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 ...
The catholic cannot appeal to the ECFs on this issue for again...they are not in agreement. Some favor the roman catholic understanding and others do not. Do we accept only those who agree with us and reject the others?
If so, other positions are called into question due to the inconsistency of the ECFs on the issues.
So which understanding are we to believe?
Again, we have to look at the context of John 6:26-71 and John as a whole to gain the proper understanding of this passage.
Focus on the word believe. That's the key word to understanding this passage.
In John 6, why doesn’t Jesus stop and explain to his followers, who are now leaving him, that he’s only being “symbolic”, here?...
Two observations.
1). "But there are some of you who do not believe.” Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him.
The ones who left Him did not believe as He noted.
We could easily ask why doesn't Jesus chase after athiests, Muslims, etc today?
2) Why does Jesus allow the rich young ruler to walk away?
21Jesus said to him, “If you wish to be complete, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.” 22But when the young man heard this statement, he went away grieving; for he was one who owned much property. Matt 19:21-22 NASB
Are we saved if we haven't done what Jesus told the rich young ruler?
Yes, thank you RB.
I respectfully disagree...
We are co-heirs with Christ and the same Spirit that raised him from the dead lives in all of us that have placed our faith in the salvation made available to all men by Jesus Christ.
To say that authority rests in the “church”, well, if by that you mean a collection of believers that are in fellowship with each other, we are getting closer. God’s authority on earth rests upon each individual believer that is remade by the saving ministry of Christ to become a full child of God.
Your analogy of the bird and eggs is not a good one, bro. Properly nurtured, eggs become birds that can make even more eggs. Once a bird lays enough eggs and they hatch, the bird really does not have any practical function anymore...
Ok, good points. I appreciate the discussion.
I haven’t found any ECFs who disagreed with the Real Presence. As you alluded to, it is almost certainly because we would not consider them truly ECFs if they didn’t at least come around to the belief in the end. We do not consider this an issue. So, it’s how do you define an ECF (the saints) vs “early Christians”.
From what I have read, it seems our ECFs differ from many today in that they believed Christ (and thus God and thus heaven) is mysteriously present in the entire created order (NOT pantheistically; still distinct substantially from the material, but present) and that the bread and wine are some sort of intensification of that presence.
I don’t understand your point about moslems and atheists, because they weren’t even in John. I’ll read as you suggested, focusing on “believe”.
The rich man went away grieving, which is what we all should be doing when we accumulate wealth - that itself has value for others, as we know. But we still grieve because it distracts us from holiness in many ways. We don’t know how that rich man ended up. We do know those who left after the Bread of Life discourse went back to their old ways and were lost.
Protestants often (mistakenly, we’d say) argue Catholic beliefs are wrong in themselves, like honoring Mary is goddess-worship, etc. I still don’t understand Protestant arguments against the Eucharist. That is, what’s wrong with it?
I suppose a Protestant is more a protester than anything else.
(Satan modeled the practice through his rebellion and was cast out of heaven for eternity.)
There is no such thing as a thoroughly accurate analogy or parable. Why, you could find things in even our Lord Jesus Christ’s parables that do not support reality.
“If it wasn’t spoken by “saint” Luther or one of his fellow detractors, there must be something wrong with it”, by a Protestant’s account.
A Catholic’s passion is to love the Lord our God, mostly by reforming his life and imitating Jesus, Mary, and the saints in living the Gospel, and then drawing all of creation to the salvation and perfection to be found in Jesus Christ alone.
Yet we have no admonition to be like Mary or the saints.
Yet we are commanded to do this.
And he answered, "YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR STRENGTH, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND; AND YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF." Luke 10:27
34“A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another. 35“By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.” John 13:34-35
“...Yet we have no admonition to be like Mary or the saints...”
Not true. The Church was vested with authority to teach and admonish her children. A docile son obeys his worthy mother.
And “It is hard for thee to kick against the goad”. (Acts 9:5)
The Church teaches that to become perfectly a disciple of Jesus, to accomplish most easily the commands of Jesus Christ we must be like Mary.
But you rebel against the Church’s teaching and so risk never fulfilling the commands of Jesus.
Satan hates Mary more than anyone. Maybe one reason is because her “Amen, so be it” (paraphrase with liberty) reply to the angel was sounded with the highest level of faith and obedience, higher than any creature ever before or since, in perfect contrast to Satan’s dispositions.
We have no NT writer that ever indicates any of what you claim about Mary.
Satan hates Mary more than anyone?? Really?
Was Mary tempted three times by Satan?
Was Mary tempted to save herself from the cross?
Is is Mary who throws the beast into the pit?
Was Mary sacrificed for our sins?
To your allusion in Acts 9:5...was Paul asked why he was persecuting Mary??
The Mary worship in roman catholicism knows no bounds.
“...Note he did not say, Lord we have eaten your flesh and drunk your blood. No. He noted they believed in Him...”
To eat our Lord’s flesh and drunk His blood is to believe Him. To refuse is to disbelieve Him.
Or see Haydock’s Commentary on John 6:62-63 after reading the whole chapter:
Ver. 62. If you cannot believe that I can give you my flesh to eat, now that I am living amongst you, how will you believe, that, after my ascension, I can give you to eat my glorified and immortal flesh, seated on the right hand of the majesty of God? (Bible de Vence)
Ver. 63. If then you shall see, &c. Christ, by mentioning his ascension, by this instance of his power and divinity, would confirm the truth of what he had before asserted; at the same time, correct their gross apprehension of eating his flesh and drinking his blood, in a vulgar and carnal manner, by letting them know he should take his whole body living with him to heaven; and consequently not suffer it to be, as they supposed, divided, mangled, and consumed upon earth. (Challoner) -— The sense of these words, according to the common exposition, is this: you murmur at my words, as hard and harsh, and you refuse now to believe them: when I shall ascend into heaven, from whence I came into the world, and when my ascension, and the doctrine that I have taught you, shall be confirmed by a multitude of miracles, then shall you and many others believe. (Witham)
For full commentary and the verses, see
http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id99.html
“...Satan hates Mary more than anyone?? Really?...”
If you had read the rest of my post carefully, you would have noticed that I classified her as “creature”, as set apart from uncreated Jesus Christ the Son of God. Thus in the context of the comment one would see that “anyone” refers to “creatures”.
My words from post 127:
Satan hates Mary more than anyone. Maybe one reason is because her “Amen, so be it” (paraphrase with liberty) reply to the angel was sounded with the highest level of faith and obedience, higher than any creature ever before or since, in perfect contrast to Satan’s dispositions
For more good Catholic perspective on the topic (from Haydock) we read regarding Gen 3:15:
Ver. 15. She shall crush. Ipsa, the woman: so divers of the fathers read this place, conformably to the Latin: others read it ipsum, viz. the seed. The sense is the same: for it is by her seed, Jesus Christ, that the woman crushes the serpent’s head. (Challoner) -— The Hebrew text, as Bellarmine observes, is ambiguous: He mentions one copy which had ipsa instead of ipsum; and so it is even printed in the Hebrew interlineary edition, 1572, by Plantin, under the inspection of Boderianus. Whether the Jewish editions ought to have more weight with Christians, or whether all the other manuscripts conspire against this reading, let others inquire. The fathers who have cited the old Italic version, taken from the Septuagint agree with the Vulgate, which is followed by almost all the Latins; and hence we may argue with probability, that the Septuagint and the Hebrew formerly acknowledged ipsa, which now moves the indignation of Protestants so much, as if we intended by it to give any divine honour to the blessed Virgin Mary. We believe, however, with St. Epiphanius, that “it is no less criminal to vilify the holy Virgin, than to glorify her above measure.” We know that all the power of the mother of God is derived from the merits of her Son. We are no otherwise concerned about the retaining of ipsa, she, in this place, than in as much as we have yet no certain reason to suspect its being genuine. As some words have been corrected in the Vulgate since the Council of Trent by Pope Sixtus V. and others, by Pope Clement VIII. so, if, upon stricter search, it be found that it, and not she, is the true reading, we shall not hesitate to admit the correction: but we must wait in the mean time respectfully, till our superiors determine. (Haydock) Kemnitzius certainly advanced a step too far, when he said that all the ancient fathers read ipsum. Victor, Avitus, St. Augustine, St. Gregory, &c. mentioned in the Douay Bible, will convict him of falsehood. Christ crushed the serpent’s head by his death, suffering himself to be wounded in the heel. His blessed mother crushed him likewise, by her co-operation in the mystery of the Incarnation; and by rejecting, with horror, the very first suggestions of the enemy, to commit even the smallest sin. (St. Bernard, ser. 2, on Missus est.) “We crush,” says St. Gregory, Mor. 1. 38, “the serpent’s head, when we extirpate from our heart the beginnings of temptation, and then he lays snares for our heel, because he opposes the end of a good action with greater craft and power.” The serpent may hiss and threaten; he cannot hurt, if we resist him. (Haydock)
http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id329.html
But you're not the only Catholic to advance the notion Satan hates Mary more than anyone else.
Regarding. Gen 3:15...The catholic encyclopedia online notes the vulgate translation of Gen 3:15 cannot be defended critically. Yet Catholics continue to use this translation resulting in bad theology.
“...The catholic encyclopedia online notes ...”
Please post link.
Will do later. Don’t have acces right now.
“The translation “she” of the Vulgate is interpretative; it originated after the fourth century, and cannot be defended critically.”
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm
It’s true, ealgeone is correct, the Catholic Encyclopedia (correctly) states that Gen 3:15 does not definitively support the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, nor does it (Gen 3:15) even actually say “she” in the controversial portion in any reliable manuscript.
I am a Catholic. I only point this out for educative purposes. There are plenty of historical reasons to believe in the dogma. But it can’t be supported with Scripture alone.
That doesn’t mean it violates Scripture (it doesn’t). I leave it to you though to continue any debate along such lines. I only posted this now because it’s important to know the truth of any matter, just to not waste time if not for any other reason. (Although there are other reasons to be truthful too of course.)
Thank you FourtySeven.
Taking from the quote from the 1917 Catechism which ealgeone apparently referred to, I would accept what follows as quoted here:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm
The translation “she” of the Vulgate is interpretative; it originated after the fourth century, and cannot be defended critically. The conqueror from the seed of the woman, who should crush the serpent’s head, is Christ; the woman at enmity with the serpent is Mary.
As FourtySeven mentioned, this assessment even though not gathered from Scripture alone is not on the other hand in conflict with Holy Scriptures.
Now the many things that Jesus spoke to the disciples for many days after He rose again from the dead (See Acts of the Apostles), should they not have attempted to pass them along to the faithful and in defense of the faith? (Obviously they would hand them on down at least orally to their neighbors and children.)
One lesson to be learned here is that one of the most crippling tactical mistakes that Protestants are in bondage to is that of sealing up all truth as only available in the Scriptures (at least those which Luther didn’t expunge and modify to his liking). That is poor scholarship and a type of insecurity complex if not mental laziness. This leads to illogical conclusions that cannot ultimately be defended.
If, for example, all truth and doctrine can be found only in the Holy Scriptures, where can I find the doctrine that says so in the Holy Scriptures?
For starters I offer: 16All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. 2 Tim 3:16-17
That does not at all proclaim that no doctrine exists outside of that found in Scripture; it states that all scripture is good, not that all good is only to be learned from scripture.
It would make sense to say of your henhouse, “All the eggs in my henhouse are good to eat for breakfast so that you may have sufficient protein for the day.”
Logically that would be a far different statement to say:
“Only by eating the eggs in my henhouse can you find sufficient protein for the day.”
But for your quote from II Timothy to apply to satisfy my question and prove your claim, it would need to read like the second example above, as in:
“Only scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, There is absolutely no other authority, inspired of God, to assist that the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.”
But it doesn’t say that. It does a no better a job of proving your claim than Genesis 3:15 does of proving my claim regarding Mary as hated supremely by Satan, does it? Yet my claim has a better chance of being true because it is backed by the true Catholic (the only - universal) Church.
If that is for starters, do you have anything more verses from scripture that actually back your claim?
If the Catholic claims "tradition" the burden is in the cathokic to show a uniform agreement by the ECFs on the issues.
As illustrated the ECFs are not in agreement rendering the Catholic claim to tradition as as a source of truth null.
Haydock alleges all the ECFs are in agreement on this. We know this is not the case.
>>>>“If it wasn’t spoken by “saint” Luther or one of his fellow detractors, there must be something wrong with it”, by a Protestant’s account.<<<<
Buddy, I have never said that...
I do believe that if it is not in scripture, it should be questioned and questioned hard.
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.