Protestantism teaches new doctrines ... so it is not from God.

[Mannyfit75]

Fr. Corapi often said that what God teaches is immutable or unchanging. This teaching has been preserved in the Church for over 2,000 years. Anything concerning moral and faith is immutable.

In Protestantism which started in 1530 by Martin Luther, he teaches two doctrines faith alone and Scripture Alone. None of these were taught in the Jesus Christ, his Apostles, the Apostolic Fathers, and the ECF. Faith Alone and Scripture are new doctrines that divides the revelation of God.

I often heard from James White, a Baptist apologist accused the Catholic Church as Sola Ecclesia. That is a false accusation. The Church operates in three principles. It teaches divine revelation through Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and Magisterial Teachings (The interpreter). None of these three can be separated or be taken apart.

Fr. Corapi said it best. Where ever there is Sacred Scripture, there is also Sacred Tradition, and Magisterial teaching. Where ever there is Sacred Tradition, there also Sacred Scripture and Magisterial Teaching. Where ever there is Magisterial Teaching, there is also Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture. It operates like, wherever there is the the Son, there the Father and Holy Spirit will be.

The Protestantism doctrine of Sola Scripura and Sola Fideli divides. It is a new doctrine and therefore it is not from God. Rather it doctrine are man-made as a result of selfish men on both sides.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Fr. Corapi often said that what God teaches is immutable or unchanging. This teaching has been preserved in the Church for over 2,000 years. Anything concerning moral and faith is immutable.

In Protestantism which started in 1530 by Martin Luther, he teaches two doctrines faith alone and Scripture Alone. None of these were taught in the Jesus Christ, his Apostles, the Apostolic Fathers, and the ECF. Faith Alone and Scripture are new doctrines that divides the revelation of God.

I often heard from James White, a Baptist apologist accused the Catholic Church as Sola Ecclesia. That is a false accusation. The Church operates in three principles. It teaches divine revelation through Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and Magisterial Teachings (The interpreter). None of these three can be separated or be taken apart.

Fr. Corapi said it best. Where ever there is Sacred Scripture, there is also Sacred Tradition, and Magisterial teaching. Where ever there is Sacred Tradition, there also Sacred Scripture and Magisterial Teaching. Where ever there is Magisterial Teaching, there is also Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture. It operates like, wherever there is the the Son, there the Father and Holy Spirit will be.

The Protestantism doctrine of Sola Scripura and Sola Fideli divides. It is a new doctrine and therefore it is not from God. Rather it doctrine are man-made as a result of selfish men on both sides.

Well said Manny.

how are protestants to know this and discern the Truth?

 

[Mannyfit75]

Well said Manny.

how are protestants to know this and discern the Truth?

Not a lot. There are those who seek it and end up Catholic like Scott Hahn.

 

[allischalmers]

Protestants do not teach new doctrines, we have just restored the doctines that the Chatholic Church has corrupted.

 

[VWcrazy]

Protestants do not teach new doctrines, we have just restored the doctines that the Chatholic Church has corrupted.

LOL! Second funniest thing I’ve read this year!

 

[allischalmers]

How can you call the truth funny?

 

[MrS]

How can you call the truth funny?

I think you mean well. But for your beliefs to be the Truth, too much of what Jesus said and taught would have to be false.

You may feel, or have been taught, that the Church (there is only One) has corrupted things, but therein lies the first error. And upon it are then built the “doctrines” that support more errors.

.

 

[ckempston]

Transubstantiation was taught by Jesus, the Apostles, and ECFs?

 

[MrS]

Transubstantiation was taught by Jesus, the Apostles, and ECFs?

Yep. Although the understanding of the Doctrine (and the ability to put the teaching into words) developed in the early Church, we see that St Paul (who never - with one exception -quoted Jesus from the Gospels) did warn the members of the only Church that receiving the Eucharist without accepting what we now call Transubstantiation was a sin against the Body and Blood of the Lord.

The one exception was his quoting of the words of consecration, including that all important word IS .

Too bad the early Catholics understood the severity of denying this belief, and so many Catholics today do not.

And of course those who separated from the One Church through heresies, ignorance, the Reformation etc also do not believe it (or claim they have it without valid orders).

 

[ckempston]

Yep. Although the understanding of the Doctrine (and the ability to put the teaching into words) developed in the early Church, we see that St Paul (who never - with one exception -quoted Jesus from the Gospels) did warn the members of the only Church that receiving the Eucharist without accepting what we now call Transubstantiation was a sin against the Body and Blood of the Lord.

The one exception was his quoting of the words of consecration, including that all important word IS .

Too bad the early Catholics understood the severity of denying this belief, and so many Catholics today do not.

And of course those who separated from the One Church through heresies, ignorance, the Reformation etc also do not believe it (or claim they have it without valid orders).

That doesn’t support Transubstantiation, but the Real Presence.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Yep. Although the understanding of the Doctrine (and the ability to put the teaching into words) developed in the early Church, we see that St Paul (who never - with one exception -quoted Jesus from the Gospels) did warn the members of the only Church that receiving the Eucharist without accepting what we now call Transubstantiation was a sin against the Body and Blood of the Lord.

The one exception was his quoting of the words of consecration, including that all important word IS .

Too bad the early Catholics understood the severity of denying this belief, and so many Catholics today do not.

And of course those who separated from the One Church through heresies, ignorance, the Reformation etc also do not believe it (or claim they have it without valid orders).

What do the writings of St. Paul to the Corinthians have to do with transubstantiation?

 

[VWcrazy]

How can you call the truth funny?
/QUOTE]

I never called the truth funny - just your funny joke.

 

[MrS]

That doesn’t support Transubstantiation, but the Real Presence.

Well, then, we are at least getting to the truth. Are you admitting, as a member of the Church of Christ that there “could be” or really is this thing we call the Real Presence?

Transubstantiantion is what confects, or confers, or presents, the Real Presence. It does not refer to any of the other sacraments, but only to the Eucharist, the actual Body Blood, Soul and Divinty of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Not because we say so… but because HE said so. And the power to “do (offer) this in memory…” was given to those at the Last Supper (only the 12 as recorded in Scripture). Combine that un-recinded power, with the un-recinded power to pass on and lay on hands etc… and we have the only valid ministerial priesthood on earth.

All others are from man. While they may produce some good fruits, and are sincere, they are of man, nonetheless.

.

 

[ckempston]

Protestants do not teach new doctrines, we have just restored the doctines that the Chatholic Church has corrupted.

If you’re a Baptist, you certainly teach new doctrines. Salvation by Faith Alone is a new doctrine that appears nowhere in the Bible or the ECFs, and was not taught until Luther.

(Sorry for playing both sides of the field here, but in many things I agree with Catholics; in some, however, I disagree strongly).

 

[MrS]

What do the writings of St. Paul to the Corinthians have to do with transubstantiation?

St Paul is often, often quoted by Protestants and other non-Catholics. Yet they avoid his teaching and admonition concerning the Real Presence.

Again, Transubstantiation

newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm#section3

especially:

• Thus from the concept of Transubstantiation is excluded every sort of merely accidental conversion, whether it be purely natural (e.g. the metamorphosis of insects) or supernatural (e.g. the Transfiguration of Christ on Mount Tabor). Finally, Transubstantiation differs from every other substantialconversion in this, that only the substance is converted into another — the accidents remaining the same — just as would be the case if wood were miraculouslyconverted into iron, the substance of the iron remaining hidden under the external appearance of the wood.*

is why and how we converse on the topic of the Real Presence

.

 

[MrS]

If you’re a Baptist, you certainly teach new doctrines. Salvation by Faith Alone is a new doctrine that appears nowhere in the Bible or the ECFs, and was not taught until Luther.

(Sorry for playing both sides of the field here, but in many things I agree with Catholics; in some, however, I disagree strongly).

How do you feel about the inerrancy of the Old Testament?

 

[ckempston]

Well, then, we are at least getting to the truth. Are you admitting, as a member of the Church of Christ that there “could be” or really is this thing we call the Real Presence?

My name is not Bill Clinton. I don’t have a hard time understanding the meaning of the word “IS.” As in: “This IS my body.” How, exactly, it’s his body, I don’t really care. He said it, I believe it.

Transubstantiantion is what confects, or confers, or presents, the Real Presence. It does not refer to any of the other sacraments, but only to the Eucharist, the actual Body Blood, Soul and Divinty of the Lord Jesus Christ.

And it’s a new doctrine.

Not because we say so… but because HE said so. And the power to “do (offer) this in memory…” was given to those at the Last Supper (only the 12 as recorded in Scripture). Combine that un-recinded power, with the un-recinded power to pass on and lay on hands etc… and we have the only valid ministerial priesthood on earth.

Perhaps, but I have my doubts.

All others are from man. While they may produce some good fruits, and are sincere, they are of man, nonetheless.

I disagree.

 

[ckempston]

How do you feel about the inerrancy of the Old Testament?

I believe the Old Testament is inspired, and therefore useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness. I see no need to assign the label of either “errant” or “inerrant”.

 

[MrS]

And it’s a new doctrine.

Perhaps, but I have my doubts.

I disagree.

Yes new… but still dating to the Last Supper, and not before.

Again, the understanding has developed, and the words are applied to help explain, … like Trinity… but the Doctrine comes from Jesus through His Apostles, to the world… whether they accept or reject.

.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Well, then, we are at least getting to the truth. Are you admitting, as a member of the Church of Christ that there “could be” or really is this thing we call the Real Presence?

Transubstantiantion is what confects, or confers, or presents, the Real Presence. It does not refer to any of the other sacraments, but only to the Eucharist, the actual Body Blood, Soul and Divinty of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Not because we say so… but because HE said so. And the power to “do (offer) this in memory…” was given to those at the Last Supper (only the 12 as recorded in Scripture). Combine that un-recinded power, with the un-recinded power to pass on and lay on hands etc… and we have the only valid ministerial priesthood on earth.

All others are from man. While they may produce some good fruits, and are sincere, they are of man, nonetheless.

.

Transubstantiation doesn’t have anything to do with the Biblical doctrine of the Real Presence. It’s an attempt, using Aristotelian philosophical terms, to describe how the presence is there. In the words of Tertullian, “What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?”

If the Roman Church simply used the term as a way to give better understanding to it that would be one thing but when it claims to be a dogma that is binding on the conscience that must be believed, outside of the witness of both Scripture and the early Church, that is entirely another.