Know church history well but stay protestant

tz620q said:

I have to correct this. I feel you need to read the introductions to the books of the Bible. If your Bible does not have them, then buy a study Bible that does.

Click to expand...

Agreed! An atlas and concordance can be good additional resources. Seeing where various events happened gives the Scripture a better feel. Introductions and a concordance also explain the whats, whys and hows of things going on.

Even if you don't accept the books known as the Apocrypha or Deuterocanonicals as canonical, they do help set the scene for the NT. Maccabees helps explain the rise of Greece and what would become the Sadducees and Pharisees during the NT era.

Albion said:

The Catholic Church certainly does teach and believe the "how" of the matter.




Me:

You:
That's right. It's Real Presence but not Transubstantiation, just as was said in the previous post.

Click to expand...

No, it's something different. You don't believe that the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ. That's what we (Catholics) mean by the Real Presence. Transubstantiation is how they become the Body and Blood of Christ.

chad kincham said:

Paul said he was the apostle to the gentiles, Peter to the Jews.

Click to expand...

So what? Does that mean that Paul couldn't teach the Jews? I mean, he went to synagogues to preach to everyone there. Peter also preached to Gentiles.

This means their main focus was the groups God appointed them to minister to.

That’s why Peter is not once found in scripture in the gentile Roman church, but is found in the Jewish Christian church in Jerusalem, and explains why Paul wrote the book of Romans, instead of Peter.

Three years after Paul's conversion, when he went to see Peter for two weeks, he went to Jerusalem, not Rome. Galatians 1:18

Peter was not in Rome being pope, or in the RCC at all - as attested to by the Orthodox Church, Linus was the first Bishop/pope of the Roman church, and Peter never was.

Click to expand...

None of this means anything. Except that Peter was in Rome, was executed in Rome, therefore being an apostle in Rome. And the first bishop of Rome. The fact that Christianity was an illegal activity explains why Scripture never says Peter was in Rome. But history tells us otherwise, which is one reason we don't stand on the Bible alone.

chad kincham said:

transubstantiation does not occur, it’s unbiblical and would be a contradiction of scripture.

Click to expand...

Prove your assertion, please.

God has always strictly prohibited the drinking of the blood of the sacrifice in the OT, and those sacrifices were the foreshadow of Jesus being the sacrificial lamb for us.

Click to expand...

Yes. Human blood or animal blood, you're right. Jesus isn't only human.

And in the NT it’s made clear that the prohibition from drinking blood is still in effect.

Click to expand...

Right. Human blood.

Jesus clearly said at the last supper, to eat the bread and drink the wine as a remembrance of His sacrifice, making it a symbolic ceremony.

Click to expand...

Symbolic, yes. Symbolic doesn't just mean what we think it means today. It was a passover meal. The requirements of what a passover meal was is written in Exodus. One of the requirements was a whole lamb. There is no lamb at the Last Supper, except Jesus. Another requirement of the passover meal was that the eat the entire lamb. And this is what Jesus was saying. Remembrance (anamnesis) is not just people sitting around remembering what was done in the past.

Also Paul taught extensively on communion in his writing, and missing from his description of taking it, is a priest converting the elements to real flesh and blood before the ceremony - which is essential if transubstantiation were really an actual part of communion.

Click to expand...

Except for the part where he said that, if we eat the bread and drink the wine unworthily, we were damned. Why would eating 'just' bread and wine possibly damn us?

Dorothy Mae said:

Still they offer that.

Click to expand...

Nope. That's a misconception of what an indulgence is, and how you would obtain one.

Root of Jesse said:

No, it's something different. You don't believe that the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ.

Click to expand...

Yes, we do. It's built right into the wording of the liturgy.

That's what we (Catholics) mean by the Real Presence.

Click to expand...

I already pointed out that there are other versions of the Real Presence, and that Transubstantiation (which was created during the Middle Ages) was one variation.

tz620q said:

Paul wrote Romans before he was ever in Rome, as an introduction of himself to an already existing Christian church in Rome.

Click to expand...

Paul wrote to the gentile Roman Catholic Church, because he was the apostle to the gentiles, and Peter was the apostle to the circumcision (The Jews). Galatians 2:7-8

The Roman church is a gentile church Romans 1:13

Which is why Peter is found in the Jerusalem church in the NT, and why when Paul visited Peter for two weeks, he went to Jerusalem, not to Rome. Galatians 1:18

Peter wasn’t in Rome being a pope, and as apostle to the Jews, he would never have been part of the RCC.

Indeed the Orthodox Church says Linus was the first pope of Rome, and that Peter never was one.

Albion said:

Yes, we do. It's built right into the wording of the liturgy.


I already pointed out that there are other versions of the Real Presence, and that Transubstantiation (which was created during the Middle Ages) was one variation.

Click to expand...

Thats whats wrong. You think because a word was coined, thats when the doctrine was instituted, and nothing could be further than the truth. We gave a name to what happens every time. It, inadequately, defines what happens. I guess you think you can describe it better. I believe, honestly, that the act is indescribable, but it is what it is.

Root of Jesse said:

Thats whats wrong. You think because a word was coined, thats when the doctrine was instituted, and nothing could be further than the truth.

Click to expand...

You keep trying, but no, it's not about when "a word was coined" and no, Transubstantiation was not the belief of the early church. It also is nothing less than the belief that there is a total conversion of bread and wine into physical (as well as spiritual) flesh and blood. That very well suited the mindset of Medieval men in the age of magic and alchemy.

Albion said:

You keep trying, but no, it's not about when "a word was coined" and no, Transubstantiation was not the belief of the early church. It also is nothing less than the belief that there is a total conversion of bread and wine into physical (as well as spiritual) flesh and blood. That very well suited the mindset of Medieval men in the age of magic and alchemy.

Click to expand...

You keep trying. I never said Transubstantiation was the belief of the early Church. But the Real Presence WAS! AND IS. They didn't have a word for it, and came up with transubstantiation. Based on what you've presented, you say you believe in the Real Presence, and I won't ask what you mean by it. Your beef is with the term. Transubstantiation is the act of the elements becoming the Real Presence.
Your own authority, Britannica, says "Transubstantiation, in Christianity, the change by which the substance (though not the appearance) of the bread and wine in the Eucharist becomes Christ’s real presence—that is, his body and blood. In Roman Catholicism and some other Christian churches, the doctrine, which was first called transubstantiation in the 12th century, aims at safeguarding the literal truth of Christ’s presence while emphasizing the fact that there is no change in the empirical appearances of the bread and wine. " It is the process. The act. Real Presence is what the bread and wine becomes. And is the definition of the doctrine. So in Jeopardy, the clue would be "the process of bread and wine becoming the actual body and blood of Jesus in the Eucharist" "What is Transubstantiation."

Transubstantiation is a Scholastic term that attempts to explain how bread and wine can become the body and blood of the Lord without losing their exterior appearance. While the word was first used in the 11th century by Hildebert of Lavardin, the archbishop of Tours, it was at the Council of Trent (1545–1563) that it became authoritative church teaching.

The Council of Trent declared: “Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation.” (CCC 1376)

chad kincham said:

Paul wrote to the gentile Roman Catholic Church, because he was the apostle to the gentiles, and Peter was the apostle to the circumcision (The Jews). Galatians 2:7-8

The Roman church is a gentile church Romans 1:13

Click to expand...

If you view Rome as a completely gentile church, then Romans with all of its arguments for how Jews and Gentiles are justified makes no sense. Why would Paul write a letter to a completely gentile church and talk about Judaism at all? In truth, Rome was the oldest Jewish community in Europe and had a fairly large Jewish population. Some had come as emissaries from Judas Maccabee in 161 B.C. and stayed to start this community. In 63 B.C. many more were brought as slaves and later freed. The main tensions that Paul is writing to the Romans about is that in 49-50A.D. Claudius expelled the Jews from Rome, supposedly because of their association with Christos. They were soon allowed back into Rome; but this fractured the Roman Christian Church between the Jewish faction and the Gentile faction. Paul had heard of this exile from Priscilla and Aquila and reasoned that his letter could help heal this fracture.

At this time Peter was already in Rome, probably coming back to Rome with the returning Jews in 50-51 A.D. This would place him there for the 25 years that Eusebius states he was there, prior to his crucifixion. While some of these dates are open for debate, the thought that Peter stayed in Jerusalem can be shown false from the Bible alone, as we see Peter in Acts 10 in Joppa when he is given the vision to open the gospel to the Gentiles. Later we see Peter in Antioch, where history says he served as Bishop. If Peter had stayed in Jerusalem, where he was the leader of the Christian community right after Pentecost, why would we later see James as the leader of the Christian community there.

Remember this is the Church History forum, not the Bible alone forum. People here strive to study the history of the early church and that means going beyond the Bible alone. You are entitled to your opinion; but I don't think you will find many people who share it here.

Root of Jesse said:

You keep trying. I never said Transubstantiation was the belief of the early Church. But the Real Presence WAS! AND IS.

Click to expand...

The let's go with that. Your church believes in the Real Presence just as the Lutheran churches do and the Anglican churches do and the Orthodox do and a dozen other denominations. That's not the issue here.

They didn't have a word for it, and came up with transubstantiation.

Click to expand...

...which is NOT Real Presence but a particular twist on the belief in Real Presence that dates only to the Middle Ages. You started your reply by insisting that you never said that Transubstantiation dates to the early church, and whether not you did, the church and this teaching (Transubstantiation) clearly does not. So, that side issue is, hopefully, settled.

Transubstantiation is the act of the elements becoming the Real Presence.

Click to expand...

IN A PARTICULAR, SPECIFIC, WAY.

Your own authority, Britannica, says "Transubstantiation, in Christianity, the change by which the substance (though not the appearance) of the bread and wine in the Eucharist becomes Christ’s real presence—that is, his body and blood.

Click to expand...

I cannot imagine why the Brittanica is "my" authority LOL, but you can see right there in that wording you've relayed to us that that the substance changes and is something other than what our senses perceive.

Yes, that is the change over that makes Transubstantiation a version of Real Presence, but there are other churches that hold to the belief of the early church that Christ is truly present but which do not define the supposed mechanics of the matter or insist that the bread and wine CEASE TO EXIST.

Albion said:

The let's go with that. Your church believes in the Real Presence just as the Lutheran churches do and the Anglican churches do and the Orthodox do and a dozen other denominations. That's not the issue here.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure that's true, but ok. All you really say is that it's not Transubstantiation, but I don't believe you really define what it IS.

...which is NOT Real Presence but a particular twist on the belief in Real Presence that dates only to the Middle Ages. You started your reply by insisting that you never said that Transubstantiation dates to the early church, and whether not you did, the church and this teaching (Transubstantiation) clearly does not. So, that side issue is, hopefully, settled.

Click to expand...

Nope, Justin Martyr describes exactly what we believe. Which is Transubstantiation. What I've been trying to say is that the word, yes, was coined, actually in the 11th to give a term to what we believe happens.

IN A PARTICULAR, SPECIFIC, WAY.

Click to expand...

Yes, would you like the entire doctrine spelled out here?

I cannot imagine why the Brittanica is "my" authority LOL, but you can see right there in that wording you've relayed to us that that the substance changes and is something other than what our senses perceive.

Click to expand...

Well you are the only person I ever knew who quoted Brittanica to prove something you asserted. So it's only your authority when it suits you. LOL.
But yes, that's exactly right. The bread and wine become the Real Presence, Jesus' Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. And that, friend, is what the Church has believed forever.

Yes, that is the change over that makes Transubstantiation a version of Real Presence, but there are other churches that hold to the belief of the early church that Christ is truly present but which do not define the supposed mechanics of the matter or insist that the bread and wine CEASE TO EXIST.

Click to expand...

Well, anything else isn't "Real Presence," the way the Catholic Church believes it. It's your version of it. And I don't know how He could be "truly present" but not be?
Finally, for what it's worth, as I've stated over and over, "Transubstantiation" doesn't really describe anything very well. It's a mystery. I leave it up to God to how He does it. For me, it just IS. Justin Martyr (d. 165) wrote in his First Apology, "We do not consume the Eucharistic bread and wine as if it were ordinary food and drink, for we have been taught that as Jesus Christ our Savior became a man of flesh and blood by the power of the Word of God, so also the food that our flesh and blood assimilate of its nourishment becomes the flesh and blood of the incarnate Jesus by the power of His own words contained in the prayer of thanksgiving."
I don't really care what you believe, Albion. Just like you don't care what I believe. I'm pointing out facts. What I'm disputing is that it's something they thought up in the 12th century. This is clearly not the case. The Catholic Church has always believed that Jesus is really and substantially present in the Eucharist. They came up with a term for it in the 12th century. Words really can not describe many of the things we believe.

Root of Jesse said:

I'm not sure that's true, but ok. All you really say is that it's not Transubstantiation, but I don't believe you really define what it IS.

Click to expand...

Fair enough, but I have correctly described Transubstantiation. I'm sure that in the church's explanation, there is a lot that's added about the mystery of the sacrament and perhaps also references to the unbloody sacrifice of the Mass and so on. However, Transubstantiation does mean that a complete change of substance -- but not of the "accidents"-- occurs in which the physical and spiritual presence of Christ replaces, totally, the substances of bread and wine.

What I've been trying to say is that the word, yes, was coined, actually in the 11th to give a term to what we believe happens.

Click to expand...

Very well, but what I've been trying to explain is that the IDEA was also an innovation at about that point in church history, not just the word.

Well you are the only person I ever knew who quoted Brittanica to prove something you asserted. So it's only your authority when it suits you. LOL.

Click to expand...

The reason for citing the best known of the dictionaries was to show that the definition of Transubstantiation is not something that only a specialist in medieval philosophy could discern. It's rather straightforward, in fact, as finding an accurate definition in a popular dictionary shows us.

But yes, that's exactly right. The bread and wine become the Real Presence, Jesus' Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. And that, friend, is what the Church has believed forever.

Click to expand...

But that's to "become" and completely. In other words, to replace the elements of bread and wine with literal physical flesh and blood.

Well, anything else isn't "Real Presence,"

Click to expand...

Yes it/they are! That's the essence of Real Presence--that Christ becomes truly present.

What's not Real Presence and is believed instead by most Protestant churches is that the bread and wine remain bread and wine but symbolize Christ's body and blood.

Albion said:

Fair enough, but I have correctly described Transubstantiation. I'm sure that in the church's explanation, there is a lot that's added about the mystery of the sacrament and perhaps also references to the unbloody sacrifice of the Mass and so on. However, Transubstantiation does mean that a complete change of substance -- but not of the "accidents"-- occurs in which the physical and spiritual presence of Christ replaces, totally, the substances of bread and wine.


Very well, but what I've been trying to explain is that the IDEA was also an innovation at about that point in church history, not just the word.

Click to expand...

I know what you've been asserting, it's just wrong. See Justin Martyr.

The reason for citing the best known of the dictionaries was to show that the definition of Transubstantiation is not something that only a specialist in medieval philosophy could discern. It's rather straightforward, in fact, as finding an accurate definition in a popular dictionary shows us.


But that's to "become" and completely. In other words, to replace the elements of bread and wine with literal physical flesh and blood.


Yes it/they are! That's the essence of Real Presence--that Christ becomes truly present.

Click to expand...

How? We say Transubstantiation. You say "Well, we don't know how, but it's not Transubstantiation...

What's not Real Presence and is believed instead by most Protestant churches is that the bread and wine remain bread and wine but symbolize Christ's body and blood.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I know. Remember I was one, from Evangelical to Baptist to Presbyterian to Methodist. But Jesus didn't say it was a symbol. He said "This is my body...This is my blood."
Of course, you didn't comment a bit on Justin Martyr's quote that the Real Presence was believed before he died in 165...
Again, I'm not saying the word wasn't created, but it is a word created to describe what the Church always believed. Your opinions are yours, and valuable to you, but when you say that the doctrine didn't exist until the 12th century, that's a pure falsehood. Try fact-checking.

Root of Jesse said:

I know what you've been asserting, it's just wrong. See Justin Martyr.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but I don't consider Justin Martyr to be the 'last word' on doctrine and I'm pretty sure that the Roman Catholic Church doesn't either.

Root of Jesse said:

Again, I'm not saying the word wasn't created, but it is a word created to describe what the Church always believed.

Click to expand...

But the Church did not always believe that neo-Aristotelian metaphysics was the way to understand what happens in the Eucharist. We can demonstrate this easily by noting that the Orthodox, also, reject that framing of it.

"We don't know how," is exactly right. The Orthodox would say the same; it is a holy mystery. One that we cannot adequately explain or describe in terms of transubstantiation.

Albion said:

I'm sorry, but I don't consider Justin Martyr to be the 'last word' on doctrine and I'm pretty sure that the Roman Catholic Church doesn't either.

Click to expand...

And you know what the Catholic Church thinks...but we read Justin Martyr in Liturgy, so yes, he's not the last word, but one of the first...

Paidiske said:

But the Church did not always believe that neo-Aristotelian metaphysics was the way to understand what happens in the Eucharist. We can demonstrate this easily by noting that the Orthodox, also, reject that framing of it.

"We don't know how," is exactly right. The Orthodox would say the same; it is a holy mystery. One that we cannot adequately explain or describe in terms of transubstantiation.

Click to expand...

Reject the word, but not the mystery.