German bishop invites all Protestant spouses to receive Communion at jubilee

[irenaeus1]

With regard to the Eastern Orthodox, while they do not believe in papal infallibility, they essentially hold to the catholic and apostolic faith AND have valid orders and sacraments. This may amount to a discipline rather than doctrinal teaching, since though technically they are deemed as schismatic and thus were precluded from receiving the sacraments per the 1917 code, are now admitted under certain criteria under the current code. When teachings regarding discipline touch on issues of doctrine, I suppose that is when things can get a bit dicey.

 

[Dovekin]

what does it mean for the non-Catholic Christian to first renounce their errors and be reconciled with the Church other than that they manifest Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments and are properly disposed?

Requiring people to renounce their errors means we judge them as having held errors. Asking them to manifest Catholic faith means we acknowledge and accept their faith. If you cannot see the difference between these two situations, you need to consider the two codes a little more carefully.

 

[irenaeus1]

Non-catholic Christians may receive sacraments with the approval of the bishop in certain circumstances. That is what some German bishops are doing, approving some non-catholic Christians as eligible to receive the sacraments in the circumstances described. Their action is what is called for by the Code of canon law promulgated 25 years ago.

Yes, and those certain circumstances are spelled out. Again, the bishop cannot invent the criteria to which he makes the judgment. The criteria are the following, all of which need to be met in order to licitly administer the sacrament:
The non-Catholic Christian is in danger of death or in some other grave necessity
The non-Catholic cannot approach a minister of their own community
The non-Catholic must request it on their own
The non-Catholic professes Catholic faith in the sacraments
The non-Catholic is properly disposed (i.e., one of which would be to approach the Sacrament of Confession if they are conscience of grave sin)

This is what was promulgated some 35 years ago. Nothing in here permits a bishop to extend an open invitation to Protestant spouses, “Come one, come all.”

 

[irenaeus1]

This is the lie we should reject. They affirm the catholic and apostolic faith, as they understand it. We understand it differently. There is one Lord, one baptism, one faith, one God who is Father of us all, and many understandings.

Are those differences in understanding great enough to keep us apart? You seemed not to think so in your first post, I just applied your point more generally. If individuals can become Catholics, why shouldn’t we acknowledge whole communities as Catholics on the same principle?

Yes, apparently those differences are great enough to keep us apart, which is why most Lutherans want to remain Lutherans and not come into full communion with the Catholic Church. And yes, by their own admission and formal confessions… why not take them at their word. They admittedly reject the ministerial priesthood which is required to confect a valid Eucharist. They also admittedly reject the sacrificial understanding of the Eucharistic offering in the Liturgy, yet this is the very thing that you are saying they should be admitted to participate in. Yes, come publicly participate in something that you manifestly reject. What color is the sky in the world where this makes any sense? Certainly, we have much in common with Lutherans, which is why there has been ecumenical dialogue as well as communal prayer services… precisely because of the overlap in the areas with which we share in common with regard to faith. But the Eucharistic Liturgy is not one of them.

By the way, whole communities can come in as Catholics. It has happened before with Anglicans even prior to the establishment of the ordinariate. In fact, about 10 years ago, a number of bishops signed a statement of faith acknowledging and accepting the Catechism of the Catholic Church and came into full communion with the Catholic Church. This could happen with Lutheran congregations as well.

 

[irenaeus1]

Requiring people to renounce their errors means we judge them as having held errors. Asking them to manifest Catholic faith means we acknowledge and accept their faith. If you cannot see the difference between these two situations, you need to consider the two codes a little more carefully.

Absolutely, we should judge whether something is held in error. Even you must do that as I assume you would draw the line somewhere, or would you simply say, “well, that’s how they understand the faith; they simply understand it differently. Let’s reject the lie and let them affirm the catholic and apostolic faith as they understand it. Never mind that they are Baptists, Presbyterians, Churches of Christ, Assemblies of God, Methodists, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Oneness Pentecostals, and on and on. After all, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God who is Father of us all.” Would you say this?

And you are mistaken… asking them to manifest Catholic faith means they acknowledge and accept the catholic and apostolic faith. Again, you must know this; otherwise, where do you draw the line for the above list?

 

[Dovekin]

Absolutely, we should judge whether something is held in error. Even you must do that as I assume you would draw the line somewhere…

I do not have to draw the line anywhere, because I am not a bishop. That is the bishop’s responsibility, as explicitly stated in canon 844.

The bishop in this instance has apparently decided that the Jubilee celebrating the diocese was a time of urgent need for the couples of the diocese. An “open invitation” is in line with Jubilees, a time of restoration and renewal from ancient times, even if it is not as open as you portray it. (“…has allowed all Protestants married to Catholics to receive Holy Communion at jubilee Masses for married couples in his cathedral.”)

At the root of this is the question of faith. Last year’s Declaration on the Way lays out agreements and differences in a systematic way. This Catholic-Lutheran statement might give you a clearer understanding of the basis for the German bishop’s decisions.

 

[exnihilo]

Despair is never good. Particular things might not improve during our lifetime. But eventually things will be set right. When we stand as witnesses to the truth we are doing God’s work. This is true even if it seems we make no difference.

 

[irenaeus1]

I do not have to draw the line anywhere, because I am not a bishop. That is the bishop’s responsibility, as explicitly stated in canon 844.

Again, a bishop cannot invent the criteria to which he makes the judgment. If you are going to continue to appeal to Canon 844, then you know that the criteria are explicitly spelled out there. Canon 844 is not a license for an individual bishop to do whatever he wants. Being Lutheran, or being married to a Catholic, or being a Jubilee does not satisfy any of the conditions of 844.

 

[irenaeus1]

At the root of this is the question of faith. Last year’s Declaration on the Way lays out agreements and differences in a systematic way. This Catholic-Lutheran statement might give you a clearer understanding of the basis for the German bishop’s decisions.

With regard to Declaration on the Way… Eucharistic communion depends upon the mutual recognition of ministry, which in turn depends upon the recognition that each ecclesial community is apostolic (this is per the document itself). Obviously, the Catholic Church does not recognize Lutherans to have valid orders nor apostolic succession; therefore, a valid Eucharist cannot be confected by Lutherans. Of course, I suppose it could be that the German bishops realize this as if to say, we recognize that you do not have valid orders or a valid Eucharist in Lutheran community, so come here where you can get the real thing.

 

[Dovekin]

Being Lutheran, or being married to a Catholic, or being a Jubilee does not satisfy any of the conditions of 844.

In your opinion, which you offer in place of the decision of the bishop who is entrusted with the responsibilty of deciding if it applies. This does not mean you are wrong, just that you present your opinion as if it conflicts with the position taken by a bishop serving his Church.

 

[FirstFiveEighth]

Sure is a whole lot of spin going on in here.

 

[twf]

Rome hasn’t contradicted these bishops. Only Rome can make the declaration you just did.

 

[AlNg]

These bishops doing this are schismatics and heretics.

Has this been declared officially? Or is it just slander?

 

[irenaeus1]

In your opinion, which you offer in place of the decision of the bishop who is entrusted with the responsibilty of deciding if it applies. This does not mean you are wrong, just that you present your opinion as if it conflicts with the position taken by a bishop serving his Church.

On the contrary, this is not my opinion but fact. The fact is that Canon 844 provides criteria to which the bishop is to make a judgment, and these criteria have been listed for you in a previous post nearly verbatim (well, at least from the English translation; I didn’t provide them verbatim to you in Latin). So for example, it is a fact (not opinion) that simply being Lutheran does not suffice for admission to the sacraments… after all, 844 is addressing those not in full communion with the Catholic Church, so that’s a given. Simply not being in full communion does not satisfy the criteria set forth in 844; it simply means that a Lutheran is then considered a candidate for the application of 844 as opposed to, say, a non-believer (since a Lutheran falls into the category of those to whom the Canon is addressed). Now, once that is established, does this particular Lutheran meet the criteria in 844; namely, in danger of death or some other grave necessity and does not have access to a Lutheran minister and makes the request of their own volition and confesses Catholic faith in the eucharist and is properly disposed. Those are in fact the criteria, not an opinion based on preference.

By the way, what’s the point of listing criteria to be met if, in the end, the criteria is irrelevant or does not have the force of canon law?

 

[Dovekin]

The question is, as you say, does a particular Lutheran meet the criteria? Simply reiterating the criteria does not answer this in any way.

in danger of death or some other grave necessity

Grave neccesity as defined by the bishop. It does not have to be a dire circumstance, but can refer to being isolated in mission territory and similar circumstances, according to Vatican guidance. Other bishops’ conferences have understood it as applying to married couples.

does not have access to a Lutheran minister

No Lutheran minister would be celebrating the Jubilee declared by the Catholic bishop, so none would be available. The particular thing being celebrated, the commitment to one another in Christ, can only be celebrated by the couple together.

makes the request of their own volition

I do not know how couples were chosen for invitation, but I can see their marital commitment as an implicit request to be more closely in communion with Christ, especially if they have accepted an invitation to attend, as a married couple, a Jubilee mass at the cathedral.

confesses Catholic faith in the eucharist and is properly disposed

Again, this may be implicit in the way they were invited. I do not know. I know some dioceses assume Anglicans and Lutherans have the same faith in the Eucharist that we have.

Some of these seem like a stretch to me, but I am not a bishop and am not familiar wih the way marriage is understood and celebrated there. I don’t even know what the rejected document from the German bishops said. It just seems like these criteria, far from making intercommunion impossible, may not even make it rare.

 

[irenaeus1]

No Lutheran minister would be celebrating the Jubilee declared by the Catholic bishop, so none would be available. The particular thing being celebrated, the commitment to one another in Christ, can only be celebrated by the couple together.

Why does a Lutheran have to wait for a Catholic diocese to celebrate a Jubilee in order for the Lutheran to receive Communion in their own Lutheran church? That makes no sense. Not having access to their own minister means exactly that… the Lutheran spouse is unable to receive Communion from their own minister because they do not have access to their own minister. If the Lutheran chooses not to go to a Lutheran church, but rather goes to a Catholic church, this does not constitute their own minister being inaccessible any more that if I go to the non-denominational church that my brother-in-law attends, the fact that my Catholic priest is not there in attendance does not mean that I don’t have access to my own minister.

 

[irenaeus1]

Grave neccesity as defined by the bishop. It does not have to be a dire circumstance, but can refer to being isolated in mission territory and similar circumstances, according to Vatican guidance. Other bishops’ conferences have understood it as applying to married couples.

Grave necessity does actually mean dire circumstance or need. Either way, is a Lutheran being married to a Catholic deemed a dire circumstance or grave situation. If so, then these same bishops need to quit marrying such couples as they are then complicit in helping create such a grave situation to begin with. And why stop at Lutherans? Why not any Protestant?

 

[Dovekin]

Grave necessity does actually mean dire circumstance or need

If you can document that, it would be very helpful. I am relying on the Directory on the application of principles and norms for Ecumenism and on the guidance from the Vatican from the ‘70s for the earlier directory.

I working with the same info as you:

The Bishop of Würzburg has allowed all Protestants married to Catholics to receive Holy Communion at jubilee Masses for married couples in his cathedral.

These jubilee masses may be invitation only masses for couples married for 50+ years. That is how it would be in my diocese. Such a celebration of a couple’s jubilee would include 50 years of separating husband and wife for Communion; if jubilee means anything, it means allowing them to celebrate their faith together instead of in separate churches. ( at that, it still may be just for their “spiritual good” rather than for a “grave neccessity.”)

OTOH, these could be open masses, anyone may attend, any married couple can commune together. I might support that, but I can understand generic objections better. Still it is the bishop’s decision to make, not mine. More restrictive guidelines from the bishops conference might have helped, but we do not have that.

 

[Dovekin]

Apart from danger of death, the Directory mentions two examples, people in prison and those suffering persecution, but it then speaks of “other cases of such urgent necessity.” Such cases are not confined to situations of suffering and danger. Christians may find themselves in grave spiritual necessity and with no chance of recourse to their own community. For example, in our time, which is one of large-scale movements of population, it can happen much more often than before that non-Catholic Christians are scattered in Catholic regions. They are often deprived of the help of their own communion and unable to get in touch with it except at great trouble and expense. If the conditions set out in the Directory are verified, they can be admitted to eucharistic communion, but it will be for the bishop to consider each case.

This is from IN QUIBUS RERUM CIRCUMSTANTIIS, on admitting other Christinas to Eucharistic communion in the Catholic Church. 1973

 

[KMG]

Schism is much closer today than before this sacrilege.