For they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God. (Joh 12:43)
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 ...
Your opinion that they are heretics.
Your church's college of cardinals don't seem to think so as they elected them.
Does the Holy Spirit guide the college of cardinals in electing the next pope?
Yes? Or No?
So, you and whose army will be marching into St. Peter’s Square and tossing Pope Francis and the Magesterium out??? As far as the WHOLE world knows, HE’S your leader until another is elected to take his place. Has the Holy Spirit confided in you as to when that will occur?
But it is fundamentally against Roman Catholicism for the likes of you to be the judge as to whether the pope is guilty of formal heresy based upon your understanding of what he taught, and whether Bellarmine was right versus Suarez, and whether that settles the matter.
I hardly think Bellarmine did not mean for for the likes of you to be the judge of who an invalid pope, which leads to every man a pope invalidator, nor it is your place to even authoritatively judge if Bellarmine was right.
In making private persons as yourself the judge of this based upon your understanding of your supreme authority, in essence you are as a Protestant, who judges the validity of claims based upon what his understanding of his supreme authority, and along with such you hold that Catholicism is largely in apostasy, with the bishops themselves over all not agreeing with your judgment.
That you are not fit to be judge of popes is clearly disallowed by historical RC teaching, as already showed you , with no response,
that .'the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors," "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," "of submitting with docility to their judgment," with "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... not only in person, but with letters and other public documents ;" and 'not limit the field in which he might and must exercise his authority, " for "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," and not 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," "Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent."
As regards the sixteenth-seventeenth century Jesuits Francisco Suarez and St. Robert Bellarmine, the former held (http://www.crisismagazine.com/2015/can-pope-heretic) that,
Catholics are supposed to believe that God deposes popes, then Scripture, the Tradition of the Church, and the pronouncements of the Magisterium ought to have said something about it—but they haven’t. Besides, if God deposes popes, you could never be sure if the pope was really the pope—what if he was a secret heretic and God had secretly deposed him? How would you ever know? (Suarez, De fide, 10.6.2-4)
But, if a pope commits the sin of heresy, all the other bishops of the world have the right to try him for the crime of heresy, even against his will (De fide 10.6.7). If they were to convict him, he could be considered deposed from the papacy by Christ, and the Church could elect another pope.
Yet which conflicts with such statenent as that in Dictatus papae [1075], attributed to of Pope Gregory VII, "That he himself may be judged by no one."
Meanwhile, Bellarmine held
that the pope loses his office immediately by committing the sin of formal heresy, because people who commit that sin cease to be members of the Church, and God deposes a pope who is no longer a member of the Church.
But Catholics are not to take it upon themselves to make that judgment, but the bishops would need to declare that God has removed the pope, but your sect no only has an invalid pope, but effectively renders the modern magisterium overall to be invalid.
Of course, the Catholic church distinctives are not only absent in the writings of the NT church ( Acts onward, which are interpretive of the gospels), but contrary to it.
Yikes! And what about those Scotsmen with their kilts??? Or the Vatican muckety-mucks in their dresses and pointy hats???
Did you ever see a priest wear pants to officiate at any mass?
EVER?
I fear replying to you as I might get the you-know-what post number. ;o)
AAAAUUUUUUUUUUUUGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHH...I knew it!
Looks like you beat Elsie to it.
I’ve had that happen to me as well.
But Paul does refer to himself as a spiritual father, as one who had spiritual sons, many times, (1Co. 4:15,17; Gal. 4:19; Titus 1:4; 1Tim. 1:2,18; Phlmn. 1:10) which he was, yet for priests that is not the case, and i think the Lord's admonition, call no man your father upon the earth, be not ye called Rabbi, masters, may be a form of hyperbole, contextually (Matthew 23:5-12) warning against love of position and titles (they...love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues, And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men...But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant...)
If "call no man your father" is taken literally without qualification, then even physical fathers could not be called such.
But in any case, priest are not Scripturally worthy of being called "father" even as a formal title, any more than Mormon elders are worthy to be called that.
Even more so, Catholic priests are not even Scriptural.
For they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God. (Joh 12:43)
Somehow, I just can’t imagine St. Peter being okay with being addressed as “Your Holiness” or wearing that garb and crown!
That's right MM. I know when I was a Catholic, many years ago, I concentrated on a few issues. Other Catholics seemed to concentrate on other issues.
I have said it a thousand times. We can discuss issues, like head coverings, communion, men's/women's clothing, spiritual gifts, speaking in tongues, and a host of other things. To me, these issues tend to divert attention, away from the only issue that matters. That is, what is their plan of salvation? How do they plan to get into Heaven. I have my own opinion, and I will NEVER give a millimeter on it. For me, it is chiseled in stone, for eternity, and not subject to interpretation or debate. It is salvation by grace, through faith. PERIOD, PERIOD, PERIOD, PERIOD. Now, if some think that issue leads to division among so called "Christian" churches, or some may think I am not open minded, so be it. I am not going to budge on it.
Other issues, we can agree or disagree on. This issue? Not for an instant. 🤣👍
Sometimes they wear the "pants" in the family.
Let me say this about that. The government has done a very effective job at destroying men in general, and Christian men in particular. If some men try to be the masculine men that God intended us to be, we feel like we are individuals, going up against the entire weight of the government. We are met with the normal scum bags, with the standard line of racist, sexist, bigot, homophobe, anti Muslim, misogynistic fools. May PC die an ignominious death.
Here's one web page that has him nonstop talking about it, over and over! <[8^')
Call the sun in the dead of the night
And the sun's gonna rise in the sky
Touch a man who can't walk upright
And that lame man, he's gonna fly
And I fly
And I fly
Holly holy love
“... But in any case, priest (sic) are not Scripturally worthy of being called “father” even as a formal title, any more than Mormon elders are worthy to be called that...”
Oh, yes they are.
They have chosen a life like a eunich as Jesus mentioned.
They have SACRIFICED the pleasures and beauty and blessings of Matrimony for the sake of fathering SPIRITUAL children in Christ.
That is unique far beyond the Jewish leaders whom Jesus was referring to as well as far beyond various priesthoods and elders of false religions.
Wrong. If one has the Holy Spirit, then one is presently saved, and which Spirit does not come by taking part in the Lord's supper,. but by believing the gospel message, which the kind of faith that is expressed in baptism and following the Lord.
Rome, which erroneously thinks the act of baptism itself makes one born again, states.
LUMEN GENTIUM: 16. For there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour. (Cf. Jn. 16:13) They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ....
in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power.
CCC 838: "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."
Of course, Rome also imagines,
...they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it
But we know that the Catholic Church was Not founded as necessary by God through Christ, as her distinctives are not even seen in the life and teachings of the NT church (Acts onward), and contrary to it.
The Church points to Scripture as its basis for its beliefs, whether or not you agree with that basis.
Where? Instead, it points to Scripture only as one basis for its beliefs, but as said, it is her self-proclaimed premise of ensured veracity that is the real basis, by which she asserts that, "Catholic doctrine, as authoritatively proposed by the Church, should be held as the supreme law.." (Providentissimus Deus; http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_18111893_providentissimus-deus_en.html)
he Church is also clear that is IS fallible on many issues, INCLUDING the Eucharist,
You need specifics. But tell me how you know what is infallible doctrine versus what is fallible, and which fallible teachings allow for dissent. You have a list
* Do you know what form God takes now in our material world?
I know of no material form, with the closest thing being His church,
daniel1212,
You have studied alot about your enemy.
Just like a good general.
Watch everyone, daniel1212 will probably convert sooner or later from all this exposure to catholic literature. He might become (or return to?) the Catholic faith, engaging all these debates making him do all this research!
Hopefully sooner to avoid losing his soul.
Or maybe he’s getting worried that one of you other reader/commenters are getting curious about all this truth being spoken by this Roman Catholic who is worried about your souls.
You are each in my prayers and I or another faithful will be most delighted to assist in any way as you come to Jesus in these last days, departing from your errors.
And here I thought that it was The Father (who is) in Heaven who adopts us as His own.
Paraphrasing here amplification of the part of John 3:5, the portion in which Jesus himself provided indication any who would enter His Father's kingdom, concerned with about just where "our father" HAD TO BE located at, in order to enter into that Kingdom;
"...born again/from above/from the top/..."
These other guys (not the Father in Heaven) you were talking about...
Did they kill Kenny, too?
The [........!] (oh, nevermind...)
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.