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
Do you, then, believe in a Second AND a Third coming?
His second coming, as some might mention it, is to remove the church family....we meet him “in the air’ as scripture reads....he does not step foot on the ground....his final coming will be when he does touch the ground and then some of course.
The post-Tribs, in-Tribs, and a-Tribs all disagree with you, and that’s just in the Protestant / Bible Church world.
Like I said before, this is a topic that rarely comes up among Catholics. So without even trying to analyze all the different clashing opinions found in Protestant/Evangelical circles, it does hint that the the Biblical indicators for your pre-Trib opinion do not seem to be self-evident.
Oh! Thanks, you just explained to me why somebody made the point that Jesus is “in the clouds”, not “on the ground”. That had puzzled me.
It’s because being in the clouds doesn’t technically count as “coming”, right? Or am I misunderstanding you?
The confusion is centered upon misunderstanding why there is an interlude of the Age of Grace, and why that must end BEFORE the wrath is poured out to put an end to sin.
Short answer, no, I do not accept your characterization of two and then a third coming. The Rapture of the Saints during the Age of Grace is not a 'coming to the earth'.
Satan is the Prince of the power of the air. Jesus pierces that power and utterly destroys him at the end of the Tribulation, the end of Jacob's Trouble. The Rapture is for the Bride of Christ. The second Coming is for Israel and the rest of humanity who have rejected His Grace.
Until the Restrainer (Holy Spirit indwelling believers, acting as a restraint on lawlessness) is taken out of the way, the man of sin cannot be revealed (2 Thess 2). The Body of Christ IS the Restrainer, per se, due to the Presence of the Holy Spirit in each believer.
The Age of Grace is the mystery Paul spoke of that was hidden from the ages, the ages of Judaism advent and end. During the Tribulation it is Jews, not the Ekklesia, that will be evangelizing the world. The work of the Holy Spirit during the Age of Grace ends with the Rapture. The Holy Spirit is still here, but not indwelling the believers as He is today.
If I am understanding you correctly, you do not think coming to our lower atmosphere counts as coming to this planet.
It’s an interesting point of view, one which I’ll admit I had never heard of until literally today.
However it seems to me untenable. The lower atmosphere is quite plainly part of this planet.
Just to illustrate: if the North Koreans launched a devastating EMP bomb that detonated way above our heads, we could hardly reason that it’s OK because they never actually hit the United States.
If I saw Jesus on the clouds, I wouldn’t say “He’s ‘there’.” I’d say “HE’S HERE!!”
What?
???
I didn’t say that at the Rapture we are gathered together meet the Lord on the ground.
???
And the idea that there will come a time when the Holy Spirit will not be indwelling the believers ad He is today, seems dubious. The Spirit bloweth where He listeth. He can be inside of me and outside of me at the same time. Being God, Our Lord the Holy Spirit is everywhere.
The 'clouds' reference is in regards to 'above the earth' rather than on the Earth.
when we are changed, how the changed beings gathering 'above' the Earth will look is anybody's guess, but Paul taught 'We shall not all die but will be changed in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye.'
As I have mentioned, without a dispensational perspective it is too easy to conflate things into a confusion.
I’ve given this some thought overnight, piusv, it’s not that I think it’s “OK” so much as I think it’s important to maintain the caucus structure so that FReepers participating in the Religion Forum are able to discuss their beliefs among themselves in peace. It can get very contentious at times, and while I’m certainly not immune to arguing history and theological points fairly strenuously myself, not everyone is comfortable with that and not every topic on the Religion Forum should be put under a microscope, dissected and criticized, sometimes fairly brutally.
I appreciate and respect the position you are in, you’ve taken a strong position out of faith and find yourself being excluded to a certain extent because of it. I see that the RF Moderator has replied and confirmed that it’s acceptable to repost a given caucused topic that you find controversial and you find yourself unable to participate, as an open thread so long as you wait until the following day to do so. That’s one way to discuss a given matter freely and without the constraints of a caucus. The downside would be that this would allow us Protestants to chime in also, and you may not like that.
Another approach would be to monitor a given caucus thread with which you take issue for whatever reason, and if the caucus is broken due to mentioning your belief you are absolutely entitled to respond. A caucus thread is not a protected hidey-hole from which to lob spitballs at other beliefs. I find that some frequent posters of caucus threads have difficulty understanding this, and so I do respond when entitled due to my belief being introduced wrongly into the caucus.
I hope this strikes you as satisfactory. While we don’t agree on all things, I respect your position and you seem to be a decent sort. Contrary to what several seem to want to claim in the heat of debate, I don’t hate Catholics. I just have major problems with the priesthood and hierarchy. Individual Catholics, so long as they’re professing repentance and Christ risen, are brothers and sisters as far as I’m concerned.
The Holy Spirit will be delivering an uncountable (in John's day uncountable) number of souls who cry out to God during the Tribulation. These are not part of The Bride of Christ, for their crying out to the Lord is no longer believing on faith but believing because the foretold events are being witnessed! When Thomas believed because he saw the risen Lord, Jesus told him blessed are they who will believe without seeing Him in person.
Ping to a series of exchanges you find of interest.
Thank you for caring about this. I think the re-posting as an open thread would work for me for now. We shall see how it works out in reality. Just so you know, I don’t mind Protestants chiming in since I rarely if ever post a caucus thread anyway. I actually get more upset with Catholics who allow the discussion to go off on the usual tangents as a result of the Protestant posts.
Good luck, I hope you continue to participate. While I can’t pretend to understand completely, your concerns do appear very valid from my perspective and deserve to be aired and addressed.
Read what Jesus said, in Luke 17, regarding THE nature of events. It is Jesus Who cites the days of Noah and Lot. What do those two events have in common? ... The ‘righteous’ are removed BEFORE the wrath happens.
Luke 17:24 Because just as lightning flashes and shines from one end of the sky to the other, [Lightening in the clouds, not striking the earth] so will the Son of Man be in his time. 25 But first he must suffer a great deal and be rejected by those living today. [The crucifixion]26“Just as it was in Noah’s time, so it will be in the days of the Son of Man. 27 People were eating, drinking, marrying, and being given in marriage right up to the day when Noah went into the ark. Then the flood came and destroyed all of them. 28 So it was in the days of Lot. People were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building. 29 But on the day when Lot left Sodom, fire and sulfur rained down from heaven and destroyed all of them. 30 The day when the Son of Man is revealed will be like that.
We've all seen lightening up across the clouds, not striking the ground.
The common thing about the Noah account and the Lot account is the removing of the righteous BEFORE the catastrophe is loosed.
The DAYS of the Son of Man will be ushered in like lightening flashing across the sky from Eastern Horizon to Western Horizon. The DAY the lightening flashes starts the DAYS of the Son of Man. The Son of Man is a term understood by the Jewish people of that epoch.
Yes-— I think this happens on the Last Day, the Day of the Lord. The wrath of God we are saved from, is damnation.
Indeed!
That is understandable you believe that, since Catholics do not believe they obtain Salvation when they believe and follow Jesus UNTIL they have ‘kept their position’ so to speak. The Bride of Christ is somewhat a mystery to a Catholic mind.
That is so true: the Bride of Christ is a sacred Mystery, meaning that no matter how much we know or can learn, there is much that is a marvel going beyond the grasp of the human mind.
I absolutely love Bridal Theology. So important to the Church.
And the Spirit and the bride say, "Come."
And let him that heareth say, "Come."
And let him that is athirst come.
And whosoever will,
let him take the water of life freely.
[Revelation 22:17]
So, believers are The Body of Christ, and the believers during the Church / Ekklesia Age are The Bride of Christ. Does it make sense to you that Jesus would have His Bride go through the Tribulation? Did you read what JESUS said in Luke 17, then look at the common thing about the Noah and Lot stories?
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.