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 ...
If you, however, were alive in the time of Jesus you would stand apart with the pharisees and ridicule the woman who “worshipped the hem of Jesus’ garment instead of going to Jesus directly”, I am certain.
An insanity plea is rejected for your string of logical fallacies, this one here being a false analogy. For here there is no prostration before the garment as a separate exalted invisible personality possessing personal prerogatives and powers and who may be contacted mentally, nor that the garment itself possessed healing power given by God, but the garment the Lord was clothed in is as the skin of Christ insofar as direct physically touching Him is concerned, which contact she needed to believe this direct contact would heal her, though actually greater faith did not even need contact.
And what is taught here is that this means of direct contact to Christ could heal by faith, while the possibility of conveying grace thru personal physical contact in this earthly realm is also taught elsewhere, but a division btwn the earthly and heavenly realms is manifest, in which two-way communication in Scripture btwn created beings from their respective realms required both to somehow be visibly present in the same realm, versus being able to hear all earthly prayer from Heaven and communicate from there.
At best the story in Mt. 9 can be used to support relics, in which such inanimate things as clothes that belonged to a holy person were sometimes used as instruments of healing in Scripture (Acts 19:12; 2Ki 4:29-31; 13:20,21), but which simply does not support kneeling before a statue and praising the entity it represented in the unseen world, even with adulation, attributes, glory and titles never given in Scripture to created beings (except to false gods), including having the uniquely Divine power glory to hear and respond to virtually infinite numbers of prayers addressed to them, and beseeching such for Heavenly help, and making offerings to them.
Which would constitute worship in Scripture , yet Catholics imagine by playing word games they avoid crossing the invisible line between mere "veneration" and worship.
Instead the only thing this is close to is pagan devotion: /p>
As for the word that thou hast spoken unto us in the name of the Lord, we will not hearken unto thee. But we will certainly do whatsoever thing goeth forth out of our own mouth, to burn incense unto the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, as we have done, we, and our fathers, our kings, and our princes... (Jeremiah 44:16-17)
Oh, and by the way, if the Catholic priest is not to be found in Sacred Scriptures, using the same logic, where in the Sacred Scripture are Catholics ridiculed for worshipping Mary? If you cannot find it in Sacred Scripture than one is to be ridiculed for imagining it to be possible by your logic
Which is simply another desperate logical fallacy, for one, the conspicuous absence of priests alone is not the argument, but that of their unique sacerdotal function and a distinction being made in providing an alternative title. A distinct class of men distinctively titled sacerdotal "priests" ("hiereus") are in fact abundantly found in Scripture, as are NT ministers but who are called presbuteros (senior/elder) or episkopos (superintendent/overseer) - both denoting the same office - and who are never called priests, nor shown to have any exclusive sacerdotal function. Which thus manifest a a distinction with a unique class of men titled distinctively titled "priests," with the only NT priesthood being that of all believers, since they are all called to sacrifice and intercede.
And 2, the absence of a specific example of something that is condemned Scripture (engaging in worship - as described in Scripture - of created beings) does not mean that the specific example is not condemned.
Catholics can thus be condemned for worshiping Mary because it is condemned in principle. To argue otherwise would be argue that since "loving monogamous homosexual relationships btwn believers "are not specifically seen condemned in Scripture means that they cannot be condemned.
Of course, your additional and fundamental fallacy is that SS, as hitherto described, means nothing specific can be condemned in principle based upon what is written on the subject unless that specific example is mentioned as forbidden.
All of which means that not only is your invisible and contraScriptural church condemned, but so are your desperate vain arguments, which are actually an argument against being a RC. . You should have quit before you fell even further behind.
From the sedevacantists of course, whose conclusions are what determines True Catholicism based upon their judgment of what historical teaching says, while they condemn evangelical conclusions as to what is true teaching based upon their judgment of what historical teaching (Scripture) says.
And round and round they go and where they stop, nobody knows.
Shared Communion With Protestants Would be Blasphemy and Sacrilege
And round and round they go and where they stop, nobody knows.
Fuller version:
From the sedevacantists of course, whose conclusions are what determines True Catholicism based upon their judgment of what historical teaching says, while they condemn evangelical conclusions as to what is true teaching based upon their judgment of what historical teaching (Scripture) says, while the so-called false Catholics say we need a pope to ascertain what is Truth, then reject him when they judge, like us, that he is not preaching Truth.
I’ll let you guys know in due time . :-)
They just do not see the irony.
1.2 billion different interpretations of Catholicism.
Just pick your favorite rite, your favorite council, your favorite pope, and go back to that, and claim all else is heresy, based on.......
Personal interpretation.
IOW, Personal preference.
Call no man Elsie.
Regarding your assumptions:
Catholics give adulation that is due to Mary, much as her cousin Elisabeth did. We also trust that God is able to hear our pleas to her and ensures that she then is able to plea as our own natural mother would for us, for we know her to be in heaven and that unlike the pagan “queen of heaven” that she was crowned as queen of heaven and earth (partly as a test of the protestant (or ridiculant see http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3509997/posts?page=1158#1158) mind to see if they have appropriate faith to trust in the Church that Christ founded, I suppose! God has such a sense of humor when it comes to His son’s mother.) It’s rather comical to watch the ridiculants contort and accuse and complain of the Catholic devotion to Mary His blessed mother.
From THE CATHOLIC CHURCH HAS THE ANSWER
by Paul Whitcomb consider:
Why do Catholics worship Mary as though she were a goddess, when it is clear in Scripture that she was not a supernatural being?
Catholics DO NOT worship Mary, the Mother of Christ – as though she were a deity. Of all the misconceptions about Catholic belief and practice, this one is the most absurd. Catholics are just as aware as Protestants that Mary was a human creature, and therefore not entitled to the honors which are reserved to God alone. What many non-Catholics mistake for adoration is a very profound love and veneration, nothing more. Mary is not adored, first because God forbids it, and secondly because the Canon Law of the Catholic Church, which is based on Divine Law, forbids it. Canon Law 1255 of the 1918 Codex strictly forbids adoration of anyone other than the Holy Trinity. However, Catholics do feel that Mary is entitled to a great measure of exaltation because, in choosing her as the Mother of Redemption, God Himself exalted her – exalted her more than any other human person before or since. Catholics heap tribute and honor on Mary because they earnestly desire to be “followers of God, as most dear children.” (Eph. 5:1). Mary herself prophesied: “For behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed. Because he that is mighty, hath done great things to me; and holy is his name.” (Luke 1:48-49). Catholics know that every bit of the glory they give to Mary redounds to the glory of her divine Son, just as Mary magnified God, not herself, when Elizabeth blessed her. (Luke 1:41-55). They know that the closer they draw to her, the closer they draw to Him who was born of her. In the year 434 St. Vincent of Lerins defended Christian devotion to Mary this way: “Therefore, may God forbid that anyone should attempt to defraud Holy Mary of her privilege of divine grace and her special glory. For by a unique favor of our Lord and God she is confessed to be the most true and most blessed Mother of God.” Today 75% of all Christians still hold to this same view.
“...But that’s interesting. So the Holy spirit DOESN’T guide the college of cardinals in selecting the new pope...”
He has in the past, but when the college rebels in apostasy like your father Mr. Luther, He preserves the Church without them and without the heretic they have elected. He leaves us with the work of the numerous past popes to sustain us until such time that a real pope is prepared and chosen by the Holy Spirit, much as the blessed virgin Mary was prepared and chosen.
Who existed first, God or Mary the Mother of Jesus?
What nonsense! Must you resort to fabrications in your defense of cultic devotion? Elisabeth is not even described as bowing down or prostrating herself before Mary, or making and supplication to here, which need i substantiate by text and images the manner of adulation given to the unScriptural The MARY of CATHOLICISM who is exalted (officially or with implicit sanction) as,
• an almost almighty demigoddess to whom "Jesus owes His Precious Blood" to,
• whose [Mary] merits we are saved by,
• who "had to suffer, as He did, all the consequences of sin,"
• and was bodily assumed into Heaven, which is a fact (unsubstantiated in Scripture or even early Tradition) because the Roman church says it is, and "was elevated to a certain affinity with the Heavenly Father,"
• and whose power now "is all but unlimited,"
• for indeed she "seems to have the same power as God,"
• "surpassing in power all the angels and saints in Heaven,"
• so that "the Holy Spirit acts only by the Most Blessed Virgin, his Spouse."
• and that “sometimes salvation is quicker if we remember Mary's name then if we invoked the name of the Lord Jesus,"
• for indeed saints have "but one advocate," and that is Mary, who "alone art truly loving and solicitous for our salvation,"
• Moreover, "there is no grace which Mary cannot dispose of as her own, which is not given to her for this purpose,"
• and who has "authority over the angels and the blessed in heaven,"
• including "assigning to saints the thrones made vacant by the apostate angels,"
• whom the good angels "unceasingly call out to," greeting her "countless times each day with 'Hail, Mary,' while prostrating themselves before her, begging her as a favour to honour them with one of her requests,"
• and who (obviously) cannot "be honored to excess,"
• and who is (obviously) the glory of Catholic people, whose "honor and dignity surpass the whole of creation." Sources and more.
And in the the Catholic quest to almost deify Mary, it is taught by Catholics*,
As the the Son of God supernaturally, spiritually makes believing souls into children of God, Mary is said to be the mother of Christians in "supernatural and spiritual generation."
as Christ was sinless, so Mary was;
as the Lord remained a virgin, so Mary;
as Christ was called the Son of God, indicating ontological oneness, so Mary is called the Mother of God (which naturally infers the same, and is not the language of Scripture, which even clarifies Israel birthed Christ "according to the flesh, God blessed for ever": Rm. 9:4,5);
as the emphasis is upon Christ as the Creator through whom God (the Father) made all things, including Mary, so it is emphasized that uniquely “to her, Jesus owes His Precious Blood,” shed for the salvation of mankind, (the logic behind which can lead back to Eve);
as Catholics (adding error to error) believe Christ gave His "real" flesh and blood to be eaten, so it is emphasized that Mary gave Him this, being fashioned out of Mary's pure blood and even being “kneaded with the admixture of her virginal milk,” so that she can say, "Come and eat my bread, drink the wine I have prepared" (Prov. 9:5);
as Scripture declares that Christ suffered for our sins, so Mary is said to have done so also;
as Christ saves us from the condemnation and death resulting from the fault of Adam, so it is taught that man was condemned through the fault of Eve, the root of death, but that we are saved through the merits of Mary; who was the source of life for everyone.
as the Lord was bodily ascended into Heaven, so Mary also was;
as Christ is given all power in heaven and in earth, so Mary is “surpassing in power all the angels and saints in Heaven.”
as Christ is the King of the saints and over all kings, (Rv. 15:3; 17:14; 19:16) so Mary is made Queen of Heaven and the greatest saint, and that “Next to God, she deserves the highest praise;”
as the Father made Christ Lord over all things, so Mary is enthroned (all other believers have to wait for their crowns) and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things;
as Christ is the express image of God, and highly exalted above all under the Father, having the primary position among all creation, so Mary is declared to be the greatest saint of all, and the first of all creatures, and as having a certain affinity with the Father, with a pre-eminent resemblance which she bears to the Father;
as Christ ever liveth to make intercession for the saints, so is Mary said to do so;
as all things come from the Father through the Son, so Mary is made to be the dispenser of all grace;
as Christ is given all power on Heaven and on earth, Mary is said to have (showing some restraint) “almost unlimited power;”
as no man comes to the Father but through the Son, so it is taught that no one can come to the Son except through Mary in Heaven;
and as the Lord called souls to come to Him to be given life and salvation, so (in misappropriation of the words of Scripture) it is said of Mary, “He that shall find me shall find life, and shall have salvation from the Lord;” “that through her are obtained every hope, every grace, and all salvation. For this is His will, that we obtain everything through Mary.”
And as Christ is given many titles of honor, so Mary also is, except that she is honored by Catholics with more titles than they give to the Lord Himself!
Mary was a holy, virtuous instrument of God, but of whom Scripture says relatively little, while holy fear ought to restrain ascribing positions, honor, glory and powers to a mortal that God has not revealed as given to them, and or are only revealed as being possessed by God Himself. But like as the Israelites made an instrument of God an object of worship, (Num. 21:8,9; 2Kg. 18:4) Catholics have magnified Mary far beyond what is written and warranted and even allowed, based on what is in Scripture.
for we know her to be...crowned as queen of heaven and earth
Really! You actually think asserting your tradition which is nowhere said of Scripture makes it true? And before you try, Rv. 12 is not even speaking of Mary, which idea even fails of unanimous consent of the fathers, and believers does not receive their crowns until the Lord's return. (1Cor. 4:5; 2Tim. 4:1,8; Rev.11:18; Mt. 25:31-46; 1Pt. 1:7; 5:4)
It’s rather comical to watch
Your vain attempt at sarcasm in lieu of a Scriptural argument exposes your desperation.
Catholics DO NOT worship Mary, the Mother of Christ – as though she were a deity....What many non-Catholics mistake for adoration is a very profound love and veneration, nothing more. Mary is not adored, first because God forbids it, and secondly because the Canon Law of the Catholic Church, which is based on Divine Law, forbids it.
What kind of an absurd argument is this, but another logical fallacy? You mean because Catholics define worship in such a way that they profess they do not engage in what Scripture describes as worship and plays word games with it then they do not?
Instead, when we look at how the Holy Spirit in Scripture describes worship using various words then it is manifest that Catholics are engaging in worship and blasphemous devotion to Mary.
However, Catholics do feel that Mary is entitled to a great measure of exaltation
Far far above that which is written of her or any other being except God,
Catholics heap tribute and honor on Mary because
because they blatantly disobey the admonition that we are "not to think of men above that which is written," (1 Corinthians 4:6) since the wholly inspired sure word of God is not their supreme standard.
“For behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.
Indeed, not with 900 titles and Divine ascriptions and adulation only given to God.
This and the rest is mere posting of propagandist sophistry, which attempts to cover up what Catholics actually engage in, and which dishonesty is once again an argument against being a Catholic. Keep it up, if you want to increase your damnation, which the real Mary will sanction.
In response to your blasphemies see this post by Eric I just found where prostrating before human dignities is profuse in the Holy Scriptures. No wonder you only include NT sources in your website, as your agenda is to wipe out the Christian worship of Mary as a dignitary and thus establish the one world religion of Ridiculism (Protestantism) as YOUR father, Mr. Luther had begun 500 years ago.
http://www.cpats.org/_WebPostings/Answers/2010_04APR/2010AprAreThesePracticesWrong.cfm
By the way, I would like to see your sources for the worship of Mary but I thank you for posting them, as off hand they appear to be legitimate and I wish for all who read your posts to see how Mary ought to be loved! Thank you!
Who existed first, God or Mary the Mother of Jesus?
The Lord God Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and let Him be praised with every fiber of our being from now and throughout eternity!
He is and was and is to come, alleluia!
Mocking the words of Jesus... sad.
Sorry; but the early church did give her ANY 'due'.
It, in fact, ignored her!
No doubt that HE does...
Then justify WHY Rome has gone WAY overboard in what it allows Mary to be called?
This is interesting.
You’ve just stated that a pope and whomever elected him are NOT needed by the 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.