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 ...
I don't see it that way. What you call "arguing against honoring Mary" is NOT saying Mary shouldn't be honored at all just that emphasizing extra-biblical dogmas the Catholic church came up with and their dogmatic assertion that ALL Christians must accept them, is rejected. I greatly honor Mary and see her as a beautiful example of faith, courage and humility. I reject the idea that she was preserved sinless from birth because God's word quite clearly states ALL have sinned and she is included in that "all". Jesus alone was without sin because he was the incarnate God.
The argument against the Catholic "eucharist" is solely because Catholicism asserts the bread and wine initially given at the Last Supper are mysteriously changed into the flesh and blood and soul and divinity of Jesus in order to impart sanctifying grace for salvation and that ONLY her priests are authorized to "confect" the elements and administer them, thereby making the Catholic rite the only "game in town". I don't believe Scripture backs that up, but, then again, Catholics don't rely solely upon Scripture for their doctrines. Certainly, observance of the Lord's Supper is for the edification of believers to, as Jesus said we should, bring to our remembrance what He did for us. Jesus died once for all and by His death on the cross we have been sanctified through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. For by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.
There is STILL quite a bit of "bathwater" that we retain and find common ground with you. We don't disagree about the Trinity, the virgin birth, the Divinity of Jesus Christ, that He is "God with us", that He died on the cross and He shed his blood as propitiation for our sins, that God saves us by His grace through faith, that we should live lives that honor and glorify God in gratitude for His precious gift of eternal life, that He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead and that we will be with Him in heaven for eternity.
I wonder often why some FRoman Catholics on these threads cannot simply agree to disagree about some of these things. I'm all for earnestly contending for the faith once delivered unto the saints but there comes a time when you speak your beliefs and leave it to the Holy Spirit to do the convicting. Asserting ONLY Catholics have "it" right and every non-Catholic Christian is somehow lost unless they convert to Catholicism is the REAL throwing out of the baby with the bathwater.
Nice on Acts 10:14.
Nope...that doesn't answer my question about why you and those who think as you do about the current Pope and his predecessors aren't protesting and are "Protestants".
I think our definition of what "believe" means, is different from other people's definition of what "believe" means. Therein lies the problem. Head knowledge vs heart knowledge. 🙏
“I believe a plane will fly.” But won’t get on it.
“I believe a plane will fly” and gets on it.
Well, so much for the perpetual succession of St. Peter...
“Where does the church exist without people?...”
See my tag line. Perhaps there is no guarantee that there will be ANY faithful left when He comes back.
She can indeed say is it wrong for you, who erroneously believes it is blood. Except that, contrary to what a straightforward literal reading of the words at issue ("this is my body which is broken..," "my blood...which is shed..") require, you do not believe that the elements you consume fully correspond to the manifest flesh and blood of the Lord on the cross.
For in contrast to a Gnostic-type Christ, which only appeared to be human, the real Christ of Scripture was one who looked, felt, behaved, bled, etc. and would scientifically test as real flesh.
That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; (1 John 1:1)
But akin to Gnostic delusion, Catholics believe in a Christ who looks, feels, behaves, and would scientifically test as real bread ans wine. But which is said to no longer exist once the mighty unScriptural NT priest utters his words of consecration, and instead it is deceptively claimed that what the Catholics are looking at and consume is "the very body which he gave up for us on the cross, and the very blood which he poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins,"(CCC 1365) in His entirety, in each particle and in each drop (even subatomic), and in multilocation.
That is, until what no longer exist (the bread and wine which is said to be Christ) decays or is physically destroyed by some natural process. However, since the bread and wine ceased to exist then that which decays does not exist as either bread or wine nor Christ.
And yet God/Christ nowhere existed as an inanimate object, and when He chose to become "really" present in a physical form then it was one that was clearly manifest as just that, not a piece of bread!
Moreover, if we take John 6:53,54 as literally as other "verily verily" imperatives, then the NT church would have been preaching the Lord's supper as the means of regeneration and spiritual nourishment, instead of the word of God.
And in contrast to the Catholic Eucharist being manifestly described as the preeminent practice of the NT church (Acts onward, which writings are interpretive of the gospels), "a kind of consummation of the spiritual life, and in a sense the goal of all the sacraments," (Mysterium Fidei) 'the medicine of immortality, the antidote for death, and the food that makes us live for ever in Jesus Christ," (CCC 1415) and a daily sacrifice for sins at the hands of men called "priests" (distinctive from laity), with the offering of it being a primary function, even the Biblical Lord's supper in only manifestly described in one epistle (see below), and perhaps as breaking of bread in Acts and the simple reference to the "feast of charity" in Jude 1:12.
And it is only described as a communal commemorative and declarative meal with no priests ever mentioned, nor pastors exhorted to be faithful in this feeding, but instead they are exhorted to feed the flock (Acts 20:28; 1Pt. 5:2) by preaching the word of God. (2Tim. 4:2; Rm. 10:15; Col. 1:25,28)
And with the believing of which (as the gospel message) is how souls obtain spiritual life, and which word is taught as being spiritual nourishment , being uniquely called "milk" and "meat" (1Co. 3:2; Heb. 5:13; 1Pt. 2:2) by which believers are "nourished" (1Tim. 4:6) and built up. (Acts 20:32)
Moreover, the only censure for not recognizing the body of Christ is that of not recognizing the church as such, due to hypocritically ignoring and shaming members of it by selfishly and independently eating, while supposedly showing/declaring the Lord's unselfish death which purchased the very body, the church, (Acts 20:28) and the souls they were ignoring (1Co. 11 ) .
The reality is that only the metaphorical understanding of the words at issue easily conflates with John and the rest of Scripture.
As substantially shown here , by God's grace.
Using statues and paintings to help us pray and worship the Lord our God is not sharing his praise with carved idols.
“Then why don’t you do it before a STATUE of Jesus?”
I don’t?
Someone pointed out earlier that the blessed mother didn’t say much in scripture. Maybe its because she didn’t say much in public. Or in the church.
Here is a good passage that applies to her and others who would be like her:
First Epistle Of Saint Paul To The Corinthians Chapter 14:
[34] Let women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted them to speak, but to be subject, as also the law saith. [35] But if they would learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is a shame for a woman to speak in the church.
In keeping with the spirit of this letter by Saint Paul I will not ask for Elsie’s reply.
Why, Elsie, I think you were just accused of being a "woman"! Bet your wife will be surprised.
FYI...R&B, Free Republic Religion Forum threads are NOT "church"...in case you didn't realize that.
Do you go to the same sect of Catholicism as afvet?
He also tried misusing that Scripture to silence the opposition when he was taking a beating as well.
I’m curious as to why Catholics who dismiss Scripture so frequently love to try to beat others into submission with it as if suddenly they find it authoritative.
It’s almost as if they expect Christians to roll over and play dead the minute someone (mis)quotes Scripture at them. Like we’re going to say *Oh NOES! He used Scripture! Now we have to listen to everything he says.*
But Catholics problem is that Christians can think for themselves and we don’t just parrot the party line of our church. And we’re not just a bunch of pansies.
We can tell when someone is trying to manipulate us into submission with Scripture.
Amen.
4L84. THX.
4L8R.
I would only digress slightly on that MM. It will get them "somewhere," and that "somewhere," is a permanent residency in the hottest corner of the lake of fire. Imagine the pain and agony an infinite, omnipotent God, can inflict on an unbeliever. I don't intend to find out. I am convinced neither of you do either.
I can't imagine why anyone would knowingly choose that, but millions do. 👺🔥
I can't speak for other Catholics, but I worshipped Mary, when I was a Catholic. 😆
[underlining added for emphasis]
then, yourself in a spirit of charity (or so this came across, to me) aiming at getting a point across, in hope of possibly being better understood(?) changed the previous [underlined] wording;
Please understand, I'm not engaging on this point in order to nit-pic for sake of nit-picking and thus harassment, but rather to point out to you that neither of those [above] wordings are in line with how Roman Catholicism more officially describes transubstantiation.
I do believe, have been led to conclude (not merely on this thread, but for some years now) that the slight difference between how you chose to speak of consecrated eucharistic bread, and how the RCC otherwise has long vociferously pressed their own wordings (along with much consequent theological considerations and conclusions, there being a collection of 'baggage' of that sort in regards to this) goes a lo-ooong way in explaining just why so many, so-called "protestants" reject the doctrine of transubstantiation, for there are many who WOULD find themselves in much agreement with the wording which you chose to express.
As far I can tell, both ways you described what was being discussed could be said to, in general sense conform to; Lutheran description and understanding, traditional Anglican description, and take in also, in spirit as it were, Calvinistic description of what translates into the phrase 'pneumatic presence', the word pneumatic here being used somewhat synonymous with spiritually or as 'in spirit' if you will, yet true and Real presence in that manner, nonetheless.
Only explicitly not inclusive of corporeal (literal physical presence) at the same time, of the kind which fully and LITERALLY would equate to that Real Presence as I refer to that here, being also the very same *exact* physical body that was the corporeal flesh, blood, bone, hair, teeth, etc., of Christ when He walked the earth in (true & actual) form of a man prior to his crucifixion, death, resurrection, and then finally when He ascended.
Forgive me if you will for belaboring the point here, yet I do often get the impression that many modern 'Catholics', without even realizing it(!) hold what was once (and still IS, in many settings) fairly 'Protestant' views (albeit not fully -Zwinglian- as in "strictly memorial", as some, say Baptists often hold to) in regards to the Lord's Supper.
According to the RCC (in rough estimation on my own part, perhaps) the "bread" after consecration ceases to exist at all, the "accident" of the bread's outward appearance alone remaining, Christ said to be present "under" that mere outward accidental appearance ---not---
the bread, just as it was prior to consecration.
The entire affair quite often spoken of too (at times among and amid 'Catholic' descriptions) as being literally the *same* body as hung upon the cross, the ministrations of the priest said to be providing access to that same body, even as if to the LITERAL (thus corporeal) flesh just as that 2000 years ago hung upon a cross, along with His Divinity.
--- For my own understanding I simply must consider how He (as according to Scripture) was witnessed by three persons to have departed this earthly realm, having ascended up into the sky (quite literally), the question He asked in John 6 ("what will you say when I return to where I was before!"} indicating to me that Jesus DID return "back to where he was" prior to the time He was born into flesh and blood physical earthly realm existence -- thus --- The Lord our God be fully Spirit again; Father, Son, and Holy Spirit all together as one, as it was before there was made (by God) anything that was made.
How then could I (or even should I, and for that matter -- anyone?) eat of this bread which comes from Heaven, thinking it include be carnal, typical "mammalian" yet fully human flesh (you know, like the bodies we are existing with while we peck away at keyboards? yeah - that *stuff*-) along with His Divinity, and that altogether as that is now, from perhaps BOTH our own perspective, and God's own perspective too?
Is this making any sense to you? I brought this all up because if memory serves, centuries ago that type of position which you appeared to outline had been condemned by some pope or another as being heretical, and was anathematized. Thus this small (but significant) difference of viewpoint regarding the [Roman] Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation --- as that had been described by the Roman Catholic Church AND much contended over in past centuries (from about the year 1600, or so, continuing to this present day) and how you just otherwise wrote about it, be chief-most cause for the original and continuing disputation, along with not just a little bit of misunderstanding & mis-communication.
Or am I missing a boat here (the boat) and you are a Lutheran, or Methodist, and not [Roman] Catholic?
My only, or should I say main remaining concern here is that my questioning of you in this manner (if you are indeed Latin Church 'Catholic') could drive you to adopt yet more fully the 15th-16th century 'Romish' doctrine of transubstantiation, which I should add here the Orthodox have historically shunned fullest agreement with as being an unneeded(?) and less-than wisest approach to what they otherwise have widely long preferred leave to being spoken of as Divine Mystery, though they do also say "this is" the Body (of Christ), of course.
Methodists, even do the same much similar, (say "this is the Body), at least some of them do, considering the consecrated bread to be the Body in sacramental sense (even though still just ordinary bread at the same time, in 'carnal' physical sense) as again, as far as I can tell do those more formally Anglican (at least those Anglicans still of traditional-conservative type, albeit those folks add a bit of restrained 'adoration', at least posture of 'respect') and as also more than a few Pentecostal likewise view the consecrated loaf as Body of Christ albeit minus placing of wafer into a monstrance to be held aloft and looked upon as being God.
That last thingy -- the monstrance --- can serve as example of "how to worship one's own worship will intertwining that with worship of one's own Church's alleged authority to turn stones into bread bread into being no longer bread AT ALL but instead, be very God!" after hocus pocus words said by 'our priest', yep that's right, only our priest most definitely not yours! and don't you ever forget it!!!...
Sickening, isn't it? It's no wonder have been turned away. JUST LOOK WHAT HAS far too often BEEN DONE WITH IT. It truly has been a travesty, an offense to God.
MM, I was going to alert you to the “women being quiet in church” thing, but you picked up on it like white on rice. Good looking out.
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.