Ecumenical Excesses

[Benedicta00]

I would say, let's trust two of the major cardinals of the Church to know when to bend theological rules. Ratzinger (still a cardinal then) approached Br. Roger VERY deliberately and lovingly on that day... I remember seeing it on TV... He sure was not getting his arm twisted in any way (as if Ratzinger would ever let that happen!)

And there is no way Kasper would have done what he did without tacit papal approval.

So, shall we all just defer to Church authority on this matter, and recognize their guidance on what can and cannot be done, even when it goes beyond our understanding? If we start questioning Church authority on this, tomorrow someone will come asking us why we can't question them on contraception, divorce, condoms for HIV spouses etc.....

Or on second thoughts, OK, shall we start questioning their authority... on ALL of these things?

Globe,

Papal authority is not a thing where the pope can do what ever he wants.

The Holy Father does not have the power to change what Christ and the apostles taught. What they have is the authority to protect it, transmit it and enforce it, IOW to teach it to us.

Outside of this God given authority, they can sin and make mistakes like everyone else.

If these priests and non-Catholics were given a dispensation that would be one thing but if no dispensation was given then this would indeed be a grave sin.

But just because the pope gives such dispensations we are not obligated to think that was a wonderful choice he made, we can disagree with that if we like.

 

[Paul S]

But you know what I think? Lord have mercy… I don’t think people both Catholic and non-Catholic anymore care about being disposed, they want what they want when they want it. Sad. Sad, sad times we are seeing here.

Daily Communion is a wonderful thing - but perhaps it's gotten us too used to "go to Mass, receive Communion", rather than being properly prepared to receive Him. Maybe if receiving the Sacrament wasn't as common, people would reflect more on whether they were worthy.

And saying it thrice would help, too.

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

Shelb,

I agree with you and I was extremely pleased to hear the announcement before Communion at the Mass with the Pope last Sunday that only Catholics in a state of grace may receive.

On another note...is the Pope able to make a dispensation for the Blessed Sacrament to be given to a non-Catholic with no desire to become Catholic whose denomination does not have a valid episcopate and is not therefore receiving Christ anyway?

 

[Benedicta00]

Shelb,

I agree with you and I was extremely pleased to hear the announcement before Communion at the Mass with the Pope last Sunday that only Catholics in a state of grace may receive.

On another note...is the Pope able to make a dispensation for the Blessed Sacrament to be given to a non-Catholic with no desire to become Catholic whose denomination does not have a valid episcopate and is not therefore receiving Christ anyway?

From my understanding, bishops can gave dispensations to non Catholics to receive communion at weddings and funerals.

 

[Globalnomad]

Guys,

Firstly, Robbie, it is not exact that the Church has spoken infallibly about the examples I gave. It has spoken authoritatively, yes, but not infallibly. They are all up to further discussion if the Magisterium chooses.

Secondly, it seems a bit nitpicking to me to imply a difference between Cardinals' actions and teachings. This was very much a case of "teaching through action", and I would say it has about as much authority as a papal homily.

Thirdly, dispensations on giving Holy Communion to non-Catholics is given by a bishop. Both the Pope and Kasper are bishops, so their actions carry their own dispensation, no?

Someone mentioned sin and sacrilege. These only occur with deliberate intent, as we learnt in basic Catechism. Neither Kasper nor Ratzinger had the deliberate intent to desecrate the Eucharist. Let's be careful about using such grave words about any of our brothers, let alone the leaders of the Church, whose judgement we really ought to trust - not absolutely, of course, as the sex scandal showed - but certainly beyond our own.

What I think is this. The Church is a wise, farsighted politician. There was no way to celebrate a Catholic Eucharist at Brother Roger's funeral and deny it to non-Catholics who asked for it in the Taizé spirit - it would have been the ugliest scandal we've seen since the sex abuse one. It was a choice either to do it this way, or not to celebrate the Eucharist at all. The decision to do it - and don't underestimate the love and deference shown to the Catholic Church by that interfaith community in INVITING us to do it at all - is a message that Christ's intention with the Eucharist is greater and wider than the rituals and rules that we have had to establish around it to keep it as holy as it deserves and not to plunge into chaos; and that in the end, it is through the celebration of the Eucharist, and no less than that, that we will reunite with all Christians - to leave it out or decrease its importance would kill our Faith.

In a way, Tuesday's happening underlines the magnificent homily that Benedict gave last Sunday, comparing the Eucharist to the "nuclear fission"that is called to transform all our souls. Refusing to celebrate a Catholic Eucharist over Brother Roger's body would have invalidated that message, catastrophically.

 

[Benedicta00]

What I think is this. The Church is a wise, farsighted politician. There was no way to celebrate a Catholic Eucharist at Brother Roger's funeral and deny it to non-Catholics who asked for it in the Taizé spirit - it would have been the ugliest scandal we've seen since the sex abuse one.

I don't even know what to say anymore. The Church isn’t a politician- it is the bride of Christ and. her mission isn’t to be politically correct-

How can you equate giving communion to non- Catholics with the sex scandal?

A person must be properly disposed in order to receive communion. Period. Non Catholics really aren’t so why should they be allowed to receive with out being disposed when we aren’t? I don’t get the logic, I really don’t.

Bishops can give dispensations to non-Catholics in circumstance like a funeral, like a wedding but in any ordinary satiations, non Catholics can not just stroll up and take communion.

There are no arrows pointing to letting non Catholics commune with Catholics at Mass in ordinary situations, like Sunday Mass.

If dispensations were given for funeral Masses then I can live with that, I do not like it in the least but I can live with it.

 

[marciadietrich]

A person must be properly disposed in order to receive communion. Period. Non Catholics really aren’t so why should they be allowed to receive with out being disposed when we aren’t? I don’t get the logic, I really don’t.

Bishops can give dispensations to non-Catholics in circumstance like a funeral, like a wedding but in any ordinary satiations, non Catholics can not just stroll up and take communion.

There are no arrows pointing to letting non Catholics commune with Catholics at Mass in ordinary situations, like Sunday Mass.

If dispensations were given for funeral Masses then I can live with that, I do not like it in the least but I can live with it.

But if they are not disposed properly before or after the funeral or wedding it is impossible that they would be properly disposed during the funeral or wedding. So how and why can they make an exception? If the exception is made on the basis of they are baptized Christians and there is some sort of unity in this special Mass, why not the regular Sunday Masses as well? Especially if, and I'm sure it is the case, the exception for those being married is based on them becoming one flesh, so the non Catholic Chrsitian spouse is not only imperfectly united to the Church in baptism, but even more so by being one flesh with a member of the Church.

I think Kasper wanted to make that dispensation exception something that could be done more often, if the nonCatholic was attending Mass with his family -esp. weekly, and asked that it could be decided without dispensation from the Bishop. So not approved, but seems it should be all the way one way or the other. Either there is some reason to allow intercommunion and it should be allowed, or they are simply not properly disposed except perhaps for a deathbed conversion it should never be allowed.

Marcia

 

[Cat59]

I just find it so sad that Brother Roger died the way he did.
He was one of my heroes
And I find this thread deeply sad too. Taize was a great place for uniting people- and still is, and I only hope that after his death, it will continue to be a focal point for young people to come and learn and grow.
I don't have any answers and I don't intend to debate, just express my sorrow.
May his soul, and the souls of all the faithful departed, rest in peace,
Amen

 

[masuwerte]

However, the worst story of ecumenical excess I heard was when I was on an ecumenical pilgrimage to Walsingham and it was of an anglican pastor, being asked to concelebrate Mass with the Roman Catholic priest!

And why is this "the worst"? Did having a non-Catholic pray over the host contaminate it?

 

[InnerPhyre]

Brother Roger was the first one in the line to receive communion at JPII's funeral. We all saw it happen on TV. I didn't know that he wasn't Catholic though....

 

[InnerPhyre]

Guys,

Firstly, Robbie, it is not exact that the Church has spoken infallibly about the examples I gave. It has spoken authoritatively, yes, but not infallibly. They are all up to further discussion if the Magisterium chooses.

Secondly, it seems a bit nitpicking to me to imply a difference between Cardinals' actions and teachings. This was very much a case of "teaching through action", and I would say it has about as much authority as a papal homily.

Thirdly, dispensations on giving Holy Communion to non-Catholics is given by a bishop. Both the Pope and Kasper are bishops, so their actions carry their own dispensation, no?

Someone mentioned sin and sacrilege. These only occur with deliberate intent, as we learnt in basic Catechism. Neither Kasper nor Ratzinger had the deliberate intent to desecrate the Eucharist. Let's be careful about using such grave words about any of our brothers, let alone the leaders of the Church, whose judgement we really ought to trust - not absolutely, of course, as the sex scandal showed - but certainly beyond our own.

What I think is this. The Church is a wise, farsighted politician. There was no way to celebrate a Catholic Eucharist at Brother Roger's funeral and deny it to non-Catholics who asked for it in the Taizé spirit - it would have been the ugliest scandal we've seen since the sex abuse one. It was a choice either to do it this way, or not to celebrate the Eucharist at all. The decision to do it - and don't underestimate the love and deference shown to the Catholic Church by that interfaith community in INVITING us to do it at all - is a message that Christ's intention with the Eucharist is greater and wider than the rituals and rules that we have had to establish around it to keep it as holy as it deserves and not to plunge into chaos; and that in the end, it is through the celebration of the Eucharist, and no less than that, that we will reunite with all Christians - to leave it out or decrease its importance would kill our Faith.

In a way, Tuesday's happening underlines the magnificent homily that Benedict gave last Sunday, comparing the Eucharist to the "nuclear fission"that is called to transform all our souls. Refusing to celebrate a Catholic Eucharist over Brother Roger's body would have invalidated that message, catastrophically.

Then they should not have celebrated the Eucharist at all at his funeral. Period. Better than desecrating Christ's sacred body and blood and allowing Protestants to drink judgment upon themselves.

 

[Paul S]

And why is this "the worst"? Did having a non-Catholic pray over the host contaminate it?

Because it's pretending that a lay person is a priest, and pretending to confect a sacrament. That's one of the things that will get you excommunicated latae sententiae.

It's also pretending that the Anglican religion is just as good as the Catholic Church.

 

[Milla]

From my understanding, bishops can gave dispensations to non Catholics to receive communion at weddings and funerals.

This what I understand of this too. So I think it is reasonable to assume that this dispensation was in effect at these funerals. So why all the drama in this thread?

 

[InnerPhyre]

I thought that dispensation was given on an individual basis, not just "ok all the protestants in this service may receive communion"

 

[Paul S]

Perhaps the real question here is why is a Catholic funeral being celebrated for someone who's not Catholic?

 

[luthercath]

I too find this thread incredibly sad,br. roger was an ecumenical saint totaly in love with the lord,I find it beyond belief that this holy man brought anything but joy to the savior,s eyes when he received the LORD,S SUPPER with brother baptized believers.I too am an ecumenical christian in unity with all my fellow baptized believers,I was baptized into the holy catholic(universal)church not any denomination,and as it,s the LORD,S SUPPER and i believe as jesus said that it is his body and blood(real presence) and he commanded me to partake in his body and blood,i do so in whatever church i,m attending be it catholic,anglican,or lutheran, and i,m not the least bit worried about damnation,hellfire,or judgement against me for doing so! in christian unity,luthcath

 

[InnerPhyre]

I too find this thread incredibly sad,br. roger was an ecumenical saint totaly in love with the lord,I find it beyond belief that this holy man brought anything but joy to the savior,s eyes when he received the LORD,S SUPPER with brother baptized believers.I too am an ecumenical christian in unity with all my fellow baptized believers,I was baptized into the holy catholic(universal)church not any denomination,and as it,s the LORD,S SUPPER and i believe as jesus said that it is his body and blood(real presence) and he commanded me to partake in his body and blood,i do so in whatever church i,m attending be it catholic,anglican,or lutheran, and i,m not the least bit worried about damnation,hellfire,or judgement against me for doing so! in christian unity,luthcath

If this is true, you must stop receiving in the Catholic Church. Whether you care or not about drinking judgment on yourself, the fact is that it is utterly disrespectful to the Catholic Church to do so. I attended Divine Liturgy at an Orthodox Church and didn't receive communion there. Did I think that receiving it there would condemn me? No, but I knew that they have closed communion, so I showed resepect for their beliefs. What you do is an utter sacrilege. You must stop.

 

[Paul S]

I too am an ecumenical christian in unity with all my fellow baptized believers

Do you believe everything Catholics believe? If not, you're not in unity with them. Do you believe everything the Baptists believe, If not, you're not in unity with them, either.

Christianity is about much more than just accepting Jesus - one must accept all of His teachings, and He gave us the Catholic Church to do that. If nothing else, it's extremely disrespectful to ignore the rules when you're a guest somewhere, even if you disagree with them.

If you were visiting my house, and I asked you not to eat the box of cookies, since those are only for family members, and you ate them anyway, that's just rude. Of course, Communion is much more serious, being Jesus Himself, but the same idea's there.

 

[Milla]

I too find this thread incredibly sad,br. roger was an ecumenical saint totaly in love with the lord,I find it beyond belief that this holy man brought anything but joy to the savior,s eyes when he received the LORD,S SUPPER with brother baptized believers.I too am an ecumenical christian in unity with all my fellow baptized believers,I was baptized into the holy catholic(universal)church not any denomination,and as it,s the LORD,S SUPPER and i believe as jesus said that it is his body and blood(real presence) and he commanded me to partake in his body and blood,i do so in whatever church i,m attending be it catholic,anglican,or lutheran, and i,m not the least bit worried about damnation,hellfire,or judgement against me for doing so! in christian unity,luthcath

I see the funeral of Frere Roger as a special circumstance and probably there was much going on with the bishops that we are not aware of, so I think especially in this case it is hasty and uncharitable to judge the actions there.

But I do have to say that in general I do not understand why one would go to a church and behave there in a way contrary to the beliefs of that church? To me, it seems disrespectful. When one is a guest in the home of another, one ougth abide by their rules, and if one cannot abide by their rules, than one ought not make the choice to go there, in my opinion...I go to the mosque and to Orthodox services sometimes, and therein, I behave appropriately as one must behave in their traditions, even as I internally pray as I believe. (I would not go there if they required actions of me which went against my faith.) I am not about to, say, go into the men's chamber in a Mosque, even though as a Catholic I believe men and women can worship together - it would disrespect the Muslims. Does that make sense?

 

[Paul S]

I see the funeral of Frere Roger as a special circumstance and probably there was much going on with the bishops that we are not aware of, so I think especially in this case it is hasty and uncharitable to judge the actions there.

In which case the sin might not be sacrilege, but scandal.