Protestant who believes in the real presence

  • Thread starter Thread starter redbaron162
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Gingersnaps4 said:
But wait. Wouldn’t throwing out ministerial priests and putting nothing in their place not only be foreign to the original audience but also be outrageous to them?
Click to expand...
No idea what you are talking about here. Are you saying the Christians were exhorted to continue to offer sacrifice at the temple?

What I am saying is the Christ is our eternal high priest who makes intercession before the Father for us. You are confusing this however with the establishment of overseers, elders, and deacons.
 
Last edited:
No. But just like baptism replaced circumcision, the unbloddy sacrifice of the mass replaced the bloody sacrifice of the Levitetical priests.
 
No I am responding to your assertatiins that apostolic succession has nothing to do with the actual line of apostles, and that there are no minesterial priests now.
 
Hodos said:
No, I embrace Paul’s understanding.
Click to expand...
Apostolic succession? Where are you getting that from? I know you mentioned something about Galatians, but I’m not searching through the book for you.
 
No, I am referring to the historical fact that apostolic succession as you are defining it is not a guarantee of orthodoxy. Otherwise you might be Arian today or Nestorian.
 
What does Paul say about accepting a gospel different than what they received even if it comes from him? Don’t check Galatians for me, I am quite familiar with what it says. Do it for yourself.
 
Of course that in itself is no guarantee but we have the Bible as well as the writings of the early church fathers, many of whom were taught by a person who were themselves taught by a direct apostles of Jesus. So we have a very good idea of what Jesus’ interpretation of his own teachings are. It’s many denominations in this day and age which are very far off from what the original interpretations were.
 
Hodos said:
What does Paul say about accepting a gospel different than what they received even if it comes from him?
Click to expand...
I’m not sure that that at all invalidates an Apostolic Succession as Catholics understand it, since we understand that the Church continues passing on the Gospel as Paul taught it.
Hodos said:
Don’t check Galatians for me, I am quite familiar with what it says. Do it for yourself.
Click to expand...
If you’re going to make such claims, back them up. It’s not my job to go searching through Galatians wondering “Is this what that guy was talking about?”

But if you’re not going to back up your claims, all while smugly implying that I’m just not as knowledgeable as you, I’m not really sure what point there is in trying to have this type of discussion.
 
I might add, I was defining apostolic succession with regards to them being able to confect the Eucharist when no one else can. Just like the levetical priests were the only ones who were able to offer sacrifice on the altar in the old covenant.
 
Last edited:
Gingersnaps4 said:
Of course that in itself is no guarantee but we have the Bible as well as the writings of the early church fathers,
Click to expand...
We have access to the same writings. We just don’t elevate those writings (which you tend to pick from just as selectively) to the level of scripture.
 
Last edited:
Hodos said:
Nothing of which you said in your argument was proposed or written about in any of the New Testament record.
Click to expand...
That’s rich 🤣

Iguess that means you have no answer to all the scripture given in post 67
40.png
Hodos:
And in fact, what is normative in the book of Acts is that the apostles frequently were working in areas AFTER believers had already been established, such as in Samaria, Antioch, etc., because of the dispersion of Christians due to persecution Again, this doesn’t revoke the need for overseers, elders, deacons, etc., for the purpose of preaching, teaching, and maintaining good order within the Church (as I had already stated). However, it demonstrates that the apostolic generation was not operating and administering the sacraments under the anachronistic understanding of church authority that you are presenting here now. That was all later development, primarily in the third century due to the issues with re-admitting the Lapsed. Again, I have no issues with the maintenance of good order. I do have an issue with someone saying that the efficacy of the sacrament is dependent upon the person ministering the sacrament, which was already demonstrated through the use of 1 Corinthians 11 to be false. Bottom line, Protestants who proclaim Christ crucified receive the same sacrament you do.
Click to expand...
Protestantism is one of the great heresies in history

Go back and open post 67 to see what happens to one in heresy after they have been informed
 
Last edited:
Hodos said:
40.png
steve-b:
Heb 10 is talking about deliberately missing Mass (The Eucharist) on Sunday
Click to expand...
That is a huge eisegetical leap. Your interpretation is completely out of context of the entire book of Hebrews, which doesn’t address the Mass at all. Hebrews is addressing the fact that Jesus stands before the right hand of the father always making intercession for us because he has already performed the one and only sacrifice required for all eternity. This is mentioned several times throughout the book of Hebrews, and the repetition should not be lost on you, but apparently was (which is why I kept recommending you to read the entire book, rather than pointing to a specific passage). The sin that is being mentioned is apostasy from the faith (the entire point of Hebrews was to encourage Jewish believers not to reject Christ and return to temple Judaism for atonement). The sacrifice that is being mentioned is spurning the sacrifice on the cross by turning from faith.
Click to expand...
I have some bad news for you. The Catholic Church wrote the NT. All the writers of the NT were in the Church they were writing to and for. And you aren’t in THAT CHURCH.

As far as what I quoted, the CCC (Catechism of the Catholic Church) identifies the passage I quoted as failure to go to mass.

2178 This practice of the Christian assembly dates from the beginnings of the apostolic age. The Letter to the Hebrews reminds the faithful "not to neglect to meet together, as is the habit of some, but to encourage one another." Tradition preserves the memory of an ever-timely exhortation: Come to Church early, approach the Lord, and confess your sins, repent in prayer. . . . Be present at the sacred and divine liturgy, conclude its prayer and do not leave before the dismissal. . . . We have often said: "This day is given to you for prayer and rest. This is the day that the Lord has made, let us rejoice and be glad in it."

The bible is a Catholic book. Even the heretic Martin Luther, the inventor of Protestantism, had to admit

"We concede–as we must–that so much of what they [the Catholic Church] is true: that the papacy has God’s word and the office of the apostles, and that we have received Holy Scriptures, Baptism, the Sacrament, and the pulpit from them. What would we know of these if it were not for them?” (Sermon on the Gospel of John, chaps. 14-16 (1537), in vol. 24 of Luther’s Works, [St. Louis, Mo.: Concordia, 1961], p. 304).”
 
Last edited:
We go beyond ‘real presence’. We believe in a metaphysical, miraculous change of substance.
This is one of the defining Catholic beliefs.
 
ZMystiCat said:
40.png
steve-b:
Yet If the opportunity presents itself, we need to give answers for the hope that’s in us. That’s why I gave this as well Post 29

And as it turns out the one in question is questioning all of this.
Click to expand...
It’s more that I want to make sure that we’re on the same page. Yes, Protestants both reject the Real Presence and Apostolic Succession, meaning that they lack any valid priesthood. (Unless Old Catholics have maintained it, but as far as I’m aware, they basically went full Anglican eventually.) Will it eventually get down into questions about why Protestants don’t have the Real Presence? Possibly, but I think we first need to establish that we’re talking about two separate things.

Perhaps my approach is based on my own experience as a former Presbyterian. In it, we claimed to have some form of Real Presence (more a spiritual presence than a physical one), but I was a bit disappointed by how comparatively hollow the Presbyterian view was compared to the splendid beauty of the Catholic view, to say nothing of how Presbyterians don’t act like it’s anything special the same way Catholics do. That was enough for me. I didn’t really bother with questions about whether or not Jesus was physically existing. As far as I was concerned, if He was, we weren’t giving Him due reverence.
Hodos said:
Actually it wasn’t. There is a direct link between the power to forgive or retain sins and the proclamation of Jesus death until he comes which is what the Lord’s Supper is (1 Corinthians 11).
Click to expand...
What do women and headdresses have anything to do with where two or more meet? Is this a party where we all wear funny hats?

(To be serious for a little bit, you can’t just cite a whole chapter and act like I can pick out exactly what you’re referencing. I know you’re probably focused on verses 17-22, but you’re still giving so little explanation of your argument that it’s impossible to really have a discussion. I can’t even figure out where 17-22 has any relevance to what you said earlier, and I’m not going to try to guess.)
Click to expand...
To my point,

If Paul was answering the person in question, and not us, Paul would give him 2 corrections. That’s it. 2 corrections. After that he’s done with that person if they don’t change. See Titus 3:10. That’s if one takes Paul in a wooden literal way.

Either way, some people just don’t listen and won’t listen. They don’t even open links when evidence proving a point is provided. When that is the case, as Jesus said, one is to brush the dust off their heels and move on.
 
Last edited:
steve-b said:
I have some bad news for you. The Catholic Church wrote the NT. All the writers of the NT were in the Church they were writing to and for. And you aren’t in THAT CHURCH.
Click to expand...
For sake of argument, I will agree with you. It is still irrelevant since you abandoned the teaching of the apostles through innovation of tradition.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top