Author Topic: From Conflict to Communion (Read 686 times)

Sneakyticks · « **on:** May 14, 2014, 09:51:51 PM »

This docuмent is loaded with heresy and modernism, but there are certain passages where im not sure if what it says is wrong or not, like these:

Quote

157. With regard to the issue that was of the greatest importance for the reformers, the eucharistic sacrifice, the Catholic–Lutheran dialogue stated as a basic principle: “Catholic and Lutheran Christians together recognize that in the Lord’s Supper Jesus Christ ‘is present as the Crucified who died for our sins and who rose again for our justification, as the once-for-all sacrifice for the sins of the world.’ This sacrifice can be neither continued, nor repeated, nor replaced, nor complemented; but rather it can and should become ever effective anew in the midst of the congregation. There are different interpretations among us regarding the nature and extent of this effectiveness” (Eucharist 56).

Isn't saying that it "cannot be continued, nor repeated, nor replaced, nor complemented" to deny the Catholic teaching that it is a renewal of the Sacrifice of the Cross?

Quote

159. The decisive achievement was to overcome the separation of sacrificium (the sacrifice of Jesus Christ) from sacramentum (the sacrament). If Jesus Christ is really present in the Lord’s Supper, then his life, suffering, death, and resurrection are also truly present together with his body, so that the Lord’s Supper is “the true making present of the event on the cross.”(55) Not only the effect of the event on the cross but also the event itself is present in the Lord’s Supper without the meal being a repetition or completion of the cross event. The one event is present in a sacramental modality. The liturgical form of the holy meal must, however, exclude everything that could give the impression of repetition or completion of the sacrifice on the cross. If the understanding of the Lord’s Supper as a real remembrance is consistently taken seriously, the differences in understanding the eucharistic sacrifice are tolerable for Catholics and Lutherans.

Same thing here.

Here's the link to this thing: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/lutheran-fed-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_2013_dal-conflitto-alla-comunione_en.html#Eucharist_

songbird · « **Reply #1 on:** May 14, 2014, 10:20:39 PM »

Lutheran and Catholic common? Sounds like the New Order, indeed. What is the question?

Sneakyticks · « **Reply #2 on:** May 14, 2014, 10:22:52 PM »

Quote from: songbird

What is the question?

It's right there in my post.

songbird · « **Reply #3 on:** May 14, 2014, 11:20:56 PM »

All I know, or think I know, is that Lutherans, are supposed to believe that Christ died once and that is it. It is not to be continued. Catholics believe just the opposite. But now that we have the New Order Mess, and no valid priest, they are only installed, nothing is happening. Only bread and wine, no changes take place, calvary is not happening. So, now Lutherans and new order catholics are on the same page. Nothing is happening. No Precious Blood, no powers, no sacraments. This is what the enemy knows, where the Power is, and that makes the enemy more knowledgable then us. Some anyway. Satan believes there is a God and he knows that the Blood is the Power. Therefore, to destroy, destroy the Blood from happening. Chapter 12 of Daniel.

Sneakyticks · « **Reply #4 on:** May 15, 2014, 12:13:59 AM »

You have a way of missing my entire question and delving into peripheral things.

My question was:

Isn't saying that it [the Sacrifice of Calvary] "cannot be continued, nor repeated, nor replaced, nor complemented" to deny the Catholic teaching that it is [the Mass] a renewal of the Sacrifice of the Cross?

I know that one of the definitions of the Mass is that it is the unbloody renewal of the Sacrifice of Calvary.

This docuмent says the Sacrifice of Calvary can neither be continued nor repeated, and that is was i am asking, if that is the same as to say that it cannot be renewed.

TKGS · « **Reply #5 on:** May 15, 2014, 07:01:20 AM »

Quote from: Sneakyticks

Isn't saying that it "cannot be continued, nor repeated, nor replaced, nor complemented" to deny the Catholic teaching that it is a renewal of the Sacrifice of the Cross?

It does seem to be a denial of the Catholic understanding of the Mass--in a way.

Of course, Modernists and defenders of the New Order (not always the same thing) will tell contend that it isn't a denial. They will tell you the statement from the docuмent does not conflict with Catholic teaching. Please note the following from the Baltimore Catechism:

Quote

Q: Who is the Principle priest in every Mass?
A: The principal priest in every Mass is Jesus Christ, who offers to His heavenly Father, through the minister of His ordained priest, His body and blood which were sacrificed on the Cross.

Q: Why is the Mass the same sacrifice as the sacrifice of the cross?
A: The Mass is the same sacrifice as the sacrifice of the cross because in the Mass the victime is the same, and the principal priest is the same, Jesus Christ.

So, you see, the Church tells us that the Sacrifice of the Mass is really the very same sacrifice on the cross, thus, they can say that the sacrifice on the cross "cannot be continued, nor repeated, nor replaced, nor complimented." You see, the docuмent can be read according to Catholic theology--the Sacrifice of the Mass is the very same Sacrifice of the Cross; while it can also be read according to Lutheran theology--the Sacrifice of the Cross cannot be repeated. So neither religion must change it's official beliefs while both can say they agree on the teaching.

This is merely another example of the hallmark of the Conciliar sect: ambiguity in all things.

The problem is that the Catholics who agreed to the joint statement have, indeed, changed their beliefs.

ThomisticPhilosopher · « **Reply #6 on:** May 19, 2014, 07:33:26 AM »

Well this is a case where we have to not only read the text, but understand from who its coming from.

This is definitely heretical, and should be interpreted from its heretical interpretation. We know that Lutheran's believe that the Catholic mass is blasphemous because it is a renewal so when they mention, "cannot be continued, nor repeated, nor replaced, nor complemented." It can't be more explicit denial of Catholic teaching. Now of course you can have someone who will always debate for its own sake, but I have to respond to them with .

This is why Auctoritatem Fidei and Pascendi are so important, they tell you what the tactic of the enemy is. To say one thing but to really mean another thing. So what they advice us to do is to simply interpret things in its literal manner, and if it is heretical in the literal sense then it is truly heretical. If you need 3 hours of theological background for a simple straightforward sentence, then you can be sure its heretical. For the most part sound theology, aims at making things understood immediately without too much explanation. Now sometimes a little background might be necessary, but it should serve merely to make what is already in the text more explicit, but it cannot add anything new to it.