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
Current guidelines for the Religion Forum concerning this issue:
Catholic Caucus Designations
The “Catholic Caucus” designation excludes Sedevacantists, Orthodox, SSPX and Inactive Catholics.
Any of the excluded groups may be included on a particular thread by extending the label, e.g. “Catholic/Orthodox Caucus” or “Cath/SV/SSPX Caucus”
Additionally, the label “All Catholic Caucus” may be used to include any Freeper who self identifies as a Catholic regardless of his attitude about the Pope, Papal Infallibility, Vatican II or Schisms or Sects.
The SSPX will be included by default in a Catholic Caucus when (and if) Bishop Fellay accepts the olive branch offered.
My point is that there shouldn’t be separate Catholic Caucuses. There should be one. The current guidelines create needless division and allow posters to judge who fits into their personal version of Catholicism (which is what unjustly happened in the other thread).
Can you show me the chapter and verse for any of these doctrines?
trinity
catholic
pope
eucharist
sacraments
annulment
assumption
immaculate conception
mass
purgatory
magisterium
infallible
confirmation
crucifix
rosary
mortal sin
venial sin
perpetual virginity
indulgences
hyperdulia
catechism
real presence
transubstantiation
liturgy
free will
holy water
monstrance
sacred tradition
apostolic succession
Benefactress
Mediatrix
Queen of Heaven
Mother of God
beatific vision
invincible ignorance
Divine Office
guardian angel
Corporal Works of Mercy
Petrine authority
heresy
Baptism of blood
Baptism of desire
However there is the fact that the word rapture is derived from the Latin Vulgate word.
Where did the word 'rapture' come from?
https://bible.org/question/where-did-term-8216rapture%E2%80%99-come
BTW, the Latin Vulgate is the CATHOLIC Bible.
So much for that notion of a one united Roman Catholic church.
Serious questions:
Does this only apply when the Pope is speaking "ex cathedra" or for all things said by the Pope?
Gee...do you think the reason just might be that certain RCs intentionally post provocative threads just to get the hits and stir up dissension? A few even enjoy riling up other Catholics!
Oops! You’ve pulled the curtain back!
So, if we take that verse by itself, are you saying Jesus preached that those who have "done good" will go to heaven and those who have "done evil" will go to hell? I guess there was no reason for Him to die that horrific death on the cross seeing as good people go to heaven and bad people go to hell.
Since I can guess that this is NOT what you really believe, isn't there a different meaning to "doing good" and "doing evil" than making eternal salvation dependent on our own righteousness or unrighteousness? When Jesus was asked, "What must we do to perform the works of God?”, Jesus replied, “This is the work of God: to believe in the One He has sent.”
This is a relatively new development. I'm gonna take a wild guess and say that it probably was NOT JR's or the Religion Moderator's decision to divide up the Catholic Caucus that way. Am I right?
Now see, I thought Mrs. D understood what the term sola Scriptura meant. Anyhoo, we know that the Catholic church asserts she doesn't need a chapter and verse for her doctrines, so I wonder what asking for one here is about? We can certainly point to numerous Biblical passages to prove that Scripture does teach the concepts even if a specific word is not found. That is what sola Scriptura means.
I don’t believe in Sola Scriptura, as you know, boatbums. But the reason I asked Bro. MHG about “chapter and verse” is because I actually would like to know if there are terms translated as “Rapture” or “Church Age” or “Epoch” in his Bible.
It’s a real question, because I know MHG evidently uses a Bible that doesn’t translate “Ekklesia” as “church”, and I wondered if there were more terms like that in his Scriptures. (MHG, if I’m wrong on that point, please let me know.)
This may seem dumb to you, but please don’t think it’s just me being needlessly provocative. Sometimes a translation issue can make a real difference.
My perplexity was heightened by the fact that I couldn’t find the term “Rapture” in the early Church Fathers, the leaders of the Reformation, creeds or denominational statements, or any sources before just yesterday, Biblically speaking (19th century).
Seems like a big thing for everyone -— Jews, Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants -—to totally miss for two millennia, and then discover, like Aha -—
MHG, my friend, please don’t accuse me of bad faith. I asked a question. I’m here to learn.
Can you read Latin, or Greek?
From https://bible.org/question/where-did-term-8216rapture%E2%80%99-come
Regarding the term rapture and its use in theology the following should answer your questions. It is taken from Ryrie’s Basic Theology, Electronic Media from Parsons Technology.Our modern understanding of rapture appears to have little or no connection with the eschatological event. However, the word is properly used of that event. Rapture is a state or experience of being carried away. The English word comes from a Latin word, rapio, which means to seize or snatch in relation to an ecstasy of spirit or the actual removal from one place to another. In other words, it means to be carried away in spirit or in body. The Rapture of the church means the carrying away of the church from earth to heaven.
The Greek word from this term “rapture” is derived appears in 1 Thessalonians 4:17, translated “caught up.” The Latin translation of this verse used the word rapturo. The Greek word it translates is harpazo, which means to snatch or take away. Elsewhere it is used to describe how the Spirit caught up Philip near Gaza and brought him to Caesarea (Acts 8:39) and to describe Paul’s experience of being caught up into the third heaven (2 Cor. 12:2-4). Thus there can be no doubt that the word is used in 1 Thessalonians 4:17 to indicate the actual removal of people from earth to heaven.
The other terms you questioned can be sought out on the Internet just as easily, if you wish to research them.
Jerome’s Greek to Latin translation has the verb ‘rapio’ used for the Greek harpadzo (harpazo), found prominently in 1 Thess 4: 13-17.
Meant to ping you folks, if you would like to join in ...
It is late and this old man is sleepy. Manana
That is what I thought which was why I was puzzled that you were asking for proofs of words you already knew were not found specifically in Scripture. However, I know that Catholicism DOES teach that Sacred Scripture IS the Divine word of God that came from the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. I wonder if you will acquiesce that, AS the word of God, Scripture holds an intrinsic authority that supersedes the writings of men? In other words, can the writings of men be in authority above the written word of God or should they be in agreement with it? That really is the basis of sola Scriptura.
Another aspect of SS is that Scripture contains all that is necessary to know so that we can be saved and be equipped for every good work, it is the Sword of the Spirit which fights against the wiles of the devil and it is our guideline for knowing what pleases God. I really think a fuller understanding of this would naturally make anyone believe in the Sola Scriptura doctrine. It certainly is not heresy nor is it a novel idea since the concept was utilized to fight against early heresies that crept in.
As to the terms in question, I'd say that yes they can be proved through Scripture. For example, "Rapture", the Latin Vulgate translates the Greek ἁρπαγησόμεθα as rapiemur meaning "we are caught up" or "we are taken away" from the Latin verb rapio meaning "to catch up" or "take away". Even Catholicism teaches that there WILL be a catching up and gathering of the church when Christ returns. We may disagree on the timing of end times, but we agree there will be a catching up.
The Church Age, I'd say would be the "time of the Gentiles" Jesus spoke about in Luke 21:24 would qualify as the church age. "Epoch", "So when they came together, they asked Him, “Lord will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” Jesus replied, “It is not for you to know times or seasons that the Father has fixed by His own authority." (Acts 1:7). Times and seasons are epochs/period. The New American Standard Bible translates "times and seasons" as "times and epochs" as do several other English language translations. The Greek word is "kairós" and is used in numerous places in Scripture (see http://biblehub.com/greek/2540.htm. Hope this is helpful.
I find it interesting that Catholics use the argument of something not being found in Scripture means that it invalidates it when they want to disprove a non-Catholic doctrine, like the rapture, sola Scriptura, etc, but when it comes to THEIR doctrines, well, the concept is taught there, you don’t need the actual words themselves.
It’s called a double standard, aka, hypocrisy.
On many levels at that.
Try that again......
I find it interesting that Catholics use the argument of something not being mentioned in Scripture using the word(s) they prefer (and that varies by individual) means that it invalidates the whole concept when they want to disprove a non-Catholic doctrine, like the rapture, sola Scriptura, etc, but when it comes to THEIR doctrines, well, if the concept is taught there, you don’t need the actual words themselves.
It’s called a double standard, aka, hypocrisy.
On many levels at that.
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.