transubstantiation unsubstantiated substantially :P

[Wgw]

There is "no Bible" text claiming that Catholic priests have the "powers" to "Confect the body soul and divinity of Christ" in the mass.

ALL doctrine is to be tested "sola scriptura" Acts 17:11 Mark 7:6-13

On the contrary, 1 Corinthians 11.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said: ↑
There is "no Bible" text claiming that Catholic priests have the "powers" to "Confect the body soul and divinity of Christ" in the mass.

ALL doctrine is to be tested "sola scriptura" Acts 17:11 Mark 7:6-13

On the contrary, 1 Corinthians 11.

On the contrary nothing in 1Cor 11 refutes the statements of Christ in Mark 7

And nothing in 1 Cor 11 says that catholic priests even existed in the days of Paul - let alone that they had the powers to "confect the body soul and divinity of Christ"

Christ was sacrificed "ONCE for all" according to Heb 10 and "THEN" - He "sat down at the right hand of the Father" -- 2000 years ago. Done. Finished.

 

[Acts24Fourteen]

On the contrary, 1 Corinthians 11.

This verse right?

1 Corinthians 11:19 - For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.​

 

[Wgw]

Before we proceed further, it is neccessary to clarify the meing of Catholic. To that end, do you adhere to the Nicene Creed?

 

[Wgw]

This verse right?

1 Corinthians 11:19 - For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.​

As a simple matter of fact, your own denomination embraces positions classed as heresies at Ephesus, Constantinople III and Nicea II, and by the Synod of Dositheus.

 

[Acts24Fourteen]

As a simple matter of fact, your own denomination embraces positions classed as heresies at Ephesus, Constantinople III and Nicea II, and by the Synod of Dositheus.

Whew, [wipes brow, sigh], that was close, for a second there, I thought you were actually going to surprise me and say that we [of the faithful Seventh-day Adventist movement] believed "heresies" by the standard of the scripture [KJB], "to the law and to the testimony", and then by citing some examples therein.

BTW, your responses are not actually dealing with the OP material and that which followed. How much more will you and others seek to merely "gain the time" [Daniel 2:8]?

 

[Wgw]

The acts of the councils in question and other related documents, which are readly available online, justify the decisions of the councils according to Scripture.

To that end, this forum is limited to Nicene Christians, which is a conciliar definition. I would assume the SDA does not object to the Council of Nicea; if you feel it does perhaps we should have this thread moved to Controversial Theology?

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

What I believe on the matter is pretty simple:

In the spirit of the tradition, the early Christians presumed transubstantiation without really making a thing out of it's actuality. As time went on, when the Church started feeling the need to scrutinize everything, they thought it necessary to declare that transubstantiation literally happens.
This is regardless of the fact that the very context and symbolism by which Jesus usually spoke with was very much in his statements of the bread and wine- which leads me to believe that the Church for some reason needed to have a literal view to suffice their rites.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

As a simple matter of fact, your own denomination embraces positions classed as heresies at Ephesus, Constantinople III and Nicea II, and by the Synod of Dositheus.

Instead of arguing the post, you think to shut him up by the slander of him being SDA and some unrelated disagreements. Note that nothing in this thread has been said that does not agree with the Nicene Creed. If there was, it would have been shut down by the those with authority in this forum to do so.

So how about that if you think to edify this thread you be a little more specific in answering the question of where in 1 Cor 11 that authority is given to priests to "confect".

 

[Wgw]

On the contrary, I simply respinded to his raising the point of 1 Corinthians 11:19. The SDA does not agree with the theology of the councils of Ephesus, Constantinople III or Nicea II; this is uncontroversial. From content on their website it appears they do agree with Nicea at least in part, and I suspect they would concur with Chalcedon (my own church does not and thus incurs a range of anathemas from Chalcedonians).

 

[Rick Otto]

It does annoy me how this forum tends to be dominated by various Protestants engaging in Two Minutes Hate against Catholics, and by extension, the Orthodox.

I am of the view that whereas the Orthodox do regard the Eucharistic change as a mystery, there is nothing altogether objectionable about the RC view of transubstantiation that cannot be more or less glossed over. I have no doubt our interlocutors would, given the chance, pour scorn over the Eucharistic doctrine of my confession as well as yours.

Yes, absolutely as it well deserves it and does nothing to diminish the Catholics anti-Protestant hatred, even by the several Ninja Catholics that try to present themselves as objective Christians by choosing the generic "Christian" label instead of admitting there true loyalty.
So let us congratulate ourselves on the reciprocity of that annoyance.

 

[Wgw]

It seems to me as an Orthodox Christian that there are no threads on GT that would offend the sensibilities of Protestants as a whole, whereas seemingly one out of five threads is offensive to Orthodox and Roman Catholics.

 

[concretecamper]

Yes, absolutely as it well deserves it and does nothing to diminish the Catholics anti-Protestant hatred, even by the several Ninja Catholics that try to present themselves as objective Christians by choosing the generic "Christian" label instead of admitting there true loyalty.
So let us congratulate ourselves on the reciprocity of that annoyance.

Would you like a little cheese to go with this whine?

 

[Standing Up]

To that end, this forum is limited to Nicene Christians, which is a conciliar definition.

The forum is limited to Nicene Creed Christians. Not council blah, blah, blah.

 

[Standing Up]

There is "no Bible" text claiming that Catholic priests have the "powers" to "Confect the body soul and divinity of Christ" in the mass.

True enough. For example,
1 Cor. 11:2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.
precedes the discussion about communion. It is addressed to brethren, not to priests,

 

[Wgw]

Ah but therein is the rub. The Chirch has preserved the Eucharistic doctrine in accordance with St. Paul's instructions. Also, the episcpate and presbytery surely are brethren; this is not a sacerdotal faith and our clergy are not Brahmins.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

Instead of arguing the post, you think to shut him up by the slander of him being SDA and some unrelated disagreements. Note that nothing in this thread has been said that does not agree with the Nicene Creed. If there was, it would have been shut down by the those with authority in this forum to do so.

So how about that if you think to edify this thread you be a little more specific in answering the question of where in 1 Cor 11 that authority is given to priests to "confect".

On the contrary, I simply respinded to his raising the point of 1 Corinthians 11:19. The SDA does not agree with the theology of the councils of Ephesus, Constantinople III or Nicea II; this is uncontroversial. From content on their website it appears they do agree with Nicea at least in part, and I suspect they would concur with Chalcedon (my own church does not and thus incurs a range of anathemas from Chalcedonians).

How about you actually respond and defend a statement you made that was actually pertinent to the thread instead of thread crapping and complaining about the threads in GT. And, how about you actually start a thread if you don't like the topics created so far. And, if you want to just bash the Protestants, you can jump on the either: The Church would be better off without the Reformation or the Refuting Sola Scriptura threads.

 

[Wgw]

Well, because, basically, I am not interested in bashing Protestants. Some Protestants, such as high church Anglicans, the traditionalist high church Lutherans of the Mission Provinceof the Church of Sweden, and the more liturgically minded Methodists, are fairly close to Orthodoxy. Rather I would like to see a reduction in the bashing of Catholics in such a way that the Orthodox are bashed by extension; in my opinion Catholic-bashing should not be regarded as a proper expression of Protestant piety, and I consider the bashing of Protestantism as a whole an improper expression of Orthodox piety. My psotion is only to criticize heresy, and if I were to see an Orthodox member derogate from Orthodoxy I would criticize them to the fullest extent the rules of this forum allow, more intensely than I would ever criticize a Protestant or Roman Catholic.

 

[Albion]

What I believe on the matter is pretty simple:

In the spirit of the tradition, the early Christians presumed transubstantiation without really making a thing out of it's actuality.

Unless I misunderstand you, I can think of absolutely no basis for this comment.

As time went on, when the Church started feeling the need to scrutinize everything, they thought it necessary to declare that transubstantiation literally happens.

Well no, Transubstantiation was a new idea in the Middle Ages.

I'm thinking there's a possibility you're confusing Real Presence with Transubstantiation, but that's just a guess and could be well off the mark.

 

[Albion]

It seems to me as an Orthodox Christian that there are no threads on GT that would offend the sensibilities of Protestants as a whole, whereas seemingly one out of five threads is offensive to Orthodox and Roman Catholics.

So offending most Protestants (but not every last one) is nothing to regret???