Theologian: Shared Communion With Protestants Would be Blasphemy and Sacrilege

National Catholic Register ^ | January 2, 2017 | Edward Pentin

[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”...

[af_vet_1981]

Yes, I linked to the Hebrew text directly and did not require any supporting study aids. It really is very simple, “the woman” is right there.

[BlueDragon]

I supported you.

I have my own reasons for having supported a particular corrective assertion that you offered on this forum...

Your continuing words are useless, answering not a single question asked.

Simple yes or no answers, somewhere along the line, are needed.

Otherwise your assertion, and my own assertions of agreement with that too, on their own, prove little to nothing to those who cannot read Hebrew script.

It still remains argument by way of assertion.

Why not take the time and effort to more clearly prove both yourself, and myself correct? Give the people something to go on, other than just your own say so.

Answering questions more directly, could be a start, possibly helpful.

[daniel1212]

I thought we were discussing the phrase “And I will put enmity between the and the woman” so I don’t see the plural “the women” anywhere in there. Was someone trying to extrapolate “the woman” into another meaning ?

Are you reading what i wrote? Referring to my prior statement that In the Hebrew there is no “the” in “enmity between you and the woman,” i said that the word for "the" before "the women" was not shown in the KJV text i had with Strong's numbers [E-sword], but as a result of your query i have found it."

But that as also said the word for "the" can contextually refer to "the women" in the plural, as in Gen. 14:16, and the enmity in Gn. 3:15 (said to denote the “blood-feud”) is between the devil and the woman Eve as representing all women and her offspring in general, whom the devil seeks to seduce [and greatly defile] and murder since they are basically made in the image of God. Yet "her seed" versus "his seed" can refer to the Godly seed.

But that "her seed" principally refers to the most important seed (which is used singular and plural) of Eve and of the women, Christ, is what is fulfilled prophetically.

It seems to me that if you are going to restrict the enmity of the devil to only being women, then we have a murderous devil that does not have enmity against mankind, or at least the Godly seed, or that it is women in particular that is his object of animosity.

But if we restrict the enmity of the devil to only being one women, and make that to be Mary, then Eve is no longer in the picture as an object of enmity, nor women in general, nor her offspring, but only Mary and her offspring, giving the devil thousand of years of no enmity towards man.

Take your pick.

[Mark17]

You owe me a keyboard, dude !

Note to self. NEVER read FR, while drinking coffee.
I am glad you liked it. Keyboards are cheaper here. You will have to come here to get it. 😀
I am just waiting for Elsie to conjure up a Limerick of his own. He always does. 😀😄😎😃

[boatbums]

(Note: The above link is published by a group that sadly fails to recognize that “popes” of late are false due to their adherence to heresy, including as suggested by the popular “catholic” church of today abandoning Latin.)

I'm sure I'm not the only one who noticed this but aren't you being wildly hypocritical to quote this "group" to validate your defense of Latin for the Mass then dis them as "heretics" for "sadly" failing to fall in line with your version of catholicism???

[daniel1212]

The link supplied in comment #497 http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0103.htm alone, is insufficient to establish your claim to English speaking persons, fwiw.

Yes, I linked to the Hebrew text directly and did not require any supporting study aids. It really is very simple, “the woman” is right there.

That is not a good reference as regard transliterating the Hebrew precisely into English, for as shown , it does not make distinctions btwn supplied words and those which are actually in the Hebrew, which the source i found did.

A picture is worth...and this should make clearer for all it may concern my correction of my statement based on my Bible program, that "in the Hebrew there is no “the” in “enmity between you and the woman,” even if it does not mean the singular must be meant:

[daniel1212]

Note also that the definition of 9005 might not be defined by Strong, as i had assumed before in attribution, due to the tab on the page ).

[boatbums]

They tell women to be silent on an open, Internet forum. No true Christian, with more than two functioning brain cells, would ever be so foolish, as to say that.

Yet, they have WOMEN as "Doctors" of their church!? More hypocrisy.

[knarf]

Eight bucks at WalMart ... thirteen for wireless

[Repent and Believe]

It is a bit awkward, but the fact is the group has a lot of good information when it is correct and they actually published the article (which was written years before they even existed.)

I am merely directing readers to a convenient journalistic resource while responsibly providing a customary disclaimer.

This is the world we live in.

[mrobisr]

“But why cannot the Catholic Church use English in England and French in France?” etc. Because she is a universal Church”

Kinda like the Lord God who created all to include ALL languages couldn’t use all the languages to get His message across? Thanks for the humor.

[mrobisr]

“The includes Mr. Luther”
Sorry, but I don’t know that fellow. I have heard of him, but apparently he means way more to you than me.

[metmom]

Then there’s that speaking in tongues thing in Acts 2 where the Holy spirit had the disciples preach the gospel to all the nations each in their own tongue.

Didn’t God know HE was supposed to use one universal language because He was creating one universal church?

Good thing He’s got the Catholic church around watching His back.

[Mark17]

Yet, they have WOMEN as "Doctors" of their church!? More hypocrisy.

Yes BB. I gotta agree with MM, however. It all comes down, to trying to silence born again female Christians, who make great sense. I don't know how stupid some people think we are, but it's been tried before. It didn't work then, it won't work now.

Now, if you will have excuse me, I feel the inexorable calling of the beach and it's karaoke machine. A calling, that I fully intend to yield to. 😀😀😄

[af_vet_1981]

That is not a good reference as regard transliterating the Hebrew precisely into English,

The Hebrew Bible text, and a basic knowledge of Hebrew, are all that is necessary to translate that Hebrew into "the woman" as the definite article and the noun are written together as one in the text. It is a very simple translation and not in any way complicated, which is why I asked if there was a typo in that comment.

[af_vet_1981]

Are you reading what i wrote? Referring to my prior statement that In the Hebrew there is no “the” in “enmity between you and the woman,” i said that the word for "the" before "the women" was not shown in the KJV text i had with Strong's numbers [E-sword], but as a result of your query i have found it."

Okay, glad to help.

But that as also said the word for "the" can contextually refer to "the women" in the plural, as in Gen. 14:16, ...

Sure, if by context we see the definite article is actually joined to the plural form, as in this case. The Hebrew definite article is used with singular or plural nouns. In this case, the word is in the plural so הַנָּשִׁים means "the women" which uses the same root (אִשָּׁה) from הָאִשָּׁה is "the woman."

[metmom]

It hit 50 here today and actually RAINED!

WHOO HOO!!!!!

I SOOOOOOOOO want to go to FL.

I keep talking to mr. mm about it. Only now that he’s *retired* I want to take our time and drive and spend more time than usual.

I’ll let you know when we do that, bb.

[Repent and Believe]

“The (That) includes Mr. Luther”
Sorry, but I don’t know that fellow. I have heard of him, but apparently he means way more to you than me.

metmom would love to tell you all about her father, Mr. Luther.
See:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3509997/posts?page=495#495

[BlueDragon]

Hey, great!

In this case, the word is in the plural so הַנָּשִׁים means "the women" which uses the same root (אִשָּׁה) from הָאִשָּׁה is "the woman.

I do not read Hebrew, but could have posted something along those lines HOURS AGO...showing as you did Hebrew text for "woman" (as that translates into English, anyway) and the additional character which signifies a definitive article.

I could have also provided a link to a Hebrew grammar page http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Grammar/Unit_Four/The_Definite_Article/the_definite_article.html etc., in order to save others loads of time, so we could all move on to other things.

I would have done so, but was wanted to see how far you would try to bluff your way through to an ending point. You may still be trying to sell the idea that you are fluent in Hebrew script. You may EVEN BE fluent in that. Neither condition is, or in any way would be a sin, or something. So why hide whatever it is that is the truth?

But, no. You would not answer a few simple yes/no questions, refusing, first; by omission, then by some degree of half-answers which failed to supply anything much but suggestions in context, as if trying to lead one to make the assumptions you may want them to make... once the "attack the questioner" type of initial dodgy-dodge met firm resistance.

Why is that?

Trying to converse with you on this forum is like I'm a Trey Gowdy, and you're working at doing a Hildabeast imitation.

[MHGinTN]

Wait until he starts using the hard for old eyes to read light blue text! His subtle means of insult even when asked to use a more readable color.