Posted on 02/02/2020 5:50:43 PM PST by marshmallow
KAMPALA — Kampala Catholic Archbishop Cyprian Kizito Lwanga has directed that no Christian or practicing Catholic will be allowed to receive the Holy Communion by hand.
He has also decreed that Holy Mass will no longer be celebrated in homes, as is the current norm, in a bid to “fend off abuses in the liturgical life of the Church”.
The directives are contained in a decree he issued on Saturday, February 1, 2020 following a high level meeting with the clergy and senior executive committees of parishes at Rubaga Cathedral in Kampala. A decree (Latin: decretum) is an order or law made by a superior authority for the direction of others.
Previously, Catholics have been receiving the Eucharist either by the palm of the hand or by mouth. But under the new decree, the priest will only be allowed to distribute the Holy Eucharist (bread) by mouth. Archbishop Lwanga said the measure is in keeping with the liturgical and canonical norms of the Church Universal under Canon Law 392: 2.
"Henceforth, it is forbidden to distribute or to receive Holy Communion In the hands. Mother Church enjoins US to hold the Most Holy Eucharist in the highest honor (Can. 898). Due to many reported instances of dishonoring the Eucharist that have been associated with reception of the Eucharist in the hands, it is lilting to return to the more reverent method of receiving the Eucharist on the tongue,” the letter reads in part.
(Excerpt) Read more at pmldaily.com ...
Check the context. He was talking about the Pharisees.
It is not necessary for me to attack whatever church you are attending to justify my faith. But it appears that several of you folks here do find it necessary to malign and attack the Catholic Faith as if it were evil in order to justify your singular approach to your faith. That is intolerable.
If your faith rests on scripture alone and faith alone that’s your right. But don’t expect me to agree that scripture is all we need and the Catholic Church is evil.
Charity demands that we love one another. That does not include damning the millions of faithful Catholic Christians.
We have to understand that in the mind of most Catholics who contend against SS they understand it as meaning the believing needs nothing else but the Bible, for it formally and even explicitly provides everything a Christian needs, and that all can correctly understand it without the need for helps and the teaching office of the church and sacraments.
While Scripture formally and explicitly provides the Truth needed for conversion (like in Acts 10:43-47) it does not formally provide eyesight or for someone to baptize you, or perhaps lays hands in ministering the Holy Spirit, (Acts 9:1) or for ensured correct interpretations, or for judgments in controversies, or for what city the Holy Spirit can lead you to go to, but all of which Scripture materially provides for.
In contrast a strawman of SS is what the Westminster confession states and can be understood as teaching, in which Scripture alone is the sure sufficient and supreme standard for the Christians, yet while it does not formally provide all that is needed, yet in its formal and materially senses it provides,
"those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation" whereby "in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient [not necessarily complete] understanding of them."
Note the word "necessary." God has always provided what was necessary for obedience and salvation, from the Garden of Eden onward, even if God would and will give more grace of revelation. And we are judged on what we did with what we have.
And that, "the whole counsel [express Divine revelation, besides the general reveal of creation] of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be [not necessarily will be] deduced [including what means of guidance it provides for] from Scripture."
And since SS teaching does not mean all believers will come to a correct understanding of all such, therefore it also teaches (in further defining sufficiency) that under what Scripture provides for,
It belongs to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his Church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same; which decrees and determinations, if consonant to the Word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission; not only for their agreement with the Word, but also for the power whereby they are made, as being an ordinance of God appointed thereunto in His Word.
And SS Bible Christianity abounds in commentaries, etc
In addition in further defining sufficiency, it states,
while "there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed. (http://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/westminster-confession-faith/)
Furthermore, rather than just "my Bible and me,"
Question 88 of the Westminster Shorter Catechism asks, “What are the outward means whereby Christ communicateth to us the benefits of redemption?” Answer:
The outward and ordinary means whereby Christ communicateth to us the benefits of redemption are his ordinances, especially the Word, sacraments and prayer; all of which are made effectual to the elect for salvation.
Thus SS is not just "my Bible and me," as if the Bible formally provides all that is needed, and that we have no need of helps and others but which it materially provides for.
Note that as with historical Catholic teaching there is some degree of interpretation of the above, and thus there are even SS continuationists (who believe all spiritual gifts can still be in use, including the word of wisdom, etc.) since this falls under the sufficiency of Scripture, without adding to Scripture nor are magisterial judgments which Scripture materially provides for. As it also does the recognition of a canon of Scripture (since a body of which had already been established as authoritative by the time Christ. .
There are also Catholics who hold that Scripture materially provides for all that their church believes. However, the conflict here would not be the sufficiency aspect of Scripture but its supremacy, for while as in the OT (Dt. 17:8-13) and in our civil realm, the magisterial office has supreme earthly authority over the people, yet this simply does not mean of require that they possess ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility of office, which is a novel unScriptural premise.
Meaning that like as the US Constitution is the supreme source on what its authors meant, yet there is a sure supreme authoritative source of Divine Truth, which is the written word of God. Thus even the veracity of the apostles was subject to testing by Scripture, (Acts 17:11) this being the established authoritative standard.
For as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God. As is abundantly evidenced
In which distinctive Catholic teachings are not manifest , in particular Acts through Revelation, which best shows how the NT church understood the gospels
In contrast, papal teaching is that Catholic teaching should be the supreme law, based upon the false premise that God is the author of it, as He is of Scripture. (Providentissimus Deus)
Therefore the real conflict btwn us and Catholics is btwn the very evident supremacy of Scripture, vs. the Catholic church (Roman or Eastern...)
Enough with the self-righteous victim mentality accusations. RCs are by far the most pervasive posters of provocative posts for their elitist "one true church," which does not even consider Protestant churches to be worthy to be properly called "churches," while in the past (which the mot vocal RCs here look to) damning all who would not submit to the pope . And time after time you choose to respond to evangelicals reproof of such by attacking, with your bare hoodlum hit-and-run bare assertion and strawmen, the heart of what they believe. And the refused to answer challenging questions or actually interact with refutation I provided, and instead just parrot the same propaganda again!
And who dare you come up with,
Charity demands that we love one another. That does not include damning the millions of faithful Catholic Christians.
When in reality not only did your church dogmatically damn millions of faithful Christians, and which some RCs here hold to, while you have effectively done the same by plainly asserting “Unless you eat My Body and drink My Blood you will not have life in You,” that one must receive the Catholic Eucharist to obtain spiritual life. Since you continue to refuse to answer the questions this provokes, then we must assume you take it as plainly as you posted it.
And yes, multitudes of souls who believe a false gospel, sadly but justly, are dammed, Catholics and Protestant, besides others.
So many have lost their sense of the sacred, their trembling at the Person and Law of Christ, their awe and fear of the Lord. And, that, friend Luircin, is why we have sodomy.
Only God damns souls. Stop exaggerating.
Daniel, I was quoting Jesus.
That said, you should agree that there are three separate persons in one divine nature, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. We should start with what we can agree on.
That said, Jesus said that He would be with us until the end. And He also said that He would send the Holy Spirit to guide us.
So since Jesus is not the Holy Spirit, He is both God and man then He had to have meant that He would physically be with us.
And how is He with us physically in the Protestant scheme of things? If you say that “Wherever two or more are gathered I Am with you.” The natural question is, where is He if not in the Eucharist?
Richard Moore, you said, “If your faith rests on scripture alone and faith alone that’s your right. But don’t expect me to agree that scripture is all we need.”
PLEASE ALLOW ME TO TRY TO EXPLAIN.
Scripture alone does not mean that scripture is all we need in our walk with God. There are five solas meaning “alone”, and each serves a different purpose in the gospel and our salvation.
(1) Christ Alone - Christ alone is the only name by which we are saved.
(2) Deo Gloria (glory to God alone). There is only one God.
(3) Scripture alone is all we need for training in righteousness. It is the living “word” of God and explains everything
(4) Grace alone - is is only through grace that we are able to receive Christ’s gift, not by any works of ours.
(5) Faith Alone - it is only through faith that we may be justified (made righteous in the sight of God.
Also, no one here has damned Roman Catholics. That is the beauty of Christ’s gift of salvation, Everyone (including Catholics) who believe in Jesus Christ and lay their lives down before him by confessing that we are sinners and can do nothing without Him, receives salvation. It does not require any works of ours. It’s as simple as that. It sounds like you fit these requirements and as a Christian, I rejoice in that. So all that others here are saying is all the other stuff instituted by men not scripture......, robes and trappings, confession booths, physical eating of Christ’s body and drinking of His blood (for that was not meant literally), praying to Mary and the “saints declared so by men” instead of praying directly to God (as He is Our Father who art in heaven) which is how He declared us to pray, purgatory, etc. is not necessarily evil, just unnecessary to salvation. To make those things necessary to salvation is belittling Christ’s sacrifice and death. For that is his gift to us, God’s plan since the fall Of man in the garden of Eden. It was a perfect plan, not requiring any works of ours.
You’re the one posting articles titled don’t call Protestants Christians. Seems OMCET supports this false narrative against what Rome is now saying on this issue.
Justifying more false witness: pathetic.
Well; It appears that Catholics are in that category.
But it IS; until you eat it!
Straining a gnat and swallowing a camel.
Nope. Calling it as I see it.
Please reply to #27 post. It is about the Real Presence.
You have falsely accused me of creating a make-believe religion.
That’s calumny and a personal attack.
Oh get off your high horse and man up.
I can't begin to count how many times you've said I follow Luther.
I say you're OMCET because you seem to disagree with just about everyone....including Roman Catholics.
If you cannot handle these open forums, head on back to your one or two post caucus threads.
Meanwhile, I've called this for you.
What is OMCET?
Am I supposed to know?
Google Blessed Claude Newman and read about a present day miracle involving the Miraculous Medal and The blessed Virgin Mary.
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.