Re: Protestants: How do you determine which denomination holds the truth? 2

[Jon_S_1]

Yes and for many things,one of them being a new creation.There is no matk on our soul . There is a revived,born again spirit that was dead in trespasses and sin, inherited from Adam. The New Adam restores that in regeneration of our spirits .You are right, we are not God but God is Spirit and we connect to Him with our spirit . We are made in his image a spiritual likening. . Absolutely a separate entity/ being but able to inhabit whatever he pleases,be it a jackass or a cloud or a covenant ark ,a bush or you and me. So “eat me” is literal but that we are His temple is figurative ? Is the latter CC doctrine ?
Agreed, she had both the man /flesh the Son of Man, which we do not, but we both have the Son of God/Spirit indwelling. Jesus said He/God/HS is with you now but will be in you (after Pentecost). He does more than “mark” our soul.

If you believe this truly, then you must hold that sanctification is unnecessary and sin after conversion inconsequential.

 

[benhur]

A really big difference between us and Her:

Yes and no. We are both saved by the same Lord, I believe while the mother of God she is still our sister in Christ as others way before us have pointed out. But yes her privelege at incarnation is a unique blessing.

Not only was she impregnated by the Holy Spirit - Christ’s flesh came from the Blessed Virgin Mary, whereas we put our flesh to death with the Holy Spirit.

Not sure what you mean. Buffet the flesh, power to live in the spirit ? While the HS gave her flesh for the Son to inhabit ,the HS gives us a revived spirit so that the Godhead can inhabit us.

When you look at the totality of Scriptures, we see nothing unholy (sinful) can be before God (Moses taking his sandals off, Isaiah’s lips cleansed.

Amen. Yet God always made a way to approach HIm and be in His presence.

We don’t have any revelation as to BV Mary having been cleansed before holding the Living God in Her womb.

God always made a way . Your statement does not regard the ways He instituted before Christianity. Christianity comes out of Judaism from whence cometh salvation to all the world. So, Mary was a devout Jewish maiden, we agree on that revelation don’t we ? The Jews had their rituals to be born of the spirit, to be rejoined to God, in holiness and sin offerings/ cleansing. To deny these is like today someone denying effectualness of your baptismal/confirmation,confessional…Further if we have no revelation of her cleansing why put forth the doctrine of an immaculate conception which claims to be based on “revelation” ?

How much more holy it is to give your own flesh to the only begotten Son of God? Mary gave herself to God, literally. Can any one of us say the same thing?

Not to be impregnated but to receive a new heart and become a temple for Him as Paul says, even a living sacrifice.

 

[benhur]

If you believe this truly, then you must hold that sanctification is unnecessary and sin after conversion inconsequential.

I believe what I said is very Catholic so why would I believe the above which is not Catholic ? By the way, I think you know and are well versed on what we believe about justification, sanctification and contrition as we are on CC view, thanks in part to this forum and folks like yourself.

 

[Tomyris]

My question hasn’t really been answered.

It may not be answerable, frankly. The reason for that is that it sounds to me like one of those ‘have you stopped beating your wife’ type questions, full of suppositions and an unawareness of an extremely complex historical and ecclesiastical situation. To answer it fairly takes time and care.

When was the creation of new numerous bodies required when the church fell into such false belief and doctrine?

Most Protestants regard it as a gradual process. Some believe the church became 100% corrupt, but most maintain it was only somewhat corrupt. The Reformed typically believe Christ can still be found in the Catholic Church, though they have made Him difficult to find and buried in superstition and folklore.

I am currently examining the issue of sola fide which seems to be the protestant clincher, the doctrine they rest upon and if this is necessary I would have to conclude based on my readings of the fathers that it quite frankly happened very early that hte church become totally corrupt. As early as the second century I might wager if I were to judge the churches throughout history by a standard of protestantism.

I would say that is a misreading of Protestant thought.

But where would you place the date? It must have happened at some time or began at one point in time to culminate at a later date. I do wonder how protestants would react to the monastic literature I have been reading, I think you would have to declare them anathema and false Christians in which case you would be doing away with Roman Catholicism, Orthodoxy and Oriental orthodoxy.

Or do you admit to an ignorance about the date, only arguing that there needed to be reformation in the fifteenth century? Alright, but if the eastern and western churches share such ideas of salvation which are entirely different from the reformation, it is something that must be considered. Why God let it happen and why for so long did it happen that there was no true church on earth.

Again, we deny that there was no true church on earth. There has always been a church and always will be. No date.

 

[benhur]

Don’t get hung up on the word Transubstantiation. It’s a made up word to try to explain the spiritual reality.

They all believe that Jesus is really present, that the bread becomes his body, and the wine his blood.

Why don’t you hold to the doctrine that is clearly demonstrated by all these churches?

I’m sure our orthodox friend can affirm this if he is still watching the thread.

Yes, the orthodox believe in a literal presence like you, just don’t explain as you do. Don’t think the first church believed in it but eventually did, right along with mystical, symbolic view which I believe was there at the beginning. Differing views were allowed for centuries.

 

[Jon_S_1]

I believe what I said is very Catholic so why would I believe the above which is not Catholic ? By the way, I think you know and are well versed on what we believe about justification, sanctification and contrition as we are on CC view, thanks in part to this forum and folks like yourself.

My point being that there is a conundrum between the idea you present of “us being the pure and blameless sacrifice” and is being sinners.

The conundrum is less for those who would say Jesus stands in my place and my sin is now inconsequential.

Knowing you are not part of the latter group, I do not know how you can make that stretch.

It’s far easier to just say “you know what your right as the church has always taught the real presence”.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Not sure what you mean. Buffet the flesh, power to live in the spirit ? While the HS gave her flesh for the Son to inhabit ,the HS gives us a revived spirit so that the Godhead can inhabit us.

If you can’t understand the biological difference of a baby forming in the womb of the mother and spiritual regeneration our conversation is over.

Jesus Christ has Mary’s DNA. He does not have the DNA of any other human on the planet.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

no, not as much.
The main criteria is being for Christ.The apostles preached Christ, and we listen to the apostles. Remember those who were for Christ but did not hang out with the apostles ? Christ told the apostles to chill for those others were indeed right on. So my suggestion of ecclesia is straight from Jesus.

Did those people set themselves up against what the apostles established? Granted that certain people might not contradict the apostles and still do the will of God, but would we accept any less than total submission to the apostles if we were all living in the first century after the ascension?

The church for the early church was not merely the invisible body known only to God, it was the local community, headed by its bishop in relation to all the other churches accross the world. It was the boast of Iraneaus that he could proclaim the church everywhere confessing the same thing, among the lettered and unlettered.

But you say the orthodox church didn’t need as much of a reformation. What are the issues which required reformation? Which absolutely demand that the true church be re established?

 

[guanophore]

Sorry, but I understood it is a representing not of your sacrificial self but of Calvary an unbloody sacrifice, that is the heart of the Mass, and of course the people give their amen to it.

Do you agree then that when Fathers talking of a “sacrifice” being continually given around the earth forever, it is us and our praise, and not the re offering of an unbloody transformation of the elements to Calvay’s victim ?

In the Mass, the two come together. We bring ourselves to the altar, where we enact the event of the crucifixion.

The context of the Mass is the Passover. The Jews had to sacrifice everything they knew and had, they were ready to leave at once on the journey into faith. When they ate the passover meal, they did it with their feet shod and their bags packed. They joined themselves to God’s deliverance.

I think it is difficult to understand the Sacrifice of the Mass without understanding Passover.

Some passages from St. Augustine may be helpful in transmitting the Apostolic faith:

ST. AUGUSTINE (c. 354 - 430 A.D.)

"That Bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God IS THE BODY OF CHRIST. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, IS THE BLOOD OF CHRIST. Through that bread and wine the Lord Christ willed to commend HIS BODY AND BLOOD, WHICH HE POURED OUT FOR US UNTO THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS." (Sermons 227)

"The Lord Jesus wanted those whose eyes were held lest they should recognize him, to recognize Him in the breaking of the bread [Luke 24:16,30-35]. The faithful know what I am saying. They know Christ in the breaking of the bread. For not all bread, but only that which receives the blessing of Christ, BECOMES CHRIST'S BODY." (Sermons 234:2)

"What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that THE BREAD IS THE BODY OF CHRIST AND THE CHALICE [WINE] THE BLOOD OF CHRIST." (Sermons 272)

"How this 'And he was carried in his own hands'] should be understood literally of David, we cannot discover; but we can discover how it is meant of Christ. FOR CHRIST WAS CARRIED IN HIS OWN HANDS, WHEN, REFERRING TO HIS OWN BODY, HE SAID: 'THIS IS MY BODY.' FOR HE CARRIED THAT BODY IN HIS HANDS." (Psalms 33:1:10)

"Was not Christ IMMOLATED only once in His very Person? In the Sacrament, nevertheless, He is IMMOLATED for the people not only on every Easter Solemnity but on every day; and a man would not be lying if, when asked, he were to reply that Christ is being IMMOLATED." (Letters 98:9)

"Christ is both the Priest, OFFERING Himself, and Himself the Victim. He willed that the SACRAMENTAL SIGN of this should be the daily Sacrifice of the Church, who, since the Church is His body and He the Head, learns to OFFER herself through Him." (City of God 10:20)

"By those sacrifices of the Old Law, this one Sacrifice is signified, in which there is a true remission of sins; but not only is no one forbidden to take as food the Blood of this Sacrifice, rather, all who wish to possess life are exhorted to drink thereof." (Questions on the Heptateuch 3:57)

"Nor can it be denied that the souls of the dead find relief through the piety of their friends and relatives who are still alive, when the Sacrifice of the Mediator is OFFERED for them, or when alms are given in the church." (Ench Faith, Hope, Love 29:110)

"But by the prayers of the Holy Church, and by the SALVIFIC SACRIFICE, and by the alms which are given for their spirits, there is no doubt that the dead are aided that the Lord might deal more mercifully with them than their sins would deserve. FOR THE WHOLE CHURCH OBSERVES THIS PRACTICE WHICH WAS HANDED DOWN BY THE FATHERS that it prays for those who have died in the communion of the Body and Blood of Christ, when they are commemorated in their own place in the Sacrifice itself; and the Sacrifice is OFFERED also in memory of them, on their behalf. If, the works of mercy are celebrated for the sake of those who are being remembered, who would hesitate to recommend them, on whose behalf prayers to God are not offered in vain? It is not at all to be doubted that such prayers are of profit to the dead; but for such of them as lived before their death in a way that makes it possible for these things to be useful to them after death." (Sermons 172:2)

"...I turn to Christ, because it is He whom I seek here; and I discover how the earth is adored without impiety, how without impiety the footstool of His feet is adored. For He received earth from earth; because flesh is from the earth, and He took flesh from the flesh of Mary. He walked here in the same flesh, AND GAVE US THE SAME FLESH TO BE EATEN UNTO SALVATION. BUT NO ONE EATS THAT FLESH UNLESS FIRST HE ADORES IT; and thus it is discovered how such a footstool of the Lord's feet is adored; AND NOT ONLY DO WE NOT SIN BY ADORING, WE DO SIN BY NOT ADORING." (Psalms 98:9)

 

[guanophore]

Did Melchizadek offer sacrifices or receive them ?

Clearly he did both, since Christ is foreshadowed in him, Christ did both.

But there is nothing new in ministerial priest still offering sacrifices for the priesthood of all believers.

The pattern that was established in the OT of one great high priest, a ministerial priesthood, and the priesthood of all believers is not new. But we are now under a New Covenant established in His Blood.

" And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he said, “Take this, and divide it among yourselves; 18 for I tell you that from now on I shall not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.” 19 And he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 20 And likewise the cup after supper, saying, “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood." Lk. 22:17

The commandment to “do” in the Gk. means to “make” or “act”. What is being “made” here, if not a sacrifice? The remembrance is “anamnesis”, a ritual enactment that makes the participants present to an event that has already occurred.

Where do you find sacrificial officer , or heirus (priest) . The only one I see is Peter calling us all priests and melchizadek ( Jesus)

NT priests are not of the “heirus” kind. On the contrary, they are caught up into, and are a reflection of, the priesthood of Christ. As one can clearly seen in the gook of Hebrews, His priestly ministry is different from the heirus.

but with the understanding that sacrifices have ceased and now the priest has other priestly duties but not sacrificing.

The Mass is not a new sacrifice, any more than the Passover is not a new event of Israel literally leaving Egypt. It is a ritual re-enactment that brings the participants into the event in a mystical way. Israel only left Egypt once, but the Passover was celebrated yearly. A real lamb was slain and consumed.

Right but has His sacrifice ceased ? Why should the Mass still be a sacrifice ?

It is a mystical participation in His once for all sacrifice. Why should it be this way? That is the way Jesus set things up! He is Creator, so He knows what we need to become what He wants.

Still does not answer as to why you offer him back His sacrifice (Calvary).

He is the perfect offering. He ever lives to make intercession for us. Why did the Jews slaughter another unblemished lamb each year?

I understand us then adding our lives as a living sacrifice. But it is like He gives you a gift and you give it back along with another one.

I understand what you are saying, but it is not “giving it back”, any more than celebrating the Passover is going back into Egypt!

 

[guanophore]

I imagine just how you think the rest of us did not get transubstantiation right.

Transubstantiation is a peculiarly Western Philosophical way of understanding the Real Presence. It has never influenced the East, which Churches tend to think less on a way of rationally explaining it and just enjoy entering the mystery.

However the real presence is understood, the Apostolic faith is that the bread and the wine are transformed into His Body and Blood.

Is Jesus pure ? Is He not in you ? Does He not inhabit the praises of His people ( especially when we examine ourselves, do contrition beforehand) ?

Yes, these are all essential preparations for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

Maybe exactly identical ? Still a sacrifice, still OT fashion of “doing business” with God.

No, Ben, I think if you were to review the book of Hebrews it might clarify for you that this is an entirely different kind of sacrifice.

As far as “doing business”, it is about a relationship, and having life in ourselves.

52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” 53 So Jesus said to them, “Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day; 55 for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink. 56 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them. 57 Just as the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever eats me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like that which your ancestors ate, and they died. But the one who eats this bread will live forever.”

This concept was so radically opposed to the concepts of OT sacrifice that the Jews were scandalized, and many disciples walked away.

It is a new covenant, a new sacrifice, a new order of the priesthood - after he order of Melchiizdek.

 

[eddie_too]

I may not know much, but I do know that the RCC is the only organization that traces its founding to the Lord.

every other Christian group was begun by someone other than Jesus. a Lutheran follows martin luther rather than the church founded by Jesus. Episcopalians worship according to Henry the VIII. Methodists worship according to john Wesley, etc. etc. etc.

one other point, if Protestantism makes sense, then Jesus wanted His flock to be confused and divided. Jesus designed His Church in a manner that ensured His teachings and His grace would be available in their fullness until the end of the world.

the alternative is to believe, as the Mormons believe, that Jesus was not able to ensure that His teachings and graces would endure.

I do not believe that Jesus intended His followers to be subjected to confusion and division. therefore, He must have created a mechanism to prevent this from occurring. of course, people who reject the efficacy of this mechanism will not enjoy its benefits and will be subjected to confusion and division despite their faith in Jesus.

Jesus provides as much to the mind as He does to the heart. Jesus makes sense. the teachings of Jesus make sense. the Church Jesus created makes sense.

 

[eddie_too]

I should correct my previous post. the orthodox trace their origins to the Lord. they totally accept the mechanism Jesus created to ensure that He would be present to all His followers to the end of time.

the Great Schism is a separate theological debate from the theological debate surrounding Protestantism.

my apologies to the orthodox.

 

[steido01]

a Lutheran follows martin luther rather than the church founded by Jesus.

False, on several counts. Stick around awhile.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

every other Christian group was begun by someone other than Jesus. a Lutheran follows martin luther rather than the church founded by Jesus.

:tsktsk:

How about our Orthodox brothers?

You clearly don’t know much about Lutheranism… How about you refrain from making assertions about it. Our Lutheran brothers in this board: JonNC, Steid001, HouseHarkonnen, benjohnson, EvangelicalCatholic, Keitjk, and others I can’t remember all clearly have specifically said that they disagree with several of Luther’s opinions. Further, the are very specific in retaining the Creeds and Doctrines of the first 7 ecumenical councils and their own Confessions - rather than one man alone.

 

[benhur]

]I may not know much, but I do know that the RCC is the only organization that traces its founding to the Lord.

Yes you do , just as the pharisees and saducees even sanhedrin had legitimate authority and claim kinship/roots to Abraham and Moses, that Jesus even verified but we all know the rest of the story… You rest in your tracing back but I would admonish to rest on apostolic is as apostolic does. Just as the first Jewish “Christians” were true sons of Abraham and Moses unlike those who were currently running the “organization”.

 

[jmcrae]

I understood they do not believe in your transubstantiation but yet a real presence.
Again, is it transubstantiation, consubstantiation, a spiritual presence and or symbolic ?
Similar but not identical. The apostles did not teach your transubstantiation. A real presence perhaps and perhaps strictly symbolic.

The orthodox and other similar Churches teach that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ, really and substantially. They don’t use the word Transubstantiation because they believe that the word is too limited; unlike Protestants, who believe it says too much. The Protestants are saying, it never stops being bread and wine; the Orthodox say, (as best I understand it) we don’t know at what moment it became Jesus; maybe it always was, in anticipation of the Consecration.

 

[guanophore]

Yes you do , just as the pharisees and saducees even sanhedrin had legitimate authority and claim kinship/roots to Abraham and Moses, that Jesus even verified but we all know the rest of the story… You rest in your tracing back but I would admonish to rest on apostolic is as apostolic does. Just as the first Jewish “Christians” were true sons of Abraham and Moses unlike those who were currently running the “organization”.

This is a poor argument, Ben. Jesus was clear that the Teaching Authority was valid even when the behavior was missing the mark:

“The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; 3 so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice. Matt. 23:2

Clearly your little dittie of “apostolic is as apostolic does” has no validity whatsoever (except in your own mind). The Apostles did not stop being Apostles when they missed the mark, such as all abandoning Jesus before the crucifixion. It is just a modern invention to legitimize rejecting the authority appointed by Christ.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Yes you do , just as the pharisees and saducees even sanhedrin had legitimate authority and claim kinship/roots to Abraham and Moses, that Jesus even verified but we all know the rest of the story… You rest in your tracing back but I would admonish to rest on apostolic is as apostolic does. Just as the first Jewish “Christians” were true sons of Abraham and Moses unlike those who were currently running the “organization”.

The transferal of Divine Authority from the Seat of Moses to the Seat of Peter was effected by Jesus Christ Himself. In other words, from a higher Authority.

By what authority do YOU claim that the Seat of Peter has been abrogated?

 

[pablope]

Yes you do , just as the pharisees and saducees even sanhedrin had legitimate authority and claim kinship/roots to Abraham and Moses, that Jesus even verified but we all know the rest of the story… You rest in your tracing back but I would admonish to rest on apostolic is as apostolic does. Just as the first Jewish “Christians” were true sons of Abraham and Moses

unlike those who were currently running the “organization”.

so what do you mean? What of the current church leadership?