Ecumenical Excesses

[Dominus Fidelis]

You may be able to live with it....I cannot. No communion for Protestants outside of dire circumstances, as the Catechism says. None of these Protestants were on their deathbeds. If the decision came from the Pope himself, then the Pope erred and endangered the souls of the group of Protestants there. We cannot profane the sacred Body and Blood of Christ because it might be seen as uncomfortable. I am SO TIRED of being viewed as the villain for standing up for the Catholic faith. This is the perfect example of EVERYTHING that is wrong with this cursed post-vatican II era. We Catholics have to feel bad for being who we are and doing what our faith demands. We have to apologize for our faith. We have to compromise our faith. I'm sick of it!

AMEN.

 

[Dominus Fidelis]

'Tis sad that the occassion of Frere Roger's funeral is a trigger for a discussion of how our walls are not high enough to keep out others.

Its even sadder when a Catholic doesn't respect the Eucharist to be outraged at such a thing.

 

[Dominus Fidelis]

For those saying Brother Roger may have gotten an exception so it is ok...you are missing the point horribly.

The article says...


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.

This is a not about Brother Roger receiving the Eucharist. This was his funeral and there were Protestants their receiving Communion. Did each and every one of them get permission from Rome? Not likely.

 

[lonnienord]

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

not only is it not scandalous it was definately the right thing to do!! If there was ever a non-catholic who understood transubstation and was prepared to recieve JESUS is was Br. Roger.

i haven't read this total thread yet but i plan to. I think since we accept all baptisms as being valid we should, with proper instruction, allow non-catholics to recieve the sacraments of reconcilation and eucharist

 

[lonnienord]

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?

i know i'm going to be in trouble but i'll tell you why. Before i became a Catholic, i totally believed in transubstanion but i found the belief in Mary ever virgin and the immaculate conception hard to belive. Why should someone be denied the Body and Blood of JESUS because they do not agree with those doctrines??

 

[Dominus Fidelis]

i know i'm going to be in trouble but i'll tell you why. Before i became a Catholic, i totally believed in transubstanion but i found the belief in Mary ever virgin and the immaculate conception hard to belive. Why should someone be denied the Body and Blood of JESUS because they do not agree with those doctrines??

Because St Paul says they will be eating and drinking judgement upon themselves. The ECF's also had strong words about approaching the Eucharist properly.

 

[lonnienord]

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.....

i totally agree!!

 

[lonnienord]

Because St Paul says they will be eating and drinking judgement upon themselves. The ECF's also had strong words about approaching the Eucharist properly.

no he didn't. I just read the book 1 Corinthians. Paul never said that we must agree with every church doctrine in order to recieve communion. We must believe in JESUS and transubstation but not neccessarily the "ever virgin" and immaculate conception. i agree with those dogmas now but i didn't and i don't think belief in those dogmas should be necessary for reception of JESUS body blood soul and divinity

 

[Benedicta00]

no he didn't. I just read the book 1 Corinthians. Paul never said that we must agree with every church doctrine in order to recieve communion. We must believe in JESUS and transubstation but not neccessarily the "ever virgin" and immaculate conception. i agree with those dogmas now but i didn't and i don't think belief in those dogmas should be necessary for reception of JESUS body blood soul and divinity

Lonnie, it says that you have to be disposed and in grace. Who else besides the EO has confession?

 

[Benedicta00]

i know i'm going to be in trouble but i'll tell you why. Before i became a Catholic, i totally believed in transubstanion but i found the belief in Mary ever virgin and the immaculate conception hard to belive. Why should someone be denied the Body and Blood of JESUS because they do not agree with those doctrines??

If I don’t go to confession Lonnie and be reconciled back to god, why should I be denied?

They don’t go to confession Lonnie, shall we throw that teaching out too for ecumenism?

 

[Benedicta00]

The catechism has this to say:

So firstly, giving communion to non Catholics is permitted. In these cases two Cardinals- Cardinal Ratzinger and Cardinal Kaspers gave communion to non-Catholics and we should presume that they decided it was a grave necessity to do so.
Although we are all still presuming a lot. This is all based on a press report that may or may not reflect the accuracy of what happened.
What to me is a concern is that people are being quick to jump and judge our pastors rather than finding out the full facts firstly, and secondly to consider that given what Taize was, what happens there, that some of the views people have here on Ecumenism are wrong.
Please, go and look at the fruits of Taize first, go there or talk to people who went there 10, 20 years ago who are still affected by what they learned there. That I think would have a great influence on what happened and why it happened.

The issue here is, these Protestants do not hold the Catholic faith and it was not given in a grave case for any one of them.

The CCC does not say it can be given for ecumenism reasons. If a person is in danger of death. I’m not questioning the authority the pope has to do this, just that I don’t agree with it.

 

[lonnienord]

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.

but what did JESUS and the apostles teach on the topic of who can recieve communion??

we can indeed disagree with the pope and cardinals and bishops but should we? What if they are indeed doing what GOD has told them to do?

 

[Benedicta00]

but what did JESUS and the apostles teach on the topic of who can recieve communion??

we can indeed disagree with the pope and cardinals and bishops but should we? What if they are indeed doing what GOD has told them to do?

lonnie, it has been since day one that you have to be properly dipose to take communion- we have no way of knowing that they are!

 

[Globalnomad]

Friends, I propose to refresh this discussion with a new provocative question(actually I think it's a perfectly straight one).

Some of us seem to be assuming that it is a matter of basic faith (dogma, unchangeable) that Communion cannot be given to non-Catholics. Our source is the Pauline warning not to take the body of the Lord unworthily, and the interpretation that the Church has "always" made of this. From there you deduce that even the Pope cannot make exceptions to this.

But when you think about it, the only immutable doctrine is that "it must be taken with the right understanding and disposition". How we define "right understanding and disposition" is actually a Church interpretation of doctrine: it can develop, just as our interpretation of monophysitism and of the internal dynamics of the Trinity (the Filioque clause) has been re-defined to overcome the old East-West theological disputes.

(Regarding the theology of the Real Presence, I don't know the details, but I know that theological discussions with the Evangelicals (the original German Lutheran Protestants) are so advanced, that we are very near the point of allowing intercommunion, to the same extent as with the Orthodox.)

Keeping this in mind, I would say that the Pope is certainly far ahead of us in understanding the theology and doctrine involved, and that he has every right to take the decision that he did. I would say that the extraordinary spirit of Taizé may well be defined as constituting "right understanding and disposition" for those who want to partake of the Eucharist at a unique event in that unique place.

bump.

(Debbie, I hope this answers also your earlier message addressed directly to me... it's not that I did not want to answer you directly, it's just that there is so much being said by so many people, I feel I really need to summarise!

 

[marciadietrich]

But when you think about it, the only immutable doctrine is that "it must be taken with the right understanding and disposition". How we define "right understanding and disposition" is actually a Church interpretation of doctrine: it can develop, just as our interpretation of monophysitism and of the internal dynamics of the Trinity (the Filioque clause) has been re-defined to overcome the old East-West theological disputes.

(Regarding the theology of the Real Presence, I don't know the details, but I know that theological discussions with the Evangelicals (the original German Lutheran Protestants) are so advanced, that we are very near the point of allowing intercommunion, to the same extent as with the Orthodox.)

Can someone explain why this isn't possible given the extent of interpretation of many areas of faith over time. Especially the 'no salvation outside the Church' going from near damnation for all who were outside but knew of Christ and the Church to what we have today. Many other areas of development.

Marcia

 

[Markh]

but...."Br" Roger was a Catholic- do a littl research on the internet there are some good sources which call him a Catholic.

but he kept it quiet.

still, the Church will never change her teachings on this issue- since she is guided by the Holy Spirit. Receiving communion as a non Catholic is a lie! If we see a non - Catholic receiving Holy Communion we should not receive Holy Communion ourselves as we are not in communion with that person.

 

[Servus Iesu]

but...."Br" Roger was a Catholic- do a littl research on the internet there are some good sources which call him a Catholic.

but he kept it quiet.

How can we trust an internet resource that Br. Roger converted and yet kept it a secret? People can put anything out on the internet. Br. Roger was a Protestant until proven otherwise.

still, the Church will never change her teachings on this issue- since she is guided by the Holy Spirit. Receiving communion as a non Catholic is a lie! If we see a non - Catholic receiving Holy Communion we should not receive Holy Communion ourselves as we are not in communion with that person.

You are ignoring the fact that communion was given out indiscriminately at his funeral to everyone there. Were all the Protestants at his funeral secret converts to Catholicism?

 

[Markh]

sorry, I misunderstood the issue.

But it seems to me that communion is always given out indiscriminately- at my Church on Sunday, at World Youth Day, at my University Chaplaincy.

indiscrimination is already a problem due to Catholics receiving communion when they are in a state of mortal sin. Protestants receiving Holy Communion is a similar abuse and to be combatted by a similar resolution- have an announcement before The Body Of Christ is distributed and improve understanding about the real presence among Catholics.

The issue which is offending me is the notion that non Catholics should be permitted and encouraged to receive Holy Communion. No one is seriously entertaining the thought that the Church could or should take this position, are they?!!?

 

[lonnienord]

sorry, I misunderstood the issue.

But it seems to me that communion is always given out indiscriminately- at my Church on Sunday, at World Youth Day, at my University Chaplaincy.

indiscrimination is already a problem due to Catholics receiving communion when they are in a state of mortal sin. Protestants receiving Holy Communion is a similar abuse and to be combatted by a similar resolution- have an announcement before The Body Of Christ is distributed and improve understanding about the real presence among Catholics.

The issue which is offending me is the notion that non Catholics should be permitted and encouraged to receive Holy Communion. No one is seriously entertaining the thought that the Church could or should take this position, are they?!!?

i am and i hope our leaders are. I suggest that at least once a month every Catholic Church have a training session where everyone is told the requirements for recieving communion. I think those requirements should be an understanding and belief in transubstantion, and sacramental confession if the person is not in the state of grace.

 

[Globalnomad]

but...."Br" Roger was a Catholic- do a littl research on the internet there are some good sources which call him a Catholic.

but he kept it quiet.

still, the Church will never change her teachings on this issue- since she is guided by the Holy Spirit. Receiving communion as a non Catholic is a lie! If we see a non - Catholic receiving Holy Communion we should not receive Holy Communion ourselves as we are not in communion with that person.

Markh, it would have been totally against what Brother Roger taught and represented, to convert to Catholicism secretly. I know about the speculations, but I am convinced they are an urban legend by people who don't understand his spirit and the high regard in which the Catholic Church holds him.

The Church has already changed her teachings on this issue. Non-Catholics - especially the Orthodox, but any other baptised person as well - are officially allowed to receive Communion under certain restrictive circumstances. We may go on debating whether those circumstances were present at Brother Roger's funeral, but I see no justification for making a statement as categorical and exclusivist as the one you made here.