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 ...
Who says he was a "saint" versus other believers? Show me where Scripture supports this distinction, and i will show you it does not, much less calling murderers as Damasus 1 "saints."
for the whole quote as you presumably show was about the condemning of “revolutionaries and innovators”, most especially those who reject God’s order for society where God is at its center. The French to whom the pontiff wrote this were basically innovating a communistic atheistic approach.
I did not "presumably show" what the whole quote contextually specifically addressed, but responded to your out-of-context single line in attempting to condemn those who are called revolutionaries or innovators by those who claimed historical fidelity. And which was basically the specious premise behind the rejection of a 1st century Itinerant Preacher and His disciples by those who sat in the seat of Moses.
most especially those who reject God’s order for society where God is at its center.
That depends upon the basis for determining a society where God is at its center.
The French to whom the pontiff wrote this were basically innovating a communistic atheistic approach.
Which is contrary to Scripture, and does not apply to those who reject Rome as being revolutionaries nor innovators in the light of the NT church, in which her distinctives are absent, and contrary to it.
Here is a snippet from an article reporting this history which you carelessly miss and take the saint’s quote out of context
WHAT?! You re the one who quoted a single line, without any context or even where is was found, much less a link to it, and which is what i responded to, and you dare charge me with carelessly missing and taking the "saint’s" quote out of context! Are you that desperate to finally gain a polemical point?
So cease with the voluminous quoting so you can avoid misrepresenting the speaker and indeed history itself. Your argumentation may then carry some weight.
What INSOLENCE. You can only wish you actually provided some "volume," rather than a single line, while using this to censure dissent from authority condemns you!.
“there is no power but from God: and those that are, are ordained of God.” Thus, those who claim that authority originates from the people or from the State are in fact deifying the people or the State.
Both statements are true here, but which does not disallow principled dissent to authority (which no doubt is the papal intent here) based upon a authority that is supreme to both ecclesiastical and civil powers, that of God as expressed in His wholly inspired assured word. Thus the church was built upon the sub foundation of prophets and apostles, both of whom acted in dissent to established authority, as did Christ. And as did America's Founders.
And while you presume to use "there is no power but from God: and those that are, are ordained of God" to condemn our dissent, you yourself are in dissent from the manifest Catholic powers that be in Rome, which title you uniquely arrogate to your tiny cult!
At least in core teaches and more than in Catholicism, in which claims to unity is largely on paper, while cults boast the greatest unity, and a group that broke off from another break off group (which led to another splinter one true church) and only has a few churches in only about a dozen states, is hardly comparative.
As for your reference to 2 Peter 1:20, it is a much abused Scripture, and in no way makes the point you seem to think it does. Peter is not talking about the readers of Scripture but the writers. The verb is ginomai, a verb that describes not something that simply exists, but something that is coming into being.
And the abuse of this Scripture examples the very thing that it is supposedly used to combat.
“...your tiny cult!”
Then do you disparage Jesus’ words, “But yet, when the Son of man cometh, shall he find, think you, faith on earth?”
If He doesn’t, well I suppose there will not even be a tiny cult left, now, will there?
I suppose there are more in our tiny cult than in the time of Jesus’ ascension.
Do you then disparage Jesus’ tiny cult too?
Since when does a dragon ever give a hoot about morality and protecting or saving the innocent? Isn’t it “traditionally” the opposite?
Or does being the first dragon of color (blue) make this one trustworthy with the handling of Christian doctrine?
Is it wise to carry on a conversation with a dragon, who like a serpent is among the most cunning of creatures which seeks to beguile, trap, then destroy his innocent prey?
!
Welcome to the weekly wrestling with ‘invincible ignorance’ episode. The party to whom you direct reasoned and educated posts must refuse to get the point because it would shatter the catholiciism shell so carefully erected and maintained ... by invincible willful ignorance.
I read the Greek. “May” is an English term used to represent the Greek subjunctive, but in English can represent either conditionality or purpose, so it is somewhat ambiguous in the English. But in the Greek it is very clear. The miracles and teaching presented in John are given for the purpose of leading a person to believe in Jesus, and by so believing, to have eternal life. In other words, believing what John wrote about Jesus is sufficient to obtain eternal life.
As for James, there is nothing to dispute there. I am puzzled you even raise it, as I have already agreed earlier that, yes, works can serve to verify that someone has saving faith as opposed to a superficial faith. But the word of God cannot be found in contradiction of itself. If Jesus grants eternal life to those who believe, based on His power to forgive, it is presumption to add conditions. Jesus made a promise. The apostles confirmed the terms of that promise. Anyone who trusts in Christ has been transferred from the kingdom of darkness to the kingdom of light, and made fellow heirs with Christ in eternal life and blessing. This is cause for great joy, though Satan would use fake news to snuff out that joy. But it is our birthright as those who have become new creations in Christ by the miracle of new birth, and we will not let go of what God has given us.
Peace,
SR
I am a man, born of an earthly [human] father, and mother.
Don't get hung up on FR pen names. Those can mean little to nothing.
This is an example of an instance where it does (not matter).
“Call no man father”
Paul referred to himself as a spiritual father, as one who had spiritual sons, many times, (1Co. 4:15,17; Gal. 4:19; Titus 1:4; 1Tim. 1:2,18; Phlmn. 1:10)
Who should I trust in this matter, Elsie or Paul?
Did Paul not understand what Jesus was conveying?
Or did he not understand and realize that our blessed Lord intended it to mean that Paul mustn’t be called a father in any context whatsoever?
For some reason this popped into mind.
Charlie Brown: I think there must be something wrong with me, Linus. Christmas is coming, but I'm not happy. I don't feel the way I'm supposed to feel.
Charlie Brown: I just don't understand Christmas, I guess. I like getting presents and sending Christmas cards and decorating trees and all that, but I'm still not happy. I always end up feeling depressed.
Linus Van Pelt: Charlie Brown, you're the only person I know who can take a wonderful season like Christmas and turn it into a problem. Maybe Lucy's right. Of all the Charlie Browns in the world, you're the Charlie Browniest.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0059026/quotes
Catholics can take a wonderful passage like John 20:31 and become Charlie Brown.
For a church that claims beginnings and traditions from Peter I would have to say that your first pope must have forgot to tell you a few really important things.
1 . Prayers for the dead . …………-—————————……300 A.D.
2. Making the sign of the cross ………………………… …300 A.D.
3. Veneration of angels & dead saints …………-————…….375 A.D.
4. Use of images in worship………………………………… . 375 A.D.
5. The Mass as a daily celebration……………………………… 394 A.D.
6 Beginning of the exaltation of Mary; the term, “Mother of God” applied a Council of Ephesus……………. .-———————————————————— 431 A.D.
7 Extreme Unction (Last Rites)……………………………… ..526 A.D.
8. Doctrine of Purgatory-Gregory 1…………………………… .593 A.D..
9. Prayers to Mary & dead saints ……………………………… .600 A.D.
10. Worship of cross, images & relics ……………………… … 786 A.D.
11 Canonization of dead saints ………………………………… ..995 A.D.
12. Celibacy of priesthood …………………………………… …1079 A.D.
13. The Rosary ……………………………………………… … 1090 A.D.
14. Indulgences ……………………………………………… …..1190 A.D.
15. Transubstantiation-Innocent III …………………………… 1215 A.D.
16. Auricular Confession of sins to a priest …………………… 1215 A.D.
17. Adoration of the wafer (Host)…………………………… .. 1220 A.D.
18. Cup forbidden to the people at communion …………………..1414 A.D.
19. Purgatory proclaimed as a dogma……………………………..1439 A.D.
20. The doctrine of the Seven Sacraments confirmed …………….1439 A.D.
21 Tradition declared of equal authority with Bible by Council of Trent…………………………………………————————… 1545 A.D.
22. Apocryphal books added to Bible ………——————……….1546 A.D.
23. Immaculate Conception of Mary……………………………….1854 A.D.
24, Infallibility of the pope in matters of faith and morals, proclaimed by the Vatican Council ……………… 1870 A.D.
25. Assumption of the Virgin Mary (bodily ascension into heaven shortly after her death) ……………………………-—————————————————……1950 A.D.
26. Mary proclaimed Mother of the Church……………………… 1965 A.D.
Jesus put no such condition on our faith.
It doesn't have to be tested to be saved. He simply said, *If you believe*
The door must be entered, as in your belief must be tested, and the test is that of obedience.
And is entered by faith and here is news for Catholics. NOBODY can EVER be obedient in everything God requires of us. It's not going to happen. It's simply not possible here on earth in this mortal body.
Anyone who thinks they can go even a day without sinning is deceiving themselves.
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.
What? If we don't obey we don't have faith in His miracles?
Faith in His miracles isn't required. Faith in HIM is.
And if we obey it shows our love for Him, but it has no connection to faith in His miracles.
Honestly, the dots Catholics connect ........
Yes, that is a perfect example of what SR was talking about.
We knew you’d come through.
Romans 8:15 For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, “Abba! Father!”
The enemy wants us in the bondage of fear.
That's not what God has for His people.
If you are preaching fear, you are doing the enemy's work.
From the church that never changes.......
Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him.
I don't believe this passage is related to SRs point. Now, if someone is saved, they have nothing to fear. On the other hand, if someone is NOT saved, if they were really aware of the fire and brimstone that awaits them, yes, their fear will utterly overwhelm them, in a way they could not imagine in a million lifetimes. I am from fortunate, that I will NEVER fear like that. If others have that kind of fear, it's entirely their own fault. They need to get saved.
More desperate avoidance of your pathetic situation. We are not at the end of the tribulation, nor 33 AD, and yet you alone claim to be the one true universal church while your church is not even close to being worldwide, but is indeed a tiny cult in a few states in America, and only one of other Catholic splinter groups claiming unique authenticity, based upon their judgment of what valid church teaching is.
Most critically, your Catholic distinctives are no more seen in the life and teachings of the NT church than the V2 church you express loathing of.
That is your pathetic situation which no amount of sophistry will justify.
Whatever bro. Of course, I disagree with your interpretation, but hey, that's OK. I probably disagree with 80% of your interpretations. If you want to live your life in fear, never knowing for sure if you are saved or lost, that is your choice. I just have no intention of living like that. We will just have to agree to disagree.
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.