H
HagiaSophia
Guest
From Chiesa - Sandro Magister reporting:
"…And in fact many eucharistic liturgies in Latin America and central Europe are celebrated in this way, in small groups without a priest, by ordinary men and women. And there are even some in the progressivist camp who defend this practice as an innovation that the Church should approve without reservation.
On this matter, cardinal Kasper’s “no” is absolute:
“A celebration of the eucharist without the ministry of the priest is unthinkable. The ministry of the priest is integral to the celebration of the eucharist. This is also true in cases of extreme emergency. Wherever there have been situations of extreme persecution, in which it has not been possible to have a priest for years or for decades, we have never heard of a parish community or an individual group celebrating the eucharist by their own initiative, without a priest.”
The “extreme situations” referred to are, for example, that of Soviet Russia, or of China. Never was there seen in these cases the practice Kasper rejects as “inadmissible,” not for disciplinary but for theological reasons, which are developed on many of the pages in his book.
The homily – Kasper says with support from the New Testament – must also be reserved to the priest. In absolutely exceptional cases a layman could address a “spiritual address” to the community, but this must always be “distinguishable from the homily.”
Kasper contests the tendency to “interpret in a simple metaphorical and purely symbolic” sense the words of the consecration:
“The words of Jesus ‘This is my body’ and ‘This is my blood’ must be understood in the real sense, and in this sacramental sense we speak of the real presence; that is, the true, real, and substantial presence of Jesus Christ under the signs of bread and wine.”
The cardinal contests the obfuscation of the mass as sacrifice and its reduction to a meal at which “the celebration of the eucharist is almost indistinguishable from a banquet or a party.”
Another target of Kasper’s criticisms is the “functionalist” interpretation of the eucharistic liturgy:
“The mass is not a ‘service’ which, following the law of supplication and offering, is oriented primarily according to the needs or desires of certain groups. It is not a means to an end, but rather an end in itself. It must not become a ‘happening’. It is wrong to evaluate it on the basis of its capacity to entertain. The liturgical celebration must be animated, instead, by respect for the holy God and for the presence of our Lord in the sacrament. It must be a space for silence, reflection, adoration, and personal encounter with God.”
And again:
“The primary meaning of the eucharistic celebration is the ‘cultus divinus’, the glorification, adoration, praise, and exaltation of God in remembrance of his mighty deeds. This aspect becomes all the more difficult to understand in our society, which is focused upon human needs and their satisfaction. And yet, this is where lies the true reason for the crisis of the liturgy and the widespread inability to understand it. Neither the priestly ministry not the eucharist may be derived ‘from below’ and from the community. A reduction of the eucharist to its anthropological meaning would be a false renovation of the Church.”
Kasper also takes issue with the “gloomy Puritanism” of so many masses that are stripped of all solemnity:
“The candles, the vestments, the music, and everything human art has to offer, must not be eliminated as if they were superficial pomp. The entire celebration of the eucharist should be a foretaste of the coming kingdom of God. In it, the heavenly world descends to our world. This aspect is particularly vivid in the liturgy and theology of the Eastern Church. In the West, however, after the council both the liturgy and theology have unfortunately become puristic and culturally impoverished in this regard.”
As for communion, Kasper confirms that “we cannot invite everyone to receive it.” Exclusion applies especially to non-Catholics:
“The eucharist presupposes, as the sacrament of unity, that we are in full ecclesial communion, which finds its expression above all in communion with the local bishop and with the bishop of Rome, as the holder of the Petrine ministry, which is at the service of Church unity.”
But it also applies to Catholics in a state of grave sin. Kasper recalls the duty – largely fallen into disuse – to make recourse to the sacrament of penance, in order “not to eat and drink unworthily the body and blood of the Lord”: …
"…And in fact many eucharistic liturgies in Latin America and central Europe are celebrated in this way, in small groups without a priest, by ordinary men and women. And there are even some in the progressivist camp who defend this practice as an innovation that the Church should approve without reservation.
On this matter, cardinal Kasper’s “no” is absolute:
“A celebration of the eucharist without the ministry of the priest is unthinkable. The ministry of the priest is integral to the celebration of the eucharist. This is also true in cases of extreme emergency. Wherever there have been situations of extreme persecution, in which it has not been possible to have a priest for years or for decades, we have never heard of a parish community or an individual group celebrating the eucharist by their own initiative, without a priest.”
The “extreme situations” referred to are, for example, that of Soviet Russia, or of China. Never was there seen in these cases the practice Kasper rejects as “inadmissible,” not for disciplinary but for theological reasons, which are developed on many of the pages in his book.
The homily – Kasper says with support from the New Testament – must also be reserved to the priest. In absolutely exceptional cases a layman could address a “spiritual address” to the community, but this must always be “distinguishable from the homily.”
Kasper contests the tendency to “interpret in a simple metaphorical and purely symbolic” sense the words of the consecration:
“The words of Jesus ‘This is my body’ and ‘This is my blood’ must be understood in the real sense, and in this sacramental sense we speak of the real presence; that is, the true, real, and substantial presence of Jesus Christ under the signs of bread and wine.”
The cardinal contests the obfuscation of the mass as sacrifice and its reduction to a meal at which “the celebration of the eucharist is almost indistinguishable from a banquet or a party.”
Another target of Kasper’s criticisms is the “functionalist” interpretation of the eucharistic liturgy:
“The mass is not a ‘service’ which, following the law of supplication and offering, is oriented primarily according to the needs or desires of certain groups. It is not a means to an end, but rather an end in itself. It must not become a ‘happening’. It is wrong to evaluate it on the basis of its capacity to entertain. The liturgical celebration must be animated, instead, by respect for the holy God and for the presence of our Lord in the sacrament. It must be a space for silence, reflection, adoration, and personal encounter with God.”
And again:
“The primary meaning of the eucharistic celebration is the ‘cultus divinus’, the glorification, adoration, praise, and exaltation of God in remembrance of his mighty deeds. This aspect becomes all the more difficult to understand in our society, which is focused upon human needs and their satisfaction. And yet, this is where lies the true reason for the crisis of the liturgy and the widespread inability to understand it. Neither the priestly ministry not the eucharist may be derived ‘from below’ and from the community. A reduction of the eucharist to its anthropological meaning would be a false renovation of the Church.”
Kasper also takes issue with the “gloomy Puritanism” of so many masses that are stripped of all solemnity:
“The candles, the vestments, the music, and everything human art has to offer, must not be eliminated as if they were superficial pomp. The entire celebration of the eucharist should be a foretaste of the coming kingdom of God. In it, the heavenly world descends to our world. This aspect is particularly vivid in the liturgy and theology of the Eastern Church. In the West, however, after the council both the liturgy and theology have unfortunately become puristic and culturally impoverished in this regard.”
As for communion, Kasper confirms that “we cannot invite everyone to receive it.” Exclusion applies especially to non-Catholics:
“The eucharist presupposes, as the sacrament of unity, that we are in full ecclesial communion, which finds its expression above all in communion with the local bishop and with the bishop of Rome, as the holder of the Petrine ministry, which is at the service of Church unity.”
But it also applies to Catholics in a state of grave sin. Kasper recalls the duty – largely fallen into disuse – to make recourse to the sacrament of penance, in order “not to eat and drink unworthily the body and blood of the Lord”: …
