Where Have All the Protestants Gone?

NOR ^ | January 2006 | Thomas Storck

[SoothingDave]

He thinks of Church as a man-made corporation headquartered in Rome.

Excuse me for reading what you wrote instead of what you were thinking.

Do I get a "G" now?

SD

[wmfights]

"Well, to be fair, in your faith, it's entirely possible that communion isn't necessarily a means of grace. But the teaching of the Bible is that Jesus Christ is physically present in the Eucharist, so the Eucharist being a source of Grace follows naturally from the Lord's teaching. It's quite possible, however, that your community may not have the Eucharist. With which community are you affiliated, if I might ask?"
_________________________________________

As you previously posted "do this in remembrance of me" is an operative statement in my church. You attempt to state as fact transubstantiation, but that does not make it so. The Roman Catholic Church makes lots of statements that Christians find highly objectionable and having made these statements does not make them true. We have gone over these in great detail and clearly offered differing views that have a sound SCRIPTURAL basis.

BTW, I am a Baptist.

[SoothingDave]

You attempt to state as fact transubstantiation, but that does not make it so. The Roman Catholic Church makes lots of statements that Christians find highly objectionable and having made these statements does not make them true. We have gone over these in great detail and clearly offered differing views that have a sound SCRIPTURAL basis.

What thread did you do that on? What is the "Scriptural basis" for assuming "this is my body" means something other than "this is my body"?

Is this the same way you read "if you forgive men's sins, they are forgiven" as a metaphor?

SD

[gscc]

What is the "Scriptural basis" for assuming "this is my body" means something other than "this is my body"?

Is this the same way you read "if you forgive men's sins, they are forgiven" as a metaphor?

Or is it the same way you interpret the admonishment not to call another man "father"

Matthew 23:9

⁹ And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven.

[InterestedQuestioner]

"If this interpretation is correct, I don't believe there is a SCRIPTURAL basis that these humans, empowered with supernatural powers, were given the ability to pass these powers on to whom they choose."

That's a good point, wmfights. If, however, by supernatural powers, we are talking about the gifts which Christ gave the Apostles, then we do have precedents in Scripture for those gifts being transmitted from the Apostles to others.


The more definitive case, and the case which pertains to our discussion, is the handing down of the ability to confer the Sacraments. The Church holds that there are seven Sacraments, handed down from Christ. I think that you and I agree that Baptism and the Lord's supper are Sacraments, and that the ability to celebrate these Sacraments has been handed down through the Church from the time of Christ to the present day. We don't have anywhere in Scripture that tells us that someone is delegated by the Apostles to celebrate the Eucharist or administer Baptism, but we can see that it definitely occurred during the time the New Testament was being written, because we see other people conferring these Sacraments..

Now we know that our sins are actually forgiven in Baptism, and that the Lord's Body and Blood become truly present in the Eucharist. The Lord commanded the Apostles to Baptize and commemorate the Lord's Supper. We also know that the ability to confer these Sacraments was handed on to the Successors of the Apostles. So in that sense, it is clear that "supernatural powers" that is, the authority to confer the Sacraments was handed down from Christ to His Apostles, and from the Apostles to their successors.

In Scripture, we can certainly see Ordination (Holy Orders), Baptism, and Consecration of the Eucharist, as being given by Christ, to the Apostles. We see the continuation of this, a type of Apostolic Succession if you will, in the Acts of the Apostles and the New Testament Epistles. We Catholic also believe that Holy Matrimony is a Sacrament. You may not agree with me on that point, but you and I both understand that Marriage has a connection to Church, and that it is an ongoing tradition. God joins man and woman into one in marriage, "and what God has joined, let no man split assunder." We Catholics also believe in a Sacramental final preparation for death, the Last Rites, and it is documented in the New Testament that there certainly was a practice of anointing the sick, and that this again had been passed from the Apostles to their successors. So, I think we can agree that the ability to confer the Sacraments is definitely passed on to the successors of the Apostles, even if we don't agree on the number of Sacraments. Since we Catholics also understand that Reconciliation is a Sacrament, we are reasoning that the ability to confer this Sacrament too has been passed on to the successors of the Apostles.

"These individuals may follow a long historical line, but they did not walk with JESUS when he was on the earth. They are not Apostles and I do not believe they were given supernatural powers when they became priests."

You are absolutely correct, wmfights, that the bishops are not Apostles. They are the successors of the Apostles. Christ did not write a Bible, he founded a Church, within which the Bible was written, preserved, canonized and handed down to posterity. The successors to the Apostles have to have been given some "supernatural powers" For example, we believe that they had the ability to recognize declare the books of the New Testament were inspired, rather than simply historical accounts of the first Christians. We also know that they had to have been given other such "supernatural abilities" as well, particularly with regards to the Sacraments. For example, we know that sins are forgiven in Baptism, and that this is not something that ceased with the last of Christ's disciples. Clearly, the authority to Baptize was given by Christ to His disciples, who then handed it down to others. We also know from Scripture that Body and Blood of Jesus Christ are physically present in the Eucharist. We know this because Jesus said the Eucharist is His Body and Blood, and we know that it is an ongoing practice to celebrate the Eucharist, because 1) Jesus told us to do so, and 2) we see it being done in the New Testament, that it is an established practice by the time the Apostle Paul is writing to the Church at Corinth. We begin with Bread and Wine, and, in accordance with Scripture, it becomes the Body and Blood of Christ.

"I think the quote "do this in remembrance of me" is perfect illustration of how investing supernatural powers in your priesthood can lead to a body of believers being misled. In my faith we do not believe in transubstantiation. We partake of communion in remembrance of our LORD JESUS CHRIST."

We partake of the Eucharist in remembrance of our Lord as well, wmfights, and Scripture is clear and unambiguous that it is the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. The Eucharist is both a memorial of the Last Supper and it is also the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, the two terms do not exclude each other.

"Is it possible that the SCRIPTURES exist for the very reason of teaching us?'

Most certainly that is the case.

"The SCRIPTURES existed well before they were canonized."

Yes, for about 300 years before they were canonized. The core doctrines of the Church, however, existed before the Scripture was completely written. For example, the Apostles understood that Christ was physically present in the Eucharist long before the New testament canon was written, in fact, they almost certainly understood this before the first book of the New Testament was even written.

As important as the Scriptures handed down by the Church is the Church within which those Scriptures were produced and protected. The Church received not only the Scriputures, but the sense of the faithful. That is, the sense of those who studied with and under the Apostles and their successors, as to what true Christianity was.

[newgeezer]

What else is left for him.

Hey, can't fault him for trying. If enough of them say it often enough, the accused just might get banned. It really works.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

the Apostles understood that Christ was physically present in the Eucharist long before the New testament canon was written, in fact, they almost certainly understood this before the first book of the New Testament was even written.

There's no proof for this that I've ever seen in NT writings.

[Quester]

What I do not find is that it is required that one seek God's forgiveness in this manner.

Is God the only one affected by our sin?

Of course not ... 'unless you think as David did ... ;^)'

Psalm 151:1 Have mercy upon me, O God, according to thy lovingkindness: according unto the multitude of thy tender mercies blot out my transgressions.

2 Wash me throughly from mine iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin.

3 For I acknowledge my transgressions: and my sin is ever before me.

4 Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight: that thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, and be clear when thou judgest.

We should seek forgiveness from those others affected by our sin, as well.

[SoothingDave]

Or is it the same way you interpret the admonishment not to call another man "father"

Just like you don't call anyone "teacher."

SD

[SoothingDave]

Hey, can't fault him for trying. If enough of them say it often enough, the accused just might get banned. It really works.

The truth hurts. Sometimes it bans.

Rather than reflecting on it, you still rise up against it. You couldn't have picked a better example of the need for outside counsel in reviewing one's own behavior. Often we are blinded to our own particular favorite sins.

SD

[InterestedQuestioner]

"As you previously posted "do this in remembrance of me" is an operative statement in my church. You attempt to state as fact transubstantiation, but that does not make it so.'

As a minor point of clarification, I haven't been using the term transubstantiation, wmfights. What I am saying is that Jesus Christ is physically present, that is His Body and Blood, in the Eucharist. This is the clear reading of Scripture. We Catholics believe that Jesus Christ is present entirely in the Lord's Supper, Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity. We refer to this as the "Real Presence." Transubstantiation is a much later term, and it is an explanation of how the Lord's Body and Blood are present in the Eucharist.

"The Roman Catholic Church makes lots of statements that Christians find highly objectionable..."

Again, wmfights, we Roman Catholics are Christians, and your own religious tradition descended from ours.

"We have gone over these in great detail and clearly offered differing views that have a sound SCRIPTURAL basis"

Can you point me to the posts you are referencing?

"BTW, I am a Baptist."

Very good, that's good to know.

[gscc]

So it is a metaphor rather than an outright admonishment against calling any father or teacher. But just in this instance?

[SoothingDave]

We should seek forgiveness from those others affected by our sin, as well.

I think you'd agree that not only forgiveness, but reparation of some sort should be made. Like I said,if you rob a bank, you have to give the money back, even if God forgives your sin.

So you recognize, I think, that we create harm in the world when we sin, and that we can have a responsibility to repair what we have done wrong, to make it up to the people harmed.

But what, I ask you, does one do when the "people harmed" by your sin is more general than identifying a few persons. What if your sin has made an indelible change in the world for countless people? How does one go about making reparations for that?

SD

[newgeezer]

Oh, thou Soothing One, I've reflected on it plenty.

Your reply indicates your pompousity continues to run neck-and-neck with your self-righteousness.

[SoothingDave]

So it is a metaphor rather than an outright admonishment against calling any father or teacher. But just in this instance?

It's not exactly a metaphor. What it is is an admonishment to not let earthly leaders or teachers become more important than God. It is not an exercise in making certain words "forbidden."

Paul refers to himself as the spiritual father to the Corinthians. It is in imitation of this, and in recognition that the man should strive to represent the Father in Heaven, that we call priest's "father." It is not to supplant God the Father.

Jesus' warning still applies. If your local pastor or priest is more important to you than your relationship with God, you have lost sight of what is important. Anyone, Catholic or non, can fall into this trap. Whatever words you use.

SD

[Quester]

We should seek forgiveness from those others affected by our sin, as well.

I think you'd agree that not only forgiveness, but reparation of some sort should be made. Like I said,if you rob a bank, you have to give the money back, even if God forgives your sin.

So you recognize, I think, that we create harm in the world when we sin, and that we can have a responsibility to repair what we have done wrong, to make it up to the people harmed.

But what, I ask you, does one do when the "people harmed" by your sin is more general than identifying a few persons. What if your sin has made an indelible change in the world for countless people? How does one go about making reparations for that?

I would say that it very well may be possible ... that one cannot make up for one's sin ... beyond returning the loot, that is ... ;^)

I would say that what one is called to, ... after repentance and forgiveness, ... is a forward walk with God, ... asking God for direction ... and following in the way in which He leads.

Much prayer.

[InterestedQuestioner]

Hello Invincibly Ignorant.

"There's no proof for this that I've ever seen in NT writings.'



It appears pretty clear to me that this was the case. Just to make the conversation a little clearer, however, are you questioning that the New Testament teaches that Jesus' Body and Blood are truly present in the Eucharist?

That Jesus Christ is physically present in the Eucharist is what the NT literally says, and it was what the authors of the NT literally meant to convey. It's something on a par with the Physical resurrection of Jesus as an historical event, and his virgin birth. You yourself may not believe it, but it is what the New Testament intends to convey, and it unambiguously belongs to the Apostolic deposit of the Faith. Does that sound reasonable to you? If it does, I think I can make a very argument that the Apostles understood Christ to be physically present long before the New Testament was written.

If, on the other hand, you don't accept that the New Testament teaches that Christ is physically present in the Eucharist, I think I should be able to demonstrate that to you pretty clearly as well. From there it pretty well follows that the Apostles understood the doctrine before the Canon was even written. In fact, that argument becomes almost superfluous.

[wmfights]

"That's a good point, wmfights. If, however, by supernatural powers, we are talking about the gifts which Christ gave the Apostles, then we do have precedents in Scripture for those gifts being transmitted from the Apostles to others."

The supernatural powers to which I'm referring are the ability to forgive sin, or deny the forgiveness of sin. If the Apostles had this power I don't subscribe to the thought that it was passed on to future priests.

I enjoyed reading your post, but you continue to state as fact issues that I do not believe are SCRIPTURALLY supported. I don't see any sense in arguing what are sacraments and what aren't, your church has decided on its list and my church has stuck with the original two; communion and baptism.

[SoothingDave]

I would say that it very well may be possible ... that one cannot make up for one's sin ... beyond returning the loot, that is ... ;^) I would say that what one is called to, ... after repentance and forgiveness, ... is a forward walk with God, ... asking God for direction ... and following in the way in which He leads. Much prayer.

And I would say that the Church, in the sacrament, can speak for the hurt that the public has taken because of one's sins, and reconcile the two. How can one know what the public, the community of believers needs for reconciliation if one does not ask?

SD

[SoothingDave]

I enjoyed reading your post, but you continue to state as fact issues that I do not believe are SCRIPTURALLY supported. I don't see any sense in arguing what are sacraments and what aren't, your church has decided on its list and my church has stuck with the original two; communion and baptism.

You never responded to my 1432, which gives Scriptural support for the other sacraments. You can hardly say they are not "Scripturally supported" without at least confronting the evidence I show to the contrary.

SD