Card. Kasper?!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Gilbert
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

Gilbert

Guest
nationalcatholicreporter…/word012006.htm
(J. Allen)

…
I had the privilege of spending five days in Durham, England, Jan. 13-16, on the grounds of picturesque 19th century Ushaw College, the Catholic seminary for northern England, at a unique summit of some of the best ecumenical minds in the English-speaking world.

The gathering began with the bestowal of an honorary doctorate upon Cardinal Walter Kasper, the Vatican’s top official for Christian unity, by Durham University, which is launching a new program in Catholic studies.
…

At an opening Anglican service on Jan. 12, Kasper lined up during the distribution of communion to receive a blessing from Anglican Bishop N.T. Wright.
…
Wright later said the exchange with Kasper will be a “treasured memory.”

What does it means “Kasper lined up during the distribution of communion to receive a blessing from Anglican Bishop N.T. Wright”?
Kasper receiving Communion from Anglican Bishop N.T. Wright?!
 
Gilbert said:
nationalcatholicreporter…/word012006.htm
(J. Allen)

…
I had the privilege of spending five days in Durham, England, Jan. 13-16, on the grounds of picturesque 19th century Ushaw College, the Catholic seminary for northern England, at a unique summit of some of the best ecumenical minds in the English-speaking world.

The gathering began with the bestowal of an honorary doctorate upon Cardinal Walter Kasper, the Vatican’s top official for Christian unity, by Durham University, which is launching a new program in Catholic studies.
…

At an opening Anglican service on Jan. 12, Kasper lined up during the distribution of communion to receive a blessing from Anglican Bishop N.T. Wright.
…
Wright later said the exchange with Kasper will be a “treasured memory.”

What does it means “Kasper lined up during the distribution of communion to receive a blessing from Anglican Bishop N.T. Wright”?
Kasper receiving Communion from Anglican Bishop N.T. Wright?!
Click to expand...

Well, if it said blessing, then I would suspect that it meant just that; the English do seem to be able to say what they want in a language we generally recognize; if they had meant that he lined up to receive Communion, I do think they would have said that.
 
If he received just a “blessing” then there was no specific problem.

However, that being said, I think the good Cardinal is taking the ecumenical thing too far. I can imagine the confusion that this could cause the Faithful in seeing a Cardinal of the Catholic Church lining up for “Communion” in an Anglican church, even if he just received a “blessing”.

Quite frankly, the Anglicans are still just as heretical as they were in Henry VIII’s time. A “blessing” from a (material) heretical bishop avails to nothing and may cause confusion if a Roman Catholic Cardinal is the one on the receiving end. If we want to end the schism between Rome and Canterbury there is only one way to do it-the Anglicans must come into full Communion with the Bishop of Rome, the Pope. There is no need to muddy the waters, we cannot budge one inch on doctrine as the gates of Hell will never prevail against the Church. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.

We should want all Christians to be united and in Communion with the Apostolic See, but it would not do us any harm if they stubbornly refuse to remain outside of Communion with the Church. Thus, we should never scandalize the Faithful in order to win PC points with protestants.
 
The eminent cardinal has been in his post a very long time. His zeal for re-union at times clouds his thinking is the opinion of many.
 
40.png
ComradeAndrei:
If he received just a “blessing” then there was no specific problem.

However, that being said, I think the good Cardinal is taking the ecumenical thing too far. I can imagine the confusion that this could cause the Faithful in seeing a Cardinal of the Catholic Church lining up for “Communion” in an Anglican church, even if he just received a “blessing”.

Quite frankly, the Anglicans are still just as heretical as they were in Henry VIII’s time. A “blessing” from a (material) heretical bishop avails to nothing and may cause confusion if a Roman Catholic Cardinal is the one on the receiving end. If we want to end the schism between Rome and Canterbury there is only one way to do it-the Anglicans must come into full Communion with the Bishop of Rome, the Pope. There is no need to muddy the waters, we cannot budge one inch on doctrine as the gates of Hell will never prevail against the Church. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.

We should want all Christians to be united and in Communion with the Apostolic See, but it would not do us any harm if they stubbornly refuse to remain outside of Communion with the Church. Thus, we should never scandalize the Faithful in order to win PC points with protestants.
Click to expand...
To begin with, the Anglicans aren’t heretical, they are schismatic. There is a significant difference.
 
40.png
otm:
To begin with, the Anglicans aren’t heretical, they are schismatic. There is a significant difference.
Click to expand...
One might term some of their recent developments in choice of clergy as heretical.
 
The don’t have valid orders…I dont know how you can not consider them heretics.
 
40.png
otm:
To begin with, the Anglicans aren’t heretical, they are schismatic. There is a significant difference.
Click to expand...
Actually you are wrong. The Anglicans are heretics. They are not schismatic because they do not have valid holy orders.
 
What Pope Leo said in the 1800s applied then. If we base valid orders on apostolic succession (We do.), then quite a lot of Anglican clerics have apostolic succession. Many bishop ordinations since the 1920s or 30s have had at least one Orthodox or Old Catholic bishop. In fact I think at least the last three Archbishops of Canterbury have had valid apostolic succession.

John
 
Actually, valid (but illicit) orders or not, all schismatics are heretics. It is schismatical to break off from Communion with Rome-and it is also heretical. The validity of orders has nothing to do with this.
 
Joe Kelley:
One might term some of their recent developments in choice of clergy as heretical.
Click to expand...
I think the more proper term would be immoral. we both agree that it is wrong, but I don’t believe that the moral law, and the subset of laws from that (the 10 Commandments, etc.) are considered doctrinal issues, but rather moral issues.

We may have doctrinal issues with them concering the Eucharist, for example, as we believe in transubstantiation and if I am not mistaken, they believe in consubstantiation. However, the split with Rome was not over the issue of the Eucharist but over Henry’s desire for a son, and his choice of how he wished to go about it; when Rome refused him an anullment, he decided to separate off and provide his own authority.

That of course simplifies a complexity of issues, but it helps to keep our definitions straight.
 
40.png
ComradeAndrei:
Actually, valid (but illicit) orders or not, all schismatics are heretics. It is schismatical to break off from Communion with Rome-and it is also heretical. The validity of orders has nothing to do with this.
Click to expand...
You are correct that the validity of orders has nothing to do with this; however that is because the validity of orders was lost due to the Anglican/Epsicopalian change to the form/substance issue of the sacrament; they changed the lnaguage of the ordination and Rome has said (several popes ago) that that change caused the break in the validity of orders. The other major schismatic group, the Orthodox, are considered to have valid orders, although illicit.
So also the SSPX.

however, the Church has always been careful to distinguish between heresy and schism. Heresy is a denial of a doctrine. Schism is a refusal to accept the authority of the pope and communion (unity) with the Church. The two are not synonomous, and I know of no Church document which says that the Anglican/Episcopalian Church is in heresy. It is considered to be in schism. If I am wrong, please cite your source.
 
But don’t Anglicans deny the Real Presence in the Eucharist? That would constitute a denial of the Sacrifice in the most blessed Sacrament of the Church of Christ, a cornerstone of our Faith.

-John
 
Anima Christi:
Actually you are wrong. The Anglicans are heretics. They are not schismatic because they do not have valid holy orders.
Click to expand...
That’s not what schism means. Schism simply means refusal to submit to the pope. Heresy means a denial of an article of faith. In this case, Anglicans are both. They deny various articles of faith, including papal supremacy, papal infallibility, infallibility of the Church in general, the sacrificial nature of the Mass, the Immacualte Conception, the Assumption, some deny the Real Presence (depending on which Anglican you talk to,) they deny Purgatory and also the necessity of the Sacrament of Confession.
 
Gilbert said:
nationalcatholicreporter…/word012006.htm
(J. Allen)

…
I had the privilege of spending five days in Durham, England, Jan. 13-16, on the grounds of picturesque 19th century Ushaw College, the Catholic seminary for northern England, at a unique summit of some of the best ecumenical minds in the English-speaking world.

The gathering began with the bestowal of an honorary doctorate upon Cardinal Walter Kasper, the Vatican’s top official for Christian unity, by Durham University, which is launching a new program in Catholic studies.
…

At an opening Anglican service on Jan. 12, Kasper lined up during the distribution of communion to receive a blessing from Anglican Bishop N.T. Wright.
…
Wright later said the exchange with Kasper will be a “treasured memory.”

**What does it means “Kasper lined up during the distribution of communion to receive a blessing from Anglican Bishop N.T. Wright”? **
Kasper receiving Communion from Anglican Bishop N.T. Wright?!
Click to expand...

No.​

It means he received a blessing - instead of receiving the Eucharist.

There is absolutely no reason why he should not have done so, and quite a few in favour of doing so. No matter how strictly one wants to interpret the doctrine, dogma, and canons on the RC side, what he did was not wrong - far from it. Any obstacle to what he did could only come from the Anglican side; if there were Anglican canons or theology or doctrine against what he did - it seems there is no such obstacle.

If anything, his behaviour and that of Bishop Wright is an excellent example of a practical ecumenism that respects the positions and theologies and doctrunes of both Churches. This is an instance of ecumenical courtesy as it ought to be practiced.

End of problem.

So you can relax 😃 - and be happy that nothing wrong was done ##
 
40.png
MilesXpisti:
But don’t Anglicans deny the Real Presence in the Eucharist? That would constitute a denial of the Sacrifice in the most blessed Sacrament of the Church of Christ, a cornerstone of our Faith.

-John
Click to expand...

No. The dogma denied, is that of the Substantial Presence of Christ - the dogma of the Real Presence, is perfectly compatible with the Anglican theological and doctrinal tradition.​

Catholics could do worse than read some of the 17th-century divines - several of them, such as Bishop Forbes of Brechin, held a doctrine of the Eucharist which is indistinguishable from that of the Council of Trent. Unfortunately, all Catholics ever seem to know about is some of the frailties of the Church of England.

OTOH, I don’t suppose many Anglicans have heard of the Venerable Louis of Blois O.S.B ##
 
40.png
MilesXpisti:
But don’t Anglicans deny the Real Presence in the Eucharist? That would constitute a denial of the Sacrifice in the most blessed Sacrament of the Church of Christ, a cornerstone of our Faith.

-John
Click to expand...
They do not deny the Real Presence, according to them, but their theological definition is at odds with ours.

However, they did not break off with the Catholic Church over the isue of defining how Christ is present in the Eucharist; they broke off because they were not willing to accept the authority of the Pope.
 
Peruse the article on “schism” in the Catholic Encyclopedia-

newadvent.org/cathen/13529a.htm

Schism and heresy maybe aren’t “exactly” the same thing, but they go hand in hand. Schism more precisely indicates a limited heresy, for instance denial of papal primacy while holding to apostolic succession, the Sacraments etc. Heresy (like Protestantism) throws out practically everything aside from belief in Christ as our savior (and even the understanding of that is at odds). Apostasy is leaving the Faith completely, i.e. rejecting Christianity completely.

After all, denying papal primacy (like in the Anglican’s case) IS heresy. To say that the Pope doesn’t have the supreme authority over the Church is heresy. Thus, spliting away from his supreme authority is schism-but also heresy.
 
Re Anglican belief in Eucharist, from the 39 Articles *
28. Of the Lord’s Supper
Click to expand...
The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the mutual love that Christians ought to have among themselves. Rather, it is a sacrament of our redemption through Christ’s death. To those who rightly, worthily, and with faith receive it, the bread which we break is a partaking of the body of Christ, and similarly the cup of blessing is a partaking of the blood of Christ. Transubstantiation (the change of the substance of the bread and wine) in the Supper of the Lord cannot be proved from holy Scripture, but is repugnant to the plain teaching of Scripture. It overthrows the nature of a sacrament and has given rise to many superstitions. The body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the Supper only in a heavenly and spiritual manner. The means by which the body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is by faith. *
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top