Unity Between Catholic and Protestant Christians

[prodromos]

Any recognised Church History will give those details.

So give me a citation from one.

 

[prodromos]

It is basically the same as hearing a tall story and saying it is quite difficult to swallow. It is not that we literally eat and swallow the story teller, but it is figurative language to says that the story is unbelievable. This is the type of language that Jesus used. It is similar to say that my fast car "ate up" the miles.

So, what Jesus was meaning is that just lip service to Him is not enough. We must give Him our full commitment. I think we are fairly fussy about what we eat. We would not eat rotten food out of the garbage. If you are like me, if something just smells a bit off, there is no way we will eat it. Eating something takes it into our system. If it is rotten, we will get sick. So, if we eat a meal, we have to trust that it is okay and that it will not give us food poisoning. In a real sense, we have given full personal commitment to that meal in the belief that it will benefit us.

This is what Jesus meant by eating His body and drinking His blood. It is putting our full trust in Him that our sins will be forgiven and that our bodies will be resurrected on the last day to spend eternity in heaven.

Hebrew has a symbolic usage for "eating someone's flesh". Are you suggesting Jesus told His followers to destroy Him?

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

So give me a citation from one.

This is a good one: It is an informative history of the Christian church from 33AD to the present. Very interesting and unbiased.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Hebrew has a symbolic usage for "eating someone's flesh". Are you suggesting Jesus told His followers to destroy Him?

No. It was figurative language to express full commitment to Him personally instead of following Him just for the free lunches and healing. When His followers realised that there were going to be no more free lunches or miracle healing, most left Him because they didn't want to be identified with Him impending death.

 

[marineimaging]

I can never see there to be a time where we will enjoy unity between the Catholic church and any other denomination on this earth because we are broken and fallen and that is the way it is. I would never bow to a pope or priest, nor kiss a mans ring, nor would I allow any other man to intercede between me and Christ, our Lord. I will partake of the Lords Supper as an act in remembrance of Him and his sacrifice, and what it means to my soul is between me and God. And I would never allow a man to say that I can't read the Bible because I can't understand it when I know the Holy Spirit has endowed me with the understanding I need at that moment. So, in response to your question/statement I must agree. We will never see eye to eye on scripture, prayer, beliefs, or the direction our Lord has taken us as Saints, for those who accept Christ are already Saints. I wish it would happen, but it won't.

 

[zoidar]

While I’m on your side of things I don’t think most Protestants I know believe Catholics know Jesus. The issue with the RC many Protestants have is that the addition of the sacraments, especially confession, as a requirement for salvation fundamentally changes the gospel...I have met some Catholics who put their faith in Christ alone for salvation and not the sacraments but this is contrary to RC doctrine

There are wheat and chaff in every church, more or less. I have met fine Catholics, and also terrible Protestants, terrible Catholics and fine Protestants. As soon as we acknowledge all believers as part of the body of Christ the better, IMO. As a "late" in life believer I never made any differences according to churches or denominations. To me all were brothers and sisters, to find that some Christians wanted me in their team, not caring that much about my relationship with Christ, but what church I belonged to.

 

[mrhagerty]

Oscarr said:

It is basically the same as hearing a tall story and saying it is quite difficult to swallow. It is not that we literally eat and swallow the story teller, but it is figurative language to says that the story is unbelievable. This is the type of language that Jesus used. It is similar to say that my fast car "ate up" the miles.

So, what Jesus was meaning is that just lip service to Him is not enough. We must give Him our full commitment. I think we are fairly fussy about what we eat. We would not eat rotten food out of the garbage. If you are like me, if something just smells a bit off, there is no way we will eat it. Eating something takes it into our system. If it is rotten, we will get sick. So, if we eat a meal, we have to trust that it is okay and that it will not give us food poisoning. In a real sense, we have given full personal commitment to that meal in the belief that it will benefit us.

This is what Jesus meant by eating His body and drinking His blood. It is putting our full trust in Him that our sins will be forgiven and that our bodies will be resurrected on the last day to spend eternity in heaven.

What you say here is an excellent representation of the Protestant view common to many denominations. It is one I frequently used in teaching classes on the Communion and its spiritual significance.

My confession is that I never really read the accounts carefully in John 6 and Matthew 26.

In John, the bystanders recoil at the suggestion they must eat His flesh. Now we can attribute this to their being unaccustomed to spiritual truths and took things too literally. But if the intent all along was merely to use a metaphor, it seems that Jesus would have corrected their misapprehension by saying something like, “he who has an ear,” which is typical when He’s conveying something that isn’t to be taken literally. It would also completely forestal the way the Eucharist was set up and promulgated by the apostles, who never mentioned it as a metaphor or that partaking of Christ is to symbolize fully trusting in Him.

It could be ventured that this was a misunderstanding of a church already going astray with human imperfections of spiritual truths, but I don’t believe this could be carried successfully regarding the men who were closest to Him and would not be likely to steer the ship this early astray.

The other observation I have is that your analogy of how the car “ate up the miles” wouldn’t have a counterpart with the blood. We don’t have a metaphor like this for blood.

For me, as a Protestant, my take away from this is not to go as far as transubstantiation, but to not abandon the idea of eating Christ either. At communion my prayer is to express to Christ my acknowledgment that in some way understood only in the Spirit and in Christ alone, this unleavened cracker is His body and I am eating Him in obedience to His command. Same with the wine as His blood.

My point is that I wish to concentrate on what was said in His command, and not re-think the elements as something that was not said, but which many churches bring to the meaning.

Mike

 

[Albion]

Why then does Vatican II clearly state that those who depend on Christ through faith alone, without works, are anathema, or condemned to hell? And those who don't believe in the effectiveness of Indulgences (paying money to get grandma out of purgatory) are to be condemned to hell as well? Surely that would exclude from salvation all Protestants who hold to faith alone in Christ and don't believe in Indulgences.

The RCC categorically denies that only Catholics will be saved. That was the question asked.

However, this does not mean that she thinks every non-Catholic is going to be saved.

 

[Albion]

Mrhagerty wrote:

You've intrigued me by the above conclusions. I'm not aware of written records that would prove that doctrines at issue were not conveyed down the ages. A written document to that effect would have to state that such doctrines are officially declared false. I honestly don't think there is anything of that sort.

What we do have as written records are the declarations of certain things believed at the time of the writing or claimed to be from the apostles, but they are of course missing the doctrines we are keen to substantiate. So, from my experience it is written documents that fail to mention these doctrines. But that wouldn't be an argument as I see it.

You need to consider documents that flatly contradict the doctrine that was later proclaimed. The doctrine of Papal Infallibility, for instance, was rejected by Popes themselves in earlier years, yet it was still claimed that this was a true doctrine by Sacred Tradition when it was made a dogma. It also split the Church, so contrary to tradition was this move, and that is a split which remains to this day.

When you say, "all of it is contrived, falsified, or merely theoretical" and
"the facts are otherwise" I must have missed where you dealt with that demonstration. (I'm not doubting you, I just haven't seen this part of the discussion)

I was stating the truth of the matter, and that seemed necessary after my posts were answered not with anything like a rebuttal but with a rehash of the Catholic Church's position statements. I had not been asking to know what the Catholic Church's view on any of this IS. I had been endeavoring to show you why "Sacred Tradition" is not what is claimed for it.

 

[PJ76]

I am a catholic convert. I was a protestant for most of my life until I converted to catholicism about 2 years ago. I get along with most of my protestant friends but I do avoid talking about religion with them. Although religiously we are different, as long as we as can respect each other, we can all get along.

 

[marineimaging]

Correct. We can't say who is going to hell and who isn't. Only God has that right. We can say that a certain church believes such and such, but we can't say "you" are either Christian or not. Even Paul had to repent when he told the Jewish Chief Priest after being slapped by him, called him a hypocrite ("a whited wall") and that God would strike him. When someone told him that it was the Chief Priest, Paul apologised saying that he did not know it was the Chief Priest. So we have to be careful when we are tempted to kick individuals instead of "the ball".

In an effort to stay within the scope of the OP's objective I have been reading the comments in that light yet I cannot help but offer a correction on this one point. I am in agreement up to the point of saying that Paul "repented". This has been a contention of some who are trying to discredit the Bible and I don't know how to inject this point otherwise. Ananias was a high priest at one time. Yes. And in that light there is no way that Paul would not have recognized his priestly robes and vest. However, Josephus the historian and a secular writer tells us that Ananias, the high priest, had been deposed. His successor had been murdered at which time Ananias had unlawfully taken the post again of high priest! So, when Paul says, Oh, high priest? I didn’t realize he was the high priest. Paul is not being contrite and he is certainly not repenting. When Paul says, “God will smite you, you whited wall! You sit there to judge me according to the law and command me to be smitten contrary to the law?” you have to remember that Paul knew his rights under the law, both as a Pharisee and as a Roman citizen AND he knew that Ananias was not the official high priest, but rather than force the issue further, to no good end, he stated the law and let it go.

 

[GaveMeJoy]

Oscarr said:


What you say here is an excellent representation of the Protestant view common to many denominations. It is one I frequently used in teaching classes on the Communion and its spiritual significance.

My confession is that I never really read the accounts carefully in John 6 and Matthew 26.

In John, the bystanders recoil at the suggestion they must eat His flesh. Now we can attribute this to their being unaccustomed to spiritual truths and took things too literally. But if the intent all along was merely to use a metaphor, it seems that Jesus would have corrected their misapprehension by saying something like, “he who has an ear,” which is typical when He’s conveying something that isn’t to be taken literally. It would also completely forestal the way the Eucharist was set up and promulgated by the apostles, who never mentioned it as a metaphor or that partaking of Christ is to symbolize fully trusting in Him.

It could be ventured that this was a misunderstanding of a church already going astray with human imperfections of spiritual truths, but I don’t believe this could be carried successfully regarding the men who were closest to Him and would not be likely to steer the ship this early astray.

The other observation I have is that your analogy of how the car “ate up the miles” wouldn’t have a counterpart with the blood. We don’t have a metaphor like this for blood.

For me, as a Protestant, my take away from this is not to go as far as transubstantiation, but to not abandon the idea of eating Christ either. At communion my prayer is to express to Christ my acknowledgment that in some way understood only in the Spirit and in Christ alone, this unleavened cracker is His body and I am eating Him in obedience to His command. Same with the wine as His blood.

My point is that I wish to concentrate on what was said in His command, and not re-think the elements as something that was not said, but which many churches bring to the meaning.

Mike

It reads as an obvious metaphor to me, and the obsession with transubstantiation by the RC and orthodox is morbid and comes off like cannibalism to the unbelievers...

 

[GaveMeJoy]

Kick the ball and not the other players. Using "you" messages to discredit someone who contributes a post you don't agree with merely weakens your position.

orthodox are good kickers

 

[GaveMeJoy]

If that was a call to support my observations, I have the following:

McKenzie, John L., S.J. The Roman Catholic Church
McBrien, R. Catholicism
Vidmar, J The Catholic Church Through the Ages
Congar, Yves O.P The Meaning of Tradition
Q&A with celebrated Catholic apologist Patrick Madrid

My personal experience with Trads in an online forum, 2005-2007.

No I mean you speak the truth!!!!

 

[Albion]

I am a catholic convert. I was a protestant for most of my life until I converted to catholicism about 2 years ago. I get along with most of my protestant friends but I do avoid talking about religion with them. Although religiously we are different, as we as can respect each other, we can all get along.

Hello, pastor johnny. Your message--and that of zoidar a few posts ago--make a strong case for fellowship and mutual respect to exist between Catholics and Protestants. That may be the most that can be achieved in our lifetimes, I'm thinking.

The hope of reaching any compromise on the doctrinal differences which we all are aware of (and which have been featured in many of these posts) is probably not realistic, though. Still, maybe it is the case that getting "half a loaf" is worth our effort right now.

 

[mrhagerty]

Mrhagerty wrote:

You need to consider documents that flatly contradict the doctrine that was later proclaimed. The doctrine of Papal Infallibility, for instance, was rejected by Popes themselves in earlier years, yet it was still claimed that this was a true doctrine when it was made a dogma. It also split the Church, so outrageous was this move, and that split remains to this day.

I was stating the situation in response to you constantly referring me back to Roman Catholic legend or publications...rather than to anything that stands on its own; and as though we were seeking to find out what the Catholic position on these matters IS, rather than whether "Sacred Tradition" is truly what is claimed for it.

I'm sorry if I've been many times pointing you back to Catholic legend. My intent was to say that the Catholic depends on a faith claim that substantiates these doctrines, and a lack of documents isn't a problem. I'm in no way posing that as a comeback to your observations or a suggestion that they have a defensible rationale.

My engaging you was on your claim that there are facts that say otherwise to the Catholic claims. Not having sufficient reasons to join Catholics in their extra-biblical beliefs isn't the same as having facts at hand that show they are false.

You mention popes who rejected infallability. This is only true of some popes. Others embraced it readily. And the leadership of the Vatican doesn't take the opinions of individual popes solely as necessity to change the teaching of the Church. Besides, the Church learned that subsequent popes re-confirmed what the teaching authority was hesitant to immediately change.

But let's take Purgatory. Do you have a reference within the Catholic Church that "flatly contradicted" what later became approved doctrine - and supports the supposition that the Church is responsible for having known of its falsity.

 

[Albion]

I'm sorry if I've been many times pointing you back to Catholic legend. My intent was to say that the Catholic depends on a faith claim that substantiates these doctrines,...

Except that it doesn't.

You mention popes who rejected infallability. This is only true of some popes.

Well, then that refutes the theory of Sacred Tradition right there! If there is no continuity, it cannot be traditional. And here is a case in which there is not only no continuity with some idea of Papal Infallibility but we agree that the facts of history clearly rebut the notion.

And the leadership of the Vatican doesn't take the opinions of individual popes solely as necessity to change the teaching of the Church. Besides, the Church learned that subsequent popes re-confirmed what the teaching authority was hesitant to immediately change.

All you are doing there is confirming the fact that there was no "tradition." Intermittent claims back and forth, pro but then con, does not show that there is anything like the hand of God keeping the "revelation" of an infallible Papacy as part of the body of faith alive from the beginning of the church until it was formalized in the late 19th century.

But let's take Purgatory. Do you have a reference within the Catholic Church that "flatly contradicted" what was later became of approved doctrine - and supports the supposition that the Church is responsible for having known of its falsity.

In this case, "flatly contradicted" is less obvious than the example of Papal Infallibility. However, that doesn't mean that any tradition has been established or ever existed! Purgatory was enunciated in the very late Middle Ages and is a complicated doctrine. Almost none of it has any basis in earlier church teachings or Scripture. Even today, the best that Catholic defenders of the idea (and they are getting to be quite scarce) can do is point to the word "fire," a misinterpretation of a verse in Second Maccabees--a deutero-canonical book, and several other items indicating that transgressions must be paid for. Out of that bare bones of a concept an elaborate system of punishments, exemptions, definitions, and the like were assembled by the church and called "Purgatory."

Now the prevailing attitude in the church is that most of that isn't really true, but having defined the place at a church council, the Catholic Church cannot just repeal it as she did with Limbo, so it's being relegated to an unofficial death.

 

[PJ76]

Hello, pastor johnny. Your message--and that of zoidar a few posts ago--make a strong case for fellowship and mutual respect to exist between Catholics and Protestants. That may be the most that can be achieved in our lifetimes, I'm thinking.

Amen. If this was twitter, I would retweet you post.

 

[GodLovesCats]

One constant of human nature, is something called Confirmation Bias. Humans tend to believe whatever their side, or position is right and we often tend to confirm that unconscionably with how we carry out our life. Anyway the Catholics are only doing what is natural to people in general, believing in their theology, interpretation of scripture etc. I don't think we can fault them for that.

We can fault them for doing what is completely unbiblical and therefore anti-Christ. If you practice what it specifically teaches us not to every week (praying to and worshiping Mary, who we all know is not God or superior to Him in any way) is being an anti-Christ. The Bible is clear we are to worship and pray to Jesus Himself, not his mother or any other saint, and the Father who sent Him, not the mother expecting Jesus.

 

[ViaCrucis]

So you believe that Baptists, thinking the blood and body are symbolic, is a deal breaker? And therefore, do you believe Baptists cannot be saved?

I have no doubt that Baptists are saved and are Christians. The issue isn't about who is or isn't saved, or who is or isn't a Christian. I was presenting what I consider to be a matter of supreme importance. Disagreement over whether or not the Eucharist is truly the flesh and blood of Christ or not isn't a small, minor issue.

Some Baptists believe that about Catholics, because they call priests father ..."callest no man father..." and the statues, which they consider to be ildols, etc.
I consider these all to be debatable points, not deal breakers. I believe God accepts those who repent, and believe on the name of His son, and believe in his sacrifice.
I believe God is Higher than these squables between men.
And maybe God is going to even save people out of hell too, one day...
"In the dispensation of the fulness of times, to re-establish all things in Christ, that are in heaven and on earth."
Ephesians 1:10
But I am not sure of that last part; just that many scriptures seem to imply it.

The question isn't who is or isn't saved. But rather communion with one another as Christians. When I approach the altar and receive the bread and wine of the Most Holy Eucharist, and the pastor says, "The body of Christ broken for you" and "the blood of Christ shed for you" It's not just ceremony. This is Jesus Christ, living and incarnate, Himself literally present. If it isn't Jesus, then that's a problem. In fact, if it isn't Jesus, then I'm an idolator.

We can agree to disagree, recognize one another as fellow Christians. Baptists are my brothers and sisters, they are fellow Christians, they are redeemed and saved by the work of Christ and the grace of God. That's not the issue. The issue is when we meet together and I receive the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ in and under the bread and wine and the Baptist says it is only a symbolic ceremony. The difference is I'm confessing it to be one thing, in fact I'm saying this: Here is Jesus Christ, here is my salvation, here is His flesh which was pierced on the cross, and the blood which washes away all my sins. That's what I'm confessing when I go up to the altar. If my brother is confessing something else entirely when he receives the elements, then we aren't confessing together, and thus even if we are physically in the same place, our communion is broken.

That's a very tragic truth that I think we need to take seriously. And it's not something that can be glossed over.

-CryptoLutheran