Theologian: Shared Communion With Protestants Would be Blasphemy and Sacrilege

National Catholic Register ^ | January 2, 2017 | Edward Pentin

[BlessedBeGod]

...If the Church were to change its rules on shared Eucharistic Communion it would “go against Revelation and the Magisterium”, leading Christians to “commit blasphemy and sacrilege,” an Italian theologian has warned.

Drawing on the Church’s teaching based on Sacred Scripture and Tradition, Msgr. Nicola Bux, a former consulter to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, stressed that non-Catholic Christians must have undertaken baptism and confirmation in the Catholic Church, and repented of grave sin through sacramental confession, in order to be able to receive Jesus in the Eucharist.

Msgr. Bux was responding to the Register about concerns that elements of the current pontificate might be sympathetic of a form of “open Communion” proposed by the German Protestant theologian, Jürgen Moltmann.

The concerns have arisen primarily due to the Holy Father’s own comments on Holy Communion and Lutherans, his apparent support for some remarried divorcees to receive Holy Communion, and how others have used his frequently repeated maxim about the Eucharist: that it is “not a prize for the perfect, but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak.”

The debate specifically over intercommunion with Christian denominations follows recent remarks by Cardinal Walter Kasper who, in a Dec. 10 interview with Avvenire, said he hopes Pope Francis’ next declaration will open the way for intercommunion with other denominations “in special cases.”

The German theologian said shared Eucharistic communion is just a matter of time, and that the Pope’s recent participation in the Reformation commemoration in Lund has given “a new thrust” to the “ecumenical process.”

Pope Francis has often expressed his admiration for Cardinal Kasper’s theology whose thinking has significantly influenced…the priorities of this pontificate, particularly on the Eucharist.

For Moltmann, Holy Communion is “the Lord's supper, not something organized by a church or a denomination”...

[daniel1212]

30 *Many other signs also did Jesus in the sight of his disciples, which are not written in this book.

That is no more a valid argument for your unScriptural errors then it is for the Mormons for theirs, and in both cases the veracity of their respective claims rests upon the the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual ecclesiastical veracity.

Where “in Scripture” is found the chapter and verse that informs you that only “in Scripture” will be found all the many other signs also that did Jesus in the sight of his disciples, “which are not written in this book”?!

Nowhere, and which is another fallacious argument, for Scripture being the only supreme and sufficient standard as the only wholly inspired substantive body of Divine Truth does not and need not claim to know everything that can be known, nor does Catholic tradition claim this. But that Scripture provides, in its material and formal aspects, what is necessary for salvation and obedience to God and growth in grace is evident in the light of evidence.

First, the fact is that even in the Garden of Eden, and before the giving of the Law, then the limited revelation (to a limited amount of people) that God provided was necessary for salvation and obedience to God, but as God gives more grace, so was the case after that.

For when God chose to corporately reveal His will to a entire people then He provided the Law, and which was preserved in writing, this being God's chosen means of preservation. (Exodus 17:14;34:27; Deuteronomy 10:4; 27:3; 31:24; Isaiah 30:8; cf. Job 19:23;John 20:31;Revelation 20:12,15 ) And as is abundantly evidenced, 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.

Go read Ps. 119, and find anything like that for tradition. It was not the Truth of God being passed on by oral tradition that preserved the faith and brought national repentance, but was finding the book of the Law and hearing it. (2Kg. 22,23) Sounds like the supreme and sufficient standard to me for God's purposes, even as regards the Law.

And which the Lord rebuked the devil and leaders by, and established His claims by, and opened the minds of the disciple to, (Mt. 4,22,; Lk. 24:44,45) and which oral preaching was subject to testing by, (Acts 17:11)

To which body additional, complementary writings were added, in conflation with what was already established, which, as with men of God, was discerned as being of God by the people, essentially die to their unique Divine qualities and attestation.

At every stage God provided what was necessary, though He can give more grace, resulting in more blessing as well as accountability.

And i should add here the Scripture alone being the supreme wholly inspired standard for faith and obedience does not wholly consist in formal teaching, like reading Acts 10:36-43 and being able to be born again, but sufficiency also pertains to what Scripture materially provides for, from reason and discernment, to the magisterial office of the church.

The problem is, both the devil and the flesh try to imitate the word of God, and this the question, how is one to ascertain what it is of God? The Catholic response is that only the historical magisterial stewards of Divine revelation can provide this, and dissent from which being rebellion against God.

However, in the 1st. century a prophet began preaching in the desert, followed by another itinerant, non-ordained Preacher, both of whom were rejected by those who sat in the seat of Moses, who, like Caths do, challenged the authority of Him. His response was to demand an answer as to where the first preacher obtained his authority to baptize. The lied and would not say it was of men, not God (or else have to repent) for they feared the people who discerned that this man was a prophet indeed, even though the historical magisterial office rejected him. (Mk. 11:27-33)

Applying all this to our situation today, a evangelical preacher can enjoined obedience to the oral preaching of the word of God, but which presupposed that it is according to Scripture, and its veracity is conditional upon that. But he does not claim to provide new public revelation or to speak as wholly inspired of God, as apostles could.

In contrast, we have Rome which presumed to claim that whenever she speaks infallibility then it is the assured word of God, to which implicit obedience of faith is mandated, as if it were Scripture, even though Divine inspiration as with Scripture is not claimed.

And since Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, then this renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares. Infallible circularity.

Rome can make belief a binding requirement even in an extraScriptural event which lacks even early historical testimony. , and was opposed by RC scholars themselves as being apostolic tradition. And the veracity of which is based upon the novel premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility.

However, this is not Scriptural, and is contrary to how the church began, and to how God preserved Truth and faith. Thus the church began upon the secondary foundation of rebels - apostles and prophets - against those who presumed too much of themselves,

[daniel1212]

Did Judas divide the church or did he leave it?

Another desperate false analogy. Judas had a perverse view of the Messiah, versus the authoritative writings Christ and the NT church invoked, but betrayed the Word and committed suicide.

Similarly, Rome has a perverse view of the NT church, contrary to the authoritative writings Christ and the NT church invoked, and thus tragically commits spiritual suicide in large numbers.

The faithful Catholic doesn’t divide the church. The apostates who LOOK like the church have left the church. Don’t be fooled by their costumes

Which is what the V2 RCs say against you, both of which are based on their respective basis for determining what the Catholic church is, and which both belonging to a church that in its distinctives is not that of the NT church of Scripture.

They left the church just as Mr. Luther and his throngs did.

Which is what i have seen your types charged with, as being Protestants in essence,and indeed this is a valid charge, since, akin to true Prots, you presume to ascertain the validity of church teaching based upon your judgment of what your respective historical writings teach, and thus, shown , you do not obey papal teaching to submit as docile sheep to the living pope, for like like Prots, you have no living magisterial pope.

The difference is, you look to perverted traditions as supreme, versus the only wholly inspired substantive body of Truth.

Why do you think “Francis” is leading a celebration of Mr. Luther’s rebellion?

And the devil quoted Scripture in seeking to achieve his devious ends, because it makes one sound valid, but which does not mean the devil and Scripture are alike. Luther is not Scripture, but Francis is a liberal living a ecumenical fantasy who Luther would (and did) deplore, but it gains Francis an audience, as if the Reformation was all just one big misunderstanding.

The pseudo-Catholics did it more cleverly than Mr. Luther, though, because his followers didn’t make-off with nearly all the outer garments and the buildings and the pew sitters.

Its really a sad state for a Catholic, since the Catholic claim to validity past and present is that of an unbroken continuous visible succession and universal worldwide faith under a living pope, and thus the haste to elect a new one after one dies.

In contrast, your (I presume) SSPV clan, broke from the traditionalist SSPX (Society of St. Pius X) and calls them heretical, as well as the V2 church, which considers you all schismatic. You only can claim a dead pope, while your split led to other splits, and it seems the SSPV churches are restricted to just about a dozen states in the US.

The blessed mother sewed Jesus a SEAMLESS garment.

More mere tradition. At least that is not an article of faith yet.

[daniel1212]

You wouldn’t want to try to divide the church by rejecting these writers throughout the centuries, would you?

The very fact that you must appeals to uninspired, extraScriptural, post-apostolic men, however pious, who progressively incorporated truth with error and unScriptural traditions of men indicts you as esteeming them above what the Holy Spirit inspired.

And indeed division is in order, as the true church began due to division, btwn those who followed men who established their Truth claims upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, and those who imagine historical lineage equated to veracity.

Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. (Luke 12:51-53)

And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures, Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ. And some of them believed, and consorted with Paul and Silas; and of the devout Greeks a great multitude, and of the chief women not a few. But the Jews which believed not, moved with envy, took unto them certain lewd fellows of the baser sort, and gathered a company, and set all the city on an uproar, and assaulted the house of Jason, and sought to bring them out to the people. (Acts 17:2-5)

“Teach nothing new, but implant in the hearts of everyone those things which the fathers of venerable memory taught with a uniform preaching ... Whence, we preach nothing except what we have received from our forefathers.

Which makes him a liar if "forefathers" refers to those of Scripture, and otherwise the claim to tradition (which both EOs and Catholics claim for their differences) simply does not translate into all such teachings being Scriptural, and why it does is indict the pope as a child of errors, as did the anti-Christ Jewish leaders by their claim:

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous, And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets. Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets. Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell? (Matthew 23:29-33)

“’One faith,’ St. Paul writes (Eph. 4:5). Hold most firmly that our faith is identical with that of the ancients. Deny this, and you dissolve the unity of the Church .

Which it is clearly far from identical, and in fact the distinctives of Rome are not even seen in the teachings and life of the NT church. Thus you have indeed dissolved unity with the NT Church, and your church is manifestly not one with it.

The One body (Eph. 4:4) is the body of Christ, as it alone only always consists 100% of believers. while the visible church inevitably becomes an admixture of wheat and tares. Those who believe in the One faith, the evangelical gospel Peter preached, (Acts 10;43,47; 15;7-10) in the One Lord who died for them and rose again, are baptized by the One Spirit into that one body, (1Co. 12:13; Eph. 1:13) and who thus have the One God and Father of all, which is their essential unity. (Eph. 4:4-6) To God be the glory.

“I accept with sincere belief the doctrine of faith as handed down to us from the Apostles

But .. idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death. (Revelation 21:8)

by the orthodox Fathers, always in the same sense and with the same interpretation.” – Pope St. Pius X

..ye have eaten the fruit of lies: because thou didst trust in thy way, in the multitude of thy mighty men. (Hosea 10:13)

“The true friends of the people are neither revolutionaries nor innovators, but men of tradition.” – Pope St. Pius X

Which was basically the specious premise behind the rejection of a 1st century Itinerant Preacher and His disciples.

Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands? (Mark 7:5)

He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. (Matthew 19:8)

The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God. (John 19:7)

And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses. (Acts 13:39)

Crying out, Men of Israel, help: This is the man, that teacheth all men every where against the people, and the law, and this place: and further brought Greeks also into the temple, and hath polluted this holy place. (Acts 21:28)

For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature. (Galatians 6:15)

“The Church of Christ, zealous and cautious guardian of the dogmas deposited with it, never changes any phase of them....– St. Vincent de Lerins: Commonitoria (5th Century)

Who is famous for his specious reference to RC faith as the "faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all, and thus Newman was forced to admit,

It does not seem possible, then, to avoid the conclusion that, whatever be the proper key for harmonizing the records and documents of the early and later Church, and true as the dictum of Vincentius [what the Church taught was believed always by everyone], must be considered in the abstract, and possible as its application might be in his own age, when he might almost ask the primitive centuries for their testimony, it is hardly available now, or effective of any satisfactory result. The solution it offers is as difficult as the original problem. — John Henry Newman, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine (New York: Longmans, Green and Co., reprinted 1927), p. 27.

For in contrast to even RC papal propaganda, even Caths researchers, among others provide testimony against such, including Newman in explaining how the Peter of Scripture, the non-assertive, street-level initial leader among the 11, for whom no successors are promised, and to whom the NT church did not look to as the first of a line of exalted infallible heads reigning supreme in Rome, much less by RC voting, was become the Roman pope:

While Apostles were on earth, there was the display neither of Bishop nor Pope; their power had no prominence, as being exercised by Apostles. In course of time, first the power of the Bishop displayed itself, and then the power of the Pope. . . . St. Peter’s prerogative would remain a mere letter, till the complication of ecclesiastical matters became the cause of ascertaining it. . . . When the Church, then, was thrown upon her own resources, first local disturbances gave exercise to Bishops, and next ecumenical disturbances gave exercise to Popes; and whether communion with the Pope was necessary for Catholicity would not and could not be debated till a suspension of that communion had actually occurred… (John Henry Newman, Essay on the Development of Doctrine, Notre Dame edition, pp. 165-67).

Avery Dulles considers the development of the Papacy to be an historical accident:

“The strong centralization in modern Catholicism is due to historical accident. It has been shaped in part by the homogeneous culture of medieval Europe and by the dominance of Rome, with its rich heritage of classical culture and legal organization” (Models of the Church by Avery Dulles, p. 200)

Klaus Schatz [Jesuit Father theologian, professor of church history at the St. George’s Philosophical and Theological School in Frankfurt] in his work, “Papal Primacy ,” pp. 1-4, finds:

“New Testament scholars agree..., The further question whether there was any notion of an enduring office beyond Peter’s lifetime, if posed in purely historical terms, should probably be answered in the negative.

That is, if we ask whether the historical Jesus, in commissioning Peter, expected him to have successors, or whether the authority of the Gospel of Matthew, writing after Peter’s death, was aware that Peter and his commission survived in the leaders of the Roman community who succeeded him, the answer in both cases is probably 'no.”

If one had asked a Christian in the year 100, 200, or even 300 whether the bishop of Rome was the head of all Christians, or whether there was a supreme bishop over all the other bishops and having the last word in questions affecting the whole Church, he or she would certainly have said no." (page 3, top)

Catholic theologian and a Jesuit priest Francis Sullivan, in his work From Apostles to Bishops (New York: The Newman Press), examines possible mentions of “succession” from the first three centuries, and concludes from that study that,

“the episcopate [development of bishops] is a the fruit of a post New Testament development,” “...the evidence both from the New Testament and from such writings as I Clement, the Letter of Polycarp to the Philippians and The Shepherd of Hennas favors the view that initially the presbyters in each church, as a college, possessed all the powers needed for effective ministry. This would mean that the apostles handed on what was transmissible of their mandate as an undifferentiated whole, in which the powers that would eventually be seen as episcopal were not yet distinguished from the rest. Hence, the development of the episcopate would have meant the differentiation of ministerial powers that had previously existed in an undifferentiated state and the consequent reservation to the bishop of certain of the powers previously held collegially by the presbyters. — Francis Sullivan, in his work From Apostles to Bishops , pp. 221,222,224

Paul Johnson, educated at the Jesuit independent school Stonyhurst College, and at Magdalen College, Oxford, author of over 40 books and a conservative historian, finds,

The Church was now a great and numerous force in the empire, attracting men of wealth and high education, inevitably, then, there occurred a change of emphasis from purely practical development in response to need, to the deliberate thinking out of policy. This expressed itself in two ways: the attempt to turn Christianity into a philosophical and political system, and the development of controlling devices to prevent this intellectualization of the faith from destroying it....

Cyprian [c. 200 – September 14, 258] came from a wealthy family with a tradition of public service to the empire; within two years of his conversion he was made a bishop. He had to face the practical problems of persecution, survival and defence against attack. His solution was to gather together the developing threads of ecclesiastical order and authority and weave them into a tight system of absolute control...the confession of faith, even the Bible itself lost their meaning if used outside the Church...

With Bishop Cyprian, the analogy with secular government came to seem very close. But of course it lacked one element: the ‘emperor figure’ or supreme priest... [Peter, according to Cyprian, was] the beneficiary of the famous ‘rock and keys’ text in Matthew. There is no evidence that Rome exploited this text to assert its primacy before about 250 - and then...Paul was eliminated from any connection with the Rome episcopate and the office was firmly attached to Peter alone... ...There was in consequence a loss of spirituality or, as Paul would have put it, of freedom... -(A History of Christianity, by Paul Johnson, pp. 51 -61,63. transcribed using OCR software)

Eamon Duffy (Former president of Magdalene College and member of Pontifical Historical Commission, and current Professor of the History of Christianity at the University of Cambridge) and provides more on the Roman church becoming more like the empire in which it was found as a result of state adoption of (an already deformed) Christianity:

The conversion of Constantine had propelled the Bishops of Rome into the heart of the Roman establishment...They [bishops of Rome] set about [creating a Christian Rome] by building churches, converting the modest tituli (community church centres) into something grander, and creating new and more public foundations, though to begin with nothing that rivaled the great basilicas at the Lateran and St. Peter’s...

These churches were a mark of the upbeat confidence of post-Constantinian Christianity in Rome. The popes were potentates, and began to behave like it. Damasus perfectly embodied this growing grandeur. An urbane career cleric like his predecessor Liberius, at home in the wealthy salons of the city, he was also a ruthless power-broker, and he did not he did not hesitate to mobilize both the city police and [a hired mob of gravediggers with pickaxes] to back up his rule…

Self-consciously, the popes began to model their actions and their style as Christian leaders on the procedures of the Roman state. — Eamon Duffy “Saints and Sinners”, p. 37,38

For the so-called successor to Peter, as Damasus 1 (366-384) began his reign by employing a gang of thugs in securing his chair, which carried out a three-day massacre of his rivals supporters. Yet true to form, Rome made him a "saint.
Damasus is much responsible for the further unscriptural development of the Roman primacy, frequently referring to Rome as ''the apostolic see'' and enjoying a His magnificent lifestyle and the favor of court and aristocracy, and leading to Theodosius 1 (379-95) declaring (February 27, 380) Christianity the state religion.

Moreover,

The Bishop of Rome assumed [circa sixth century] the position of Ponlifex Maximus, priest and temporal ruler in one, and the workings of this so-called spiritual kingdom, with bishops as senators, and priests as leaders of the army, followed on much the same lines as the empire. The analogy was more complete when monasteries were founded and provinces were won and governed by the Church. - Welbore St. Clair Baddeley, Lina Duff Gordon, “Rome and its story” p. 176

Eastern Orthodox scholarship (while maintaining her shared accretion of errors of "tradition" as the "one true church") also adds voice to this,

Roman Catholicism, unable to show a continuity of faith and in order to justify new doctrine, erected in the last century, a theory of "doctrinal development. Following the philosophical spirit of the time (and the lead of Cardinal Henry Newman)... "

All the stages are useful, all are resources; and the theologian may appeal to the Fathers, for example, but they may also be contradicted by something else, something higher or newer. On this basis, theories such as the dogmas of "papal infallibility" and "the immaculate conception" of the Virgin Mary (about which we will say more) are justifiably presented to the Faithful as necessary to their salvation. - http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/ortho_cath.html
Other unscriptural developments included religious syncretism, as Newman confessed:

"In the course of the fourth century two movements or developments spread over the face of Christendom, with a rapidity characteristic of the Church; the one ascetic, the other ritual or ceremonial. We are told in various ways by Eusebius [Note 16], that Constantine, in order to recommend the new religion to the heathen, transferred into it the outward ornaments to which they had been accustomed in their own. It is not necessary to go into a subject which the diligence of Protestant writers has made familiar to most of us."

"The use of temples, and these dedicated to particular saints, and ornamented on occasions with branches of trees; incense, lamps, and candles; votive offerings on recovery from illness; holy water; asylums; holydays and seasons, use of calendars, processions, blessings on the fields; sacerdotal vestments, the tonsure, the ring in marriage, turning to the East, images at a later date, perhaps the ecclesiastical chant, and the Kyrie Eleison, are all of pagan origin, and sanctified by their adoption into the Church." (John Henry Newman, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, Chapter 8. Application of the Third Note of a True Development—Assimilative Power)

Falsified history of the Roman church was also instrumental in the development of her unScriptural papacy and power. RC historian Johann Joseph Ignaz von Döllinger:

In the middle of the ninth century—about 845—there arose the huge fabrication of the Isidorian decretals...About a hundred pretended decrees of the earliest Popes, together with certain spurious writings of other Church dignitaries and acts of Synods, were then fabricated in the west of Gaul, and eagerly seized upon Pope Nicholas I at Rome, to be used as genuine documents in support of the new claims put forward by himself and his successors.

That the pseudo–Isidorian principles eventually revolutionized the whole constitution of the Church, and introduced a new system in place of the old—on that point there can be no controversy among candid historians. - — Johann Joseph Ignaz von Döllinger, The Pope and the Council (Boston: Roberts, 1870) Then you have the unScriptural Development of the distinctive Catholic priesthood More by the grace of God.

And thus you have the recourse of no less than Manning:

It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine....I may say in strict truth that the Church has no antiquity. It rests upon its own supernatural and perpetual consciousness. Its past is present with it, for both are one to a mind which is immutable. Primitive and modern are predicates, not of truth, but of ourselves....The only Divine evidence to us of what was primitive is the witness and voice of the Church at this hour. — "Most Rev." Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, Lord Archbishop of Westminster, “The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation,” (New York: J.P. Kenedy & Sons, originally written 1865, reprinted with no date), pp. 227-228; ttp://www.archive.org/stream/a592004400mannuoft/a592004400mannuoft_djvu.txt.

[MHGinTN]

Um, Judas was absent when the Ekklesia destiny was established as the Bride, AFTER the Passover had been celebrated and before the crucifixion. Judas was not present when Jesus took bread and wine and established the betrothal.

[redleghunter]

>> If you cared to examine the context of such statements provided by specious quote miners, then see here for a great list of them, and or search like this for your quote<<

What’s to be expected from the Twitter generation?

Isolating a quote or two from a polemic as if it was a Tweet, is typical of the post modern era.

Well done BTW on this thread. Very informative.

[Repent and Believe]

The devil in his pride thought to triumph by independent thought. He tried to reason apart from God’s authority and fell into his own trap.

In his rage he fell to earth and wished to destroy God’s prized possession, His creatures made in His own image.

So what devices does the devil use to ensnare us? One key device is independence from one another, and his most successful innovation along those lines is causing religious persons to trust not another and be not mentored or under any others’ authority, and the chief-est accomplishment along those lines is the protestant mind.

That in contrast to the interdependence found in the one true Catholic faith, as we have argued continuously here, is the trust in the authority God established and maintains in our very midst today.

Is God unable to continue in our very midst His presence in the consecrated bread and wine?

Is God unable to maintain His authority as was held be the apostles personally toward others on earth today as He did then?

Perhaps deep inside you doubt God is powerful enough to do so.

The passages from 2 PETER - Chapter 1 follow with Haydock commentary (commentary authorized by the Church of today but not authorized by d1212) to illustrate this disparity:

Ver. 20. No prophecy of the scripture is made by private interpretation; or, as the Protestants translate it from the Greek, is of any private interpretation, i.e. is not to be expounded by any one’s private judgment or private spirit. (Witham) -— The Scriptures cannot be properly expounded by private spirit or fancy, but by the same spirit wherewith they were written, which is resident in the Church.

Ver. 21. For prophecy came not by the will of man at any time. This is to shew that they are not to be expounded by any one’s private judgment, because every part of the holy Scriptures is delivered to us by the divine spirit of God, wherewith the men were inspired who wrote them; therefore they are not to be interpreted but by the spirit of God, which he left, and promised to his Church to guide her in all truth to the end of the world. Our adversaries may perhaps tell us, that we also interpret prophecies and Scriptures; we do so; but we do it always with a submission to the judgment of the Church, they without it. (Witham)

[MHGinTN]

You are mistaken in so many ways ... but you’re proud of it!

[boatbums]

I’ve been thinking the same thing! Some imagine they can make their arguments based upon “sound bites” and then mock and criticize when their adversary cares enough to make a studied and well documented reply. That’s why I think there are those who view these forum threads as nothing more than arguments by assertion and who walk away thinking themselves victors when all they have done is “preach to the choir” while ignoring the genuinely curious seekers. I applaud Daniel1212 and others who show the lurkers respect and who sincerely care that the truth is presented no matter how much antagonism they face. Y’all are in my prayers often. Don’t be discouraged.

[daniel1212]

The devil in his pride thought to triumph by independent thought.

Which response adds to your continual run of sophistry. It is you who are independent from the larger body of Catholicism, and are like a tiny cult based upon your independent group's interpretation of what valid church teaching is! And which presumption is contrary to a multitude of papal teachings that was showed you.

So what devices does the devil use to ensnare us? One key device is independence from one another, and his most successful innovation along those lines is causing religious persons to trust not another and be not mentored or under any others’ authority, and the chief-est accomplishment along those lines is the protestant mind. That in contrast to the interdependence found in the one true Catholic faith, as we have argued continuously here, is the trust in the authority God established and maintains in our very midst today.

What bombast! Here you speak of Prots trusting not another and not being mentored or under any others’ authority, while your tiny cult rejects the pope of Rome, having begun with four priests expelled from the SSPX sect. Meanwhile, evangelicals are the most unified major religious group in basic beliefs, and typically esteem their pastors, and have produced famous commentaries.

That in contrast to the interdependence found in the one true Catholic faith

Interdependence? Mormons show more, while you reject the larger body of Catholicism and your independent interdependence is only btwn a very few churches.

Is God unable to continue in our very midst His presence in the consecrated bread and wine?

It is time you learned how to read. Deal with what has been provided you time and again.

The passages from 2 PETER - Chapter 1 follow with Haydock commentary (commentary authorized by the Church of today but not authorized by d1212) to illustrate this disparity: Ver. 20. No prophecy of the scripture is made by private interpretation; or, as the Protestants translate it from the Greek, is of any private interpretation, i.e. is not to be expounded by any one’s private judgment or private spirit. (Witham) -— The Scriptures cannot be properly expounded by private spirit or fancy, but by the same spirit wherewith they were written, which is resident in the Church.

Which wresting of Scripture actually condemns Haydock and you, for this text is not even speaking of interpreting Scripture, but contextually refers to how prophecies were given, as men were moved by the Holy Ghost, and does not refer to understanding them as private persons, which souls whom the Spirit calls "noble" did, subjecting the preaching of the very apostles to testing by Scripture! (Acts 17:11)

And as said, rather than necessarily having to rely on the historical magisterium to know what is of God, it was because common people correctly discerned what was of God that the church began.

But while the use of reason is involved in understanding Scripture, prophecy in particular is not a product of formulation, but as Peter also said,

Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow. (1 Peter 1:10-11)

[daniel1212]

I’ve been thinking the same thing! Some imagine they can make their arguments based upon “sound bites” and then mock and criticize when their adversary cares enough to make a studied and well documented reply.

Now who could that refer to?

[daniel1212]

Its time you and your cohorts actually answer some questions.

Since you Repent and Believe (and i presume ebb tide) believe such things as:

even people who call themselves Catholic these days really aren’t.

That is because 50 years ago a council was held where apostates left the Catholic faith as they created new dogmas that are at odds with the faith of Jesus Christ,

Those 50 years ago they broke with a number of the unchanging dogmas

It is thus and then that the Whore of Babylon, I suppose, was born,

the 1983 Code of Canon Law is not a Catholic document.
That is because it was authored by heretics and apostates, not the true Catholic Church

The Church has held but one Vatican Council so far.
In fact we haven’t had a true pope since A.D. 1958.

Then as one who professes to uphold historical RC teaching, do you you honestly yearn to see a Catholic monarchy rule this nation, and the medieval temporal powers of Catholic church and the Inquisition regained?

Would you affirm:

Pope Leo X: That it is against the will of the Spirit to burn heretics at the stake is condemned as false. (Pope Leo X, “Exsurge Domino,” 1520)

Canons of the Ecumenical Fourth Lateran Council, 1215:

..Secular authorities, whatever office they may hold, shall be admonished and induced and if necessary compelled by ecclesiastical censure,...for the defense of the faith they ought publicly to take an oath that they will strive in good faith and to the best of their ability to exterminate in the territories subject to their jurisdiction all heretics pointed out by the Church..

But if a temporal ruler, after having been requested and admonished by the Church, should neglect to cleanse his territory of this heretical foulness, let him be excommunicated..declare the ruler’s vassals absolved from their allegiance and may offer the territory to be ruled lay Catholics, who on the extermination of the heretics may possess it without hindrance..

The same law is to be observed in regard to those who have no chief rulers (that is, are independent). Catholics who have girded themselves with the cross for the extermination of the heretics, shall enjoy the indulgences and privileges granted to those who go in defense of the Holy Land. (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/lateran4.asp)

Pope Innocent IV, Ad extirpanda: The head of state or ruler must force all the heretics whom he has in custody... to confess their errors and accuse other heretics whom they know,

Pope Pius IX, Error condemned: In this age of ours, it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion be the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other cults whatsoever.

Pope Alexander: 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”, Lib. V, c. ii:

Pope Innocent III: The crucifiers of Christ ought to be held in continual subjection. (Pope Innocent III, “Epistle to the Hierarchy of France,” July 15, 1205)

If you do not affirm any of these explain what you want instead.

[daniel1212]

Isolating a quote or two from a polemic as if it was a Tweet, is typical of the post modern era.

Or otherwise avoiding what refutes them.

[Mark17]

I’ve been thinking the same thing! Some imagine they can make their arguments based upon “sound bites” and then mock and criticize when their adversary cares enough to make a studied and well documented reply.

Now who could that refer to?

I can't begin to imagine bro, but I DO have my opinion about that. 😀😆😄

[mrobisr]

“Really ? Are you quite certain ? “Everyone else” would include the man Jesus. Do you allow that exception and confess him fully human and tempted like “everyone else,” yet without sin ?”

You know full well I don’t mean Jesus, but since you can’t refute Mary’s sinful nature with the Word of God then you try to play word tricks. See I don’t have to play silly little games the Holy Word of God speaks quit clearly and truthfully.

Yes I’m fully certain that every single person to live on this planet sinned except the God Man.

Colossians 2:9Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)

9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead corporeally;

1 John 1:10Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)

10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

Romans 3:23Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)

23 For all have sinned, and do need the glory of God.

Romans 3:9-18Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)

9 What then? Do we excel them? No, not so. For we have charged both Jews, and Greeks, that they are all under sin.
10 As it is written: There is not any man just.
11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
12 All have turned out of the way; they are become unprofitable together: there is none that doth good, there is not so much as one.
13 Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have dealt deceitfully. The venom of asps is under their lips.
14 Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness:
15 Their feet swift to shed blood:
16 Destruction and misery in their ways:
17 And the way of peace they have not known:
18 There is no fear of God before their eyes.

Luke 1:46-47Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)

46 And Mary said: My soul doth magnify the Lord.
47 And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.

Plain as day... All have sinned per scripture not my words, but the Words of God Himself.

“They apply to everyone else and not just those seven churches of the one holy catholic church extant at that time.”

Your right all the churches are included, but the one that is specific to the rcc is referenced as the church of Thyatira.

[mrobisr]

“implies they were (being) saved”

I myself have been saved, am being saved, and will be saved!
No concessions here I use the Word of God and don’t need a ccc to tell me what to believe. I have one teacher and He is Jesus Christ.
Understand that sanctification is life long and salvation is instant, that’s just the facts.

[mrobisr]

How ironic you lecturing me about scripture and it’s meanings while your church has invited and abortion advocate to lecture your church leadership. Your leadership has earth worshipers and atheists on it’s advisory councils, but yet claims infallible...
I can promise you the little country church I attend wouldn’t let anyone of your so-called experts lecture our lawn let alone our elders.

Matthew 7:5Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)

5 Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam in thy own eye, and then shalt thou see to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.

[Springfield Reformer]

The devil in his pride thought to triumph by independent thought. He tried to reason apart from God’s authority and fell into his own trap.

You are conflating two very different things. Everyone here would probably agree that independence of thought is bad if it's independence from God. But independence of thought from bad influences, like false teachers for example? We MUST have that kind of independence, because that is how we walk in the light, even as He is in the light.

So what devices does the devil use to ensnare us? One key device is independence from one another, and his most successful innovation along those lines is causing religious persons to trust not another and be not mentored or under any others’ authority, and the chief-est accomplishment along those lines is the protestant mind.

A statement like this seems to expose a complete lack of real world experience with evangelicals/protestants. I've been a Protestant/evangelical my whole life. We argue about some things, true. But the vast majority of those who adhere to Scripture really are unified on a great many things. I can go (as I once did with my dad) to a little store-front church in Tijuana, Mexico, or a little Baptist outfit on Chicago's south side or a big cozy non-denominal Bible church in the suburbs and the doctrinal agreement will be almost 100%, AND there will be a unity of understanding how that plays out in life, chasity, respect for life and property, all the virtues and graces we call Christian.

Bottom line, having a whole lot of people adhere to Scripture is NOT a good outcome for Satan, because it does foster spiritual unity and a very broad and solid Christian interconnectedness. In my own Baptist church, we pray every Sunday morning for our brothers and sisters engaged in Gospel ministry all over Springfield, regardless of denominational labels and history. We don't need the false comfort of paper unity when we have the beating heart of true unity in the body of Christ.

Is God unable to continue in our very midst His presence in the consecrated bread and wine?

God is unable to deny His own nature. He is the founder of rationality and a sound mind. Transubstantiation is not miraculous. It is a verbal sleight of hand, a regression to debunked neoplatonic theories of being that have no place in Christian faith. Jesus defined the premise of his presence with us, not in the Eucharist, but in the assembly of believers with one another, for wherever two or three are gathered in His name, He is there in the midst of them. Period. No extra stuff needed.

As for your reference to 2 Peter 1:20, it is a much abused Scripture, and in no way makes the point you seem to think it does. Peter is not talking about the readers of Scripture but the writers. The verb is ginomai, a verb that describes not something that simply exists, but something that is coming into being. Paraphrased, no Scripture came into being through someone's private undertsanding, but it came into being as God moved holy men through the Holy Spirit to write it. This passage provides no excuse for blind following of any human institution. Sorry.

Peace,

SR

[Repent and Believe]

“Its time you and your cohorts actually answer some questions...Then as one who professes to uphold historical RC teaching, do you you honestly yearn to see a Catholic monarchy rule this nation, and the medieval temporal powers of Catholic church and the Inquisition regained?...”

The one holy Catholic Apostolic Church yields to the 1917 Code of Canon Law.

It was brought about to enable the current Catholic to know what is authentic Christianity as compared to numerous assertions and versions of what may contain the true faith.

It is my understanding that anything absent from it is not necessary to hold as a Christian.

As the astute historian you present yourself as, how familiar with this event of its creation and with its content are you?

[Repent and Believe]

“The true friends of the people are neither revolutionaries nor innovators, but men of tradition.” – Pope St. Pius X

Which was basically the specious premise behind the rejection of a 1st century Itinerant Preacher and His disciples.

—————————+——————————

You present here an argument against not what was actually spoken by the saint, for the whole quote as you presumably show was about the condemning of “revolutionaries and innovators”, most especially those who reject God’s order for society where God is at its center. The French to whom the pontiff wrote this were basically innovating a communistic atheistic approach.

Here is a snippet from an article reporting this history which you carelessly miss and take the saint’s quote out of context to condemn the Church and the saint. That is what is truly “specious”:

snippet:
A solution to this problem is only possible if we consider that human authority is not an independent authority that originates from within human nature itself, but an authority by participation in the authority of a being with a superior nature. This higher being, Who is God, stands above all created wills and thus can oblige the human will to bend before and acknowledge His authority. Therefore, the origin of all authority is God; and this explains why some men can command others: their authority to do so derives from, and is a participation in the supreme authority of God.

Moreover, this philosophical truth, which we attain through the use of reason, was confirmed by divine Revelation. Suffice it to quote the famous teaching of Saint Paul to the Romans: “there is no power but from God: and those that are, are ordained of God.”9

Thus, those who claim that authority originates from the people or from the State are in fact deifying the people or the State. This entails a certain form of social and political pantheism10 that feeds the mystique of both populism and State-worshipping totalitarianism.

Therefore, since all authority comes from God, both those who command and those who obey must submit to the divine will and work together to achieve the ultimate end of man, which is eternal salvation, and the immediate end of life in society, which is the pursuit of the common good.”

More at http://www.tfp.org/qour-apostolic-mandateq-a-key-to-restoring-christian-civilization/

So cease with the voluminous quoting so you can avoid misrepresenting the speaker and indeed history itself. Your argumentation may then carry some weight.

[BlueDragon]

I see that you still did not supply clear answer to the one question which you chose to highlight, in your next previous comment --leaving it up to matter of guess what that answer could be (based on your mention of 1917 Code of Canon Law) while you tossed in notes of criticism aimed at the questioner himself, doing so, apparently, as far as I can tell, in attempt to put the matters back upon himself rather than yourself needing address the (and those other) questions he presented in comment #1051.

All of those questions at this point within this long & drawn out discussion were logical enough to ask, despite possibility that direct honest answers on your part could undermine your seeming overall positions.

I think we know why you did not answer those questions forthrightly. Remember; you did invite the guessing.

Based on what little answer you did supply, so far, lacking other answers, he and the rest of us also would need to be able to read your mind in order to answer those questions for you.

If that is what you are inviting, then if or when the devil himself were to take the hindmost (or shall we say -- your own true innermost thoughts revealed? including the self-refuting aspects) don't expect that any amount of umbrage (or else crocodile tears) on your part engender sympathy for failure on your own part to keep those thoughts either somewhat hidden, or couched only in certain terms --terms which still fail to adequately address the question(s).

If on the other hand that 1917 Code does answer the question, then show where that does, doing so while bearing in mind such as;

An extraordinary constriction of Catholicity occurred through the anti-Modernist oath imposed by Pius X on all ordinands, bishops, and priests appointed to teaching or administrative offices in the Church. The oath demanded acceptance of papal teaching in eodem sensu (in the same sense) and eadem semper sententia (always with the same meaning) as that proposed by Rome. In other words, there was no possibility of any form of dissent, even interior. The conscience of the person taking the oath was forced to accept not only what Rome proposed, but even the sense in which Rome interpreted it! Not only was this contrary to the traditional Catholic understanding of the role of conscience, [read up-page at the link for background information of what the author here means] but it was a form of thought control that was unrivaled even under fascist and communist regimes. It was Orwell's 1984 in 1910! The imposition of this oath was not removed until 1966.

[underlining and note of direction in small text added]

in order to make sure that you are deriving the same sense and same meaning only that Popes themselves would have statements (and even words, themselves) have.

and after doing that;

Explain -- and explain clearly how the following could not apply to you;

Pope Alexander: 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”, Lib. V, c. ii:

and then we'll have another look at whether or not your own words could ever possibly "carry any weight" at all, and that including also your own critical comments aimed at daniel1212's person.

Trey Gowdy interrogating the Hildabeast, mode/.