[and no, I am not Nathan Busenitz -- please, no FRomish lurkers here, blame any of my own possible sins, on little 'ol Nathan]
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 ...
So? Who coined the phrase? Those nasty Prots again?
We've screwed up your church as badly as the Russians did our last election!
No people = no church.
It’s pretty obvious when only men trot it out to try to silence women they are losing a debate to.
They must think we are all like them or too stupid to see what they are up to.
Yes, boatbums is correct when she said Elsie was a man.
And yet, your college of cardinals voted in this pope, just like all the rest.
Again the questions remain which I don't recall seeing answers to.
Does the Holy Spirit guide the college of cardinals in selecting the pope?
And
How is allowing popes like Francis an example of the Holy Spirit protecting the church from error in faith or morals as you guys always claim?
“Is it relevant?...There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus....”
(Re. Saint Paul’s remarks on women speaking in the church.)
Also regarding women praying with their heads covered, Catholics also follow Saint Paul’s direction in that women cover their heads in church. Do scripture-loving Protestant women do the same?
Is Saint Paul relevant?
Off with them???
What's another dead heretic, more or less?
Time for more papal crusades! Take their land and divvy it up among select leadership of the victors, just like Roman Catholics used to do, centuries ago.
Sorta' reminds one of mohammedans, when looking at it all in arms' length view, doesn't it?
Since you do appear to insist ...then don't blame ME iffen' & when the bloody slippers fit!
Well bro. Since I was a Catholic, sometime in another milenium, all I remember, is that Mary promised to convert Russia, or something like that. It's difficult to recall, but I think the priests and nuns told us we should worship Mary. Other than that, it's been so long since I was a Catholic, that I just can't recall for sure.
R&B:
The “Second Vatican Council” was essentially a protest and rebellion against the church. In it for example six heretic protestants were invited by Rome as advisers. Traditional (true) Catholics on the other hand are not joining the protest.
metmom:
And yet, your college of cardinals voted in this pope, just like all the rest.
Again the questions remain which I don’t recall seeing answers to.
Does the Holy Spirit guide the college of cardinals in selecting the pope?
And
How is allowing popes like Francis an example of the Holy Spirit protecting the church from error in faith or morals as you guys always claim?
R&B:
The college of cardinals like Judas, fell into apostasy. This is nothing new, it is just more intense, which Jesus predicted in the last days.
As I’ve stated before, “Francis” is not a true pope. That is how “us guys” can always claim the Holy Spirit protects the church from error.
The papacy continues, and the Holy Spirit enlivens the church even though Jesus ascended into heaven. How does the papacy continue? The acts of all true popes remain in our tradition, and are to be followed by the faithful. If we are faithful to the last known true pope we are off to a good start. The papacy lives on. There is a gap in the physical papacy every time a pontiff dies, by the way.
Again the recent college of cardinals and their electees are not Catholic or are apostates and heretics. Their manifest heresy de facto removes jurisdiction from them. They are without authority. They are the new protestants.
[and no, I am not Nathan Busenitz -- please, no FRomish lurkers here, blame any of my own possible sins, on little 'ol Nathan]
Well, there goes that 'unbroken line of succession' thingy, flying right out the window.
It (the thingy) didn't even have to crash through any glass ceilings, went right (left?) sideways, instead!
If memory serves...according to John Calvin, the last 'good' pope was Gregory the Great.
I do believe that man had a point. To a point, as for this point, that is (a bit more on that, in just moment...please stand by...)
Luke 18: 19
And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God.
..."call no man 'Father'" He also said.
They should have stuck with that --- and wouldn't be having this problem! Ever think of that?
How dehydrated rock-hard dense does someone have to be in order to not SEE it?!?
Image of transit of Mercury, below;
Do you think that someone who boasts of his perverted fascination in the private attributes of a woman ought to be trusted in commenting on Christian doctrine?
Do you think that someone who shares vile rock music pieces with others ought to be trusted in commenting on Christian doctrine?
It looks like from the direction of Catholicism these days it very well could be blasphemy by Protestants if they took Catholic communion with all the rituals and false claims (bringing Jesus from His throne and making Him enter their unleavened bread etc) that are completely unbiblical and bordering on being apostate.
Argue with Him. Send your insults to Him, oh dry one. It will get you about as far as twisted, false accusations (intended against myself, I take it) will get you, around here.
You may as well take your disagreements with, and continual open rebellion against the Word of God, to Him...for in effect... there is much about Roman Catholicism (theologically and historically speaking, both) which is fundamentally, in essence -- blasphemous.
He could sort it all out for you, if you would only let Him.
Repent, and Believe, yourself why-don't-you?
You demand that of others....
Do that which you demand of others, and perhaps then you may have some degree of credibility.
But what's up with the
implied accusatory, anyway?
Otherwise, I'll most certainly freely confess to posting links to music vids having long done so far, far less for the "video" portions, than the music itself.
Linking to music, including 'rock' music (or any other type) does not nullify in the least whatever element of truths I do point towards, any more than shooting a disliked, unwelcome messenger could ever nullify (kill off) truth, along with the mere messenger.
Top 10 Most Wicked Popes
http://listverse.com/2007/08/17/top-10-most-wicked-popes/
1. Liberius, reigned 352-66 [Catholic Encyclopaedia]
2. Honorius I, reigned 625-638 [Catholic Encyclopaedia]
3. Stephen VI, reigned 896-89 [Catholic Encyclopaedia]
4. John XII, reigned 955-964 [Catholic Encyclopaedia]
5. Benedict IX, reigned 1032-1048 [Catholic Encyclopaedia]
6. Boniface VIII, reigned 1294-1303 [Catholic Encyclopaedia]
7. Urban VI, reigned 1378-1389 [Catholic Encyclopaedia]
8. Alexander VI, reigned 1492-1503 [Catholic Encyclopaedia]
9. Leo X, reigned 1513-1521 [Catholic Encyclopaedia]
10. Clement VII, reigned 1523-1524 [Catholic Encyclopaedia]
Top 10 Worst Popes in History
http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-worst-popes-in-history.php
1. Pope Alexander VI (1431 – 1503)
2. Pope John XII (c. 937 – 964)
3. Pope Benedict IX (c. 1012 – 1065/85)
4. Pope Sergius III (? – 911)
5. Pope Stephen VI (? – 897)
6. Pope Julius III (1487 – 1555)
7. Pope Urban II (ca. 1035 – 1099)
8. Pope Clement VI (1291 – 1352)
9. Pope Leo X (1475 – 1521)
10. Pope Boniface VIII (c. 1235 – 1303)
Forget to include an intended link;
Do you have any idea how impossibly self-refuting & illogical your sedevacantist explanatory on this thread have been? More than a few have been trying to draw your attention to that very thing.
Perhaps you could find a place in the sun (so to speak) with Old Catholics?
Oops! my bad (again), I see they do not "accept" even Vatican I, whereas you appear to, while not accepting Vatican II.
Dear, oh dear, what to do, what to do...
Is there room at the inn (so to speak) at 'Most Holy Family' monastery, would one think?
They may, or may not look forwards to having cope with yet another living carcass, but I'd bet the farm they'd be willing to accept ca$h (and check, what the heck, maybe even debit & credit card?) donations, possible tho$e same in form of "tithe$".
If not accepting "tithe" there... then where would the likes of a 'Most Holy Family' monastery direct one to instead send that sort of thing?
Is there a legitimate location (where Christ's true church) can be found -- since (as according to your lights, I take it) the 'Catholic' Church as presently administered from Vatican City, is less-than fully up to the sought after fullest par, in regards to top-most levels of administration, at the least. I mean, since according to you, generally speaking, the popes since some time near-around era of the promulgation of Vatican II have all been illegitimate. Didn't you say as much?
These sort of questions are fair (enough) at this point, being as you have postured here that it would not be me, myself, or I, who should be consulted.
While we are at it -- what makes your own views and opinions worth anything?
You have some sort of qualification which others lack? I mean, other than perhaps, say, a Pharisaical posturing of "I give thanks to thee, oh God, that thou has not made me like that other man, other there, that sinner"?
I eagerly await your reply. Not really. That was a flat lie, told out loud, deliberately, for effect. I now retract that.
More honestly, I could hardly care less at this point, what your views may be, beyond what you've already displayed, other than (perhaps) from standpoint of case study of theologically contradictory juxtapositions.
Well AND truly stated.
Paul is relevant, you are not.
But when they have a pope they do not like, they essentially become as evangelicals in rejecting certain teachings based on examination of it in the light of their supreme authority (past church teaching), according as they understand it
Yet which is contrary to historical teachings such as state:
Epistola Tua: To the shepherds alone was given all power to teach, to judge, to direct; on the faithful was imposed the duty of following their teaching, of submitting with docility to their judgment , and of allowing themselves to be governed, corrected, and guided by them in the way of salvation.
Thus, it is an absolute necessity for the simple faithful to submit in mind and heart to their own pastors, and for the latter to submit with them to the Head and Supreme Pastor.... Similarly, it is to give proof of a submission which is far from sincere to set up some kind of opposition between one Pontiff and another. Those who, faced with two differing directives, reject the present one to hold to the past, are not giving proof of obedience to the authority which has the right and duty to guide them; and in some ways they resemble those who, on receiving a condemnation, would wish to appeal to a future council, or to a Pope who is better informed.
On this point what must be remembered is that in the government of the Church, except for the essential duties imposed on all Pontiffs by their apostolic office, each of them can adopt the attitude which he judges best according to times and circumstances. Of this he alone is the judge. It is true that for this he has not only special lights, but still more the knowledge of the needs and conditions of the whole of Christendom, for which, it is fitting, his apostolic care must provide. - Epistola Tua (1885), Apostolic Letter of Pope Leo XIII; http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage_print.asp?number=403215&language=en
"It follows that the Church is essentially an unequal society, that is, a society comprising two categories of per sons, the Pastors and the flock...the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors ." - VEHEMENTER NOS, an Encyclical of Pope Pius X promulgated on February 11, 1906.
20. Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent... if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians. - PIUS XII, HUMANI GENERI, August 1950; http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html
The authority (of papal encyclicals) is undoubtedly great". It is, in a sense, sovereign. It is the teaching of the supreme pastor and teacher of the Church. Hence the faithful have a strict obligation to receive this teaching with an infinite respect. A man must not be content simply not to contradict it openly and in a more or less scandalous fashion. An internal mental assent is demanded. It should be received as the teaching sovereignly authorized within the Church." - Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, esteemed Catholic theologian and professor of fundamental dogmatic theology at the Catholic University of America, who served as a peritus for Cardinal Ottaviani at the Second Vatican Council. Extract from the American Ecclesiastical Review, Vol. CXXI, August, 1949; http://www.catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/encyclicals/docauthority.htm
For it is quite foreign to everyone bearing the name of a Christian to trust his own mental powers with such pride as to agree only with those things which he can examine from their inner nature, and to imagine that the Church, sent by God to teach and guide all nations, is not conversant with present affairs and circumstances; or even that they must obey only in those matters which she has decreed by solemn definition as though her other decisions might be presumed to be false or putting forward insufficient motive for truth and honesty.
Quite to the contrary, a characteristic of all true followers of Christ, lettered or unlettered, is to suffer themselves to be guided and led in all things that touch upon faith or morals by the Holy Church of God through its Supreme Pastor the Roman Pontiff, who is himself guided by Jesus Christ Our Lord. - CASTI CONNUBII, ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XI; https://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19301231_casti-connubii.html
...when we love the Pope, there are no discussions regarding what he orders or demands, or up to what point obedience must go, and in what things he is to be obeyed ; when we love the Pope, we do not say that he has not spoken clearly enough, almost as if he were forced to repeat to the ear of each one the will clearly expressed so many times not only in person, but with letters and other public documents ; we do not place his orders in doubt, adding the facile pretext of those unwilling to obey – that it is not the Pope who commands, but those who surround him; we do not limit the field in which he might and must exercise his authority ; we do not set above the authority of the Pope that of other persons, however learned, who dissent from the Pope, who, even though learned, are not holy, because whoever is holy cannot dissent from the Pope.
The Bishops form the most sacred part of the Church, that which instructs and governs men by divine right; and so he who resists them and stubbornly refuses to obey their word places himself outside the Church [cf. Matt. 18:18]. But obedience must not limit itself to matters which touch the faith: its sphere is much more vast: it extends to all matters which the episcopal power embraces. - (Pope Saint Pius X, Allocution Vi ringrazio to priests on the 50th anniversary of the Apostolic Union, November 18, 1912, as found at http://www.christorchaos.com/?q=content/choosing-ignore-pope-leo-xiii-and-pope-saint-pius-x
to scrutinize the actions of a bishop, to criticize them, does not belong to individual Catholics, but concerns only those who, in the sacred hierarchy, have a superior power; above all, it concerns the Supreme Pontiff, for it is to him that Christ confided the care of feeding not only all the lambs, but even the sheep [cf. John 21:17]. - Est Sane Molestum (1888) Apostolic Letter of Pope Leo XIII; http://www.novusordowatch.org/est-sane-molestum-leo-xiii.htm
In addition, as concerns social teaching, The "Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church" (2005) states:
80. In the Church’s social doctrine the Magisterium is at work in all its various components and expressions. … Insofar as it is part of the Church’s moral teaching, the Church’s social doctrine has the same dignity and authority as her moral teaching. It is authentic Magisterium, which obligates the faithful to adhere to it . - http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html
And it is quite well evidenced that the popes last encyclical (http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.html) is intended to teach what the Church's moral teaching demands as regards ecology and economy. (172 references in this encyclical cite church teaching and prelates for support).
Thus we either have Trad. RCs contradicting past papal teaching in asserting the modern papal and magisterial teaching contradicts the past, or Rome's interpretation of herself is to be trusted.
If the former is the case then evangelicals cannot be condemned for seeking to ascertain the veracity of RC teaching in the lighg of the most ancient and trustworthy historical church teaching, that of the NT, and in which Catholicism is substantially absent and contrary to , and which eliminates the second option.
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.