Probably the Croatian version of this one:
"Divine Love Made Flesh:
The Holy Eucharist as the Sacrament of Charity"
Posted on 10/28/2016 7:35:48 PM PDT by marshmallow
ZAGREB, Croatia, October 28, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) -- It is “irreformable” dogma of the Catholic Church that only those who believe that Jesus Christ is truly present in the consecrated bread and wine are able to receive Holy Communion, stated Cardinal Raymond Burke. The Vatican cardinal said that St. Paul makes it clear that unless the person receiving recognizes the body of Christ, he “eats condemnation to himself.”
“This is a sacrilege. This is among the gravest of sins,” he said.
The cardinal was responding to a question on intercommunion with other Christian denominations asked by LifeSiteNews’ John-Henry Westen during the October 23 launch of the Croatian version of the cardinal's book on the Eucharist in Zagreb, Croatia.
“No one can approach to receive the Holy Eucharist unless he believes that the host that he is receiving — even though it looks like bread, tastes like bread, and smells like bread — is in reality the body and blood of Christ. Only that person who believes in this way can approach the Blessed Sacrament, can approach to receive Holy Communion,” he stated.
Burke’s comments come days before Pope Francis travels to Lund, Sweden to commemorate the 500th anniversary of Martin Luther’s nailing of his 95 theses to the door of the castle church of Wittenberg on October 31, 1517. Lutheran and Catholic bishops have expressed a hope that the Pope will allow for intercommunion at first at least for Lutherans married to Catholics.
The pope has shown openness to Lutherans receiving Holy Communion alongside Catholics, telling one Lutheran woman last year to “go forward” guided by her conscience. Also last year, a Lutheran pastor from Rome insisted that the pope had “opened the door” to intercommunion between Catholics and Lutherans after the pope visited a Lutheran community and said.....
(Excerpt) Read more at lifesitenews.com ...
God bless Cardinal Burke. Certainly these are the times that try Catholics souls.
Wrong. "For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body" (1 Corinthians 11:29) is contextually not speaking about failure to recognize the nature of the elements consumed, but failure to recognize the nature of the body of Christ, the blood-bought church, due to their eating independently and ignoring others, which was to "shame them that have not" for whom Christ died. Thus, due to this selfish, hypocritical disunity Paul told them they actually were not coming together to eat the Lord's supper, which was sppsd to be a communal meal that proclaimed the Lord's death, which made them blood-bought brethren. Therefore the solution was not a lesson on transubstantiation, but to not come hungry and to wait for each other to eat that communal meal as a body. And which theme (the unity of the body) continues into the next chapters.
Text here by the grace of God.
12 [27] It follows that the only proper way to celebrate the Eucharist is one that corresponds to Jesus' intention, which fits with the meaning of his command to reproduce his action in the proper spirit. If the Corinthians eat and drink unworthily, i.e., without having grasped and internalized the meaning of his death for them, they will have to answer for the body and blood, i.e., will be guilty of a sin against the Lord himself (cf ⇒ 1 Cor 8:12).
13 [28] Examine himself: the Greek word is similar to that for "approved" in ⇒ 1 Cor 11:19, which means "having been tested and found true." The self-testing required for proper eating involves discerning the body (⇒ 1 Cor 11:29), which, from the context, must mean understanding the sense of Jesus' death (⇒ 1 Cor 11:26), perceiving the imperative to unity that follows from the fact that Jesus gives himself to all and requires us to repeat his sacrifice in the same spirit (⇒ 1 Cor 11:18-25).
Forgot to add that the last 2 paragraphs are from the notes to the Catholic NAB Bible on 1Cor. 11:27,28, which at least gets this aspect correct.
Which is contrary to the plain literal interpretation Caths assert they hold to. For as John teaches in contrasting the real Christ with that of certain Gnostics, that "Christ came in the flesh" was true in the light of His manifest physicality, "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life," (1 John 1:1) "This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth." (1 John 5:6)
And the words said at the Last supper which Catholics claim to take literally say that this body and blood was the body that would be crucified, broken, (1Co. 11:24) and the blood that would be shed. (Lk. 22:20) And which certainly looked like, felt like, smelled like, and would taste and scientifically test as flesh, as most likely would the body Thomas was invited to touch as proof that Christ arose. In contrast, a Christ that looked like, felt like, smelled like, and would taste and scientifically test as an inanimate object would be a false Christ.
Nor did the Lord say anything like "this bread is changed into my body," or "becomes" it, and if you can believe in transubstantiation, and in which one microscopic particle contains the whole body, blood, souls and Divinity of Christ (and purported "Eucharistic miracles"), then you can certainly choose to believe that what the apostles consumed at the Last supper was the same manifest flesh and blood that would be on the cross. That would be easier than having to rely on Neoplatonic thought and Aristotelian metaphysics to explain a novel miracle.
The only problem is that Catholic priests cannot come up with the same manifestly incarnated body and blood that was crucified, thus the Catholic body and blood of Christ that lacks this Scriptural evidential proof.
Of course, this language easily conflates with the use of metaphorical language in Scripture, in which David even called potable water the blood of men, and poured it out unto the Lord, and men are called bread for Israel, and the word of God is "eaten. Etc. And that spiritual life is obtained by believing the word of God, which is called(1Pt. 1:22) and "meat," (Heb. 5:12,14) and thus is said to nourish souls, (1Tim. 4:6) and build them up, (Acts 20:32) and never is is obtained by literally physically eating anything, is also consistent with the rest of Scripture.
But so is following blind leaders.
You should know that among serious Catholics the NAB notes have long been known to be quite unorthodox. The notes were compiled in the 1970 and has many instances of using the “historical-critical” method. Many (though not all) of the notes do not represent the longstanding teachings of the Church.
God bless Cardinal Burke for speaking the truth.
We’re gonna take back our country and we’re gonna take back our church!
This other group believes in abortion, gay marriage and other things unacceptable to Catholics. How can they intertwine?
Of course you did not mention John 6:53 “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.”
No doubt you would interpret this metaphorically (although those who heard Jesus did not interpret this metaphorically and he did not stop them when they left him).
Also there are many instances of Eucharistic miracles- of which you will likely not believe (and even Catholics are not required to believe them- though they are approved by the Church).
I hold the teaching of the Church above any man’s or other organizations personal interpretation of scripture.
But finally this posting is in regards to the issue of Intercommunion- not on the nature of transubstantiation or what Catholics believe. Your arguments against the Catholic teaching are a rabbit hole which I do not have further time to respond to, given my family responsibilities. For those who wish to learn what the Church has always taught the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia has a detailed accounting.
If my reply sounds sharp in tone please chalk it up to a long week- no personal disrespect is meant towards you personally.
Definitely one of the good guys.
Which book was he promoting?
Amen
"Divine Love Made Flesh:
The Holy Eucharist as the Sacrament of Charity"
You mean according to their judgment of what constitutes valid Catholic teaching, rather than obeying such papal teaching that "It follows that the Church is essentially an unequal society, that is, a society comprising two categories of per sons, the Pastors and the flock...the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors." - VEHEMENTER NOS, an Encyclical of Pope Pius X promulgated on February 11, 1906.
The notes were compiled in the 1970 and has many instances of using the “historical-critical” method. Many (though not all) of the notes do not represent the longstanding teachings of the Church.
I do know that both notes and study helps are liberal and follow the discredited JEDP theory,. And popes appoint the men who appoint those in the Pontifical Biblical Commission which affirmed the historical-critical method in a qualified sense.
In any case, not all the notes are incorrect, and since RCs reject such Biblical exegesis as i provided, regardless of how compelling, and instead send us to Rome to learn and preach submission to the pope (rather than using our own judgment on what Scripture says and making that the supreme standard), then for what it is worth i invoked notes from what the American pope-appointed bishops sanctioned.
I alluded to it (spiritual life is...never is is obtained by literally physically eating anything), and "of course" could have (and often have by God's grace) specifically mentioned John 6:53 as another text which Caths do not take as literally as they invoke it, and which is contrary to Scripture as well. For indeed, if Cath took this as being just as unequivocal as other "verily verily" absolute statements, then no moral men could obtain spiritual life if they did not believe in the Catholic "Real Presence" (though originally an Anglican term it seems), and which is contrary to modern RC teaching.
But of course, many RCs reject this as in this judgment, their church cannot define what it meant in her historical Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus statements, and which they judge as contrary to modern RC teaching such as expressed in Lumen Gentium. As they do concerning other modern teachings.
While they may be right, in essence this makes them protestant, since what is valid, true teaching is according to their judgment of what the evidence warrants, rather than trusting their church to do the interpretation for them at any point.
Which i mentioned, for they do not correspond to Eucharistic theology, but instead would correspond to what i said a truly literal interpretation of the words at issue would be, contrary to the the compelled explanatory reliance on Neoplatonic thought and Aristotelian metaphysics.
I hold the teaching of the Church above any man’s or other organizations personal interpretation of scripture.
I doubt that, for most likely you are the judge of what constitutes valid Church teaching. And where is 1 Co. 11:17-34 infallibly defined as contrary to the teaching of decades in your bishops-sanctioned NAB?
Your arguments against the Catholic teaching are a rabbit hole which I do not have further time to respond to, given my family responsibilities. For those who wish to learn what the Church has always taught the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia has a detailed accounting.
And which i have often invoked in substantiating RC teaching, and then have traditional Catholics rejecting it (as needed) when it contradicts how they see RC teaching.
If my reply sounds sharp in tone please chalk it up to a long week- no personal disrespect is meant towards you personally.
Thanks, and in person i think we could have a good talk, by God's grace.
After all of our FR Catholic's heads explode; with whom shall I do battle with over theology?
They DIDN'T??
How is this FACT known?
They DIDN'T??
How is this FACT known?
John 6:66-68
From that time on, many of His disciples turned back and no longer accompanied Him.
So Jesus asked the Twelve, “Do you want to leave too?”
Simon Peter replied, “Lord, to whom would we go? You have the words of eternal life."
Note that Pete did NOT say, "You have given us your flesh to eat."
Are you now or have you ever been an Intercommunionist?
The Eucharist is the living Body and Blood of Jesus.
You continue to believe the heresy of the protestors. You keep saying “claim to take literally”. You do not accept the words and meaning that was given by Jesus. Amen. amen I say to you.
Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst.q John 6:35
May you find Peace in the Truth.
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.
