I wish you peace, but otherwise...
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 ...
Yes, I guess we have to define every term we use, because our definition of faith, is probably different than the Catholic definition. Such is life.
THAT does not make a person more holy or more worthy than any other person on the planet.
Sex is NOT bad that *giving it up* is something admirable.
Being a eunuch was always considered a curse in Scripture.
NOTHING to brag on.
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.
So what? It proves nothing.
OTOH, we have Scripture that tells us about forbidding to marry.
1 Timothy 4:1-5 Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared, who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, for it is made holy by the word of God and prayer.
The Holy Spirit.
ork work work work, ya gotta earn that catholic salvation through obedience to Rome. Yes, we know well what your religion teaches, even as its apologist claim otherwise while exposing the work work work striving for salvation romish lie.
There is an interesting story in the History of Carl Jung, when a man who was a pediatrician came to Jung seeking to be an apprentice to him:
Jung sent the man away with instructions to take note of his dreams and through understanding those dreams Jung would decide to rake him as a student or not. The man had a recurring dream, in which he was seated in a chair, in the middle of a dark, round room which was cylindrical. On one side was a window, way up high, out of reach of the man. Through this window shone a beam of light. No matter how much he moved his chair, the beam of light never illuminated his position.
How dark is the cylindrical room in which you have chosen to hide, believing it is your protection ...
Catholics attack us for not believing in their so-called Real Presence, being what looks, tastes, feels, behaves, and would test as actual bread and wine, but which actually does not exist, but assert this is the real body and blood of Christ, until the non-existent bread or wine begins to decay.
And since they make this a matter of salvation, invoking Jn. 6:53,54 as a literal requirement, then we can not think of this as a helper, but instead it is a false gospel, leaving those who preach it accursed.
As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. (Galatians 1:9)
And Paul nor any other NT church teacher preached the Lord's supper as the means of obtaining spiritual life, nor is the Lord's supper manifest as the central main event officiated by Catholic priests offering the elements up as a sacrifice for sin, as shown , by God's grace.
But with Roman Catholic dark glasses, you can anachronistically imagine that the RCC is what you would see in the NT church, despite its distinctives being absent.
Or you can rationalize that the NT DNA of the "acorn" church means it was sppsd to grow into the church of Rome, the whether the medieval version longed for by one group or the modern one seen today. But in either case, what is needed is
Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ; (2 Corinthians 10:5)
Wrong:
Due to her erroneous understanding of the Lord's Supper (“Eucharist”), Catholicism (by the end of the 2nd century or later) came to consider NT pastors to be a distinctive sacerdotal class of clergy, distinctively called “priests” (which the RC Douay Rheims Bible inconsistently calls them: Acts 20:17; Titus 1:5), and sometimes “episkopos,”), but which the Holy Spirit never does. For the word which the Holy Spirit distinctively uses for priests *, is “hiereus” or “archiereus (over 280 times total, mainly as the latter)” (Heb. 4:15; 10:11) and is never used for NT pastors. Nor do the words presbuteros (senior/elder) or episkopos (superintendent/overseer) - which He does use for NT pastors (over 60 times) - mean "priest." Neither the Hebrew word, "ko^he^n," nor the Greek word "hiereus," or the Latin word "sacerdotes" for priest have any essential connection to the Greek word presbyteros. It follows that the Latin word "sacerdos" which corresponds to priest has no morphological or lingual relationship with the Latin word for “presbyter” (for which statements and certain others I rely on the knowledge of others, by God's grace). Nor are presbuteros or episkopos described as having a unique sacrificial function, and hiereus (as archiereus=chief priests) is used in distinction to elders in such places as Lk. 22:66; Acts 22:5.
Jewish elders (Hebrew "zaqen") as a body existed before the priesthood of Levitical priests (Hebrew "kohen"), most likely as heads of household or clans, and being an elder did not necessarily make one a Levitical priest (Ex. 3:16,18, 18:12; 19:7; 24:1; Num. 11:6; Dt. 21:2; 22:5-7; 31:9,28; 32:7; Josh. 23:2; 2Chron. 5:4; Lam. 1:9; cf. Mt. 21:13; 26:47) or a high priest, offering both gifts and sacrifices for sins. (Heb. 5:1) While elders exercise could some priestly functions such as praying and laying hands on sacrifices, yet unlike presbuteros and episkopos, elders and priest were not the same in language or in distinctive function. Like very young Samuel, one could be a kohen/priest without being an zaqen/elder, and one could be a elder without formally being a priest, whose primary function was to offer expiatory sacrifices for the people.
The Catholic use of "priest" for what Scripture calls presbyteros/elder is defended by the use of an etymological fallacy since "priest" evolved from "presbyteros, if with uncertainty," with presbyteros being considered and called priests early on, based on Latin biblical and ecclesiastical language, and who were later referred to in old English (around 700 to 1000 AD) as "preostas" or "preost," and finally resulting in the modern English "priest," thereby losing the distinction the Holy Spirit provided by never using the distinctive term of hiereus for NT presbuteros, or describing as them as a distinctive sacerdotal class of believers.
However, etymology is the study of the history of words, their origins, and evolving changes in form and meaning. over time, but etymologies are not definitions (examples: "cute" used to mean bow-legged; "bully" originally meant darling or sweetheart; "Nice" originally meant stupid or foolish; "counterfeit" used to mean a legitimate copy; "egregious" originally connoted eminent or admirable). The etymological fallacy here is that of erroneously holding that the present-day meaning of a word or phrase should necessarily essentially be the same as its original or historical meaning. Since presbyteros incorrectly evolved into priest (and were assigned an imposed unique sacerdotal function) therefore it is erroneously considered to be valid to distinctively use the same title for OT priests as for NT pastors, despite the Holy Spirit never doing so and the lack of unique sacerdotal distinction for NT presbyteros. All believers are called to sacrifice (Rm. 12:1; 15:16; Phil. 2:17; 4:18; Heb. 13:15,16; cf. 9:9) and all constitute the only priesthood (hieráteuma) in the NT church, that of all believers, (1Pt. 2:5,9; Re 1:6; 5:10; 20:6). But nowhere are NT pastors distinctively titled hiereus, and the idea of the NT presbuteros being a distintive class titled "hiereus" was a later development, with an imposed functional equivalence, supposing NT presbyteros engaged in a unique sacrificial ministry as their primary function. Catholic writer Greg Dues in "Catholic Customs & Traditions, a popular guide," states, "Priesthood as we know it in the Catholic church was unheard of during the first generation of Christianity, because at that time priesthood was still associated with animal sacrifices in both the Jewish and pagan religions." "When the Eucharist came to be regarded as a sacrifice [after Rome's theology], the role of the bishop took on a priestly dimension. By the third century bishops were considered priests. Presbyters or elders sometimes substituted for the bishop at the Eucharist. By the end of the third century people all over were using the title 'priest' (hierus in Greek and sacerdos in Latin) for whoever presided at the Eucharist." (http://books.google.com/books?id=ajZ_aR-VXn8C&source=gbs_navlinks_s) And R. J. Grigaitis (O.F.S.) (while yet trying to defend the use of priest), reveals, "The Greek word for this office is ‘?e?e?? (hiereus), which can be literally translated into Latin as sacerdos. First century Christians [such as the inspired writers] felt that their special type of hiereus (sacerdos) was so removed from the original that they gave it a new name, presbuteros (presbyter). Unfortunately, sacerdos didn't evolve into an English word, but the word priest [from old English "preost"] took on its definition." (http://grigaitis.net/weekly/2007/2007-04-27.html)
In response to a query on this issue, the web site of International Standard Version (not my preferred translation) states, No Greek lexicons or other scholarly sources suggest that "presbyteros" means "priest" instead of "elder". The Greek word is equivalent to the Hebrew ZAQEN, which means "elder", and not priest. You can see the ZAQENIM described in Exodus 18:21-22 using some of the same equivalent Hebrew terms as Paul uses in the GK of 1&2 Timothy and Titus. Note that the ZAQENIM are NOT priests (i.e., from the tribe of Levi) but are rather men of distinctive maturity that qualifies them for ministerial roles among the people. Therefore the NT equivalent of the ZAQENIM cannot be the Levitical priests. The Greek "presbyteros" (literally, the comparative of the Greek word for "old" and therefore translated as "one who is older") thus describes the character qualities of the "episkopos". The term "elder" would therefore appear to describe the character, while the term "overseer" (for that is the literal rendering of "episkopos") connotes the job description. To sum up, far from obfuscating the meaning of "presbyteros", our rendering of "elder" most closely associates the original Greek term with its OT counterpart, the ZAQENIM. ...we would also question the fundamental assumption that you bring up in your last observation, i.e., that "the church has always had priests among its ordained clergy". We can find no documentation of that claim. ( http://isvbible.com/catacombs/elders.htm)
That's a crafty way of dealing with what actually refutes you and the very church you vainly imagine us converting to.
But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived. (2 Timothy 3:13)
May the Lord do so indeed.
I think we’ve just been called ugly by a toad.
Like cults, you can use evangelical terms yet not mean what Scripture does. Salvation being a free gift does not mean that by the act of baptism (ex opere operato) one actually becomes good enough to go to Heaven (being formally justified by his own personal justice and holiness) - unless you do not believe the newly baptized would thus directly do there - thus resulting in such later on usually having to spend an indeterminate period (even centuries of earth time) experiencing postmortem "purifying torments" in RC "Purgatory" (as if suffering itself developed character) until he/she (atones for sins and ) once again becomes good enough to enter Heaven and be with the Lord.
Instead, since believers are justified on Christ's account, and made "accepted in the Beloved," and are seated together with Him in Heaven (Eph. 1:6; 2:6) and have direct access into the holy of holies in Heaven (Heb. 10:19) - not because they are actually good enough - then wherever Scripture clearly speak of the next conscious reality for believers then it is with the Lord, (Lk. 23:43 [cf. 2Cor. 12:4; Rv. 2:7]; Phil 1:23; 2Cor. 5:8 [“we”]; 1Cor. 15:51ff'; 1Thess. 4:17) Note in the latter case all believers were assured that if the Lord returned, which they expected in their lifetime, so would they “ever be with the Lord,” though they were still undergoing growth in grace, as was Paul. (Phil. 3:10f)
And the next transformative experience that is manifestly taught is that of being like Christ in the resurrection. (1Jn. 3:2; Rm. 8:23; 1Co 15:53,54; 2Co. 2-4) At which time is the only suffering after this life, that of the loss of rewards due to the combustible nature of the material one built the church with, which one is saved despite of, not because of. (1Co. 3:8ff)< /p>
Yet they also know that Christ has established certain conditions for entry into eternal happiness in Heaven – for example, receiving His true Flesh and Blood (John 6:54)
. While the only kind of faith that justifies in the kind that effects obedience to the Lord, and practical holiness and repentance for failing that, yet Jn. 6:54 goes with v. 53: "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you." (John 6:53) But the Lord's supper is nowhere preached as the means of obtaining spiritual life , or nourishment. Instead it is the words that Christ speaks which are spirit and life, and is called spiritual "milk" (1Pt. 2:2) and "meat" (Heb. 5:12,14) and whereby believers obtain spiritual nourishment and are built up. (Acts 20:28.32; 1Tim. 4:6)
And rather than the Catholic priestly Eucharist being the premier, paramount cardinal event, not only do we never see a Catholic priest (or even a presbyter) conducting the Lord's supper, it is not even manifestly described in the life of the NT church except in one epistle (besides the "feast of charity in Jude 1:12).
And which the church is "one bread," having fellowship with Christ and each other the same way pagans have fellowship with demons by taking part in their dedicatory feasts, (1 Corinthians 10:16-21) while the focus is on the church as the body of Christ, whom carnal believers did not effectually recognize (thus "shame them that have not") in 1Co. 11:17ff.
As St. Paul warned the Galatians with regard to certain sins: “They who do such things shall not obtain the kingdom of God.” (Gal. 5:21).
It is one thing to realize that saving faith is that which effects "things that accompany salvation," (Heb. 6:9) and thus the warnings about "departing from the living God" and drawing back unto perdition, (Heb. 3:12; 10:38; cf. Gal. 5:1-4) and that works evidence that one has true faith and is fit to be rewarded under grace, since God rewards faith (Heb. 10:35, even though only God deserves credit), and it is another thing to teach or foster the belief that what one practically is and does actually merits the attainment of eternal life eternal life. No wonder Catholics typically express that the reason they believe that God will let them into Heaven is because they are pretty good, and never can testify to a day of conversion. Sprinkling an infant (which cannot fufill the requirements for baptism: Acts 2:38; 3:36,37) will not effect Biblical regeneration in them any more than it did Hitler.
firstly, because theirs is the only Christian Church that goes back in history to the time of Christ;
Under the New Covenant it is not formal historical descent that validates one but historical Scriptural faith, (Rm. 2:28,29; cf. Mt. 3:9) and what goes back in history to the time of Christ is the record of Catholic deformation of the NT church, in which she substantially is a foreigner!
The veracity of Catholic claims to be the NT church rest upon the premise of her ensured magisterial infallibility, under which Scripture, history and tradition only consist of and mean what she says. Yet ensured magisterial infallibility is a novel and unScriptural premise, being unseen and unnecessary in Scripture.
The OT magisterium had such authority that dissent was a capital offense, (Dt. 17;8-13) but which did not mean it was infallible. And instead, God often raised up men from without the magisterium, even in dissent from it, and thereby preserved faith. And which is how the church began, with itinerant preachers (and Preacher) who established their Truth claims upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power. But which the claims of Rome to be the One True Church" are exposed as fallacious.
secondly, because theirs is the only Christian Church which possesses the invincible unity,
That is pure misleading bombast! Invincible unity? You yourself are part of a church without a pope, or with a poor depending upon who you ask, with both extremes invalidation each other. And read on:
the intrinsic holiness, the continual universality
More or the same. Besides today and the past unScriptural murderous use of the sword of men against simple theological offenders, even your own Bellarmine attested of your historical holiness (during the Western Schism),
"Some years before the rise of the Lutheran and Calvinistic heresy, according to the testimony of those who were then alive, there was almost an entire abandonment of equity in ecclesiastical judgments; in morals, no discipline; in sacred literature, no erudition; in divine things, no reverence; religion was almost extinct. (Concio XXVIII. Opp. Vi. 296- Colon 1617, in “A History of the Articles of Religion,” by Charles Hardwick, Cp. 1, p. 10,
Cardinal Ratzinger (regardless of your disrespect) states, "For nearly half a century, the Church was split into two or three obediences that excommunicated one another, so that every Catholic lived under excommunication by one pope or another, and, in the last analysis, no one could say with certainty which of the contenders had right on his side. The Church no longer offered certainty of salvation; she had become questionable in her whole objective form--the true Church, the true pledge of salvation, had to be sought outside the institution. (“Principles of Catholic Theology," 1989, p.196)
You can restrict your misleading claim to a relative remnant, and to paper doctrine, but it remains that the Catholic distinctives are simply not seen in the NT church, which it is contrary to!
and the indisputable apostolicity which Christ said would distinguish His true Church;
More propaganda. Rome's so-called apostolic successors simply fail of the qualifications and credentials of manifest Biblical apostles. (Acts 1:21,22; 1Cor. 9:1; Gal. 1:11,12; 2Cor. 6:1-0; 12:12) So do i, but i do not claim to be a Biblical apostle.
and thirdly, because the Apostles and primitive Church Fathers, who certainly were members of Christ’s true Church, all professed membership in this same Catholic Church (See Apostles’ Creed and the Primitive Christian letters).
Nonsense. The claim that the apostles professed the Apostles’ Creed , which is expanded version, is based upon unverifiable tradition, and once again the veracity of this claim rests upon the premise of Rome's self-proclaimed veracity.
Regardless, professing this creed no more makes on a Roman Catholic than it does for evangelicals, who can and do profess this creed with its basic truth, as we concur with it, and with "catholic" meaning universal.
And what the apostles did NOT profess/teach practice (as seen in Acts onward, which are interpretive of the gospels) were such things as:
• Praying to created beings in Heaven, which is utterly unseen in Scripture despite the Holy Spirit inspiring approx. 200 prayers by believers. Only pagans prayed to someone else!
•Directing the church to look to Peter as the first of a line of supreme infallible popes whom they were especially enjoined to honor and obey.
•That the magisterial office possessed ensured magisterial infallibility (by which she declares she is infallible), enabling them to even claim to essentially "remember" an extraScriptural event which lacks even early historical testimony. , and was opposed by RC scholars themselves the world over as being apostlic tradition.
• Ordaining a separate class of believers distinctively titled "priests ," whose primary active function was conducting the Lord's supper and offering up "real" flesh and blood as a sacrifice for sin.
•That the Catholic Eucharist as the paramount, supreme prevalent practice, the "source and summit of the Christian life," in which "our redemption is accomplished," around which all else basically revolved.
•That presbuteros (senior/elder) and episkopos (superintendent/overseer) denoted two separate classes .
• That celibacy was a requirement for clergy .
• That believers were separated into two classes, one formally called "saints."
•That imperfect believers must endure postmortem purifying torments in order to become good enough to enter Heaven, and saying prayers to obtain early release from it,
And more , to see by God's grace. ,
“Hopefully sooner to avoid losing his soul.”
Daniel1212 nor any of the included are in any danger of losing their soul.
Romans 10:9-11 Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
9 For if thou confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in thy heart that God hath raised him up from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
10 For, with the heart, we believe unto justice; but, with the mouth, confession is made unto salvation.
11 For the scripture saith: Whosoever believeth in him, shall not be confounded.
Acts 16:30-31Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
30 And bringing them out, he said: Masters, what must I do, that I may be saved?
31 But they said: Believe in the Lord Jesus, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
It’s simple even rc’s can do it...just believe in what the Lord Jesus has already done and who He is and not what the church, mother, or saint didn’t do and you will be saved.
They may think so, but that doesn't make it so. The TRUE Church of Jesus Christ is made up of ALL believers in Jesus Christ and contains not even one "heretic". You come on this thread and accuse the majority of Roman Catholics of being heretics and covert "Protestants" - not even your POPE qualifies as a Catholic to you! Christ's own are a spiritual house of which all believers are living stones being built into it. There's no way any physical organization can be THE church because until Christ returns, there are wheat and tares within.
firstly, because theirs is the only Christian Church that goes back in history to the time of Christ;
Revisionist history hardly qualifies as the truth. EVERY person who follows and believes in Jesus Christ is a member of the same church begun at Pentecost. Perhaps you aren't familiar with the existence back then of local churches throughout the known world - you know, the church AT Rome, the church AT Corinth, the church AT Ephesus, the church AT Thessalonika, etc...? It is the faith in the truth of the gospel that makes us members of Christ's body, His bride. Not membership in an earthly, man made organization.
secondly, because theirs is the only Christian Church which possesses the invincible unity, the intrinsic holiness, the continual universality and the indisputable apostolicity which Christ said would distinguish His true Church;
Riiigghhtt...that "invincible" unity that you can't even defend with your OWN magisterium today! Intrinsic holiness is hardly a characteristic of every Catholic Pope much less the laity. That holiness comes from the indwelling Holy Spirit who resides within every genuine believer and who will never leave us or forsake us. It is with whom we are sealed unto the day of redemption. What's humorous is your insistence that there has been "continual" universality and "indisputable apostolicity" when you deny there even IS or has been a valid pope in Rome for nearly sixty years! That's not to mention the splits and schisms long before the Reformation happened. PLENTY of disputes are there!
and thirdly, because the Apostles and primitive Church Fathers, who certainly were members of Christ’s true Church, all professed membership in this same Catholic Church (See Apostles’ Creed and the Primitive Christian letters).
Actually, the adjective "catholic" - which means universal, wasn't even in use until the second century after Christ. So, no, the Apostles NEVER professed membership in any "Catholic" church. To repeat, the TRUE church of Jesus Christ is not an organization with headquarters in Rome, it is an organism - a spiritual house which every believer is a living stone. Your so-called first Pope told us that (see I Peter 2:5)!
Are you serious?!?!
Just who do you think you're kidding?
You're trying to convince us of some kind of *invincible unity* the whole time you reject the last few current popes?
There's NO unity within Catholicism. There are many rites, the EO disagree with the Roman rite which disagrees with the Ukrainian rite, etc, and the Roman rite is itself fractured and fragmented especially over this latest pope.
Try that on some brainwashed Catholic but not people who can think and use logic.
Puhleeze!
No one , especially Demented Catholics
(I am one)
is That crazy.
I do think Francis is a Loser
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.