Did the Pope really say that Lutherans who believed in the real presence can take communion with Catholics

[JerryZ]

A caller on today’s “Open Line” asked Fr. Mitch Pacwa if Pope Francis gave explicit permission to Lutherans who believed in the real presence of the Lord in the Eucharist to partake in the Catholic Sacrament.
The question was spurred because the caller had read in a couple of web sites that indeed this was the case.
And in fact I did find a few sites that purported to interpret Pope Francis’s words as an affirmative to the question.

Alas, as usual we see that people read whatever they want to read to push for their pet peeve agendas. Here is the transcript of what the Pope actually said answering the woman’s question. Of course it is in Italian.

(Question) D. – Mi chiamo Anke de Bernardinis e, come molte persone della nostra comunità, sono sposata con un italiano, che è un cristiano cattolico romano. Viviamo felicemente insieme da molti anni, condividendo gioie e dolori. E quindi ci duole assai l’essere divisi nella fede e non poter partecipare insieme alla Cena del Signore. Che cosa possiamo fare per raggiungere, finalmente, la comunione su questo punto?

(Answer) R. – Grazie, Signora. Alla domanda sul condividere la Cena del Signore non è facile per me risponderLe, soprattutto davanti a un teologo come il cardinale Kasper! Ho paura! Io penso che il Signore ci ha detto quando ha dato questo mandato: “Fate questo in memoria di me”. E quando condividiamo la Cena del Signore, ricordiamo e imitiamo, facciamo la stessa cosa che ha fatto il Signore Gesù. E la Cena del Signore ci sarà, il banchetto finale nella Nuova Gerusalemme ci sarà, ma questa sarà l’ultima. Invece nel cammino, mi domando – e non so come rispondere, ma la sua domanda la faccio mia – io mi domando: condividere la Cena del Signore è il fine di un cammino o è il viatico per camminare insieme? Lascio la domanda ai teologi, a quelli che capiscono. È vero che in un certo senso condividere è dire che non ci sono differenze fra noi, che abbiamo la stessa dottrina – sottolineo la parola, parola difficile da capire – ma io mi domando: ma non abbiamo lo stesso Battesimo? E se abbiamo lo stesso Battesimo dobbiamo camminare insieme. Lei è una testimonianza di un cammino anche profondo perché è un cammino coniugale, un cammino proprio di famiglia, di amore umano e di fede condivisa. Abbiamo lo stesso Battesimo. Quando Lei si sente peccatrice – anche io mi sento tanto peccatore – quando suo marito si sente peccatore, Lei va davanti al Signore e chiede perdono; Suo marito fa lo stesso e va dal sacerdote e chiede l’assoluzione. Sono rimedi per mantenere vivo il Battesimo. Quando voi pregate insieme, quel Battesimo cresce, diventa forte; quando voi insegnate ai vostri figli chi è Gesù, perché è venuto Gesù, cosa ci ha fatto Gesù, fate lo stesso, sia in lingua luterana che in lingua cattolica, ma è lo stesso. La domanda: e la Cena? Ci sono domande alle quali soltanto se uno è sincero con sé stesso e con le poche “luci” teologiche che io ho, si deve rispondere lo stesso, vedete voi. “Questo è il mio Corpo, questo è il mio sangue”, ha detto il Signore, “fate questo in memoria di me”, e questo è un viatico che ci aiuta a camminare. Io ho avuto una grande amicizia con un vescovo episcopaliano, 48enne, sposato, due figli e lui aveva questa inquietudine: la moglie cattolica, i figli cattolici, lui vescovo. Lui accompagnava la domenica sua moglie e i suoi figli alla Messa e poi andava a fare il culto con la sua comunità. Era un passo di partecipazione alla Cena del Signore. Poi lui è andato avanti, il Signore lo ha chiamato, un uomo giusto. Alla sua domanda Le rispondo soltanto con una domanda: come posso fare con mio marito, perché la Cena del Signore mi accompagni nella mia strada? È un problema a cui ognuno deve rispondere. Ma mi diceva un pastore amico: “Noi crediamo che il Signore è presente lì. È presente. Voi credete che il Signore è presente. E qual è la differenza?” – “Eh, sono le spiegazioni, le interpretazioni…”. La vita è più grande delle spiegazioni e interpretazioni. Sempre fate riferimento al Battesimo: “Una fede, un battesimo, un Signore”, così ci dice Paolo, e di là prendete le conseguenze. Io non oserò mai dare permesso di fare questo perché non è mia competenza. Un Battesimo, un Signore, una fede. Parlate col Signore e andate avanti. Non oso dire di più.

Now I do not need a translator to understand that in Pope Francis’s answer, he DID NOT authorize the woman to partake of the Catholic Eucharist. In fact he makes a pun that Cardinal Kasper was there present to keep him from straying to much out of orthodoxy, which I really do not believe. What he DID encourage was for the woman to speak to the Lord and ask HIM whether perhaps this separation was what HE wanted. The words of St. Paul’s “One Lord, One faith, one Baptism”, meditate and reflect on those words and draw the consequences. He declared that he would never give permission to allow this because he has no competence deferring to St. Paul’s words.

Even the stupid online translator get’s it pretty close to what he actually said:

I would never dare to give permission to do this because it is not my responsibility. One baptism, one Lord, one faith. Talk to the Lord and go forward. I dare not say more

…

 

[Rbaker]

Thanks for this

 

[bemily]

Why cannot the pope just answer: “No, absolutely not” “It has never been the practice and it will never be”?? [edited]

 

[jediliz]

I thought this too and freaked out a little…He really needs to be clearer in his answers. The problem is often his words are mistranslated…even the Spanish he speaks is a little bit different dialect because its South American and not Mexico or Spain…

He really needed to say, “In order to receive with your husband, you would need to undergo RCIA and become a fully initiated Catholic.” which would have been the right answer.

 

[smead2942]

A caller on today’s “Open Line” asked Fr. Mitch Pacwa if Pope Francis gave explicit permission to Lutherans who believed in the real presence of the Lord in the Eucharist to partake in the Catholic Sacrament.
The question was spurred because the caller had read in a couple of web sites that indeed this was the case.
And in fact I did find a few sites that purported to interpret Pope Francis’s words as an affirmative to the question.

Alas, as usual we see that people read whatever they want to read to push for their pet peeve agendas. Here is the transcript of what the Pope actually said answering the woman’s question. Of course it is in Italian.

Now I do not need a translator to understand that in Pope Francis’s answer, he DID NOT authorize the woman to partake of the Catholic Eucharist. In fact he makes a pun that Cardinal Kasper was there present to keep him from straying to much out of orthodoxy, which I really do not believe. What he DID encourage was for the woman to speak to the Lord and ask HIM whether perhaps this separation was what HE wanted. The words of St. Paul’s “One Lord, One faith, one Baptism”, meditate and reflect on those words and draw the consequences. He declared that he would never give permission to allow this because he has no competence deferring to St. Paul’s words.

Even the stupid online translator get’s it pretty close to what he actually said

…

He actually did say this, yes. And he’s absolutely wrong. No one outside the flock can EVER communicate in our churches. The Holy Father has no authority whatsoever to allow this. “Talking to God and deciding for yourself” is not an option.

 

[pianistclare]

Why cannot the pope just answer: “No, absolutely not” “It has never been the practice and it will never be”?? He is a rather weak leader.

He’s not a weak leader. No way.

 

[Joe_5859]

He’s not a weak leader. No way.

Indeed. It is easy to slam the door in people’s faces. Much more difficult to get them to follow you.

The final statement he made is quite clear. But rather than just state the negative and have that be the end of it, he invites her to start thinking of unity. Because, of course, the best way to resolve the situation so that she can receive the Eucharist is for her to become Catholic.

 

[SMH_2015]

Al Kresta spoke about this a bit on his show the other day…I think he read an English translation. He sounded a little, um, perturbed that the Pope would admit to not having “competence” when it comes to this issue. “If Francis isn’t competent, who is?”

 

[1ke]

He actually did say this, yes.

Mmmm, no, he didn’t. Read the Vatican website translation of this, and not the news articles.

And he’s absolutely wrong. No one outside the flock can EVER communicate in our churches.

Well, actually, they can. In some specific circumstances. So never say “never”. Canon Law (which predates Francis by 32 years) foresees it and addresses it:

Canon 844 §3. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick licitly to members of Eastern Churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church if they seek such on their own accord and are properly disposed. This is also valid for members of other Churches which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the same condition in regard to the sacraments as these Eastern Churches.

§4. If the danger of death is present or if, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops, some other grave necessity urges it, Catholic ministers administer these same sacraments licitly also to other Christians not having full communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who seek such on their own accord, provided that they manifest Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments and are properly disposed.

§5. For the cases mentioned in §§2, 3, and 4, the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops is not to issue general norms except after consultation at least with the local competent authority of the interested non-Catholic Church or community.

The Holy Father has no authority whatsoever to allow this. “Talking to God and deciding for yourself” is not an option.

As the supreme legislator of the Church, actually he does.

But he didn’t.

 

[Murmurs]

Thank you for this, JerryZ.

A lot of people (especially on other threads that sprang up here the last few days) seem to be expecting the Pope - especially this Pope! to give a categorical, canon-law or catchecismal answer, vis. “No…if you want to, that’s wonderful, but you would need to become a Roman Catholic first.”

That of course is factually entirely correct but Francis’ leadership style isn’t remotely a legalistic one (thank goodness!). He said (correctly) than he can’t give such permission, and encouraged her to think and pray on it. Which is in my view exactly the sort of answer the Holy Father - any Holy Father - should give to this kind of question.

Speaking at least personally, an overly legalistic view of Catholic life in general, was what kept me out of joining the Church for years and years. Had he just given the factual answer “you can’t, unless you’re Catholic” a woman would have gone back to her family feeling rejected by her husband’s church. As it is, the very worst case scenario is she feels encouraged to pray about the matter further, and that’s not remotely a “worst”.

It’s may be unseemly, but Three Cheers for Pope Francis.

 

[FractalFire]

No one outside the flock can EVER communicate in our churches.

This might be an odd question, but could someone please explain to me why this is so? I have been considering the conflict between Catholics and Protestants for a while now and it is really unclear to me what the technical Catholic position on Protestants is and how this works.

I’ve read some people who say “yes, they are Christians, but imperfect ones not in communion with Rome” and others who say “no, they are not Christians, only Catholics are true Christians.” Most annoyingly, I have found people on both sides who essentially say “yes, the other side can be saved, but only if they don’t fully understand/believe what their side preaches,” which just seems to make actually learning Theology potentially dangerous. Is this just an individual opinion, like those of some Protestants who reject Catholics as saved or is it an official doctrine?

Also, if some Protestants are in Christ, why couldn’t they take communion? I don’t really have a problem with the Catholic doctrine on this matter, I’m just confused as to *why *this is the case.

Thank you!

 

[Catholic1954]

Why cannot the pope just answer: “No, absolutely not” “It has never been the practice and it will never be”?? [edited]

Exactly! I wonder how many Lutherans have read the news articles and now think it is ok for them to receive communion at a Catholic Mass?

 

[FrDavid96]

Al Kresta spoke about this a bit on his show the other day…I think he read an English translation. He sounded a little, um, perturbed that the Pope would admit to not having “competence” when it comes to this issue. “If Francis isn’t competent, who is?”

The pope (whoever he might be at any given moment in history) is indeed not-competent to change the faith of the Eucharist.

All he can do is to safeguard the faith of the Church as it has been handed to him.

When he says that he is "not competent’ that means he has no authority to change the faith. That’s what the sentence means.

 

[FractalFire]

Thank you! I think I see now. I didn’t realize you saw Communion as a unifying event (at least, not to that degree); most Protestant churches interpret it only as unifying the body of believers (which to them is anyone who holds to the Nicene Creed and has become a member of a church that does so), so the Catholic church’s rules felt a bit confusing. I can also see why you might fear a failure to discern.

[Though one wonders, since all Protestant churches have communion anyway, if they would not drink judgement on themselves regardless from that perspective. Though I suppose at least in those cases the Catholic church would not be helping. Edit: Never-mind, I forgot the RCC doesn’t think transubstantiation takes place in those churches.]

Your clarification was helpful, thanks.

 

[ProVobis]

I think I see now. I didn’t realize you saw Communion as a unifying event (at least, not to that degree); most Protestant churches interpret it only as unifying the body of believers (which to them is anyone who holds to the Nicene Creed and has become a member of a church that does so), so the Catholic church’s rules felt a bit confusing. I can also see why you might fear a failure to discern.

Actually the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is the unifying event. Sacramental communion is a unifying event only if those receiving are properly disposed, through confession if necessary and fasting. We are not all saints yet.

 

[otjm]

He actually did say this, yes. And he’s absolutely wrong. No one outside the flock can EVER communicate in our churches. The Holy Father has no authority whatsoever to allow this. “Talking to God and deciding for yourself” is not an option.

Oh, yes they can, and a prime example was then Cardinal Ratzinger distributing Communion at Pope John Paul’s funeral.

 

[otjm]

Thank you! I think I see now. I didn’t realize you saw Communion as a unifying event (at least, not to that degree); most Protestant churches interpret it only as unifying the body of believers (which to them is anyone who holds to the Nicene Creed and has become a member of a church that does so), so the Catholic church’s rules felt a bit confusing. I can also see why you might fear a failure to discern.

[Though one wonders, since all Protestant churches have communion anyway, if they would not drink judgement on themselves regardless from that perspective. Though I suppose at least in those cases the Catholic church would not be helping. Edit: Never-mind, I forgot the RCC doesn’t think transubstantiation takes place in those churches.]

Your clarification was helpful, thanks.

See also Post 8.