Question on Cadinal Kasper Statements

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Scotty PGH:

Look no further. You can watch the whole funeral on video with your own eyes right here:

ktotv.com/video.php3?numero=1052

I just watched it. Please do the same, and then come back and tell us what you saw. It is undeniable.

I will reply here with the same reply I put up for the other place you put this.

The video is not running to well right now for me so I will have to check it out later but can you be 100% postive that these were not Catholics?

You are aware that the community contains Catholics, even a couple Catholic priests.

Are you 100% postive that everyone present was not a Catholic?

Hate to say this, but communion time is not the time to ask for everyones membership card. Oh wait, we don’t have membership cards. Nor do we carry a mark on our heads saying that we are able to take communion, that is that we have no unconfessed grave sin, so really it is up to the individual, not the priest handing out communion. That is for the majority, there are some that the priest may know shouldn’t be recieving.

Just another attack on the Church and it hierarchs, something that seems to be in vogue today.

 

[Scotty_PGH]

ByzCath:

Are you 100% postive that everyone present was not a Catholic?

I was afraid you were going to say that. I have a lot of respect for you and your typically logical, informed responses. Therefore I can’t believe you can even ask that question with a straight face.

I think you know the answer: if you are at a funeral for a non-Catholic religious leader, in his non-Catholic community, it is a pretty fair expectation that the funeral will be attended by his non-Catholic followers. Further, since everyone in attendance appeared to recieve Communion… I think you already know all this, Byz.

The real question is whether or not this is an issue that warrants concern among Catholics. In my opinion, it is.

 

[ncjohn]

Unless I’m just totally missing something in the article, I see nothing at all heretical about it.

The present situation, which does not allow us to gather together, is absoultely a wound to the Body of Christ, and is a statement of fact IMHO. I’m not sure what could be heretical about that.

I have mixed feelings about the presentation of communion issue, but don’t personally think it’s heretical. At the least I think it’s an issue for the hierarchy to deal with rather than for me to judge.

Impugning the character and holiness of a Cardinal to me seems a much more serious issue that I personally would shy away from without some really serious matter. I’ve seen posts in these forums though doing the same with Cardinal Mahoney over seeing chalices that weren’t up to RS specs so I guess I shouldn’t be surprised. Bashing of Bishops and Cardinals seems very popular here, despite the fact that these men have dedicated their lives to God and the Church. I find this very sad.

 

[Scotty_PGH]

ncjohn:

Unless I’m just totally missing something in the article, I see nothing at all heretical about it.

The present situation, which does not allow us to gather together, is absoultely a wound to the Body of Christ, and is a statement of fact IMHO. I’m not sure what could be heretical about that.

I have mixed feelings about the presentation of communion issue, but don’t personally think it’s heretical. At the least I think it’s an issue for the hierarchy to deal with rather than for me to judge.

Impugning the character and holiness of a Cardinal to me seems a much more serious issue that I personally would shy away from without some really serious matter. I’ve seen posts in these forums though doing the same with Cardinal Mahoney over seeing chalices that weren’t up to RS specs so I guess I shouldn’t be surprised. Bashing of Bishops and Cardinals seems very popular here, despite the fact that these men have dedicated their lives to God and the Church. I find this very sad.

John - it’s not the “wound” part that concerns me (as that is definitely true), it’s that he refers to the constant teaching of the Church that non-Catholics cannot be given Communion as a “scandal.”

There are some Bishops out there doing some questionable things. I think it’s fair to call a spade a spade when you see it. A Cardinal giving Communion to non-Catholics is a bad thing. A Cardinal allowing pagan rituals to be performed in a Catholic Cathedral is a bad thing.

 

[PJR]

NCJOHN you took the words out of my mouth. I personally have a problem with a thread equating a Cardinal who appears to be in good standing with the POPE by the way, to be a heretic.

All the squawking that goes on around here about following what the church teaches and then calling the “Apostles” heretics.

I also found the statement to be similar to many by JPII. He points out that the divisions in the Body are a scandal. They are. And as someone else has already pointed out, Bishops can give permission for non-catholics to receive communion if they choose to. That is not a heresy.

 

[mosher]

PJR:

NCJOHN you took the words out of my mouth. I personally have a problem with a thread equating a Cardinal who appears to be in good standing with the POPE by the way, to be a heretic.

All the squawking that goes on around here about following what the church teaches and then calling the “Apostles” heretics.

I also found the statement to be similar to many by JPII. He points out that the divisions in the Body are a scandal. They are. And as someone else has already pointed out, Bishops can give permission for non-catholics to receive communion if they choose to. That is not a heresy.

There are only very specific and limited circumstances where it is possible to give communion to non-catholics. While I am not quick to judge Cardinal Kasper I would note that if lay faithful were quicker to call a Bishop a heretic then most of the heresies in the Church would have fizzled away a lot quicker. We have to remember that in the perspective of Church history it is always the Bishops who start heresies and not the faithful. The problem is that the faithful stand idle saying “who am I to question a successor of the apostles?” … that is a problem.

 

[ncjohn]

Scotty PGH:

John - it’s not the “wound” part that concerns me (as that is definitely true), it’s that he refers to the constant teaching of the Church that non-Catholics cannot be given Communion as a “scandal.”

While I understand the teaching of the Church on that, there are many, possibly the Cardinal included, who look at the Eucharist as the “healing medicine” and the “food for the journey” that we all need. Since Jesus gave his Body for the sins of all, and stated that he ate with sinners because they were the ones in need of healing, it makes great sense that the Eucharist is exactly what all of the world needs.

While I have problems with people receiving the Body of Christ without believing it to be that if they are doing so irreverently as a result, most non-Catholics I have seen receive communion do so with utmost reverence, even if they only perceive it as a symbol, because they recognize what is being represented there. Quite frankly, I’d like to see as much reverence from a lot of those who approach when I am acting as an EMHC!

Regardless, I will leave it to the hierarchy to determine whether they think this is a problem. I’m not going to be the one judging these men.

Peace,

 

[ncjohn]

A quick p.s. to my previous post, lest it be miscontrued…

I do not knowingly give communion to non-Catholics, nor do I promote any such thing, and explain to non-Catholic friends who may attend with me. I have seen it happen though in various Catholic churches.

Peace,

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Scotty PGH:

I was afraid you were going to say that. I have a lot of respect for you and your typically logical, informed responses. Therefore I can’t believe you can even ask that question with a straight face.

I think you know the answer: if you are at a funeral for a non-Catholic religious leader, in his non-Catholic community, it is a pretty fair expectation that the funeral will be attended by his non-Catholic followers. Further, since everyone in attendance appeared to recieve Communion… I think you already know all this, Byz.

The real question is whether or not this is an issue that warrants concern among Catholics. In my opinion, it is.

I think you are assuming you know the answer.

If you are at a funeral for a non-Catholic who happened to be the leader of a community that has Catholics as well as non-Catholics in it (the four priests that were assisting the Cardinal were Catholic priests who are also brothers in this community) and you know it is a Catholic service maybe only Catholics attended.

Can you please tell me how the priests are to tell if one recieving is a Catholic or not. Is there some mark upon us that I do not know about? Something you are gifted with so that you know?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

mosher:

There are only very specific and limited circumstances where it is possible to give communion to non-catholics.

Thats the point. There are no facts that non-catholics were given communion in this case.

So to smear the Cardinal with the title of heretic with no hard proof, is wrong.

 

[neophyte]

There needs to be a third poll option : “I don’t know”.

I don’t see anything heretical in the quotes shown. The Cardinal is quite right in saying that the deep division in the Church is a scandal. He says nothing that can be taken to mean that the cause of the scandal is the prohibition of reception for non-Catholics.

I don’t know if non-Catholics received, and even if they did I know nothing about the circumstances.

Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with catholic faith or an obstinate doubt concerning the same. Even taking the “evidence” shown in this thread in its worst light, I challenge anyone to make a convincing case that it demonstrates a culpably obstinate denial or doubt on the part of the Cardinal, and in any case it’s a matter between he and his confessor.

I’ll leave it to the decons and priests who participate on these forums to discuss whether or not it may have been a wise prudential decision to deny reception. I’m not qualified to have an opinion on the matter.

To say that I give the Cardinal the benefit of the doubt would be to greatly presume on my position in the Body of Christ. It is for me to receive any benefit of the doubt from the Bishop if he so chooses, not the other way around.

 

[Scotty_PGH]

neophyte:

He says nothing that can be taken to mean that the cause of the scandal is the prohibition of reception for non-Catholics.

That is exactly what he says. Please, look at it again:

**

"The fact that

in the present situation it is not possible, in the name of truth, that all Christians should gather around the Lord’s one table and participate in the one Supper of the Lord, is a profound wound inflicted on the body of Christ and, in the end, a scandal," the cardinal writes. **

Please don’t be confused by wordy, modernist bishop-speak.

That means he disagrees with the prohibition on distributing Communion to non-Catholics. His remedy? He distributed Communion to everyone present at the funeral.

Good grief, at Catholic weddings and funerals, it is customary for priests to warmly remind those present that Communion can only be given to Catholics in a state of grace. This was a non-Catholic’s funeral, in his non-Catholic community, in a building filled with his non-Catholic followers and no such announcement was made!

If one has any doubt that non-Catholics were freely and intentionally given Holy Communion, one is deceiving oneself.

I’ve said all I can say on this topic. It’s starting to feel like I’m beating my head against the wall.

 

[Anna_Elizabeth]

Kielbasi:

But the fact is that Cardinal Kasper serves at the pleasure of the pope, and to date, hasn’t been chucked out on his ear.

Oh, but let us pray that the chucking will happen soon. It could be Benedict’s greatest gift to us! Kasper suffers from that very unfortunate sickness, an insatiable desire for attention, even if it must be fulfilled at the expense of the church he presumably represents.

He would give away the store for a photo op. :banghead:

Anna

 

[ncjohn]

Scotty PGH:

“The fact that in the present situation it is not possible, in the name of truth, that all Christians should gather around the Lord’s one table and participate in the one Supper of the Lord, is a profound wound inflicted on the body of Christ and, in the end, a scandal,” the cardinal writes.

That means he disagrees with the prohibition on distributing Communion to non-Catholics.

I’ve said all I can say on this topic. It’s starting to feel like I’m beating my head against the wall.

Scotty,

I think the reason you’re feeling like you’re beating your head against the wall is that it doesn’t say what you’re reading. It says simply that at the present time Christians cannot share communion and that is a scandal to the Body of Christ. He is absolutely right on that.

If it said what you are reading into it and nobody was concerned about that, I’d be beating my head against the wall to. I know I’ve had that experience, both in these forums and in the “real world” only to have to admit I’d apparently been smoking my socks. It’s not fun, but it happens to everyone.

I won’t presume in any way to speak for you, and if I’ve misinterpreted what you’re saying I apologize. I think in this case though we just have a situation of taking a long, complex sentence and not getting out of it what the writer was meaning.

Peace be with you,

 

[Scotty_PGH]

ncjohn:

Scotty,

I think the reason you’re feeling like you’re beating your head against the wall is that it doesn’t say what you’re reading. It says simply that at the present time Christians cannot share communion and that is a scandal to the Body of Christ. He is absolutely right on that.

If it said what you are reading into it and nobody was concerned about that, I’d be beating my head against the wall to. I know I’ve had that experience, both in these forums and in the “real world” only to have to admit I’d apparently been smoking my socks. It’s not fun, but it happens to everyone.

I won’t presume in any way to speak for you, and if I’ve misinterpreted what you’re saying I apologize. I think in this case though we just have a situation of taking a long, complex sentence and not getting out of it what the writer was meaning.

Peace be with you,

OK, perhaps I am misunderstanding that particular quote. I found this on another thread:

Christ the Lord founded one Church and one Church only. However, many Christian communions present themselves to men as the true inheritors of Jesus Christ; all indeed profess to be followers of the Lord but differ in mind and go their different ways, as if Christ Himself were divided. Such division openly contradicts the will of Christ, scandalizes the world, and damages the holy cause of preaching the Gospel to every creature.

Vatican II, Decree on Ecuminsim

In re-reading Cardinal Kasper’s quote, I see that this may be essentially what he is saying. So if this is what the Cardinal really means, then I must admit I misinterpreted his statement.

Having said that, it is undeniable that he distributed Communion to the Taize community at the above-mentioned funeral, and that is a scandal.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

neophyte:

There needs to be a third poll option : “I don’t know”.

I don’t see anything heretical in the quotes shown. The Cardinal is quite right in saying that the deep division in the Church is a scandal. He says nothing that can be taken to mean that the cause of the scandal is the prohibition of reception for non-Catholics.

I don’t know if non-Catholics received, and even if they did I know nothing about the circumstances.

Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with catholic faith or an obstinate doubt concerning the same. Even taking the “evidence” shown in this thread in its worst light, I challenge anyone to make a convincing case that it demonstrates a culpably obstinate denial or doubt on the part of the Cardinal, and in any case it’s a matter between he and his confessor.

I’ll leave it to the decons and priests who participate on these forums to discuss whether or not it may have been a wise prudential decision to deny reception. I’m not qualified to have an opinion on the matter.

To say that I give the Cardinal the benefit of the doubt would be to greatly presume on my position in the Body of Christ. It is for me to receive any benefit of the doubt from the Bishop if he so chooses, not the other way around.

Neophyte,
Great post! Very humble indeed. Some of us, myself included, could take lessons from you on this.

I agree with you 100%!

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Scotty PGH:

In re-reading Cardinal Kasper’s quote, I see that this may be essentially what he is saying. So if this is what the Cardinal really means, then I must admit I misinterpreted his statement.

Scotty,
I must say, it takes a special kind of person to admit something like this and I applaud you for this.

Having said that, it is undeniable that he distributed Communion to the Taize community at the above-mentioned funeral, and that is a scandal.

While this may be true, can you be 100% certain that they were not Catholics? You are aware that the Taize community is a mixed community, that it has both Catholics and non-Catholics in it and that they do not practice intercommunion.

Once again, the four priests assisting the Cardinal at the funeral were Catholic priests who are brothers in the Taize community.

 

[Catholic29]

Whats the point of even voting in this thread? I honestly don’t think I am in any position to pass judgement on this Cardinal…

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

TOME:

A couple of points. first, what the Cardinal said was no different than what Pope John Paul II had said, these were statement of facts as I see it, not a prelude to opening the reception of the Eucharist to anyone.

Also, given Cardinal Kasper’s background in theology and his present position in the Vatican that if what he was saying or doing there had met with the Popes disapproval, more would have been heard of this.

Also, if the distribution of the Eucharist at the funeral for Bro.was such a grave abuse, why did Cardinal Radizenger give communion to Bro. Roger at Pope John Paul II’s funeral Mass?

A liturgical abuse is a liturgical abuse - whether the thing that is an abuse be done by Pope, Patriarch, Cardinal, or anyone else.​

The higher the rank of the cleric who does it, the greater the crime committed.

“Respect of persons” has no place here - evil is evil, whether committed by a pope or a peasant ##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Scotty PGH:

That is exactly what he says. Please, look at it again:

Please don’t be confused by wordy, modernist bishop-speak.

That means he disagrees with the prohibition on distributing Communion to non-Catholics. His remedy? He distributed Communion to everyone present at the funeral.

Good grief, at Catholic weddings and funerals, it is customary for priests to warmly remind those present that Communion can only be given to Catholics in a state of grace. This was a non-Catholic’s funeral, in his non-Catholic community, in a building filled with his non-Catholic followers and no such announcement was made!

If one has any doubt that non-Catholics were freely and intentionally given Holy Communion, one is deceiving oneself.

I’ve said all I can say on this topic. It’s starting to feel like I’m beating my head against the wall.

Don’t feel like that - this affair is an abomination (not to put it too strongly).​

It is very bad for ecumenism, because it does a great deal to support the idea that ecumenism is merely a pretty name for apostasy, heresy, indifferentism, lawlessness, anarchy, and anti-Catholic behaviour. If that is to be the price of ecumenism, it is a suicidal one. People who do such things are helping to set back Christian Unity - they are not advancing it.

Clerics who do this kind of thing are trampling Christ’s Blood underfoot - almost literally.

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/general-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_19930325_directory_en.html

b) Sharing Sacramental Life with Christians of Other Churches and Ecclesial Communities

1. A sacrament is an act of Christ and of the Church through the Spirit.130 Its celebration in a concrete community is the sign of the reality of its unity in faith, worship and community life. As well as being signs, sacraments—most specially the Eucharist—are sources of the unity of the Christian community and of spiritual life, and are means for building them up. Thus Eucharistic communion is inseparably linked to full ecclesial communion and its visible expression.

At the same time, the Catholic Church teaches that by baptism members of other Churches and ecclesial Communities are brought into a real, even if imperfect communion, with the Catholic Church 131 and that “baptism, which constitutes the sacramental bond of unity existing among all who through it are reborn… is wholly directed toward the acquiring of fullness of life in Christ”.132 The Eucharist is, for the baptized, a spiritual food which enables them to overcome sin and to live the very life of Christ, to be incorporated more profoundly in Him and share more intensely in the whole economy of the Mystery of Christ.

It is in the light of these two basic principles, which must always be taken into account together,** that in general the Catholic Church permits access to its Eucharistic communion and to the sacraments of penance and anointing of the sick, only to those who share its oneness in faith, worship and ecclesial life.133 For the same reasons, it also recognizes that in certain circumstances, by way of exception, and under certain conditions, access to these sacraments may be permitted, or even commended, for Christians of other Churches and ecclesial Communities.134**

[Emphasis mine]

IOW, first the old discipline is stated - only to be undermined a breath later. This is not theology - its incoherent, contradictory non-sense ##