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”...

[boatbums]

I bit awkward??? I think you have an impossible dichotomy and a weak rationalization to explain it away. Taken with your ill-advised (I'd say awkward) recent veiled castigation of women participating on Religion Forums, I hope you can see that just as you accept what some "group" states while not agreeing with all that they profess (or don't discard as you dictate), you gladly receive teachings from the women so-called doctors of the Catholic church. So you CAN learn from non-Catholic Christian men and women who also hold to the faith once delivered unto the saints and aren't afraid to defend it.

Sorry to inform you but, your "pearls" are merely plastic imitations. That's the REAL world we live in.

[boatbums]

Yeah, let me know if you get anything remotely sounding like an explanation for this. The “Jesus let Judas into the group” excuse just doesn’t cut it.

[boatbums]

You know, I actually think some of them imagine Latin will be the universal language spoken in heaven! ;o)

[boatbums]

It’s back in the 70’s for us here!

[boatbums]

“The (That) includes Mr. Luther” Sorry, but I don’t know that fellow. I have heard of him, but apparently he means way more to you than me.

metmom would love to tell you all about her father, Mr. Luther.

Be careful having your foot so close to your mouth again, R&B.

[Mark17]

You know, I actually think some of them imagine Latin will be the universal language spoken in heaven! ;o)

I doubt Latin will be spoken in Heaven, and neither will Arabic. 😊
I do feel, however, the language of Hell, will not be intelligible, just a lot of screaming and shrieking. 😃

[metmom]

I have no ancestors named Luther.

He’s no father of mine.

Why are you misrepresenting me?

[metmom]

You know, I actually think some of them imagine Latin will be the universal language spoken in heaven! ;o)

Yeah, they're as bad as the KJV only-ists.

[metmom]

I saw.....

>:(

(Hey, send some of it our way, wouldya?)

[Repent and Believe]

As Saint Paul has spiritual children, so does Mr. Luther. Metmom is one of them as she follows his teaching.

Saint Paul is my father because I obey him and expect women to cover their head as he taught.

[daniel1212]

The Hebrew Bible text, and a basic knowledge of Hebrew, are all that is necessary to translate that Hebrew into "the woman" as the definite article and the noun are written together as one in the text. It is a very simple translation and not in any way complicated, which is why I asked if there was a typo in that comment.

To the contrary, unless one can read Hebrew then he would not know whether the definite article was in the Hebrew, unless the English rendering was word for word accurate, which your source is not, as shown , versus mine , but can easily mislead those who cannot read Hebrew from thinking certain word are in the Hebrew which are not. You may like that over mine, but the latter not only shows supplied words, but also provides a pop up for Hebrew words telling you what they mean. Thank God for good tech.

[Elsie]

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)?

It beats the HECK outta what Mormonism passes off onto IT's members!!

---

The "Caractors" are the only tangible evidence in existence related to Smith's story.

No gold plates, no brass plates, no peep stones, no Urim and Thummim...

only these "Caractors," not a single one of which is in the purported languages.

---

Smith's translation of the Caractors. According to Martin Harris (Joseph Smith - History, 1:64), "I went to the city of New York, and presented the characters which had been translated, with the translation thereof, to Professor Charles Anthon, a gentleman celebrated for his literary attainments. Professor Anthon stated that the translation was correct, more so than any he had before seen translated from the Egyptian. I then showed him those which were not yet translated,* and he said they were Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyriac, and Arabic; and he said they were true characters."

Speak right up now in all truthfulness. Isn't it revealing how Smith started out making a stab at creating believable "caractors" but quckly gave up and produced nothing but squiggles, ending up wih a series of nothing more than crude little scribbles? Yet Professor Anthon supposedly translated them!

---

*Harris must have had two or three pieces of paper with him—one with characters and a translation of them (on the same paper or a separate one) and one with untranslated characters—quite likely the "Caractors." Some Mormon "scholars" have gone out on a limb, sawed it off, and knocked themselves out trying to translate from these true Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyriac, and Arabic characters a segment that would correspond with a verse from 1 Nephi.

---

Modern-day experts in Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyriac, and Arabic. In 1829, any knowledge of these languages possessed by U.S. scholars would have been rudimentary at best. Expertise in them has vastly improved since then. So go ahead, do it. Get any modern expert in these languages to identify which of these "Caractors" are Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyriac and Arabic. Better still, accept the claim of Mormon apologists that Anthon did indeed so testify and that his appraisal of the Caractors was correct. (Op. cit, pp. 73-75)

Save your money! Samples of Assyriac/Aramaic and Arabic writing:

 

What say you? Which of Smith's "Caractors" resemble the Assyriac and Arabic ones? No need to pay experts for their analysis. A child could accurately check this out. These writing systems have remained constant for well over 3000 years.

[Elsie]

Will you address the questions I just posed to you, instead of making a game out of? it?

Well; 509 replies in this thread and....

[daniel1212]

I bit awkward??? I think you have an impossible dichotomy and a weak rationalization to explain it away. Taken with your ill-advised (I'd say awkward) recent veiled castigation of women participating on Religion Forums,

Male headship is what is Biblical , and occupying the church office of pastor and teacher, but not keeping women from sharing the gospel, while if you really want to be historical as a RC:

We furthermore forbid any lay person to engage in dispute, either private or public, concerning the Catholic Faith. Whosoever shall act contrary to this decree, let him be bound in the fetters of excommunication. — Pope Alexander IV (1254-1261) in “Sextus Decretalium”, http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Religious_Discussions

Commenting on this, the Catholic Encyclopedia states,

“This law, like all penal laws, must be very narrowly construed. The terms Catholic Faith and dispute have a technical signification. The former term refers to questions purely theological; the latter to disputations more or less formal, and engrossing the attention of the public....

But when there is a question of dogmatic or moral theology, every intelligent layman will concede the propriety of leaving the exposition and defense of it to the clergy.

Can. 831 §1 Unless there is a just and reasonable cause, no member of Christ's faithful may write in newspapers, pamphlets or periodicals which clearly are accustomed to attack the catholic religion or good morals. Clerics and members of religious institutes may write in them only with the permission of the local Ordinary. - http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/_P2P.HTM

But the clergy are not free to engage in public disputes on religion without due authorization...

That this legislation is still in force appears from the letter addressed to the bishops of Italy by Cardinal Rampolla in the name of the Cong. for Ecclesiastical Affairs (27 Jan., 1902)

Quinisext Ecumenical Council, Canon 64: It does not befit a layman to dispute or teach publicly, thus claiming for himself authority to teach, but he should yield to the order appointed by the Lord,

... But if any one be found weakening [disobeying] the present canon, he is to be cut off for forty days. — http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3814.htm

* “Do not converse with heretics even for the sake of defending the faith, for fear lest their words instil their poison in your mind.” Bl. Isaias Boner of Krakow (Polish, Augustinian priest, theologian, professor of Scripture, d. 1471)

“...the Church forbids the faithful to communicate with those unbelievers who have forsaken the faith they once received, either by corrupting the faith, as heretics, or by entirely renouncing the faith, as apostates, because the Church pronounces sentence of excommunication on both.” St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Article 9, “Whether it is lawful to communicate with unbelievers?”; http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3010.htm

[Elsie]

[Elsie]

It really is very simple, “the woman” is right there.

And she comes to earth and makes promises; too!

Wannabe_Dude_of_Catholicism(Hail Mary!)

[Elsie]

Your continuing words are useless, answering not a single question asked.

[Elsie]

I am just waiting for Elsie to conjure up a Limerick of his own. He always does. 😀😄😎😃

While some really think he's a t&%d;
for trying to get the last word.
He thinks and he thinks;
(though what he comes up with just stinks.
Though mocked; he's still undeterred.

[Elsie]

NEVER read FR, while drinking coffee.

Unless it's GOOD coffee!

http://www.thunderbirdfoundation.com/index.cfm/shop/product.cfm?product=46

[Elsie]

A picture is worth...and this should make clearer for all it may concern my correction of my statement based on my Bible program...

 

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,

' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'

'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'