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 ...
is re-packaged by Salt Lake City into God(s) can SAY anything [through OUR prophet; of course] and we are just WAITING for new stuff all the time.
You miss the point of the passage. The subjunctive in a dependent clause in Greek is not about “maybe it’ll happen and maybe it won’t,’ as would be typical with English “may,” and “might.” Rather, it is about purpose. Something has been done and here’s the reason it has been done. On John 20:31, John is explaining why he left out all the unrecorded miracles. They were unnecessary to His purpose, and his purpose was to give people what they needed in order to (purpose) believe in Jesus, and they believe in order to (purpose) have eternal life. John is saying whatever miracles are recorded are enough that if you believe these, you have eternal life, Just as Jesus said elsewhere. Cause and effect.
But it always amazes me how some can take a passage designed to encourage the believer’s heart and turn it into a basis for fear and doubt. You mentioned the tactics of Satan earlier. What is the first thing Satan did in communicating with the human race? Engender doubt in the word and therefore the character of God. No one should thoughtlessly presume themselves to be OK with God. We do need to believe in Jesus to acquire all the benefits of that belief. But once we believe, all that He has promised applies to us. To doubt His own purpose to bring us all the way home is to defame His character. He will do all that He has promised. You may rely upon it.
Peace,
SR
HAS; not maybe...
THAT, sir, is a keeper.
Most excellent. And so true. It is the tactic of Satan to cause people to doubt God and His word and impugn His character.
You also lost ET!
No problem!
Mom is keeping a watchful eye out!
The first DAMNED thing that Satan is recorded as speaking is...
“... John is saying whatever miracles are recorded are enough that if you believe these, you have eternal life...”
You misunderstand me. The belief in Jesus is the doorway. The door must be entered, as in your belief must be tested, and the test is that of obedience.
Read all that Jesus taught and ask if you are obedient to it all. In as much as you aren’t, you don’t have faith in his miracles.
ST. JOHN - Chapter 5
24 Amen, amen, I say unto you, that he who heareth my word, and believeth him that sent me...
The belief in Jesus is the doorway. The door must be entered, as in your belief must be tested, and the test is that of obedience.
Read all that Jesus taught and ask if you are obedient to it all. In as much as you aren’t, you don’t have faith in him that sent Jesus our Lord.
From ST. JAMES - Chapter 2
18 But some men will say: Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without works; and I will shew thee my faith by works.
19 Thou believest that there is one God. Thou dost well: the devils also believe and tremble.
20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
“The true friends of the people are neither revolutionaries nor innovators, but men of tradition.” – Pope St. Pius X
Hey Francis!
You’ve just been dissed from the past!
————————+—————————
Elsie, maybe you’re finally beginning to see the light here.
“Francis” is not “Francis”, for there is no pope of that title. Mr. Bergoglio is a mere apostate who spits upon the entire history of the Church, even his apostate predecessors.
You invert the simple test recorded in Scripture. Obedience may verify that our belief is sincere. But we do not place our trust in our own obedience. That’s upside-down from the Gospel message, that the death of Christ is what reconciles us to God the Father and secures our place in His kingdom, not the perfection of our theology or our life practices.
In fact, Paul says the law was given as a teacher to show obedience is impossible, in order to lead us to faith in Christ, because we know that without His forgiveness and resurrection power living in us, no amount of obedience can ever save us. All believers are imperfect in their compliance with the teaching of Jesus, and will be so until the resurrection. But they are still believers, still in a permanent status of adopted sons and daughters. We do not lose that status for every event where we fall short of our high calling in Christ, no more than we disown our own sons and daughters when they sometimes disappoint us. Are we better people than God? God forbid! We may be disciplined, as children often are, but we are still accounted as those who believe, who are indwelt by God’s Holy Spirit, and rightful heirs to all the promises He has made to those who trust in Him.
Peace,
SR
“Obedience may verify that our belief is sincere.”
Why do you twist scripture with the use of the word “may”
Saint James says “is” here, not “may”:
17 Even so faith, if it have not works, is dead in itself.
So is yours a living faith or a dead faith?
http://freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3509997/posts?page=1095#1095
Or was he wrong, too?
I say he was wrong (at least-- not entirely correct) and so (according to how some of Bellarmine's concepts are being applied) was among the excommunicated, himself.
Oh, happy day! You can go on "engaging in dispute...concerning the...Faith" and being a sedevacantist, to your heart's content!
Trouble is finding just where -- just how far to turn back the clock until one can find those (church leadership, including but not limited to 'popes') who have not automatically excommunicated themselves.
4th Lateran Council, Canon 3
...dealt with heretics or those who pervert the true faith. .... What is significant about this canon is that the discipline meted to the individual convicted of heresy was not administered by ecclesiastical officials but by the secular authorities. Before this time, the Church did censure those who did not teach according to the rule of faith but such discipline was limited to admonishment and, ultimately, excommunication from fellowship. Now, the secular authorities could inflict civil punishment on the heretic even to the point of putting an individual to death.
So keep on going! Keep on going back into the past until the True Church can be found.
We'll be there waiting for you, when you finally arrive.
That does not answer the questions. Show me how the 1917 code disallows the use of such coercive power, and the pope Pontiff to inflict penalties upon heads of states, and disallows a Catholic monarchy, and answers the question as to whether you wish for such, with its powers.
As the astute historian you present yourself as, how familiar with this event of its creation and with its content are you?
A fair researcher is all i would claim, and you can read much about it here (Edward N. Peters) and its impetus, or briefly here , and much more on the 1983 revision. And i know that canon law itself is changeable, and Catholics can fantasize about the restitution and powers of a Catholic theocracy, about which you were asked. you
Tell me if and why you would disagree with the teaching of the Baltimore catechism here:
Q. 539. What do we mean by the "temporal power" of the Pope?
A. By the temporal power of the Pope we mean the right which the Pope has as a temporal or ordinary ruler to govern the states and manage the properties that have rightfully come into the possession of the Church.
Q. 540. How did the Pope acquire and how was he deprived of the temporal power?
A. The Pope acquired the temporal power in a just manner by the consent of those who had a right to bestow it. He was deprived of it in an unjust manner by political changes. - http://baltimore-catechism.com/lesson12.htm :
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.