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 ...
I see I have a stalker. I’m flattered.
I see you're paranoid.
There is no formality to confession in the New Testament. The obligation to perform it is met any time a believer approaches another believer to confess their error. The notion of transferring that responsibility from the offending parties to a priestly hierarchy is NOT taught in the New Testament.
The problem you have is that if Christians (of any denomination) limited their practices to only what was clearly exampled in the New Testament for New Testament believers, it would not produce the Roman denomination as it exists today. Of course, the RCC justifies this as a function of progressive development of doctrine. The downside to that theory is it has no logical stopping point, if Scripture cannot be used as the final court of appeal. The ‘development’ of doctrine can go to places just as fanciful as anything ever concocted outside the RCC. The defense to that is the assertion that, ‘no it can’t because ...’ and at that point the RCC defers back to a presumption of RCC authority. This is a fatally circular argument. Really, the only thing that defends one against the self-referential authority argument is an external arbiter, such as Scripture.
As for what the NT reveals, it is frightful to think some still believe Christians outside the RCC can only produce man-centered theologies. I could excuse that during the medieval period, when we didn’t have widespread print or electronic media. Nowadays there is simply no excuse. Protestant/Evangelical theology is magnificently centered in God and Christ. Even in the teaching on the Lord’s Supper the emphasis is NOT subjective experience but the eternal glory of God’s love revealed in the love of Christ dying for our sins. This is not a thing to which any knowledgeable RC could object.
Peace,
SR
Such a revealing post about you!
When I was growing up in a small MS town, we went to different churches. My parents knew just about everyone and we had tons of relatives. They would invite us to their churches. As long as they taught directly from the Bible, we were fine. I know they taught from the Bible because from the time I learned to read, I carried my own Bible. Nothing wrong with going to different churches. We loved it because we had friends/relatives in each. We even went to services in a brush arbor.
Amen!
Wrong. Jesus only conferred that authority upon his apostles. No one else.
But I'm curious, what "believers" do you confess your sins? Your neighbor? The mailman?
In all those years, did you ever go to a Catholic Church?
We confess TO GOD ... but you should have known that since you reject that Truth so haughtily.
I’m glad you checked it out.
Nope. A born again believer.
Or has that part been excised out your bible?
“Context is lost on the Catholic.”
No it isn’t.
Wonderful verses about the new covenant being written on the heart.
Thank you.
Did you get baptized again? When you were "reborn"?
Sure there is.
Having Him dwell in your heart through faith which beats a cold. formal liturgy any day.
Far more intimate that simple eating God.
Well, my pastors where suits, not dresses.
It was good enough for the apostles at the Last Supper. But I guess they're beneath you.
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.