A Quick Comparison

[the lumberjack]

help here if you'd like:

[color=blue]protestantism[/color] [color=red]catholicism[/color]

[b]Salvation:[/b] 1 [color=blue]by grace thru faith, faith producing good works[/color]... [color=red]same in catholicism, right?[/color]

[b]Communion:[/b] [color=blue]a holy, sacred tradition that is done in rememberance to show the Lord's redeeming action on the cross, the breaking of His body, the spilling of His blood. we eat the bread and drink the cup as a symbol of how we partake in what He sacrificed on the cross for us, in order to redeem us[/color] [color=red]the same in catholicism, except you believe that it is the actual blood, body and divinty of Christ that you are eating, right?[/color]

feel free to correct my postings...and to add other areas.

God bless.

[Brother Adam]

With salvation, this can be true with more liturgical protestant churches, such as Eastern Orthodox, Angelican, and Lutheran. When you end up in the business churches (corporate theology) you move further away from this basic belief to an absolute "faith alone" in which one is garunteed final salvation by a prayer.

With communion, Catholics, Lutherans, and a few other groups believe communion is more than symbolic, though only Catholics hold to the true Real Presence. (Transub). The Eucharist convey's God's grace (not to be read "salvation" in the corporate protestant sense) in which one partakes in the New Covenant promise of Christ during the last passover meal in which we learn Christ becomes the paschal lamb for our salvation.

Those that believe in "symbol-only" miss the whole point of the connection between the Jewish passover and Christ's fulfillment of prophecy.

[dUSt]

[quote name='the lumberjack' date='May 5 2004, 01:55 PM'] we eat the bread and drink the cup as a symbol of how we partake in what He sacrificed on the cross for us, in order to redeem us [/quote]
This is not true in Catholicism. It is not a symbol, but rather an actual participation in. The Eucharist (the mass) is God's way of all allowing [b]all[/b] generations to actually and physically participate in His final sacrifice.

[theculturewarrior]

[quote]only Catholics hold to the true Real Presence.[/quote]

I hope I'm not getting on your nerves, Br. Adam, but I have a caveat. Only Catholics have adopted Transubstantiation as the official dogma explaining [b]how[/b] Christ's Body becomes present. But at least three other Churches hold to the historical Catholic teaching on the real presence, although have fallen away through schism. The Catholic Church holds these Churches to have valid sacraments. This need not challenge anybody's faith. Indeed it has convicted me of the historicity and infallibility of the Catholic Tradition.

Transubstantiation is not to be confused with belief in the Real Presence.

[PedroX]

Culture warrior,

I am aware that the Eastern Orthodox hold to the real presence, but what are the other two sects?

Thanks.

peace...

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='theculturewarrior' date='May 5 2004, 04:00 PM']
I hope I'm not getting on your nerves, Br. Adam, but I have a caveat. Only Catholics have adopted Transubstantiation as the official dogma explaining [b]how[/b] Christ's Body becomes present. But at least three other Churches hold to the historical Catholic teaching on the real presence, although have fallen away through schism. The Catholic Church holds these Churches to have valid sacraments. This need not challenge anybody's faith. Indeed it has convicted me of the historicity and infallibility of the Catholic Tradition.

Transubstantiation is not to be confused with belief in the Real Presence. [/quote]
That is why I put "(Transub)" in there. thanks for clarifying for readers.

[phatcatholic]

[quote name='dUSt' date='May 5 2004, 02:18 PM'] This is not true in Catholicism. It is not a symbol, but rather an actual participation in. The Eucharist (the mass) is God's way of all allowing [b]all[/b] generations to actually and physically participate in His final sacrifice. [/quote]
actually, it is my understanding that the Eucharist is in fact symbolic

BUT, it is literal as well.

it is perfectly ok for a catholic to believe in the symbolic elements of the Eucharist, as long as he does not deny the literal and Real Presence of the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ as well.

the Eucharist, just like Baptism, IS what it also REPRESENTS.

[Katholikos]

[quote name='phatcatholic' date='May 5 2004, 04:57 PM'] actually, it is my understanding that the Eucharist is in fact symbolic

BUT, it is literal as well.

it is perfectly ok for a catholic to believe in the symbolic elements of the Eucharist, as long as he does not deny the literal and Real Presence of the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ as well.

the Eucharist, just like Baptism, IS what it also REPRESENTS. [/quote]
Please give us your documentation -- something official from the Church. Thanks.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='phatcatholic' date='May 5 2004, 06:57 PM'] actually, it is my understanding that the Eucharist is in fact symbolic

BUT, it is literal as well.

it is perfectly ok for a catholic to believe in the symbolic elements of the Eucharist, as long as he does not deny the literal and Real Presence of the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ as well.

the Eucharist, just like Baptism, IS what it also REPRESENTS. [/quote]
nope.

It doesn't symbolize the Body and Blood it IS the Body and Blood.

[Katholikos]

[quote name='the lumberjack' date='May 5 2004, 01:55 PM'] help here if you'd like:

[color=blue]protestantism[/color] [color=red]catholicism[/color]

[b]Salvation:[/b] 1 [color=blue]by grace thru faith, faith producing good works[/color]... [color=red]same in catholicism, right?[/color]

[b]Communion:[/b] [color=blue]a holy, sacred tradition that is done in rememberance to show the Lord's redeeming action on the cross, the breaking of His body, the spilling of His blood. we eat the bread and drink the cup as a symbol of how we partake in what He sacrificed on the cross for us, in order to redeem us[/color] [color=red]the same in catholicism, except you believe that it is the actual blood, body and divinty of Christ that you are eating, right?[/color]

feel free to correct my postings...and to add other areas.

God bless. [/quote]
Salvation is by grace ALONE, in faith, working through love.
It is NOT by Faith Alone.

Sanctifying (saving) Grace, -- God's own Divine Life -- which restores us to friendship and intimacy with Him, is conveyed by the Sacraments. Even babies receive Sanctifying Grace when they are baptized and carry it within their souls until it is lost through actual sin when they are older.

--------------


Catholics believe in the necessity of sacrifice. Protestants do not. That's why Protestants abandoned the priesthood at the Deformation in the 16th century and call their clergy 'ministers' or 'pastors.' The definition of a priest is one who offers sacrifice. (Episcopalians use the term 'priest' but don't offer sacrifice.)

Catholics believe that the Sacrifice of Christ occurred outside of time, and being timeless we can experience it here and now. At Mass, we are literally kneeling at the foot of Calvary, where the same Sacrifice of Christ is not repeated but re-presented -- made present to us. So it has been believed down through the centuries. The meaning of Holy Communion is entwined with the meaning of the Mass, which is a Passover meal in which the Lamb of God is consumed.

Our phatmass theologians are invited to correct anything I have said.

---------------

I would be cautious about oversimplifying and thinking that there is not much difference between Catholics and Protestants on these or any other questions.

[ironmonk]

I first want to say [b]Thank you![/b] for trying to understand what the Church really teaches.






Faith does not produce works - According to the bible....


[b]James 2:14 [/b]
What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?
[b]15 [/b]If a brother or sister has nothing to wear and has no food for the day,
[b]16 [/b]and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, keep warm, and eat well," but you do not give them the necessities of the body, what good is it?
[b]17 [/b]So also faith of itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
[b]18 [/b]Indeed someone might say, "You have faith and I have works." Demonstrate your faith to me without works, and I will demonstrate my faith to you from my works.
[b]19 [/b]You believe that God is one. You do well. Even the demons believe that and tremble.
[b]20 [/b]Do you want proof, you ignoramus, that faith without works is useless?
[b]21 [/b]Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar?
[b]22 [/b]You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by the works.
[b]23 [/b]Thus the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness," and he was called "the friend of God."
[b]24 [/b]See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.
[b]25 [/b]And in the same way, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she welcomed the messengers and sent them out by a different route?
[b]26 [/b]For just as a body without a spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.


[b]People can have good works without faith.[/b]


In the NT came a New Law... the Law of Christ....


[b]Romans 2:12 [/b]
All who sin outside the law will also perish without reference to it, and all who sin under the law will be judged in accordance with it.
[b]13 [/b]For it is not those who hear the law who are just in the sight of God; rather, those who observe the law will be justified.
[b]14 [/b]For when the Gentiles who do not have the law by nature observe the prescriptions of the law, they are a law for themselves even though they do not have the law.
[b]15 [/b]They show that the demands of the law are written in their hearts, 6 while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even defend them
[b]16 [/b]on the day when, according to my gospel, [u]God will judge people's hidden works through Christ Jesus[/u].




God Bless,
ironmonk

Edited May 6, 2004 by ironmonk

[theculturewarrior]

[quote]I am aware that the Eastern Orthodox hold to the real presence, but what are the other two sects?

Thanks.

peace... [/quote]

The Oriental Orthodox and the Assyrian Church of the East. They are often simply lumped together as "Orthodox" or the "Eastern Churches."

They are not strong numerically, but their presence is a striking reminder of Early Christianity. What the Church has in common with the East IS the Early Church.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Katholikos' date='May 5 2004, 08:33 PM']
Catholics believe that the Sacrifice of Christ occurred outside of time, and being timeless we can experience it here and now. At Mass, we are literally kneeling at the foot of Calvary, where the same Sacrifice of Christ is not repeated but re-presented -- made present to us. So it has been believed down through the centuries. The meaning of Holy Communion is entwined with the meaning of the Mass, which is a Passover meal in which the Lamb of God is consumed.

[/quote]
more details on the timelessness of the Sacrifice of the Mass and Calvery:


Here is a bit written on the word transubstantiation and why we use it. The word is new because there is no equivalent word to use. Remembrance simply doesn't adequately cover the concept.



Christ died once for the forgiveness of sin. At Mass he is not re-sacrificed, it is the original sacrifice. Think of it as you being on calvery at the foot of the Cross.

In the Mass we say do this in remembrance of me. Remembrance is a poor translation for what happens.

The definition of Anamnesis which you read is closer to the original
meaning than what we have in English - but it still does not cover the full
definition of the Greek word 'anamnesis'.

Jesus said (as expressed in English), "Do this 'in anamnesis' of me.

"Make ye my anamnesis" is UNDOUBTEDLY a better technical expresson of
the Greek than "Do this in (remembrance, memory, commemoration, memorial, or
memory) of me. All the words in (parens) have been used in various English
translations of Jesus' words in our English language Mass.

Various translators used those words because they corporately know there
is no English word which fully truly carries the sense of
the Greek word "anamnesis".

"Make you my anamnesis" is technically more accurate - but it would be
incomprehensible to most people.

Again, there is no precise English equivalent of anamnesis. WHY IS THAT
TRUE?

It is true because "commemoration", "remembrance", "memorial",
"memory" and all similar English words have a connotation of something which
is mentally remembered, without the thing itself being present in any other
way.

On the other hand (unlike our closesest English equivalents), in the
Scriptures 'anamnesis' (and its verbal form) means "recalling" or
"remembering" or "representing" before God a past event in THAT IS ACTUALLY
OPERATIVE IN ITS AFFECTS HERE AND NOW.

This is the actual sense of our English "commemoration" or "remembrance"
or "memorial" or "memory" which is used here when Our Lord says "Make you my
anamnesis".

It is not just a recalling of some past event.

While it IS also a "making present" of something which took place in the
past:

It is ALSO a reference to something which actually took place in the
past - but - whose affects are operatively also actually present in the here
and now. That is why it is referred to in several OT prophecies as a
"perpetual sacrifice" which will take place as a result of the arrival of
the Messiah.

But there is no way to clearly express in English the sense of the Greek
original.

[phatcatholic]

[quote name='Katholikos' date='May 5 2004, 05:53 PM'] Please give us your documentation -- something official from the Church. Thanks. [/quote]
i'm afraid i have mixed up Holy Communion with the Sacrifice of the Mass. [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10006a.htm"][b]this article[/b][/url] from New Advent explains the difference between the two and shows how it is the Sacrifice of the Mass that has a symbolic nature AS WELL AS a literal one.

on the difference between Holy Communion and the Sacrifice of the Mass, I give you this from the article i linked to above:

[quote]Before dealing with the proofs of revelation afforded by the Bible and tradition, certain preliminary points must first be decided. Of these the most important is that the Church intends the Mass to be regarded as a "true and proper sacrifice", and [b]will not tolerate the idea that the sacrifice is identical with Holy Communion.[/b] That is the sense of a clause from the Council of Trent (Sess. XXII, can. 1): "[b]If any one saith that in the Mass a true and proper sacrifice is not offered to God; or, that to be offered is nothing else but that Christ is given us to eat; let him be anathema[/b]" (Denzinger, "Enchir.", 10th ed. 1908, n. 948).

. . . .

The simple fact that numerous heretics, such as Wyclif and Luther, repudiated the Mass as "idolatry", while retaining the Sacrament of the true Body and Blood of Christ, proves that [b]the Sacrament of the Eucharist is something essentially different from the Sacrifice of the Mass[/b]. In truth, the Eucharist performs at once two functions: that of a sacrament and that of a sacrifice. Though the inseparableness of the two is most clearly seen in the fact that the consecrating sacrificial powers of the priest coincide, and consequently that the sacrament is produced only in and through the Mass, the real difference between them is shown in that the sacrament is intended privately for the sanctification of the soul, whereas the sacrifice serves primarily to glorify God by adoration, thanksgiving, prayer, and expiation.[/quote]

now, as for the symbolic AS WELL AS the literal qualities of the Sacrifice of the Mass, i give you this, from the same article:

[quote]The definition of the Council of Trent supposes as self-evident the proposition that, along with the "true and real Sacrifice of the Mass", there can be and are in Christendom [b]figurative and unreal sacrifices of various kinds, such as prayers of praise and thanksgiving, alms, mortification, obedience, and works of penance.[/b] Such offerings are often referred to in Holy Scripture, e.g. in Ecclus., xxxv, 4: "All he that doth mercy offereth sacrifice"; and in Ps. cxl, 2: "Let my prayer be directed as incense in thy sight, the lifting up of my hands as evening sacrifice." [b]These figurative offerings, however, necessarily presuppose [u]the real and true offering[/u], just as a picture presupposes its subject and a portrait its original.[/b] The Biblical metaphors -- a "sacrifice of jubilation" (Ps. xxvi, 6), the "calves of our lips (Osee, xiv, 3), the "sacrifice of praise" (Heb., xiii, 15) -- expressions which apply sacrificial terms to sacrifice (hostia, thysia). That there was such a sacrifice, the whole sacrificial system of the Old Law bears witness. [b]It is true that we may and must recognize with St. Thomas (II-II:85:3), as the principale sacrificium the sacrificial intent which, embodied in the spirit of prayer, inspires and animates the external offerings as the body animates the soul, and without which even the most perfect offering has neither worth nor effect before God.[/b] Hence, the holy psalmist says: "For if thou hadst desired sacrifice, I would indeed have given it: with burnt-offerings thou wilt not be delighted. A sacrifice to God is an afflicted spirit" (Ps. I, 18 sq.). [b]This indispensable requirement of an internal sacrifice, however, by no means makes the external sacrifice superfluous in Christianity[/b]; indeed, without a perpetual oblation deriving its value from the sacrifice once offered on the Cross, Christianity, the perfect religion, would be inferior not only to the Old Testament, but even to the poorest form of natural religion.[/quote]

as such, it appears to me that the Sacrifice of the Mass contains both the prayer and praise that symbolize sacrifice, AND the Real Sacrifice of the Son to the Father. this is what i had in mind w/ my previous comments.

as for baptism "being what it also represents" i provide this from the CCC:

[quote][b]694[/b] Water. The symbolism of water signifies the Holy Spirit's action in Baptism, since after the invocation of the Holy Spirit it becomes the efficacious sacramental sign of new birth: just as the gestation of our first birth took place in water, so [b]the water of Baptism truly signifies that our birth into the divine life is given to us in the Holy Spirit[/b]. As "by one Spirit we were all baptized," so we are also "made to drink of one Spirit."27 Thus the Spirit is also personally the living water welling up from Christ crucified28 as its source and welling up in us to eternal life.29

[b]1214[/b] This sacrament is called Baptism, after the central rite by which it is carried out: to baptize (Greek baptizein) means to "plunge" or "immerse"; [b]the "plunge" into the water symbolizes the catechumen's burial into Christ's death[/b], from which he rises up by resurrection with him, as "a new creature."6

[b]1215[/b] This sacrament is also called "the washing of regeneration and renewal by the Holy Spirit," for [b]it signifies and actually brings about[/b] the birth of water and the Spirit without which no one "can enter the kingdom of God."7

[b]1220[/b] If water springing up from the earth symbolizes life, the water of the sea is a symbol of death and so can represent the mystery of the cross. [b]By this symbolism Baptism signifies communion with Christ's death.[/b][/quote]

note that i do not deny what is really and truly present and occurring in both instances, i was just reaffirming a symbolic nature as well. i hope i have cleared up any confusion i may have caused.

pax christi,
phatcatholic

[Katholikos]

Brother Phatcatholic: