www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology the protestant too?

If the east and west are saying the same thing. So are the protestant churches that believe in the apostle's creed. What do you think?

Broric,

You are making an assertion without listing what those 'same things' are and without specifying what led you to make it while expecting a response.

You mention the Protestant use of the Apostles Creed. You are confusing the Apostles Creed, the creed used as the primary profession of faith in the Reformed Churches, with the universal Creed of Nicene-Constantinopole (325 AD), the only 'authoritative' creed in Catholic and Orthodox Churches.

Cantor Joe Thur
Deacon-student

[ 01-26-2002: Message edited by: J Thur ]

Protestants don't believe the same things that Catholics and Orthodox believe. Catholics and Orthodox believe that Jesus Christ is physically present in the Eucharist or Sacred Mysteries, and that those who receive Him receive his Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity. Most Protestants see this as only a symbolic act. They do not believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. The only exceptions are Anglicans and Lutherans, who do believe in the Real Presence, but they don't believe it in the same way Catholics and Orthodox believe it.

Everyone who is legitimately Christian believes in the Trinity, and that Christ lived among us, died, was Resurrected, Ascended, and will come again. Other than that, there are a LOT of differences. For example: veneration of saints, confession of sins, regard for sacred tradition versus Bible-only, and possession of valid orders.

I agree the protestansts lack a lot of depth. But the Holy father's decree on ecuminsm says the only thing needed for change is that which is needed for unity. Some of the things they believe and how they approach the mysteries of the faith do not need to change. For exaple, some believe the body and blood become spirtually the body and blood of Christ as taught by Calvin. The differnce is the do not use a philsophical explaination of the transformation as does the roman rite. If they did use a a sytem of philsophy they would arrive at the same conclusion as did the council of trent. So in essence we are same the same thing but coming at in a differnt approach just like orthodox and catholic.

[ 01-26-2002: Message edited by: Broric ]

[ 01-26-2002: Message edited by: Broric ]

Broric,

It is not simply a matter of different understanding but whether there was a real change regarding the eucharist. The 'priesthood' and communion of many Protestant churches are not recognized by Catholicism and Orthodoxy as ontologically real in the same sense. Try as hard as they want they cannot transform the elements of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ. The Holy Spirit has to be present. Some things are not just a matter of differing subjectivity.

Cantor Joe Thur
Deacon-student

If it were so simple, then anyone who knew the Nicene Creed could become a priest without going to seminary...but if they are to go to seminary for years and study theology, I should think there's something more than just the Creed.

The Creed is great, but is not comprehensive in some ways.

It is always a mistake to me for Catholics (or Orthodox) to fall into the trap of thinking the Christian Church is primarily for preaching and teaching good behavior.

Unlike Protestant religion, Christianity as it is in Catholicism (or Orthodoxy) and should be and has to be, the Priest recieves his authority not from being a great orator, but from his ability to transform the wine and bread into the *actual* blood and body of Christ. Important! Confession is also another sacrament only the Priestly cast can perform. Important! And how Our Lady can be taken out of the hearts of the people is utterly wrong. And the saints, to take them away as role models of the Church, utterly wrong also. Also most Protestant don't understand how Catholics look to a physicaly weakened and elderly Pope John Paul II for leadership of the Church. They believe John Paul II should have stepped down long ago. Protestant like towering physicaly fit leaders to look to, someone that can jump around and pound his Bible. The way we approach the spiritual is much less materialistic then the Protestants.

Let us also not forget that many Protestant Churches have fallen into the additional heresy of teaching the value of abortion and embracing homosexual marriage along side heterosexual marriage.

I do agree with you all the protestants are missing it in many ways. However, there are many who believe in the real presense of christ in the bread ans wine. And here is a wingdiger for you.: Catholic theology says that even if the consecration was not done in a valid manner by a priest God will still give the person recieving communion the grace in honor there faith. If this is the case it is possible for God to meet the person who seeks him in a protestant communion. The question then is why do we need priests? To carry on the order and dignity of the sacremtal celibration. But God can do what ever he wants.

[ 01-26-2002: Message edited by: Broric ]

Broric writes:


The important thing here is "BY A PRIEST". There are many Churches that have valid priests and valid sacraments. The Protestants are not among them. Sad to say, they broke apostolic succession and thus do not have valid orders. Just because they want to affect a valid consecration doesn't mean they can. They can't. They have no authority because their "orders" cannot be traced back to the Apostles the way Catholics and Orthodox can. Without a valid priesthood there is no valid consecration. Without valid bishops there are no valid priests. No matter how much they believe in the Real Presence in their ceremonies, it just isn't there.

Read your church history brother, Priests did not always celibrate the eucharists, decons,sub-decons, prophets, elders also celibrated the eucharists and led the primative liturgy and they even had it in peoples homes. The liturgy and order in the church is not how it started out. Do you think the early christians differ from those christians who know just as little as them? Do you think God would deny them. The institutional church was not always there and the sacrements were not always institutional, this came about through time.

[ 01-26-2002: Message edited by: Broric ]

Dear Broric,

Provide evidence of your claims...

Broric,

The worthiness of the priest celebrating the liturgy has no bearing on the degree of validity (to use a Latin term) of the Eucharist. You forget that the Holy Spirit transforms the elements and not the faith or spiritual condition of the cleric.

Cantor Joe Thur
Deacon-student

I agree my friend whith what you say about the spirit. God will meet any one who comes to a celibration seeking him . Baptists catholic, luthren. As far as evidence to my claims read the didache-the syrian catechetcal manual near the end of the first century it instructs congergations to elect bishops or decons if prophets or teachers are in short supply. This in one several historical resources that will show there was no orginized hiearchy or liturgy. These things devloped in time. It was not until constantine that litugy took on more of a institional form, they used to meet in houses. The Church leadership as well became more orginzed. Does this mean the early church did not recieve the life in the eucharist. They were just as ignorant as some protestants. Do you think I have to have the right theology in order to recieve grace if the protestants believe its the body and blood of Christs.

...

[ 01-28-2002: Message edited by: J Thur ]

By no means I am just seeking truth and the only way to do that is by dialog. I dont claim to have all the answers but I must be true to what I know. I only seek greater roads for unity under one catholic banner.

[ 01-26-2002: Message edited by: Broric ]