Theologian: Shared Communion With Protestants Would be Blasphemy and Sacrilege

...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”...

And he called the cup, *the fruit of the vine*.

Catholics are metaphor challenged.

The Passover feast was a feast of remembrance, just like that, communion now is a feast of remembrance.

It commemorates a past event, keeping it before us always.

And it causes no conflict with the rest of Scripture and doesn't need to be explained and excused away cause it is in conflict with God's clearly stated Law.

And how do we know it's metaphor? Because Jesus tells us it is in John 6:63.

John 6:63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

Drinking blood is done by cannibals and satanists. It never was part of any religious practice instituted by God. God very strictly forbade it and that command was reiterated by the Holy spirit at the Council at Jerusalem in Acts 15.

Jesus said that He was the bread that came down from heaven. Should we take that literally and think that He was the Pillsbury Dough Boy?

Wrong. Jesus only conferred that authority upon his apostles. No one else.

But I'm curious, what "believers" do you confess your sins? Your neighbor? The mailman?

There have been more than a few replies indicating including the one who was sinned against be who must be confessed to along with making confession unto God.

That much is biblical enough, and true enough. When we sin, if it be but only against God, it is to Him alone one must confess. David did that very thing, at one point (Psalm 51:4), and more too other than just merely there. It is a recurrent theme. Our sins are against God -- although they may well be against other humans beings too, whenever we do, those sins are against God also. Clear enough? I'm fairly certain you cannot disagree.

One cannot run around sinning with impunity, then go to some private advocate and have the sins, the entire affair simply washed away privately (other than having to "do penance in Purgatory" according to [Roman] Catholic theology --for sins committed BUT which sins had been "forgiven" by one of the so-called "priests") regardless of how much a scallywag any particular priest may, or may not be... with mentions here of Purgatory, and that set of doctrine's accumulated theological baggage being additional part of the wider theological claims you do appear to be providing unspoken assertion towards.

I ask you;

The baptism of John (the Baptist), baptizing sinners in the River Jordan for the remission of sins -- when those persons were baptized -- to whom did they confess? To the Baptist? Was this John an "apostle of Christ"? You had just said;

"authority [conferred] upon his apostles. No one else.

John the Baptist must then be this no one of whom you just spake! He must have had authority to 'hear confession' of sinners, too.

Well that man, and the apostles Christ had conferred authority upon of course, which precise persons (and no one else!) are no longer around (no longer in the land of the living) for anyone (presently in the land of the living) to confess to...

You want us to settle for later arising claimants -- who claim it is "they" themselves (and no one else) who now are the only ones (and no one else!) who have authority (to hear confessions).

Oh, really?

Who was it that said what is written in Mark 11:30 ;

"...The baptism of John—was it from heaven or from men? Answer Me."

Well? will you answer Him? He just asked you a question.

Answer that one, and then maybe SR can get around to answering your question.

Points to ponder (you need not supply additional reply to the following) yet answer to the above question, asked by none other than Christ himself will suffice and nothing less will do.

Who sent this Baptist? It was not the incarnate Christ, who while in the flesh did so.

And the people who were being baptized by John confessed to either John, or to that man and one to another also. Not to "the mailman" or some mere neighbor who may, or may not themselves be seeking repentance and baptism.

Once again, as SR could notice & perhaps appreciate, an excluded middle, having just now (at hand of ebbtide) suffered illogical exclusion, has possibly undergone restoration. It (the written Word) was there, all this time. Right in the middle of everything.

God.

No. If someone comes to me and confesses something wrong, I forgive them.

Indeed, believers are commanded to do so. To *retain* sin is not an option given to believers.

FWIW, nobody is capable of confessing each and every sin they ever commit. Some are committed that we are not aware of and some are forgotten.

That’s the beauty of God’s forgiveness. It forgives ALL the sins we commit and ever will commit. We are delivered from the consequences of our sin. He doesn’t hold them against us because He doesn’t HAVE to. They have been paid for.

Once we’ve trusted Christ and He is free to deal with us how He wants to in love instead of how He must because of justice.

God is gracious and merciful, slow to anger and abounding in stead fast love. He does not deal with us according to our sin or repay us according to our iniquities.

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.

UNITY!

through faith.