T
theropod
Guest
Wouldn’t it be more prudent in the absence of any proof to assume that it was an accident rather than accusing people of deliberate wrongdoing?
Lutheran delegation given Communion in St. Peter's basilica [CC]
- Status
P
Padres1969
Guest
Exactly. Innocent until proven guilty maybe?
I mean it almost seems hunting for a conspiracy to presume alternatively IMO given the evidence at hand. You had Lutherans who went up in a manner not uncommon for non-Catholics at churches in the US and elsewhere (folding their arms). These Lutherans may or may not have been identified as Lutherans to whomever was distributing to them. Fact is that priests don’t tend to stop in the middle of communion to confirm Catholicism of recipients of the host. And that in proper Catholic manner, the arm folding thing isn’t actually supposed to be done and most priests simply distribute to anyone who is in line and don’t do the blessing arm folders (since you’re not supposed to be doing it).
Seems like it being an accident is the only thing that could reasonably be inferred to have occurred absent any additional evidence.
L
LordHaveMercy
Guest
I see what you mean, we shouldn’t accuse them of deliberate wrongdoing, so you’re probably taking a safe route in what you’re saying. However, your sentence reads very factually, I actually thought when I read it that I had missed a new story where they came out and said the whole thing was an accident.
I just say that they did receive, they can’t undo it, and we don’t have to assign intentions on their behalf. You’re just trying to show mercy to them, and I wouldn’t criticize that
L
LordHaveMercy
Guest
Yes exactly. The law assumes innocent until proven guilty, not accidentally guilty until proven intentionally guilty.
L
Lormar
Guest
This was taken from an article that I read yesterday:
Is the info in the article wrong? Has more info come out?
M
mark_a
Guest
Sounds about right to me!!
M
mark_a
Guest
Although I won’t be at the rail or in line should the opportunity present itself, I understand now. Sounds reasonable.
P
Peter_J
Guest
Good point.
But in my humble opinion, this conversation says less about the people in the article than it does about Internet discussion forums.
F
FollowChrist34
Guest
Actually I am back to thinking the Catholic priests did it intentionally (sorry haven’t read the article; see Lormar’s post above). I would love to hear why. I have a soft spot for the Lutherans but am not sure what I am thinking here is what the priests were thinking - it could be a more “Kasper-esque” kind of a move on their part, if you catch my drift, while I’m stuck in about 1521, crusading to right a very different set of wrongs…
R
Reuben_J
Guest
It could be strategic action but many people would disagree with what he was doing, it may also happen elsewhere notwithstanding.
D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
I have to say that this thread has been a real eye-opener for me. I have been frankly horrified by comments I have read in this thread.
I have read condemnations of those who approached the celebrant, as if their motives could not have been anything but bad when, in point of fact, they did not do anything wrong. They followed the procedure. They did not attempt to obtain Communion by stealth.
They went forward, seeking a blessing and used a gesture that indicated they wanted a blessing. I do not know which sign they used. In Europe, it is being reported that they used the gesture that means “I am not eligible for Communion”. I believe it more probable that this is the one that they used since they are Finnish.
The Americans are reporting that they used the gesture of crossed arms. If that is true, it is even more obscuring since there are Eastern Catholics who use that posture when receiving Communion, as I have had that happen to me. For that matter, I have had Catholics clutch both their hands over their heart as they extend their tongue for Communion. One has to try to discern, as best one can, what is intended.
As I have tried to indicate, this is something that happens in an instant. A person is presenting himself to the minister of Communion. This is not an occasion for a protracted interaction. When someone comes to me, I already have the Host in hand, as normally I am distributing one Host to each communicant. If they make a gesture to me that says, “I want a blessing,” I replace the host in the ciborium and give a blessing.
You see all sorts of things when you are distributing Communion in an international setting. People with folded hands, unfolded hands with their arms at their side, and all manner of postures and gestures. Bowing before receiving, genuflecting before receiving, kneeling to receive, nodding the head, a type of curtsy.
If the minister of Communion did not recognise the significance of the right hand resting on the left shoulder but saw it is a posture, he is going to be trying to give Communion to the person on the tongue in that circumstance. It is that simple. And so I cannot understand the mindset that the minister must have set out to do something wrong, which is what is repeatedly said here.
Their own ecclesial community’s sacraments could not be unavailable to them…this was a delegation of Lutheran bishops.
But I don’t presume it was the celebrant of the Mass that gave them Communion. I do assume it was one of the public Masses, during the day, in the basilica. Normally there are concelebrants but, if not, one of the priests on duty at the basilica will come out to help distribute Holy Communion.
Saint Peter’s does not work like any other church in the world. It is nothing to see bishops in line waiting to go to confession and clerics or Religious from all over the world stopping in to hear the Mass being said.
It is not logical that any cleric in the basilica, however they are dressed, are going to be presumed to be non-Catholics because it is simply a statistical anomaly. The default is that they are Catholic. The same is true for a cleric or Religious in a Communion line…one never presumes that they are there for only a blessing. It is certainly possible for it to happen, and obviously it does, but it is not remotely routine. In other words, one’s default position is that this is a Catholic cleric…not a non-Catholic cleric…and that a cleric is in a Communion line to receive Communion.
The norm in the Diocese of Rome is still communion on the tongue. If someone approached without their hands extended, the Host will be heading toward the mouth as the formula is pronounced. I can easily imagine the bishop’s mouth dropping open in surprise as the Host is headed for him…or opened his mouth to say something…and, voila, he has received Communion and the priest will, if anything, be surprised that the person is not moving quickly out of the way so he can give Communion to the next person in line.
Frankly, most times when people are trying to whisper to me at the distribution of Communion, it is to tell me there is someone who can’t come forward to receive Communion and asking me to go to them. At a Mass such as this, one is at the mercy of being able to understand the language being spoken to you. If you can’t, the only real option is to shake your head no, shrug your shoulders – indicating you can’t understand – and continue to distribute Communion.
The Lutherans of Scandinavia are warmly welcomed in Rome, and they know that they are; their ecclesiastics are cordially received. I am not surprised at all that they went into the basilica. The tomb of Queen Christina is in the crypt, right between the tombs of Pope John Paul I and Blessed Paul VI. I am not surprised that they chose to attend Mass there.
I would hope they feel at home in Saint Peter’s. Just as they make us feel at home when we visit them. Swedish Lutherans graciously receive Catholics at the Church at Vadstena, the pre-Reformation shrine of Saint Bridget of Sweden.
There is a very different sense in Europe than what seems to prevail in the United States, which is clearly perceivable in this thread.
As I said before…comments on this thread have said quite a lot to me.
D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
This is not 1521.
And I find what I can only assume is a remark to impugn His Eminence, Walter Cardinal Kasper, very sad indeed.
R
Reuben_J
Guest
It really boiled down to the celebrant concerned, didn’t it? He only knew and for reason known to himself why he gave Holy Communion to the Lutherans. If he thought his action was legit, and without compromising him, perhaps there was something that he knew about those Lutherans that we are not privy to.
That this was rather unusual (I have known a priest who gave Holy Communion to a non-Catholic with reason that I was uncomfortable with) and happened at the Vatican, which is why it made news and hot topic for discussion. Since we are only given superficial picture, can’t blame many of us to surmise as what might have happened.
That this was rather unusual (I have known a priest who gave Holy Communion to a non-Catholic with reason that I was uncomfortable with) and happened at the Vatican, which is why it made news and hot topic for discussion. Since we are only given superficial picture, can’t blame many of us to surmise as what might have happened.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
If I had to summarize this thread in one sentence, that would be the one.
P
Peter_J
Guest
Thank you! So many times I’ve had people either tell me explicitly that CAF represents the Roman Catholic Church or else imply the same (usually in the form of “I read Blank on CAF, so that proves that Blank is the Catholic position”). It’s so tiresome to me – both because I’m a Catholic myself and don’t want the Church to be misrepresented and because, frankly, I’m at a total loss as to how so many people think that.
F
FollowChrist34
Guest
Perhaps I was too cryptic.
I said I was stuck in 1521, not anyone else, either involved in this incident, or on this thread. By that I mean I admire Luther and the Reformation and feel that it was a tragic time for the Church, with responsibility on both sides. I personally want to see increased unity and worship with the Lutherans and actually don’t mind they received communion. (I stated this in an earlier post.)
My reference to Kasper was simply a reference to his support for expanding communion to those who have been excluded. I am not with him on his proposal, though I am fully aware that many laity and clergy are.
P
Peter_J
Guest
Thank you! So many times I’ve had people either tell me explicitly that CAF represents the Roman Catholic Church or else imply the same (usually in the form of “I read Blank on CAF, so that proves that Blank is the Catholic position”). It’s so tiresome to me – both because I’m a Catholic myself and don’t want the Church to be misrepresented and because, frankly, I’m at a total loss as to how so many people think that.
C
ComplineSanFran
Guest
Thank you for your posting here. I have been at a loss for words reading this thread. You have made clear not only the situation in Rome, but also have put a bit of perspective on the posts.
J
jschwartz
Guest
Receiving communion is a matter of the individual conscience of the one coming forth to receive. The Holy Spirit is present and guiding those who come in the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Jesus. Punishing priests for giving the Eucharist to those who felt compelled to do so seems contrary to the spirit and teachings of Jesus.
R
Reuben_J
Guest
Who Can Receive Communion?
The Holy Eucharist is the most important of the seven sacraments because, in this and in no other sacrament, we receive the very body and blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. Innumerable, precious graces come to us through the reception of Holy Communion.
Communion is an intimate encounter with Christ, in which we sacramentally receive Christ into our bodies, that we may be more completely assimilated into his. “The Eucharist builds the Church,” as Pope John Paul II said (Redemptor Hominis 20). It deepens unity with the Church, more fully assimilating us into Christ (1 Cor. 12:13; CCC 1396).
The Eucharist also strengthens the individual because in it Jesus himself, the Word made flesh, forgives our venial sins and gives us the strength to resist mortal sin. It is also the very channel of eternal life: Jesus himself.
The Church sets out specific guidelines regarding how we should prepare ourselves to receive the Lord’s body and blood in Communion. To receive Communion worthily, you must be in a state of grace, have made a good confession since your last mortal sin, believe in transubstantiation, observe the Eucharistic fast, and, finally, not be under an ecclesiastical censure such as excommunication.
First, you must be in a state of grace.
A mortal sin is any sin whose matter is grave and which has been committed willfully and with knowledge of its seriousness.
Out of habit and out of fear of what those around them will think if they do not receive Communion, some Catholics, in a state of mortal sin, choose to go forward and offend God rather than stay in the pew while others receive the Eucharist. The Church’s ancient teaching on this particular matter is expressed in the Didache, an early Christian document written around A.D. 70, which states: “Whosoever is holy *, let him approach. Whosoever is not, let him repent” (Didache 10).
Second, you must have been to confession since your last mortal sin.
Third, you must believe in the doctrine of transubstantiation. “For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself” (1 Cor. 11:29). Transubstantiation means more than the Real Presence. According to transubstantiation, the bread and wine are actually transformed into the actual body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ, with only the appearances of bread and wine remaining.
Fourth, you must observe the Eucharistic fast.
Finally, one must not be under an ecclesiastical censure.
Other Christians and Communion
The guidelines for receiving Communion, which are issued by the U.S. bishops and published in many missalettes, explain, "We welcome our fellow Christians to this celebration of the Eucharist as our brothers and sisters. We pray that our common baptism and the action of the Holy Spirit in this Eucharist will draw us closer to one another and begin to dispel the sad divisions which separate us. We pray that these will lessen and finally disappear, in keeping with Christ’s prayer for us ‘that they may all be one’ (John 17:21).
"**Because Catholics believe that the celebration of the Eucharist is a sign of the reality of the oneness of faith, life, and worship, members of those churches with whom we are not yet fully united are ordinarily not admitted to Communion. **Eucharistic sharing in exceptional circumstances by other Christians requires permission according to the directives of the diocesan bishop and the provisions of canon law. . . . "
Scripture is clear that partaking of the Eucharist is among the highest signs of Christian unity: “Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread” (1 Cor. 10:17). For this reason, **it is normally impossible for non-Catholic Christians to receive Holy Communion, for to do so would be to proclaim a unity to exist that, regrettably, does not. **
Another reason that many non-Catholics may not ordinarily receive Communion is for their own protection, since many reject the doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Scripture warns that it is very dangerous for one not believing in the Real Presence to receive Communion: “For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died” (1 Cor. 11:29–30).
catholic.com/tracts/who-can-receive-communion*
- Status