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”...

[Repent and Believe]

“So by what or whose authority to you sit in judgment of your pope or the hierarchy of the Catholic church?...”

These heretic “popes” from 1958 to present belong to Mr. Luther and his the protestants, not to the Catholic Church as seen in the following article:

Vatican: Catholics can now recognize Martin Luther as a “Witness to the Gospel”

http://novusordowatch.org/2017/01/vatican-luther-witness-to-gospel/

[MHGinTN]

Catholiciism is not Christianity. So to your query, “* Do Protestants believe that receiving the Catholic Eucharist is an evil act?”, one can reply that the catholic mythos of eating the body, blood, soul, and spirit of Jesus in cathol;ic ritual is no more evil than any other pagan rite, just more of an insult to Jesus The Christ.

[ReaganGeneration2]

Catholicism is not Christianity

And even our minor attempts at unity are shut down again. Buh bye

[MHGinTN]

Chrislam will suit you to a tee.

[Elsie]

You mean like Saint Paul used the term in 1 CORINTHIANS - Chapter 4?

Just WHO did Paul call Father??

Nowhere did Paul tell others to call HIM Father.

[Elsie]

A pope who is already judged is not pope, that’s why he can be judged.

Judged by WHOM?

And by WHAT criteria?

[Elsie]

And even our minor attempts at unity are shut down again.

Minor?

Our way or the highway is Rome's MINOR attempt at 'unity'.

[BlueDragon]

If one cannot read Hebrew, perhaps it is wiser to defer to those who can.

Perhaps? And then what? "Defer" to you?

Or perhaps defer to your single posted link (since that's all you need) which would have still left us here needing to "defer" to you in confirmation of what could be found there?

Got news for you. At least I already DID "defer to those who can" read Hebrew, searching the matter out beyond your own mere say-so ---which is how I came to initial agreement with one small aspect of all of this...

I was simply correcting the error in the post 467 which read In the Hebrew there is no “the” in “enmity between you and the woman” , and all I need is the Hebrew text which I read.

But it went elsewhere, too. Your own responses, your own words of reply, and counter reply helped take us there.

I see that you have almost answered a question which was put to you, regarding whether or not you can in fact read Hebrew text.

Which form of that are you intending to convey, that you can read?

I'm left here needing to assume that ability which you allude to includes ability to "read" the form of Hebrew text script at the link that earlier in this thread you had provided, your having provided that link (and later commenting further upon it) doing so while having also said words to the effect;

this is all that is necessary

Well no, that was not all that was required, not if the correction of the error were to be established (among those whom do not themselves have ability to read Hebrew script) from something (anything, please!) beyond your own hearsay say-so, albeit that (your own alleged ability) may well enough had been all that you required.

Can you provide some acknowledgment of that?

[BlueDragon]

Yes, "the woman" is correct according to the Hebrew. The definite article (ha) is right there attached to the noun for woman (isha).

Could you see that in the comment to which you there replied, my own at #505, that I THERE had agreed with the corrective which you had offered?

Or did you just read ONE line, then answer that, not understanding that the question placed within opening portion of that query, was merely rhetorical?

There were other aspects you seemed to have skipped clean over. Which lead to all sorts of frustrating back-and-forth.

[BlueDragon]

I have not dealt with the Italics argument for quite some time, and of course it has nothing to do with the original text in question; hence it is a red herring.

Not so fast.

I see what you may mean by all of that, including what had preceded the above quote, but at the point which you had introduced the phrase "the Jews..." there had already been agreement as to the definitive article indeed having been coupled with אִשָׁה (woman). Being as that is so, to have viewed one of daniel1212's responses as "red herring" opposition to that, as if it could undo the positive affirmation/confirmation which he (and I, also) had just offered towards your initial corrective assertion, was less than logical -- hence helped serve to lead a reader to consider that you may have been trying to charge daniel1212 with some kind of antisemitic sentiment. Nothing else at that point made much sense (to a reader, who could not otherwise read your mind).

Again, there had at that point been AGREEMENT with the corrective, and ultimately (my OWN agreement, anyways) based upon the Hebrew script, itself (which I had to use a variety of tools to decipher, and then "see" what it was you were saying).

Which DID leave the way you initially packaged the herring tend to convey sense of your having introduced some kind of charge of anti-antisemitism, aimed not at Luther, this time (a pet target of yours) but at that point at daniel1212 more immediately and directly.

Although that may not have been what you had in mind and intended, could you possible see how it may have come across that way to a reader? I mean, there had been some amount of agreement, concerning the ~single~ Hebrew "word" (which translates well enough if not exactly into two English words) otherwise, and that agreement itself (over the ~single~ word) could in nowise be placed in doubt by much of anything daniel1212 was at that point trying to say...as far as I could tell, as we all went along.

[BlueDragon]

How a double “anti” crept in there I have no idea. Reminds me though, I do need to fire my editor.

[BlueDragon]

The number.

We're getting closer.

Danger, Dr. Smith, danger!

[boatbums]

As so many of you protestants like to say, “Where does it say THAT in the bible?” I thought if it isn’t in the scriptures then you are adding to them. How consistent is that? Oh, I see; you are more interested in the (current) traditions of man when it comes to something that has to do with Paul’s directives to WOMEN. Especially since it is a long standing Catholic tradition to cover your head when praying in church, and protestants are more interested in rebelling against anything catholic and in CLAIMING to follow “scripture alone” than in actually following scripture.

No, apparently you DON'T see anything at all! Are you familiar with the concept of Biblical hermeneutics? It helps us to understand and interpret Scripture in light of the who, what, when and where. Your OWN guys claim to use it even.

Once you come to comprehend this point, then we can address your pathetic understanding of what sola Scriptura is all about.

[daniel1212]

If one cannot read Hebrew, perhaps it is wiser to defer to those who can. I was simply correcting the error in the post 467 which read In the Hebrew there is no “the” in “enmity between you and the woman” , and all I need is the Hebrew text which I read.

If you can read Hebrew word for word, which so far you have not affirmed, then that source would be OK for you, and if not, you need to do as i did. But the issue was whether my statement on "the" not being in the Hebrew was my "own opinion/interjection in the middle of another reference and you made a mistake in transcribing the thought? It is unclear what you intended by posting this, since the Hebrew does have the definite article in that phrase."

Therefore i needed to ascertain if your reading and source was correct, for as explained, the KJV text with Strong's numbers that i had originally used did not show (via a number) a Hebrew word for word for "the." Yet your source did not show me what each Hebrew word meant in Gn. 3:15, and i found out that its English translation did not distinguish btwn their English equivalents and supplied words.

Therefore your source was not sufficient for me, who needed to ascertain if you were correct, but i found one that very easily showed me the meaning for each Hebrew word, and also distinguished btwn their English equivalents and supplied words, which confirmed your correction, and i thanked you for your query.

However, rather than understanding this and being satisfied, you failed to understand the problem (thus your question about Job), and the need to see what is in the original language, and went on about how there was nothing wrong with your source, as if that was sufficient for me to ascertain if your correction was true. And you even presented me of "somwhat of a red herring against the Jews and their English translation of the Bible by pointing to some other verse's translation!"

I am sorry if you could not understand what i said, but i hope the issue is settled by now.

[boatbums]

But I just HATE sweating! ;o)

[boatbums]

I was trying to ask this question much earlier in this thread: * Do Protestants believe that receiving the Catholic Eucharist is an evil act? Why not allow us think of it as a “helper” (if non-distracting from the goal), and not attack us for it. I admit I haven’t had the time yet to read all the answers. Some apparently think we’re evil for drinking human blood, despite the plausible and literal Scripture such as John 6, and the fact they themselves don’t even believe it’s blood.

I defend your right to think whatever you want. Where I think you will find the most push back from "Protestants" (the reason I use "Protestant" is because that is a word used by many Catholics for every Christian who isn't a Catholic. I prefer Christian or Evangelical Christian.) is when Catholics INSIST that only the Catholic Eucharist can impart salvific grace - such as on this thread. We're happy to discuss why we don't believe that and, if it comes to it, we will have to agree to disagree. There's no point in beating someone over the head with it and/or condemning them to hell because we disagree.

My point has been that what matters most is what we believe about Jesus. Disagreement over intricacies on the Eucharist goes back all the way to the start of the Christian faith and ALL will have to admit it is a mystery.

Have a blessed Sunday.

[boatbums]

Paul ALWAYS addressed his audience as "brothers and sisters" in Christ. He said he was a fellow laborer in the ministry of the gospel. See http://biblehub.net/search.php?q=brothers+in+christ. Nothing about anyone addressing him as "Father", though.

[boatbums]

How did Deut. 22:5 apply in A.D. 1917, in the days when men wore pants and women wore dresses? As it reads: “A woman shall not be clothed with man’s apparel, neither shall a man use woman’s apparel; for he that doeth these things is abominable before God.” (Deut.22:5)

This isn't rocket surgery! ;o) Do you understand that this addresses transvestites? Men dressing as women and vice versa had to do with homosexuals which is an abomination to God as He tells us.

WRT a woman covering her head:

It seems, therefore, that Paul is not stating a divine universal requirement but simply acknowledging a local custom. The local Christian custom, however, reflected the divine principle. In Corinthian society a man’s praying or prophesying without a head covering was a sign of his authority over women, who were expected to have their heads covered in these ministries. Consequently, for a man to cover his head would be a disgrace, because it suggested a reversal of the proper relationships. Disgraces her head could refer to her own head literally and to her husband’s metaphorically.

In Paul’s day numerous symbols were used to signify the woman’s subordinate relationship to men, particularly of wives to husbands. Usually the symbol was in the form of a head covering, and in the Greek–Roman world of Corinth the symbol apparently was a veil of some kind. In many Near East countries today a married woman’s veil still signifies that she will not expose herself to other men, that her beauty and charms are reserved entirely for her husband, that she does not care even to be noticed by other men. Similarly, in the culture of first–century Corinth wearing a head covering while ministering or worshiping was a woman’s way of stating her devotion and submission to her husband and of demonstrating her commitment to God.

More at http://www.gty.org/resources/bible-qna/BQ022713/head-coverings-for-women

[metmom]

As it reads: “A woman shall not be clothed with man’s apparel, neither shall a man use woman’s apparel; for he that doeth these things is abominable before God.” (Deut.22:5)

And when women wear women's pants, that's not a problem.

[metmom]

So it looks like it depends on if your favorite popes say so.

1.2 billion personal interpretations of Catholicism.