Theologian: Shared Communion With Protestants Would be Blasphemy and Sacrilege

National Catholic Register ^ | January 2, 2017 | Edward Pentin

[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”...

[ealgeone]

So, I have made the defence of the Catholic Church in numerous angles, and if you go back and review them you will find a more logical and powerful argument than yours, with the authority of Jesus Christ and His bride, the Church (of which Francis has no part - he is an anti-pope, an enemy of Christ and His beloved bride; he is not even a Catholic).

This comes from the poster who wrote:

In your beloved scriptures,....

Yes...you've defended roman catholicism very well. Christianity no. But roman catholicism, yes.

There is a difference.

The astute reader of this thread will draw their own conclusions as to the accuracy of what has been posted.

Meanwhile, you keep on defending dogmas where No direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma can be brought forward from Scripture.

[ealgeone]

Ealgeone must repent of the rebellion to which he adheres with the Protestant heretics, as with any other sins to which he adheres, and believe the good news of Jesus Christ to forgive and heal him as He did Paul who also persecuted Jesus Christ through harm to the Church.

For the record.

I am a Christian. A follower of Jesus Christ who died for my sins. I have placed my faith and trust in Him and Him alone.

John records Jesus as saying:

24“Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life. John 5:24

I'm trusting Him at His word.

When I sin I can come before Him in confidence and confess my sins and He will forgive them.

How do we know? John again tells us:

9If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 1 John 1:9

Can we have confidence in our salvation with Christ? Yes.

John again records.

13These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life. 14This is the confidence which we have before Him, that, if we ask anything according to His will, He hears us. 15And if we know that He hears us in whatever we ask, we know that we have the requests which we have asked from Him. 1 John 5:13-15

[mitch5501]

Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth. John 17:17

[Repent and Believe]

ealgeone:

This comes from the poster who wrote:

In your beloved scriptures,....

RB:

I was being cynical with regard to whose they are. You missed it. I ought to have added “sarchasm” alert or put in quotes to make it more plain. (See final Scripture passage at end of this post.)

ealgeone:

“Yes...you’ve defended roman catholicism very well. Christianity no. But roman catholicism, yes.

There is a difference.”

RB:

No there is not a difference. Roman Catholicism is Christianity. Protestantism is a protest against Christ’s teaching, though perhaps all do not realize it.

ealgeone:

Meanwhile, you keep on defending dogmas where No direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma can be brought forward from Scripture.

RB:

So. Do. You. (Did you miss that disclosure in posts 157 & 154?)

When I point it out you ignore it and thus infer denial (false witness) by your last comment above. That is lawyer language which is otherwise known as misleading your readers. Many Protestant pastors and modern politicians are very proficient at this.

Besides, there are proofs which surpass your indirect proofs given for Protestant doctrine, proofs that other Christian writers have provided to support the high place of Mary (”And she cried out with a loud voice, and said: Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.” St. Luke 1:42), which are stronger than just the inferences that YOU used for your FALSE claim. (Where in my beloved Scriptures - which protestants reinterpret and often reject - does it say that the only authority for fact is the Scripture whenever one ECF does not agree with another?)

On the other hand you remind me of the Jews who Jesus chides for seeking God in the Scriptures while rejecting His Son’s words, such as how the Protestants reject much of chapter 6 of Saint John’s Gospel, and won’t admit it (see post 129). Then in the next breath they profess to believe in Jesus’ words. (Who are they kidding?)

From John Chapter 5:

[39] Search the scriptures, for you think in them to have life everlasting; and the same are they that give testimony of me. [40] And you will not come to me that you may have life.

[39] Search the scriptures: Scrutamini. It is not a command for all to read the scriptures; but a reproach to the Pharisees, that reading the scriptures as they did, and thinking to find everlasting life in them, they would not receive him to whom all those scriptures gave testimony, and through whom alone they could have that true life.

http://drbo.org/chapter/50005.htm

[ealgeone]

Besides, there are proofs which surpass your indirect proofs given for Protestant doctrine, proofs that other Christian writers have provided to support the high place of Mary (”And she cried out with a loud voice, and said: Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.” St. Luke 1:42), which are stronger than just the inferences that YOU used for your FALSE claim. (Where in my beloved Scriptures - which protestants reinterpret and often reject - does it say that the only authority for fact is the Scripture whenever one ECF does not agree with another?)

Yes, Mary was blessed among women for being the mother of Christ. That does not prove the catholic claim she was immaculate.

Again, back to the catholic encyclopdeia....no proof can be be brought forward from Scripture for this dogma.

The catholic likes to rely upon "tradition". Which tradition do you rely upon? I've shown using catholic sources where some of the ECFs deny Mary was immaculate.

There are ECFs who say yes.

However, those who knew Mary the best...the disciples...never once wrote about her being immaculate. Not even John who probably knew her best. Have you not ever wondered why?

[ealgeone]

Why do we have the New Testament?

[Repent and Believe]

“...However, those who knew Mary the best...the disciples...never once wrote about her being immaculate. Not even John who probably knew her best. Have you not ever wondered why?”

I have a similar question:

Paul wrote to the Thessalonians,
“And we charge you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from every brother walking disorderly, and not according to the tradition which they have received of us.” 2 Thessalonians 3:6

Paul didn’t say, “...withdraw yourselves from every brother walking disorderly, and not according to the scriptures.”

Have you never wondered why he didn’t?

Also Jesus commanded His Apostles to teach and to preach.
He never commanded them to write anything.

Have you not ever wondered why not?

[ealgeone]

Paul wrote to the Thessalonians, “And we charge you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from every brother walking disorderly, and not according to the tradition which they have received of us.” 2 Thessalonians 3:6

Paul didn’t say, “...withdraw yourselves from every brother walking disorderly, and not according to the scriptures.”

Have you never wondered why he didn’t?

Because they understood the context of what he was saying. The astute reader will also note this letter to them. In the letter he gave them instructions on what to do.

1Finally, brethren, pray for us that the word of the Lord will spread rapidly and be glorified, just as it did also with you; 2and that we will be rescued from perverse and evil men; for not all have faith. 3But the Lord is faithful, and He will strengthen and protect you from the evil one. 4We have confidence in the Lord concerning you, that you are doing and will continue to do what we command. 5May the Lord direct your hearts into the love of God and into the steadfastness of Christ.

6Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition which you received from us. 7For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example, because we did not act in an undisciplined manner among you, 8nor did we eat anyone’s bread without paying for it, but with labor and hardship we kept working night and day so that we would not be a burden to any of you; 9not because we do not have the right to this, but in order to offer ourselves as a model for you, so that you would follow our example. 10For even when we were with you, we used to give you this order: if anyone is not willing to work, then he is not to eat, either. 11For we hear that some among you are leading an undisciplined life, doing no work at all, but acting like busybodies. 12Now such persons we command and exhort in the Lord Jesus Christ to work in quiet fashion and eat their own bread. 13But as for you, brethren, do not grow weary of doing good.

14If anyone does not obey our instruction in this letter, take special note of that person and do not associate with him, so that he will be put to shame. 15Yet do not regard him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.

[ealgeone]

Are you avoiding the question?

>>Why do we have the New Testament?<<

[ealgeone]

Also Jesus commanded His Apostles to teach and to preach. He never commanded them to write anything.

Have you not ever wondered why not?

But He did through the Holy Spirit. Men were moved to pen the words we have in the NT.

Luke is a good example. He tells us why he wrote his gospel.

1 Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things [a]accomplished among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning [b]were eyewitnesses and [c]servants of the [d]word, 3 it seemed fitting for me as well, having [e]investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; 4 so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been [f]taught. Luke 1:1-4

John was commanded to write in Revelation to the seven churches.

So we do have, Jesus either directly or working via the Holy Spirit, moving men to write what He's commanded.

This also relates to my question regarding why do we have the New Testament.

When God gave Moses the Ten Commandments...what medium did He use?

Was the Law written down?

The written word has long been used in both Old and New Testaments to convey God's truth for the generation receiving it and for future generations.

You will also note that Jesus appealed to the written word as did the disciples. Mary appealed to the written word.

If you do a word search on write/written v tradition you will see the heavy reliance upon the written word and very few uses of tradition. Most of the references to the use of tradition are in the negative.

There is far more appeal to the written word and for good reason.

[metmom]

Jesus is Jesus.

He’s not Catholic. Or Baptist, or Lutheran, or Pentecostal, or anything.

NO denomination owns Him and no one has the right to try to validate their religion by claiming He’s one of them.

What a crock.

[metmom]

And this is very SERIOUS because if you are not Catholic something is very wrong in your relationship with God.

Got Scripture to support that?

Somewhere where Jesus told everyone they had to be Catholic, for example?

[metmom]

Remember, the “Catholic” faith MEANS the “universal” faith.

And CHRISTIAN means *follower of Christ*.

I'm not into universalism.

And following a faith doesn't save you. Jesus does. THEN you follow HIM.

[metmom]

Jesus first and foremost gave us the Church, vested with authority. It is the Church that gave us the scriptures, (years after the ascension of our Lord.)

Baloney.

Jesus gave us the Holy Spirit and vested ALL believers with His authority.

The *church* did NOT give us Scripture. The Holy Spirit did. NO church can claim to own Scripture by retroactively claiming they gave it to the world.

You've been duped.

[metmom]

Like the statement ‘Jesus wasn’t Catholic’

Nobody said that until some Catholic came along and claimed He was.

If Catholics don't want to heat it they they shouldn't provoke my making flame baiting statements like that.

Any lies posted are going to be countered so that people can know the truth.

And the truth is that Jesus was Jesus. Not a Catholic or not any other denominations either.

[editor-surveyor]

.
>> “And the truth is that Jesus was Jesus. Not a Catholic or not any other denominations either.” <<

To be a bit more specific, he was the prophesied “netzer” and his followers were the “netzerim,” or “notzerim,” depending on which of the early church leaders you happen to be reading.

If you’re catholic, or christian, you probably are not one of the Notzerim.
.

[Repent and Believe]

>>Why do we have the New Testament?<<

It is God’s word to be obeyed under the guidance of the Church, and with the Old Testament serves as the second primary source of Christian Doctrine, the other primary source being the unchanging Traditions of the Church.

[metmom]

As a Catholic, I will defend Protestant Christians, but I believe that there are Protestants who will not defend me.

So what? That's on them if they don't.

Do you think that means NO Protestants will defend Catholics then?

There are some Catholics who will not defend a Protestant.

So we're even.

[Elsie]

 

 

[Elsie]

 

 

"One indeed is the universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved, in which the priest himself is the sacrifice, Jesus Christ, whose body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the species of bread and wine; the bread (changed) into His body by the divine power of transubstantiation, and the wine into the blood, so that to accomplish the mystery of unity we ourselves receive from His (nature) what He Himself received from ours."

--Pope Innocent III and Lateran Council IV (A.D. 1215)