Ecumenical Excesses

[Dominus Fidelis]

TAIZÉ, France, Aug. 23 - Brother Roger Schutz pursued many ecumenical dreams in his long life, but in death one of them came true: At a Eucharistic service celebrated Tuesday by a Roman Catholic cardinal for Brother Roger, a Swiss Protestant, communion wafers were given to the faithful indiscriminately, regardless of denomination.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/24/i...en=51501f1512c5ca6a&ei=5099&partner=TOPIXNEWS

Apparently Ratzinger had already killed Cardinal Kasper's desire to give Communion to non-Catholics in the past, so I'm not sure why it was done now.

It kind of causes controversy at a time when people are trying to mourn the passing of Brother Roger.

 

[Cat59]

This is a little further down in the article...

Watching the funeral of Pope John Paul II on television, they saw Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, give communion to Brother Roger, even though he was not Catholic. "That struck us," she said.

Although I don't believe everything I read in the paper- it would be good to try and autheticate both accounts- the fact that people were given communion indiscriminately and that our Pope gave communion to a non Catholic only a few months ago.
But if they are both true- I'm quite sure Benedict would have known who Br. Roger was at Pope JP's funeral, so does that put a different light on things?

 

[Globalnomad]

Since Cardinal Kasper himself presided, who are we to call them excesses? The Magisterium seems to be giving us a clear message that the love of Christ and His prayer "let them all be one", prevails, at special times like this, over "normal" discipline.

 

[Dominus Fidelis]

This is a little further down in the article...

Although I don't believe everything I read in the paper- it would be good to try and autheticate both accounts- the fact that people were given communion indiscriminately and that our Pope gave communion to a non Catholic only a few months ago.
But if they are both true- I'm quite sure Benedict would have known who Br. Roger was at Pope JP's funeral, so does that put a different light on things?

Yes, it would put a differently light on things, it would put a very scandalous light on things.

 

[Dominus Fidelis]

Since Cardinal Kasper himself presided, who are we to call them excesses? The Magisterium seems to be giving us a clear message that the love of Christ and His prayer "let them all be one", prevails, at special times like this, over "normal" discipline.

So commiting sacrilege is just a matter of "normal discipline?"

 

[raptor13]

This is a little further down in the article...

Although I don't believe everything I read in the paper- it would be good to try and autheticate both accounts- the fact that people were given communion indiscriminately and that our Pope gave communion to a non Catholic only a few months ago.
But if they are both true- I'm quite sure Benedict would have known who Br. Roger was at Pope JP's funeral, so does that put a different light on things?

My question is what was Br. Roger doing getting communion in the first place, since he would have been quite aware of the Church rules against it?

Even as an EME at a small parish, you can't spend time making a judgement on whether a person can take the Eucharist or not. Considering it was the Pope's funeral at St. Peter's Basilica, I think Benedict had a lot of other things on his mind.

So even if this did happen, its not Benedict's fault, its Br. Roger's for going up in the first place. As it would be for any other person who goes up knowing they arn't supposed to... or refusing to abide by the commands of the Church.

 

[raptor13]

Since Cardinal Kasper himself presided, who are we to call them excesses? The Magisterium seems to be giving us a clear message that the love of Christ and His prayer "let them all be one", prevails, at special times like this, over "normal" discipline.

Christ's prayer to "let them all be one" is a prayer that God gives us the grace to be united to and to submit to His Church. That is true unity, and that should be the clear message that prevails.

 

[Benedicta00]

I seriously doubt that the pope gave communion to a non-Catholic knowingly.

 

[Benedicta00]

You know… if non Catholics really want to be in union with the Church and want Holy Communion and believe it is not a symbol but the body and blood of Christ then why don’t they just convert?

I don’t get it?

 

[marciadietrich]

Apparently Ratzinger had already killed Cardinal Kasper's desire to give Communion to non-Catholics in the past, so I'm not sure why it was done now.

Kasper's desire was very specific to make exceptions for Christian spouses of Catholics - esp. in that they usually were also allowing children to be raised Catholic. Couples who being "one flesh" in marriage ended up having a divide when it came to communion, even right at the time of the wedding ceremony in a Catholic setting ( a presumed sacrament on one hand but denying another sacrament at the same time).

Kasper wanted to open up in certain areas - because there are at times exceptions made in particular circumstances - but not indiscriminately give communion out willy nilly with no reasoning behind it. And he did and does present ideas to the Pope. He has been under both JPII and now Benedict XVI the head of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity. He isn't a renegade.

Anyhow, didn't read the article ( I hate registering for the times everytime someone links to it) but the fact that there were protestants that went up and received may not mean it was a purposeful act.

Marcia

 

[garydench]

Since Cardinal Kasper himself presided, who are we to call them excesses? The Magisterium seems to be giving us a clear message that the love of Christ and His prayer "let them all be one", prevails, at special times like this, over "normal" discipline.

Giving Communion to non-Catholics to display unity sounds like using the Sacrament as a means to an end, which is not only disrespectful but, as I understand, a grave sin.

 

[garydench]

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!

 

[Benedicta00]

Giving Communion to non-Catholics to display unity sounds like using the Sacrament as a means to an end, which is not only disrespectful but, as I understand, a grave sin.

Exactly which is why I seriously do not believe the pope gave communion to a no Catholic knowing this person was a non Catholic.

Not to mention the possible condemnation that may fall upon any non Catholic receiveing.

 

[Globalnomad]

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?

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

I seriously doubt that the pope gave communion to a non-Catholic knowingly.

I have myself seen the picture of His Eminence Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger giving the Sacred Host to Brother Roger at His Holiness' Pope John Paul the Great's funeral. I can only assume that it was the Blessed Sacrament and not a Protestant communion wafer.

Now as to whether or not Brother Roger (may he rest in peace) was a non-Catholic, he himself would not, from what I have heard, have given a straight answer to that. We can possibly be fairly certain he was not, but he did not see things so simply.

It seems to me that such abuses occured also at Taizé.

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

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.....

Because the Church has spoken infallibly on all of those matters. Whereas even if the Pope himself were to walk down the street giving the Body of the Lord to every person he passed (God forbid), that is not an infallible action. The Pope is quite capable of sin. Every single bishop on the face of the earth could be a heretic and regular practicioner of every sin under the sun, but it does not become acceptable.

I'm not saying that the then Cardinal Ratzinger did or did not do wrong by communion the late Brother Roger (RIP), but I am just extremely wary of not questioning the authorities when their actions are not protected by the Divine and when they may seem to be questionable.

Pax vobiscum,
Rob

 

[Paul S]

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?

This is a matter of discipline, not of faith and morals, and infallibility does not apply to discipline. The leaders of the Church can get discipline wrong, and when they sin, we should charitably correct them, just as we would warn any brother in Christ that he's committed sin.

Should we just defer to Church authority about transferring priests who have abused children from one parish to the next? If that's the bishop's decision, who are we to question it? Bishops, including Cardinals and Popes, can and do sin.

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

This is a matter of discipline, not of faith and morals, and infallibility does not apply to discipline. The leaders of the Church can get discipline wrong, and when they sin, we should charitably correct them, just as we would warn any brother in Christ that he's committed sin.

Should we just defer to Church authority about transferring priests who have abused children from one parish to the next? If that's the bishop's decision, who are we to question it? Bishops, including Cardinals and Popes, can and do sin.

Exactly. Once again I wholeheartedly share your sentiments, Paul, though you have epxressed them far better than I could.

 

[Benedicta00]

I have myself seen the picture of His Eminence Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger giving the Sacred Host to Brother Roger at His Holiness' Pope John Paul the Great's funeral. I can only assume that it was the Blessed Sacrament and not a Protestant communion wafer.

Now as to whether or not Brother Roger (may he rest in peace) was a non-Catholic, he himself would not, from what I have heard, have given a straight answer to that. We can possibly be fairly certain he was not, but he did not see things so simply.

It seems to me that such abuses occured also at Taizé.

Could it be possible that dispensations were made seeing it was not a ordinary Mass but a rather extraordinary one?

The thing that we can not get around here is non-Catholics just as we are, have to be properly disposed. Why would they want it if they weren’t? That I can not understand.

This is one reason why we can not just give them communion. There are requirements for us to receive communion, so I have no idea why it is so hard for them to understand that they have to meet those requirements too. Why should they be exempt? One must have gone to prior sacramental confession before receiving the Eucharist, as far as I know non-Catholics do not go to sacramental confession.

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.

It’s such a feel good, focus on the self, church these days. They want unity, they want communion, they want to be Catholic but they do not want to have to submit to a darn thing the Church teaches.

It’s enough to make me want to pull all my hair out my head.

 

[plainswolf]

..The thing that we can not get around here is non-Catholics just as we are, have to be properly disposed. Why would they want it if they weren’t? That I can not understand.

This is one reason why we can not just give them communion. There are requirements for us to receive communion, so I have no idea why it is so hard for them to understand that they have to meet those requirements too. Why should they be exempt? One must have gone to prior sacramental confession before receiving the Eucharist, as far as I know non-Catholics do not go to sacramental confession.

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.

It’s such a feel good, focus on the self, church these days. They want unity, they want communion, they want to be Catholic but they do not want to have to submit to a darn thing the Church teaches.

It’s enough to make me want to pull all my hair out my head.

I agree shelb..