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”...

[daniel1212]

Ok, SINCE He can be present with us, in just one case where 2 or 3 are gathered, why not in bread and wine also? Is He present in the air (yes), in our hearts (yes)...(and we are not meaning pantheistically). Why not bread?

Because Christ being spiritually with believers via His Spirit, and even in their heart, is simply not the same as His bodily presence, including the doctrine of transubstantiation. Therefore the Scriptures speak of His Second Coming as a distinctive event due to Him being bodily present.

Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; (Titus 2:13)

For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself. (Philippians 3:20-21)

Moreover, see post 369 above on the contrast btwn the Christ of Scripture and that of transubstantiation.

[daniel1212]

The anti-Catholic snarky replies aren’t necessary. The article does not insult you. We have starkly different beliefs on the meaning of the Last Supper and the last half of John 6. Those different beliefs translate into our worship, which if you don’t share, it’s pointless for you to participate in.

You have RCs here criticizing other RCs, which an open thread allows, as does any one else. To censor them from doing so is contrary to the religion forum rules and guide .

[daniel1212]

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.).

By that logic you invalidate the church, since the church actually began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, (Mt. 23:2) who were the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, "because that unto them were committed the oracles of God," (Rm. 3:2) to whom pertaineth" the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises" (Rm. 9:4) of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation as they believed, (Gn. 12:2,3; 17:4,7,8; Ex. 19:5; Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Ps, 11:4,9; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Jer. 7:23)

And instead they followed an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium rejected, and whom the Messiah reproved by Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)

And which is certainly not opposed to magisterial authority, but the authority of the NT church was under men of supreme Scriptural integrity "not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God. (2 Co. 4:2) "in all things approving ourselves as the ministers of God..." (2 Co. 6:4)

Which is what is lacking today. Catholicism presumes too much of an office, and too little of Scripture, the only substantive body of Truth that is affirmed to be wholly inspired of God, and in which she is substantially absent and contrary to (while evangelicalism presumes too much of Scripture as far as practical authority is concerned, and too little of the magisterial office established thereby. The rest of Protestantism fails more. And both (and I) fail of the degree of holiness and faith the prima NT church exampled needed for the church of the living God to more fully manifest itself as being so, and as grounded in and supporting the Truth. Time for greater repentance.)

To reject the Church is akin to killing the bird that lays the eggs, saying that all you need are the eggs

Which killing is what is done under the stewardship-of-Scripture = ensured-infallibility logic, but the argument against Rome is not that of killing the church that gave us the NT, but that of excluding Rome from being the one true church, which is based upon her unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility, which is unseen and unnecessary in Scripture. Even being the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture does not require or mean that such possesses ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility.

But Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.

According to Wikipedia, “Pope Damasus I assembled the first list of books of the Bible at the Council of Rome in 382 CE.”

Wikipedia is only as good as its references, and it also says "The Decretum Gelasianum [which is what you are referring to] which is a work written by an anonymous scholar between 519 and 553,"

and that a study by the Protestant scholar Ernst von Dobschütz concluded this decretal to be a forgery, perhaps from a scholar of the 6th century. Von Dobschütz cited the inclusion of a quote by Augustine, textual variations in a later Spanish version, and the decree's obscurity as decisive evidence that the document is the product of an anonymous 6th century author.

And as an aside, so-called "saint".Damasus was a murderer in seeker to secure his papal seat, for he "hired a gang of thugs that stormed the Julian Basilica, carrying out a three-day massacre of the Ursinians....of 137 was perpetrated in the basilica of Sicininus. " (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Damasus_I#Succession_crisis)

And in any case, contrary to RC propaganda, scholarly disagreements over the canonicity (proper) of certain books continued down through the centuries and right into Trent, until it provided the first "infallible," indisputable canon  after the death of Luther.

And prior to the invention of the printing press centuries later, what were the flock to rely on? The Church and her Pope, Bishops and Priests. Outside of them there was not the Christian faith.

A false dilemma. Relative rarity of personal copies of Scripture and literacy simply does not mean that the words of leadership took the place of Scripture as necessarily being Truth and requiring implicit assent. For long before the printing press it is as is abundantly evidenced, that as progressively written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God.

And in the light to which we see that both the pope of Rome and Catholic priests are not part of the NT church , nor is the distinction btwn presbuteros (senior/elder) or episkopos (superintendent/overseer )

And in spite of the printing press and now the radio, TV and internet, the full authority on earth rests in the Church, and not in the Bible alone.

Wrong again. The church does not have full authority on earth over those without, (1Cor. 5:12) while even the veracity of preaching of the apostles was subject to testing by Scripture by noble seekers. (Acts 17:11)

And Rome's so-called apostolic successors even fail of the qualifications and credentials of manifest Biblical apostles. (Acts 1:21,22; 1Cor. 9:1; Gal. 1:11,12; 2Cor. 6:1-0; 12:12)

[daniel1212]

If there ever has been a time in history that Christians should realize and act on the simple truth that we have something very important in common (that would be love for Christ), this is the time. Discussion of our differing beliefs is healthy and good among Christians, but treating each other with anything less than love goes against Christ’s demand that we love one another.

That presumes that both are Christians, and which must be defined in the light of where we read of that name first being used. (Acts 11:26) And in which we see that Catholicism is a false church with some true teachings, (versus a true church with some false teachings), and thus relative few are Christian. And Christ also come to bring division, which enables unity, and evangelicals are yet more unified than Caths in basic beliefs, thank God, but not enough. .

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. (Matthew 10:34-35)

Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty. (2 Corinthians 6:14-18)

[daniel1212]

Why do wheat [gluten]-intollerant people get extremely ill from partaking of the Catholic communion-wafer?

Because while Cath teaching insists that the bread and wine no longer exist after the presto-chango words of the unScriptural Cath priest, despite the fact that, in reality it is real bread, and thus like the real incarnated Christ, it looks, feels, behaves, etc. and would scientifically test as real flesh.

And thus it decays or is physically destroyed by some natural process, at which point Cath teaching holds that it is no longer Christ). However, since the bread and wine ceased to exist then that which decays does not exist as either bread or wine nor Christ.

Perhaps as "Christian Science" teaches, if these gluten-intolerant people could be convinced that what makes them sick was not reall then they would be fine. For in this issue, as in "Christian Science " (falsely so-called) matter does not exist, all is spirit, as pertains to the "real presence" under the appearance and testable properties of bread and wine.

While within Gnosticism you had the belief that what Christ looked and behaved like, as manifestly being incarnated with a tangible real body of flesh and blood, was not real (Christ being a sort of phantom but looking human), in Catholicism you have the belief that (in transubstantiation) what Christ looks, feels, tastes and would test as (bread and wine), is not the reality (Christ's corporeal body and blood only looking like bread and wine). And conversely, that the bread and wine is no longer real but only looks, feels, tastes, etc. like the real thing.

See post 369 and its links for more, by God's grace.

Does that help?

[daniel1212]

One thing that clearly stands in the way of Jesus the Son of God being your only path to God is remaining non-Catholic for so many of you, for He gave us the Church on Pentecost day. Will you refuse your Lord? (Remember, the “Catholic” faith MEANS the “universal” faith. As in, there is no other. So Jesus gave us apostles with authority with which they ordained and consecrated successors, which are vested with authority to shepherd the Flock as Jesus, with the instruction He gave them to PRESERVE the faith, not create or change it in any fashion.

As your premise is false, so is your argument.

The Roman Deformation of the New Testament church and Historical Context of the Reformation

Table of Contents

• Critical and other contrasts between the New Testament church and the church of Rome

•Table of partial lists of contrasts

• Historical testimony to the progressive deformation of the church. Including falsified history

•Development of the distinctive Catholic priesthood Including compelled clerical celibacy

• The context of the Reformation

[daniel1212]

The early writings of the saints are clear. For example, one of the earliest, St Ignatius of Antioch:

The validity of authorship of Ignatius of Antioch is often false, and others questionable, but regardless, you simply do not hold the uninspired understanding of post apostolic men to determinative of doctrine, as if the Holy Spirit was negligent to show what the NT believed in providing approx. 73,000 words from Acts thru Rev, interpretive of the gospels.

And in which we see that the NT church manifestly did not teach perpetual ensured magisterial infallibility, which is unseen and unnecessary in the life of the church, nor did it have a separate class of believers distinctively called "saints" or distinctively titled "priests ," offering up "real" flesh and blood as a sacrifice for sin, which is to be literally consumed in order to obtain spiritual life. Nor is it otherwise Scripturally manifest in the life of the church as being the sacrament around which all else revolves, and the "source and summit of the Christian faith," "in which our redemption is accomplished."

Nor is the NT church manifest as looking to Peter as the first of a line of exalted infallible popes reigning over the church from Rome (which even Catholic scholarship provides testimony against), and praying to created beings in Heaven, and being formally justified by ones own sanctification/holiness, and thus enduring postmortem purifying torments in order to become good enough to enter Heaven, and saying rote prayers to obtain early release from it, and requiring clerical celibacy as the norm, among other things. No wonder Catholics rely on amorphous "oral tradition," for under the premise of magisterial infallibility all sorts of fables can be chanelled into binding doctrine, even claiming to "remember" an extraScriptural event which lacks even early historical testimony. , and was opposed by RC scholars themselves the world over as being apostlic tradition.

[daniel1212]

Protestants, on the other hand, do not heareth Jesus’ word when He says certain things that don’t agree with them, such as when He spoke of the need to eat His flesh and drink His blood to have everlasting life.

Which argument is a logical fallacy, begging the question, presuming the very thing that needs to be proved, that Christ actually taught that one must eat His flesh and drink His blood - as understood by Catholics, under the deceiving appearances of bread and wine which do not exist - to have spiritual and everlasting life.

Which simply is nowhere what is taught in the life of the NT church, in which believing the gospel message is how one obtains spiritual and everlasting life. Your Catholic wafer-christ is simply not Scriptural, as has been well established by the grace of God.

By the way, the scriptures were authenticated by the Pope. Therefore, everything that you have ever read in an authentic Bible is what what was handed to you by the Pope and is what the pope says, for he hands it to us and says that we must believe it.

Another logical fallacy, as already shown, and which stewardship=infallible authority logic would have required 1st century souls to submit to the magisterial stewards of Scripture, and reject the new itinerant preachers who preached a Messiah based upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power.

[daniel1212]

Catholicism is a cult, the only cult in which one can be saved.

Any particular organic church that uniquely claims to be the one true church is a cult in the pejorative. But contrary to cultists, in the NT the church, which the Lord purchased with His sinless shed blood, (Acts 20:28) consists of all who are born of the Spirit, by which we are baptized into one body, (1Co. 12:13) and which is the only one true church. For it alone only and always consists 100% of believers, whereas visible organic churches, though Scriptural, inevitably are admixtures of wheat and tares.

How does my “misplace passion” stand at odds with the historic Catholicism?

It lacks the unScriptural use of the sword of men to silence theological opponents.

[daniel1212]

my Pope is the last known to be living, which is Pope Pius XII, along with his predecessors,

Which is as shown, is contrary to the teaching of such popes who excluded you from being the judge of what is valid teaching, and thus who is a valid pope or not, as instead the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors.

[daniel1212]

Saint Jerome changed nothing. Most of Martin Luther’s protestations are not even to be found in the historical Church until he came along, and led by Satan he opened fire upon the sacred.

Actually Jerome was one of the scholars who also rejected apocryphal books, and also taught,.

“The presbyter is the same as the bishop, and before parties had been raised up in religion by the provocations of Satan, the churches were governed by the Senate of the presbyters. But as each one sought to appropriate to himself those whom he had baptised, instead of leaving them to Christ, it was appointed that one of the presbyters, elected by his colleagues, should be set over all the others, and have chief supervision over the general well-being of the community. And this is not my private opinion, it is that of Scripture. If you doubt that bishop and presbyter are the same, that the first word is one of function, and the second one of age, read the epistle of the Apostle to the Philippians. Without doubt it is the duty of the presbyters to bear in mind that by the discipline of the Church they are subordinated to him who has been given them as their head, but it is fitting that the bishops, on their side, do not forget that if they are set over the presbyters, it is the result of tradition, and not by the fact of a particular institution of the Lord. (Commentary on Tit. 1.7, quoted. in “Religions of authority and the religion of the spirit," pp. 77,78. 1904, by AUGUSTE SABATIER. A similar translated version of this is provided by "Catholic World," Volume 32, by the Paulist Fathers, 1881, pp. 73,74).

But he also abused Scripture in trying to support his skewed view of virginity vs marriage , and subscribed to other typical RC errors.

[daniel1212]

You need to read The Caon of Scripture by Bruce Metzger.

This should suffice, by God's grace, but i doubt if it will be read by such RCs since they evidently prefer to cling to Catholic Answers-type propaganda.

[daniel1212]

I haven’t found any ECFs who disagreed with the Real Presence.

It is estimated that we only have available a small portion of what ECFs wrote, and i am quite sure Rome would not allow anything to impugn her belief in her wafer-god, but as said, you simply do not hold the uninspired understanding of post apostolic men to determinative of doctrine, as if the Holy Spirit was negligent to show what the NT believed in providing approx. 73,000 words from Acts thru Rev, interpretive of the gospels.

And in which we see that the NT church manifestly did not teach Catholic distinctives.

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?

After all that has been shown you i hope you are still no asking those questions. See here and here by God's grace.

[daniel1212]

But you rebel against the Church’s teaching and so risk never fulfilling the commands of Jesus.

Which is another mere argument by assertion, when in the light of the only wholly inspired (which popes are not) substantive body of Divine Truth, your schismatic "church" as well as the modern incarnation must be disobeyed.

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.

Absurd. While Mary was a was a holy, virtuous instrument of God, her assent was nowhere described as being "the highest level of faith and obedience," and without taking away from her virtues, this assent was a passive one, if at some risk, but also an answer to a desire that many a holy Hebrew women would have had, to be the mother of the Messiah.

But neither this nor other words translated into Mary being the exalted demigooddess of Catholicism. For in the the Catholic quest to almost deify Mary, it is taught by Catholics

• As the the Son of God supernaturally, spiritually makes believing souls into children of God, Mary is said to be the mother of Christians in "supernatural and spiritual generation."

• as Christ was sinless, so Mary was;

• as the Lord remained a virgin, so Mary;

• as Christ was called the Son of God, indicating ontological oneness, so Mary is called the Mother of God (which naturally infers the same, and is not the language of Scripture, which even clarifies Israel birthed Christ "according to the flesh, God blessed for ever": Rm. 9:4,5);

• as the emphasis is upon Christ as the Creator through whom God (the Father) made all things, including Mary, so it is emphasized that uniquely “to her, Jesus owes His Precious Blood,” shed for the salvation of mankind, (the logic behind which can lead back to Eve);

• as Catholics (adding error to error) believe Christ gave His "real" flesh and blood to be eaten, so it is emphasized that Mary gave Him this, being fashioned out of Mary's pure blood and even being “kneaded with the admixture of her virginal milk,” so that she can say, "Come and eat my bread, drink the wine I have prepared" (Prov. 9:5);

• as Scripture declares that Christ suffered for our sins, so Mary is said to have done so also;

• as Christ saves us from the condemnation and death resulting from the fault of Adam, so it is taught that man was condemned through the fault of Eve, the root of death, but that we are saved through the merits of Mary; who was the source of life for everyone.

• as the Lord was bodily ascended into Heaven, so Mary also was;

• as Christ is given all power in heaven and in earth, so Mary is “surpassing in power all the angels and saints in Heaven.”

• as Christ is the King of the saints and over all kings, (Rv. 15:3; 17:14; 19:16) so Mary is made Queen of Heaven and the greatest saint, and that “Next to God, she deserves the highest praise;”

• as the Father made Christ Lord over all things, so Mary is enthroned (all other believers have to wait for their crowns) and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things;

• as Christ is the express image of God, and highly exalted above all under the Father, having the primary position among all creation, so Mary is declared to be the greatest saint of all, and the first of all creatures, and as having a certain affinity with the Father, with a pre-eminent resemblance which she bears to the Father;

• as Christ ever liveth to make intercession for the saints, so is Mary said to do so;

• as all things come from the Father through the Son, so Mary is made to be the dispenser of all grace;

• as Christ is given all power on Heaven and on earth, Mary is said to have (showing some restraint) “almost unlimited power;”

• as no man comes to the Father but through the Son, so it is taught that no one can come to the Son except through Mary in Heaven;

• and as the Lord called souls to come to Him to be given life and salvation, so (in misappropriation of the words of Scripture) it is said of Mary, “He that shall find me shall find life, and shall have salvation from the Lord;” “that through her are obtained every hope, every grace, and all salvation. For this is His will, that we obtain everything through Mary.”

• And as Christ is given many titles of honor, so Mary also is, except that she is honored by Catholics with more titles than they give to the Lord Himself!

  And given the chance to exalt her as Catholics would, the Lord chose not to drop everything to heed her desire to speak with Him, but And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother. (Matthew 12:49-50)

  Moreover, despite over 200 prayers which the Holy Spirit inspired in Scripture, there is not one single prayer by any believer addressed to anyone else in Heaven but the Lord. And whose instructions on how to pray specified *our Father who art in Heaven,* not *our mother.* And to which Father the Spirit within true believers cries, *Abba,Father,* (Gal. 4:6) not, *mama, Mother,* to which Father believers thru Christ have immediate access to. (Heb. 10:19)

  And only God is shown having the ability to hear from Heaven the multitudinous prayers of souls.

  The fact that souls prayed to the Lord Jesus (Acts 7:59; 1Co. 1:2) is a testament to His deity, and who is the only heavenly intercessor btwn man and God, (1Tim. 2:5) and who ever lives to do so, (Heb. 7:25) and is immediately directly accessible and uniquely able to enable souls to endure and overcome. (Heb. 2:14-18; 4:14-16)

  Moreover, elders and angels offering up prayers as a memorial before the judgment of the earth (Rv. 5:8; 8:3-5) is not that of them being prayed to, nor do human relations on earth equate to a full correspondence btwn heaven and earth.

  And unlike with God, personal two-way communication between created beings always required both to be in the same place, even if via a vision.

  One would have a hard time in Bible times explaining kneeling before a statue and praising the entity it represented in the unseen world, beseeching such for Heavenly help, and making offerings to them, and giving glory and titles and ascribing attributes to such which are never given in Scripture to created beings (except to false gods), including having the uniquely Divine power glory to hear and respond to virtually infinite numbers of prayers individually addressed to them

  Which manner of adulation would constitute worship in Scripture, yet Catholics imagine that by playing word games then they can avoid crossing the invisible line between mere "veneration" and worship.

  Moses, put down those rocks! I was only engaging in hyper dulia, not adoring her. Can't you tell the difference?

  Cathsshould only do (and I should do more of) what Mary and every believer in Scripture did in praying to Heaven, which was to pray directly to the Lord, not saintly secretaries. But they must truly become born again for that.

  Instead, Caths basically say,

  As for the word that thou hast spoken unto us in the name of the Lord, we will not hearken unto thee. But we will certainly do whatsoever thing goeth forth out of our own mouth, to burn incense unto the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, as we have done, we, and our fathers, our kings, and our princes... (Jeremiah 44:16-17)

[Fantasywriter]

Yes, that was very interesting. I note, as you’re no doubt aware, that children with gluten-intolerance become extremely ill after receiving the wafer. It wouldn’t be lack of faith, or other theological issues, in their case. It’s just their body’s inability to process gluten. (I’m noting this in agreement with what you posted, btw. I realize that those who actually need to answer my question ignored it—and understandably so.)

[daniel1212]

Your “proof” is proof only by inference (not directly stated so), which is no stronger a proof than the Church and her Papal authority presents scripturally in defining some Dogmas. Wrong: the supreme authority of Scripture is abundantly evidenced.,

In your beloved scriptures, in fact, a particular question arose for which the Church held council (Acts of the Apostles). Out of the council came the Dogma which lives as decided to this day. Where in Scripture does it say they just looked it up in the Scriptures and found the answer right there?

The argument is not that one must have access to Scripture in hand, but that Scripture is the supreme authority, and in this case they did not need to look up anything, for James quoted Scripture as substantiation for this being a fulfillment of prophecy, and the restrictions were also based on Scripture, not some amorphous oral tradition that is channeled into doctrine under the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility, which is unseen and unnecessary in Scripture.

Note that while Peter, as the street-level leader among the 11, that first used the gospel keys to the kingdom for Jews and Gentiles, and thus describes here the evangelical gospel he preached, it was James who provides the final and Scripturally substantiated judgment as to what should be done, confirmatory of Peter's exhortation and that of Barnabas and Paul's preaching as well.

And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me: Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things. Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world. Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day. (Acts 15:13-21)

The decree that the Gentiles abstain “from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood” (Acts 15:20,29; cf. 21:25) was itself based upon Scripture. (Gn. 35:2; Ex. 34:15-16; Ezek. 30:30,31; Gn. 34:1,2,31; Dt. 22:28,29; 2Chron. 21:11; Gn. 9:4; Lv. 7:27; 17:13,14)

Is God also incapable then of giving the authority of a priest to forgive sins, as inferred in the Scriptures and carried out faithfully by the Catholic Church?

Rather, is God incapable of showing the NT church regularly coming to Cath "priests" to be forgive sins, but is only capable to showing the power of binding and loosing to be judicially used by the magisterium, as in the OT (Dt. 17:8-13) but which does not infer infallibility, while the spiritual power of binding and loosing is provided for all believers of righteous faith? (Mt. 18:18-20; James 5:16-20: as exampled by Elijah, who bound the heavens for 3.5 years and then loosed them).

And which context is where we see the only exhortation for confess sins, to each other in general, while God also likewise promises mercy thru the prayer of faith by presbuteros in obtaining forgiveness/deliverance/healing for the infirm, likely for unknown sins.

It is not God who is incapable but Caths from seeing their emperor lacks clothes.

[daniel1212]

You want me to show a verse that directly states that Mary was conceived without sin, but refuse to show me a verse that directly says that Jesus commanded His Apostles to write the scriptures.

Which is an argument against you, for while it is abundantly evidenced, the word of God/the Lord was normally written, even if sometimes first being spoken, and that as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard, as the Lord showed;

And that God's writing was God's chosen means of preservation*, being sinless is certainly not the norm, but an extreme exception, and thus the sinlessness of Christ is shown at least thrice in the NT alone, (2Cor. 5:21; 1Pt. 2:22; cf. Jn. 8:45; Heb. 7:26).

And that the Holy Spirit characteristically records even far less significant notable exceptions to the norm. From extraordinary age (Methuselah), to not dying (Enoch), to length of fast, to miraculous birth (Abraham and Sarah), to extraordinary height (Ogg) or strength (Samson) or toes (Goliath), or holiness (Job, Noah, Daniel) to supernatural transport (Phillip), to the extraordinary length of celibacy of Anna, and uncharacteristic duplicity of Peter, to virgin birth (Mary), to diet (John the Baptist), to the singleness of Paul and Barnabas, to the signs of an apostle, etc. Yet despite this the Holy Spirit says nothing about Mary being either sinless, or a perpetual virgin, or created beings being prayed to. And instead what He does teach weighs towards the norm for Mary having sinned and sexually cleaving in marriage.

*"And the Lord said unto Moses, Write this for a memorial in a book.. (Exodus 17:14) "

" And the Lord said unto Moses, Write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel. (Exodus 34:27) "

" And he wrote on the tables, according to the first writing.. (Deuteronomy 10:4) "

" And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites: (Deuteronomy 17:18) "

" And thou shalt write upon them all the words of this law,..(Deuteronomy 27:3) "

" And it came to pass, when Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law in a book, until they were finished, (Deuteronomy 31:24) "

"Now go, write it before them in a table, and note it in a book, that it may be for the time to come for ever and ever: (Isaiah 30:8; cf. Job 19:23) "

"But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name. (John 20:31) "

"And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. (Revelation 20:12) "

"And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire. (Revelation 20:15) "

[pax_et_bonum]

“That presumes that both are Christians...”

“And Christ also come to bring division, which enables unity...”

++

Okey dokey.

Now I know that you don’t consider me to be Christian since I’m Catholic and so you don’t think that Christ’s command that we love one another applies to me.

Looks like my final sentence which you didn’t quote is correct:

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

[BlueDragon]

Thank you for having beared bore (?) (bored? lol) with me in that particular lengthy comment of mine. Upon later reappraisal I see that at least a couple of paragraphs of mine there could be near-indecipherable.

Others were more clear, and so I do hope in afterthought, those would carry enough of the burden of translating the not-so clear. But what a lousy way to go about writing, eh? It's a good thing I don't have to do this for a living. I'd likely be fired.

That's one reason I often shoot for more-than-occasional 'entertainment value', along with more serious considerations, there often being some degree of wordplay, and joking around on my own part included when those types of thoughts surface during mental exercise of composition ---provided I can find a way to wiggle 'em in.

There's nothing unique about that kind of process, of course, although dependent upon author, unique end product results can, and do result.

Sort of like

"Winsomes smoke true, like a cigarette do"?

(to pull out an oldy, from Mad Magazine).

[Elsie]

Catholics also follow Saint Paul’s direction in that women cover their heads in church.

Catholics do NOT follow the letter that ECFs penned in Acts 15.