Posted on 01/02/2017 4:25:11 AM PST by BlessedBeGod
...If the Church were to change its rules on shared Eucharistic Communion it would “go against Revelation and the Magisterium”, leading Christians to “commit blasphemy and sacrilege,” an Italian theologian has warned.
Drawing on the Church’s teaching based on Sacred Scripture and Tradition, Msgr. Nicola Bux, a former consulter to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, stressed that non-Catholic Christians must have undertaken baptism and confirmation in the Catholic Church, and repented of grave sin through sacramental confession, in order to be able to receive Jesus in the Eucharist.
Msgr. Bux was responding to the Register about concerns that elements of the current pontificate might be sympathetic of a form of “open Communion” proposed by the German Protestant theologian, Jürgen Moltmann.
The concerns have arisen primarily due to the Holy Father’s own comments on Holy Communion and Lutherans, his apparent support for some remarried divorcees to receive Holy Communion, and how others have used his frequently repeated maxim about the Eucharist: that it is “not a prize for the perfect, but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak.”
The debate specifically over intercommunion with Christian denominations follows recent remarks by Cardinal Walter Kasper who, in a Dec. 10 interview with Avvenire, said he hopes Pope Francis’ next declaration will open the way for intercommunion with other denominations “in special cases.”
The German theologian said shared Eucharistic communion is just a matter of time, and that the Pope’s recent participation in the Reformation commemoration in Lund has given “a new thrust” to the “ecumenical process.”
Pope Francis has often expressed his admiration for Cardinal Kasper’s theology whose thinking has significantly influenced…the priorities of this pontificate, particularly on the Eucharist.
For Moltmann, Holy Communion is “the Lord's supper, not something organized by a church or a denomination”...
(Excerpt) Read more at ncregister.com ...
Did Jesus ever identify Mary as the Master to the original disciples? No. He instructed the disciples that they as students were not superior to to “the Master” (Himself) and that they would suffer in much the same way He did.
If the Church teaches that Mary is to be patterned after, scripture tells me that this teaching is error. In Paul’s letters, he never mentions Mary, but does mention several times the example of Christ as the goal.
And yes, I will rebel against any human invention that directly contradicts scripture. Such as the practice of forbidding to marry, which is directly commented upon by Paul as being a false teaching an not worthy of a body of believers or leaders to do.
uh...no.
The Church, if you define that as roman catholic, did not give us the Scriptures.
The ekklesia, that is the body of believers, moved by the Holy Spirit who moved men to write, gave us the Word.
As I noted before, you really need to read The Canon of Scripture by F.F. Bruce.
It should be noted that of all the major translations, only the Douay-Rheims translates Gen 3:15 as "...she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel."
The catholic encyclopedia online, which bills itself as the most comprehensive resource on Catholic teaching, history, and information ever gathered in all of human history, has this to say about Gen 3:15 in relation to the immaculate conception.
No direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma can be brought forward from Scripture. But the first scriptural passage which contains the promise of the redemption, mentions also the Mother of the Redeemer. The sentence against the first parents was accompanied by the Earliest Gospel ( Proto-evangelium ), which put enmity between the serpent and the woman : "and I will put enmity between thee and the woman and her seed; she (he) shall crush thy head and thou shalt lie in wait for her (his) heel" ( Genesis 3:15 ). The translation "she" of the Vulgate is interpretative; it originated after the fourth century, and cannot be defended critically.
http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=6056
Roman catholicism's own "most comprehensive resource on Catholic teaching, history, and information ever gathered in all of human history" admits Gen 3:15 as translated in the Vulgate cannot be defended.
Yet catholics continue to do do and have even built one of their dogmas on a verse that cannot be defended!
You can't make it up....oh wait...they did in 1854.
I understand why roman catholicism would not be willing to admit the error. If it did, it would collapse the papacy and the rcc as so much has been vested in Mary.
ealgeone:
If Scripture isn’t the source then you have to allow the Mormon their Book of Mormon and the Muslim their Koran.
RB:
Not so. That is your own assumption, inconsistent with all of Church history.
ealgeone:
If the Catholic claims “tradition” the burden is in the (sic) cathokic to show a uniform agreement by the ECFs on the issues.
RB:
The Church is free, guided by the Holy Ghost, to make declarations by its competent authorities. (You make declarations quite freely all on your own! Are you a competent authority of the Church?) The popes (barring the false popes after A.D.1958 to present - another discussion) have such authority, and by the way, there is physical apostolic succession in play here.
Such authoritative declarations can shed fresh light on doctrine but never nullifies prior declarations. The Church has always put very serious weight on the work of the Early Church Fathers. And note, Papal authority is higher even than historical documentation on any early church father.
ealgeone:
As illustrated the ECFs are not in agreement rendering the Catholic claim to tradition as as a source of truth null.
RB:
NOT illustrated. See my comment just above. The fact that ECF’s are not in perfect agreement illustrates the need for higher authority, which if you fail to acknowledge, is of no use to you.
I detect a sort of fatalism on your part, clinging to a thought that because ECF had some disagreement on something, then neither could be right.
It does not violate adherence to tradition when the Church finally authoritatively declares that a certain ECF was correct and the other incorrect. (They cannot both be correct in such cases, thus again, the need for higher authority, which God is capable of providing, no?)
ealgeone:
If Scripture isn’t the source then you have to allow the Mormon their Book of Mormon and the Muslim their Koran.
RB:
Not so. That is your own assumption, inconsistent with all of Church history.
ealgeone:
If the Catholic claims “tradition” the burden is in the (sic) cathokic to show a uniform agreement by the ECFs on the issues.
RB:
The Church is free, guided by the Holy Ghost, to make declarations by its competent authorities. (You make declarations quite freely all on your own! Are you a competent authority of the Church?) The popes (barring the false popes after A.D.1958 to present - another discussion) have such authority, and by the way, there is physical apostolic succession in play here.
Such authoritative declarations can shed fresh light on doctrine but never nullifies prior declarations. The Church has always put very serious weight on the work of the Early Church Fathers. And note, Papal authority is higher even than historical documentation on any early church father.
ealgeone:
As illustrated the ECFs are not in agreement rendering the Catholic claim to tradition as as a source of truth null.
RB:
NOT illustrated. See my comment just above. The fact that ECF’s are not in perfect agreement illustrates the need for higher authority, which if you fail to acknowledge, is of no use to you.
I detect a sort of fatalism on your part, clinging to a thought that because ECF had some disagreement on something, then neither could be right.
It does not violate adherence to tradition when the Church finally authoritatively declares that a certain ECF was correct and the other incorrect. (They cannot both be correct in such cases, thus again, the need for higher authority, which God is capable of providing, no?)
“I do believe that if it is not in scripture, it should be questioned and questioned hard.”
So do the Popes. They question everything in its continuity and agreement with scripture, and proceed with grave caution. God also protects them as evidenced by His promise to Peter that the gates of hell shall not prevail against the rock (Peter) upon which He builds his Church.
“... Yet (sic) catholics continue to do (sic) do and have even built one of their dogmas on a verse that cannot be defended!
You can’t make it up....oh wait...they did in 1854.
I understand why roman catholicism would not be willing to admit the error. If it did, it would collapse the papacy and the rcc as so much has been vested in Mary.”
Not. So . Fast .
You are nearly hanging your whole case on an aside by a Catholic commenter on one passage in Genesis.
You are so desperate to defeat the doctrine on Mary you’ll grab onto anything, even specious argument.
So the use of the word “she” cannot definitively be defended. Nor can it definitively be defeated.
The verse definitely doesn’t disallow the possibility that the Church’s claims re. Mary are valid, does it?!
Besides, there is substantial evidence in other places in scripture and other historical events to support why the holy Pope and Church authorities have deemed fit to declare the doctrine.
You need to read what the Church prior to 1958 wrote on the topic, as they are far more competent to discuss this much further than I, a layman.
When Protestants are in their sinful rebellion, they need to repent and believe and their eyes will be opened to see what I have tried and merely scratched the surface on.
As illustrated the ECFs are not in agreement rendering the Catholic claim to tradition as as a source of truth null.
RB:
NOT illustrated. See my comment just above. The fact that ECF’s are not in perfect agreement illustrates the need for higher authority, which if you fail to acknowledge, is of no use to you.
To illustrate the disagreement among the ECFs:
In regard to the sinlessness of Mary the older Fathers are very cautious: some of them even seem to have been in error on this matter.
Origen, although he ascribed to Mary high spiritual prerogatives, thought that, at the time of Christ's passion, the sword of disbelief pierced Mary's soul ; that she was struck by the poniard of doubt ; and that for her sins also Christ died ( Origen, "In Luc. hom. xvii").
In the same manner St. Basil writes in the fourth century: he sees in the sword, of which Simeon speaks, the doubt which pierced Mary's soul (Epistle 259).
St. Chrysostom accuses her of ambition, and of putting herself forward unduly when she sought to speak to Jesus at Capharnaum ( Matthew 12:46 ; Chrysostom, Hom. xliv; cf. also "In Matt.", hom. 4).
http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=6056 You have to admit those are some big names among the ECFs.
Yet the catholic encyclopedia online says they are in error on one of roman catholicism's biggest dogmas.
You admit the ecfs are not in 100% agreement. We're getting somewhere.
We've been told there's unanimous agreement by the ECFs on these issues. Yet we know they're not to which you assent and which has briefly been shown above.
The argument roman catholics make as I understand it regarding apostolic succession goes something like this.
The original apostles (OAs) appointed bishops/elders who were taught everything the OAs knew. These in turn appointed bishops/elders teaching them everything they had been taught and so on leading us up to Frances.
If what you're saying, that the ECFs, are not in 100% agreement this means someone has either:
1)introduced something new which was not passed down from Peter, Paul, John, etc..the OAs,
2)forgot something
3) a combination of above
Further, this deviation in teaching would have occurred somewhat early in the life of the church though I think we can make an argument error has been ongoing. You're making that argument in another post on this thread.
As the OAs died off there would be no way to confirm the accuracy of what was being passed on. This allows for error, even slight error, to enter. See the discussion on the translation of Gen 3:15 as an example.
As the error continues it cannot be countered with truth as the error itself becomes truth.
A good example of this involves roman catholic teaching on Mary and all that has transpired regarding the rcc beliefs on Mary.
If the ECFs cannot be relied upon as being true witnesses of what the OAs originally taught we are left with only one authoritative source: Scripture.
The verse definitely doesn’t disallow the possibility that the Church’s claims re. Mary are valid, does it?!
If it cannot be defended it is defeated.
Again, the Douay Rheims is the only translation rendering Gen 3:15 in this manner.
You are so desperate to defeat the doctrine on Mary you’ll grab onto anything, even specious argument.
See my following post on this regarding the ECFs on Mary from three of catholicism's ECFs.
RB:
The verse definitely doesn’t disallow the possibility that the Church’s claims re. Mary are valid, does it?!
ealgeone:
If it cannot be defended it is defeated.
RP Reply:
Now you are twisting TRUTH. And that is a very RED flag.
For the argument is about a verse and a word, upon which the doctrine of Mary’s supremacy argument itself doesn’t depend, although you would love for it to depend alone upon a single word in a sole verse of scripture. Your side of the argument CANNOT depend on Genesis 3:15, because the verse doesn’t defeat the doctrine and supports the doctrine even if it doesn’t itself define it.
This is typical case of Protestant pastor lawyer-speak where the speaker is slick and fools most, but with an illogical argument.
Which brings to mind:
What reply do you have to post 137 where your ineffective defence of the Protestant claim that “all truth and doctrine can be found only in the Holy Scriptures” was soundly defeated?
Soundly defeated?? LOL!
See my post 148.
This is typical case of Protestant pastor lawyer-speak where the speaker is slick and fools most, but with an illogical argument.
No direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma can be brought forward from Scripture.
http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=6056
You're right...Genesis 3:15 nor any other verse in the Bible can be used to prove the dogma. Catholicism's own encyclopedia online proves this.
Yet catholics try to do so vainly.
Which again goes back to my argument about the OAs and "apostolic tradition".
If you read the rest of the article on the immaculate conception the observant reader comes to the conclusion that this dogma is based on a lot "it seems" and "it has to be" type arguments.
In other words, the catholic sees something in the texts that isn't there as admitted by the catholic encyclopedia online.
The appeal to tradition is called into question as previously noted and noted in this article.
So it comes down to what the catholic wants to see in the texts and the writings of some of the ECFs.
The practice of reading into the texts something that isn't there is called eisegesis: the interpretation of a text (as of the Bible) by reading into it one's own ideas.
Most Biblical scholars attempt to avoid this means of interpretation. Why?
It leads to very, very bad theology.
The case of how the RCC has built up Mary is a prime example of this.
RB:
What reply do you have to post 137 where your ineffective defence of the Protestant claim that “all truth and doctrine can be found only in the Holy Scriptures” was soundly defeated?
ealgeone:
Soundly defeated?? LOL!
See my post 148.
RB:
Your post 148 does nothing to redeem your lie that II Timothy proves that no doctrine exists outside of that found in Scripture.
Where in Scripture does it claim that
“If the ECFs cannot be relied upon as being true witnesses of what the OAs originally taught we are left with only one authoritative source: Scripture.” ?
Scrioture is God's word to us. It was penned for a reason.
Without Scripture we rely upon man's reason which can and often does lead to very bad theology. See the immaculate conception discussion.
If the Bible isn't our truth then all other books and beliefs are allowable.
Does the Bible contain all knowledge? No. No one claims that. It does tell us how to have salvation and how we can know God.
We have this example also.
Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so. Acts 17:11 NASB
The appeal to Scripture as the ultimate source is well attested to in the Bible...both Old and New Testaments.
Your “proof” is proof only by inference (not directly stated so), which is no stronger a proof than the Church and her Papal authority presents scripturally in defining some Dogmas.
In your beloved scriptures, in fact, a particular question arose for which the Church held council (Acts of the Apostles). Out of the council came the Dogma which lives as decided to this day. Where in Scripture does it say they just looked it up in the Scriptures and found the answer right there?
They then proceeded with the answer as the future direction for the Church.
Are you supposing that God is not able to likewise provide for future questions that may arise not encountered before, which the Church, vested with God’s authority, may discover the answer to and then proceed with clear definition even if the Scriptures do not already define it, where the decision of the Church, as always does not contradict Holy Scripture?
Is God also incapable then of giving the authority of a priest to forgive sins, as inferred in the Scriptures and carried out faithfully by the Catholic Church?
Or is it only Protestants who are capable of defining Dogma by inferences found in Holy Scripture?
The numerous appeals to "it is written" are not inference.
As noted before regarding the immaculate conception...No direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma can be brought forward from Scripture.
The RCC couldn't even appeal to the Scriptures for this!!!! And it is admitted by catholicism's own encyclopedia.
Again, that is eisegesis resulting in bad theology.
In your beloved scriptures,...
Wow. I see the high regard you have for the Bible. That says a lot.
Are you supposing that God is not able to likewise provide for future questions that may arise not encountered before, which the Church, vested with God’s authority, may discover the answer to and then proceed with clear definition even if the Scriptures do not already define it, where the decision of the Church, as always does not contradict Holy Scripture?
God can and has provided for future questions by giving us His word.
What you're attempting to defend is the proclamations of new dogmas regarding Mary which cannot be defended nor found in the texts. Nor can any of the Marian dogmas be defended by Scripture.
You also presuppose there is new revelation since the apostles.
We have no evidence there is new revelation nor is new revelation needed.
The Bible contains the means to know God and have salvation.
Is God also incapable then of giving the authority of a priest to forgive sins, as inferred in the Scriptures and carried out faithfully by the Catholic Church?
God did give the authority to forgive sins as illustrated by the preaching of Peter, John, Paul and the other apostles.
You presuppose a priesthood was to be established who would offer a re-sacrifice of Christ via the Eucharist.
This is not supported by Scripture. Christ was a one-time sacrifice and need not be offered up again and again and again. Christ is not brought down from Heaven by the command of the priest as noted by O'Brien in "Faith of Millions".
John O'Brien notes this in "Faith of Millions".
Or is it only Protestants who are capable of defining Dogma by inferences found in Holy Scripture?
No. There are those who believe women can be pastors. That is not supported by the Bible.
There are those who believe the prosperity Gospel which is not supported by the Bible.
There are those who believe in Liberation Theology...including catholics. I've seen some suggest Frances is stepped in this line of thinking.
Again, all of these can be determined to be true or false by the appeal to the Scriptures. Catholicism, as already illustrated, cannot make that claim with its dogmas.
You are wrong on so many points in a multitude of aspects. Ealgeone reminds me of a lawyer who is paid by the state to defend someone who the lawyer knows is guilty, but defends the crook anyway using every lawyer’s trick of persuasion.
I have discovered that ealgeone has made a dozen remarks in other threads besides this one today, and I do not possess the liberty to continue engaging another forum member who has that level of leisure, due to other God given responsibilities.
So, I have made the defence of the Catholic Church in numerous angles, and if you go back and review them you will find a more logical and powerful argument than yours, with the authority of Jesus Christ and His bride, the Church (of which Francis has no part - he is an anti-pope, an enemy of Christ and His beloved bride; he is not even a Catholic).
On the other hand there are many other compelling arguments and historical references including as spoken by highly virtuous and impeccable saints, far holier than you or I that improve upon what I have written, that have convinced many of the truths which I have defended in this thread.
Also, a reliable source for true Catholicism is available at
http://novusordowatch.org/wire/
Ealgeone must repent of the rebellion to which he adheres with the Protestant heretics, as with any other sins to which he adheres, and believe the good news of Jesus Christ to forgive and heal him as He did Paul who also persecuted Jesus Christ through harm to the Church.
You are in my prayers for the same.
I've posted on a lot of threads. So what?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.