Because there was no particular vine or door. If he said “I am ever this vine, and whenever you do this, do this in remembrance of me” then we’d probably be worshiping vines too.
Not really an accurate description. Luther held to the presence of the true body and blood being present in the sacrament of Holy Communion whereas Zwingli did not. Its not that complicated. Also, neither of the views presented at Marburg were novel. They were both ideas that had been debated within the Church for centuries.
Yeah, but Luther denied that the Mass was truly a sacrifice. So, there’s the problematic contradiction that you have non-sacrificial sacrifice in the sacrament. Zwingli, at least, said “no sacrifice and no sacrament”, which is internally consistent.
Yeah… so what? Prior to early ecumenical councils of the Church, the question of what the Trinity was, had been debated within the Church. Following these councils, there was a conciliar definition that was accepted by the Church. Any later discussion ran afoul of the doctrinal statements of the Church.
Because that is in line with scripture (Hebrews 10). Luther makes a sharp distinction between sacrifice and sacrament. I suggest you read the Babylonian Captivity of the Church for Luther’s actual view of the Holy Supper.
Fantastic. Did the apostolic fathers accept transubstantiation? If so, please provide a quote. If not, then please explain why going above and beyond what the apostles stated in their writings was necessary or doctrinally sound.
Almost. Not quite, but almost. The Catholic Church doesn’t suggest that the sacrifice of the Mass is numerically identical with the sacrifice of Christ on the cross. (If we did, then you’d be correct in asserting that we’re attempting to “re-crucify Christ” at each Mass.) Rather, each sacrifice of the Mass is numerically distinct from Christ’s sacrifice. In other words, at Mass, we offer a sacrifice that is unbloody, which is distinct from the bloody sacrifice on the cross. (Please note that, in the institution narratives, Jesus talks about the Eucharist being the covenant. Scriptural covenants include literal sacrifices as the ratification of the covenant.)
By “apostolic fathers”, do you mean “the Twelve”? Or do you mean the bishops of the councils of the first four centuries? If the latter, then why does the teaching of a 5th century bishop count as “valid” and the teaching of later bishops count as “unnecessary” or “doctrinally unsound”?
Again, if you actually read the work I am referring to, you would notice the distinction drawn between a sacrifice and a sacrament. Not putting much faith in you doing so though. But, I stand by Hebrews 10 even if you choose to define it in a way the author specifically did not intend.
I mean apostolic, none of which held to this understanding of the mystery of Holy Communion since this explanation was not invented until Thomistic thought in the Scholastic age of the Church wherein non-scriptural philosophical understandings were brought in to explain the mystery the early Church didn’t need to explain. My point is that doctrine generally is drawn as broadly as scripture allows without attempting to go beyond what scripture does. Otherwise, you end up drawing unscriptural distinctions that the apostles didn’t feel were necessary or salvific.
The Apostolic Fathers are after the Apostles and before Nicea I (325), e.g. Clement of Rome, Clement of Alexandria. Btw, Tertullian is not an Apostolic Father of the Church. He was an early apologist but left the Church and founded his own sect. He disagreed with Pope St. Victor I on remarriage for widows. Pope St. Victor I said that widows were free to remarry while Tertullian said that a widow is still married to her husband even though he passed away. There are a few works that he wrote while still Catholic though.
Two thoughts:
If your standard is “apostolic teaching”, please present an apostolic teaching that asserts that this is true.
You realize that this is an interpretative stance that isn’t founded in the teachings of the apostles… right?
Take a look at the response that @Hodos gives us. That seems to not be the way he understands “apostolic”.
I look at scripture as a subset of tradition put to writing, so developing doctrine to be more precise than scripture, by way of sacred tradition, makes sense to me . Aristotelian philosophy provided a framework and vocabulary to describe these subjects in a more precise and coherent way. Its kind of like using calculus to eloquently describe the same thing you could do in algebra, and all that without changing the truth of the object it describes.
I don’t have a problem with this distinction if it doesn’t involve condemning one to being outside the Church for what is essentially a philosophical explanation of something the scriptures doesn’t attempt to explain.