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 ...
I don’t know.
I never read any of Luther’s works.
It does not agree with the KJV overall for it does not show supplied words, which the KJV usually does (normally by italics), as shown by my example (out of vast multitudes) Job 34:10:
Therefore hearken unto me, ye men of understanding: far be it from God, that he should do wickedness; and from the Almighty, that he should commit iniquity. (Job 34:10)
Here the supplied words, though unnecessary, their absence do have any real significance, however, in a case such as John 8:24 and 18:5-6 I think they may:
"I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he , ye shall die in your sins. (John 8:24) "
"They answered him, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus saith unto them, I am he . And Judas also, which betrayed him, stood with them. As soon then as he had said unto them, I am he , they went backward, and fell to the ground. (John 18:5-6) "
In both cases, from what i can see, the Lord literally said "I am," the same statement that He made in Jn. 8:58,"verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am," (cf. Ex. 3:14) without the "he" in the Greek, which i believe, can be demanded, if not always. Yet i think that Jn. 8:24 infers deity, as does that the soldiers fell down at the declaration "I am," in 18:8.
And as i recalled finding that sometimes the KJV does not distinguish supplied words, and since as explained, i am not being able to read Hebrew, then before i found a source that enabled me to see each word that was in the text at issue, i first sought to ascertain whether your source was a precise word for word English translation, which it is not. .
Hebrew often translates into more English words and here M-M agrees with KJV (I had thought the objection would be about known messianic texts where the Jewish translations, but not the source, differs).
Yes, more words are often necessary in English, but when the focus is on one word which may make a difference (not that it turned out that it really must in our case), then word for word accuracy can be important, just as it might if reading a will in a foreign language.
And i think maybe its time to put this one to bed.
Oh, really? And how would you know whom Metmom follows? Everything she has ever said to me on this forum (and in person) shows she follows Jesus Christ and His teachings as He revealed to St Paul which he wrote about in his epistles. Now, if Martin Luther follows those same teachings - and he does from what I have read of him - then he follows Jesus Christ every bit as Paul, Metmom, me and others. Though you CLAIM to follow Paul, your words belie that. You may have some extraneous writings of his hidden in the dusty, cobweb strewn archives of Vatican library, I don't know, but there are many things Paul taught that you show no fealty to regardless of what you say.
As for women "covering their heads", you should know that this was a societal custom and NOT something that was expected to be doctrinally binding upon females for perpetuity. Get a grip! I guess you also believe women shouldn't wear pants or cut their hair, either???
Sorry...ain't buyin' it! You wouldn't have even mentioned Paul's admonition about women speaking in church if the "spirit" of your comments was merely about Elsie's words. Admit you wrongly assumed Elsie was a she and you hoped he/she would back off the argument against you because of your authority of gender, and we can move on. Otherwise, your sexist machinations are exposed.
That one SHOULD leave a mark ...but don’t hold your breath.
You have to know better than that the issue is a mere difference in fonts, and which is of no significance! The differences in fonts is the very thing that enables one to see that such are not in the original language, and the differences in language does not marginalize that, as shown. That is why scholars prefer word for word type translations, versus "dynamic equivalence" and examine the original language texts.
Why can't you simply admit that your source is not as helpful and accurate as what i provided, instead of desperately having me being against the Jews and blithely dismissing the importance of finding supplied words versus what is in the original language texts? Give it up!
Why do you mean "for some reason as if it did not patently explain at length what they good reason was?! Are you here to exasperate us with your insolence?
even though the English translation for a different passage you objected to is the same translation as the King James Version.
What? Why do i spend so much time explaining to you that neither your source nor the KJV necessarily means that that the text fully corresponds word for word to the original language, while my source validated that it did?
Had you simply wrote you preferred a different source but mine was also accurate for the text in question, instead of writing that Mechon Mamre "can easily mislead those who cannot read Hebrew from thinking certain word[s] are in the Hebrew which are not." I would not have defended Mechon Mamre's academic integrity in this regard.
Because as said and SHOWED it can, as in Job. 34:10 (in which 10 Hebrews words end up as 26 in the English, at least 9 of which are unnecessary) in addition to many more examples i could provide.
The source did nothing wrong with the text in question, in Hebrew or in English.
Once again, i never said it did as regards Gn. 3:15, but since it does in the English example i provided, thus i wanted to find a source that would precisely show me what each word was in the Hebrews and its meaning, and so render the English with that distinction.
I no where introduced "antisemitism" into this defense. "The Jews and their English translation of the Bible" refers to Mechon Mamre,
Then what's with alleging me engaging in "somwhat of a red herring against the Jews and their English translation?" You wrongly have me against the Jews, whether you admit it or not.
with a convenient online version of the Hebrew Bible: fast, convenient, and free.
As was mine, but with convenient pop up definitions of each word, and convenient distinctions btwn supplied words and those transliterated from the original languages. As said but ignored.
However, the English translation is going to differ in some messianic passages,
And thus, as accuracy is important, being able to see what the Hebrew means and supplied words in the English is superior to non-Hebrew readers. Case closed!
I don’t know. I never read any of Luther’s works.
That was sarcasm, since i though you familiar with that quote by Pope Pius X in the 1906 Encyclical VEHEMENTER NOS.
Wrong. Lumen Gentium teaches that baptism is the essential thing that makes Protestants member of the body of God. And the Lord's supper was never preached as the means of salvation by the NT church, contrary to Catholicism .
As said many times, the Church points to Scripture as the basis for this line in the sand, which must be flowed down through interpretations of Spirit-inspired men and women (tradition) (there’s no getting around the need for this - even the original languages are different).
Wrong. The Catholic church may invoke Scripture, but since in any conflict Scripture only consists of and means what she says, then her veracity is effectively the basis for any line in the sand, which premise of ensured veracity she imaginatively says Scripture supports.
For Rome 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. Which is cultic, not Christian.
Always glad when we can have some agreement here.
My agree-to-disagree part with this point is that we don't "save" anyone, only Jesus Christ saves and that only comes when God has opened spiritual eyes and hearts to understand the truth of the gospel. What may surprise you is that I CAN agree that the Eucharist and Reconciliation are part of that process - just not in the way the Catholic church does. Jesus said we must eat his flesh and drink his blood to have eternal life. I don't take him literally to mean, as Catholicism teaches, that this can only happen when a Catholic priest says specific words and calls down the Lord from heaven to inhabit bread/wafers and wine and that the receiving of these transmutated elements is what imparts eternal life. I agree with many of the early church fathers who recognized that this HAD TO BE figurative/metaphor and that when we BELIEVE in Jesus Christ, we ARE eating and drinking him. It is, after all, faith that brings salvation and not partaking of bread and wine. I think you would agree that without faith, the act of taking Communion imparts no benefit. Seeing that "eucharist" means thanksgiving, I believe that we demonstrate both our faith as well as out gratitude to God when we together with fellow believers partake of the Lord's Supper.
I also believe in "reconciliation" - though I disagree that a priest alone can impart forgiveness and absolution for confessed sins. Repentance is part of that process towards faith in Christ. It is us "changing our minds" about our lives and how we see God and being reconciled to Him through Christ. Scripture tells us that we should confess our sins to one another and pray for each other for healing. When we have sinned against someone, we should go to that person and confess and ask for their forgiveness. We should ask God for forgiveness and make amends for wrongs we have committed against another. The blood of Jesus Christ constantly cleanses us from all sin and unrighteousness. The confession process restores both our relationship with others and with God. It also heals our hearts and that is always a good thing.
So, you see, we don't differ all that much except perhaps in the way we define terms. Where I doubt we will ever see eye to eye is justification by faith alone. This IS the basis for the rest of the doctrines. Without faith, there can be no Reconciliation nor a proper realization of the Eucharist. If I were trying to lead a loved one to salvation, that would be the starting point. Observing Communion and Confession are the TRUE "helper" doctrines and the truth of the gospel and salvation can be found outside of the Roman Catholic church. So that remains the obstacle to our full agreement. But I do appreciate your respectful answer.
boatbums:
“...this (head covering while praying) was a societal custom and NOT something that was expected to be doctrinally binding upon females for perpetuity...”
As so many of you protestants like to say, “Where does it say THAT in the bible?” I thought if it isn’t in the scriptures then you are adding to them. How consistent is that?
Oh, I see; you are more interested in the (current) traditions of man when it comes to something that has to do with Paul’s directives to WOMEN. Especially since it is a long standing Catholic tradition to cover your head when praying in church, and protestants are more interested in rebelling against anything catholic and in CLAIMING to follow “scripture alone” than in actually following scripture.
boatbums:
“...I guess you also believe women shouldn’t wear pants ...?
R&B:
Rather than ask what I believe, why not look it up in the sacred scriptures? There you will read:
“A woman shall not be clothed with man’s apparel, neither shall a man use woman’s apparel; for he that doeth these things is abominable before God.” (Deut.22:5)
“...Admit you wrongly assumed Elsie was a she...”
Does Elsie LOOK like a he?:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3509997/posts?page=562#562
(He, He, He!)
“...Should we reckon ol’ St. Peter would be mighty proud of you both?...”
You’re a hoot!
Sometimes Peter used a HOOK.
Other times he used a NET.
Repent and Believe.
(spelling corrected!)
Oh?
Did some engraved stone tablets miraculously appear?
Did a dove land on someone and a voice from heaven was heard?
Did Mary show up again somewhere and pontificate on the subject?
Just HOW did 'GOD' reject your beloved pope?
GOD's ways are not your ways.
How DARE you reject the man that was CHOSEN by GOD's explicit instructions!!
I'm sure that ANY of our FR Catholics can link to the 95 things nailed to the church door and the critique of them by Rome; showing how Luther was wrong, Wrong, WRONG!!! on every point.
Humpty wants to know:
"Which side can claim victory in this matter?"
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.