<p>^Claremarie, I don’t know if belief in Transubstantiation a Catholic makes; but yes, they would ideologically be Catholic.</p>
<p>Show me where the dogma of Transubstantiation is in the Bible?</p>
<p>The Last Supper.</p>
<p>And, as a favor, show me where the moral implications of eating oranges is in the Bible.</p>
<p>BalconyBoy. You came to the wrong forum to argue with Catholics. While I believe Notre Dame is quite alright for other religions, you have to be at least a little bit open. You are directly attacking the most important and distinguishing factor between Catholics and Protestants. I agree with Irish45221 that this isn’t and shouldn’t become a religious debate. But if you want to throw stones… I can do that also.</p>
<p>The Last Supper??? That was the beginning of communion but how does that support the dogma of Transubstantiation?</p>
<p>Your reference to eating oranges is funny and is totally absurd and has nothing to do with my question.</p>
<p>Heavy Sigh. Why don’t we focus on what unites us instead of what divdes us? Especially as Christians-whether Protestant or Catholic (and that was the original question). It aggravates and saddens me to see us focus on these doctrines especially when someone has asked if they are Presbyterian how would they fit in. Protestants and Catholics do have very different doctrines in certain areas and we can argue all day. Catholics notoriously create what isn’t apparent to us Protestants in the Bible, but we (and yes I am a protestant though I prefer to call myself a non-denominational) seem to be certain our view is correct. So, really, the VERY BASIC and important aspect of both our Christian faiths is Jesus Christ. Who he is, why he died for us etc. Let’s major in the majors and respect each other. A discussion about Transubstantian doesn’t seem appropriate here, honestly-save it for Theology class or thread. </p>
<p>I am certain God never intended us to be divisive, and yes this is one of the reasons why he was angry with the Pharisees–RITUAL/DOGMA, emphasizing that over what was the very foundation. A foundation we both share. So sad. To the Presbyterian I a say you will be fine as long as you can respect the differences.</p>
<p>Sometimes threads take on lives of their own. The consensus was clear that a Presbyterian would be welcome at ND. And perhaps we shouldn’t feed the ■■■■■■, but so many of us hold ND and our Catholic faith near to our heart, and believe that the faith deserves to be understood by all those who question it, especially at a Catholic University.</p>
<p>I have no problem respecting the differences.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Read the Bible. What does Jesus say? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’re right, it is funny to me. Because it highlights to an amazing degree the huge flaw in your argument. Would you like to fill in the gaping hole, or leave it there for all to stare at and use as fodder for not taking anything you say seriously?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>“The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 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.” In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.</p>
<p>Symbolism. Very powerful symbolism. </p>
<p>There is no gaping hole anywhere. There was no discussion regarding oranges. No oranges aren’t mentioned in the Bible. Neither is Formica! But then again why would they be? Does the Bible have anything to do with oranges and Formica? Nope. Does the Bible have anything to do with the Christian faith? You bet your bippy it does! It is the Word of God and the main source of truth.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>We disagree. Since neither of us can prove our point, drop it. But to say Transubstantiation is not in the Bible is to say, “I believe that your reading of the Bible is wrong because it is. Haha.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of course it has to do with the Christian faith.</p>
<p>But your argument AGAINST Transubstantiation was that it was NOT in the Bible. This is only relevant if you establish that everything that exists or is correct is in the Bible. </p>
<p>We eat oranges and do not consider that a moral harm. Oranges are not in the Bible; the moral implications of eating them exist nonetheless.</p>
<p>Drop it, please. Stop making yourself look like a buffoon, otherwise you will drag me down to that level as well.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>At least you agree transubstantiation isn’t in the Bible.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Wrong. The Bible mentions nothing about automobiles. Know why? They didn’t exist then! The Bible also mentions nothing about iPhones! That doesn’t diminish their existence or correctness. Neither have anything to do with the Bible! You really need to stop the sprawl!</p>
<p>There is no moral harm or benefit to eating oranges and thinking so is a myth.</p>
<p>Can’t drag you where you already are.</p>
<p>A lot of things aren’t in the Bible.
For example, nowhere in the New Testament is the process described wherein those particular books were determined to have been “inspired by God.”<br>
If you believe that the Bible (especially the four Gospels) is “the Word of God and the main source of truth,” you have to go OUTSIDE Scriptures to explain that belief.<br>
Remember that Christianity existed for decades before any of the books of the New Testament were written.</p>
<p>I highly doubt that either side will sway in an argument on a public forum. Both sides believe with such conviction that they are right; there is no possible way to convince a change of heart. Although I wish to debate, it is useless. BalconyBoy will misinterpret what is said, as he thinks we are misinterpreting. The reason for so many Protestant denominations (over 30,000) is that there is no “correct” interpretation. Everyone fends for themselves. The Catholic Church, the largest Christian sect, (and again, I am not saying that because there are more Catholics than Protestants we must be right) has one central figure with thousands of years of tradition behind it to interpret the Bible. That is the problem in this arguement, you can’t change someones interpretation of something easily, especially not over a forum.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Babe, you just can’t seem to get it right. I never claimed that. I said that was YOUR argument. Do you not read my posts?</p>
<p>“This is my Body.”</p>
<p>Transubstantiation. It’s right there. If you don’t like that interpretation, ■■■■ and go to a non-Catholic parish. Wait, you do, so I don’t know why you are standing there like an infant trying to assert your nonexistent point. It’s interpretation. People don’t agree with the Church. That’s why we have so many Protestants. You assert the primacy of the Bible despite the fact that the primacy of the Bible was established by Catholics.</p>
<p>Where in the Bible does it say to read the Bible as the top authority?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Exactly. Yet we use them anyway! It doesn’t matter that they don’t exist – you clearly believe that the Bible is immutable, as do I. But you are arbitrarily selective in what is correct interpretation – why must some things be in the Bible but not others? Oranges certainly existed in Jesus’ time. Yet you eat them even though the Bible does not tell you that you are allowed! What is wrong with you? I’m sure the Devil is waiting patiently for your demise to add one to his false kingdom, vile orange-eater!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Where is that in the Bible? Show me where it says there is no moral harm.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is SO true. So next time you want to drag me to a coherent point, know that you can’t. But at least you can join rational people over here, so there is an upside.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Correction. The original statement would of course encompass things that have not yet been invented.</p>
<p>Since we answered the OP in the first couple of pages, and we are all clear on the difference between Catholic and Protestant views on transubstantiation, how about some posts on the other main doctrinal differences between Catholics and Protestants?</p>
<p>Trinitarian theology
Hippostatic union
Works and faith v. faith
Maryology
Pneumatology
Eschatology/judgment
Confession
Role of RCC</p>
<p>No they didn’t exist is correct.</p>
<p>Since you don’t think the Bible is the 1st and foremost Christian authority there is no point pointing out how wrong you are.</p>
<p>Good, thanks. My virtual ears (=eyes?)are grateful.</p>