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

[guanophore]

 Perhaps.

The doctrine of the Real Presence is not some “Roman” invention, but is evident in the disciples of the Apostles, and can be seen in the writings of the Early Fathers.

Those who did not accept it were considered heretics.

Perhaps.

Otherwise how do you suppose all the Churches founded by Apostles have this doctrine? Peter did not deny the literal nature of Jesus’ words, nor did the Apostles understand what He meant by the eating and drinking (until the Last Supper), but they chose to stay with Him because they believed He had the words of eternal life, and that eventually, it would all be made clear.

God is not the author of confusion.  James was clear in his declaration to the Gentiles; don't drink blood.  No exceptions mentioned (and a perfect chance to talk about the Eucharist), and it was an extension of the OT law, and it is very clear; no blood of any kind.  So, not only is it contended that Jesus taught to break the law, but also that He Himself broke it the night of the Last Supper.

Jesus is the fulfillment of the Law. All of the Law points to Christ, and the reverence that was taught to the Jews about the Life being in the Blood was a foreshadowing of the effecdtiveness of Christ’s blood. Jesus is God, and as such, He can change the rules!

But His blood is mystical and resurrected, not the blood of animals. The Pagans were just misinformed when they accused Christians of “drownding their children and eating their god”. At the Passover, a real lamb was slain, and it’s flesh was literally eaten. Jesus is our Passover lamb.

Perhaps.

Obviously those of us brothers and sisters that disagree see something taught differently by the earliest fathers, including Jesus Himself, and Paul. We can even bring in the earliest writing outside of the scripture; the Didache. But this has all been argued here before and we each know the other side’s arguments. Thank you for the dialogue though.

Yes. Those who read without the lens of Sacred Tradition (the faith of the Apostles) will understand the texts differently.

 

[Kliska]

The doctrine of the Real Presence is not some “Roman” invention, but is evident in the disciples of the Apostles, and can be seen in the writings of the Early Fathers.

Perhaps, and on it goes. Transubstantiation is something I’ve studied extensively, and have delved into here on the boards several times. At this point it would be rude for me to continue debating it. Again, thanks for your time and dialogue.

 

[pablope]

P

God is not the author of confusion. James was clear in his declaration to the Gentiles; don’t drink blood. No exceptions mentioned (and a perfect chance to talk about the Eucharist), and it was an extension of the OT law, and it is very clear; no blood of any kind. So, not only is it contended that Jesus taught to break the law, but also that He Himself broke it the night of the Last Supper.

o

Let me ask you…was James declaration to the Gentiles an infallible declaration or not?

Was what James declared still a universal belief or not? (meaning, is it still a universal law of the Church or is it treated the same as the removal of the requirement of circumcision?

 

[guanophore]

Perhaps, and on it goes. Transubstantiation is something I’ve studied extensively, and have delved into here on the boards several times. At this point it would be rude for me to continue debating it. Again, thanks for your time and dialogue.

Transubstantiation is a Latin peculiarity of understanding and defining the Real Presence that is not shared by other Churches established by the Apostles, most of whom prefer to leave it in the form of a “Holy Mystery” rather than defining it is such a particular manner. However on labels the reality do not change it. Jesus taught “this is my Body” and “This is my Blood”, and the Apostles understood this literally, and taught their disciples the same. Those who did not accept this doctrine were considered heretics. That was centuries before the term “transubstantiation” was applied.

 

[pablope]

It was the ones that left Him that took Him literally. So, the RCC is saying it was the ones that were right are the ones that left… Further, if they were offered blood and drank it, they would have broken the Old Covenant law. It was such a firm law that James repeats it to the Gentiles after Christ’s death and resurrection; don’t drink blood. He didn’t give an exception.

e.

Both took him literally…those who stayed and those who left.

 

[spina1953]

Transubstantiation is a Latin peculiarity of understanding and defining the Real Presence that is not shared by other Churches established by the Apostles, most of whom prefer to leave it in the form of a “Holy Mystery” rather than defining it is such a particular manner. However on labels the reality do not change it. Jesus taught “this is my Body” and “This is my Blood”, and the Apostles understood this literally, and taught their disciples the same. Those who did not accept this doctrine were considered heretics. That was centuries before the term “transubstantiation” was applied.

I agree, but transubstantiation is still a Holy Mystery.

 

[guanophore]

I agree, but transubstantiation is still a Holy Mystery.

LOL yes, ,of course, but much more thoroughly rationally analyzed than any other!

 

[spina1953]

LOL yes, ,of course, but much more thoroughly rationally analyzed than any other!

Hi Gaunophore: Yes of course. what you say it true enough. It seems that the Latin Rite tried to explain it in a way that is understandable but I doubt anyone will really understand it, as it is a mystery as to how it becomes the Body and Blood of Christ.

 

[jmcrae]

Obviously those of us brothers and sisters that disagree see something taught differently by the earliest fathers, including Jesus Himself, and Paul.

Or, they don’t read them at all; they assume the Bible is all there is. I am surprised the number of Protestant preachers I run into who have no idea there are any Christian writings at all outside of the Bible, let alone the sheer quantity of the writings of the Early Church up until 700 AD.

I know for myself, reading these works, I came to realize very quickly that the Early Church was Catholic - they prayed to the Saints, they venerated relics, they believed in miracles, they believed in the Eucharist, they said and heard Mass, they prayed the Hail Mary, they fasted during Lent, they abstained from meat on Wednesdays and Fridays, their Bishops were celibate, they prized virginity above marriage, they adhered strictly to ritual, they practiced the Sacraments, they gave advice to each other about who best to go to, when you need to go to Confession, rather than praying by themselves about their sins to God alone; they enacted Councils whenever they had doctrinal disputes, and solved them in Council, rather than going directly to the Holy Spirit on their own or by themselves - and on and on and on.

 

[Cube2]

Can you identify the source of these exegetical principles?

What is the difference between a parallel and an analogy?

What is meant by the statement that what is concealed in the OT is revealed in the NT?

Catholics will agree with this, however, we understand the Scriptures through the faith that created them. During the Reformation, many Christians abandoned essential elements of this faith, so most Protestants today understand the Scriptures very differently than those who have retained the Apostolic Faith.

How did the reformation Christians understand the scriptures? How is it different from today’s understanding?

All of these disciples were Catholic, as well as the authors of the NT.

Just prove it. The word Catholic is nowhere in the Bible. The citations given of the usage of the word catholic cannot be verified.
However, When Christianity became the official religion of the vast Roman Empire, the other religions had to be discarded, and there was a universal religion for all - Catholic. The religions of Rome, Greece, Egypt etc were abandoned.

Jesus created a visible Church with structure and authority. This is visible throughout the NT.

Church is made up of individuals. So the apostles were a church. Peter was the defacto leader of the apostles, though there was the inner circle of the 3, Peter, John & James.
Peter did not have a title. He did not have a deputy or a successor etc. That’s what I meant by lack of structure.
If the structures were well defined, the headquarters of Catholic would be at Jerusalem not Rome. Also statements of faith like the Necene creed would have been in place long time.

Yes, of course. There were also people who separated from unity with the Apostles (abandoned the Catholic faith) even before the NT was finished. Most of the letters were written to address specific problems in the faith. The NT was never intended to be a full compendium of the faith.

Give examples of those who abandoned the Apostolic faith. What did they become?

I agree with your basic principle here. Unity is found in adherance to the Truth. Those who drift from the One Faith have lost some of the Truth.

I did not mean one faith of having a common umbrella name, No!. I meant, wherever that church is, or by whatever name it is called, whether its faith and practices are true to Christ-likeness.
Paul started a church in Galatia, in Philipi, in Ephesus etc. It did not matter what they were called. What mattered most is their calling in Christ. We can prove by looking at Galatia.
Gal1:6: I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Gal1:7: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. Gal1:8: But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

That being said, Jesus does not want “denominations”. These are fractures and divisions in the Body are marked by how much, and which parts of the Catholic faith they have rejected.

Jesus, the giver of eternal life said:
John 3:16: For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
…not whoever is in a certain denomination. The basis is faith in Christ himself.

I find this assertion puzzling. I think that anyone who does not have Christ would not be considered a Christian.

If its puzzling, then would you say that every catholic will go to heaven?

The Letters to Revelation were not written to "denominations " (ecclesial communities with different doctrines) but all were written to Catholic communities. The warnings in each are directed to individuals within thos communities. If his warnings applied to everyone present, then there would no longer be a lampstand with them. There were some in each community that had fallen from the faith, and some who were faithful, just as there are today.

Just consider this:
Rev 2:5: Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent.

It seemed they started well and that is why they hand a lamp-stand, but were falling and that is why Christ is telling them to repent.

 

[guanophore]

How did the reformation Christians understand the scriptures? quote]

That would depend upon which Protestants you ask, just like today. But at the Reformation the principle of Sola Scriptura was invented, which facilitated the interpretation of the Scriptures each according to one’s own experience and education (or lack of it).
Cube2;12453930:

How is it different from today’s understanding?

All of the original reformers retained more significant amounts of the Apostolic faith. The longer Sola Scriptura is used, the further it’s followers drift away from the once for all divine deposit that was given to the Church.

Just prove it.

The only Christians for a thousand years were Catholic Cube2. Everyone else was considered an apostate, heretic, Pagan or Jew.

The word Catholic is nowhere in the Bible.

I hope you will stick around here at CAF Cube2, so that you can learn more about the history of your own faith, which came out of the Catholic Church.

The first documented use of the word catholic to describe the Church is found in Act. 9:31. This word continued to be used to describe the Church founded by Christ until it was in common use by 107 AD.

The citations given of the usage of the word catholic cannot be verified.

Oh? Why is that?

However, When Christianity became the official religion of the vast Roman Empire, the other religions had to be discarded, and there was a universal religion for all - Catholic. The religions of Rome, Greece, Egypt etc were abandoned.

Pretty much. Or had to go underground.

Church is made up of individuals. So the apostles were a church. Peter was the defacto leader of the apostles, though there was the inner circle of the 3, Peter, John & James.

Although this is a deficient definition of “church”, it is a true statement. There is only One Church.

Peter did not have a title. He did not have a deputy or a successor etc. That’s what I meant by lack of structure.

This statement denies what the Scripture and the historical record states.

If the structures were well defined, the headquarters of Catholic would be at Jerusalem not Rome. Also statements of faith like the Necene creed would have been in place long time.

Your reasoning is faulty. The headquarters of the CC was in Jerusalem until it moved to the Patriarchies after the fall of the Temple, the diaspora, and Peter and Paul going to Rome.

Give examples of those who abandoned the Apostolic faith. What did they become?

Your spiritual ancestors. You probably are most influenced by Calvanism.

I did not mean one faith of having a common umbrella name, No!. I meant, wherever that church is, or by whatever name it is called, whether its faith and practices are true to Christ-likeness.

According to whose standard?

 

[jmcrae]

How did the reformation Christians understand the scriptures? How is it different from today’s understanding?

Just prove it. The word Catholic is nowhere in the Bible. The citations given of the usage of the word catholic cannot be verified.
However, When Christianity became the official religion of the vast Roman Empire, the other religions had to be discarded, and there was a universal religion for all - Catholic. The religions of Rome, Greece, Egypt etc were abandoned.

The religions of Rome Greece, Egypt etc were pagan religions. Christianity became the state religion.

Church is made up of individuals. So the apostles were a church. Peter was the defacto leader of the apostles,

He had been appointed by Jesus- he was not “de facto”.

Peter did not have a title. He did not have a deputy or a successor etc. That’s what I meant by lack of structure.

The New Testament by its very existence contradicts this idea. Random street people don’t write to people they’ve never met before. They don’t order them around and tell them how to live. Without the authority of an organization behind them, their words would have no meaning.

Give examples of those who abandoned the Apostolic faith. What did they become?

Gnostics, Nestorians, Arians, Manicheans, etc.

If its puzzling, then would you say that every catholic will go to heaven?

Not all Catholics will be saved. Being on the lifeboat does not mean that you will arrive safely to shore. But you have a better chance in the boat than out of it.

Just consider this:
Rev 2:5: Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent.

It seemed they started well and that is why they hand a lamp-stand, but were falling and that is why Christ is telling them to repent.

Right - these are those who left the Catholic Church and embraced the chaos of easy-believe “spirituality”. The lamp stand is the Tabernacle Lamp, which blows out when Jesus is noonger present in the Tabernacle, due to a lack of Sacramental life.

 

[pablope]

Literal thinking and drawing parallels will make us lose focus.

If we use the Bible as our reference, then we’ll be correctly guided.

 

[OurLadysServant]

I am not even posting in the thread.

Short question! Short answer!

Jesus said in the Bible: ‘By it’s fruits shall you know.’

Yes God blesses Christians.
But look at the fruits of the Roman Catholic Church handed down by Our Lord Himself when He walked the earth.

Saints and mystics who conversed with Our Lord the same as the apostles after Pentecost . Miracles. Cures. Apparitions. Over 300 Eucharistic Hosts turning into Our Lord’s actual flesh and blood. Apparitions of Our Lord and Our Lady throughout the centuries. And it’s still continuing.

We have the True Presence of Our Lord in the Eucharist:
Our Lord did not say at the Last Supper; ‘This figuratively is my Body which will be handed up for you.’
He said ‘This IS My Body’ ‘This IS My Blood’
In John he told the crowds, ‘He who eats my body and drinks my blood has me in him and him in me. Unless you eat and drink the body and blood of the Son of Man you do not have life in you. My body is real food and my blood is real drink.’

‘By it’s fruits shall you know.’
‘I Am the Truth. All who hear the truth listen to My voice.’

 

[OurLadysServant]

I am not even posting in the thread.

One of the origins of Protestantism is Henry VIII of England who denounced authority of the pope only because he was married and wanted to marry someone who would bear a child, and he ended up beheading a lot of his wives. That’s a far cry from the church Jesus founded, and a very different founder from loving Jesus who said ‘What God has brought together let no man seperate.’ All for the sake of divorce. All for the sake of wanting to make up his own rules so he didn’t have to keep the commandments. And then he martyred so many good catholics because they wouldn’t support his heresy. Thou shalt not kill.

I prefer the Catholic Church founded by Jesus Christ Himself under the guided authority of Jesus temporal representative in an unbroken line from the apostles:

 

[benhur]

Literal thinking and drawing parallels will make us lose focus.
If we use the Bible as our reference, then we’ll be correctly guided.
Acts11:26… And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch. There-before, they were referred to as the people of the Way. They did not have an organization structure. Later we hear the terms bishop, deacons etc coming up. The letters written by apostle Paul, Peter, John James etc were to churches spread out. The universal message contained is on centrality of Christ and the newness gained by believing in Christ. Later, the same letters were giving a warning of ‘anti christian’ doctrines. Christ himself also mentioned of antichrists.

The true denomination is the one the remains true to the teaching of Christ. Christ commanded the apostles to make disciples (who are Christ-like) of all nations. Christ promised in Matt 18:20, that where 2 or 3 are gathered in His name, He shall be there with them.
A church/ denomination may be without Christ.
Rev. 3:20: “Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me”.
The denomination at Laodecia had closed out Jesus and yet it was appearing as a church.

Christ judged it, and advised in Rev 3:18: I counsel thee to buy from me gold tried in the fire, that thou may be rich; and white raiment, that thou may be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou may see.

Kenya, Kool ! Blessings . Preach it.

 

[benhur]

So Cube…before there was a Bible, how do you think the followers of Christ were properly or correctly guided?

I am thinking “tempt not the Lord thy God”, like snake handlers. Because He once guided soley by Word of mouth, do not think He will take it lightly when you not wrest as heavily on that which clarifies, even replaces it for most occasions, per His good wishes and dispensations.