Protestant Communion?

[theropod]

So…where does the use of Aristotelian metaphysics come into play…if as explained above, transsub does explain the mystery of the RP, but deals with the words of institution?

Simply, Thomas Aquinas was an Aristotelian (and Thomas’ adherents are then referred to as Thomists or Aristotelian-Thomists), and his ideas about “Transubstantiation” were explained with the Aristotelian metaphysics of “substance” and “accident”. That’s where the “substan” in Transubstantiation comes from.

 

[JonNC]

=pablope;13299550]

Okay…so what is wrong if Christ did not use it? Do you think we should not avail of it?

Do you thank Aristotelian metapysics are from God or from the satan?

Neither. I think they are of a man, or men. I’ve often said, and I think you’ve probably forgotten, that I consider Transub am perfectly reasonable expression, for the purposes of teaching and convincing believers of the real presence. Then again, I feel the same about SU, but then again, I like John of Damascus.

Yet…this is what Transub really is… It is not the purpose of the dogma of transubstantiation to explain the mystery of the presence of Christ, but to give a logical explanation of the words of institution which safeguard the dogmas of the Resurrection of Christ’s humanity, His Ascension and the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

What appears to be bread is truly Christ by reason of a profound change which touches the very being of the earthly reality and which is unobservable to the senses. This doctrine will influence no one who does not believe in the dogmas of the Resurrection, Ascension and real presence. (catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=3013)

Seems to me…there is a lot of misunderstanding as to what Transub really is teaching and saying.
I agree, and much of it came for the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages. But that’s while today our theologians can talk about it with an eye on understanding.
BTW, Gabriel of 12 is an excellent Catholic poster on the subject.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Simply, Thomas Aquinas was an Aristotelian (and Thomas’ adherents are then referred to as Thomists or Aristotelian-Thomists), and his ideas about “Transubstantiation” were explained with the Aristotelian metaphysics of “substance” and “accident”. That’s where the “substan” in Transubstantiation comes from.

And why its false to describe Luther’s belief as consubstaniation.

Jon

 

[steve_b]

Nope. We preach Christ crucified. We confess all three of the ancient creeds. None of them even mention Luther.
There’s lots that Luther said that we reject.

Jon

The 4 Marks of the Church

1. 
   *]One
   *]Holy
   *]Catholic
   *]Apostolic
   
   May I suggest sitting down in a comfortable chair, kick your feet up, with a drink of choice, and have a listen
   
   "The Four Marks of the Church" - Part 1 of 3, Dr. Scott Hahn …
   
   "The Four Marks of the Church" - Part 2 of 3, Dr. Scott Hahn …
   
   "The Four Marks of the Church" - Part 3 of 3, Dr. Scott Hahn …

 

[Thorolfr]

The 4 Marks of the Church

1. 
   *]One
   *]Holy
   *]Catholic
   *]Apostolic
   
   May I suggest sitting down in a comfortable chair, kick your feet up, with a drink of choice, and have a listen

1. 
   The apostolic part doesn’t make much sense, really. In next week’s Scripture lessons from the lectionary, we have the following in Mark 9:38-41:
   

   38 John said to him, “Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him, because he was not following us.” 39 But Jesus said, “Do not stop him; for no one who does a deed of power in my name will be able soon afterward to speak evil of me. 40 Whoever is not against us is for us. 41 For truly I tell you, whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because you bear the name of Christ will by no means lose the reward.

   Or in Numbers 11: 26-30 (also in next weeks Scripture lesson):
   

   26 Two men remained in the camp, one named Eldad, and the other named Medad, and the spirit rested on them; they were among those registered, but they had not gone out to the tent, and so they prophesied in the camp. 27 And a young man ran and told Moses, “Eldad and Medad are prophesying in the camp.” 28 And Joshua son of Nun, the assistant of Moses, one of his chosen men,[c] said, “My lord Moses, stop them!” 29 But Moses said to him, “Are you jealous for my sake? Would that all the Lord’s people were prophets, and that the Lord would put his spirit on them!” 30 And Moses and the elders of Israel returned to the camp.

   So it doesn’t say that someone must have apostolic succession to do a deed of power in Jesus’ name and Moses seems to be saying that perhaps all the Lord’s people can be chosen by God to be prophets, not just certain chosen people.

 

[Porknpie]

Nothing wrong with it, though Christ didn’t use it. Jon

Hi Jon,

How do you know that Christ didn’t use it?

 

[pablope]

The apostolic part doesn’t make much sense, really. In next week’s Scripture lessons from the lectionary, we have the following in Mark 9:38-41:

Or in Numbers 11: 26-30 (also in next weeks Scripture lesson):

So it doesn’t say that someone must have apostolic succession to do a deed of power in Jesus’ name and Moses seems to be saying that perhaps all the Lord’s people can be chosen by God to be prophets, not just certain chosen people.

Also from Numbers:

Numbers 16 rebellion of Korah…8 Moses also said to Korah, “Now listen, you Levites! 9 Isn’t it enough for you that the God of Israel has separated you from the rest of the Israelite community and brought you near himself to do the work at the Lord’s tabernacle and to stand before the community and minister to them? 10 He has brought you and all your fellow Levites near himself, but now you are trying to get the priesthood too. 11 It is against the Lord that you and all your followers have banded together. Who is Aaron that you should grumble against him?”

And Numbers 27…the transfer of authority:

18 So the Lord said to Moses, “Take Joshua son of Nun, a man in whom is the spirit of leadership,[a] and lay your hand on him. 19 Have him stand before Eleazar the priest and the entire assembly and commission him in their presence. 20 Give him some of your authority so the whole Israelite community will obey him. 21 He is to stand before Eleazar the priest, who will obtain decisions for him by inquiring of the Urim before the Lord. At his command he and the entire community of the Israelites will go out, and at his command they will come in.”

22 Moses did as the Lord commanded him. He took Joshua and had him stand before Eleazar the priest and the whole assembly. 23 Then he laid his hands on him and commissioned him, as the Lord instructed through Moses.

 

[pablope]

=pablope;13299550]

Neither. I think they are of a man, or men. I’ve often said, and I think you’ve probably forgotten, that I consider Transub am perfectly reasonable expression, for the purposes of teaching and convincing believers of the real presence. Then again, I feel the same about SU, but then again, I like John of Damascus.

Neither? Well…let me ask it differently…is Aristotle a creation of God or of Satan? Was what he started, the basis of philosophy…from God or from Satan?

[/QUOTE]

 

[steve_b]

The apostolic part doesn’t make much sense, really. In next week’s Scripture lessons from the lectionary, we have the following in Mark 9:38-41:

Or in Numbers 11: 26-30 (also in next weeks Scripture lesson):

So it doesn’t say that someone must have apostolic succession to do a deed of power in Jesus’ name and Moses seems to be saying that perhaps all the Lord’s people can be chosen by God to be prophets, not just certain people.

Doing good for another, is not exclusive to the ONE HOLY CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC CHURCH.

Maybe ahead of your scripture lesson for next week, you listen to those videos that I posted for Jon as well.

 

[Starwarsfan2]

The 4 Marks of the Church

1. 
   *]One
   *]Holy
   *]Catholic
   *]Apostolic
   
   May I suggest sitting down in a comfortable chair, kick your feet up, with a drink of choice, and have a listen
   
   "The Four Marks of the Church" - Part 1 of 3, Dr. Scott Hahn …
   
   "The Four Marks of the Church" - Part 2 of 3, Dr. Scott Hahn …
   
   "The Four Marks of the Church" - Part 3 of 3, Dr. Scott Hahn …

1. 1. One , there is one church
      2.Holy , priesthood of believers , Saint and sinner
   2. Catholic , a name of Christianity meaning universal i.e. all believers.
   3. Apostolic , refers to apostolic teaching , hence the faith that Peter professed , i.e. the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
   Jon tell if I did this wrong .

 

[Starwarsfan2]

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!

Christ is literally present in Lutheran and Anglican Cummunion.

 

[steve_b]

1. One , there is one church
   2.Holy , priesthood of believers , Saint and sinner
2. Catholic , a name of Christianity meaning universal i.e. all believers.
3. Apostolic , refers to apostolic teaching , hence the faith that Peter professed , i.e. the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Jon tell if I did this wrong .

May I suggest listening to those videos as well.

Protestantism can’t confess belief in ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC, APOSTOLIC CHURCH

1. 
   *]Protestantism regardless of stripe, isn’t one, nor one with Our Lord’s Church. Protestantism regardless of stripe, isn’t a Church. Protestantism regardless of stripe, is division on steroids from Our Lord’s Church.
   *]The Church is Holy because of WHO established her…Jesus Christ. Protestantism regardless of stripe, was 100% established by heretical and schismatic men 1600+ years AFTER Jesus established His Church.
   *]The Church is Catholic because it teaches the same doctrines delivered to her by the apostles, to everyone everywhere.
   *]The Church is apostolic because it can trace her lineage in an unbroken line of succession of bishops from the apostles.
   
   snapshot of the 1st 4 centuries #34

 

[KjetilK]

Nothing. I have a lot of respect for it, actually. I think to require the acceptance of it is going too far.

Where, exactly, does the Roman Catholic Church require the acceptance of Aristotelian philosophy with regards to the Eucharist?

 

[KjetilK]

Finding elements of the Catholic Church in non Catholic Churches or other communities, doesn’t mean they are the Catholic Church.

As then Card Ratzinger explained

they don’t profess the Catholic faith in its entirety and have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter"(72)

from Communionis Notio , which you referred to,

1. “The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honoured by the name of Christian, but who do not however profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter”(72). Among the non-Catholic Churches and Christian communities, there are indeed to be found many elements of the Church of Christ, which allow us, amid joy and hope, to acknowledge the existence of a certain communion, albeit imperfect(73).

This communion exists especially with the Eastern orthodox Churches, which, though separated from the See of Peter, remain united to the Catholic Church by means of very close bonds, such as the apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, and therefore merit the title of particular Churches(74). Indeed, “through the celebration of the Eucharist of the Lord in each of these Churches, the Church of God is built up and grows in stature”(75), for in every valid celebration of the Eucharist the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church becomes truly present(76)."

Then Cardinal Ratzinger, continued

“Since, however, communion with the universal Church, represented by Peter’s Successor, is not an external complement to the particular Church, but one of its internal constituents, the situation of those venerable Christian communities also means that their existence as particular Churches is wounded. The wound is even deeper in those ecclesial communities which have not retained the apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist. This in turn also injures the Catholic Church, called by the Lord to become for all “one flock” with “one shepherd”(77), in that it hinders the complete fulfilment of its universality in history. 18. This situation seriously calls for ecumenical commitment on the part of everyone, with a view to achieving full communion in the unity of the Church; that unity “which Christ bestowed on his Church from the beginning. This unity, we believe, subsists in the Catholic Church as something she can never lose, and we hope that it will continue to increase until the end of time”(78)”…

I think you will agree, this document written by then Card Ratzinger, in 1992, is putting great effort at ecumenical outreach.

when he said “subsists” remember I gave this response #488

OK, I’ll as again: Can you explain how the CATHOLIC Church is both truly present and absent “in every valid celebration of the Eucharist”?

 

[theropod]

Where, exactly, does the Roman Catholic Church require the acceptance of Aristotelian philosophy with regards to the Eucharist?

Trent.

 

[Starwarsfan2]

May I suggest listening to those videos as well.

Protestantism can’t confess belief in ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC, APOSTOLIC CHURCH

1. 
   *]Protestantism regardless of stripe, isn’t one, nor one with Our Lord’s Church. Protestantism regardless of stripe, isn’t a Church. Protestantism regardless of stripe, is division on steroids from Our Lord’s Church.
   *]The Church is Holy because of WHO established her…Jesus Christ. Protestantism regardless of stripe, was 100% established by heretical and schismatic men 1600+ years AFTER Jesus established His Church.
   *]The Church is Catholic because it teaches the same doctrines delivered to her by the apostles, to everyone everywhere.
   *]The Church is apostolic because it can trace her lineage in an unbroken line of succession of bishops from the apostles.
   
   snapshot of the 1st 4 centuries #34

1. 
   The Evangelical Catholic Churches are the valid continuations of the church built by Jesus Christ , the Roman Catholic Church did Not keep the faith once delivered unto the saints.
   
   Snapshot of 2015 years of history,
   Keep the faith , Starwarsfan .

 

[GKC]

Trent.

Say, in the Canons of Session XIII.

 

[Starwarsfan2]

OK, I’ll as again: Can you explain how the CATHOLIC Church is both truly present and absent “in every valid celebration of the Eucharist”?

So the Roman Catholic Church has 38 particular churches ( including the 15 Orthodox Catholic Churches ) ? Interesting.

 

[JonNC]

Hi Jon,

How do you know that Christ didn’t use it?

Well, He didn’t use the words. Maybe He did use it, but didn’t tell us.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

No idea.

Jon