Are Protestants dead?

[redleghunter]

Well, not really. The Apostolic Tradition formulated the creed to unify the faithfull. The
Apostolic Tradition didn't end there it kept marching on.

Then define the apostolic tradition.

Do you believe that on the authority of the Scriptures or the authority of Irenaeus? Here we have the authority of the Apostolic Tradition ( Irenaeus ) teaching about the authority of Scriptures. Irenaeus here is the Apostolic Tradition marching on.

It is clear Irenaeus recognized the Holy Scriptures as Holy Spirit inspired through the Prophets and apostles.

My friend you missed the most major doctrine about Apostolic Tradition. That the Word of God expressed by the Apostles is passed down to others chosen by them, invested with the Holy Spirit by them, to continue expressing the Word of God by keeping the teaching ( by the power of the Holy Spirit) handed down by Apostolic Tradition.

Indeed. Now what are these traditions of apostolic origin which are not written in Sacred Scriptures?

Our faith is developmental. The big 'T' tradition is to mark a time most fitting and celebrate the resurrection.

I fully understand Cardinal Newman's Doctrinal Development theology from the 19th Century (required reading in Jesuit university). It was shortly after that that your magisterium started to 'remember' traditions long forgotten.

Yes little 't' stuff. There are even differences between European Catholics and American Catholic. Little 't' stuff is meant to fit times or circumstances and are as changeable as those times and circumstances. These little 't' traditions were put above the big 'T' traditions by the Jews in Jesus' day. That's why He condemned them. They are properly ordered in the Catholic and Orthodox Church's.

Again what are the big "T" traditions not handed down in writing---Sacred Scriptures?

 

[sunlover1]

Then define the apostolic tradition.


It is clear Irenaeus recognized the Holy Scriptures as Holy Spirit inspired through the Prophets and apostles.


Indeed. Now what are these traditions of apostolic origin which are not written in Sacred Scriptures?


I fully understand Cardinal Newman's Doctrinal Development theology from the 19th Century (required reading in Jesuit university). It was shortly after that that your magisterium started to 'remember' traditions long forgotten.



Again what are the big "T" traditions not handed down in writing---Sacred Scriptures?

And there is no answer, there never is and never will there be.
So why then, if it can't be answered, would men continue to defend it?
There's only one explanation imo.
They can't "see" it.

 

[ChurchMilitant]

Endless doctrines and terms of men to try and impress people : how about some simple scripture : terminology of men does not impress me : you are trying too hard !

This "doctrines" come from God, and His Holy Church. Sacred tradition is always inspired from the Holy Spirit.

 

[redleghunter]

??? Celibacy is a discipline for most Roman Catholic clergy. But the Eastern Catholic clergy are allowed to marry. Even some Roman Catholic clergy can marry. The Church could change that policy tomorrow without contradicting any of her teachings since it’s a matter of policy rather than doctrine.

Thanks. I was pointing out not all traditions are alike. I was mainly trying to divide what seem to be regional differences from what others are called big "T" traditions. Your clarification helps with that regard.

 

[redleghunter]

Prior to the liturgical reforms of the 60’s, it was common for the laity to receive only the host. That liturgical practice changed though.

It’s kind of irrelevant though since both elements are equally the Body and Blood so you’re not gaining anything by drinking the wine and you’re not losing anything by not having it.

The traditional Latin Mass which I attend when possible will offer only the consecrated bread.

Yet the apostolic tradition we see in 1 Corinthians 11 is both the bread and cup which all were to partake of. I guess the reforms in the 60s brought this more in line. Yet when I was confirmed the deacons still refused the cup because I was underage. Guess they thought it was still wine.

 

[redleghunter]

Which demonstratably doesn't happen.

That's a good point but explained via medieval metaphysics as the elements are 'transubstantiated' and not physically visible. The elements have changed metaphysically but not to the human senses.

Unlike the miracles of Christ of course. Every miracle of Christ people saw supernatural change. A leper was healed immediately, the water changed to wine, the lame had deformed limbs become straight and whole. But the bread and wine? Just trust us.

 

[redleghunter]

Metaphors Jesus used.

Yes, I would add He used direct metaphors quite often. Especially in John chapter 4 at the Samaritan well.

 

[Monk Brendan]

Protestants partake in the lord's supper just as much as any other denomination. I'm not sure your catholic friends got that information.

Because we are taught both inside the Catholic Churches and Sunday School that Protestants have a different understanding of the "Lord's Supper."

The whole idea is that Catholics actually believe that the bread and wine become the actual true Body and Blood of Christ. MOST Protestants do not have the same belief.

 

[JIMINZ]

If a person was taught by those in Authority over him, the sky was (RED) up was (DOWN) and 2 was (5), would he then not believe what he had been taught was in fact truth, if all he had to go by, was a trust in those in Authority over him, would he ever question it, would he not defend it as truth, based solely on who had originally taught him?

 

[JIMINZ]

Protestants just commemorate by drinking grape juice and eating crackers. That's not the Eucharist.

.
The Drinking of Grape Juice is perfectly acceptable, owing to the fact, it is the "Fruit of the Vine", it does not need to be fermented in order for it to be a true representation of the Blood of Christ.

The Bread which was eaten at the Last Supper was Unleavened Bread, (Matsa), the Protestants unsalted cracker is Unleavened Bread also,....... not a Wafer.

Lastly, the use of the word Eucharist in relation to Communion, only makes it seem to be more Holy in the minds of those using the word.

 

[GingerBeer]

If you want to believe eating the bread is spiritually nourishing, go ahead. What of people who do this week after week but don't read the Bible or pray?

What people would those be - these ones that you say receive communion week after week and don't read the bible?

 

[The Times]

God is Spirit.

We need to observe the Lord's Supper from a spiritual point of view.

I see mistakes being made on all sides, without me needing to take sides in this regard.

Mistake number 1:

The Lord's Supper does NOT nourish our flesh, rather it nourishes us spiritually and is a commemorative act of what Jesus said.....

You in me and I in you.

Mistake number 2:

No human priest can enter the Holy of Holies to do the one time sacrifice. Jesus our High Priest did it, once and for all.

Mistake number 3:

The Lord's Supper need not be commemorated once a week. You should know better.

Mistake number 4:

The Lord's Supper is dispensed by a priest. Although true, it is not dispensed in terms of authoring of the spiritual act. The act is of the Holy Spirit within the gathered body. After all it is his spiritual presence. It does not mean physical presence as pertaining to flesh and blood being offered multipe number of times by human authorship.

There are another three mistakes, but those interested can fill them in.

 

[mindlight]

Actually not, so you might want to look into the difference when you have a moment.

Anglicanism is obviously a broad church including high church anglo catholics who believe in the corporeal presence,albeit more mysterious than the Roman Catholics say, and low church Anglicans like myself who believe in a pneumatic presence,connected to by faith, which is very similar to Calvin’s view. But I have also heard Anglican vicars present it as a memorial with empty symbols
So not sure there is a definite Anglican position today. In the beginning it was between the RC and Calvinist viewpoints.

My understanding is that, because I believe, the Spirit connects me to the reality of Jesus, when I take the bread and wine. So I need to repent of all sins before communion,lest I mess up the connection with the love relationship of the Trinity, which communion grants access to.

The point was really that most Anglicans and Calvinists also hold to a version of real presence.

 

[Ronald]

What people would those be - these ones that you say receive communion week after week and don't read the bible?

Well, it was a common perspective of Protestants, thinking Catholics did not study their bible much. And then there are the apparent empty repetitious prayers that contain no personal communication to God. You confess your sins with the Priest and he tells you to say 10 Our Fathers and 5 Hail Mary's.
I know many in my family ( all Italian Catholics) that cannot discuss basic doctrines in the faith.
I started in the Catholic church at 8 years old. The service was in Latin and so I didn't know what was going on. I went to Catechism weekly. I had my Communion and Confirmation by 11 years old and knew very little. It didn't stick with me. It wasn't a real transformation. I stopped going to church shortly after.
Not until I was 35 years old did I truly come to Christ. God orchestrated the events and people who came into my life to witness to me and invite me to Church. I was ready and open. That was 27 years ago.
I can tell you, my sweet lovely great aunt who was a Catholic all her life couldn't discuss theology in any depth. She said once to my Mom, "I hope he's not one of those "born again" Christians." She was ignorant to John 3:3, a basic doctrine - the spiritual birth of a Christian. That was the only unsweet thing she ever said.

 

[The Times]

Cognate: 364 anámnēsis (from 363/anamimnḗskō, "bring to mind") – properly, deliberate recollection, done to better appreciate the effects (intended results) of what happened; active, self-prompted recollection especially as a memorial (memorial sacrifice).

Comes from the word cognition.....

Cognition
relating to cognition; concerned with the act or process of knowing, perceiving what happened.

It is in remembrance of what Christ Jesus did for all of us, that is in memory of his act of selfless love.

Can anyone repeat this literally on the altar of God?

It is a done deal, never to be repeated again by anyone. As Jesus said, "It is finished".

To think to reinact the done deal, within a spiritual context is one thing, but to claim to actually act it out, in the present tense, is the wilful act to remove the done deal, that is the one time daily sacrifice, sufficient for all our numbered days from the Cross until his brilliant return, by replacing it with something else.

 

[Christie insb]

^^^ This ^^^

They are not all the same and have different views on this topic.

Yes. My mother is in a Missouri Synod Lutheran church. They have closed communion but the pastor allowed me to participate when he came to give it to her at home. Later I was looking into it and found that they believe that they receive the real body and shed blood of Christ. I thought this was exclusively a Catholic belief, but apparently not. Now all Catholics and LCMS people should tell me why I am wrong about my understanding of their beliefs. I have sacramental view of Communion but this is not my view.

 

[hedrick]

Yes. My mother is in a Missouri Synod Lutheran church. They have closed communion but the pastor allowed me to participate when he came to give it to her at home. Later I was looking into it and found that they believe that they receive the real body and shed blood of Christ. I thought this was exclusively a Catholic belief, but apparently not. Now all Catholics and LCMS people should tell me why I am wrong about my understanding of their beliefs. I have sacramental view of Communion but this is not my view.

No, the real presence is held by a number of Protestants. The unique Catholic belief is the real absence, i.e. that the elements not only become Christ's body and blood but stop being bread and wine. I've always suspected that the difference is more in metaphysical terminology than reality (at least with Lutherans, Anglicans, and probably Reformed).

 

[W2L]

.
Does this mean, because John didn't say this is going to be an Epistle of Metaphors, when he wrote The Revelation, that we should take it literally as well?

Good point.

 

[W2L]

I see many critical comments on this thread.

I ask everyone, esp. the OP, is your real intention to glorify God? Is your conversation doing this?

Blessings!!

You are right to be concerned. Thank you.

 

[W2L]

Hmm.... just thinking.

I always get slammed for being of the "sola scriptura" camp and taking the bible as my source for truth above any other..... especially by RC's.

Now, I am being told that I am dead.... due to "sola scriptura"?

I hold the bible as the truth as well.