What's the difference between a "heretic" and a "reformer"?

[Lyfe]

(I've already prefaced earlier in this thread and it's evident in my 'signature' that I am not a Christian, so I am not defending Catholicism, Orthodoxy or Protestantism, but I'll just restate that)



Well to quote the New Testament:

John 6 -
Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. 50 This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die. 51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.”
52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” 53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; 54 he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever.” 59 This he said in the synagogue, as he taught at Caper′na-um.
60 Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” 61 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, “Do you take offense at this? 62 Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before? 63 It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. 64 But there are some of you that do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that would betray him. 65 And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”
66 After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him. 67 Jesus said to the twelve, “Do you also wish to go away?” 68 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life

So the disciples certainly took it very literally.

Paul says:

- 1 Corinthians 11:23-26
For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

Even the early Protestant reformers (yes even Calvin who I mentioned earlier, even though he started the popular movement of metaphoricalizing it) saw it as the defining thing in Christianity separating heaven from hell, the ritual of the Eucharist as the salvific participatory act. But through all of "Christian" (from the point that there was a "Christianity" in contrast to a Jewish Jesus-movement) history, it has been unanimously held as binding dogma that it is the literal body and blood,
Not to get polemical (because it's not worth the time) but when I see Protestants on one hand attack Islam for denying the divinity of Jesus (and the Trinity), as someone who is exChristian and very familiar with the Bible and Church history, I can't help see theological hypocrisy on their part. If a Catholic attacked me in the same manner, I'd see less hypocrisy theologically because their conclusions follow from their assumptions, even though I too view them as incredibly misguided and following false teachings likewise.

In terms of Trinitarian theology, I think from a historical POV that it is accurate to say that the literalism of the transubstantiation in the Eucharist is the bread and butter (pun unintended) of Christian soteriology and practice. This is also something that the Orthodox Church never disputed about when they split with the Catholics either. It was only much later that after Calvin, this reductionist sentiment started gaining traction and being normalized in certain countries.



But what is not a 'true heartfelt relationship' about the Eucharist? it is considered to be "the source and summit of Christian life", the central sacrament and literal presence of the Holy Spirit.

In this I find it noteworthy that there is a strange contradiction between the way that later forms of Protestantism are dismissive of these mystical elements of traditional Christian belief and practice (not solely Catholic) while claiming to have a superior 'relationship' with Jesus. I'm not quite sure how that could be, when it comes to Christian practice.
Catholics and Orthodox have the Mass, daily Prayer, contemplative prayer and many other things which they practically express their relationship with Jesus, as well as all the typical community things (including charity etc).
In what way is your 'relationship' superior to theirs? ( @Lyfe too)

I didn't mean to infer that all those who engage in such things don't have a relationship to God. Only The Lord knows those who are his. There was allot of religion and religious people in Jesus day. It didn't mean they knew or had a relationship with God. I'm just pointing that out.

Biblically what determines who does and doesn't have a relationship to God? The Bible says we become children of God through becoming born again of his seed. This is by belief in the gospel and receiving Christ. That's what The Bible teaches. There are the children of the flesh and the children of the spirit.

 

[Infinityloop]

I didn't mean to infer that all those who engage in such things don't have a relationship to God. Only The Lord knows those who are his. There was allot of religion and religious people in Jesus day. It didn't mean they knew or had a relationship with God. I'm just pointing that out.

Biblically what determines who does and doesn't have a relationship to God? The Bible says we become children of God through becoming born again of his seed. This is by belief in the gospel and receiving Christ. That's what The Bible teaches. There are the children of the flesh and the children of the spirit.

I think those questions, while important in their own right, are kinda dodging the point of the questions being addressed in this thread about heresy and reformation. Beliefs in the nature of the Eucharist itself seems to (up until a few hundred years ago in certain Protestant denominations) be seen as the lynchpin (and centerpiece) of Christianity.

 

[ToxicFemininitySucks]

Even the early Protestant reformers (yes even Calvin who I mentioned earlier, even though he started the popular movement of metaphoricalizing it) saw it as the defining thing in Christianity separating heaven from hell, the ritual of the Eucharist as the salvific participatory act.
...
In terms of Trinitarian theology, I think from a historical POV that it is accurate to say that the literalism of the transubstantiation in the Eucharist is the bread and butter (pun unintended) of Christian soteriology and practice. This is also something that the Orthodox Church never disputed about when they split with the Catholics either

Purely speaking for myself and not any other Christians, but the problem with this (for me) is that it leaves us with the following problem:

The only churches that believe in the real presence of the eucharist today would be catholic and orthodox. But if they are incorrect in any other aspects (and they must be, proven if anything by the fact that they are in disagreement with each other - how could BOTH simultaneously be right if they disagree?) then how can a believer in Jesus Christ join and participate in a church which they believe to be in error?

The catholic church has continually changed its doctrines throughout the centuries. What it meant to be a catholic say 500 yrs ago, is not the same thing today. And the major problem is that, in the case of catholicism, if one doesn't accept ALL the dogmas then one is not really catholic.

From what i've read, orthodoxy has stayed more orthodox, doctrine hasn't changed in 1000 years. Unfortunately, the errors with it (mndatory veneration of icons and Mary, praying to "saints" for example) are issues that stem from over 1000 years ago.

In this I find it noteworthy that there is a strange contradiction between the way that later forms of Protestantism are dismissive of these mystical elements of traditional Christian belief and practice (not solely Catholic) while claiming to have a superior 'relationship' with Jesus. I'm not quite sure how that could be, when it comes to Christian practice.
Catholics and Orthodox have the Mass, daily Prayer, contemplative prayer and many other things which they practically express their relationship with Jesus, as well as all the typical community things (including charity etc).
In what way is your 'relationship' superior to theirs?

Once again, speaking purely for myself here.

In full disclosure, i was baptized catholic as a baby. I grew up in a completely secular household, we literally did not own a Bible (nor a catechism, as i know catholics regard it over the Bible), went to church maybe once a year if at all. Most people i knew who were catholic lived exactly the same way from what i could see. My inlaws are also catholic, and i see the same exact behavior or worse.

Yet they would badmouth the evangelical protestants, calling them "fanatics" because they actually wanted to talk about Jesus and spread the gospel. Because they actually prayed before eating. Dressed modestly. Didn't use curse words in their daily speech. Abstained from vices. Etc.

I am willing to concede that it is a geographical/cultural matter, and in more recent times i have heard about the concept of "trad catholics" who do all of the above (except spread the gospel), but just from what i saw growing up, there was a world of difference between the catholics and evangelical protestants.

 

[Infinityloop]

Purely speaking for myself and not any other Christians, but the problem with this (for me) is that it leaves us with the following problem:

The only churches that believe in the real presence of the eucharist today would be catholic and orthodox. But if they are incorrect in any other aspects (and they must be, proven if anything by the fact that they are in disagreement with each other - how could BOTH simultaneously be right if they disagree?) then how can a believer in Jesus Christ join and participate in a church which they believe to be in error?

The catholic church has continually changed its doctrines throughout the centuries. What it meant to be a catholic say 500 yrs ago, is not the same thing today. And the major problem is that, in the case of catholicism, if one doesn't accept ALL the dogmas then one is not really catholic.

From what i've read, orthodoxy has stayed more orthodox, doctrine hasn't changed in 1000 years. Unfortunately, the errors with it (mndatory veneration of icons and Mary, praying to "saints" for example) are issues that stem from over 1000 years ago.

Well as I'm confident that a Catholic would respond, it is all in the institution of the Catholic Church.

I see Catholics frequently cite the following passage:

- Matthew 16
And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hades/hell shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

For Catholics and Orthodox (even though they differ later down the line), this is the apostolic succession (and for Catholics, as an extension - the Papacy).

The question is really, besides from specific gripes, is if problems one may find with X is also found in Y. And if they are, then is rejecting X on that basis actually a solution?

The Catholic vs Orthodox is yet another interesting discussion, though in the main things I've brought up on the heresy question the Orthodox do not disagree over (even though they do on the nature of the Holy Spirit within the Trinity).

 

[ToxicFemininitySucks]

Well as I'm confident that a Catholic would respond, it is all in the institution of the Catholic Church.

I see Catholics frequently cite the following passage:

- Matthew 16
And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hades/hell shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

For Catholics and Orthodox (even though they differ later down the line), this is the apostolic succession (and for Catholics, as an extension - the Papacy).

Understood.

Evangelical protestants would then point to the fact that Jesus referred to Peter as satan just a few verses later (vs23), Peter's multiple denials during Jesus's arrest and need to get back into fellowship, the fact that Paul was sent to the gentiles when Peter couldn't get over his fear of the judaizers, the fact that Peter was a married man and as such does not resemble the catholic clergy, that the "rock" being referred to was Jesus Himself (the stone which the builders rejected has become the cornerstone) , etc.

While i would have to brush up on my history to cite specifics, the fact that the sucession line has been a mess (multiple popes at a time, the avignon papacy, even stuff such as the relatively recent resignation of benedict in order to install jesuit francis*), would also be an issue when it comes to the legitimacy of the catholic pope.

* in response to this we have the "sedevacantist catholics" which reject the current pope, and as far as the thread is concerned i wonder if they would be "heretics". I suppose not if the determining factor is accepting the eucharist.

The question is really, besides from specific gripes, is if problems one may find with X is also found in Y. And if they are, then is rejecting X on that basis actually a solution?

It really is an individual matter, in my opinion.

The fact that the catholic church requires catholics to accept ALL the doctrines leaves little to no room for personal objection or conscience. In the case of protestantism, aside from an obvious cult, there is room to disagree and refer to one's own conscience (which would be biblical - let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind).

 

[Infinityloop]

Understood.

Evangelical protestants would then point to the fact that Jesus referred to Peter as satan just a few verses later (vs23), Peter's multiple denials during Jesus's arrest and need to get back into fellowship, the fact that Paul was sent to the gentiles when Peter couldn't get over his fear of the judaizers, the fact that Peter was a married man and as such does not resemble the catholic clergy, that the "rock" being referred to was Jesus Himself (the stone which the builders rejected has become the cornerstone) , etc.

While i would have to brush up on my history to cite specifics, the fact that the sucession line has been a mess (multiple popes at a time, the avignon papacy, even stuff such as the relatively recent resignation of benedict in order to install jesuit francis*), would also be an issue when it comes to the legitimacy of the catholic pope.

A Catholic would point out the pivotal role that Saint Peter has in the Acts of the Apostles.
They would probably also point out that Peter's denials, likewise to Judas' betrayal after having recognized the Christ and likewise Paul's never having physically met Christ - all form mysteries of the faith.

Spoiler: not that I need to mention

(of course in my view mysteries, be that the trinity or other matters are all contradictions and not sacred matters)

* in response to this we have the "sedevacantist catholics" which reject the current pope, and as far as the thread is concerned i wonder if they would be "heretics". I suppose not if the determining factor is accepting the eucharist.

Yes they are another fascinating group, most Catholics would regard them as heretical because of how crucial recognizing a Pope is - even a bad one (and Catholics openly admit to having had bad popes in the past).
One of the things to note is that the Papacy isn't the only authority, it is ultimately at the top when it comes to the rank of authority but subordinate to it in the authority of the Magisterium are the Ecumenical council, Bishops and the Bible itself. A pope on their own can't do much to override fundamental tenants of the faith.

 

[Infinityloop]

Another thing with heresies to point out is that aside from the Eucharist, two other points tend to be:

1. Universalism
2. Antinomianism

With universal tendencies, they de-emphasize the salvific role of the crucifixion and so forth. Such belief has popped up in various different places in Christian heresiology and has also found it's ways into liberal forms of Protestantism.
Antinomianism on the other hand is a twofold matter. As per Paul of Tarsus, Christianity is already antinomian in the sense of replacing practical adherence to the Torah with the doctrine of Grace. However despite this lean towards secularism which is predicated in such notions from Paul, Christianity through most of it's history was still enforced by a legal system (Roman Law, which became Christianized under the Roman Catholic Church, likewise to Byzantine law).
However in Protestantism there was a gradual shift (which also affected Catholicism after the fall of the Roman Empire) towards simply secular law and removing religious principles, morals, etc from the legal system. Nowadays it all resurfaced as part of the "culture war" oddly enough.
In the liberal forms of Protestantism this also moves towards a moral-antinomianism (wherein things like fornication, sodomy/homosexuality, and other matters 'of the flesh' are all socially accepted in churches or the culture within them).
Of note as well, it can be rather hard to discern what the real difference is for instance, between the Church of England and The Satanic Temple, when they both hold very similar worldviews only painted over with opposite symbology.

The combination of both of these points brings to mind many of the blatant heresies of the past like the Borborites and the Brethren of the Free Spirit.


Also I wonder where @Lyfe falls into with this because he has sometimes spouted views which teeter on this.

 

[Padre_Neo]

If you read the church fathers enough you will notice that some of the earliest church fathers did not have defined doctrine when it comes to Eucharist etc. There was however dissension amongst centralising authority in Rome. The heresies of Catholicism were creeping in as is natural for corruption of Gods word as seen with the Pharisees sadducees and Jewish sects. Reform was completely necessary.

 

[Infinityloop]

If you read the church fathers enough you will notice that some of the earliest church fathers did not have defined doctrine when it comes to Eucharist etc. There was however dissension amongst centralising authority in Rome. The heresies of Catholicism were creeping in as is natural for corruption of Gods word as seen with the Pharisees sadducees and Jewish sects.

The consensus of the Magisterium was that it is the literal body and blood and presence of the Holy Spirit. Of course there was a lot of differing opinions on every little nuance of Christian theology (many of the church fathers weren't "trinitarians" either, even if they believed in elements of it) during all of this period and beyond. However the overwhelming majority did literally believe in transubstantiation and the most important/influential of the western Church fathers (for both Catholic and Protestant), Saint Augustine, most explicitly believed in it's literalness.
And so did the highly significant Saint Athanasius, who has almost parallel influence in trinitarian theology as Augustine did (the Athanasian creed also had even more influence on later developments on trinitarian theology than the Nicaean creed itself). Athanasius affirmed it's literalness, he was also one of the key figures at the council of Nicaea responding to the 'heresy' of Arianism.
The many councils (not just Nicaea, but also notably Constantinople) were done to decisively respond to these problems and to weed out heresies. In mainstream Christian discourse it went unchallenged until after Calvin, as stated.
It was a all a collective effort of council upon council across several centuries. Catholics don't portray it as if it all came together instantaneously, even if they (like Protestants) claim that the Bible agrees/says what they believe on any of these given matters.

The thing is that a Protestant can cite a few examples of individual early figures who didn't believe it, but a Catholic can also cite many examples as well as have the consensus of every church council on his side, as well as the agreement of the Orthodox Church.

Reform was completely necessary.

Two problems with this:

1. Orthodoxy and many other non-reformation, non-Catholic forms of Christianity already existed, why reject them and jump straight to the conclusion of starting your own independent churches outside of the confines of the Catholic/Orthodox consensus?
2. Protestantism doesn't solve many of these issues, in fact the independent nature of the way Protestant denominations function means that for any 1 problem, there are 20 different independent answers to it.
- Beyond that the Catholic church also had the counter-reformation, in which it claimed to deal with various issues within it's institutional structure rather than abandoning the entire thing like Protestants did. And these kinds of matters weren't what Luther was aiming for when he started the reformation, as initially problems like Indulgences were what he was so furious about.

 

[Padre_Neo]

The consensus of the Magisterium was that it is the literal body and blood and presence of the Holy Spirit. Of course there was a lot of differing opinions on every little nuance of Christian theology (many of the church fathers weren't "trinitarians" either, even if they believed in elements of it) during all of this period and beyond. However the overwhelming majority did literally believe in transubstantiation and the most important/influential of the western Church fathers (for both Catholic and Protestant), Saint Augustine, most explicitly believed in it's literalness.
And so did the highly significant Saint Athanasius, who has almost parallel influence in trinitarian theology as Augustine did (the Athanasian creed also had even more influence on later developments on trinitarian theology than the Nicaean creed itself). Athanasius affirmed it's literalness, he was also one of the key figures at the council of Nicaea responding to the 'heresy' of Arianism.
The many councils (not just Nicaea, but also notably Constantinople) were done to decisively respond to these problems and to weed out heresies. In mainstream Christian discourse it went unchallenged until after Calvin, as stated.
It was a all a collective effort of council upon council across several centuries. Catholics don't portray it as if it all came together instantaneously, even if they (like Protestants) claim that the Bible agrees/says what they believe on any of these given matters.

The thing is that a Protestant can cite a few examples of individual early figures who didn't believe it, but a Catholic can also cite many examples as well as have the consensus of every church council on his side, as well as the agreement of the Orthodox Church.



Two problems with this:

1. Orthodoxy and many other non-reformation, non-Catholic forms of Christianity already existed, why reject them and jump straight to the conclusion of starting your own independent churches outside of the confines of the Catholic/Orthodox consensus?
2. Protestantism doesn't solve many of these issues, in fact the independent nature of the way Protestant denominations function means that for any 1 problem, there are 20 different independent answers to it.
- Beyond that the Catholic church also had the counter-reformation, in which it claimed to deal with various issues within it's institutional structure rather than abandoning the entire thing like Protestants did. And these kinds of matters weren't what Luther was aiming for when he started the reformation, as initially problems like Indulgences were what he was so furious about.

there are many catholic subsets that in turn seem like there own theology. Protestantism is a lot more united In the concept of grace and biblical authority. Most reasonable catholics would agree the church needed reform at that time.

what I’m arguing is that regardless of the consensus, doesn’t mean they made the correct decision, that’s where I think interpretation is more prone to error than Biblical texts

 

[Infinityloop]

there are many catholic subsets that in turn seem like there own theology. Protestantism is a lot more united In the concept of grace and biblical authority.

I very much do not believe that this is the case.

1. Catholicism too believes in the doctrine of Grace and has it's own complex theology about it - so Protestants didn't bring anything new to the table there, only introduced Sola Fide.
2. Catholics don't reject "Biblical authority", they believe the Magisterium to be the continuation and preservation of said "Biblical authority"
3. Catholicism in theory and self-perception is also supposed to unify a lot of trends and finding compromises between contradicting views (take Jesus as a man and Jesus as God - as the quintessential example), rather than take extremes.

Most reasonable catholics would agree the church needed reform at that time.

And basically all Catholics would state that they got what was needed, and quite swiftly, with the Council of Trent and the Counter-reformation - henceforth in their view confirming Protestantism as a null and void non-solution.

what I’m arguing is that regardless of the consensus, doesn’t mean they made the correct decision, that’s where I think interpretation is more prone to error than Biblical texts

Spoiler: Obvious for me

I do agree with you on this, as I am not Christian, albeit from a very different angle than you say this.

And I feel funny doing this, given that I am basically defending a position I don't hold, but it has it's place with examining continuities and discontinuities in the key assumptions in Christian theology and how it plays out within the separation between Catholicism and Protestantism.
I could also defend from the Protestant perspective, and probably would in front of a lot of Catholics, but for the purposes of this thread, I think the Catholic POV is best to represent when it comes to the subject of "heresies", given that Protestantism is considered the heresy that got away and that the Catholic church is the one that formulated the idea of "heresy" in the first place.

From the most basic acceptance of core mainstream, mostly unanimous theological concepts in Christianity, particularly surrounding the Trinity, I don't believe that the literal transubstantiation of the Eucharist can be escaped from without collapsing the entire Trinity doctrine in one fell swoop, as stated it is a theological and hermeneutic lynchpin.

 

[Padre_Neo]

I very much do not believe that this is the case.

1. Catholicism too believes in the doctrine of Grace and has it's own complex theology about it - so Protestants didn't bring anything new to the table there, only introduced Sola Fide.
2. Catholics don't reject "Biblical authority", they believe the Magisterium to be the continuation and preservation of said "Biblical authority"
3. Catholicism in theory and self-perception is also supposed to unify a lot of trends and finding compromises between contradicting views (take Jesus as a man and Jesus as God - as the quintessential example), rather than take extremes.



And basically all Catholics would state that they got what was needed, and quite swiftly, with the Council of Trent and the Counter-reformation - henceforth in their view confirming Protestantism as a null and void non-solution.

Spoiler: Obvious for me

I do agree with you on this, as I am not Christian, albeit from a very different angle than you say this.

And I feel funny doing this, given that I am basically defending a position I don't hold, but it has it's place with examining continuities and discontinuities in the key assumptions in Christian theology and the separation between Catholicism and Protestantism.
I could also defend from the Protestant perspective, and probably would in front of a lot of Catholics, but for the purposes of this thread, I think the Catholic POV is best to represent when it comes to the subject of "heresies", given that Protestantism is considered the heresy that got away and that the Catholic church is the one that formulated the idea of "heresy" in the first place.

From the most basic acceptance of core mainstream, mostly unanimous theological concepts in Christianity, particularly surrounding the Trinity, I don't believe that the literal transubstantiation of the Eucharist can be escaped from without collapsing the entire doctrine in one fell swoop.

you have a lot of doctrines that are widely held and mystics and mystical views that are held but not accepted by the church.

co redemptrix is one, the writings of different mystics, the divine will is another concept. Asceticism, among many other things, traditional catholics, Latin mass vs mass

 

[Padre_Neo]

the fruit of Catholicism is lacking it places the church and saints as the intercessors as opposed to Jesus it relies heavily on religious ceremony for example 3 masses to relieve someone from purgatory

 

[Lyfe]

I think those questions, while important in their own right, are kinda dodging the point of the questions being addressed in this thread about heresy and reformation. Beliefs in the nature of the Eucharist itself seems to (up until a few hundred years ago in certain Protestant denominations) be seen as the lynchpin (and centerpiece) of Christianity.

...to be upfront with you I don't know all that much about church history. Is The Bible sufficient enough to enable one to know the difference between truth and error, by your belief?

 

[A Freeman]

The difficulty with all of these notions about what is heresy and what isn't, is that they are based on the opinions of humans, who lack the facilities to see anything spiritual (what is flesh is flesh/human and what is spirit is spirit/soul - John 3:3-7).

When Christ, through the mouth Jesus, said to His Disciples "take, eat; this is my body" and "drink ye all of it; for this is my blood of the New Covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins", He was very obviously NOT talking about eating human flesh, nor drinking human blood (Lev. 17:10-14), nor waving some magic wand to pretend that bread and wine had been magically transformed into body and blood (using fancy terms like "transubstantiation" or "consubstantiation" to try to explain how something is supposedly "transformed" even though it obviously hasn't been transformed).

The lesson Christ was delivering was one of "self-sacrifice" (Luke 9:23), where the Teachings of Christ, being the "bread of life" (John 6:35), NEED to be DIGESTED, for them to deliver the spiritual energy that His Teachings contain. "This do as oft as ye eat or drink, in remembrance of me" (the sacrifice that Christ made when Jesus was crucified).

Human food needs to be digested before it can be turned into physical energy/fuel for the body. The same is true for a spiritual-Being (Soul), which draws its spiritual energy from God and His Word (Deut. 8:3; Matt. 4:4; John 6:63), if/when it is digested, i.e. put into action.

Humans will NEVER understand that the church ritual referred to as "Holy Communion" makes a mockery of both the Holy Spirit and of Christ's Sacrifice (Gal. 6:7).

The True Meaning of Holy Communion

Christ told us that He is “the bread of life” and that we would never hunger (spiritually) if we came to Him. Find nourishment in communion with Him.

gibraltar-messenger.net

 

[Infinityloop]

...to be upfront with you I don't know all that much about church history. Is The Bible sufficient enough to enable one to know the difference between truth and error, by your belief?

I'd throw that back to you and ask you if you think that the fruits of the Sola Scriptura doctrine has been a good thing or not.
And I mean, not just the interpretations you hold but all the ones you disagree with, whether held by other bigger Protestant churches or by individuals such as yourself.
Because an ideal and a reality are very often completely different things.

 

[Infinityloop]

you have a lot of doctrines that are widely held and mystics and mystical views that are held but not accepted by the church.

co redemptrix is one, the writings of different mystics, the divine will is another concept. Asceticism, among many other things, traditional catholics, Latin mass vs mass

On this, not every individual thing is endorsed by the Catholic church as it is an institution and doesn't operate on an individual basis, however it does provide institutionally streamlined structures to cater towards societal things that could have led into heretical areas before being incorporated into the instructional structure. This includes Catholic mystics (who often get canonized as Saints as well) and ascetics (the monkhood/nunhood thing emerged out of this by providing them a place in the fold of the Catholic church rather than giving the potentiality of schisming - and it seemed to work for them).

Co-redemptrix (which is not considered to be the same as co-savior) like many other matters are part of the way that the Catholic church irons out matters. As noted, the Trinity and other doctrines had a similar (though differently situated doctrinally) process from nuances that pop up. Things like co-redemptrix and similar doctrines like the Assumption are part of the ongoing ironing out of matters of Mariology.
In the context of a specifically Christian worldview, I see nothing scandalous about it because logical problems are gonna come up and across centuries it is gonna be debated and developed further to stay in line with overarching principles and doctrines etc.
In the same manner, if Jesus is God than Mary as Theotokos is just a natural conclusion.
This is something I'll never understand when it comes to Protestant objections, but it'd be interesting to hear from your (not you specifically but anyone) specific personal objections to such logical conclusions of certain beliefs.


The Latin Mass vs Novus Ordo is a (to me) amusing debate between mainstream and "trad" Catholics which I've been following for years. The Latin Mass wasn't the original mass though, so mainstream Catholics has an advantage over the 'trads' because the Mass like other matters, is refined and adjusted by the Church over time.

the fruit of Catholicism is lacking it places the church and saints as the intercessors as opposed to Jesus it relies heavily on religious ceremony for example 3 masses to relieve someone from purgatory

Well they view the Catholic Church as the gatekeeper of salvation, and after the Protestant reformation, they hold onto that even tighter.
They don't view Saints and Mary as salvation as opposed to the crucifixion of Jesus, God (and the Logos) made flesh dying for the sins of the world etc. So in that manner they don't place them "as opposed to Jesus" in the way you say.

Of note, the Catholic Church is not "1 church" in the manner that a church of a Protestant denomination is "1 church. The Catholic Church is a matrix of 24 unified churches across the world, all under the same banner, doctrine and legal stipulation all under the oversight and authority of the Magisterium (incl Papacy). So by "institution" it truly is incredibly large.

Spoiler: unsurprisingly

But Islamically, as a Muslim, I agree with all you say and also hold it to yourself for deifying and worshipping Jesus but that is a different discussion

 

[Lyfe]

I'd throw that back to you and ask you if you think that the fruits of the Sola Scriptura doctrine has been a good thing or not.
And I mean, not just the interpretations you hold but all the ones you disagree with, whether held by other bigger Protestant churches or by individuals such as yourself.
Because an ideal and a reality are very often completely different things.

I believe sola scriptura is necessary now more than ever. Society and even the so called churches would be infinitely more pagan and accepting of evil than what they already are without the clearness of God's word.

There's so much deception out there that we have to be more narrow. Too many out there who err not knowing the scriptures!

 

[Infinityloop]

I believe sola scriptura is necessary now more than ever. Society and even the so called churches would be infinitely more pagan and accepting of evil than what they already are without the clearness of God's word.

There's so much deception out there that we have to be more narrow. Too many out there who err not knowing the scriptures!

How do you determine who is doing sola scriptura correctly and who is doing it falsely? who has the authority to decide or declare such things? how can one correct or rebuke on such matters when defacto it puts everyone's interpretation on the same footing?

The thing about sola scriptura is that it's ideal is that "we represent word-for-word what the Bible says" but in reality it is the elevation of the personal, subjective interpretation (no matter how wild) over traditional consensus of interpretation and tradition in general.

 

[ToxicFemininitySucks]

The many councils (not just Nicaea, but also notably Constantinople) were done to decisively respond to these problems and to weed out heresies. In mainstream Christian discourse it went unchallenged until after Calvin, as stated.

The problems with this is that a) we were not there, and b) there is enough evidence to suggest that doctrines were adopted by force. Either agree with us or be excommunicated.

The council of ephesus is especially problematic, given the history of ephesus (diana of the ephesians) and the fact that the council was started before the bishops against adopting this new doctrine had arrived.

Orthodoxy and many other non-reformation, non-Catholic forms of Christianity already existed, why reject them and jump straight to the conclusion of starting your own independent churches outside of the confines of the Catholic/Orthodox consensus?

From what i've read, from orthodox themselves, is that if the reformers had been better aware of the orthodox church there would have been no need for the reformation. It is true that some of the later developments, like papal indulgences, were not an issue in the orthodox church. But at the time, long before the printing press, communication was slower.

(I'm not necessarily vouching for this viewpoint, just expressing that it is something i've read orthodox say in response to the issue of the reformation)