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 ...
When I was a boy, our home had an 'outhouse'. I helped dig the pit over which it sat in two locations we used over several years. I built my current home and installed two septic systems ... have two laundries, one up and one downstairs.
Which is also Scriptural.
1 Corinthians 12:1-31
Now concerning spiritual gifts, brothers, I do not want you to be uninformed. You know that when you were pagans you were led astray to mute idols, however you were led. Therefore I want you to understand that no one speaking in the Spirit of God ever says “Jesus is accursed!” and no one can say “Jesus is Lord” except in the Holy Spirit.
Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; and there are varieties of service, but the same Lord; and there are varieties of activities, but it is the same God who empowers them all in everyone. To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. For to one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom, and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the ability to distinguish between spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. All these are empowered by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills.
For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. 13 For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit.
For the body does not consist of one member but of many. If the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body. And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body. If the whole body were an eye, where would be the sense of hearing? If the whole body were an ear, where would be the sense of smell? But as it is, God arranged the members in the body, each one of them, as he chose. If all were a single member, where would the body be? As it is, there are many parts, yet one body.
The eye cannot say to the hand, “I have no need of you,” nor again the head to the feet, “I have no need of you.” On the contrary, the parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, and on those parts of the body that we think less honorable we bestow the greater honor, and our unpresentable parts are treated with greater modesty, which our more presentable parts do not require. But God has so composed the body, giving greater honor to the part that lacked it, that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another. If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together.
Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it. And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, helping, administrating, and various kinds of tongues. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? But earnestly desire the higher gifts.
Additionally, when Jesus addressed the 7 churches in the book of Revelation, He did NOT chide them or chastise them for being separate from each other. He addressed the issues that were facing each individual church, which were all different, and nowhere did He admonish them to come together under one head nor did He tell them their problems were because they were diverse and yet unified.
The idea that all believers need to be in lockstep agreement with each other is NOT Scriptural in the least. It's a Catholic construct.
Which is also Scriptural.
and again, Paul here addresses differences in beliefs.
The Holy Spirit speaking through Paul allows us liberty as believers that the Catholic church would deny us.
Romans 14:1-9 As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand.
One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God. For none of us lives to himself, and none of us dies to himself. For if we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord. So then, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord's. For to this end Christ died and lived again, that he might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.
On occasion.
Wherever two or three are gathered together, Jesus is in the midst.
Scripture does not demand that believers attend church somewhere on Sunday mornings or Saturday nights.
They are just not to forsake the assembling of themselves together.
And which church? Whichever one I feel like. Sometimes it’s the one I usually go to. Sometimes it’s a different denomination. Depends on what’s going on at the different churches.
Our works to not contribute to our salvation.
They are the fruit of it, the natural end results of a reborn spirit, evidence of salvation.
Besides, your verses did not support having to attend Catholic churches to depend on it for salvation.
Catholics just don’t get what an ongoing relationship with Jesus is all about.
It’s not just something we do in a building called a church, once or twice a week.
It’s a moment by moment, vibrant continual relationship that is not dependent on location.
With Christ dwelling in my heart by faith, He’s available to talk to ANY time I want or need.
just don’t get what an ongoing relationship with Jesus is all about.
The new covenant God referred to in the OT deserves some reflection. The new covenant is with us as individuals, not the church.
jer_31:31 “The day is coming,” says the LORD, “when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and Judah.
Jer_31:33 “But this is the new covenant I will make with the people of Israel on that day,” says the LORD. “I will put My instructions deep within them, and I will write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be My people.
Luk_22:20 After supper He took another cup of wine and said, “This cup is the new covenant between God and His people—an agreement confirmed with My blood, which is poured out as a sacrifice for you.
1Co_11:25 In the same way, He took the cup of wine after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant between God and His people—an agreement confirmed with My blood. Do this to remember Me as often as you drink it.”
2Co_3:6 He has enabled us to be ministers of His new covenant. This is a covenant not of written laws, but of the Spirit. The old written covenant ends in death; but under the new covenant, the Spirit gives life.
Heb_8:8 But when God found fault with the people, He said: “The day is coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and Judah.
Heb_8:10 But this is the new covenant I will make with the people of Israel on that day, says the LORD: I will put My laws in their minds, and I will write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be My people.
Heb_9:15 That is why He is the One who mediates a new covenant between God and people, so that all who are called can receive the eternal inheritance God has promised them. For Christ died to set them free from the penalty of the sins they had committed under that first covenant.
Heb_10:16 “This is the new covenant I will make with My people on that day, says the LORD: I will put My laws in their hearts, and I will write them on their minds.”
Heb_12:24 You have come to Jesus, the One who mediates the new covenant between God and people, and to the sprinkled blood, which speaks of forgiveness instead of crying out for vengeance like the blood of Abel.
The overwhelming majority of these relate to believing in Jesus.
So, should we understand Jesus was placing emphasis on belief in Him as a requirement for salvation or, a very limited exchanged between unbelieving Jews who confused His message of belief and tried to think He was saying they had to eat His flesh and blood?
They wouldn't be the first to misunderstand Him. Nicodemus did not fully understand Jesus' message of being born again.
That's a point many catholics seem to miss. Jesus is available to talk any time we approach Him. We don't need to go through Mary at all.
In fact, Paul tells us: 6Be anxious for nothing, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God. Phil 4:6 NASB
We have DIRECT access to God.
Consider that for a moment. The Sovereign Creator of the Universe tells us to make our requests known to Him.
Hate to burst your bubble, but there's no more a direct access to God than the Holy Mass.
LOL ... the ‘holy mass’ of your religion is serving a demonic lie, so the prayer of a born again Christian is in another universe, of Truth, far from your ‘holy mass’ is not truth. Catholiciism is not Christianity. It is catholiciism, another religion, which Paul addressed negatively.
Hate to burst yours...but no. The roman catholic mass goes against what is revealed in the New Testament.
Check out my home page. How does the Mass compare with your “services”?
This is true, while if those who went away did so because they were repelled by the literal meaning that the bread and wine are really Jesus flesh that was broken/crucified and blood that was shed, then they were not believing like Catholics demand we take Scripture, even though they claim to be taking it plainly literally.
For to take it plainly literally that this flesh they were to eat was what would be crucified for them then it would be manifest as that crucified Christ versus a form that looks, feels, tastes and would scientifically test as bread and wine, yet which really did not exist, being the "real" body and blood of Christ instead, even in every microscopic particle (until the bread and wine that do not exist begin to decay, such as mold evidences). Certainly this palatable form is not what they would be rejecting, but one which Catholics themselves reject.
And here i would like to ask of you or any others (note large ping spread) who are scientifically minded when matter, as in bread, begins to decay, which would exclude this Catholic christ from being in the elements at issue here, and if microscopic particles of such may be airborne, such as the wine evaporating, which would place this Catholic christ various places).
And as a lawyer, could one be charged with stealing a consecrated host if the plaintiff considers the host to be a real spiritual entity, and that what was stolen really does not physically exist?
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)
That can easily be rationalized by Caths as meaning spiritual hunger and thirst by physically consuming non-existent bread and wine that is the "real" body and blood of Christ.
Instead, the analogy that helps us understand what He is saying is Jn. 6:57:
As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. (John 6:57)
As how the Lord Jesus "lived" is analogous to how we are to live, then we must find out how the Lord Jesus lived, and thus, as with the other uses of metaphorical language in John , we must look to other statements, in which we see that
But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. (Matthew 4:4)
And therefore, using metaphor once again in John, (which is done at least 5 times before Jn. 6), the Lord stated,
But he said unto them, I have meat to eat that ye know not of. Therefore said the disciples one to another, Hath any man brought him ought to eat? Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work. (John 4:32-34)
And which perfectly corresponds to the Lord's explanatory words at the end of the John 6 discourse,
What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before [thus not being around to give His physical flesh]? It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing [consuming physical flesh nowhere in Scripture provided spiritual life]: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. (John 6:62-63)
And which also corresponds to the theme in John of contrasting the physical with the spiritual, and of believing being how one obtains spiritual life, and which metaphorical understanding of Jn. 6 alone easily conflates with the rest of Scripture.
To God be the glory.
So what has the New Testament revealed to y'all? The Church of Me? You reject the Sacrament of Confession, that's in the New Testament.
It won't do any good when people willfully wallow in their ignorance. It may just be dust-shaking-off time, eh?
I see the picture where roman catholicim still has Christ crucified on the cross.
The New Testament records He is no longer on the cross.
Well, we can, (Col. 1:10; 1Thes. 2:4; 4:1; Heb. 11:5; 13:16) but not in the flesh, (Rm. 8:8) nor so as to earn eternal life.
He is as long as you continue to sin. That’s what He died for, to save you in His Church.
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.