Posted on 09/16/2017 1:21:07 PM PDT by ebb tide
The group "Spezzare il pane" ("Breaking the Bread") in the archdiocese of Turin, Italy, has officially started with the celebration of "ecumenical masses" where Holy Communion is distributed to Catholics and non-Catholics.
The group is headed by Father Fredo Oliviero, an apologist for illegal immigration, who has the support of his archbishop, Monsignor Cesare Nosiglia. The practice of the group to distribute Holy Communion to non-Catholics, is openly promoted in the newspaper of Turin Archdiocese "La Voce e il Tempo".
Among the members of the group are "Catholics", Anglicans, Baptists, Waldensians and Lutherans. They gather once a month in one of their churches, where they celebrate a "Eucharist" according to the respective denomination, distributing "Communion" to everybody.
According to Fra Cristoforo, writing on maurizioblondet.it, these abuses are recommended by Pope Francis. Archbishop Nosiglia is informed about them but does not intervene. The future goal is to spread such gatherings to other Italian cities.
Distributing Holy Communion to people who do not share the Catholic Faith and have not previously confessed their sins, profanes the Holy Species, leads the participants to condemnation, and promotes superstition.
I ask you to reconsider your idea that we are "imposing" a Sacramental sense upon Scripture. The first 15 centuries of Christians all saw this sacramental sense IN Scripture.
If one were to day "I don't see it", that would settle nothing. It may be like a colorblind person saying "I don't see colors" or a tone-deaf person saying "I don't hear tunes." It doesn't mean the colors and tunes aren't there. It may mean you don't see it as, for instance, Justin Martyr saw it just 50-60 years after the last lines of Scripture were written.
From First Apology of St. Justin Martyr, c. 155 AD
"We do not consume the eucharistic bread and wine as if it were ordinary food and drink, for we have been taught that as Jesus Christ our Savior became a man of flesh and blood by the power of the Word of God, so also the food that our flesh and blood assimilates for its nourishment becomes the flesh and blood of the incarnate Jesus by the power of his own words contained in the prayer of thanksgiving ("eucharistia").
How beautiful this is! I wish everyone could see it. How it fills us with wonder and never fails to sustain our hope.
It is Catholics who assert that they are taking the words of Christ literally, which would mean that the apostles consumed the actual manifestly incarnated Christ which He said to eat, versus a christ who did not appear to be what He really was. Thus I am showing them that they do not take the Lord's words purely literally, but unlike the only manifestly incarnated Christ, whose physically John emphasizes, whose body behaved, looked, etc., and would scientifically test as human flesh and blood, they make make Christ out to be something which looks etc. like an inanimate material, and would scientifically test as bread and wine, but which actually does not, but which can decay, at which point Christ no longer exist under that appearance either.
There is nothing in the pertinent texts which should preclude to a Catholic that what the apostles consumed was the actual physical flesh and blood of Christ, but the metaphysical sacramental interpretation is read into the text out of necessity, since nothing manifestly changes when the priest utters the "words of consecration."
There is a third sense, though, and that is sacramental. That is not somewhere between metaphorical or literal, so to speak, but somewhere beyond them: more meaningful than what is merely metaphorical, more real than what is merely literal.
Which as the metaphysical Catholic interpretation, is read into the text, and is no more meaningful than the metaphorical meaning, any more that making other examples of metaphorical speech to be sacramental via a like metaphysical explanation. David plainly said that the water that his valiant men brought him from the well at Bethlehem was blood, and thus refused to drink it but poured it out unto the Lord. (2 Samuel 23:16-17) A Catholic literalist could interpret that as saying that the water was "Really" literally the blood of these men, or "Really" as per a metaphysical explanation of transubstantiation, and make that a sacramental practice, but the metaphorical meaning does not need either a plainly literal or metaphysical explanation to be most meaningful. And as such it could be a sacramental practice if it was so commanded, reminding people of how risking your life for others if like giving them your own blood.
This is why Our Lord calls His Body "real food" and His Blood "real drink." "Real" (or some translations say "true") is in contrast to what? In contrast to both metaphorical and literal.
Scripture (John 6:55) does not say that the Lord calls His Body "real food" and His Blood "real drink," but affirms that both are surely, of a truth (alēthōs), food and drink, which does not refer to what sense they are, but that they are.
And what sense they are is revealed in the light of the rest of Scripture, in which what souls receive for spiritual life is the life-giving gospel message, that being "in truth [alēthōs], the word of God," (1Ths. 2:13) with the word being called "milk" and "meat," "milk" (1Pt. 1:22; Heb. 5:12,14) by which one is born again, (Ja. 1:8) and nourished (1Tim. 4:6) and built up. (Acts 20:32) And thus rather than uniquely administering the Lord supper as food as priests, the preaching the word was the primary active function of pastors, (2Tim. 4:2) who are charged with feeding the flock thereby. (Acts 20:28)
In contrast the Lord's supper is only manifestly described in one epistle to the churches, besides the mention of "feast of charity" in Jude 1:12.
This euchastisric Body and Blood of His are so real, they are real on every Catholic...
And Hare Krishna's have their imaginations of what is metaphysically real, but neither of which are an argument that they are.
In contrasts with the word "metaphorical."
It also contrasts with "literal," or "physiological," which would, I think, imply having certain measurable characteristics ---e.g. body temperature, diffusion of gases through membranes, etc.
But if he is a traditionalist then he would be in violation of certain past teachings:
We furthermore forbid any lay person to engage in dispute, either private or public, concerning the Catholic Faith. Whosoever shall act contrary to this decree, let him be bound in the fetters of excommunication. — Pope Alexander IV (1254-1261) in “Sextus Decretalium”, http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Religious_Discussions
Commenting on this, the Catholic Encyclopedia states,
“This law, like all penal laws, must be very narrowly construed. The terms Catholic Faith and dispute have a technical signification. The former term refers to questions purely theological; the latter to disputations more or less formal, and engrossing the attention of the public....
But when there is a question of dogmatic or moral theology, every intelligent layman will concede the propriety of leaving the exposition and defense of it to the clergy.
But the clergy are not free to engage in public disputes on religion without due authorization... http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05034a.htm
It does not befit a layman to dispute or teach publicly, thus claiming for himself authority to teach, but he should yield to the order appointed by the Lord." Quinisext Ecumenical Council in Trullo, Canon 64,
The Quinisext Council of 692 was not held by the western church as authoritative and binding, but it is regarded by the Orthodox as ecumenical/binding, yet as disciplinary canons they can be abrogated. (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3814.htm
Can. 831 §1 Unless there is a just and reasonable cause, no member of Christ's faithful may write in newspapers, pamphlets or periodicals which clearly are accustomed to attack the catholic religion or good morals. Clerics and members of religious institutes may write in them only with the permission of the local Ordinary. - http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/_P2P.HTM
“the Church forbids the faithful to communicate with those unbelievers who have forsaken the faith they once received, either by corrupting the faith, as heretics, or by entirely renouncing the faith, as apostates, because the Church pronounces sentence of excommunication on both.” St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica; http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3010.htm
"One must neither pray nor sing psalms with heretics, and whoever shall communicate with those who are cut off from the communion of the Church, whether clergy or layman: let him be excommunicated". (Council of Carthage [not found]
* “Do not converse with heretics even for the sake of defending the faith, for fear lest their words instil their poison in your mind.” Bl. Isaias Boner of Krakow (Polish, Augustinian priest, theologian, professor of Scripture, d. 1471)
Catholics justify (if they are to) their public dissent and disputations on current (subject to change) canon law, which states,
Can. 229 §1. Lay persons are bound by the obligation and possess the right to acquire knowledge of Christian doctrine appropriate to the capacity and condition of each in order for them to be able to live according to this doctrine, announce it themselves, defend it if necessary, and take their part in exercising the apostolate. But which is too broad and ambiguous. But as Rome interprets herself, what she said in the past only means what she says in the present, thus RCs are not to base their obedience on their judgment of whether present teaching conforms with the past, but like docile sheep, their basic duty is to follow the pastors.
"It follows that the Church is essentially an unequal society, that is, a society comprising two categories of per sons, the Pastors and the flock...the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors ." - VEHEMENTER NOS, an Encyclical of Pope Pius X promulgated on February 11, 1906.
No, once again the Lord is stating the it is indeed meat and drink, not in what manner it was, but which He does reveal, with souls living by His word as He lived by the Father, (Jn. 6:57) by the word of god, thus the doing of it was His by "meat" which his disciples knew not of. (Jn. 4:32-34) and with His words being spirit and life. (Jn. 6:63)
Christ Himself is indeed the word of God, and the word of God is actually what is called "meat" and "drink" (milk) which (as received) regenerate , nourishes, and builds up, and nowhere is the Lord's supper the means of obtaining spiritual life in oneself. Thus by making the flesh and blood referred to out to be something physically consumed by which one obtains spiritual life in oneself then you are "indeed" "really" truly" reading into the text a teaching which Scripture does not teach!
“I ask you to reconsider your idea that we are “imposing” a Sacramental sense upon Scripture. The first 15 centuries of Christians all saw this sacramental sense IN Scripture.”
Ah, back to your false claim again.
You cannot prove there was an unbroken chain, as has been examined and discussed here. You have never been able to support that claim - even one time.
Once again, your assertion is refuted by what I provided, and is contrary to what the Holy Spirit, abundantly shows spiritual life-giving "meat and drink" to be, and the use of metaphorical language - which John especially uses - and how the NT church understood the gospels , and who never presents the Lord's supper as a sacrifice for sin by the hands of Catholic priests whereby souls obtain spiritual life, or as essential for obtaining it.
Only the metaphorical understanding easily conforms to the rest of Scripture, and does not require resorting to Neoplatonic thought and Aristotelian metaphysics to explain and rationalize a christ who by all evidences of matter is mere bread but "really" is the true and proper and lifegiving flesh and blood of Christ, corporeally present whole and entire." which is more akin to a Gnostic or Docetist Christ which was not what he appeared to be. to be.
Then WHY does your ‘one true church’ promote cocaine-fueled sodomy orgies in the seat of its power?
I mean, are you in favor of cocaine-fueled sodomy orgies?
What happens when acceptance of cocaine-fueled sodomy orgies becomes compulsory? Some of your priests are already getting excommunicated for refusing heresy.
What happens when YOU get excommunicated for refusing the communist and sodomite heresy in the Vatican?
Putting your hands over your ears and repeating ‘one true church one true church one true church’ over and over again isn’t going to help you when this ‘one true church’ has thrown you out because you believe what God says instead of what Il Papa says.
So what is it? Who’s more important? God’s teaching or Catholic church teaching? Because they’re not the same thing any more.
So what you’re saying is that according to canon law every Catholic here on FR needs to be excommunicated because they debate about Catholicism?
Were these words in line with Scripture?
From my research, nope.
In that case, I’m going to do what St. Paul says to do when even an angel from heaven makes a claim in opposition to the Word of God.
John 6:53-55
Then Jesus said unto them,
Verily, verily, I say unto you,
Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,
and drink his blood,
ye have no life in you.
Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood,
hath eternal life;
and I will raise him up at the last day.
For my flesh is meat indeed,
and my blood is drink indeed.1 Corinthians 11:27-29
Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread,
and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily,
shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.First Apology of St. Justin Martyr, c. 155 AD
"We do not consume the eucharistic bread and wine as if it were ordinary food and drink, for we have been taught that as Jesus Christ our Savior became a man of flesh and blood by the power of the Word of God, so also the food that our flesh and blood assimilates for its nourishment becomes the flesh and blood of the incarnate Jesus by the power of his own words contained in the prayer of thanksgiving ("eucharistia").
All of these affirm that, while the Body and Blood surely have other layers of meaning --- sign, commemoration, and so forth --- these other meanings are part of the fundamental reality that this IS His Body and Blood.
All of the other meaningful facets --- that this is symbolic, metaphoric, refers to spiritual things,etc.--- are taken up in the incarnational/sacramental *fact* of Christ's Body and Blood (Eucharistic realism) without replacing or refuting it.
All the ancient churches ---- not only Latin and Byzantine, that is, those under the direct sway of Roman or Constantinople, but also Armenian, Assyrian, Coptic, Ethiopian, etc.--- would agree that the Eucharist is "also" a symbol and a commemoration, without saying it is "only" a symbol or a commemoration. They all affirm Eucharistic realism: this is His Body and Blood.
It's always been both/and.
This is the reason why elaborate explanations of the symbolic aspect, do not refute the realist. The sign is multivalent, and not exclusive.
Compare to the act of marital union. It surely has the symbolic meaning of spiritual union, but that does not deny, refute or replace bodily union.
Your anti-sacramental POV --- refuting the "real" and "true" description of what is "indeed" His Body and Blood ---can be sustained only be refuting the Gospel of John, the Epistles of Paul, and all Christendom. I doubt you can show me that anybody made your kind of arguments to "refute" or "deny" Eucharistic realism, for the first 1500 years of Christianity.
That's the novelty of the modern "anti-carne," anti-incarnational argument.
and; hopefully; my pea-pickin’ heart as well.
"One indeed is the universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved, in which the priest himself is the sacrifice, Jesus Christ, whose body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the species of bread and wine; the bread (changed) into His body by the divine power of transubstantiation, and the wine into the blood, so that to accomplish the mystery of unity we ourselves receive from His (nature) what He Himself received from ours."
--Pope Innocent III and Lateran Council IV (A.D. 1215)
Ah; Grasshopper...
...you are getting it!
Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”
1 John 3:21-24
Dear friends, if our hearts do not condemn us, we have confidence before God and receive from him anything we ask, because we keep his commands and do what pleases him. And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us.
In for a penny;
in for a pound.
That settles it!!
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.
