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 ...
Watch it!
You'll snap necks in this sudden steering away from the topic at hand.
You can read what was required in the Catholic letter; found in Acts 15!!
Oh... Wait...
Oh quit whining and wear it ANYWAY!
We don't talk much about marks any more...
Your reply at 370 came WAY before my 562
Cry me a river.
Wanna trade?
NO,m not familiar with them, but that’s good to know what Catholicism teaches.
Jesus commanded his disciples to not to address others by that title.
It could not be clearer or more clearly stated.
If some Catholic calls priests *Father*, they are disobeying Jesus.
NO ambiguity there, at all.
In the days when men wore robes, same as women.
Try again.
So by what or whose authority to you sit in judgment of your pope or the hierarchy of the Catholic church?
And by what or whose authority do you make judgments that they are wrong and not *real* Catholics, or *true* popes?
Who gave you permission to do that and by what standard do you make your judgments and condemnation?
What kind of spiritual education and training do you have to qualify you to sit in judgment of others like that and determine that THEY are wrong and YOU are right?
First point: I was speaking about what I would do to evangelize to a close loved one. I was trying to make this question real and everyday. Being real, I’d say that the Catholic Church has said that the 2 primary requirements for salvation that Protestants are missing, are Eucharist and Reconciliation. (We both require Baptism for example, and hold so many similar moral truths.) Look, its teachings focus on RISK; it’s certainly possible (and it goes without saying - desired!) that all the baptized are saved. It’s the risk, which is why I tried to write about the situation of trying to “save” (sorry, evangelize to) a close loved one - tried to stay out of theory (where being risky is fine).
Second point: With the language of an academic, you just restated my main point - The Church points to Scripture as its basis for its beliefs, whether or not you agree with that basis. The Church is also clear that is IS fallible on many issues, INCLUDING the Eucharist, by asserting the humble doctrine of Mystery. Although Mystery is a difficult concept for our prideful, scientific, post-Cartesian culture to grasp, I am sure that you and the many, many disparate Protestant sects do also say that you recognize where theological explanations must be imperfect, at best.
This last point applies to you earlier posts to me, though I apologize for not having time to read all of it yet. My quick takeaway from part of that is this question to you:
* Do you know what form God takes now in our material world?
Thanks for that post. All good.
I was trying to ask this question much earlier in this thread:
* Do Protestants believe that receiving the Catholic Eucharist is an evil act?
Why not allow us think of it as a “helper” (if non-distracting from the goal), and not attack us for it.
I admit I haven’t had the time yet to read all the answers. Some apparently think we’re evil for drinking human blood, despite the plausible and literal Scripture such as John 6, and the fact they themselves don’t even believe it’s blood.
Which is why they prefer word for word type translations.
A simple Hebrew source for Genesis was sufficient to show that there was a definite article in the Hebrew text הָאִשָּׁה (the woman).
For the last time no, it was NOT!!! Your simple source simply does not show (for those who cannot read Hebrew) what is in the Hebrew word for word in the English translation, since it contains supplied words in the latter without distinction, as showed! Thus my recourse to a translation which actually established that the "the" was there. Why can't you simply accept that?
There is nothing wrong with your enhanced QBible source. I just did not need it. Thanks for the link to it.
So you claim to be fluent in Hebrew? Regardless, the issue was not you.
“...If some Catholic calls priests *Father*...”
You mean like Saint Paul used the term in 1 CORINTHIANS - Chapter 4? Did Saint Paul misinterpret Jesus words in St. Matthew Chapter 23 or are you? I want to hear your take on Saint Paul’s use of the term.
From Haydock on 1 CORINTHIANS - Chapter 4 we read:
Ver. 14-17. I write not. St. Paul here insinuates to the Corinthians, that they ought to blush with shame for neglecting the apostles, who had suffered so many hardships for them, to follow after teachers void of honour, and to glory in being called the disciples of such men. (Estius) -— I admonish you as my dearest children, of what is for your good, and I may take this liberty, as being your spiritual father in Christ, by whom you were first made Christians. Be ye followers of me, as I also am of Christ: follow the doctrine of Christ, which I follow, and taught you. Timothy, my beloved son in the Lord, whom I send to you, will put you in mind of what I teach, and of what I practise. (Witham)
I can say accurately, and honestly, that when fishing for market fish, I have done likewise.
Otherwise, there is no record of that I know of, of Peter having used anything but nets. The same nets which were mentioned at one juncture, that he was then asked to leave. Seems to me that upon later occasions, he went back again to using nets to literally (not figuratively) catch (literal, not figurative) fish. As far as I can tell, it was no sin for him to have done so, I suppose I should here add.
Can you show me where it may be written that the apostle Peter used a hook? While you're at it, could you explain further what you were possibly intending to mean when alleging that Peter "used a hook"?
The way your having said "Peter used a HOOK", came across to me, in context with the rest of the conversation here (including comments & replies of among others) as if you possibly intended to suggest that it is ok nowadays to [figuratively speaking, of course] use a lariat, and force conversion upon whoever could be roped into it. (?)
Or else -- using 'a hook', dangling bait that would appear attractive to a fish -- but-- holds a secret weapon, a fully intended trickery, even --- is that the right way to be a 'fisher of men'?
We have no such tradition, not one coming from Christ's own apostles.
“In the days when men wore robes, same as women.
Try again.”
OK, I’ll try again:
How did Deut. 22:5 apply in A.D. 1917, in the days when men wore pants and women wore dresses?
As it reads:
“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)
“...by what or whose authority do you make judgments that they are wrong and not *real* Catholics, or *true* popes?...”
By the authority indicated in the comments of Pope Innocent III and Saint Robert Bellarmine below.
Pope Innocent III’s teaching:
“The pope should not flatter himself about his power, nor should he rashly glory in his honour and high estate, because the less he is judged by man, the more he is judged by God. Still the less can the Roman Pontiff glory, because he can be judged by men, or rather, can be shown to be already judged, if for example he should wither away into heresy, because he who does not believe is already judged. In such a case it should be said of him: ‘If salt should lose its savour, it is good for nothing but to be cast out and trampled under foot by men.’” [7]
Notice that he qualifies his statement by saying “or rather, can be shown to be already judged.”
A pope who is already judged is not pope, that’s why he can be judged. Bellarmine said just that:
Therefore, the true opinion is the fifth, according to which the Pope who is manifestly a heretic ceases by himself to be Pope and head, in the same way as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; and for this reason he can be judged and punished by the Church.
When does Bellarmine say the pope loses office: This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction… NOT AFTER WARNINGS OR DECLARATION BECAUSE heretics already before being excommunicated are outside the Church and deprived of all jurisdiction. For they have already been condemned by their own sentence, as the Apostle teaches (Tit. 3:10-11), that is, they have been cut off from the body of the Church without excommunication, as St. Jerome affirms…
(De Romano Pontifici 30)
Full article:
https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2016/01/23/st-robert-bellarmine-and-john-of-st-thomas-versus-john-salza-and-robert-siscoe/
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.