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”...

[metmom]

:)

[SirLurkedalot]

Jesus gave us all of it.

He alone is the Finisher and Perfecter of our Faith.

And I can’t even begin to express my gratitude...All praise and glory to the Most High Son of the King of the Universe!

[metmom]

It’s all about HIM!!!!!

[Gil4]

http://www.gty.org/resources/sermon-series/296/Explaining-the-Heresy-of-Catholicism

[boatbums]

Finally, Saint John in the final words of his Gospel writes “But there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.” But by Protestant theology if someone were to teach of the things of Jesus that didn’t get written down (such as mentioned by Saint John above), they are to be condemned. THAT, ealgeone, is part of the shortsighted arrogance found in Protestant heresy.

It's too bad the shortsighted arrogance of some Roman Catholics causes them to believe John's observance that the entire world could not hold ALL the books that could be written about Jesus and His actions gives them carte blanche to invent all manner of what those "things" might have been!

Yes, John did say that in his gospel record but he ALSO said:

Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name. (John 20:30,31)

Think about this, if the Early Church Fathers relied upon the written word of God to defend the doctrines of the Christian faith - even going so far as to say if they could NOT prove their beliefs by the Scriptures they should not be accepted - then how can you two thousand years later assert Scripture is secondary to "tradition"? Traditions - the actual ones - were BASED upon the revealed word of God and it was for that purpose they were written, disbursed and preserved. Jesus, Himself, used the written word to repel the deception and lies of the devil! We were told that for a reason.

[boatbums]

So you are united to protesters? But the very term, “Protestant” necessarily means protester.

Do you not object to immorality and corruption and the abuses of indulgences by the popes of the day that incited the protests? Would you NOT have protested that within the church? Does that mean it's OK with you?

Heck, I'd like to hear how rejecting the current duly elected Pope of Rome, Pope Francis, isn't also "protesting"!

[ealgeone]

Catholicism’s own catholic encyclopedia online admits the immaculate conception cannot be defended by Scripture. The Catholic, as we’ve seen, has to read into the texts to justify thier. Views. That’s very bad theology when you do that.

[ReaganGeneration2]

The question I asked before: what's wrong with the Eucharist? All your derisive criticisms and arguments on the harm in honoring Mary, papal authority, etc., rest merely on how we interpret scripture differently, but they do make the point of showing their potential dangers. So how do you tear down the Eucharist too?... Aren't you going to say it doesn't make logical sense, or is idolatry, or something?

[SirLurkedalot]

:)

[ealgeone]

The Eucharist is a resacrifice of Christ where the priest calls Him down from Heaven to be placed on the altar again and again, etc. John O Brien writes in the Faith of Millions. That is not verbatim but it's the general idea.

Hebrews tells us Jesus is a one time sacrifice. He is in Heaven today. He does not come back again until the Second Coming.

Catholics claim this helps them be with Christ or feel His presence yet Christ told us He'd send the Holy Spirit to be with us. He is our Comforter.

Catholics claim we are told to drink His blood in John 6. Yet in the accounts of the last supper Jesus says do this in remembrance of me. He also says this is my blood which is poured out for you.

In the OT, the blood,of the sacrifice was never consumed. It was poured out. Consumption of blood would also be a violation of the OT law.

[boatbums]

Matthew 23: 8-10 But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brothers.And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. Neither be called instructors, for you have one instructor, the Christ. Post 201 is nothing more than excuses for disobeying and justifying disobeying Jesus.

There is a big difference in recognizing one's "father" in the faith - as Paul was to Timothy - and addressing someone as Father. I doubt Paul would have insisted Timothy call him Father Paul. I think Jesus was talking about those who would lord it over others and be like the Pharisees who loved the attention and the praise of men. He expected a servant attitude and humility among brothers and sisters in the faith. JMHO

[boatbums]

I agree with you here, Elsie, but only in the sense that the “FR catholics” do not include this Catholic. That is due to the fact that “Francis” is a false pope, which fact only an extreme minority of those on FR who identify as “Catholic” agree. In fact we haven’t had a true pope since A.D. 1958.

So, Pope Boniface VIII was a "true" pope, would you say? He was pretty "dogmatic" when he declared:

“We declare, say , define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” -Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam (1302 AD)

I notice he didn't include any exceptions to that. Wouldn't that make you and that extreme minority of those on FR who identify as “Catholic” really the "protestants"???

[boatbums]

Catholicism’s own catholic encyclopedia online admits the immaculate conception cannot be defended by Scripture. The Catholic, as we’ve seen, has to read into the texts to justify thier. Views. That’s very bad theology when you do that.

I'm surprised that you even got a little bit of insistence that the dogma could be defended in Scripture since Catholics have pretty consistently stated that they don't believe Scripture is the primary authority for their beliefs. They rely upon their magisterium to define what must be believed and obeyed at any given time (it HAS changed over time). If you do some research on how the IC eventually became an article of faith it might surprise you to see how much of it was based upon the hearsay of mystics and "saints" who claimed apparitions revealed it to them as well as the bombardment of requests from lay Catholics to Rome to make it so. The same with the Assumption. So rather than Rome heeding the Holy Spirit who reveals all truth, they bowed to popular demand. It is why it took almost two thousand years to formulate these two beliefs as dogma of the RCC.

[ealgeone]

You're right about the popular demand. I was reading the history of the IC last week.

There is a fifth Marian dogma being pushed right now. Very similar to how the IC came into being. Popular support.

[ealgeone]

I wonder how many of your fellow Catholics agree with your assertion?

[ReaganGeneration2]

"He is in heaven today

First, is He not ever with us on "earth", such as where 2 or 3 are gathered in His name?

Second, are you sure heaven is in a different location than earth?

Third, can the Trinity be divided like you imply? - that is, Jesus in one place, the Father in another (way up "above"), the Holy Spirit elsewhere?

[ReaganGeneration2]

Catholics claim we are told to drink His blood in John 6. Yet in the accounts of the last supper Jesus says do this in remembrance of me. He also says this is my blood which is poured out for you.

This is simply a different interpretation of language. What are we doing immoral by receiving the Eucharist as we do?

In the OT, the blood,of the sacrifice was never consumed. It was poured out. Consumption of blood would also be a violation of the OT law.

Christ changed OT law. He dealt with this blood-drinking issue in John 6, and let his followers leave him forever.

[Flaming Conservative]

Jesus is Catholic. Really? I think when you get to Heaven, Jesus may gently disabuse you of that notion. To me, the saddest thing about Catholicism, is that you don’t even realize the bill of goods you’ve been sold. If you’d just pick up your Bible, (the one WITHOUT the apocrypha) and read it, asking the Holy Spirit to teach you, you would see the truth, and it would set you free. But, no. As a form of control, you’ve been taught that “doctors of the church” have to interpret scripture for you. But that’s not true. The Holy Spirit is our guide. I don’t say you shouldn’t be Catholic, but there’s more. I suggest you look up Brother John Talbot. He has a Hermitage in Arkansas, which welcomes Catholics as well as non-Catholics. The non Catholics do not participate in the Eucharist during the mass, but there is nothing forbidding a protestant from having communion, on his own, in his own home or room there, in the protestant way. Most protestants do not believe in transubstantiaion, but take communion in the way Jesus taught — as an act of remembrance of Him. God bless you. (I have no interest in arguing back and forth with you. You’ve stated your beliefs, and I’ve stated mine. Let’s just leave it there.

[ReaganGeneration2]

In other words, in arguing against honoring Mary, apostolic succession, etc, you all are constantly “throwing the baby out with the bathwater” - “arguing that one false part of an argument negates the whole argument” - a logical fallacy. Fine, there’s still value in pointing out the bathwater to us.

But for your arguments against the Eucharist, where’s even your “bathwater”?

[Repent and Believe]

“I’d like to hear how rejecting the current duly elected Pope of Rome, Pope Francis, isn’t also “protesting”!”

There is already a term for that in history. It is called “The Counter-Reformation”

See:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04437a.htm