catholics, i am a protestant, i want to hear you

☦Marius☦ said:

I wasn't saying all, just that it is only within Protestant /evangelical churches.

Click to expand...

Maybe the problem is that "Protestant" and "evangelical" are not interchangeable terms.

Anto9us said:

I believe in a Real Presence, but have no explanation for it. Transubstanstian confuses me.

Click to expand...

Transubstantiation is an explanation of the Real Presence done within an Aristotelian philosophical framework. If you do not see the world in an Aristotelian framework then quite naturally an Aristotelian term like 'transubstantiation' will make no sense to you.

It comes down to what one actually means by 'Real Presence' and your meaning may be different than mine. But how would we know without finding a common theological language to discuss it, relying on a common philosophical language where things have meaning to both of us. The Aristotelian philosophical framework did that for many people for a long time. But few people are consciously Aristotelian any more, having replaced that philosophical framework with something else, either conscious or unconscious. So we find it difficult to understand each other, becoming a bit incomprehensible to each other. At least when we were all Aristotelian we could have a clue what we were talking about. Now who knows. Things are confusing.

I was never Aristotelian.

Anto9us said:

I was never Aristotelian.

Click to expand...

It's true that Aristotle was on a pedestal during the high Middle Ages when the Eucharistic doctrine called Transubstantiation was ordered. The irony is, however, that that the (Catholic) doctrine is the inverse of what Aristotle had claimed is true about appearances and substance. In other words, what happens at Mass is a miracle because it defies Aristotle! Most moderns would consider that to be astonishing if they only knew.

This might help;

Eucharist and Christ's Real Presence

The Real Presence

Fathers of the Church on the Eucharist

I agree on the languistic confusion. Before joining CF, I had never heard of the Eucharist. Conversely, not one Catholic CF poster uses the word Communion as far as I can tell. I feel weird saying Communion here even though literally every church member I knew offline calls it that.

ChristianForCats said:

I agree on the languistic confusion. Before joining CF, I had never heard of the Eucharist. Conversely, not one Catholic CF poster uses the word Communion as far as I can tell. I feel weird saying Communion here even though literally every church member I knew offline calls it that.

Click to expand...

The word Eucharist appears often in the early Church Fathers. It is even in the New Testament, though in the original Greek.

Eucharist - Wikipedia

What is the Holy Eucharist? | EWTN

https://taylormarshall.com/2011/04/is-word-eucharist-in-bible-saint-paul.html

lambofgod43985889 said:

i don't know why you do(or believe) these things, i would like to know how do you feel doing these works, and if you feel nearer to god working like this.

#purgatory
#rosary
#transubstantiation (the conversion of the substance of the Eucharistic elements into the body and blood of Christ at consecration, only the appearances of bread and wine still remaining)
#mary and the saints as mediators between god and me.
#baptism since child
#penance for sins
#pope vicar of christ, infallibility of the pope
#sacraments:
>initiation
baptism
confirmation
eucharit
restored order of initiation
>sacraments of healing
penance and reconciliation
anointing of the sick
>sacraments of service
holy orders
matrimony
#demonic possessions
#apocryphal books
#sign of the cross

Click to expand...

Here, you are focusing on Catholicism. The Nicene Creed eliminates most cults such as Jehovah's Witnesses (I handed a printed copy of this to the JW to explain my position and they stopped coming around). It also eliminated the Christian Scientists (Mary Baker Eddy) with their nice reading rooms. AFAIK, the Catholics still recite it at "mass" and are quite famous for reciting it, but am not sure what their position is on it today.

Nicene Creed originally did NOT have the filioque.

It is carved on steps of Vatican sans filioque.

The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father.

ChristianForCats said:

The mystery about baptism is doing it on children who are too young to understand Christianity and have faith, much less make a decision to follow Him.

Click to expand...

I really don't understand why this is a problem, apart from the silly idea of "believer's baptism", which is found nowhere in scripture.

The reality is that parents have authority over their children. The parents are the ones who make the promise on the infant's behalf during his baptism. When the child is older, he confirms the promise and takes it upon himself. So there does come a time when he assents to the promise and assumes responsibility for his own religious development.

jamesbond007 said:

Here, you are focusing on Catholicism. The Nicene Creed eliminates most cults such as Jehovah's Witnesses (I handed a printed copy of this to the JW to explain my position and they stopped coming around). It also eliminated the Christian Scientists (Mary Baker Eddy) with their nice reading rooms. AFAIK, the Catholics still recite it at "mass" and are quite famous for reciting it, but am not sure what their position is on it today.

Click to expand...

We believe in it.

After all, we're the ones who wrote it.

thecolorsblend said:

I really don't understand why this is a problem, apart from the silly idea of "believer's baptism", which is found nowhere in scripture.

The reality is that parents have authority over their children. The parents are the ones who make the promise on the infant's behalf during his baptism. When the child is older, he confirms the promise and takes it upon himself. So there does come a time when he assents to the promise and assumes responsibility for his own religious development.

Click to expand...

The problem is people who support infant baptism claim its purpose is to save people like that is how kids are saved. Meaning the baby is saved right then when water is poured on his head. Uh, no way, that does not affect the need to learn about Jesus and make a decision for himself.

thecolorsblend said:

I really don't understand why this is a problem, apart from the silly idea of "believer's baptism", which is found nowhere in scripture.

Click to expand...

Really? When in scripture are anyone but new believers baptized? It's either new believers or new believers and their families.

renniks said:

Really? When in scripture are anyone but new believers baptized? It's either new believers or new believers and their families.

Click to expand...

I also noticed Jesus and the apostles told people to send the Good News first, then baptize them. That is not an accident. The word order is consistent.

thecolorsblend said:

We believe in it.

After all, we're the ones who wrote it.

Click to expand...

Haha. No one created and wrote it. The creed is what was decided at the Council of Nicea which affirmed what the Bible stated.

ETA: Interesting that its opposition was a priest named Arius who didn't want Jesus included. It became Arianism which a form is taught by JW and Mormons today.

If therre is a sheet of paper with text, someone wrote it.

ChristianForCats said:

The problem is people who support infant baptism claim its purpose is to save people like that is how kids are saved. Meaning the baby is saved right then when water is poured on his head. Uh, no way, that does not affect the need to learn about Jesus and make a decision for himself.

Click to expand...

That is not the belief actually. The point of Baptizing Children originally was so that they could commune from infancy. For some reason the RCC decided to stop this practice and wait until the teens to start communing kids. In the EOC we still commune babies since we consider it to be the strength of the believers and is how we believe children are saved if they die. Baptism only rebirths and gives a child a new life within the Church. They still will have to have faith and live a Christian life once they can understand to be saved.

Baptism is required for a person to participate in the Holy Mysteries/sacraments. Better for a child to be brought up within these actively participating in my view. They can grow up going to confession and learn the gravity of communion early on.

ChristianForCats said:

Lutherans are Protestants. You must be thinking of Baptists and Pentecostals.

Click to expand...

Everyone seems to be taking this as I said all Protestants which I did not. I said it was only found within protestantism/evangelical spheres, not that all protestant and evangelical churches have the same practices. Since there are around 10,000 different evangelical denoms it would be ridiculous for me no make such a conclusion.

☦Marius☦ said:

Baptism only rebirths and gives a child a new life within the Church. They still will have to have faith and live a Christian life once they can understand to be saved.

Click to expand...

You just confirmed what I was taught Methodists believe. Rebirth is salvation.

ChristianForCats said:

You just confirmed what I was taught Methodists believe. Rebirth is salvation.

Click to expand...

How did you get that from those words? Where did I say that rebirth saves?