Cheers in the Aula (Vatican synod applauds Protestant minister) [Ecumenical]

WITL ^ | October 10, 2008 | Rocco Palmo

[NYer]

The first intervention applauded at the Synod? Not the one you'd guess....

Reverend Robert Welsh, president of the Council of Christian Unity of Disciples of Christ, a Protestant pastor whose congregation is mainly present in the United States, spoke Thursday of his desire that the synod would be a renewal also for non-Catholics.

The theme of the synod, "The Word of God in the Life and Mission of the Church," he said, "is central to the life of the whole church, calling forth obedience in the church's listening, obedience in our proclamation, and obedience in our responding to the Word of God made flesh for the sake and salvation of the whole world."

According to this fraternal delegate: "Christian unity stands at the heart of the Gospel message; division within the body of Christ is a scandal before God and before the world.

"Our division at the table of the Eucharist stands as a continuing denial of the power of the cross to heal, to reconcile, and to unite all things on earth and all things in heaven."

Welsh acknowledged his hope that "this synod will deepen its reflection on the relation between the Word of God, the Eucharist, and the unity of all Christians within the one body of Christ."

He also noted his desire that "your work and discussion during this synod will explore more fully the relation between the Word of God and the church's mission, especially in relation to the poor and the suffering, the oppressed and the marginalized."

The ecumenical representative promised his prayers so that "this synod of bishops in your reflection on the Word of God will not only bring renewal to the life of the Catholic Church; but also, that this synod will truly serve the whole church in bringing renewal to the ecumenical movement and to all churches in our common calling to mission in the world."

After Welsh, a retired Lutheran bishop, Reverend Gunnar Stalsett of Oslo, addressed the assembly, assuring that "the theme of the synod is truly ecumenical, it impacts all religions and has a message to the world."

He also received a round of applause, the second of the assembly.

[NYer]

This truly is an ecumenical synod.

[Salvation]

**According to this fraternal delegate: “Christian unity stands at the heart of the Gospel message; division within the body of Christ is a scandal before God and before the world.**

Do I sense that the Protestants are wanting to come toward the Catholic views of Holy Scripture here?

Anyone?

[big'ol_freeper]

The Truth of Jesus Christ, present in both Holy Scripture and Sacred Tradition, is indivisible and one in nature. Truth seekers would logically seek out that unity.

[NYer]

Catholics cannot see the scriptures, because the scriptures demolish their entire doctrinal scam.

Ahem ... the Book you worship was compiled by the Catholic Church.

[editor-surveyor]

"This truly is an ecumenical synod."

Ecumen is only of value if it embraces the true light, not darkness.

Disciples of Christ is in no way an example of mainline protestant belief. Many of their congregations are deniers that Christ is the only path to eternal life. I have seen the 'peace' symbol above the altar in their churches. This is the gravest of blasphemy, as the peace symbol is the graphic of the destruction of the Gospel of Jesus Christ; the broken, inverted cross.

[editor-surveyor]

"the Book you worship was compiled by the Catholic Church."

Only fools worship a book, and the received text was shielded from the Roman attack on the word, not compiled by it.

[Salvation]

There is no scam. The two pillars of the Catholic Church are the Eucharist (Scripture) and the Word of God (Scripture). I’m so sorry that you have been inundated with propaganda along the way. Perhaps it is time to look at this article again and see what this retired Lutheran minister said.

[editor-surveyor]

"The Truth of Jesus Christ, present in both Holy Scripture and Sacred Tradition, is indivisible and one in nature."

A sophistry.

90% of tradition is a denial of the word of God. Tradition is self-contradicting if taken as a whole. Tradition is what the adversary would have the word be.

[Salvation]

Here are some FR threads for your researching.

Pope to lead marathon Bible reading on Italian TV
The Complete Bible: Why Catholics Have Seven More Books [Ecumenical]
Beginning Catholic: Books of the Catholic Bible: The Complete Scriptures [Ecumenical]

Beginning Catholic: When Was The Bible Written? [Ecumenical]
The Complete Bible: Why Catholics Have Seven More Books [Ecumenical]
U.S. among most Bible-literate nations: poll
Bible Lovers Not Defined by Denomination, Politics
Dei Verbum (Catholics and the Bible)

Vatican Offers Rich Online Source of Bible Commentary
Clergy Congregation Takes Bible Online
Knowing Mary Through the Bible: Mary's Last Words
A Bible Teaser For You... (for everyone :-)
Knowing Mary Through the Bible: New Wine, New Eve

Return of Devil's Bible to Prague draws crowds
Doctrinal Concordance of the Bible [What Catholics Believe from the Bible] Catholic Caucus
Should We Take the Bible Literally or Figuratively?
Glimpsing Words, Practices, or Beliefs Unique to Catholicism [Bible Trivia]
Catholic and Protestant Bibles: What is the Difference?

Church and the Bible(Caatholic Caucus)
Pope Urges Prayerful Reading of Bible
Catholic Caucus: It's the Church's Bible
How Tradition Gave Us the Bible
The Church or the Bible

[Salvation]

First from Matthew:

Matthew 26:26-28

 

26

^{14 15} While they were eating, Jesus took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and giving it to his disciples said, "Take and eat; this is my body."

27

Then he took a cup, gave thanks, ¹⁶ and gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you,

28

for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins.

 

And the appropriate footnotes:

 

¹⁴ [26] See the note on Mark 14:22-24. The Marcan-Matthean is one of the two major New Testament traditions of the words of Jesus when instituting the Eucharist. The other (and earlier) is the Pauline-Lucan (1 Cor 11:23-25; Luke 22:19-20). Each shows the influence of Christian liturgical usage, but the Marcan-Matthean is more developed in that regard than the Pauline-Lucan. The words over the bread and cup succeed each other without the intervening meal mentioned in 1 Cor 11:25; Luke 22:20; and there is parallelism between the consecratory words (this is my body . . . this is my blood). Matthew follows Mark closely but with some changes.

¹⁵ [26] See the note on Matthew 14:19. Said the blessing: a prayer blessing God. Take and eat: literally, Take, eat. Eat is an addition to Mark's "take it" (literally, "take"; Mark 14:22). This is my body: the bread is identified with Jesus himself. Matthew 26:26-29

¹⁶ [27-28] Gave thanks: see the note on Matthew 15:36. Gave it to them . . . all of you: cf Mark 14:23-24. In the Marcan sequence the disciples drink and then Jesus says the interpretative words. Matthew has changed this into a command to drink followed by those words. My blood: see Lev 17:11 for the concept that the blood is "the seat of life" and that when placed on the altar it "makes atonement." Which will be shed: the present participle, "being shed" or "going to be shed," is future in relation to the Last Supper. On behalf of: Greek peri; see the note on Mark 14:24. Many: see the note on Matthew 20:28. For the forgiveness of sins: a Matthean addition. The same phrase occurs in Mark 1:4 in connection with John's baptism but Matthew avoids it there (Matthew 3:11). He places it here probably because he wishes to emphasize that it is the sacrificial death of Jesus that brings forgiveness of sins.

[big'ol_freeper]

Guidelines on Ecumenical threads from the Religion Moderator:

Ecumenic threads are closed to antagonism.

To antagonize is to incur or to provoke hostility in others.

Unlike the “caucus” threads, the article and reply posts of an “ecumenic” thread can discuss more than one belief, but antagonism is not tolerable.

More leeway is granted to what is acceptable in the text of the article than to the reply posts. For example, the term “gross error” in an article will not prevent an ecumenical discussion, but a poster should not use that term in his reply because it is antagonistic. As another example, the article might be a passage from the Bible which would be antagonistic to Jews. The passage should be considered historical fact and a legitimate subject for an ecumenic discussion. The reply posts however must not be antagonistic.

Contrasting of beliefs or even criticisms can be made without provoking hostilities. But when in doubt, only post what you are “for” and not what you are “against.” Or ask questions.

Ecumenical threads will be moderated on a “where there’s smoke, there’s fire” basis. When hostility has broken out on an “ecumenic” thread, I’ll be looking for the source.

Therefore “anti” posters must not try to finesse the guidelines by asking loaded questions, using inflammatory taglines, gratuitous quote mining or trying to slip in an “anti” or “ex” article under the color of the “ecumenic” tag.

Posters who try to tear down other’s beliefs or use subterfuge to accomplish the same goal are the disrupters on ecumenic threads and will be booted from the thread and/or suspended.

[Salvation]

Matthew is above. Then I will post from Mark Luke and 1 Corrinthians. Four times in the Bible should be irrefutable in my way of thinking.

[Salvation]

Now for Mark:

Mark 14:22-25

 

22

⁷ While they were eating, he took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, and said, "Take it; this is my body."

23

Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, and they all drank from it.

24

He said to them, "This is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed ⁸ for many.

25

Amen, I say to you, I shall not drink again the fruit of the vine until the day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God."

 

And the accompanying footnotes:

⁷ [22-24] The actions and words of Jesus express within the framework of the Passover meal and the transition to a new covenant the sacrifice of himself through the offering of his body and blood in anticipation of his passion and death. His blood of the covenant both alludes to the ancient rite of Exodus 24:4-8 and indicates the new community that the sacrifice of Jesus will bring into being (Matthew 26:26-28; Luke 22:19-20; 1 Cor 11:23-25).

⁸ [24] Which will be shed: see the note on Matthew 26:27-28. For many: the Greek preposition hyper is a different one from that at Matthew 26:28 but the same as that found at Luke 22:19, 20 and 1 Cor 11:24. The sense of both words is vicarious, and it is difficult in Hellenistic Greek to distinguish between them. For many in the sense of "all," see the note on Matthew 20:28.

[Salvation]

Luke 22:19-20

 

19

⁷ Then he took the bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body, which will be given for you; do this in memory of me."

20

And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which will be shed for you.

 

And the footnote (Highlighting is mine.)

 

⁷ [19c-20] Which will be given . . . do this in memory of me: these words are omitted in some important Western text manuscripts and a few Syriac manuscripts. Other ancient text types, including the oldest papyrus manuscript of Luke dating from the late second or early third century, contain the longer reading presented here. The Lucan account of the words of institution of the Eucharist bears a close resemblance to the words of institution in the Pauline tradition (see 1 Cor 11:23-26). See also the notes on Matthew 26:26-29; 26:27-28; and Mark 14:22-24.

[Salvation]

From the First Letter of St. Paul to the Corrinthians:

1 Corrinthians 11:23-29

 

23

¹¹ For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread,

24

and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, "This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me."

25

In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me."

26

For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes.

27

Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. ¹²

28

A person should examine himself, ¹³ and so eat the bread and drink the cup.

29

For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment ¹⁴ on himself.

 

Foortnotes: (Highlighting mine)

 

¹¹ [23-25] This is the earliest written account of the institution of the Lord's Supper in the New Testament. The narrative emphasizes Jesus' action of self-giving (expressed in the words over the bread and the cup) and his double command to repeat his own action.

¹² [27] It follows that the only proper way to celebrate the Eucharist is one that corresponds to Jesus' intention, which fits with the meaning of his command to reproduce his action in the proper spirit. If the Corinthians eat and drink unworthily, i.e., without having grasped and internalized the meaning of his death for them, they will have to answer for the body and blood, i.e., will be guilty of a sin against the Lord himself (cf 1 Cor 8:12).

¹³ [28] Examine himself: the Greek word is similar to that for "approved" in 1 Cor 11:19, which means "having been tested and found true." The self-testing required for proper eating involves discerning the body (1 Cor 11:29), which, from the context, must mean understanding the sense of Jesus' death (1 Cor 11:26), perceiving the imperative to unity that follows from the fact that Jesus gives himself to all and requires us to repeat his sacrifice in the same spirit (1 Cor 11:18-25).

 

[Salvation]

Therefore we have it from Matthew, Mark, Luke, and St. Paul’s First Letter to the Corrinthians that Christ established the Eucharist — this is totally scriptural.

Four sources from the Bible.

And when the argument pursues in John, John says something like — (Paraphrasing) Many left that day because it was too hard to believe [to eat His Body and drink His Blood.]

[Religion Moderator]

This Religion Forum thread is tagged “ecumenical” - that means that no antagonism is allowed. Either post your opinions to an “open” thread or rephrase them so that they are not antagonistic.

[Salvation]

Guidelines for Ecumenical threads

[Salvation]

Very interesting from the article.

**According to this fraternal delegate: “Christian unity stands at the heart of the Gospel message; division within the body of Christ is a scandal before God and before the world.

“Our division at the table of the Eucharist stands as a continuing denial of the power of the cross to heal, to reconcile, and to unite all things on earth and all things in heaven.”**

Please, Lord, we pray that you might unite us in love and trust and faith in your healing.

[editor-surveyor]

I was replying to a post made directly to me, in response to specific and highly offensive statements in that post. What would be you way of responding to it?

[Religion Moderator]

If I could not muster a non-antagonistic response, I would simply say so and invite the other guy to an “open” thread in the Religion Forum to discuss it further.