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”...

[Elsie]

Best of all would be if I could tell what your point was.

At least he tries to HAVE a point and uses scripture (although sometimes in cryptic ways) to express it.

He does not tend to state his own opinion very often; and for this I commend him.

[Elsie]

Although I bet she gave Him words of encouragement...

Like THESE??

His mother said to him, “Son, why have you treated us like this? Your father and I have been anxiously searching for you.”  (Luke 2:48-50)

[Mark17]

Next time that you are in the booth, ask the priest how many sins he has retained.

Once, when I was a Catholic, I was in the confession booth. I was being real honest with the priest, and telling him my sins. He said I needed to stop committing all these sins. I thought he was going to retain my sins, but he gave me about 5 times the number of our fathers and Hail Marys, that he normally gave me. I was never again, honest with the priest in confession. I didn't want him to know what I was doing.

[Elsie]

...he gave me about 5 times the number of our fathers and Hail Marys, that he normally gave me....

It's so sad that our FR CAtholics can NOT see the simple truth of this:

Matthew 6:7

But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking (KJV).

[Mark17]

But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking (KJV)

The heathen huh? Did you know I have a ten foot pole here, for NOT touching things with? 😀
That priest started asking me questions of a personal nature, concerning my sins. Since I didn't want him probing into my personal life, I flat out lied to the dude, right there in the confessional. If he knew I lied to him, he probably would have retained my sins, and I would have been screwed. 😀

[Elsie]

... or source of security?

---

Near the end of this book The Harbinger, author Jonathan Cahn shares a sobering reminder. Here his fictional "prophet" gives Nouriel, the main character, a good lesson on the nature of evil:

“And who is evil?”

“Those who kill, who deceive, who steal, those who hurt and abuse others.”...

“And what about you, Nouriel? Do you fit into any of those categories?”

"No."

“No,” he replied, “you wouldn’t. But remember, ‘All the ways of a man are right in his own eyes.’ It’s from the Book of Proverbs. That’s human nature.... Beware of the good Nazi.”

“The good Nazi? And what’s that supposed to mean?”

“The Nazis sent millions to their deaths out of pure hatred and evil....And yet do you think most of them saw themselves as evil?”

"No."

“And why not?... Because they compared themselves and measured themselves by the standards they themselves create....

 

You can never judge yourself by your own standards and your own righteousness, but only in light of His righteousness.” [pp.228-229]

[MHGinTN]

Prior to the twentieth century humankind did not know that the mother builds none of the structure of the Baby. And apparently Catholics still don’t know that.

[Springfield Reformer]

I think the jury has slept through this one, and I for one do not see the point in waking them up, because they haven’t missed much. ;)

Peace,

SR

[MHGinTN]

LOL

[imardmd1]

I showed him John 3:15 in Greek, with the English translation below it. He said he felt uncomfortable with the word "may" He said it meant to him, something that was definitely going to happen, not some hopeful thought or wish.

This is a keen insight, and I am very glads that you have spotted it and pointed it out. The whole matter is lengthy to deal with right now, but It is a prime reason why I reject the modern English versions (all based on the Critical Greek Alexandrian synthesized text) as fit for deep study, and I stick with the English Crown-authorized version (translated from the Erasmian Textus Receptus Byzantine/Majority Textform) as my principal study Bible.

Here's the deal on this issue, citing the John 3:15 passage from the two texts:

ινα πας ο πιστευων εις αυτον μη αποληται αλλ εχη ζωην αιωνιον (Textus Receptus)

ινα πας ο πιστευων εν αυτῷ μη αποληται αλλ εχη ζωην αιωνιον (UBS Critical Text)

What has happened here is that the phrase "in Him" is changed from the accusative case to the dative case, which always follows the preposition εν (="in" or "within"), but not necessarily the preposition εις (="into" or "with a view towards" or "on the basis of").

The nuance permitted is described by Marvin Vincent in his "Word Studies":

Believeth in Him (πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν)
The best texts read ἐν αὐτῷ, construing with have eternal life, and rendering may in Him have eternal life. So Rev(ised Version).

What it means is that he is greatly tilted toward the Critical Text and its English Revised Version translation. To him, "best" in manuscripts means "oldest," no matter how corrupted and inconsistent the Sinaticus and Vaticanus (of the Alexandrian variety) are. We should not be this partial, eh? He continues, adding:

Should not perish, but
The best texts omit.

Best texts? Omit an important part of the verse? Well, this is what the Wescott-and-Hort-synthesized Critical Text does. Should this form of textual criticism be ours? Well, not for me. Touch not the unclean thing, hm?

The AV/KJV translation of John 3:15 is this (both verbs are in the substantive mood):

"That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but ^{(should implied)}have eternal life."

But a translation from the Critical Text, the English Revised Standard Version, gives:

"that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.”

Similarly, the New International Version, also based on the CT, reads:

"that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him.”

A brief check across other of the modern versions indicate that they also use "may" as the operative word, and totally leave out the assuring phrase "should not perish." The problem is, as your friend and SR apprise us, that translation of the subjunctive with ινα = "heena" (="that") introduces an ambiguity in the English mind not present or intended in the mind of the first century Greek-speaker. And misunderstanding this point can lead to gross doctrinal error in the concept of the certainty of salvation for the one believing in Him, in Jesus. A revision of the word order takes place in the New American Standard Version:

"so that whoever believes will in Him have eternal life."

Wow! that changes the whole syntax in an abrupt way, especially when leaving out the SHALL NOT perish part. Believes in . . . in . . . in what?

************

Mark, if I were you, I'd toss the modern version you have, and go back to the old reliable sword, the King James Bible. What does your friend think about that passage from it? As well as others like it?

[imardmd1]

And for Spanish, Reina-Valera. But for Tagalog? I dinno, but not Wycliffe . . .

[Springfield Reformer]

Ditto on the Byzantine. Nice analysis.

Peace,

SR

[21twelve]

In reading that, as the son of a mother, I hear a bit of a guilt trip. And I know that for myself, sometimes I DO need to feel guilty in order to do something. However, I’ve been told by my pastor and others that guilt is not from God. And while Mary was blessed (and Holy?), she wasn’t without sin.

BTW - my pastors and others have said that this was not a sign of Jesus not honoring his parents or being indolent. They would have been traveling with a large group of people from their village and lots of aunts and uncles and cousins and neighbors to watch over everybody, so Mary and Joseph figured He was with others.

I like the story too as it shows both of Jesus’s natures, both man and God. As a boy he was still learning (”Now make sure you call me if you go somewhere else other than Bobby’s house”), but His God nature comes out in the statement of “..in my Father’s house.”

I was about 16 or 17 when I finally got the anxiety that my Mother felt for me. I had been gone by myself for the weekend hunting. Stopped by a friends on the way home and didn’t make it back until 1 am, and my mom knew that I should have been back by 10pm or so. Of course way before cell phones.

I’ll never forget driving up to the house. The light was on and I thought “Oh man - it’s late, I’m in trouble.”

Then I saw that my mom had moved the living room chair around so she could look out the window. As I got closer she recognized the car and her head just collapsed in her lap. She of course had been thinking the worst with me out hunting by myself and all.

I ALWAYS found a way to call after that.

Hmm - and that was not a guilt trip by my mom, just her honest and fearful reaction. So there may not have been any guilt trip by Mary. Again - I think it boils down to the obvious fact that Mary was human. And that Jesus was too. Maybe (probably?!) neither one handled it the best way.

Boy - another question for my pastor (or you!?). As Jesus was fully man and fully God, after the resurrection, is He now ONLY God - or was His human spirit also resurrected? I’m guessing both natures of Him are alive and well in Heaven.

[Mark17]

Mark, if I were you, I'd toss the modern version you have, and go back to the old reliable sword, the King James Bible. What does your friend think about that passage from it? As well as others like it?

Well, I was using the ASV from You Version on my IPhone 6. With one quick keystroke, I can switch the version to KJV.
As far as Tagalog is concerned, my wife speaks it pretty well, but being from Mindanao, Bisaya is her first language. I am sure that is probably the first language of your friends, from your church, who visited us here in the Philippines. She has a Bisaya Bible. Next time you see your friends, ask her what her first language is. I would venture to guess, it's Bisaya.
My Greek friend is in Melbourne, Australia right now. It's funny, he speaks 7 languages, but none of them are spoken in the Philippines, except English, so that is the only way he can talk to them.

[af_vet_1981]

I assumed you would grasp the reference by inference. In Romans the Apostle Paul appeals to (a portion) of the passage from Deuteronomy in verses very well used in Evangelical circles. The Apostle then superimposes confession of the LORD Jesus and faith in one's heart in His resurrection as the keys to righteousness and salvation, If you compare the passage in Deuteronomy with that in Romans, keeping in sight the Matthew passage of the LORD which I quoted, my point is there is tension and contradiction between the passages, Nonetheless, all three are correct. I would add the caveat that it is fundamental not to render them to no effect. For example, there are far too many warnings that the LORD Jesus Christ gave to the disciples to sweep them away for an easy modern practice of an altar call and once saved always saved insurance policy, as it were. Every word He spoke is true, even if there is tension with trying to make sense out of it all. Fear, love, and obey implies faith of course, else one would lose interest.

[af_vet_1981]

Nope. I refuse to accept that God would contradict Himself.

You read the Greek and see the word fear used four times in that passage. It is all true. Fear, and fear not.

[boatbums]

NIV 1 Corinthians 4:6
Now, brothers, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, "Do not go beyond what is written." Then you will not take pride in one man over against another.

I think that's exactly what we see here so many times from certain posters. They take pride in one against the other BECAUSE of all the extra-biblical stuff their religion asserts makes them the one, true church rather than what Scripture says this body of Christ really consists of. They imagine that because they presumably proceeded from Peter they are right and all others are less so or altogether wrong. Paul nips that in the bud! Thanks, LC!

[af_vet_1981]

From this verse, obviously one cannot "work out" a salvation one does not already possess, and the "fear" is to dread to disappoint or disobey the One Who alone has finished the act of saving.

I like this, with the understanding that "It is finished" refers to his sacrifice, not our working out our salvation with fear and trembling (although in the sense of future completion it does, yet even the Apostle Paul did not count himself to have attained or apprehended, but pressed forward to the prize, as should we). The dread or fear to disobey or displease Him should be tightly coupled with a love and earnest desire to please Him and be told by Him "Well done thou good and faithful servant!"

[metmom]

Well, according to the dictionary definition the word *fear* also means *reverential awe*, not *to be afraid of*.

God has set us free from fear, but that cannot mean free from reverential awe of God.

We are told many times in Scripture to not fear and yet some would continue to twist the plain meaning of the word to mean that we should be afraid of God instead of in reverential awe of Him.

And then Catholics have the audacity to wonder where many people raised Catholic see God as a harsh demanding God of judgment and condemnation, someone they are afraid of who is NOT a loving heavenly Father.

And then after telling people to be afraid of God and putting them back into bondage, Catholics chide them for not seeing God as loving and merciful.

[metmom]

You were screwed already.

Then you found Jesus.