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 ...
Hmmmm. Sounds more like the God of Islam, doesn't it?
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P29.HTM
841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."330
And we know how merciful islam's god is........
We’ve got your back.
(Leo XIII: Adiutricem populi, September 5, 1895) — [p. 19, no. 44] Blosius: To the, O Lady, are committed the KEYS and the treasures of the kingdom of Heaven.
Blasphemy upon blasphemy by a spirit of blasphemy.
The Protestants, therefore, agreed among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
Not really. If there had been Protestants in the crowd that day, they would not likely ask 'how' as if it were a physics question. The physics approach would be more natural to those who had no experience with a mracle like that which Jesus had just performed, the feeding of the five thousand from the fishes and loaves. Now Jesus says He is the bread from Heaven and you have to eat His flesh and drink his blood and if you are stuck on physics you want to know the mechanism.
But Protestants are well versed with metaphor. Jesus Himself is largely responsible for that. You know the drill. "I am the vine, the good shepherd, the light of the world, the way (path), the door (gate)." So a Protestant hearing Jesus' words would not ask a physics question like 'how.' All the normal language triggers are there to red-flag metaphor, so the Protestant would ask 'What is He teaching? Where is the anaolgy that helps us understand what He is saying?"
And that analogy is given, in verse 35:
And Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst.
(John 6:35)
The header, the main metaphor, "I am the bread of life." Analogy #1: Coming to Jesus will satisfy your hunger. Analogy #2: Believing in Jesus will satisfy your thirst.
These are very helpful analogies. They are saying the same thing. Coming to Jesus is believing in Jesus is having faith in Jesus, the core message of the Gospel. There is no physics question here.
Do we accept that a person who believes in Jesus will never again get hungry at dinner time? No? Why not? Shouldn't we be consistently literal? By what authority may we disregard the normal signals of metaphor to begin with a literal premise and then switch to metaphor when convenient?
Lets do it again. Does a person who believes in Jesus continue to have physical thirst? We are sure everyone here will Amen that, Catholic and Protestant alike. So obviously, Jesus is NOT refering to satisfying physical thirst. Still, literally He is speaking of thirst, agreed? It is a lesser metaphor used to explain the greater metaphor, Jesus as the Bread of Life. Of course "bread" here is not even literal bread. It is a generic term for the sustenance of life. Literal bread cannot satisfy thirst. So even at that level is it metaphor.
Which is fine, as every informed Protestant knows, because there's nothing the least bit suspicious or unspiritual about seeing metaphor where there really is metaphor. Indeed, for us, given our training and upbringing (I have always been a Baptist), it would seem dishonest to blow past all those clear indicators of metaphor and try to reduce what Jesus is saying to a test of faith over the physics of 'how.' No, for us it will always come back to the core question, Where is your faith centered? In the things you can do to earn your keep with God? Or in who Jesus is and what He has done for you?
Peace,
SR
Thank you. Now, your post 742. I admit I don't know who is in the picture, but I would assume it is a pope kissing a green book. Now that, should be a mortal sin of sacrilege. 😁 That should get someone zapped. 💀 to hell. 🔥
And do you also then resent that God required of His Son to suck at the breast of his blessed mother a mere human?
This would illustrate the profane nature of the deformers such as Luther and those that followed.
Obstinate, resentful, detractors who malign the plan of God while enjoying the blissful misguided imaginations of and presumption upon God’s mercy.
Yes, God desires that his little flock suck at the teat of his bride, the church and yes, even to feast upon His Son’s flesh and blood.
Meanwhile the protesters and deformers can stand outside and suck on the rationed paper and ink that Mr. Luther fed them.
In you preferred ignorance, I would bet you do not know what Jesus was referencing with the bread and wine at the ‘Last Supper’ on the night before the crucifixion. Want to try and tell us?
Selah!
the prosperity gospel, also known as the health and wealth or name it and claim it gospel, treats God as Amazon.com. It falsely teaches you will always be healthy and wealthy...all you have to do is ask. If you're not, then you're not truly believing...you faith is weak.
that's not in accordance with the NT.
Roman Catholicism has its own version of this through the "Fifteen Rosary Promises".
Excellent, as usual.
Thanks for your input, SR.
All I did was go to church because that was what we were supposed to do.
Around MY age of twelve (there were eight kids and I was #4), I realized my parents were sending us to church (with a driving brother) and no longer going themselves.
It was around that time I heard for the first time the sarcastic phrase, " I don't go to church, I saw that same movie LAST week ", and it made sense.
We did the same motions over and over and over again to the tune of this round multi-bell thing an alter boy rang occasionally.
Pavlov? (but I never put THAT one together until well into adulthood)
Finally, after enlisting in the Army in 1965, I considered myself an adult and capable of making my own decisions and I began the guilt promoted yearly obligation/duty .... midnight mass on Christmas Eve and "my Easter duty"
I got saved in 1981 at the age of thirty three and it ALL fell, like the scales over Paul's eyes ... and I could SEE for real and I could HEAR the truth.
You are a master at reading into comments things that are not there.
What could Jesus needing to nurse possibly have to do with Rome's demand that everyone be dependent on it alone for salvation?
This would illustrate the profane nature of the deformers such as Luther and those that followed. Obstinate, resentful, detractors who malign the plan of God while enjoying the blissful misguided imaginations of and presumption upon God’s mercy.
LOL!!!! And you carry on about *misguided imaginations* after a comment like the one you just made?
Yes, God desires that his little flock suck at the teat of his bride, the church and yes, even to feast upon His Son’s flesh and blood.
Chapter and verses to back up your claim?
Meanwhile the protesters and deformers can stand outside and suck on the rationed paper and ink that Mr. Luther fed them.
Why do you persist in continuing with accusations and claims that you have already and consistently been told are false?
Is it simply beyond your comprehension and people to not follow a man or feel a need to? Are you incapable of understanding that different people can read the same Scripture and come to the same conclusions and that by no means that they are *following* each other, but that the same Holy Spirit is guiding different people to the same conclusion.
The brainwashing of Catholics to believe that non-Catholics automatically follow Luther is so thorough and complete as to be staggering and no amount of correction or facts will stand in the way of them believing it.
“...Which is fine, as every informed Protestant knows, because there’s nothing the least bit suspicious or unspiritual about seeing metaphor where there really is metaphor...it would seem dishonest to blow past all those clear indicators of metaphor and try to reduce what Jesus is saying to a test of faith over the physics of ‘how.’”
This is a case of misrepresenting Catholics because Catholics do NOT miss the metaphor. There is metaphor AND literal meaning simultaneously in some cases.
The good Catholic accepts the literal AND the metaphor both, as both together bolster one another toward the completeness of faith as God intends.
I got save at 22 almost 40 years ago.
And the times I have been in a Catholic church since then, for funerals and an occasional wedding, I can STILL recite most portions of the mass without even thinking, just like I used to do when I was attending the church as a teen.
Made of wood?
And literal bread, made of wheat flour?
And a literal gate, also made of wood?
And a literal road, made of dirt?
The problem Catholics run into is that their claim that it's the literal flesh and blood that we have to literally eat, violates virtually the entire body of the rest of Scripture.
Eating blood is condemned in Scripture and the prohibition against it was reiterated by the Council at Jerusalem in Acts 15.
Jesus Himself said that the cup was the fruit of the vine.
And he said in John 6:63 that He was speaking in metaphor with these words....
John 6:63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
John 3:3-8 Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?” Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.”
John 3:14-18 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life. “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.
John 5:24 Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.
John 6:40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”
John 11:25-26 Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?”
But the Catholic church just loves its control over others and sets up so many hoops for people to jump through to become saved and stay saved.
Conditions that Jesus NEVER said must be fulfilled.
He said that FAITH saved one, just believing.
Are these words of His to be taken literally or are they a metaphor?
Dripping from the teats of the Catholic Church is poison. You are too lost to comprehend WHO is the Bride of Christ, and too satisfied with your arrogant lostness to learn. You evidence ‘invincible ignorance’ and blaspheme GOD.
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.