Pope Francis meets with Rev. Jens-Martin Kruse at Rome’s Evangelical Lutheran Church on Nov. 15 2016
Posted on 06/23/2017 9:12:09 AM PDT by ebb tide
Pope Francis meets with Rev. Jens-Martin Kruse at Rome’s Evangelical Lutheran Church on Nov. 15 2016
The commission consists of representatives from all three denominations, all bound to secrecy.
The journalist, who is well known in Italy for his accurate reporting of all things happening in the Vatican, has said that while this news is merely a “rumor” at this point, his “sources are usually good.”
According to his sources, the commission is finding little difficulty in finding common ground in the “liturgy of the word”. Tosatti reports: “After the confession of sins, asking for forgiveness, and reciting the Gloria, there would be the readings and the Gospel.”
He also said that the commission is allegedly studying the problem of the Creed. Protestant churches prefer to pray the Apostles’ Creed, although they do recognize the Nicene Creed. The Catholic Church alternates between them. So not even this point should be a major problem.
The presentation of the gifts likewise does not present a major obstacle to the project.
According to Tosatti, the central issue lies in the Eucharist, since the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist is profoundly different from that of the Lutherans or of other Protestant denominations. Catholics believe in Transubstantiation and the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, while Protestants believe that it is merely a memorial.
Tosatti reports that a possible “solution” being proposed is that the words of Consecration be replaced by silence:
But how can a common liturgy be celebrated that clearly differs in the wording right at the most important point of the event?
One of the proposed possible solutions would be silence. It would mean that after the Sanctus, at the moment in which normally during the Mass the priest would say the words: “Father, you are holy indeed…” the different celebrants would keep silent, everyone mentally repeating “his own” formula.
The silence is broken in the congregation with the recitation of the Our Father. It is still not clear how the lines for Communion would be formed.
In light of this well-founded rumor, we should take heed of the remarks of Cardinal Francesco Coccopalmerio, a close collaborator of Pope Francis and currently the President of the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts. The Vatican cardinal has suggested that we stop thinking of sacraments so rigidly as only either valid or invalid. For the sake of ecumenism, he opined that we should start looking into sacraments perhaps having “imperfect” or “partial” validity. Below are his exact words, as published in his exclusive interview with Edward Pentin of the National Catholic Register:
We say, everything is valid; nothing is valid. Maybe we have to reflect on this concept of validity or invalidity. The Second Vatican Council said there is a true communion [between Catholics and Protestants] even if it is not yet definitive or full. You see, they made a concept not so decisive, either all or nothing. There’s a communion that is already good, but some elements are missing. But, if you say some things are missing and that therefore there is nothing, you err. There are pieces missing, but there is already a communion, but it is not full communion. The same thing can be said, or something similar, of the validity or invalidity of ordination. I said let’s think about it. It’s a hypothesis. Maybe there is something, or maybe there’s nothing — a study, a reflection. ∎
by John Supplers, Veritas Vincit
My fiancé, who is from South Africa, made a milk/custard pie the other day, heavy on cinnamon and vanilla. Very yummy.
At the links you will find many references to pre-Darby Rapture teaching / sermons. But the Bible / New Testament teaxhes us about the Tribulation and the Rapture of the Bride of Christ before the Tribulation. But you can read those aspects for yourself ... you have a keen mind and I know if you read the materials as you get time, there are things to discuss that will open new lines of thinking for you ... and for those you teach.
Pinging to a chain of materials ...
Meant to include you in the ping ...
Kerping to a chain of references ...
First time I saw this thread.
In a word, eeeeeyuck.
Well, I know that the LCMS isn’t going along with it, but I’m pretty sure that the ELCA is chomping at the bit to get them some of that sweet sweet Catholic cash.
Catholics believe the sacrifice of Christ is of a perpetual nature. Protestants believe it was a one time deal, when Christ said “It is finished” He meant the blood atonement had been paid and it was over.
***
Haven’t read any of the replies so far, so maybe someone already made the point.
Anyways, Lutherans believe what you said too, but we also believe in the Real Presence. Just not in the same way that Catholics do, and not for the same reasons.
We believe that it’s Jesus’ true body and blood, but not that it’s a re-sacrifice. The sacrifice part is already done; the meal is a gift to Christians in order to take part in that sacrifice and to lay hold of the grace of God through it. (Not to say that believing in Jesus isn’t enough, because it is. But rather that the Lord’s Supper is an additional gift because God wants to continue to pour more and more grace upon us.)
But it all points back to Jesus’ death and resurrection, once for all. If you lose that, you lose everything.
Here’s a novelty.....the Rosary given in the 1200s.
Refusal of forgiveness is a sin, just like any other sin.
It can be forgiven, just like any other sin.
But if indulged, just like any other sin, it can lead to the loss of faith, searing the conscience, and death.
There is a difference between a thorn in the flesh and willful, intentional sin. A man with a vindictive nature who realizes that it is sin and fights against it while praying for forgiveness is saved, even if at the moment of death he is fighting that sin.
A man who refuses to forgive, even when confronted with the Law and the very Word of God is probably no believer at all.
This is one of the verses that you have to look at in light of the rest of Scripture to grasp the meaning.
Heck, I’m Lutheran and I don’t treat Luther’s writings as canonical.
The only thing not in Scripture that we treat as authoritative is what’s in the Book of Concord, and that’s only because it contains what is taught in Scripture and holds the Word of God as its sole authority.
Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.
***
Tell me, have you done evil in your life?
Have you ever sinned?
Because if you have, you’re goin’ right to Hell if I read it the way that you want me to.
“Serious questions:...”
How serious is the asker about a serious topic if he poses but one question while calling his one question a plurality of questions?
I don’t know what you mean by “if I read it the way you want me to.”
There’s no way I believe that all who have ever sinned are going right to Hell. That’s crazy. Defining that as “the way I want it,” is double crazy.
Really, you shouldn’t TELL me what I supposedly believe.
Tell me what YOU believe. ASK me what I believe.
Please do not ping me.
But I see you avoided answering the question.
I mean, you’ve making the argument that if you do evil, you’re damned. That’s how I read what you’re saying in regards to the verse you posted, isn’t it? I just reflected back at you what you said you believe.
And so now I’m asking the question that inevitably results from that specific reading of John 5.
So have you done evil? Well, we’ve all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, so I would say that yes, you have. So have I.
On top of that, our righteous deeds are as filthy rags.
If that’s the case, how can any of us possibly hope for salvation?
You got it.
See the section from the Religion Forum guidelines (which can be seen by clicking on my name at the bottom of this post) at the following link:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3563504/posts?page=341#341
The purpose of the caucus designation is to allow adherents to discuss their beliefs among themselves without outside interference or condemnation. If I recall correctly you are Traditionalist Roman Catholic if not SSPX, correct? Has a Traditionalist Roman Catholic or SSPX caucus been denied? It’s to your benefit to have rational discussions of your own beliefs with others of the same belief without outside interjection. Open threads permit criticism. Works fine for me, I don’t see what the problem would be.
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.