Pope's response to German bishops 'incomprehensible'

  • Thread starter Thread starter JD143785
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

JD143785

Guest
"The cardinal (Eijk) concluded by saying the situation resembled the end times, quoting Article 675 of the Catechism which speaks of “a religious deception offering men an apparent solution to their problems at the price of apostasy from the truth.”

https://t.co/LrW8AgDtFO
 
Oh good, just what we needed, another who is holier than the pope.
 
Last edited:
Nothing new under the sun. Cardinals have been snarking popes since the very beginning.
 
RandomAlias said:
Oh good, just what we needed, another who is holier than the pope.
Click to expand...
Here’s the actual text of the Cardinal’s statement. It might be helpful to read it first, before casting aspersions. 😉

In any case, the Cardinal seems to disagree with the Pope’s approach, more than anything else. Francis’ request – “go back and re-work the proposal, and get unanimous assent” – would seem to be simply a softer approach to the problem. His approach, of course, requires that there merely be one orthodox bishop in Germany; and if there is, the draft will never pass unanimously.

That’s a bit easier to take than the blunt “no” that the Cardinal would’ve preferred had been the response… 😉
 
Gorgias said:
In any case, the Cardinal seems to disagree with the Pope’s approach, more than anything else. Francis’ request – “go back and re-work the proposal, and get unanimous assent” – would seem to be simply a softer approach to the problem. His approach, of course, requires that there merely be one orthodox bishop in Germany; and if there is, the draft will never pass unanimously.
Click to expand...
I agree with you. There are at present 7 bishops (and a number of pastors) who object based on doctrine. One of them is a Cardinal.

I think Pope Francis knows that unanimous consent to give communion to non-Catholics is not going to happen. What will likely happen is that a statement will come out that will reaffirm that the non-Catholic spouses are welcome to attend and not receive.
 
Last edited:
Gorgias said:
Here’s the actual text of the Cardinal’s statement. It might be helpful to read it first, before casting aspersions.
Click to expand...
Thanks for that link and recommendation.

I still disagree with Cardinal Eijk’s suggestion that our present difficulties may be identified with the Church’s ultimate trial as described in CCC 675. However, the Cardinal’s concern is understandable.
 
Last edited:
Anyone expecting a direct and clear response from the Vatican within a mere century or so has kind of missed the events of the last millennium or two . . .

hawk
 
  1. For the past 20 years, bishops have been issuing norms for non-Catholics to receive the Eucharist in the Catholic Church. Many, like the British and Irish bishops, have said couples in interchurch marriages have a grave and pressing need, but only allowed the noncatholic to receive at singular moments, like the confirmation of a child.
    By saying they have a grave and pressing need, these bishops are comparing the marriages to a war zone, a natural disaster, or equivalent upheaval. The cause of this is the two churches, particularly the bishops or other clerics who have laid burdens on Christian couples and do nothing to help them. The German bishops are trying to do something.
  2. The sticking point, as Cardinal Eijk says, is that Lutherans believe in consubstantiation and reject transubstantiation. Last year, Lutherans and Catholics rejected that argument during their commemoration of the 500th anniversary of Luther’s 95 Theses:
    “If the understanding of the Lord’s Supper as a real remembrance is consistently taken seriously, the differences in understanding the eucharistic sacrifice are tolerable for Catholics and Lutherans.”
    The German bishops are taking seriously their dialogue with their Lutheran counterparts, while Cardinal Eijk seems not to have heard of it.
  3. Why don’t they become Catholics? That is the question. Why aren’t Lutherans just recognized as Catholics? There are still issues, especially about ordination. But on the Eucharist their faith is the same as Catholics, though it may be articulated differently. It does not appear to be time to say there are no differences, but the German bishops are saying it is time to end the emergency situation that exists in interchurch marriages.
  4. When he was a cardinal, Benedict XVI issued a document saying that bishops’ conferences are only binding on the members if they agree unanimously. This pushes conferences toward greater cooperation and consensus. No more aggreived minorities running to Rome with their complaints and polarizing the Church, work it out together.
  5. the unbelieving wife is made holy by the believing husband, the unbelieving husband by his believing wife.
 
Dovekin said:
For the past 20 years, bishops have been issuing norms for non-Catholics to receive the Eucharist in the Catholic Church. Many, like the British and Irish bishops, have said couples in interchurch marriages have a grave and pressing need, but only allowed the noncatholic to receive at singular moments, like the confirmation of a child.
Click to expand...
1.) Not true. If Bishops have been doing this it was against the Catechism and against the wishes of JP2, Benedictus, and even Francis. The Catechism writes they can only receive in case of ‘grave emergency’ like impending death. What you write is extremely misleading.

2.) Christ is not present in the Eucharist if the belief - from the laity and the priesthood - that he is not present in totality. Again, you are ignoring Ex Cathedra pronouncements from several Popes since the Reformation, including the Council of Trent. I can tell you are found of Vatican 2; but Vatican 2 was a complete rupture of Church Tradition and Teaching, not the font of it.

3.) They aren’t recognized as Catholics because they reject dozens of dogmas that the Catholic Church holds. I can’t believe that I even have to write that. They aren’t Catholic because they don’t believe in: the Immaculate Conception of Mary, the Assumption, the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist (it is not the same, no matter how many times you dishonestly write that it is), the sov. of the Papacy, teaching on the sanctity of life, etc. These are massive issues. That’s why they aren’t Catholics.

4.) Agreed. But something that is heresy - which is what giving the Eucharist to Christians without valid sacraments, which applies to Lutherans - should have been shot down by the Pope, whose main job is NOT to invent new dogma, but to be a ‘rock’ and defend dogma passed down the eons.

5.) Ja, ja.
 
LOL the “End Times.”

Catholics who think the situation today is so bad have little history of the Church, it seems.

In fact I was just reading St. Basil from the fourth century, who was in so much distress because the Eastern church of his day was in constant chaos and division, chiefly with regards to Arianism. He was essentially begging the Pope to come and resolve the issue.

Gasp! Pope Francis is choosing to uphold collegiality and not enforce his own ruling in every matter in the church! What heresy! Oh wait… Sounds more like how the first centuries Roman primacy behaved…

The same Catholics seem to forget the Renaissance Popes… What scandal THAT was…

Or the days of the Plague. Now THAT seems more End-Times-ish.

Or even the persecution pre-Constantine!
 
Last edited:
The cardinal is correct. It is incomprehensible there is no direction from Rome on this matter. A matter which is not open to debate: as the cardinal correctly notes, it is a settled issue.
 
When his bishops come to Rome for clarification, sending them home with no answer is indeed incomprehensible. The cardinal is correct.
 
@MikeInVA

Do you think the Pope always settled every issue throughout church history?
 
Last edited:
Irrelevant to the immediate question. They went to Rome seeking an answer.
 
Sometimes the answer is: You guys need to figure this out.

Whether or not the issue at hand is worth having the Pope come to a once-for-all decision on is debatable. True enough.

But I find the criticism odd and lacking historical understanding. Especially when calling it the “End Times.”
 
This is serious. This is about the Holy Eucharist. This isn’t some plaything. The cardinal is correct.

Part of his analysis…this shouldn’t be an issue anyway. Prelates should know better than to think you can give Communion to Protestants.
 
Well said.

He wants this done by the conference, not by his direct fiat. Because he knows that would provoke a schism.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top