Question for all protestants

  • Thread starter Thread starter rinnie
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It depends on how one see the bread and wine after the consecration and the treatment given to them would reflect the belief accordingly. Perhaps there was not even a consecration. Perhaps there was no one who is eligible to confect it or to administer the Sacrament. Perhaps there is no Sacrament at all.
Yeah, I thought of that later. My bad.
 
Think of it this way; would you say that, after a thousand years, a reconciliation between Rome and Orthodoxy that results in full communion would be nothing short of miraculous?
I would. Would you further say that, being it would be miraculous, the Holy Spirit, beyond denial, must have moved within the two communions for this to have happened? I would.
How could I then resist the event? The Spirit moves in His Church to bring unity, the dividing issues which, when speaking of ecclesiology are my main issue, are resolved. How or why would I resist?

Jon
I can see how this would move you…but my response would be that the miraculous has already occurred (how can you resist that event?), unless you believe that the Catholic Church has errored on faith and morals? If you believe yes, then Christ’s words make no sense that he would lead his Church to all Truth. The two would be in contradiction.

🙂

PnP
 
I can see how this would move you…but my response would be that the miraculous has already occurred (how can you resist that event?), unless you believe that the Catholic Church has errored on faith and morals? If you believe yes, then Christ’s words make no sense that he would lead his Church to all Truth. The two would be in contradiction.

🙂

PnP
Says the closet Eastern Orthodox:D
 
Can we look at this another way EC…

In review of some of your posts here on CAF like:

and later in the same thread:

What distinction are you referring to when you use the term "Catholic: here? Why make the distinction?

Peace!!!
Some posters don’t prefer the name, ‘Roman Catholic’ but to make certain distinctions, it is unavoidable. I tend to think of ‘Catholic’ as a Christian who believes in the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament, upholds episcopacy/ apostolic succession and confesses the ecumenical creeds. I cited an explanation in Wikipedia that essentially identified Roman, Orthodox, Anglican and Lutheran as Catholic.
 
Some posters don’t prefer the name, ‘Roman Catholic’ but to make certain distinctions, it is unavoidable. I tend to think of ‘Catholic’ as a Christian who believes in the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament, upholds episcopacy/ apostolic succession and confesses the ecumenical creeds.
Catholics view the Bishop of Rome as the Vicar of Christ.

If someone does not, he cannot claim to be Catholic.
 
Lot’s of incense Bat…both Church’s use it…it goes back 2,000++ years. One should experience the liturgy with all the senses.

PnP
I think it would be fun to check out an orthodox service.
 
Some posters don’t prefer the name, ‘Roman Catholic’ but to make certain distinctions, it is unavoidable. I tend to think of ‘Catholic’ as a Christian who believes in the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament, upholds episcopacy/ apostolic succession and confesses the ecumenical creeds. I cited an explanation in Wikipedia that essentially identified Roman, Orthodox, Anglican and Lutheran as Catholic.
Catholics and Lutherans are from two different churches. Catholics objection to this is that she is not a denomination unlike the churches that broke away from her or the new churches there were being formed. Catholic and Orthodox are in schism and so they should not be tagged along on that list.

We cannot stop you from using names for your church but if it is done to confuse because in all practicality we know what is Catholic and what is Lutheran, then the motive for it in the CAF is not right and perhaps can be subjected to scrutiny by the mods.
 
Some posters don’t prefer the name, ‘Roman Catholic’ but to make certain distinctions, it is unavoidable.
But this is not what you did in the examples I quoted above. In one post you distinguished Anglicans and Catholics then you distinguished Lutherans and Catholics and in the same thread many times you use the term Roman Catholics proving you don’t mind using the term “Roman”.

As has been pointed out you are confusing and misleading your readers. In the two quotes above which “Catholics” were you referring to?
I tend to think of ‘Catholic’ as a Christian who believes in the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament, upholds episcopacy/ apostolic succession and confesses the ecumenical creeds.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts!
I cited an explanation in Wikipedia that essentially identified Roman, Orthodox, Anglican and Lutheran as Catholic.
What does this mean? Is Wiki the “Christian Magisterium” in you book?
 
What does this mean? Is Wiki the “Christian Magisterium” in you book?
The Wiki article states, simply, that there are Catholics, and then there are those who want to use the term “catholic” to mean universal.

The Wiki article is quite consonant with everything that we Catholics have been arguing here.

Again, it’s like using the term “surgeon”–there is one particular tree surgeon here who wants to be admitted to the Operating Room at Massachusettes General. (And not as the one who gets the Propofol.)
 
I asked this on another site and its got me thinking!:newidea: Oh NO!

Okay here it is. What makes one Protestant Preachers version of the Truth correct or incorrect over another Protestant Preachers version.

Lets say I go to one Protestant Church and the Preacher teaches me that this is what the word of God is saying, and then the next says this, and so on and I go to 10 different Protestant Preachers and get ten meanings. Who do you feel is right?

And how do you know which one is right?:confused:
?
 
But this is not what you did in the examples I quoted above. In one post you distinguished Anglicans and Catholics then you distinguished Lutherans and Catholics and in the same thread many times you use the term Roman Catholics proving you don’t mind using the term “Roman”.

As has been pointed out you are confusing and misleading your readers. In the two quotes above which “Catholics” were you referring to?

Thank you for sharing your thoughts!

What does this mean? Is Wiki the “Christian Magisterium” in you book?
As we all know, the word ‘Catholic’ is much broader than just the Roman Church. Among Christians who embrace the catholicity of the Church, the meaning of Catholic is essentially a characteristic expression such as Eastern Catholic, Anglo-Catholic, Evangelical Catholic, etc.
 
As we all know, the word ‘Catholic’ is much broader than just the Roman Church. Among Christians who embrace the catholicity of the Church, the meaning of Catholic is essentially a characteristic expression such as Eastern Catholic, Anglo-Catholic, Evangelical Catholic, etc.
And all submit to the authority of the Vicar of Christ.
 
As we all know, the word ‘Catholic’ is much broader than just the Roman Church. Among Christians who embrace the catholicity of the Church, the meaning of Catholic is essentially a characteristic expression such as Eastern Catholic, Anglo-Catholic, Evangelical Catholic, etc.
So I will ask again. If “Catholic” is much broader than the Roman Church and you make a comment which includes, “Anglicans and Catholics” then “Lutherans and Catholics”, which “Catholics” were you referring to? It doesn’t seem as though you could have been referring to the “Roman only sect” as you have shown you stipulate this distinction by using the term “Roman Catholic” later in the thread. You could not have been referring to Anglicans or Lutherans as these are the two groups in which you are distinguishing.

The only logical explanation I can see is that even you, EC, use “Catholic” and “Roman Catholic” interchangeably and that this group along with others you consider to be “catholic”.

“Catholic” = proper name
“catholic” <> proper name = universal

I don’t think even PR can keep you from using the name “Catholic”, but remember even if you meet a person named “Michael Jackson”, and there are many, does not mean he can moon walk.:nope:

Peace!!!
 
This is all a nice academic exercise but in the end it is useless. True baptized Christians of all types need to unify where it matters under the banner of Christ because we are being divided and conquered by the Atheist and fringe modernist faiths. This topic also does not really help the already confused.

Here is what we maybe can generally agree upon:

I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of Heaven and earth;
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son Our Lord,
Who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried.
He descended to the dead; the third day He rose again from the dead;
He ascended into Heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of God, the Father almighty; from thence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy Catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body and life everlasting.
Amen.
 
I don’t think even PR can keep you from using the name “Catholic”, but remember even if you meet a person named “Michael Jackson”, and there are many, does not mean he can moon walk.:nope:

Peace!!!
Great analogy! 👍

And, again, if a stranger comes to your town and asks, “Where is the nearest Catholic Church” it would be a very, very disingenuous person who points him here:
https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/...Znh9sOcPm3FVGrRO_Vx_QyqgP60ttvY2p56---Spl_DUA

We all know what the stranger means when he asks for directions to the local Catholic Church. All of us.
 
This is all a nice academic exercise but in the end it is useless. True baptized Christians of all types need to unify where it matters under the banner of Christ because we are being divided and conquered by the Atheist and fringe modernist faiths.
Does belief in the Real Presence in the Eucharist not matter, M1?

That is not mentioned in your credal statement.
 
Does belief in the Real Presence in the Eucharist not matter, M1?

That is not mentioned in your credal statement.
Of course it matters but it does not prevent these Protestants from being in union with the mystical Body of Christ, though in an imperfect and incomplete way. This is an infallible teaching of our Church.

I used the Apostles Creed because many Protestants and even evangelicals profess it as do Catholics of course.
 
Of course it matters but it does not prevent these Protestants from being in union with the mystical Body of Christ, though in an imperfect and incomplete way. This is an infallible teaching of our Church.

I used the Apostles Creed because many Protestants and even evangelicals profess it as do Catholics of course.
Yes, there is much that we agree on with Protestants.

But there is still much more work that needs to be done.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top