The two things that would make some Protestants consider the Mass a heresy are the theology of transubstantiation
and that the mass was considered to be an actual re-enactment (or re-presentation) of the sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross.

Now these doctrines in the modern RC thought are in many ways no longer that important (as I understand it)but because it is part of the tradition of the church they are retained.

Charles you say the difference between the Anglican eucharist (the official one!) and the Catholic Mass is minimal but there are differences and they are quite fundemental doctrinally.

For instance the words said by the priest before the liturgy of the Eucharist usggest the idea of a re-presentation of the sacrifice of Jesus (see above) which protestants find difficult

quote:

---

Pray, brethren, that our sacrifice may be acceptable to God, the almighty Father. the reponse of the people beingMay the Lord accept the sacrifice at your hands for the praise and glory of his name, for our good, and the good of all his Church.

---

Another area which some protestants find difficult is the applied idea that receiving bread and wine is the means of salvation
as expressed in these words towards the end of the liturgy of the Mass

quote:

---

May this mingling of the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ bring eternal life to us who receive it.

---

To be honest I can not see the problem with the use of the word 'mass' it simply means celebration and we use it a christmas quite happily.

The words of distribution of BCP(1662)are
"The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life.Eat this in remembrance that Christ died for thee, and feed on him in thy heart with faith and thanksgiving"

I suspect two strands of Anglican Eucharistic theology are about to surface!
My own understanding is that in the Eucharist we receive our Lord in with and under bread and wine as Luther described.There is a real presence of our Lord there but this presence is a spiritual one "given taken and eaten only in an heavenly and spiritual manner"(39 Articles)

I am not happy with transubstantiation;as to how our Lord is present is something I don't know.I would also maintain that the Presence is given to us for one reason only:that of reception.I feel uneasy with extra-liturgical use of the Sacrament - yes,I've been to them and very impressive services they are - it's just that they go beyond our Lord's command.Are we doing the right thing, I ask myself.I'm aware that many Anglicans of more lofty churchmanship than myself go further.Although I treat the elements with respect if some wine is spilt and gets on a blouse or a shirt...well my instinct is to put it in a washing-machine,not consume it with fire.(I'm not being sarcastic here BTW)

With the Eucharistic sacrifice,I find myself again between two views.I do not feel myself that we offer Christ again to the Father;and I dislike masses of private intentino.The Mass is for us all

Yet.....as we receive Holy Communion and are taken into Christ's presence,I feel that we do, in some way partake of the heavenly banquet.

The two things that would make some Protestants consider the Mass a heresy are the theology of transubstantiation
and that the mass was considered to be an actual re-enactment (or re-presentation) of the sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross.
----------------------------------------

Two points: The question of transubstantiation has been covered many times before on this web site and on others. In general it boils down to which passages of the Bible you wish to quote.
John chapter 6 verses 35 to 58
Starting from verse 52
Then the Jews started arguing with one another: ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’ they said.
Jesus replied ‘ I tell you most solemnly, if you do not eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you will not have life in you. Anyone who does eat my flesh and drink my blood has eternal life, and I shall raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Etc

The use of the word memorial (anamesis)can mean re-enactment and that was the sense in what it was used in the medieval church but
that now is untrue. It is unfortunate that that the phrases that the Priest utters before the liturgy of the Eucharist would still imply that.

Out of Interest why are these words used if actually that is not official Catholic doctrine?
The phrase 'Eucharistic sacrifice' (not a memorial of the sacrifice of Jesus) is made in various readings I have made on Roman Catholic doctrine what does this mean?

As a Catholic, I believe in the Real Presence in the Eucharist. I do not see the Eucharist as a re-enactment only. Nor do I see the elements changing their chemical composition.

quote:

---

Charles said As a Catholic, I believe in the Real Presence in the Eucharist

---

From reading your posts they hint that formal Roman Catholic doctrine and what most Roman Catholics believe are different. It probably explains why ARCIC got on well but when they took there conclusions to the Roman Catholic and Anglican leaderships it vanished in to the long grass.

So to the issue of heresy it is a shame that some protestants don't discuss the theological concepts with Roman Catholics themselves and discover that they are not that different theologically.

All this sniping seems rather petty to me. I never experienced any anti-Catholic sentiments before coming to this website, and I have never hated Protestants. I would strongly urge people to try to look past labels. I don't have a problem with you having doctrinal differences to me. It is interesting and a different perspective. It makes me think. I may not necessarily adopt them but at least I can learn more about how other people approach God.

From reading your posts they hint that formal Roman Catholic doctrine and what most Roman Catholics believe is different.

To the best of my knowledge, I am an orthodox Catholic.

The confusion, as I see it,lies between what is formal Roman Catholic doctrine and what is thought to be formal Roman Catholic doctrine.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carmel:
most of the time the only thing dividing us is language and small details.

---

Carmel,

I hope that you and all other Christians who worship in the Catholic tradition feel welcome on these boards, and that we can all learn from each other. The Ship is a better place for having many traditions represented.

It seems to me that the Catholic tradition is not immune from the extremism and fundamentalism that is (in the English-speaking world) more commonly associated with the protestant tradition. I suspect that none of us wants to be judged by the extremists we tolerate.

All Christians are supposed to be as brothers and sisters to each other. But then, aren't all mankind supposed to be as brothers and sisters to each other ?

Anyone who has brothers and sisters will know that they can be quite infuriatingly and unrepentantly wrong about all sorts of things.

Human institutions can appear very threatening things (cf Ronald Reagan's "evil empire" speech) from a distance, and also very reassuring if we've grown up with them close by and are used to having them around.

Jesus doesn't say much about institutions; he seems to relate to people as people rather than as symbols (of empire, nation, priesthood or whatever).

It is probably an inescapable facet of human nature that, perceiving value in the words of Jesus, we wish to divide the world into "Christians" and "non-Christians" with more status given to the former than the latter. But it's not obvious whether such an activity achieves anything worthwhile.

Is there an unwritten commandment of the Ship that says "Thou shalt not doubt whether shipmates are Christian" ? Is it offensive to call other shipmates unChristian ?

Having said that I'm all for mutual acceptance, I have a niggling doubt. Do we consider it acceptable behaviour for someone to deny that anyone from other denominations is Christian ? is saved ?

What about Ratzinger-style doctrine - the view that there is only one Christian church (whose head is the Pope) and other churches aren't churches at all, just collections of individual heretics ?

Can tolerance tolerate intolerance, or must we draw a line ?

Trying to sum up a rather rambling post, I don't find much difficulty in writing off KKK-type "Christians" in far-off places as extremist loonies. But I have difficulty in knowing how to respond to reasonable and
reverent Christians of the largest Christian denomination who implicitly (by their apparently unquestioning acceptance of their church's doctrine) seem to be signing up to unacceptably intolerant attitudes.

Is it just a case of if we all distance ourselves from the extremists in our respective denominations we'll all get along fine ?

I have looked the The Catechism of the Catholic Church up on the net.

With regards to the Mass being a reenactment of the sacrifice of Jesus after reference to 1364-1368 it appears to mean that the Eucharist is a participation in the Sacrifice of Jesus as opposed to an re-enactment.

para 1367

[

quote:

---

The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: "The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different." "In this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner."[188]

---

Catechism of the catholic church -Eucharist

The concept of transubstantiation as expressed by myself seems to be the belief of the Roman Catholic church. It certinly seems to be going further than An outward sign with an inward grace.

para 1367

quote:

---

The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation."[204]

---

reference page

Hence to the earlier question some protestants will consider the above believes to be heresy. The former because it suggests that the Mass is needed to make the sacrifice of Jesus's death complete and the latter because it seems to ask for several miracles at once and Jesus's body to be on earth in a piece of bread as opposed to in heaven.

quote:

---

But I have difficulty in knowing how to respond to reasonable and
reverent Christians of the largest Christian denomination who implicitly (by their apparently unquestioning acceptance of their church's doctrine) seem to be signing up to unacceptably intolerant attitudes.

---

I think this thread is rather depressing; i hve to agree with those who've said they've seen too much anti-catholic prejudice here.

So to get back to the original point, can we work out what doesn't make a christian and see what we're left with?

I say people are not Christians who:

1. Deny the divinity of Christ.

2. Deny that salvation depends on believing in Him and obeying His teachings.

These two things assume the existence of God, heaven and hell, and divine revelation.

I don't think that any of the Christian religions, Catholic, Protestant, or whatever, deny these things. Maybe I'm wrong.

quote:

---

Deny that salvation depends on believing in Him and obeying His teachings.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
I agree.

I say people are not Christians who:

1. Deny the divinity of Christ.

2. Deny that salvation depends on believing in Him and obeying His teachings.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ham'n'Eggs:
Sparkle - may I ask you where 'accepting him as your saviour' comes from?

---

... and exactly what does it mean?

I believe it is through Him we are redeemed, including me personally but along the lines that Karl quotes.

So that's me out - especially if you start introducing an unshakeable belief in hell as an additional criteria.

Might the answer be: Anyone who knows the answer to Jesus' question: "Who do you say that I am?"

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl:
That's me out then.

---

Ha-ha! I knew this line of thought would bear fruit!

Now having said all that, I should add that I don't believe that you have to be a Christian to be saved. I think everyone is saved who loves God and lives a good life - however they understand those concepts.

But Karl said:
John's gospel says that the judgement works on how we respond to 'the Light', not whether we have this personal Lord and saviour theology sorted out.

That sounds Christian to me.

Sparkle writes:
obeying his teaching is something we strive for, and do because we love him and want to serve him, but it is not our deeds which get us into heaven.

I knew someone would say this!

Jesus clearly said that if we did not obey Him we would not be saved.

And don't pull that stuff about whoever disobeys the least of His commands breaks them all.

Of course we have no strength whatsoever to do His will - that's why we need Him. But we need to try just as if we did have the strength, and He will help us. How could someone be a Christian who didn't even try to obey God?

[fixed code]

2. Deny that salvation depends on believing in Him and obeying His teachings./quote]

That is different than what it is to be saved.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ingeborg S. Nordén:
I too would like to apologize for being blunt about my beliefs in the previous message; the administrators may delete that post if they choose. (Although I've mentioned my own beliefs elsewhere on the board, I still enjoy discussing other people's religions whether or not I agree with them!)

---

It is kind of interesting to probe around as to what people think Christianity is all about.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ham'n'Eggs:
Which part of "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you shall be saved" do you have problems with?

---

For a start, Jesus himself didn't say it.
What part of the story of the Good Samaritan do you have problems with? What part of Matthew Chap.25 vv31-46 do you have problems with?

Sorry if I seem to be banging on about the same old stuff; I'm going to have another go at trying to formulate what I want to say, both to get it straighter in my own mind and in the hope that it might strike a chord with somebody else.

From what you've posted on this thread, I feel I can communicate with you and Charles in the same way as with anyone else on these boards. As one person to another, accepting that we're both in the same boat, trying to make sense of things, to understand where other people are coming from while staying true to the values we hold. (Does StPaul say somewhere something like "Come, let us reason together..." ?)

However, if you truly believe the doctrine expounded by Cardinal Ratzinger - that there is only one Christian church, i.e. the Roman Catholic church, and that all other Christians are simply heretics who reject that church - then that changes the relationship between us. You can't then talk to me on equal terms. You have to talk down to me as one with knowledge of the Truth to one who is in ignorance of that truth. As (if you'll pardon the analogy) a club member in good standing to someone who claims some of the benefits of membership but hasn't paid his dues. I am no longer your brother in Christ, I am someone who lapsed fifteen generations ago, who follows the error of his ancestors who wilfully turned their back on the church.

[The Catholic church once believed that heretics should be punished. Has it ever officially renounced this view?]

That's what I mean by an intolerant attitude; no doubt it was and still is badly expressed, for which I'm sorry. [Some Protestants seem to hold a similar sort of attitude to Catholics, regarding them as targets for evangelisation rather than Christians in a different tradition with different emphasis].

Nothing that you or Charles (or anyone else on this thread) has said suggests that you hold Ratzinger's view of other Christians. But if this is the official Vatican view, then is it surprising if Catholics who don't in some way distance themselves from official doctrine are suspected of holding it ?

I was hoping that you or Charles would come back and say that you regard Ratzinger as an extremist who interprets the tradition of the RC church in a particularly intolerant and unhelpful way. And that your interpretation of the same doctrinal point is only that Catholics believe that the Catholic church has got it broadly right, just like every other denomination.

Any thoughts ?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Qlib:
For a start, Jesus himself didn't say it.

---

What Jesus said was, "Preach the Gospel to every creature. He who believes and is baptized will be saved. But he who does not believe will be condemned." Mark 16.15,16

This requires, I think, some interpretation.

Believing and being baptized, in this context, means something going on in a person's mind and heart. It would be absurd to think that everyone who says, "I believe", and is literaly baptized, is saved.

Jesus is speaking of people who are in harmony with the teachings of the Gospel, who put away their sins, and who follow Him in their life.

People are condemned who are the opposite of this - rejecting any concept of good and evil, living only to serve themselves, with no thought of benefiting others.

Qlib, I agree with you when you say:
I suppose I shouldn't have said belief is irrelevant. I just think it's not the deciding factor.

The deciding factor is what a person genuinely believes in their heart, and what they therefore love, and the way that they therefore live their life.

And just to comment on what Russ just said about Cardinal Ratzinger - Are you asking the Catholic Church to reverse its position and declare all Christian churches equal? I think that is asking a little much, since the Catholic church was the original one (apart from Orthodox) and we all broke away.

Doesn't everyone think that their church has some kind of edge on interpeting the truth?

Most people tend to think that all churches have a part of the truth, not just their own. But the churches themselves seldom officially teach that they are not necessarily right.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
Why single out Catholics, except perhaps for asserting this with more certaintly than other Christian churches?

---

I have been wondering this myself. Nobody has so far had a go at the Orthodox or other denominations. We just happen to be close at hand and so more visible. I am not here as an apologist for the faith that I was baptized into. I am not a theologian or anything to do with the clergy. I do not know the ins and outs and finer details of doctrine. Half the questions raised on this and other threads would puzzle most of the ordinary Catholics I know. In the course of day to day life most of us never even stop to think about whether people we meet are or are not heretics. I've never even heard anyone use the word in real life.

It is clear from the postings I have read that many Protestants perceive far more of a difference between Catholics and Protestants than I do or the other Catholics I know do. If you have difficulty accepting aspects of our faith let me make this clear to you: you are not obliged to.

From the number of times that this topic has recurred, the Catholic/Protestant differences are clearly an issue for some people. I think we must have had at least three threads on it so far ranging from questions framed in a spirit of genuine inquiry to statements condemning Catholics out of hand. Life is full of people who think differently. Sadly, life is also full of people who just can't accept this fact.

Although the original post is worded in such a way as to include discussion of Catholicism per se, since there is now a Catholic Beliefs thread, it would be better to discuss Catholic doctrine about the status of other Christians there.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
Doesn't everyone think that their church has some kind of edge on interpeting the truth?

---

Well, actually, no we don't. In fact, we make a point of saying that we DON'T have an edge on the truth.

quote:

---

Most people tend to think that all churches have a part of the truth, not just their own. But the churches themselves seldom officially teach that they are not necessarily right.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Campbellite:
No one, including our own denomination, has a monopoly on the truth.

---

And is this the correct position to take? Or is it quite possibly wrong?

I think it was Cardinal Ratzinger who objected to the phrase 'Sister Churches'.

'The Catechism of the Catholic Church' speaks warmly of the other Churches.
To quote:

'The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honoured by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter'.

And again:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
Believing and being baptized, in this context, means something going on in a person's mind and heart.

---

Believing in what though? I'm not going to re-run the 'I am not a Christian' thread here, but Jesus did not preach the Virgin Birth or (obviously) the redemptive sacrifice. He spoke of God as Father and the Holy Spirit, but didn't preach the doctrine of the Trinity, and responded to both 'Son of Man' and 'Son of David' (and, yes, I know there are many layers of meaning to both these appellations).

I think we partly agree that there is a complex relationship between faith and works, but that passage from Matthew that I referred to suggests to me that service to others counts as service to God. Whether you believe in Him or not. And faith without works is dead.

quote:

---

I think it was Cardinal Ratzinger who objected to the phrase 'Sister Churches'.

'The Catechism of the Catholic Church' speaks warmly of the other Churches

---

It was in fact "Dominus Iesus", issued last September, which put official catholic teaching back before Vatican II and caused quite an uproar - at least here in Germany - because it denied that there are churches outside the Catholic Church. We others are merely ecclesiastical communities lacking the full characteristics of a church.

Practically all Catholics I know were as aghast about that backslide as Protestants, and in general I would say that that Catholicism I meet when I talk to friends, visit a Benedictine abbey or just the church opposite my house is decidedly different from the "official version" - and a lot more accessible in theory and practice.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
We're talking about what it is to be a Christian.

That is different than what it is to be saved.

Or do you think that ALL Christians and ONLY Christians are saved? I don't believe either of these is true.

---

Only people who are saved are Christians....