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 ...
Thanks for the query. First, your source states that "The English text in this HTML edition of the Hebrew Bible is based on the electronic text (c) by Larry Nelson (P.O. Box 1681, Cathedral City, CA 92234 USA, nelsonlarry@juno.com) as found on the Internet in differing copies." And I do not think it is transliterating the Hebrew precisely into English. For instance, look at how many words it gets out of Job 34:10, "Far be it from God, that He should do wickedness; and from the Almighty, that He should commit iniquity," when literally as seen here , "from" "that he should do" "hat he should commit" is missing, and can easily be understood ass saying, "Far be it from God, wickedness; and from the Almighty, iniquity." May all that is within me always affirm this.
The word for "the" before "the women" was not shown in the KJV text i had with Strong's numbers, but as a result of your query i have found it (and i do not claim to know any language other than English, but thank God we can do research) in this source as defined by Strong's here as "used for all numbers and genders," and which can contextually refer to "the women" in the plural, as in Gen. 14:16.
The enmity in Gn. 3:15 (a rare Hebrew word occurring elsewhere only in Numbers 35:21-22, Ezekiel 25:15; 35:5 and is said to denote the “blood-feud”) is between the devil and the woman Eve as representing all women and her offspring in general, whom the devil seeks to seduce and murder since they are basically made in the image of God.
In rabbinical Judaism, WP documents "the contrasting groups of "seed of the woman" and "seed of the serpent" are generally taken as plural, and the promise "he will bruise your head" applied to Adam / mankind bruising the serpent's head.[1]"
However, while the devil has a basic animosity toward man, even though, like liberals, he presents himself as their savior in order to gain power, yet as regards bruising mankind in general can hardly be said to have bruised the head of devil, except by the Godly. But that "her seed" principally refers to the most important seed of Eve and of the women, Christ, is what is fulfilled prophetically. And thus Paul's specification of "women, in "when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. (Galatians 4:4,5)
"Seed" (zera, singular noun used singular or collective) being masculine in Hebrew, Eve perhaps was expressing hope that he offspring would reverse the curse in exclaiming, , "I have gotten a man from the LORD." (Gen 4:1).
The Mary was the specific women chosen to be the vessel to bring forth the promised Messiah made her blessed among women, this being a holy desire of such Godly spirit filled holy women, to the glory of God, in contrast to the blasphemous attributions and adulation Catholics give to their manufactured Mary , which the Holy Spirit nowhere gives to any created beings. Those who would defend the unique glory and honor of God according to His wholly inspired word must oppose imaginations and exhalations of men not seen therein, and contrary to it, and thus the obedience which is of Christ. (2 Corinthians 10:5)
Since I can't read Hebrew; so the stuff on the left may as well be Greek to me.
What I CAN see is the ENGLISH translation that puts it in there.
15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; they shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise their heel.' {S}
So until a REAL reader of Hebrew appears in this thread; I'll have to reserve judgement on the point you are trying so hard to make.
I think I must disagree with you here, MGH.
It appears to me af_vet_1981 could be (most likely is, as far as I can tell, at this point) correct in this.
"Spittled off into lala land" was not fair.
Please bear with me, if you will. Though this be something of a diversionary sidebar sort of thing, after some investigation of my own (once I could figure out what exactly was being disputed) results I obtained (which would take more than one link to explain & demonstrate -- in other words, to prove) indicated to me that the question posed to daniel1212;
for that one item of daniel1212's assertion, then, in context of af_vet_1981's following efforts towards disputation, was not unreasonable.
I was left wondering though...why first the diversion to thinking daniel1212 was citing 'Catholic Encyclopedia'??? And then later, in this comment #497 something of a bald assertion;
The link could be said to support that, but the assertion still came across as "bald" (despite the link) for there was no further effort to more clearly point out just precisely how, and why that link could support the assertion
One does wonder though --- how about most of the remainder of daniel1212's info? Must be accurate enough, just maybe?
"The Hebrew", does have the definitive article in that phrase, you say?
What do you base that assertion upon? Are you fluent in Hebrew?
Or instead, if you are not highly fluent in ancient Hebrew, did you have to take some other route to reach that conclusion? I had to. Thanks for nothing much, other than a few clues which left me then having to go play yet MORE "go fetch" and figure. You could have supplied something more to the point, something we here on this forum (most of us native 'English' speakers) could see and understand, but you did not, leaving it still 'up in the air'.
The link supplied in comment #497 http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0103.htm alone, is insufficient to establish your claim to English speaking persons, fwiw.
For the moment, though it did take more than just a little bit of my time to do so, I'm not willing to provide painstaking detail for why I now (after troublesome investigation) do agree that the following (below italicized) portion of one of daniel1212's comments, is probably not true;
I will say, however, that the process of investigating the disagreement was wearing me out.
And so I ask again -- how did you (af_vet_1981) come to the conclusion? Could you SHOW how you came to it?
I must confess, I am not fluent in Hebrew, so; cannot discuss and explain Hebrew language structural usages off the top of my head, but I CAN and did investigate, and spent a lot of time reading up on it enough to bring me to at least *think* I could see what you were talking about.
Are you willing to make it plainer for us here, to show your work, or otherwise explain how it was you determined what logical basis there is for the statement.
OR
were you merely relying upon English language portion of the side-by-side with (allegedly) "Masoretic" text (with JPS 1917 English translation)?
Good question, though upon occasion there is a little bit of it that I've seen on this forum.
The growing dislike of Bergoglio is likely part of why we're not seeing knock-down drag-outs between the factions? Or is that serving more simply to embolden the "sed's"?
What I don't get, is how in the heck a sedevacantist could imagine there is still God's own guidance there, yet not see that the exceptions and qualifiers to the idea that the Lord would 'not allow the Church to fall into error' would apply at least theoretically 10,000% just as well among nominally Protestant congregations, as it would themselves, and almost anybody...albeit mileage (and velocity, too) would vary.
Try going back and reading the post from which you pulled the sentence you're trying to use in twisted fashion. You will actually see to what source the sentence is appointed
Actually this time i think that was a sincere question and one that i am glad was asked (see reply ), for i want to be accurate. I also should have formatted the reply, as i usually do, to distinguish btwn what a source said and my own findings. If i could correct that statement in past posts then i would do, which one thing i wish this forum enabled.
See 501 above.
Joking around, dragging Latin into it, comes across to me as just so much stalling tactic diversion.
Will you address the questions I just posed to you, instead of making a game out it?
No: of typos i have in every sentence due to my arthritic fingers (must move hand for every letter), but this was because, as said, "The word for "the" before "the women" was not shown in the KJV text i had with Strong's numbers [E-sword], but as a result of your query i have found it."
So thanks for questioning that because it led me to investigate the issue and be able to correct it, for i do want to be accurate, and as my investigation revealed that your source was not transliterating the Hebrew precisely into English, then you benefited from that also.
But as explained, my correction is not contrary to "the women" meaning it can include women in general.
I thought we were discussing the phrase “And I will put enmity between the and the woman” so I don’t see the plural “the women” anywhere in there. Was someone trying to extrapolate “the woman” into another meaning ?
As far as I know, the definitive article is called "hey" not "ha", and although "isha" is perhaps Hebrew in one sense...that lettering, that modernization is absolutely NOT present at the link which you previously supplied in effort of support of your assertion.
So let me now guess, you, much as daniel1212 appears to may have possibly done ---himself apparently having spent some time at ---are working from a bible dictionary/concordance?
Is that it? Is that the tool employed in the process you went through to make determination providing basis for your assertion...or...are you fluent in Hebrew of the textual type in evidence at the link which you supplied?
The Hebrew definite article sounds like “ha” and the word for woman sounds like “isha.” If you knew, you would know.
You owe me a keyboard, dude !
COFFEE ... EVERY frikkin' where !
What I may know (or not) was and is entirely beside the point.
Instead of this now landing upon little me, I asked you questions driving towards how did you make your initial determination.
Telling me what you just did is dodgy AND needlessly insulting (insulting in tone, at least).
Argument by way of assertion, doesn't quite cut it either -- even if one is correct -- not when having just used Hebrew script as supporting device.
The rest of my questioning to you was more along lines of how you came about understanding Hebrew script. That is, if you do. And you would have had to, if the link you provided were to be sufficient "evidence" in support of your assertion.
Well, do you?
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.