Protestant stumped me

=fhansen;11711495]All Roman Catholics-and EO -believe that the grace of God is absolutely essential-and that grace can be resisted by man-something Protestants argue about.

It is kind of misleading (I know not intentional) to talk about “protestants” this way. Each communion has its doctrine. Within Lutheranism, there is no argument, and we agree that grace can be resisted.

All Roman Catholics- and EO- believe in a purification process, by whatever name you want to use- after death-something no Protestants agree with as far as I know.

Lutherans recognize purgation. purification at the moment of death. What we question is an intermediate state/place where purgation happens.

All Roman Catholics-and EO-believe in the Real Presence, and transubstantiation, by whatever names you want to call them-while most Protestants believe in neither.

Many communions do reject the real presence. Lutherans are firm in our confession of the real presence.

Some EO like to embellish or emphasize supposed differences **because they oppose Roman Catholicism for other reasons **but the truth is that the differences are few and far between, especially considering the centuries of isolation from each other-and especially when those two Churches are compared to Protestantism.

I think that Orthodox Christians are too mature to “embellish” for other reasons. The fact is, it seems to me, is that they hold distinct (distinct from Rome) doctrinal difference on a few issues.

Jon

From this side of the Tiber, ‘Protestantism’ can look like a great monolithic bloc: all the same, all in lock-step. Of course, that’s a naive and mistaken view, and one that we as Catholics should resist.

Thanks for reminding us, Jon! :thumbsup:

It’s impossible to make such a broad and general statement about the maturity of the Orthodox Christians or Churches since there’s no one single authority that can speak for such a diverse group. But there is a great deal of embellishment that one hears from those adamant about maintaining disunity. Transubstantiation and purgatory are good examples.

It’s often heard that transubstaniation is a highfalutin philosophical term that hyper-rational RCs came up with to describe something that EOs don’t believe in, preferring to use the term “mystery” to describe the event and leave it at that. But when the beliefs are responsibly dissected there ends up being a distinction without a difference. Both believe that, at some point in conjunction with words spoken by a priest whose authority comes via a continous line or series of ordinations from the beginning of Christianity, a change takes place in the bread and wine, into the real Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.

In the case of purgatory or final purification many EO seem to be all over the board today, most at least agreeing on a waiting period of some sort before entrance into heaven. But at the Council of Florence, with both sides defending their traditional positions, the main differences seemed to boil down to the nature of punishment in the post-death state and whether or not the saints enjoy full heavenly bliss before reunion with their resurrected bodies.

I understand that Lutherans, and to a lesser degree Anglicans, have some commonalities here with the ancient Churches, but also that even then many of the nuances considered as critical by the EO and RCC aren’t even on the table for them.

Jon,
Yes it can be misleading - but generally when we speak this way we ARE referring to “communions” rather than individuals within a communion. After all, if an individual disagrees with their communion, they just head up the street to another one.

Indeed - each communion has it’s doctrine. Even doctrines that conflict. And so many seem to have no problem with this - which boggles my mind.

It just ain’t biblical…

Peace
James

It is not a transformation, because the form remains the same.

=fhansen;11717025]It’s impossible to make such a broad and general statement about the maturity of the Orthodox Christians or Churches since there’s no one single authority that can speak for such a diverse group. But there is a great deal of embellishment that one hears from those adamant about maintaining disunity. Transubstantiation and purgatory are good examples.

I think this speaks to the nature of unity and authority, which for us in western Christianity seems quite different than in the East.

It’s often heard that transubstaniation is a highfalutin philosophical term that hyper-rational RCs came up with to describe something that EOs don’t believe in, preferring to use the term “mystery” to describe the event and leave it at that. But when the beliefs are responsibly dissected there ends up being a distinction without a difference. Both believe that, at some point in conjunction with words spoken by a priest whose authority comes via a continous line or series of ordinations from the beginning of Christianity, a change takes place in the bread and wine, into the real Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.

Well, with a minor change in wording concerning ordination, Lutherans can agree with this also.

In the case of purgatory or final purification many EO seem to be all over the board today, most at least agreeing on a waiting period of some sort before entrance into heaven. But at the Council of Florence, with both sides defending their traditional positions, the main differences seemed to boil down to the nature of punishment in the post-death state and whether or not the saints enjoy full heavenly bliss before reunion with their resurrected bodies.

Agreed. In some ways, considering resent dialogue between our communions and our similar views of things, Catholicism and Lutheranism might be closer than either to the EO.

I understand that Lutherans, and to a lesser degree Anglicans, have some commonalities here with the ancient Churches, but also that even then many of the nuances considered as critical by the EO and RCC aren’t even on the table for them.

Not sure what those would be, but you might be right.

Jon

Thank you for the kind remarks.

Jon

Hi James,
It ain’t biblical, and it boggles my mind, too. I have at times seen a Lutheran become Reformed or Methodist, and wonder to myself how we could have failed so miserably in catechesis. :blush:

Jon

Most in the east will look at you, dismiss your point fo view on this as needless legalism, focus on the text rather than the reality of becoming, and pray for you.

A lot of the rest will think you’ve just denied the real presence.

Transformation is the correct english term - except in ROMAN theological terms.

So in Eastern terms it is a transformation? What Greek word is used for that? What of the form of bread and wine changes? Into the form of the Body and Blood of Christ?

This Orthodox source should help.
orthodoxyandheterodoxy.org/2013/08/14/the-doctrine-of-transubstantiation-in-the-orthodox-church/

JonNC. You stated in post 21:

Lutherans are firm in our confession of the real presence.

I am just curious. Do you worship the Eucharist?

It has been typical among Lutherans to practice Eucharistic adoration within the sacrament act, during the mass/Divine Service. In most parishes, Lutherans kneel to receive. In older parishes and in Europe, they often kneel during the consecration. So, yes. It is, after all, the true and substantial body and blood of Christ.

As for me personally, kneeling is difficult, so I bow at the consecration, and when I receive.

Jon

Dear friend,

I know exactly what you mean and how you feel! Even glancing at your post I know exactly what you mean. I have just left the Catholic University Faculty of Theology in Granada due to the fact that it is extremely liberal and their teachings are awful and out of line with the official and traditional teachings of our Church- I also had to leave the Order where I was a Postulant.

I am affraid that from my own experience I will tell you there is no way you can talk to a hardened Protestant in a way that they will understand, Our Lady, Purgatory, Jesus being truly present in the Blessed Sacrament- they just can’t and won’t accept any of it. It is so hard and it makes us want to defend these things which we know to be true. Unfortunately we can only try to explain them to the best of our ability, if they accept or not is up to them. But we must pray for them.

The problem is that sadly within our own Church many are starting to question if not denying Catholic Doctrine and Official teachings. I was told by several Priests where I was living and studying that Purgatory did not exist and other shocking things which are so un Catholic and very much Protestant- we have to pray hard because the Devil wants to get inside the Church and he is doing it through scandal and bad teachings.

The best thing we can do is learn our Catechism to the best of our ability that way we can in some way convince people who do not accept or believe in what we believe, but as I say there are some people you can never win over. I mean look at it from a Protestant point of view they would say the same about us that we are wrong and misguided but all their “help” and “teaching” isn’t going to change us or convince us!

Pray for those who persecute and don’t understand the Church- learn to defend her as we can and use it to the best of our personal ability but always remember that as Catholics we must show others our faith through works and actions and never sink as low as the Protestants who scream at people in the street or tell everyone what is wrong with them- the best way to win converts is by setting a good example. St. Francis de Sales said “it is better to use sweet honey than vinegar”

God bless and I hope that is some good!

Get used to it.You will always be learning! Many years!

Amen! Pray for reunification with our Orthodox brothers, and a truly united Church!

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.