Posted on 09/16/2017 1:21:07 PM PDT by ebb tide
The group "Spezzare il pane" ("Breaking the Bread") in the archdiocese of Turin, Italy, has officially started with the celebration of "ecumenical masses" where Holy Communion is distributed to Catholics and non-Catholics.
The group is headed by Father Fredo Oliviero, an apologist for illegal immigration, who has the support of his archbishop, Monsignor Cesare Nosiglia. The practice of the group to distribute Holy Communion to non-Catholics, is openly promoted in the newspaper of Turin Archdiocese "La Voce e il Tempo".
Among the members of the group are "Catholics", Anglicans, Baptists, Waldensians and Lutherans. They gather once a month in one of their churches, where they celebrate a "Eucharist" according to the respective denomination, distributing "Communion" to everybody.
According to Fra Cristoforo, writing on maurizioblondet.it, these abuses are recommended by Pope Francis. Archbishop Nosiglia is informed about them but does not intervene. The future goal is to spread such gatherings to other Italian cities.
Distributing Holy Communion to people who do not share the Catholic Faith and have not previously confessed their sins, profanes the Holy Species, leads the participants to condemnation, and promotes superstition.
Actually it did.
And since it was the Catholic Church who authored the book we know as the Bible,
Actually they didn't.
...then it is for the Catholic Church to discern its meaning in context ... which is why we say the Catholic Church is a “teaching Church” ...
So, what did Christians have as a spiritual guide in the nearly four centuries before the Bible existed? They had the TRADITION of the Church.
The early church had the Holy Spirit to guide them in all truth. Do Roman Catholics not read the very book they claim to have given??
I’ve asked before and will continue to do so....if what you claim will happen doesn’t happen...will you admit to being a false prophet?
Interesting for you as a Roman Catholic to say this. Most of the time we're told that is the sin of presumption by your fellow Roman Catholics.
Context is a foreign concept in Roman Catholicism.
“Interesting for you as a Roman Catholic to say this.”
No, it is not.
“Most of the time we’re told that is the sin of presumption by your fellow Roman Catholics.”
Only if meant in a presumptuous way. I said nothing of the kind. I have the same assurance of all the hopeful. Care to make another mistake or will you be finishing with this one for the evening?
Well, vlad, I see the Rules haven’t changed in dealing with you.
“Well, vlad, I see the Rules haven’t changed in dealing with you.”
The rule seems to be that that’s what you say when you fall short. Hence, you post it often.
That sure sounds like a very presumptuous statement from a Roman Catholic.
Then you offer this after I note it was interesting for you as a Roman Catholic to say that...Only if meant in a presumptuous way.
As I said....the Rules are in play when dealing with you. Words only mean what you want them to mean.
Most of the Roman Catholics I've dealt with on this board seem to doubt if they will have an eternity in Heaven.
Your post said you were going to Heaven.
Oooh, I’m scared. Jesus said to do this in remembrance of Him. He didn’t say there are only certain locations where we’re supposed to do it.
Worthiness it what grace accomplishes. Or do you think that "blessing of God" objectively changes nothing?
You mean they didn't pass out paperback Bibles and let everyone figure out for themselves what it meant, so they could argue about it on Internet message boards?
You mean context turns "baptism, which saves you now" into "baptism, which doesn't save you now"? I don't think so ...
“We’ve been told many times on these boards one cannot presume they will make it to Heaven.”
I didn’t presume.
“Your post said, You’ll see. If I’m wrong on this, I’m going to heaven anyway.”
I still wasn’t presuming.
“Then you offer this after I note it was interesting for you as a Roman Catholic to say that...Only if meant in a presumptuous way.”
Exactly. I didn’t say anything presumptuous because I know exactly what I said, how I said it and my intention in saying it and none of it was presumptuous.
“As I said....the Rules are in play when dealing with you.”
And as I have said, rule seems to be that that’s what you say when you fall short. Hence, you post it often.
“Words only mean what you want them to mean.”
No, but presumption means presumption. If I am not speaking with presumption, then I’m not speaking with presumption. Presumption would be that I’m going to Heaven even if I choose to disobey God, flout His law, refuse repentance, refuse His grace, live a life of sin, etc. I said that even if I was wrong about a dispensational (i.e. commonly Baptist) understanding of the end of the world happening one week from now I would still go to Heaven. Why? Because how the world ends (and there’s no logical reason to think it will end next week) has NOTHING to do with the state of my soul. Thus, nothing I said was presumptuous about either the state of my soul or about my going to Heaven.
Now, I’ll link you to a Catholic Answers article that shows I am - as is usually the case - 100% right about the definition of presumption: https://www.catholic.com/qa/what-is-the-sin-of-presumption
So, we see the eagleone rule in play again:
1) eagleone says something that is completely incorrect about something Catholic.
2) eagleone is corrected by a knowledgeable Catholic.
3) eagleone, although corrected, insists that the Catholic doesn’t actually know what he is talking about even though he cannot show any evidence - and certainly nothing from a Catholic source - which shows the Catholic was ever wrong about anything, in the first place.
4) eagleone, although corrected, continues to insist the Catholic is wrong about Catholic teaching even though he has no logical argument, no evidence, no proof, and absolutely not a single Catholic source to prove his point.
“Most of the Roman Catholics I’ve dealt with on this board seem to doubt if they will have an eternity in Heaven.”
No, not at all. What they do is express the hope of going to heaven and that is proper. Assurance of heaven is not absolute and is not held to be so except in Protestant sects and not even all of those. If that is your mistaken understanding, I suggest you read David D. Corner’s book: https://www.amazon.com/Believers-Conditional-Security-Eternal-Refuted/dp/0963907689
“Your post said you were going to Heaven.”
It sure did - and there was not a single thing presumptuous about what I said. https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/yes-christians-do-have-an-assurance-but-not-an-absolute-assurance-of
Go on. Keep posting that the Catholic must be wrong about Catholic teaching even when he isn’t and you have not a single shred of evidence that he is wrong. You have to obey the eagleone rule. You apparently can’t resist it.
“Worthiness it what grace accomplishes. Or do you think that “blessing of God” objectively changes nothing?”
Bingo! It’s as if they think God’s grace doesn’t accomplish anything. To them it just seems like God pretends that someone is now rendered worthy rather than actually transformed by God’s grace. Would Jesus die on a cross so God could pretend we’re holy?
Now you copy my bit. LOL!
The Rules really do apply to you.
You might want to revise your tagline in that case.
Well, we know the RCC wasn't real big on getting the Word into the hands of the people.
Once the printing press was invented, the most commonly printed book was the Bible, but this still did not make Bible-reading a Catholic’s common practice. Up until the mid-twentieth Century, the custom of reading the Bible and interpreting it for oneself was a hallmark of the Protestant churches springing up in Europe after the Reformation. Protestants rejected the authority of the Pope and of the Church and showed it by saying people could read and interpret the Bible for themselves. Catholics meanwhile were discouraged from reading Scripture.
Identifying the reading and interpreting of the Bible as “Protestant” even affected the study of Scripture. Until the twentieth Century, it was only Protestants who actively embraced Scripture study. That changed after 1943 when Pope Pius XII issued the encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu. This not only allowed Catholics to study Scripture, it encouraged them to do so. And with Catholics studying Scripture and teaching other Catholics about what they were studying, familiarity with Scripture grew.
Scripture awareness grew after the Second Vatican Council. Mass was celebrated in the vernacular and so the Scripture readings at Mass were read entirely in English. Adult faith formation programs began to develop, and the most common program run at a parish focused on Scripture study. The Charismatic movement and the rise of prayer groups exposed Catholics to Scripture even more. All of this contributed to Catholics becoming more familiar with the Bible and more interested in reading the Scriptures and praying with them.
http://www.usccb.org/bible/understanding-the-bible/study-materials/articles/changes-in-catholic-attitudes-toward-bible-readings.cfm
And even then we don't know how many Catholics actually study the Bible...or even read it. But we do know Evangelicals read the Bible more than Roman Catholics and believe the Bible as literal v Roman Catholics.
If a Catholic attends Mass on Sunday and Major Feast days they will hear only 40.8% of the NT in a three year cycle.
Pre-Vatican II the Catholic would hear only 16.5% of the NT.
http://catholic-resources.org/Lectionary/Statistics.htm
This hardly would be considered serious Bible study.
The remnant 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.