what is the REAL reason why protestants reject mary?

  • Thread starter Thread starter 6glargento
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Truthstalker said:
Because they find the rapture in the Scriptures but not the other things you speak of. It’s not a matter of deserving but of what God said. And Catholics believe in the parousia of Christ.
Click to expand...
Excuse me. This is in the Scripture, yet you do not do it.

Matthew
26
14 15 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and giving it to his disciples said, “Take and eat; this is my body.”
27
Then he took a cup, gave thanks, 16 and gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you,
28
for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins.

And as Bible believing Catholics that is exactly what we do. Simply because He said do it.

John 6:31-70

"31 Our fathers did eat manna in the desert, as it is written: He gave them bread from heaven to eat. 32 Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say to you; Moses gave you not bread from heaven, but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of God is that which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life to the world. 34 They said therefore unto him: Lord, give us always this bread. 35 And Jesus said to them: I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall not hunger: and he that believeth in me shall never thirst.

But now you tell me you believe in the Rapture because it is in scripture and not the assumption because you cannot find it.

Um. Please explain how Protestants decide which part of the Scripture is something they should do or not and which part not to have anything to do with?
 
tequilamac said:
Excuse me. This is in the Scripture, yet you do not do it.

Matthew
26
14 15 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and giving it to his disciples said, “Take and eat; this is my body.”
27
Then he took a cup, gave thanks, 16 and gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you,
28
for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins.

And as Bible believing Catholics that is exactly what we do. Simply because He said do it.

John 6:31-70

"31 Our fathers did eat manna in the desert, as it is written: He gave them bread from heaven to eat. 32 Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say to you; Moses gave you not bread from heaven, but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of God is that which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life to the world. 34 They said therefore unto him: Lord, give us always this bread. 35 And Jesus said to them: I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall not hunger: and he that believeth in me shall never thirst.

But now you tell me you believe in the Rapture because it is in scripture and not the assumption because you cannot find it.

Um. Please explain how Protestants decide which part of the Scripture is something they should do or not and which part not to have anything to do with?
Click to expand...
We observe the Lord’s Supper. We find the rapture in Scripture, as do Catholics. I suppose you find the Assumption in Scripture?
 
Truthstalker said:
We observe the Lord’s Supper. We find the rapture in Scripture, as do Catholics. I suppose you find the Assumption in Scripture?
Click to expand...
What does it mean to “observe the Lord’s Supper”? How do you “observe” the Lord’s Supper? And why do you not just literally live it? It is in Scripture. He told His disciples- do it.

He didn’t say please observe me. He said do it.
so, why don’t you?
 
Catholics do not believe in a rapture, we believe in the Second Coming.

The rapture theory came about in the mid 1800’s.
 
tequilamac said:
What does it mean to “observe the Lord’s Supper”? How do you “observe” the Lord’s Supper? And why do you not just literally live it? It is in Scripture. He told His disciples- do it.

He didn’t say please observe me. He said do it.
so, why don’t you?
Click to expand...
Ok, we do it.
 
Truthstalker said:
Oops. 1215 not 125. Fourth Lateran Council, Canon 1, where Transubstantiation was declared dogmatic.

For example see newadvent.org/cathen/09018a.htm
Click to expand...
Because the word transubstantiation was said to be the correct word to be used to describe what happens at the Consecration of the Bread and Wine at that time, does not mean that the Real Presence was not believed until that time.

It was a way to more correctly explain what takes place, and what was already believed.
 
Dorothy said:
Because the word transubstantiation was said to be the correct word to be used to describe what happens at the Consecration of the Bread and Wine at that time, does not mean that the Real Presence was not believed until that time.

It was a way to more correctly explain what takes place, and what was already believed.
Click to expand...
If there hadn’t been controversy it would not have needed “more correct explanation” and it was believed by some, perhaps even by most, but not by all. Things that are noncontroversial do not get defined at Councils, almost by definition. It was the first use of the term transubstantiation, I believe. There is a lot of argument on whether Augustine, for example, was a symbolist or a realist. See the New Advent Article on transubstantiation.
 
Dorothy said:
Catholics do not believe in a rapture, we believe in the Second Coming.

The rapture theory came about in the mid 1800’s.
Click to expand...
This is only arguing semantics. At the Second Coming you will “meet Him in the air”: by definition, in the rapture. You believe in the rapture.
 
Truthstalker said:
Ok, we do it.
Click to expand...
How? It’s impossible for a Protestant to do it. So how do you do it? What do you do? For you have not the Real Presence of Christ. You have no apostolic succession. You have Martin Luther and consubstantiation or if not following that one of the thousands of Protestant threads, no substantiation at all. Therefore under either of these two forms and equally so in Presbyterianism, you can’t literally “do” the Last Supper.

And so the question remains- why are you not accepting what Jesus said in scripture? You can accept the rapture because it is in scripture but you cannot accept the Eucharist even though it is in Scripture.

You cannot do as the disciples did and accept Mary as your mother even though it is in the Scripture. But you reject Assumption because it is not in scripture, you accept the rapture because it is in scripture, but you reject her motherhood even though it is in scripture and you reject the Real Presence and the literal action of the Eucharist even though it is in Scripture. You are very confusing people. You want everyone to follow the Bible, but you think Jesus lied a lot in it. That makes no sense.
 
Truthstalker said:
If there hadn’t been controversy it would not have needed “more correct explanation” and it was believed by some, perhaps even by most, but not by all. Things that are noncontroversial do not get defined at Councils, almost by definition. It was the first use of the term transubstantiation, I believe. There is a lot of argument on whether Augustine, for example, was a symbolist or a realist. See the New Advent Article on transubstantiation.
Click to expand...
Wow. You really do not understand it do you? You need to read the New Advent Article on the Eucharistic Sacrifice and the History of it.
 
Truthstalker said:
This is only arguing semantics. At the Second Coming you will “meet Him in the air”: by definition, in the rapture. You believe in the rapture.
Click to expand...
I didn’t know there was a semantics problem. I know that some believe there will be a “pre-trib rapture” and that some will be taken up while others will go through a tribulation. The word “rapture” in that context is not talking about the Second Coming of Christ.

I know that we don’t use “rapture” so as not to confuse it with what I stated above.
 
Truthstalker said:
If there hadn’t been controversy it would not have needed “more correct explanation” and it was believed by some, perhaps even by most, but not by all. Things that are noncontroversial do not get defined at Councils, almost by definition. It was the first use of the term transubstantiation, I believe. There is a lot of argument on whether Augustine, for example, was a symbolist or a realist. See the New Advent Article on transubstantiation.
Click to expand...
Lack of understanding, or “controversy” makes a more correct explanation necessary, and that is when the word “transubstantiation” became the correct explanation.

That is one of the purposes of Councils, to correctly define and explain truth. The truth of the Real Presence wasn’t just invented at that time.
 
Due to failing charity and drifting from topic this thread is now closed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top