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 ...
some context is needed for this passage.
60Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this said, “This is a difficult statement; who can listen to it?” 61But Jesus, conscious that His disciples grumbled at this, said to them, “Does this cause you to stumble? 62“What then if you see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before?
63“It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.
64“But there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was that would betray Him.
65And He was saying, “For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father.”
66As a result of this many of His disciples withdrew and were not walking with Him anymore.
67So Jesus said to the twelve, “You do not want to go away also, do you?” 68Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have words of eternal life.
69“We have believed and have come to know that You are the Holy One of God.”
Notice when the other followers, who weren't true followers for they didn't believe, left. It was when He accused them of not believing.
If a word search of believe is done in John you'll see the emphasis on faith/belief as being required to have salvation. That is consistent with the NT.
Catholics think Jesus wouldn't let people walk away from Him.
However, there are other accounts where Jesus let people walk away from Him.
For that matter we have an account where He allowed people to try Him and crucify Him.
“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
One huge difference is that Luther rejects the whole concept of the papacy.
True Catholics reject presumed heretics popularly known as “popes” of current and recent memory. That is because they the false popes who have gained so much popularity began to fashion false Catholicism to look like something that Luther be more inclined to approve of, and in so doing committed heresy. (Read about “Vatican II” at http://novusordowatch.org/start-here/.)
The papacy is protected from heretics and if a man commits heresy in his teaching it is a sure sign that he is not the pope, regardless of appearing to be “duly elected”.
Catholic theologians and valid popes have proclaimed and upheld this teaching.
you’ve got two catholics on these forums who disagree with you.
“you’ve got two catholics on these forums who disagree with you.”
Buddy, I’ve got MILLIONS of “Vatican II Catholics” both dead and alive who disagree (or disagreed in the case of the deceased) with me because they are part of “The Great Apostacy” and not true Catholics.
We could us some more company!
Ok we’re back to minor distinctions of interpretation of text again.
Let’s take a step back. The overall morality - Some of you are saying the Eucharist is wrong because we drink blood and eat flesh.
First, you also claim it’s NOT flesh and blood anyway. So then we can commit no sin or disgrace here.
Second, is it the intention that’s wrong? But do you deny we merely intend to do what is stated in John 54 ? - “Whoever eats* my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life”?
You cannot say it’s wrong due to breaking Jewish law - either it’s not flesh/blood at all, or we are following the intent of Jesus in Scripture.
Last question: if it IS the flesh/blood of Christ, what would YOU do?
He did NOT!
He COULD NOT have changed the law. It wasn't until He fulfilled the Law that sin would be atoned for and death could be conquered.
Also, John 6 is NOT about communion and Jesus specifically says:
John 6:63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
Additionally, the Holy Spirit reinforced the command to not eat blood at the Council at Jerusalem in Acts 15.
Acts 15:12-29 And all the assembly fell silent, and they listened to Barnabas and Paul as they related what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles. After they finished speaking, James replied, “Brothers, listen to me. Simeon has related how God first visited the Gentiles, to take from them a people for his name. And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written,
“‘After this I will return, and I will rebuild the tent of David that has fallen; I will rebuild its ruins, and I will restore it, that the remnant of mankind may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who are called by my name, says the Lord, who makes these things known from of old.’
Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood. For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues.”
Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They sent Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, leading men among the brothers, with the following letter:
“The brothers, both the apostles and the elders, to the brothers who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greetings. Since we have heard that some persons have gone out from us and troubled you with words, unsettling your minds, although we gave them no instructions, it has seemed good to us, having come to one accord, to choose men and send them to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will tell you the same things by word of mouth. For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.”
The Catholic church is WRONG about the eating flesh and drinking blood because it's based on faulty interpretation and violates the rest of the body of Scripture.
And let me guess, the prohibition from changing by one pope what another pope decreed was done in the 1500’s and I suppose that that wasn’t retroactive? That all the changes up until then were allowed to stand?
And that the order itself was a change from previous doctrine.
Way to do a power grab.
They get around that one by deciding for themselves that whoever is in office of pope, as elected by the college of cardinals, isn’t the REAL TRUE pope.
Therefore, (they justify to themselves) they are not bound to obey him because there hasn’t been a REAL TRUE pope since their last favorite pope died (whichever that one was).
So that does not mean that they are all in agreement on every last point of doctrine, as Catholics demand non-Catholics to be in order to validate their religion?
Therefore, if doctrinal differences between denominations invalidate Protestantism, then doctrinal differences between Catholic *rites* (and not small ones at that) also
invalidate Catholicism.
And *rites* is just a renamed, repackaged, and relabeled form of denominations. Just like annulment is divorce repackaged and relabeled and sold as a different bill of goods.
- The law - I was referring to Pharisees-like rules, not THE LAw. Jesus changed how we look at Jewish law regarding divorce, for one. Probably irrelevant anyway.
- The blue text is about something else, not the blood of Christ.
- You can’t say the Eucharist is wrong because it’s blood drinking. Because you don’t even believe it’s blood. If it is indeed blood, we comply with John 54.
Acts 10:14 But Peter said, “By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean.”
therefore he could not and would not have eaten what you guys called the Last Supper if he thought it was blood in the cup.
PETER recognized that it was symbolic and Jesus cleared that up in John 6 after the crowds had left HIM.
John 6:63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
Life is given BY THE SPIRIT, not by the flesh. Physical eating of the physical body does NOT impart life.
And now you guys claim that we have to drink blood to get saved. Only one other group I know of drinks human blood.
Do you all REALLY want to be associated with them?
So whatever happened to God supposed to be protecting the *Church* from error in matters of faith and morals?
Did He drop the ball on this last batch of leaders?
Wow.
Way to have your cake and eat it too.
The kind of rationalization Catholics can come up with to accept two contradictory beliefs is mind numbing.
So why are you right then, and *millions* of other Catholics wrong?
Cause you say so?
Cause you can provide sources to support yourself when they can provide other sources that contradict yours to support themselves?
And who do we decide to believe?
Whoever gets the popular vote, like the pope with the college of cardinals?
Tell me. Is the college of cardinals guided by the Holy Spirit or not in the selection of the pope?
Sorry; but I'm not allowed to mind-read on FR.
I do; however; know what you TYPED!
Using your interpretation abilities; does Jesus have WINGS???
Matthew 23:37
“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!”
IF?
You make up such good strawmen.
He has protected the Church. That “batch of leaders” were “Judas’s. There was one that God allowed during the life of His beloved Son, and there are more today.
God is sifting.
In the world you shall have tribulation.
It is here, ma’m.
The same can be asked of you:
Where’s your catholic list? Or do catholics only study “protestants”?
Then why don't you do it before a STATUE of Jesus?
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.