel/courses/wc2/lectures/luther.html

study to shew thyself approved

 

[Palladio]

So you are saying that Protestants have walked away, disowning their family of origin. And in response their family of origin similarly disowns them. But now, when some of the offspring of those who walked away remember that we are all descendants of the same original bloodlines you not only want to deny our legitimacy, but also deny our history? Is that what you are saying?

I’m not asking you to recognize us as legitmate heirs and in the family of Catholicism. I recognize that our name has changed and we have different history from each other now. But I do think that we ought not to foget that we are still related, have the same Father in heaven, and for 1500 years the same history here on earth. We ought not to go around disavowing our commonalities, just because we also have some honest differences.

We may disagree on who is right and who is wrong on particular interpretations of doctrine. But we cannot deny the truth that we still have much in common, and that includes the majority of our history.

I think that one cause for the heated debate, speaking as a Catholic, is that Catholics would not consider Protestants as sharing in the same history as Catholics, no matter their claims to the contrary. Protestantism begins, absolutely, in the sixteenth century, when it broke away from the RCC. We rightly insist, inter alia, on the Apostolic succession, which Protestants de facto rejected and no longer have or even want. The result of all this is the 20 or 30 thousand sects we have today. Another, I think, is that mainstream Protestanism looks little different from town hall or the playboy channel.

Either God is a grand prankster, permitting with these sects infinitely worse odds for the truth than a roll of the dice, or Christ wanted one church, and did not wait upon Zwingli, Luther, Calvin, or Henry VIII to found it.