Protestant Communion?

[KjetilK]

The term the other lung of the church refers to the Eastern and ORiental orthodox churches, not the Eastern Rite churches since they are already in full communion with Rome and recognize the Pope as the head of the church. I don’t understand why this is so difficult for you to comprehend?

No, it is you who are reading this wrongly.

The term ‘two lungs’ doesn’t refer to those who are in communion with the Roman Pontiff on the one hand, and those in the East who are Orthodox on the other.

It refers to the Western tradition on the one hand, and to the eastern tradition on the other (including those Eastern rite Catholics in communion with the Roman Pontiff).

What John Paul II meant was that you need more than the Western, Latin, tradition, You also need the Eastern tradition. And in that tradition we find churches in communion with Rome.

 

[KathleenGee]

Agree.

The Orthodox did not fall into experimentation and ‘finding one’s self’ as happened to priests and religious following the Vatican II Council…and the false movements that paralleled it.

 

[chesterlab]

I’m going to go over all your heads and ask the canon in my church, or maybe even someone higher up in the church itself. I am so far not enjoying communicating with you folks on this site. You are awfully full of yourselves. I thought the protestants were bad. In the mean time, believe what you want to believe. Mozeltov.

 

[peace2u2]

I don’t think that anyone (Catholics included) can actually prove that Jesus is present in their Eucharist/Communion. It’s all a matter of faith. So we are all free to believe what we want even if none of us can prove it.

I disagree with your comment about “It’s all a matter of faith. So we are all free to believe what we want even if none of us can prove it.”

Sounds a lot like “relativism”. Relativism is a lie. For example, saying that abortion is wrong yet women have the right to make that choice, its their bodies and they can do whatever they want with their bodies because God gave us all free will is half truth and half a lie. Its true that abortion is wrong and that women have a right to make choices about their bodies, but what about the body that is growing inside of their womb? Where are these unborn babies rights to protect their bodies?

So the same with the Eucharist it either is what Jesus says it is “This is My Body”, “This is My Blood”. He is either telling the truth or He is lying.

 

[Thorolfr]

So the same with the Eucharist it either is what Jesus says it is “This is My Body”, “This is My Blood”. He is either telling the truth or He is lying.

I believe that Jesus said this. I also believe that Jesus was present in the bread and the wine when I took communion in my Lutheran church this morning. Someone commented earlier, “Our Lord Jesus is NOT present in Protestant ‘communion’ in any way whatsoever,” but they can’t prove that Jesus was not present in the communion in my church any more than they can prove that Jesus is present in the bread and the wine in a Catholic church. Both for me as a Lutheran and for a Catholic, the belief in the Real Presence of Jesus in the bread and the wine is a matter of faith. In neither case can it be proven or dis-proven.

 

[KathleenGee]

Thorolf…and yet such joint communions are not actualized in the universal church…I stated mine I experienced Christ’s presence upon the calling of His words…but we Catholics believe in transubstantiation where the Lord ministers us directly from heaven with His body and blood…

How I understand it, Lutherans do not understand or accept transubstantiation. And so we are both partaking with somewhat different intent and understanding…

 

[In_His_Grace]

Despite what the above posters may tell you and what they may falsely believe, Our Lord Jesus is NOT present in Protestant “communion” in any way whatsoever. This is because they reject the Truth of transubstantiation from bread and wine into the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ and do NOT have the valid apostolic succession necessary in order for the consecration to take place.

Only in the Holy Catholic Church can transubstantiation truly occur and only in the Holy Catholic Church is the Holy Eucharist truly Jesus.

May God bless you all abundantly and forever and guide you to the Light of His Holy Catholic Church!

I believe that Jesus said this. I also believe that Jesus was present in the bread and the wine when I took communion in my Lutheran church this morning. Someone commented earlier, “Our Lord Jesus is NOT present in Protestant ‘communion’ in any way whatsoever,” but they can’t prove that Jesus was not present in the communion in my church any more than they can prove that Jesus is present in the bread and the wine in a Catholic church. Both for me as a Lutheran and for a Catholic, the belief in the Real Presence of Jesus in the bread and the wine is a matter of faith. In neither case can it be proven or dis-proven.

Absolutely! Very well stated. Thank you.

 

[GKC]

Absolutely! Very well stated. Thank you.

Certainly what any well catechized RC should affirm.

With the customary observations re: other churches which the RCC considers as possessing valid orders.

 

[Thorolfr]

Certainly what any well catechized RC should affirm.

And what any well catechized Lutheran should deny

 

[pablope]

And what any well catechized Lutheran should deny

That is right…submit to the authority of oneself…your own pope.

 

[In_His_Grace]

That is right…submit to the authority of oneself…your own pope.

Yep. Just like the Berean Jews (Acts 17:10-11), called to learn from God’s word and, no matter who the teacher or authority is, to investigate new teaching in comparison with the Bible.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Yep. Just like the Berean Jews, called to learn from God’s word and, no matter who the teacher or authority is, to investigate new teaching in comparison with the Bible.

Which Bible did the Bereans use?

 

[zz912]

Yep. Just like the Berean Jews (Acts 17:10-11), called to learn from God’s word and, no matter who the teacher or authority is, to investigate new teaching in comparison with the Bible.

So Paul was giving no new teachings compared to the Old Testament?

 

[In_His_Grace]

Which Bible did the Bereans use?

The Old Testament Scriptures.

 

[In_His_Grace]

So Paul was giving no new teachings compared to the Old Testament?

The short answer, Paul was an apostle, an eyewitness of the resurrected Christ, called and appointed by God to receive divine revelation. His “new teachings” were grounded on the fulfillment of Old Testament revelation.

 

[pablope]

Yep. Just like the Berean Jews (Acts 17:10-11), called to learn from God’s word and, no matter who the teacher or authority is, to investigate new teaching in comparison with the Bible.

I would suggest that you read actually what the Bereans did and why they were called noble…it is not what you think it is.

Berean Rejection of Sola Scriptura
From Steve Ray’s article: catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9703fea3.asp

We can see, then, that if anyone could be classified as adherents to sola scriptura it was the Thessalonian Jews. They reasoned from the Scriptures alone and concluded that Paul’s new teaching was “unbiblical.”

The Bereans, on the other hand, were not adherents of sola scriptura, for they were willing to accept Paul’s new oral teaching as the word of God (as Paul claimed his oral teaching was; see 1 Thess. 2:13). The Bereans, before accepting the oral word of God from Paul, a tradition as even Paul himself refers to it (see 2 Thess. 2:15), examined the Scriptures to see if these things were so. They were noble-minded precisely because they “received the word with all eagerness.” Were the Bereans commended primarily for searching the Scriptures? No. Their open-minded willingness to listen was the primary reason they are referred to as noble-minded—not that they searched the Scriptures. A perusal of grammars and commentaries makes it clear that they were “noble-minded” not for studying Scripture, but for treating Paul more civilly than did the Thessalonians—with an open mind and generous courtesy (see I. Howard Marshall, “The Acts of the Apostles” in the Tyndale New Testament Commentaries [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1981], 5:280).

And from the Bible:

Then from 1John 4… Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world……………6 We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit[a] of truth and the spirit of falsehood.

 

[pablope]

The short answer, Paul was an apostle, an eyewitness of the resurrected Christ, called and appointed by God to receive divine revelation. His “new teachings” were grounded on the fulfillment of Old Testament revelation.

Yes…and Paul had apostolic succession:

Before he went on his first missionary journey:
at Acts 13:
1 Now in the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen (who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch) and Saul. 2 While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” 3 So after they had fasted and prayed, they placed their hands on them and sent them off.

 

[In_His_Grace]

I would suggest that you read actually what the Bereans did and why they were called noble…it is not what you think it is.

Berean Rejection of Sola Scriptura
From Steve Ray’s article: catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9703fea3.asp

We can see, then, that if anyone could be classified as adherents to sola scriptura it was the Thessalonian Jews. They reasoned from the Scriptures alone and concluded that Paul’s new teaching was “unbiblical.”

The Bereans, on the other hand, were not adherents of sola scriptura, for they were willing to accept Paul’s new oral teaching as the word of God (as Paul claimed his oral teaching was; see 1 Thess. 2:13). The Bereans, before accepting the oral word of God from Paul, a tradition as even Paul himself refers to it (see 2 Thess. 2:15), examined the Scriptures to see if these things were so. They were noble-minded precisely because they “received the word with all eagerness.” Were the Bereans commended primarily for searching the Scriptures? No. Their open-minded willingness to listen was the primary reason they are referred to as noble-minded—not that they searched the Scriptures. A perusal of grammars and commentaries makes it clear that they were “noble-minded” not for studying Scripture, but for treating Paul more civilly than did the Thessalonians—with an open mind and generous courtesy (see I. Howard Marshall, “The Acts of the Apostles” in the Tyndale New Testament Commentaries [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1981], 5:280).

And from the Bible:

Then from 1John 4… Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world……………6 We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit[a] of truth and the spirit of falsehood.

I would like to check out your link but it doesn’t work.

Thanks

 

[KathleenGee]

From my experience…the Bereans of Paul’s time are not the same Bereans based in America and really, from their attitude towards Catholics, are lacking in the quest for deep knowledge. The American Bereans tend to turn in on themselves and are quite biased in a negative way, invalidating us and think we don’t know Scripture, etc.

 

[In_His_Grace]

From my experience…the Bereans of Paul’s time are not the same Bereans based in America and really, from their attitude towards Catholics, are lacking in the quest for deep knowledge. The American Bereans tend to turn in on themselves and are quite biased in a negative way, invalidating us and think we don’t know Scripture, etc.

I don’t have an “attitude” towards Catholics, my wife is Roman Catholic.