Help a Catholic understand Protestantism better please

[UnderGrace]

Transubstantiation is not, I repeat, is not real presence.

UG,

LUTHER believed in the real presence till his Death.

In fact, he may have believed in transubstantiation (not sure about this)

CHECK IT OUT.
He was Lutheran, and some denominations STILL believe in the Real Presence.



LUTHERAN
ANGLICAN
METHODIST
CATHOLIC
EASTERN ORTHODOX
ORIENTAL ORTHODOX
CHURCH OF THE EAST
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_presence_of_Christ_in_the_Eucharist

These denominations believe in the Real Presence.

Maybe WE have it wrong???

Today, this is all readily available online.
No need to argue about it.

 

[UnderGrace]

It cannot be found in the Bible, it is from the Catholic Catechism.

Please show where any of this can be found in the Bible.

 

[FranC]

Transubstantiation is not, I repeat, is not real presence.

Oh for goodness sakes UG.
Didn't I mention this?

Do you really read my posts???
LOL

We were discussing which churches believe in the Real Presence or Transubstantiation.

YOU said the LUTHERAN Church didn't, but it DOES.

Also, you thought only the CC believed in this.

 

[UnderGrace]

On occasion I read them...LOL
That one I perused and read it wrong. Sorry

I am very familiar with Reformation History and Counter Reformation History having studied it in University and I am quite sure Luther did not believe in Transubstantiation but son like Co-Substantiation if I remember correctly.

But don't quote me on that I may be wrong LOL

Oh for goodness sakes UG.
Didn't I mention this?

Do you really read my posts???
LOL

We were discussing which churches believe in the Real Presence or Transubstantiation.

YOU said the LUTHERAN Church didn't, but it DOES.

Also, you thought only the CC believed in this.

 

[FranC]

Please show where any of this can be found in the Bible.

Hi HB

The biblical basis for the Real Presence and Transubstantiation is based on John 6:41-71 to get it all or up to verse 58.
I'm not saying I agree with it. I'm just not sure on this...

 

[FranC]

On occasion I read them...LOL
That one I perused and read it wrong. Sorry

I am very familiar with Reformation History and Counter Reformation History having studied it in University and I am quite sure Luther did not believe in Transubstantiation but son like Co-Substantiation if I remember correctly.

But don't quote me on that I may be wrong LOL

OK. We're good on this.
I also don't feel like looking it up since it's not the thread.

What we can say for sure is that Luther DID believe that communion was not JUST bread and wine -- that the body and blood of Jesus was actually present in some way.

I'm not sure on this so I'm not insisting either way.

Both the symbolic and the transubstantiation, or real presence also, both make sense to me...

 

[notuptome]

Hi HB

The biblical basis for the Real Presence and Transubstantiation is based on John 6:41-71 to get it all or up to verse 58.
I'm not saying I agree with it. I'm just not sure on this...

The real presence of Christ is in the hearts of the believer not in the elements of the communion. Imputing divine presence to inanimate objects is not a Christian practice.

The Lutherans are incorrect in their teaching on this matter but then they got it from their roots in romanism. There has been many ongoing discussions between Lutherans and the catholic church about reuniting and one area of discussion is the communion practice of the real presence. One of Martin Luther's imperfections in his doctrinal position.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[UnderGrace]

I agree, Luther did not abandon all the Rome's teachings.

I agree that there is no spiritual presence it is a reminder and that is all.

The real presence of Christ is in the hearts of the believer not in the elements of the communion. Imputing divine presence to inanimate objects is not a Christian practice.

The Lutherans are incorrect in their teaching on this matter but then they got it from their roots in romanism. There has been many ongoing discussions between Lutherans and the catholic church about reuniting and one area of discussion is the communion practice of the real presence. One of Martin Luther's imperfections in his doctrinal position.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[garee]

OK. We're good on this.
I also don't feel like looking it up since it's not the thread.

What we can say for sure is that Luther DID believe that communion was not JUST bread and wine -- that the body and blood of Jesus was actually present in some way.

I'm not sure on this so I'm not insisting either way.

Both the symbolic and the transubstantiation, or real presence also, both make sense to me...

What kind of sense, one seen with the eye, or one as a law of faith God revealing the unseen?

We can either see it or not see it .Can't be there and not there.Can't serve two masters… walking by sight, and walking by faith. No limbo in between. In that way faith as a law leaves no shadow of doubt.

I would be careful with those who create thier own private signs and wonders. Jesus says it’s an evil generation (natural man) that seeks after them. Christian walk by faith the unseen. God is no longer brining and new revelations in any manner (dreams, a visitations or new prophecy). He did when he was still adding to his word. We no longer have it in part for over two thousand years but do have the perfect, complete.

It’s how we test the spirits to see if they are of God .If any man say I had a visitation or I had a dream we are lovingly commanded to believe not, we can apply that to the false prophet Mohamed or any man who looking to add to the pefect law of God ,the Bible.

It’s how we hear the voice of God and not that of a stranger. No talking to strangers.

I would think we would follow what I would call the prescription of our great Physician. our Father in heaven (2 Corinthians 4:18) we might understand why?

2Co 4:18 While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.

I believe Christians are informed that it is an evil generation (natural man) that does seek after signs (that seen, the temporal) and wonders.(Signs and wonders one thought, not just sign ) which is I believe would be signs used as a wonders (the faith principle for hearing God )

Mat 12:39 But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas:

That sign above I would think would be the gospel . If they do not believe that sign they will not believe

The blood is used as a metaphor to point to the unseen work of the Spirit. There is an excellent parable in the Old testament that I believe could help to understand just what Holy Spirit means in a spiritual way to "drink the blood". Remember in parables he hides the spiritual truth from natural man .as the scriptures inform us they are foolishnees to them and their cannot understand because they are spiritually discerned by and through the Sprit of Christ, the Holy Spirit of God

 

[Magenta]

Mat 12:39 But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas:

That sign above I would think would be the gospel . If they do not believe that sign they will not believe

Hello Garee I thought the sign of Jonas referred to the death, three day burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ? Is that what you call the gospel/good news? Of course there is more to it than that, about how placing our faith in the shedding of His righteous blood on our behalf due to His great love for us, reconciles us back to God... it is a lot to unpack given the fact that God spent centuries setting the stage for Messiah Jesus to fulfill the hundreds of prophecies given concerning His first coming. How fortunate we are to be living on this side of the cross!

 

[unobtrusive]

Hello, I am a Catholic, I come in peace simply seeking understand Protestant thought a bit more from Protestants themselves.

This is what I understand of Protestant anthropology and soteriology, at least according to the primary reformers i.e. Luther and Calvin. Please let me know if I am correct:

The original sin of Adam and Eve destroyed the goodness of man's nature and thereby destroyed the ability of his reason to know God or supernatural things, and also destroyed the freedom of his will thereby rendering him incapable of free moral actions.

Because of man's total depravity of mind/will he is unable to participate in any way in his salvation and thus salvation is a matter of grace alone.

Now the consequence of this which Luther never seems to deny and Calvin affirms outright is that because salvation is by grace ALONE then the difference between those who are saved and those who are damned depends not on human responsibility but on God, hence Calvin's doctrine of predestination.

My first question is, have I understood this correctly?

Secondly my question is this: How does such a theory avoid altering radically both God and man in such a way that God seems to be unavoidably monsterous for creating people who have absolutelly no chance of salvation, and man seems to no longer be a responsible moral agent since he can neither know the good nor does he have any power (even assisted by grace) to co-operate in doing good? If man does not even have the power to co-operate how can we speak of him as a responsible moral agent? And if God, as Calvin insists, is ultimately the only agent in human actions, how is it that man and not God is responsible for sin?

If someone can please help me to understand better I would appreciate it, thanks

First of all, Calvin hated Luther's doctrinal beliefs. Not only that, Luther desired Catholicism to be refurbished, revised, renewed, or whatever, according to what he had studied in scripture. Luther was schooled in Catholicism as a monk. If we can get past that, then your question could be answered with more clarity. One thing that is missing is the rhetorical question, 'why neither one thought that the original Biblical feasts were important enough to understand their spiritual relevance.'

 

[cyberman]

garee wrote,

I would offer, the whole perfect work of salvation, according to the promise found in Isaiah 53.

He said it was finished which gives us his faith to believe it is.

So he did not have to rise from the dead? St. Paul stated that if we did not believe in the Resurrection then our faith is in vain. We cannot say that His mission was completed on the cross since He had to rise from the dead.

 

[cyberman]

FranC wrote,

I don't mind anythnig. We're here to talk and shed some light on Catholicism.

Thank you.

A VERY MUCH MISUNDERSTOOD Church.

I agree.

It would seem from the above that Mary and Joseph did not "know" each other till after Jesus was born.

I would look at word "till" only refers to the fact that the marriage was not consummated up to the point of Christ's birth. However, that does not mean that relations took place after Christ's birth.

In the above, Jesus was brought to jerusalem by His parents to preent Him to the Lord as was the custom.
He was the firs-born male that 'opened the womb'.

"First born" was just a legal term but it does not mean that there were more children that were born after Christ was born.

but WHY did God have to do so many miracles for Jesus to be born?

I guess that the simplest answer is because Jesus is the Son of God.

The reason is because the CC wants Mary to be without sin, ever, and to almost be a co-redemptrix. This is taking her role too far for me.

I guess that we just have to agree to disagree on that one.

Because of declaring Mary's Immaculate Conception, we must now declare that since Jesus had no sin and was take up, then Mary, having no sin, must also be taken up and not made to have bodily corruption. I believe one mistake led to another.

Not too long ago I ran into something interesting about the Assumption and that it was prophesied in the O.T.(Psalm 132). This is very brief,
Psalm 132 and the Assumption of Mary - Taylor Marshall

The above does not mean I do not Honor Mary.

Understood.

Blessings.

 

[cyberman]

than why not do one time

In Malachi 1:10-12 it says that a pure offering will be made, by Gentiles, from the rising to the setting of the sun. This suggests something that is continuous.

 

[Magenta]

So he did not have to rise from the dead? St. Paul stated that if we did not believe in the Resurrection then our faith is in vain. We cannot say that His mission was completed on the cross since He had to rise from the dead.

His sacrificial death on the cross paid the sin debt owing under the law, which He fulfilled as the spotless Lamb of God.

 

[cyberman]

His sacrificial death on the cross paid the sin debt owing under the law, which He fulfilled as the spotless Lamb of God.

But was His mission finished? If He did not rise from the dead, then our faith is in vain as St. Paul says.

 

[Magenta]

PS this thread was not created to "shed some light on Catholicism" as one person erroneously stated, it was started by a Catholic to help them understand Protestantism.

 

[cyberman]

PS this thread was not created to "shed some light on Catholicism" as one person erroneously stated, it was started by a Catholic to help them understand Protestantism.

A lot of times threads, like this, go off topic pretty quickly.

 

[Magenta]

But was His mission finished? If He did not rise from the dead, then our faith is in vain as St. Paul says.

He paid the sin debt and that part was finished. Do you understand that much?

 

[FranC]

He paid the sin debt and that part was finished. Do you understand that much?

What do you mean
THAT PART was finished???

It is finished means
IT IS FINISHED.

Why don't you give people some credit.

I do believe Cyberman knows a lot more than maybe even YOU do.

Cyberman is right.
JESUS HAD to resurrect, or He was just another normal human being.
And a crazy one at that...