Protestant Denominational Differences (I want to hear from YOU!)

[bbbbbbb]

"Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be answerable for the body and blood of the Lord. Examine yourselves, and only then eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For all who eat and drink without discerning the body, eat and drink judgment against themselves."

There is precisely no reason to believe that Paul has in mind anything other than Christ's body based on the context of the passage.

I've come to expect hostility when defending basic orthodox Christian teaching. There's very little someone could say to me that I haven't already heard. I've been accuse of being a devil worshiper, a secret Vatican spy, a false Christian, an idolator, a servant of Satan.

Only if the two were in any way comparable. Did Jesus take a door and say, "This is Me"? If He didn't then there is a clear difference between Jesus saying, "I am the door" or "I am the vine". But at His Last Supper He took bread, broke it, and declared, "This is My body". He wasn't referring to bread, generically, but that specific bread; and concerning the cup said, "This is My blood", He wasn't referring to wine generically, but the cup of wine at that Supper. He took these things, handled them, and declared they were His flesh and blood.

When Christians took bread and wine together as the Sacrament of the Eucharist they considered Jesus' statement on this to be of such importance that they spoke of these as His body and blood.

The Church never declared doors to be Christ. The Church never declared vines to be Christ. But the Church has, for two thousand years, declared the bread and wine of the Eucharist to be the very body and blood of Christ.

I'm going to need a very good reason to believe that every Christian for the first 1,500 years was wrong, and the first Christian to be correct on this--ever--lived in the 16th century.

-CryptoLutheran

You are in good company. I have also had many labels applied to me including a Catholic priest and, yes, a Lutheran. I am sometimes amazed at the means by which people come to their conclusions regarding myself.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

"Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be answerable for the body and blood of the Lord. Examine yourselves, and only then eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For all who eat and drink without discerning the body, eat and drink judgment against themselves."

There is precisely no reason to believe that Paul has in mind anything other than Christ's body based on the context of the passage.



I've come to expect hostility when defending basic orthodox Christian teaching. There's very little someone could say to me that I haven't already heard. I've been accuse of being a devil worshiper, a secret Vatican spy, a false Christian, an idolator, a servant of Satan.



Only if the two were in any way comparable. Did Jesus take a door and say, "This is Me"? If He didn't then there is a clear difference between Jesus saying, "I am the door" or "I am the vine". But at His Last Supper He took bread, broke it, and declared, "This is My body". He wasn't referring to bread, generically, but that specific bread; and concerning the cup said, "This is My blood", He wasn't referring to wine generically, but the cup of wine at that Supper. He took these things, handled them, and declared they were His flesh and blood.

When Christians took bread and wine together as the Sacrament of the Eucharist they considered Jesus' statement on this to be of such importance that they spoke of these as His body and blood.

The Church never declared doors to be Christ. The Church never declared vines to be Christ. But the Church has, for two thousand years, declared the bread and wine of the Eucharist to be the very body and blood of Christ.

I'm going to need a very good reason to believe that every Christian for the first 1,500 years was wrong, and the first Christian to be correct on this--ever--lived in the 16th century.

-CryptoLutheran

Rarely have I ever heard the real presence expounded upon so well. You nailed it. Thank you.

Since this thread is about Protestant "differences", I would like to add that traditional Lutherans have strove to retain all that is good. Unlike much of what is considered "reformed or Protestant" believe that everything "Catholic" needs to be discarded, yet, much of what has been discarded by them is very Biblical; much more even is not only not prohibited by the Bible, but the foundations of all of the Historic Liturgies is Scripture itself. Our Lutheran faith practices, doctrines and dogmatics would best be described as Evangelical (Scripture based) Catholics. Such is why we retain the Mass, the other Sacraments and Sacramentals of the Early Church; these "are" Biblical!

 

[bbbbbbb]

Rarely have I ever heard the real presence expounded upon so well. You nailed it. Thank you.

Since this thread is about Protestant "differences", I would like to add that traditional Lutherans have strove to retain all that is good. Unlike much of what is considered "reformed or Protestant" believe that everything "Catholic" needs to be discarded, yet, much of what has been discarded by them is very Biblical; much more even is not only not prohibited by the Bible, but the foundations of all of the Historic Liturgies is Scripture itself. Our Lutheran faith practices, doctrines and dogmatics would best be described as Evangelical (Scripture based) Catholics. Such is why we retain the Mass, the other Sacraments and Sacramentals of the Early Church; these "are" Biblical!

Yes, I agree that it was a superlative explanation and, although I disagree with it, I am grateful for such a complete and well-written explanation.

 

[Tigger45]

Since this is a poll I nominate VC for president

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Since this is a poll I nominate VC for president

Sincerity is rare, I too would vote for our friend Crypto!

 

[Meowzltov]

Nowhere in the Bible does it state that Jesus is not a piece of wood with metal hardware attached. Thus, when He said, "I am the door. . ." we must take Him at His word and understand Him to mean that He is a piece of wood with metal fastenings. Note that He never said, "I am like the door. . ." but He said, "I am the door. . ."

You are mistaken. It teaches that he was born of the virgin Mary, thus making him a human being, not a piece of wood with metal hardware attached.

 

[bbbbbbb]

You are mistaken. It teaches that he was born of the virgin Mary, thus making him a human being, not a piece of wood with metal hardware attached.

I agree. Neither is He a piece of bread and some wine. He is a real human being, fully man and fully God.

 

[Meowzltov]

I agree. Neither is He a piece of bread and some wine. .

Of course he's not a piece of bread or some wine. I've never met anyone who says he is. I think you may be confused about Catholic theology. We don't teach that Christ becomes bread. We teach that the bread becomes Christ.

Futher, saying "He is a real human being, fully man and fully God" is quoting Catholic dogma verbatum.

 

[Meowzltov]

Perhaps I am confused, but my understanding is that when a priest takes a piece of bread, says the magic words, presto-bingo, it really and truly becomes the flesh of Jesus Christ (although, of course, it is only bread) and when he takes a cup of wine and says the magic words, it suddenly becomes really the truly the very blood of Jesus Christ, although, of course, it is actually just wine.

There is no of course about it. It's Jesus. It's only Jesus. There is no longer any bread or wine present. So let's not have any gobbledy gook about Catholics teaching that Jesus is bread an wine.

 

[bbbbbbb]

There is no of course about it. It's Jesus. It's only Jesus. There is no longer any bread or wine present. So let's not have any gobbledy gook about Catholics teaching that Jesus is bread an wine.

Gotcha. So, are you willing to take the "flesh" and have it analyzed in a scientific laboratory to determine that it actually human flesh and this "blood" and have it analyzed to determine that is actually human blood?

 

[Meowzltov]

Perhaps I am confused, but my understanding is that when a priest takes a piece of bread, says the magic words, presto-bingo, it really and truly becomes the flesh of Jesus Christ (although, of course, it is only bread) and when he takes a cup of wine and says the magic words, it suddenly becomes really the truly the very blood of Jesus Christ, although, of course, it is actually just wine.

The point is not what you think it is, but what the Catholic church teaches it is. The above in brackets is not Catholic teaching.

 

[Meowzltov]

Gotcha. So, are you willing to take the "flesh" and have it analyzed in a scientific laboratory to determine that it actually human flesh and this "blood" and have it analyzed to determine that is actually human blood?

The results won't help you, since the church teaches that it still has all the Accidents of bread and wine. You can even get drunk on it, but it is not wine.

 

[Meowzltov]

That is quite amazing. Getting drunk by drinking the blood of the Son of God, which is not wine and, it is inferred, has no alcoholic content.

But it still has all the Accidents of wine, even though it is not wine. It looks like wine, smells like wine, tastes like wine, feels like wine, and can make you drunk like wine.

You can read more on the Accidents of the Eucharist here:
https://ronconte.wordpress.com/2012/05/30/understanding-accidents-substance-and-the-eucharist/

 

[ViaCrucis]

Gotcha. So, are you willing to take the "flesh" and have it analyzed in a scientific laboratory to determine that it actually human flesh and this "blood" and have it analyzed to determine that is actually human blood?

This ignores what the Catholic teaching of Transubstantiation is. To understand this Roman Catholic understanding of the Real Presence requites a bit of understanding of Aristotelian philosophy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accident_(philosophy)

In short: If the Eucharistic elements were taken and placed under a microscope and every test applied to them, the RCC position is that every test would indicate that they are nothing more than ordinary bread and wine; because the accidents have remained unchanged, only the substance has changed. No Catholic, who understands their theology, would expect it any other way. And this isn't an ad hoc defense either, it is an intrinsic aspect of Transubstantiationism since the Scholastic period.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[bbbbbbb]

This ignores what the Catholic teaching of Transubstantiation is. To understand this Roman Catholic understanding of the Real Presence requites a bit of understanding of Aristotelian philosophy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accident_(philosophy)

In short: If the Eucharistic elements were taken and placed under a microscope and every test applied to them, the RCC position is that every test would indicate that they are nothing more than ordinary bread and wine; because the accidents have remained unchanged, only the substance has changed. No Catholic, who understands their theology, would expect it any other way. And this isn't an ad hoc defense either, it is an intrinsic aspect of Transubstantiationism since the Scholastic period.

-CryptoLutheran

Of course I do know this. The fact remains that this theology is far from biblical, but rests entirely upon the argument of one of a host of pagan Greek philosophers. Perhaps, one might take pause and consider the implications.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Of course I do know this. The fact remains that this theology is far from biblical, but rests entirely upon the argument of one of a host of pagan Greek philosophers. Perhaps, one might take pause and consider the implications.

But the doctrine of the Real Presence does not; it only rides on God's holy word, and faith; holy tradition only speaks to the fact the early Christians held the same interpretation of Scripture, and the same faith as those of us who continue in that tradition and that faith to this very day; and will to the last day.

 

[bbbbbbb]

But the doctrine of the Real Presence does not; it only rides on God's holy word, and faith; holy tradition only speaks to the fact the early Christians held the same interpretation of Scripture, and the same faith as those of us who continue in that tradition and that faith to this very day; and will to the last day.

However, it is readily admitted that the doctrine is not biblicly derived, but finds its source in Aristotelian philosophy. If the doctrine was as literal as some would see it, then there would be a genuine physical transformation of bread into human flesh and wine into human blood. However, as we all admit, the bread remains bread and the wine remains wine and whatever transformation takes place is within our own minds.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

However, it is readily admitted that the doctrine is not biblicly derived, but finds its source in Aristotelian philosophy. If the doctrine was as literal as some would see it, then there would be a genuine physical transformation of bread into human flesh and wine into human blood. However, as we all admit, the bread remains bread and the wine remains wine and whatever transformation takes place is within our own minds.

You are still talking "transubstantiation", I am not; I am talking only the real presence as Lutherans, many Anglicans and the Eastern Orthodox do. I agree that Transubstantiation is an explanation derived by the application of Aristotelian logic; which is unrelated to scripture. Scripture refers to it as both Bread and Wine and Body and Blood; that is all we know. Se see Bread and Wine, we taste bread and wine; we receive the body and blood of our Lord. We know this by both the Bible and faith. This is not Consubstantiation; which is another explanation derived by Aristotelian logic.

It is not logical, it is a "Mystery". Period.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

It is not logical, it is a "Mystery". Period.

It is the body and blood of Y'SHUA,
as Y'SHUA said it is,
and HE explained it simply, without conflict and without denial and without contradicting HIMSELF.

I don't see how what Y'SHUA said HIMSELF is at odds with the SOP or whatever of this section/ forum etc.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

This ignores what the Catholic teaching of Transubstantiation is. To understand this Roman Catholic understanding of the Real Presence requites a bit of understanding of Aristotelian philosophy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accident_(philosophy)

In short: If the Eucharistic elements were taken and placed under a microscope and every test applied to them, the RCC position is that every test would indicate that they are nothing more than ordinary bread and wine; because the accidents have remained unchanged, only the substance has changed. No Catholic, who understands their theology, would expect it any other way. And this isn't an ad hoc defense either, it is an intrinsic aspect of Transubstantiationism since the Scholastic period.

-CryptoLutheran

This is directly contrary to what a lot of catholics have posted or stated or published on the internet in the last ten years,
and what was "published" by them in all the previous centuries,
as revealed in "50 Years in the Church" and "The Catholic Chronicles" and many other references , beyond counting or question.