Protestant who believes in the real presence

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Go back and open post 67 to see what happens to one in heresy after they have been informed

You were similarly informed of your heterodoxy with regard to justification.

Define justification as a Protestant

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

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.

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.

Your tradition is Protestantism. We know who invented Protestantism. EVERY variety of Protestantism and when it stated down to our day. Jesus did NOT start any of it. He hates division. No apostle invented Protestantism. Your religions started in the 16th century. Are you presuming to lecture me on abandoning what the apostles taught, and innovation in “tradition”?

 

[TULIPed]

Hello all - I’m a Reformed Protestant who, like you, loves the Lord Jesus Christ and worships and praises him as the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. He is my King. I am a wretched sinner - but thank God, he first loved me and came on a holy rescue mission to save me from what I deserve. By his amazing grace, and with the power of the Holy Spirit, we are all priveledged to be in communion - as imperfect as it is - with each other as the body of Christ. Alleluia!

I wonder how - even in our disagreements - we might work together so that some day we might share a meal over His table? Perhaps this might begin with each of us recognizing things that we do well.

Allow me to start. I greatly respect the reverence and rigor with which Catholics approach our Lord’s table. (I think that we Protestants (in general) celebrate his supper far too infrequently.) I think that Catholics do a much better job of educating the laity on what sacraments are - and their great importance. I believe that if it wasn’t for the Roman Catholic Church guided by and infused with the Holy Spirit, none of us would have the Nicene Creed, the liturgical calendar (and liturgy itself), the cannon of scripture - I could go on and on. About the only thing I’m not thankful to Catholics for is Notre Dame football. (Really the whole Notre Dame athletic department if I’m honest.)

I am glad that Catholics and Protestants can agree that Jesus Christ is the best thing that ever happened to us. I am glad that we can agree that the closer we get to him, the better off we are. We agree that he, and he alone, is worthy of praise and worship. We agree that without him, we are hopelessly and eternally lost. We agree on a great many of the most important things in life. Catholics are my brothers and sisters in Christ. I am hopeful - no, I know - that one day we will all join together as a family and celebrate at his table in unity and love.

 

[Gingersnaps4]

We don’t elevate them to the level of scripture, whatsoever. The Catholic Church has been following the interpretations of the Bible and of our Mass shown in those ancient writings from the beginning. So there’s no need to use them to “follow”. It’s just nice to be able to cite something ancient and straight from the source of an Apostle for people far removed from the original Christian Church who follow a man made tradition.

 

[steve-b]

Hello all - I’m a Reformed Protestant who, like you, loves the Lord Jesus Christ and worships and praises him as the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. He is my King. I am a wretched sinner - but thank God, he first loved me and came on a holy rescue mission to save me from what I deserve. By his amazing grace, and with the power of the Holy Spirit, we are all priveledged to be in communion - as imperfect as it is - with each other as the body of Christ. Alleluia!

I wonder how - even in our disagreements - we might work together so that some day we might share a meal over His table? Perhaps this might begin with each of us recognizing things that we do well.

Allow me to start. I greatly respect the reverence and rigor with which Catholics approach our Lord’s table. (I think that we Protestants (in general) celebrate his supper far too infrequently.) I think that Catholics do a much better job of educating the laity on what sacraments are - and their great importance. I believe that if it wasn’t for the Roman Catholic Church guided by and infused with the Holy Spirit, none of us would have the Nicene Creed, the liturgical calendar (and liturgy itself), the cannon of scripture - I could go on and on.

With respect,

society gets itself, and has gotten itself over time, into muddy thinking and dialogue. That’s why I posted the following, identifying some of the errors in thinking that we see. post 29

TULIPed:

About the only thing I’m not thankful to Catholics for is Notre Dame football. (Really the whole Notre Dame athletic department if I’m honest.)

TULIPed:

I am glad that Catholics and Protestants can agree that Jesus Christ is the best thing that ever happened to us. I am glad that we can agree that the closer we get to him, the better off we are. We agree that he, and he alone, is worthy of praise and worship. We agree that without him, we are hopelessly and eternally lost. We agree on a great many of the most important things in life. Catholics are my brothers and sisters in Christ. I am hopeful - no, I know - that one day we will all join together as a family and celebrate at his table in unity and love.

Again, with all respect, I would just say,

AND

In order for the last statement to be true, we need to live our life in obedience to Jesus, and the Church He established and gave His promises to. NOT divide what Jesus established Himself, or set up or join any knock off system of beliefs, that came later in opposition to what Jesus established Himself, and He actually condemned such division.

Scripturally speaking, see post 67 Once someone is given the knowledge of truth and refuses to enter or stay in Our Lord’s Church, (the Catholic Church)The consequence is horrendous. That’st from scripture.

The REAL PRESENCE of Jesus:

is on the altars and in the tabernacles of the Catholic Church.

 

[Hodos]

Your tradition is Protestantism. We know who invented Protestantism. EVERY variety of Protestantism and when it stated down to our day. Jesus did NOT start any of it. He hates division. No apostle invented Protestantism. Your religions started in the 16th century. Are you presuming to lecture me on abandoning what the apostles taught, and innovation in “tradition”?

Neither did we. We held to the Catholic faith until the Catholic faith veered from the apostolic faith. When the inconsistency between medieval practices and doctrine were pointed out, you chose heterodoxy over reform even though the positions taken were indefensible from an exegetical standpoint. That was your tradition’s choice. Not mine. Just look at your atrocious eisegesis of Hebrews 10 in this thread as a simple example of how tradition, uncorrected by scripture, has completely changed your interpretation to mean things wholly uncommunicated within the text itself. I agree with you. I mourn the fact that the Church is divided. But real unity can only be achieved by returning to the Word of God as the norm by which doctrine is created, corrected, and maintained. The funny thing is that I am actually presenting the Third Century Catholic view about what makes the sacraments efficacious and was faced with nothing but derision for doing so. Which says a lot about the supposed stability offered by tradition.

 

[AugustTherese]

We held to the Catholic faith until the Catholic faith veered from the apostolic faith

In the Catholic Church . . . a few spiritual men attain [wisdom] in this life, in such a way that . . . they know it without any doubting, while the rest of the multitude finds [its] greatest safety not in lively understanding but in the simplicity of believing. . . . [T]here are many other things which most properly can keep me in her bosom. The unanimity of peoples and nations keeps me here. Her authority,
inaugurated in miracles, nourished by hope, augmented by love, and confirmed by her age, keeps me here. The succession of priests, from the very see of the apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after his resurrection, gave the charge of feeding his sheep [John 21:15–17], up to the present episcopate, keeps me here. And last, the very name Catholic, which, not without reason, belongs to this Church alone, in the face of so many heretics, so much so that, although all heretics want to be called ‘Catholic,’ when a stranger inquires where the Catholic Church meets, none of the heretics would dare to point out his own basilica or house" ( Against the Letter of Mani Called “The Foundation” 4:5 [A.D. 397]).

 

[AugustTherese]

I mourn the fact that the Church is divided

The Catholic Church is not divided. You and others are divided and separated. Don’t project your divisions on the Oneness of the Catholic Church.

 

[AugustTherese]

Just look at your atrocious eisegesis of Hebrews 10

And you have yet to answer this for the third time: what is an altar and what is it used for?

 

[Hodos]

As the pre-figuring of the sacrifice that Christ completed on the cross on Good Friday, once for all time.

Your understanding of liturgical history is off-base as well because Communion was initially performed in front of a baptismal fountain, not an altar. That too was a later innovation.

 

[semper_catholicus]

I once heard of a Protestant who believed in the real presence, but the minister at his church didn’t. Don’t know how that works exactly.

 

[Dorothy]

I agree with you that the sacrifice of our Lord Jesus Christ was once for all time, and I am a Catholic.

However, we are entering into, in the Mass, in that once for all time sacrifice of Our Lord.
We are not re-offering it. That one-time sacrifice is being entered into via the Mass.

 

[Hodos]

I have no issue with this understanding, as that is precisely the context of celebrating the Passover. This however, is not what was presented by the detractors on this thread. In other words, we are not sacrificing or offering Christ as a sacrifice, or effecting forgiveness of sin. We are proclaiming what he has already done just as we do in proclaiming the gospel.

 

[TULIPed]

Thanks for your reply. I appreciate your honesty and the logical manner in which you present your thoughts and ideas.

At the risk of fishing for complements (of which I am known to be a shameless expert - just ask my long suffering, saintly wife) and in the spirit of ecumenism - is there anything about the Reformation in general and Protestant people in particular that Catholics might learn from or find edifying?

Perhaps through a bit of diplomacy - in finding even a little common ground - we might learn something and grow closer to each other and Christ, no?

 

[Gingersnaps4]

As far as I have read on this thread or said myself, no one has said that we are sacrificing Christ on the altar. From Catholic Answers: “the risen Christ becomes present on the altar and offers Himself to God as a living sacrifice. It doesn’t add to or take away from Christ’s work. It IS Christ’s work.

Is the Mass a Sacrifice? | Catholic Answers Magazine

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Your tradition is Protestantism. We know who invented Protestantism. EVERY variety of Protestantism and when it stated down to our day. Jesus did NOT start any of it. He hates division. No apostle invented Protestantism. Your religions started in the 16th century. Are you presuming to lecture me on abandoning what the apostles taught, and innovation in “tradition”?

Neither did we. We held to the Catholic faith until the Catholic faith veered from the apostolic faith. When the inconsistency between medieval practices and doctrine were pointed out, you chose heterodoxy over reform even though the positions taken were indefensible from an exegetical standpoint.

NOT REFORM but REVOLT

Hodos:

That was your tradition’s choice. Not mine.

My tradition comes from Jesus and the apostles in direct unbroken succession. Your tradition broke away 1500 + years later and has broken into 40,000 different sects and divisions all claiming to be correct… Look at what scripture says about that.

Hodos:

Just look at your atrocious eisegesis of Hebrews 10 in this thread as a simple example of how tradition, uncorrected by scripture, has completely changed your interpretation to mean things wholly uncommunicated within the text itself.

Unlike you I provide evidence for the position I take (all properly referenced) going back to the beginning of the faith . All you’re doing is giving your views backed up by your views.

Hodos:

I agree with you. I mourn the fact that the Church is divided. But real unity can only be achieved by returning to the Word of God as the norm by which doctrine is created, corrected, and maintained. The funny thing is that I am actually presenting the Third Century Catholic view about what makes the sacraments efficacious and was faced with nothing but derision for doing so. Which says a lot about the supposed stability offered by tradition.

You are presenting Protestant theology. BTW, there was no bible in the 3rd century. The canon of scripture wasn’t officially finalized yet. Scripture alone, couldn’t be the rule THEN nor is it NOW. Sola scriptura was never the rule.

 

[steve-b]

Thanks for your reply. I appreciate your honesty and the logical manner in which you present your thoughts and ideas.

At the risk of fishing for complements (of which I am known to be a shameless expert - just ask my long suffering, saintly wife) and in the spirit of ecumenism - is there anything about the Reformation in general and Protestant people in particular that Catholics might learn from or find edifying?

Perhaps through a bit of diplomacy - in finding even a little common ground - we might learn something and grow closer to each other and Christ, no?

thanks in return
To your question, I think there are things to learn from all situations both good and bad. That said, I posted the link I did on errors of thinking syllabus of errors , because people get into muddy thinking and do it for all kinds of reasons. Which likewise gets into wrong beliefs and disobedient behaviors. Depending on the situation, the consequences to that disobedience and behavior can be disastrous if we die in that state

 

[Hodos]

NOT REFORM but REVOLT

No, reform would be the accurate term. The doctrine of justification was returned to its original understanding. In addition, the Council of Trent (30 years after the Reformation occurred) event admitted the need to institute reforms such as getting rid of the practice of simony, establishing seminaries so that priests were actually trained in the knowledge of catholic doctrine rather than just being familiar with liturgy, restricting to a degree the practice of indulgences, etc. Unfortunately, many of the doctrines and practices that were demonstrated to be unscriptural were also affirmed and codified at the Council of Trent. So there were some positive things there, but ultimately the biggest issues were never addressed. Had the Church addressed these I would agree that revolt would be a proper term.

My tradition comes from Jesus and the apostles in direct unbroken succession.

We have already demonstrated instances where your tradition is demonstrably not apostolic such as the conversation we have previously had about Eucharist in one kind, which is a departure from the teaching of the apostles. This argument is a nebulous red herring that carries no weight with people who are actually familiar with the complex history of doctrinal development within the Church. Even your own scholars admit to a development of doctrine theory. You can’t have both. Either your tradition is the unbroken succession of teaching from the apostles, or it is innovated. We on the other hand argue, that the measure by which we determine what doctrine is apostolic is the testimony of the apostles themselves, which was preserved in the scriptures.

Unlike you I provide evidence for the position I take (all properly referenced) going back to the beginning of the faith . All you’re doing is giving your views backed up by your views.

Actually as I recall, you posted scripture interspersed with your comments that demonstrated in black and white that you had inserted a new meaning into the text. There was actually no need to demonstrate the eisegesis because it was right there in your underlined font. All I did was describe the actual context and show how the passage wasn’t even remotely addressing the mass.

You are presenting Protestant theology. BTW, there was no bible in the 3rd century. The canon of scripture wasn’t officially finalized yet. Scripture alone, couldn’t be the rule THEN nor is it NOW. Sola scriptura was never the rule.

Irrelevent and untrue. We absolutely had a Bible in the 3rd Century, although it was not necessarily in its finished state, we definitely had scripture that was authoritative. We see this all throughout the second and third century apologetic and theological writings. If your argument is that Ireneaus was just winging it when he quoted scripture ad nauseum to refute the gnostics, then your argument proves itself to be an absurdly oversimplistic lie to substitute one authority over God.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

NOT REFORM but REVOLT

No, reform would be the accurate term. The doctrine of justification was returned to its original understanding. In addition, the Council of Trent (30 years after the Reformation occurred) event admitted the need to institute reforms such as getting rid of the practice of simony, establishing seminaries so that priests were actually trained in the knowledge of catholic doctrine rather than just being familiar with liturgy, restricting to a degree the practice of indulgences, etc. Unfortunately, many of the doctrines and practices that were demonstrated to be unscriptural were also affirmed and codified at the Council of Trent. So there were some positive things there, but ultimately the biggest issues were never addressed. Had the Church addressed these I would agree that revolt would be a proper term.

1. Revolt is what happened
2. Indulgences are perfectly good and correct.
3. The Church has never approved of simony. Just like Judas, some in the Church in every age over stepped the bounds. And it was corrected and the Church moved on.

Don’t confuse that with what Protestants did and continue to do.

Hodos:

My tradition comes from Jesus and the apostles in direct unbroken succession.

We have already demonstrated instances where your tradition is demonstrably not apostolic such as the conversation we have previously had about Eucharist in one kind, which is a departure from the teaching of the apostles. This argument is a nebulous red herring that carries no weight with people who are actually familiar with the complex history of doctrinal development within the Church.

You demonstrated nothing. Your personal opinion abounds

Unlike you I provide evidence for the position I take (all properly referenced) going back to the beginning of the faith . All you’re doing is giving your views backed up by your views.

Hodos:

All I did was describe the actual context and show how the passage wasn’t even remotely addressing the mass.

Unlike you, Everything I gave was fully referenced.

BTW, there was no bible in the 3rd century. The canon of scripture wasn’t officially finalized yet.

Hodos:

Irrelevent and untrue. We absolutely had a Bible in the 3rd Century, although it was not necessarily in its finished state,

Not finished = no bible was in place

Hodos:

If your argument is that Ireneaus was just winging it when he quoted scripture ad nauseum to refute the gnostics,

Irenaeus in ~ A.D. 180 used the pre eminent authority of the Church of Rome, to make his argument. See Bk 3 ch 3 v 1-3 in “Against Heresies”

I’d give the link but you don’t open links

 

[Hodos]

1. Revolt is what happened
2. Indulgences are perfectly good and correct.
3. The Church has never approved of simony. Just like Judas, some in the Church in every age over stepped the bounds. And it was corrected and the Church moved on.

Don’t confuse that with what Protestants did and continue to do.

If correcting doctrine through the application of scripture is revolt, that says far more about you than it does the reformers. We can agree to disagree here.

You demonstrated nothing. Your personal opinion abounds

Not my personal opinion. It’s the argument provided by the author of Hebrews that condemns your interpretation.

Not finished = no bible was in place

Again a completely facetious line of argument that is refuted by the tons of apologetic and theological documents we have in the second and third century. Ireneaus refers to the Pauline corpus, Hebrews, and gospels as scripture just as an example.

Irenaeus in ~ A.D. 180 used the pre eminent authority of the Church of Rome, to make his argument. See Bk 3 ch 3 v 1-3 in “Against Heresies”

Completely aware of the move by Ireneaus to refer to apostolic succession. However, I have actually read Ireneaus. Ireneaus based his argumentation and defense on the scriptures, citing scripture over and over again to demonstrate his point. His take on apostolic succession is that the Gnostics claimed this oral tradition from the apostles which the Church has not received. Ireneaus is saying that as a bishop he sits in the line of apostolic succession and had received no such revelation. He then cites scripture to refute their claims. The tradition he actually cites are the scriptures. Ireneaus use of apostolic succession is far more in line with our epistemology than yours.