Pope Francis meets with Rev. Jens-Martin Kruse at Rome’s Evangelical Lutheran Church on Nov. 15 2016
Posted on 06/23/2017 9:12:09 AM PDT by ebb tide
Pope Francis meets with Rev. Jens-Martin Kruse at Rome’s Evangelical Lutheran Church on Nov. 15 2016
The commission consists of representatives from all three denominations, all bound to secrecy.
The journalist, who is well known in Italy for his accurate reporting of all things happening in the Vatican, has said that while this news is merely a “rumor” at this point, his “sources are usually good.”
According to his sources, the commission is finding little difficulty in finding common ground in the “liturgy of the word”. Tosatti reports: “After the confession of sins, asking for forgiveness, and reciting the Gloria, there would be the readings and the Gospel.”
He also said that the commission is allegedly studying the problem of the Creed. Protestant churches prefer to pray the Apostles’ Creed, although they do recognize the Nicene Creed. The Catholic Church alternates between them. So not even this point should be a major problem.
The presentation of the gifts likewise does not present a major obstacle to the project.
According to Tosatti, the central issue lies in the Eucharist, since the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist is profoundly different from that of the Lutherans or of other Protestant denominations. Catholics believe in Transubstantiation and the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, while Protestants believe that it is merely a memorial.
Tosatti reports that a possible “solution” being proposed is that the words of Consecration be replaced by silence:
But how can a common liturgy be celebrated that clearly differs in the wording right at the most important point of the event?
One of the proposed possible solutions would be silence. It would mean that after the Sanctus, at the moment in which normally during the Mass the priest would say the words: “Father, you are holy indeed…” the different celebrants would keep silent, everyone mentally repeating “his own” formula.
The silence is broken in the congregation with the recitation of the Our Father. It is still not clear how the lines for Communion would be formed.
In light of this well-founded rumor, we should take heed of the remarks of Cardinal Francesco Coccopalmerio, a close collaborator of Pope Francis and currently the President of the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts. The Vatican cardinal has suggested that we stop thinking of sacraments so rigidly as only either valid or invalid. For the sake of ecumenism, he opined that we should start looking into sacraments perhaps having “imperfect” or “partial” validity. Below are his exact words, as published in his exclusive interview with Edward Pentin of the National Catholic Register:
We say, everything is valid; nothing is valid. Maybe we have to reflect on this concept of validity or invalidity. The Second Vatican Council said there is a true communion [between Catholics and Protestants] even if it is not yet definitive or full. You see, they made a concept not so decisive, either all or nothing. There’s a communion that is already good, but some elements are missing. But, if you say some things are missing and that therefore there is nothing, you err. There are pieces missing, but there is already a communion, but it is not full communion. The same thing can be said, or something similar, of the validity or invalidity of ordination. I said let’s think about it. It’s a hypothesis. Maybe there is something, or maybe there’s nothing — a study, a reflection. ∎
by John Supplers, Veritas Vincit
Yes...I had forgotten about that.
The whole thing begins to spiral off into an un-biblically defendable position.
This was stated quite precisely to oppose those who said that Jesus Christ is actually two persons, sometimes explained as: Jesus (the man) and Christ (the God), and that Mary just gave birth to one of these two persons, human Jesus who was, as they thought, NOT God.
Hence this doctrine is founded strictly on the affirmation of Jesus as the God-Man.
A woman gives birth to a person, not a nature. She who gave birth to Jesus Christ, gave birth to --- brought forth in human flesh --- the Second Person of the Trinity, the Word-made-Flesh, God. who in His divine nature existed from all eternity.
She did not give birth to the Trinity, nor did she exist in eternity to give flesh or existence to God in eternity. She's not "older than God." She did not exist "before God." She's not superior to God. She's not the source of the Godhead. She's not pre-existent.
But she did fulfill Motherhood exactly: which means to conceive in her womb, bear and give birth to, a baby Who was and is divine: the one Person Jesus Christ.
Hence, "Mother of God."
It does not mean "source of the Divine nature." It does not mean "boss of God."
I am not speaking of you in particular, because you have a greater understanding of the historical development of doctrine than some other FReepers. But many ignore this true Christological meaning because they don't know it refers to Christ's Being as Divine, while his human "nature" was transmitted to him just as ours is: by being conceived, carried, birthed. By His mother.
What's interesting is that I have not seen ONE "Protestant" (actually born again believer on this forum) push their specific church or denomination as the OTC, like Catholics do.
I have yet to see any believers call each other *heretics* for not agreeing with them and encouraging them to join with them in their church cause only in their specific church is there special knowledge and graces given that can save anyone.
It sounds much like the claims of Semiramis in the cult of Nimrod. But we’ve been assured that the ‘Church’ blessed these additions to Christianity for getting more pagans into the fold of the Roman Catholic Church.
But that's what it SAYS.
And if you have to explain to someone that what is said is not what is meant, there's a problem then with what has been said.
Maybe that's why the Holy Spirit used *mother of JESUS*.
I like Mother of Jesus.:)
The title causes too much confusion.
The NT had already established all of the understanding that was needed regarding Jesus. I'd they'd only read it.
However what has happened is the original purpose of the argument has been lost....which was to have a proper understanding of the true nature of Jesus,....and now Roman Catholicism has used this to further elevate Mary to something not accorded to her in the New Testament.
People who harbor habitual suspicion or skepticism about the reliability of the early Church should keep in mind that that fatally undermines the reliability of Scripture.
The early Church are the ones who gathered, copied and transmitted the NT over and over, handing it down through the generations. Not one original manuscript of any NT book now exists. The very earliest versions we have of anything, is a copy of a copy.
If there is an inordinate emphasis on the supposed infidelity of the early church, you’re left with dubious Scriptures selected, edited, and transmitted for centuries by people steeped in error, knaves, and fools. Writings can only be as reliable as those who formed the chain of transmission. So you’re stuck. No faithful church, no faithful Bible.
The Muslims, of course, think the whole collection of NT scripture is corrupted, since by the time of Muhammad, all the manuscripts had for centuries been in the hands of the “Roms”. It goes without saying that they reject the OT as well, corrupted -— they say-— by the Jews.
Apparently, yes. Just look at the rationalizing done by Catholics such as John Henry Newman who came up with the idea of "doctrinal development" where he KNEW that many RC doctrines could not be shown to have been taught by Jesus or the Apostles nor held by the Early Church Fathers or even spoken about in God's sacred word.
"But a most pernicious error widely prevails that Scripture has only so much weight as is conceded to it by the consent of the church. As if the eternal and inviolable truth of God depended upon the decision of men!"- John Calvin
"The Scriptures obtain full authority among believers only when men regard them as having sprung from heaven, as if there the living words of God were heard."- John Calvin
Holy Scripture is the Divinely-inspired word of God. It is God who preserves it. Heaven and earth will pass away but the word of our God will never pass away. We don't rely upon men to give the scriptures their authority.
I'm not talking about men claiming to have authority that supercedes Scripture. I'm talking about the chain of transmission of the physical manuscripts themselves, and their translation and copying and being handed down in various editions for many, many centuries. The bibliographic history.
A person or party that was not basically faithful to the Word of God, could put out editions which are not faithful to the originals---and they do. Thomas Jefferson proposed a New Testament that would have no miracles in it. The Jehovah's Witnesses and, I understand, the Mormons have their own custom-made translations, guided by their ideas of what made sense to them. And anybody could make a copy that's got errors in it.
Assuredly God has preserved the Bible from error, and He has done so by putting it in the hands of people who would faithfully transmit it. The history of how He has done so, is absolutely fascinat4ing.
This is all to the glory of God. He called faithful people (church) to pass on to us faithful Scriptures.
Endangering our confidence in that chain of transmission, is essentially denying that God had the means to get His written word into our hands. And all means of transmission are not equally good. If there were, we'd be stuck with Jefferson.
Does the Holy Spirit lead the college of cardinals in the selection of the new pope?
Is the current condition of the Catholic church supposed to be an example of the Holy Spirit's leading and how the church is protected from error in matters of faith and morals?
Is the current condition of the Catholic church what we should expect a church to look like after 2,000 years of the Holy Spirit's leading? They couldn't get it any better with 2,000 years to work on it?
Is the current condition of the Catholic church supposed to be an example of how the gates of hell have not prevailed against the church?
Cause I'll tell you, you're going to have an awfully hard time convincing someone of your claims about leading and protection based on what we see today.
Look at the long convoluted case you have to present to justify changing what the Holy Spirit breathed out in Scripture.
HE used the title *mother of Jesus*. Your argument for using *Mother of God* is then accusing HIM of not suing an adequate term for Mary.
The phrase *mother of Jesus* is used in Scripture to identify MARY. It's about identifying her from all the other Mary's mentioned in Scripture.
It never was used as a statement about the divinity of Jesus. That whole argument is a waste of time because it is addressing something that is a non-starter.
It's simply an excuse to rationalize away correcting the work of GOD who inspired Scripture.
If there was some problem with people's concept of the nature of Jesus, the thing to have done would be to go to GOD'S WORD, SCRIPTURE, and correct it from there. After all, God tells us that is exactly what Scripture was given for and useful for.
2 Timothy 3:16-17 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.
Changing the title of Mary only clouds the issue because of the lengthy explanation Catholics have to give to explain it to others and since we know that God is not the author of confusion, the change in title is NOT from HIM.
I'll stick with agreeing with the Holy Spirit in what He inspired in Scripture: *Mary, the mother of Jesus*.
That way, I KNOW I can't be wrong.
The Holy Spirit is clear in Scripture in calling Mary *the mother of Jesus*.
John 2:1 On the third day there was a wedding at Cana in Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there.
John 2:3 When the wine ran out, the mother of Jesus said to him, “They have no wine.”
Acts 1:14 All these with one accord were devoting themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and his brothers.
If someone is confused about the nature of Christ, the thing to do would be to address it from Scripture, not to add more confusion to the matter by changing what God inspired.
The phrase *mother of God* certainly does mean *Mother of the divine being named God*, IOW, mother of His divinity.
The phrase *mother of Jesus* does not mean she's the mother of God's being.
What you say about the reliability of the Scriptures cannot be said about Roman Catholic “Tradition”. There is no way to prove what Paul did or did not say that is not written down.
Your statement seems to rule out any influence of the Holy Spirit in guiding the early ekklesia.
What is called into question is the Roman Catholic understanding of the early ekklesia.
We do not see in the early ekklesia the following:
idols of Mary and the disciples bowing before and praying to the image represented by the idol
Mary as co-redemptrix, mediatrix, advocatrix
the infallibility of the pope
no miraculous medals
no medallions
no scapulars
admonitions to pray to anyone other than the Father or Jesus
no centralized hierarchy centered in Rome
no collecting of relics to be stored anywhere
no purgatory
no belief in the immaculate conception
no cardinals
no archbishops
no colleges dedicated to the study of Mary
no Eucharist as practiced by the RCC and certainly no requirement that it had to be in Latin
no belief in baptism as the means of salvation
no uncertainty of eternal life
I can go on but you get the idea.
What we see in Rome today was not seen in the early ekklesia.
Conspicuously absent is ANY mention of Mary! But you will dismiss that so you can cling to the dogma you've been indoctrinated with which fashions Mary into a demi-goddess.
Was Jesus confused?
Mat 6:14 For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you:
Mat 6:15 But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.
Joh 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.
Both sets of sayings are biblical...Both are said by Jesus...So both are true...Why do you pick one over another to believe???
Who were the Catholics and non Catholics in the NT days???
You asserted, People who harbor habitual suspicion or skepticism about the reliability of the early Church should keep in mind that that fatally undermines the reliability of Scripture. [That is a lie. It does this in the twisted Catholic apologist brain, but not with a common man. THE HOLY SPIRIT attests the validity of The Word of God as anyone seeking God reads The Word of God. You strip HIS importance with such a lie as posed in that sentence!]
The early Church are the ones who gathered, copied and transmitted the NT over and over, handing it down through the generations [There was no Catholic Chruch in the Early body of believers who shared the materials which we now call The New Testament. Believers copied and sent along the Gospels and the letters from Paul and teachings from Peter and James. Your Catholic Church did not even exist when the materials which make up the New Testament were being collected by bodies of believers.
Your technique, of conflating the UNIVERSAL body of believers with the institutional ORG of your religion- albeit unconsciously enjoined, is a demonic strategy to empower your ORG and diminish the universal nature of The Body of Christ. Paul addressed that, regarding 'not discerning the body of Christ'. This specious perspective is so ingrained in Catholic Apologist thinking that you are unable to see it for what it is. BUT readers of these threads see it, as attested by the Freepmails I've gotten.
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.