Are Protestants dead?

[ChurchMilitant]

The apostolic tradition in the 2nd century was communicated as the rule of faith which later became the Creed.

We know the apostolic tradition because the early fathers pointed to them in Holy Scriptures. As Irenaeus said the apostles once taught in public and later wrote them down and he identifies the writings as Holy Scriptures "the ground and pillar of our faith."
CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, III.1 (St. Irenaeus)

Church tradition is a term that is thrown around a lot but never defined. What are these traditions the apostles forgot to write down that were secretly passed from bishop to bishop? Irenaeus is clear throughout his Against Heresies there are no secrets or hidden traditions as the Gnostics held. He clearly called tradition the rule of faith which again is the Creed and one finds such in Holy Scriptures.

That covers the major doctrines of the faith. Now if you are arguing ecclesial traditions that may be even more tenuous. For example, did you stand for the entire Mass on Easter Sunday? I'm sure the answer is no because I know so as well. Most Eastern Orthodox do because Tertullian stated that doing so was received by the apostolic Sees. So there is a conflict.

Another is we celebrated Easter on 1 April. But the EOs do so on 8 April. Apparently someone received this non written tradition correctly and some did not.

So we have to be precise when someone pops the word "Tradition" because their are various kinds from faith doctrinal statements to whether or not leavened (Orthodox) or unleavened bread (Roman Catholic) are used for the Eucharist.

Why do the Eastern churches continue the blessed antidoron and the Roman Catholic church does not?

How did such a central doctrine of purgatory for the West not develop in the East?

Catholic sacred tradition does not allow priests to marry yet the Eastern churches do.

Who is faithfully adhering to the traditions received?

Maybe I can help arbitrate by using the Bible.

Even if the traditions between the Orthodox and the Catholic Church have split even before pre-schism, there are more closer to apostolic tradition than anyone who can be classified in the main stream definition of a Protestant.

We know from sacred tradition that intercession of saints is fine, which is affirmed in sacred scripture. We also know that the Eucharist is a sacrament that was done in the Early Church, and instituted by Christ himself.We know that Easter Sunday was celebrated in the Early Church. We know that the structure of bishop comes from the Apostles themselves, and so is apostolic succession. We most importantly know that the 3 solas were not believed by any of the Apostles. We know that tradition affirms Mary was the Mother of God.

So even though there are impotant differences, they aren't are as wide as you make them seem.

Also, to answer your some of your questions: Easter is celebrated in a different time because Eastern Orthodox have a different calendar than Roman Catholics and also have a different date.

 

[Strong in Him]

I started this thread as a spin off thread from another thread i have going. As i was discussing the Lords supper, I was told by Catholics that Protestants dont actually partake of the real Lords supper.

In 1 Corinthians 11, the Lord's supper seems to be just that - a meal/supper. Paul says that some of them were eating too much and others were getting drunk.
This seems to be quite different from what is observed in most churches, which is called either the Eucharist, Communion or Mass, and involves special liturgy and the whole congregation receiving a small piece of bread/wafer, and a small sip of wine/juice.
The reason for it, though, is still the same - "do this to remember me". We take bread and wine, which is the body and blood of Christ - Christ is the bread of life and the true vine - and remember that his body was broken and his blood shed so that we could be reconciled to God and find forgiveness and peace.

Anyone who has been reconciled to God through Christ and has received him as Lord and Saviour, has eternal life, is born again and a child of God.
So whether they receive communion by going to the communion table to receive bread/a wafer and wine/juice from a Minister/priest, whether they remain seated and the bread and wine is passed round so we minister to one another, or whether they have a full meal, which includes "breaking bread" together - they are obeying the Lord's instruction to "do this in remembrance of me". The form that the bread and wine takes doesn't matter; the Lord is the same and it is he who gives life through his Holy Spirit.

I'm not sure how you/the other person are/were defining "Lord's supper", but that's how I see it.

If this is true then doesnt that mean that protestants are dead, according to John 6:53?

No - it's not true and we're not dead.
At least, some may be; those who don't really know what it means to be a Christian and are not born again.
But I'm a Protestant, and I'm not dead.

 

[jamesbond007]

My point is this, even though people are unaware of it and do not intentionally set out to do it, whoever speaks contrary to the Truth is genuinely a deceiver and uttering falsehoods. We should not condemn them for it; rather, we should love them and gently try to coax them towards the Truth. But we also should not think that they do not speak lies.

From following the discussion, these are things that I would never bring up to my friends from childhood who are Catholic. I mean who am I to judge when I haven't walked in their shoes as an adult. I've been to my Catholic school reunion and we never discussed the differences. I only became Christian in 2012 because I moved to a different city. Then what I was taught opened my eyes to a different type of Christianity. I've been to many Catholic services and weddings and there is ceremony and an uplifting feeling. However, knowing what I know now I can't help but feel that there was some sort of deception that occurred. I don't know what happened in Jerusalem. Rome and other cities and towns exactly, but something seemed to have happened to change the teachings of the Apostles. Back in Peter's times, living in Rome was different from living in other parts of the empire. It was chaotic. Can we agree on that? Christianity came from Constantine and I think Constantinople. However, St. Peter and the apostles built many churches. I'm not sure who built the first church after Jesus' death. It could've been Peter, but I'm not sure which was the first true church. I'm not even sure where the first one was built. With all this confusion, several cities claimed to have the first true church. Yet, Peter said that there would be false teachers, "Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves.a wolf among sheep" Matthew 7:15 So, I can see that there would be disagreement.

 

[JIMINZ]

Catholics commemorate Our Lord by receiving His Body and Blood. That's the Eucharist.

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

I was under the impression that Catholics only receive the Host and not the Wine.

If this is true, you might as well get some Grape Juice as well, because your only receiving the Body not the Blood.

 

[jamesbond007]

I was under the impression that Catholics only receive the Host and not the Wine.

If this is true, you might as well get some Grape Juice as well, because your only receiving the Body not the Blood.

They receive the blood because the tablet is dipped in the wine after it is transformed or whatever the formal name is for it.

 

[JIMINZ]

They receive the blood because the tablet is dipped in the wine after it is transformed or whatever the formal name is for it.

.
Like I said, they do not receive the Wine at Communion, Jesus didn't give instructions on how to do something different with the Wine and have it come out as the same.

It's like they attempt to cover every possible base because nothing is as it seems to be.

 

[Blood Bought 1953]

You're welcome to remember it. Indeed, remembering it is an objectively good thing to do. By all means, remember it in your "Lord's Supper".

But your grape juice and crackers? That's not the Eucharist, friend.

If I had no grape juice or crackers , I’d use saliva and a crumb from the floor if I had to. It ain’t the elements—- it’s the remembrance.

 

[Eloy Craft]

That is basically what you have done when you erect a bloody statue at the front of the building, and dwell on that, forgetting that He actually personified LOVE for mankind and died that death, in a great part, so that we would also remember those He died for... (His 'Body') He doesn't need us to reenact an execution in our minds. He wants us to love one another, and thus...... "remember Him."

I agree, He unites with us in His Body and that He is Love personified and remembering those He died for.....I'm one of those, and that's why I want to know every suffering He experienced for me. If there is a pain that made His face grimace I want to feel it with Him. I don't want to miss a single bit of His agony for me. Every drop of His Precious Blood is worthy of devotion. This is where we find love so that we can love others. When it is said that God loved us first, the crucified Christ is that. The more I enter into His experience of suffering the more I understand how great His love is. The more I am humbled. The more I can grow into His. You are right He doesn't need us to reenact an execution in our minds. We need to. We need to always remember His agony in every detail so we can continue to plumb the depth of Our saviors love.

 

[JIMINZ]

But He said "This is my body". He didn't say "This represents" or "This is comparable to" or "This is a metaphor". He said "This IS my body."

.
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?

 

[Strong in Him]

Catholics commemorate Our Lord by receiving His Body and Blood. That's the Eucharist.

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

Well for a start, that's a generalisation. We have bread and non alcoholic wine. Others might even have real wine, I don't know. I have never been anywhere that has "crackers and grape juice."

For another thing, neither the bread/wafers and wine/juice that we take today, in a special service, received from the hands of an ordained Priest/Minister, is as it was in Scripture.
Jesus wanted to celebrate a final Passover meal with his friends before he died. The Passover meal included lamb, bread made without yeast, herbs, wine etc.
While they were eating, Jesus took bread and said "this is my body", and after supper he took the cup and said "this is my blood". I once went to hear a Messianic Jew explaining the Passover, and he said that the cup of wine that was drunk after the meal was known as the cup of suffering, (there are 5 cups of wine drunk at Passover, if I remember correctly.)

The early church broke bread together regularly - we are not told whether it was with or without yeast, and there is no mention of a "service" with one person presiding over the bread. In 1 Corinthians 11, the Lord's Supper is a meal, just as it was before Jesus died. Again, there is no mention of one person presiding over it - never mind the instruction that this one person has to be ordained. This latter practice is not Scriptural.
Yet today, we get hung up on the form of bread and wine that are used and insist that only an ordained person can preside over, and administer, this sacrament.

Jesus loves us, we are reconciled to, and called friends and children of, God, through Jesus who died for us. The whole of creation - including bread and wine - was made through Jesus, who himself is the Bread of Life and the True Vine.
Communion/the Eucharist/Mass is a celebration and commemoration of this; Jesus gave his life for us, reconciled us to God and gave his Holy Spirit who can live IN us. When we receive bread and wine, we can ask the Lord to live in us. When we are singing, meditating on our own, praying in a group, sitting on the bus/train, we can ask the Lord to come and live in us. When we say "grace" before a meal, we are asking the Lord to bless the food and bless it to our bodies. We may, if we are Christians, talk about our faith, the Scriptures, the Lord's death or Christian matters as we eat.
All this, to me, is just as much "communion" with the Lord as a formal service - as well as more in line with what was celebrated, and is taught, in Scripture.

And certainly the practice of an ordained Minster/Priest needing to preside over this sacrament to make it "valid", is not Scriptural. It is our Lord who validates, is the reason for, and is present in this meal/sacrament - not clergy.

 

[Eloy Craft]

The apostolic tradition in the 2nd century was communicated as the rule of faith which later became the Creed.

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

We know the apostolic tradition because the early fathers pointed to them in Holy Scriptures. As Irenaeus said the apostles once taught in public and later wrote them down and he identifies the writings as Holy Scriptures "the ground and pillar of our faith."

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.

Church tradition is a term that is thrown around a lot but never defined. What are these traditions the apostles forgot to write down that were secretly passed from bishop to bishop? Irenaeus is clear throughout his Against Heresies there are no secrets or hidden traditions as the Gnostics held. He clearly called tradition the rule of faith which again is the Creed and one finds such in Holy Scriptures.

You posted a great example above. Not a secret, not forgotten at all. The Creed is just words without the Apostolic Tradition that gives it life.

That covers the major doctrines of the faith. Now if you are arguing ecclesial traditions that may be even more tenuous. For example, did you stand for the entire Mass on Easter Sunday? I'm sure the answer is no because I know so as well. Most Eastern Orthodox do because Tertullian stated that doing so was received by the apostolic Sees. So there is a conflict.

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.

Another is we celebrated Easter on 1 April. But the EOs do so on 8 April. Apparently someone received this non written tradition correctly and some did not.

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

So we have to be precise when someone pops the word "Tradition" because their are various kinds from faith doctrinal statements to whether or not leavened (Orthodox) or unleavened bread (Roman Catholic) are used for the Eucharist.

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.

Why do the Eastern churches continue the blessed antidoron and the Roman Catholic church does not?

How did such a central doctrine of purgatory for the West not develop in the East?

Catholic sacred tradition does not allow priests to marry yet the Eastern churches do.

Who is faithfully adhering to the traditions received?

Maybe I can help arbitrate by using the Bible.

Our faith develops. The Orthodox do believe in a 'journey' to heaven it is an ancient and holy expression of truth. For Catholics, what was true in the past remains true. Catholics have developed deeper understanding ( according to us of course)of what has always been believed. The Orthodox like to keep things a mystery. Priests being celibate is a discipline not a doctrine. Little 't' so if it no longer fits..it can be shelved..Your last statement can be more precisely expressed. Who is receiving the faith Tradition adhere's to? Both Catholics and Orthodox do. The bible will be a useful guide indeed, after all it is the written expression of the same Tradition that together express the entire Word of God.

 

[Eloy Craft]

What more do you want?

Exactly. There was nothing more Jesus could say to communicate that the Bread He would give is really Him and is really food. If He meant it figuratively there would be more He could say to communicate the truth of what He meant. If He meant it physically, substantially, there is no more He could say. John's account bears this out. He would explain it to the Apostles in private otherwise. Jesus knew that the Resurrection was not included in their construct of reality at that time so there was nothing more He could say to them either. They did believe in the Word of their Lord though. They believed that what He said He could carry out..

 

[JoeP222w]

I started this thread as a spin off thread from another thread i have going. As i was discussing the Lords supper, I was told by Catholics that Protestants dont actually partake of the real Lords supper. If this is true then doesnt that mean that protestants are dead, according to John 6:53?

John 6:53 New King James Version (NKJV)
53 Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you.

Since Roman Catholics reject Sola Scriptura, they have no authority on matters of scripture.

No Protestants are not dead if they are in Christ. The Catholics you have been talking with are believing a lie.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Catholic sacred tradition does not allow priests to marry yet the Eastern churches do

??? 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.

 

[thecolorsblend]

I was under the impression that Catholics only receive the Host and not the Wine.

If this is true, you might as well get some Grape Juice as well, because your only receiving the Body not the Blood.

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.

 

[Rubiks]

They receive the blood because the tablet is dipped in the wine after it is transformed or whatever the formal name is for it.

Which demonstratably doesn't happen.

 

[W2L]

This topic is not based on theology let's be honest, it is based on dogma.

Whats the difference between them?

 

[Randy777]

I started this thread as a spin off thread from another thread i have going. As i was discussing the Lords supper, I was told by Catholics that Protestants dont actually partake of the real Lords supper. If this is true then doesnt that mean that protestants are dead, according to John 6:53?

John 6:53 New King James Version (NKJV)
53 Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you.

Metaphors Jesus used. - we are sanctified by faith in Jesus. We are not dead. We also have the Spirit of Christ in us as a witness we belong to Jesus. The Fathers promise the gift of God.
Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty.

Jesus answered her, "If you knew the gift of God and who it is that asks you for a drink, you would have asked him and he would have given you living water."

 

[W2L]

How was your bible made? How do you know which scripture is inspired or not?

When it comes to the New Testament Cannon, it was fully established between the 300s and the 400s. This was during a time when there is clear evidence of bishops existing, and the structure being similar to how the Catholic Church currently is.

Also, since Saint Peter affirms the Church is the New Israel, the Old Israelites also had their bibical traditions, and traditions they used outside their Bible in the Judaic faith to go along with it. It isn't separate from Christianity

Lastly speaking, the men that were trained from the Apostles themselves affirm what the Church has taught.

God tells me what is truth. Thatsv how i know.

 

[Ken Rank]

I started this thread as a spin off thread from another thread i have going. As i was discussing the Lords supper, I was told by Catholics that Protestants dont actually partake of the real Lords supper. If this is true then doesnt that mean that protestants are dead, according to John 6:53?

John 6:53 New King James Version (NKJV)
53 Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you.

When Yeshua held up the bread he said "this is my body." It wasn't literally his body, it was a part of his body that was holding up the bread. Same with the blood... it was wine, we know it was wine. He also said to "do this as a memorial." Now, the Catholics took him literally and the Protestants did not but BOTH are doing it as they understand it... as they are convicted in their hearts. Since none have been perfected, ALL will be corrected... for anyone to take this doctrine and use it to determine the eternal life of another is doing what the Apostle Paul said not to... "judge unto condemnation." We need to do better than this, all of us!