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 ...
Perhaps you could gain lots more converts by writing a dissertation against Saint Thomas Aquinas regarding his words of worship for Mary, and his definition of the two types of the word “worship”.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3509997/posts?page=1335#1335
Or perhaps you judge without discernment into which of the two I practice.
Or do you enjoy maligning a Christian’s reputation without a second thought?
He did NOT obey her at Cana. She didn't tell Him to do a thing.
Nor did He address her as *Mother* at the cross. He called her *Woman*.
John 19:25-27 Standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary of Magdala. When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple there whom he loved, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son.”
Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother.” And from that hour the disciple took her into his home.
You'll need to try again to convince anyone of your claims.
Oh, and FWIW, here's the source.
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
They're your guys.
http://www.usccb.org/bible/john/19
And if that's not good enough for you, there's this from The Douay-Rheims
http://biblehub.com/john/19-26.htm
When Jesus therefore had seen his mother and the disciple standing whom he loved, he saith to his mother: Woman, behold thy son.
There is one (well two at this stage, to include ebbtide) I aim my posts at. You are in need of birth from above, as evidenced by your blasphemous posts! If there are other Catholics reading this thread and suddenly confronting the idolatry of Marian worship, so be it, God’s Spirit is at work. Sorry, by your own posts I would not include you in the category of ‘fellow Christian’. You are clearly a Catholic, but you are showing us that you have not a clue what it means to be born from above since you are still in the thrall of idolatry. Once one is born from above, partaking in idolatry makes the presence of God’s Holy Spirit in your newly alive spirit so uncomfortable that HE will nudge you away from idolatry. You exhibit no evidfence of His presence in your human spirit, because you are spewing deadness with your posts defending idolatry.
“...you are still in the thrall of idolatry...”
No, not true. Rather, you need to get out of that Protestant sect and into Christianity.
She didn't have to. And He did perform his first miracle for Her.
So?
So why don’t you respect Christ’s Mother?
“...Most of the Marian worship in Roman Catholicism contradicts the written texts we have....”
No, it doesn’t. That is merely how you like to interpret it.
What makes the son of Mary, we call Jesus, what makes Him The Christ? ...
We'll take this one step at a time.
Since ebb tide appears to be running from the syllogism, perhaps you would like to handle it? what makes the son of Mary, The Christ?
First of all, my (and the Catholic claim) is that the language used by Jesus in Matt 23 was hyperbolic, not hypothetical. Just wanted to make that point for clarity.
If I may say though, interestingly here (in your post #1432) you have, if not astutely, accidentally described the need for Sacred Tradition. Which is really just another way of saying that a particular way of viewing and interpreting the written Word (as well as a vehicle for preserving other facts not recorded in it) has been handed down for centuries.
An ancient “hermeneutic” if you will. At least (if not more so) as valid as any other persons’ way of interpretation.
I say this as a simple matter of definition. Anyone’s hermeneutical approach is just as valid as another, all things being equal, AND if there is no Sacred Tradition or teaching authority to say different.
I can easily replace “Protestant” for where you use the word “Catholic”, at least in your last sentence. And it would be just as valid a claim.
“The Protestant (invisible) church is big on literal interpretation when it suits them but not so much on EVERYTHING else.”
I’m sure you specifically, if not every other Protestant on FR, have had that very accusation directed at you by some Catholic.
The point being that anyone can interpret Scripture however is personally desired, and there’s no one to instruct in error, if we reject the concept of the Word preserved in both written and oral form, both taught authoritatively by a physical body.
I have no authority over you, and you have none over me.
So here we simply must conclude our discussion, agreeing to disagree, the eternal stalemate that is always the result when we throw Sacred Tradition out the window. No one has the “final word”, protestations of “the Bible has the final word” notwithstanding (because that’s simply bootstrapping at this point, it simply is, it doesn’t matter if you or anyone else doesn’t see such obvious bootstrapping)
I’m fine with that (a stalemate) actually. And you should be too. After all, it’s all just a matter of faith. Right? And aren’t we all secure enough in our faith to leave it at that?
I know I’m secure enough in my faith to leave it at that at least. Again, all we are really talking about here is another way to read and interpret Scripture, a way that disagrees with yours (and maybe some others reading this now).
I certainly couldn’t care less how others interpret Scripture. My only desire was to point out that the Catholic way is just as valid as any other way at least as far as this “call no man father” issue is concerned. I’m secure enough in the objectivity of any lurker reading our exchange to say that. So you may still disagree the Catholic way of interpreting Matt 23 is wrong, but that won’t make it so, nor will simply claiming “I don’t say it’s wrong the Bible says it’s wrong”. Again that would be bootstrapping.
Take it (the classic Catholic apologetic I have presented for the passage in question) as you will and may God bless you.
Why do you assume I don’t? Mind read much?
Peace,
SR
Sorry; I don't take steps with heretics. They march in a different direction than Christ's.
So that makes you just like Jesus.
He performed His first miracle for the wedding guests and host.
Which you simply cannot prove has been handed down faithfully through the years.
Nor can you verify the source of those traditions as being from the apostles.
Since the *sacred tradition* by it's very nature is unverifiable and unreliable, I think that disqualifies it from being useful as a source of truth or support of doctrine.
Other than that, as far as interpretation of Scripture, there is leeway in some ares. Romans 14 addresses that.
However, when something is clearly stated, as a direct command, I do not think there's a lot of leeway for other interpretations.
But I don't have to answer for anyone but myself.
True dat, M! from their posts. Qui s'excuse, s'accuse.
Believers do, as the mother of Jesus, not as the Mother of The Christ, not as theowhatever.
I do try to minimize MY pontification on how things should be interpreted.
If reading excerpts from the Bible and Catholic writings caused dismay in some; perhaps THEY should look into why the two are seemingly in disagreement.
Way to parse Scripture, Dude!!
BTW, I am old enough to know what the real meaning of the word heretic is in your post. And such a charge ought be accompanied by your proof texts, which, if you were honest, you could conjure (as in use in your false witness role) from my many posts on this thread. For your edification, I have never been a member of your religion, Catholicism.
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.