Is Protestantism a good thing? (Or “Why I Kissed Ecumenism Goodbye”)

[Dovekin]

I asked’
When one converts to be Catholic , what is the process one goes through, EVEN for the validly baptized?

IOW what’s the process that comes after baptism?

They are welcomed as a brother or sister, children of Our Father.

Do Protestants exhibit as Christians oneness and unity with what Out Lord commands? I would say YES

The daily Christian life of these brethren is nourished by their faith in Christ and strengthened by the grace of Baptism and by hearing the word of God. This shows itself in their private prayer, their meditation on the Bible, in their Christian family life, and in the worship of a community gathered together to praise God. Moreover, their form of worship sometimes displays notable features of the liturgy which they shared with us of old.
Vatican II Decree on Ecumenism 23

Did I divide Protestants from the Catholic Church?

I would say yes, by describing Protestants as heretics, as in this interpretation of St Paul to Titus:

What does Paul say to Bp Titus, about those in heresy?

This ignores the Catholic principles articulated by the bishops at Vatican II:

in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions made their appearance and quite large communities came to be separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame. The children who are born into these Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation, and the Catholic Church embraces upon them as brothers, with respect and affection.
Vatican II Decree on Ecumenism 3

All the Church’s children should remember that their exalted status is to be attributed not to their own merits but to the special grace of Christ. If they fail moreover to respond to that grace in thought, word and deed, not only shall they not be saved but they will be the more severely judged.
Lumen Gentium 14

 

[OddBird]

Yes, probably – although I do have unforgettable memories of an academic conference about the Eucharist, in which both Calvinist and Catholic theologians explained their understanding of what happened in it, until one of the Calvinists said with a shocked look on his face, “wait a minute, I believe we are essentially saying the same thing!”
What I took home from that was that Calvin’s understanding was probably much closer to transsubstantiation than he cared to admit.

 

[OddBird]

That’s not the point. @LovelyLadybug said that Protestants think the Eucharist is symbolic. That statement needed qualifying, because it isn’t what a lot of Protestants think.

 

[OddBird]

Why then , would God threaten ANYONE with Hell if He knows upfront from all time, it won’t happen?

Because, to quote again 2 Peter 3.9, he does not want any to perish but all to come to repentance?

 

[steve-b]

They are welcomed as a brother or sister, children of Our Father.

What is the process?

Vatican II Decree on Ecumenism 23

UNITATIS REDINTEGRATIO
DECREE ON ECUMENISM

http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_...ecree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html

two quotes from that doc show it’s intended purpose

1. For it is only through Christ’s Catholic Church, which is “the all-embracing means of salvation,” that they can benefit fully from the means of salvation.
2. Baptism therefore establishes a sacramental bond of unity which links all who have been reborn by it. But of itself Baptism is only a beginning, an inauguration wholly directed toward the fullness of life in Christ. Baptism, therefore, envisages a complete profession of faith, complete incorporation in the system of salvation such as Christ willed it to be, and finally complete ingrafting in eucharistic communion.

IOW, one divided from the CC, can’t read into this document, all is OK in division,

Dovekin:

I would say yes, by describing Protestants as heretics, as in this interpretation of St Paul to Titus:

Keep in mind, Protestants did what they did 500+ yrs ago. THEY own that and their errors

AND

The Catholic Church was HERE, at Ceserea Philippi Mt 16:13-19 . THAT as you know, was before even Saul, who became Paul was converted.

AND

We know who started all the Protestant sects and when they were stated. NONE go back prior to the 16th century. Hence the phrase made famous by Newman, while he was still a Protestant

"to be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant"

From Christianity of History not Protestantism see section #5

What does Paul say to Bp Titus, about those in heresy?

Dovekin:

This ignores the Catholic principles articulated by the bishops at Vatican II: …
The children who are born into these Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation,

All the Church’s children should remember that their exalted status is to be attributed not to their own merits but to the special grace of Christ. If they fail moreover to respond to that grace in thought, word and deed, not only shall they not be saved but they will be the more severely judged.
Lumen Gentium 14

In context, that refers to the sin of division = a sin against charity.

AND

You left out of that quote

“Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.”

Whosoever = EVERYBODY

AND

Once someone knows the truth THEN they can be guilty of division. if they don’t correct it.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Why then , would God threaten ANYONE with Hell if He knows upfront from all time, it won’t happen?

Because, to quote again 2 Peter 3.9, he does not want any to perish but all to come to repentance?

What God desires, does NOT mean He forces ANYONE to obey Him, or be saved by Him.

 

[steve-b]

That’s not the point. @LovelyLadybug said that Protestants think the Eucharist is symbolic. That statement needed qualifying, because it isn’t what a lot of Protestants think.

I Answered that here

No Protestant sect regardless of stripe has valid holy orders,

 

[OddBird]

I agree. That is why I talked about hoping for salvation.

of Protestants think.

Again, I don’t disagree, and I think recent ecumenical work has made amply clear that the issue about the Eucharist is not “what happens at consecration” (we could agree here) but “who can validly consecrate the Eucharist” (there’s still a long way to go on that one).

That said, the question was “do Protestants believe in Real Presence?”, and for some, the answer is, unequivocally, yes. To insist otherwise is not behaving differently from the people who insist that Catholics worship Mary, when they are explained again and again that Catholics do not worship Mary.

You may not agree that there is Real Presence in a Protestant Eucharist, but you cannot say to people who believe the bread and wine really become the Body and Blood : “no, you don’t believe that”. They do.

 

[TULIPed]

I Answered that here

Are you arguing that Protestants don’t believe in the RP? Or are you arguing they’re incorrect for believing in the RP?

Because if you’re arguing the former, you’d be incorrect (and that was the point @OddBird was making I’m pretty sure…)

 

[steve-b]

I agree. That is why I talked about hoping for salvation.

OddBird:

of Protestants think.

Again, I don’t disagree, and I think recent ecumenical work has made amply clear that the issue about the Eucharist is not “what happens at consecration” (we could agree here) but “who can validly consecrate the Eucharist” (there’s still a long way to go on that one).

That said, the question was “do Protestants believe in Real Presence?”, and for some, the answer is, unequivocally, yes. To insist otherwise is not behaving differently from the people who insist that Catholics worship Mary, when they are explained again and again that Catholics do not worship Mary.

You may not agree that there is Real Presence in a Protestant Eucharist, but you cannot say to people who believe the bread and wine really become the Body and Blood : “no, you don’t believe that”. They do.

That is not what I was denying.

I said just because someone believes in the real presence for Protestant communion , does that make the real presence a reality. THAT reality of the real presence, comes from a valid consecration, from a validly ordained priest in valid apostolic succession.

 

[TULIPed]

I said just because someone believes in the real presence for Protestant communion , does that make the real presence a reality. THAT reality of the real presence, comes from a valid consecration, from a validly ordained priest in valid apostolic succession.

Ah - never mind.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

I Answered that here

Are you arguing that Protestants don’t believe in the RP? Or are you arguing they’re incorrect for believing in the RP?

Because if you’re arguing the former, you’d be incorrect (and that was the point @OddBird was making I’m pretty sure…)

Neither.

I’m arguing that Protestants can’t make the real presence happen, because there is no valid consecration within Protestantism, no matter the stripe, because they have no valid apostolic succession ergo no valid ordination,

 

[Dovekin]

IOW, one divided from the CC, can’t read into this document, all is OK in division,

Who said anything remotely like that? You asked how Protestants show “oneness and unity with what Our Lord commands.” Your response in no way takes away from that.

Keep in mind, Protestants did what they did 500+ yrs ago. THEY own that and their errors

This is a direct contradiction of the Church teaching I just cited, but you offer zero support for your assertion.

The children who are born into these Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation , and the Catholic Church embraces upon them as brothers, with respect and affection.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

IOW, one divided from the CC, can’t read into this document, all is OK in division,

Who said anything remotely like that? You asked how Protestants show “oneness and unity with what Our Lord commands.” Your response in no way takes away from that.

News flash

Protestants aren’t one nor united with, Our Lord’s one and only Church HE established.

Keep in mind, Protestants did what they did 500+ yrs ago. THEY own that and their errors

Dovekin:

This is a direct contradiction of the Church teaching I just cited, but you offer zero support for your assertion.

On the contrary

The part of the Doc you quoted from doesn’t even remotely contradict the parts of the same doc you did NOT quote from.

Dovekin:

The children who are born into these Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation , and the Catholic Church embraces upon them as brothers, with respect and affection.

another News flash

That is NOT a permanent be all to end all reprieve from fault.

THAT is why I quoted the parts of the docs you avoided.

 

[otjm]

I am not sure if this thread is till on track; nor am I sure if anyone really has addressed much of the original question.

Is Protestantism a good thing? The question may be, “good in compared to what?”

Is it good in comparison to Secularism - no concept of God, or a “feel good” approach to some sort of unidentified and amorphous “divinity”? On that, I would say yes, as most Protestantism agrees in a concept of Trinity, and of a common moral code, and of a final judgement.

Is it good in comparison to other religions? See above.

And the great majority of it believes in the need for baptism; and if one is baptized, one has received the first of seven sacraments; and if one then marries another who is baptized, on has a second sacrament - marriage.

does Ecumenism need to be kissed goodbye? Ecumenism is another word most fail to give any definition to. I define ecumenism in tow different aspects, The first is the work done by various Christian communities working together for peace and justice; that is done oin a local level and whether or not it leads any individuals to convert to the Catholic Church, it is doing together what Christ commands of us to do for others. And combined we can do more than we can individually.

The second definition of ecumenism is the work done on a much higher pay grade level, and that is the meetings we have with other Christian communities; it is not rapid, nor is it widely reported on, but the work continues in spite of the fact that those in the pews are mostly unaware that it even occurs.

And there might be a third level of ecumenism, as represented by one-on-one and information provided which leads to Protestants joining the Church, largely but not exclusively through RCIA.

And to add to this is a phrase I have heard for a bit of time which has responded to what I have know for a long time; and that is that we have many Catholics who “have been sacramentalized but not evangelized”. And while we can spend a great deal of time in chin chatter about Prtoestants, that is a critical issue within the Catholic Church, particularly for the young. CARA recently estimated about 18% of Catholic in the ages of 18 to 29 attend Mass on a weekly basis.

Just some food for thought.

 

[gohjedrek]

Yes, probably – although I do have unforgettable memories of an academic conference about the Eucharist, in which both Calvinist and Catholic theologians explained their understanding of what happened in it, until one of the Calvinists said with a shocked look on his face, “wait a minute, I believe we are essentially saying the same thing!”
What I took home from that was that Calvin’s understanding was probably much closer to transubstantiation than he cared to admit.

If by closer to transubstantiation than the Zwingli view of memorialism of the Eucharist, then yes Calvin’s view is closer.
If by closer to transubstantiation than the Lutheran view of sacramental union (consubstantiation) and Eastern orthodox view of sacred mystery, then no Calvin’s view will be further.

Calvin believe in Receptionism, essentially Christ is not present literally in the elements of the bread and wine but is spiritually present. Luther believe that the bread and wine are present together with the literal body and blood of Christ.

Orthodox believe in Sacred Mystery, where there is a transformation of the bread and wine into the literal body and blood of Christ, but do not define how the change occurs.

http://christianityinview.com/eucharist.html

 

[OddBird]

Calvin believe in Receptionism, essentially Christ is not present literally in the elements of the bread and wine but is spiritually present.

This is how he has traditionally been received and understood, yes. But if you look closely at what he wrote - the way he says the wine and bread, while retaining the appearances of wine and bread, are mysteriously linked to what they signify (the Body and Blood) so that they actually make them present, even if this presence is only discernible to those who receive in faith, well…

I have a busy day today, but I’ll try to look up some Calvin texts if I have a bit of spare time. It was actually the subject of one of my Master’s dissertations. What I discovered at the conference I spoke of was that I was by far not the only one to hold that view.

ETA : I think the catch is in one the these last bits, the way that the Presence is discernible by faith only. It was, imo, one of the statements that led to a spiritualized understanding how how Calvin viewed the Eucharist, when what he seems to mean is that the RP is there anyway, but it takes faithful eyes to recognize it.

I also think Calvin’s position was muddled by the way he tried to reconcile Zwingli and Luther on a common formulation.

 

[OddBird]

I’m arguing that Protestants can’t make the real presence happen, because there is no valid consecration within Protestantism

Yes, but again, that was not the point of my remark. Even though I would agree with you.

 

[gohjedrek]

The big idea of Calvin is that he believe that the substance of the bread and the wine remain unchanged in their nature, but by consecration they become spiritually the very body and blood of Christ. It is not, however, the body of Christ as it is in heaven; for how could the body of Christ which is now in heaven, necessarily limited by space, be in another place, on several altars, and in numerous hosts.

However, Jesus can be present anywhere. It is difficult to explain solely by human reason but it is written in numerous early church father writings.

Does any unbeliever profess that the changing of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of the Lord is impossible? Then let him consider God’s omnipotence. Admit that nature can transform one thing into another, then with greater reason should you admit that God’s almighty power, which brings into existence the whole substance of things, can work not as nature does, by changing forms in the same matter, but by changing one whole thing into another whole thing. (Concerning Reasons of Faith, Thomas Aquinas, 8)

St. John Chrysostom
Christ is present. The One who prepared that Holy Thursday table is the very One who now prepares this altar table. For it is not a man who makes the sacrificial gifts become the Body and Blood of Christ, but He that was crucified for us, Christ Himself. The priest stands there carrying out the action, but the power and grace is of God. “This is My Body,” he says. This statement transforms the gifts. (Homilies on the Treachery of Judas, 1, 6)

 

[OddBird]

How about you or I create a specific thread, if you’d like to debate about this ? It could be interesting.