Regarding Pope benedict's administering communion to protestant (before Papacy)

  • Thread starter Thread starter James924
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

James924

Guest
I’m told that the Holy Father, while still Cardinal Ratzinger, gave communion to a protestant named Brother Roger Shultz of Taizé at Blessed John Paul II’s funeral mass and that he knew him to be a protestant.

If I remember correctly, (and please correct me if I’m wrong) there is something in Canon Law allowing for this in the case of a person who 1) sincerely believes the Catholic Church is correct on the reality of the Eucharist, 2) desires it, and 3) is properly disposed. I can’t remember if there was anything about the person having to be ill or in a state of emergency or anything, but if there was, then for what its worth this person certainly looked quite elerly and was in a wheel chair.

Anyway, my question is, does anyone know about this event or about the person I question, Brother Roger Shultz, and whether he had a Catholic belief in the eucharist?

I obviously presume that then Cardinal Ratzinger knew what he was doing and that the above was the case but I’d like solid information so I can present it to people who think it was the wrong thing to do.

Thanks,
 
Brother JR posted in another thread about this, I’ll see if I can find it.

Cliff notes; dude legit believed in the Real Presence, which was apparently a big sore spot between him and other Lutherans.

Here’s a link that has some info too; catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0504883.htm

*Because the questions about Brother Roger’s taking Communion would not go away, the Vatican made available in July an informal, unsigned statement of explanation.

The bottom line appeared to be: It was all an unfortunate mistake. Brother Roger, it seems, had been moved to a closer vantage point at the start of the Mass and had unwittingly ended up in the section reserved for those receiving Communion from the chief celebrant, Cardinal Ratzinger.

When he was wheeled forward, “it did not seem possible to refuse him the most Blessed Sacrament,” the Vatican said.

The statement noted that Brother Roger shared the Catholic belief in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. It also said his situation was unique and stressed that his receiving Communion did not represent a generalized policy.*
 
James924 said:
I’m told that the Holy Father, while still Cardinal Ratzinger, gave communion to a protestant named Brother Roger Shultz of Taizé at Blessed John Paul II’s funeral mass and that he knew him to be a protestant.

If I remember correctly, (and please correct me if I’m wrong) there is something in Canon Law allowing for this in the case of a person who 1) sincerely believes the Catholic Church is correct on the reality of the Eucharist, 2) desires it, and 3) is properly disposed. I can’t remember if there was anything about the person having to be ill or in a state of emergency or anything, but if there was, then for what its worth this person certainly looked quite elerly and was in a wheel chair.

Anyway, my question is, does anyone know about this event or about the person I question, Brother Roger Shultz, and whether he had a Catholic belief in the eucharist?

I obviously presume that then Cardinal Ratzinger knew what he was doing and that the above was the case but I’d like solid information so I can present it to people who think it was the wrong thing to do.

Thanks,
Click to expand...
You’re looking for canon 844 of the 1983 code of Canon Law which states '*Can. 844 §1. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments licitly to Catholic members of the Christian faithful alone, who likewise receive them licitly from Catholic ministers alone, without prejudice to the prescripts of §§2, 3, and 4 of this canon, and ⇒ can. 861, §2.

§2. Whenever necessity requires it or true spiritual advantage suggests it, and provided that danger of error or of indifferentism is avoided, the Christian faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister are permitted to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-

Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.

§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.*’

As for using that to persuade people? In my experience it wont persuade people just shock them that thats the official view of the Vatican, as it did me.
 
This issue, and other similar, has troubled me somewhat. I heard that it was not a mistake, and that Brother Roger and the now Pope or celebrants had arranged it. I remember in a report (sorry, it was years ago I read it) the brother also describing it as a “profound experience”, not once alluding that he shouldn’t have been in the communion line.

I suppose I can see it being a mistake. I cannot however believe JPII’s overseeing (not distributing) President Clinton’s reception of Communion as a mistake.
 
jmj1984 said:
You’re looking for canon 844 of the 1983 code of Canon Law which states '*Can. 844 §1. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments licitly to Catholic members of the Christian faithful alone, who likewise receive them licitly from Catholic ministers alone, without prejudice to the prescripts of §§2, 3, and 4 of this canon, and ⇒ can. 861, §2.

§2. Whenever necessity requires it or true spiritual advantage suggests it, and provided that danger of error or of indifferentism is avoided, the Christian faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister are permitted to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-

Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.

§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.*’

As for using that to persuade people? In my experience it wont persuade people just shock them that thats the official view of the Vatican, as it did me.
Click to expand...
Thanks to both of you for the Vatican statement and the quotations from Canon law.

So I suppose the big hang-up that might make this seem to have been an imprudent decision was §4’s “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” and perhaps §2’s “danger of error or of indifferentism.”
 
BertBlyleven said:
This issue, and other similar, has troubled me somewhat. I heard that it was not a mistake, and that Brother Roger and the now Pope or celebrants had arranged it. I remember in a report (sorry, it was years ago I read it) the brother also describing it as a “profound experience”, not once alluding that he shouldn’t have been in the communion line.

I suppose I can see it being a mistake. I cannot however believe JPII’s overseeing (not distributing) President Clinton’s reception of Communion as a mistake.
Click to expand...
Clinton received communion?!
 
James924 said:
Thanks to both of you for the Vatican statement and the quotations from Canon law.

So I suppose the big hang-up that might make this seem to have been an imprudent decision was §4’s “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” and perhaps §2’s “danger of error or of indifferentism.”
Click to expand...
Not really the code makes it clear s4 applies to other christians e.g not eastern Orthodox, the code essentially states that the Orthodox have the same faith as us apart from the papacy issue there are several major problems with this issues.

First off, Communion is the sacrament of unity, this has a five fold meaning:

i) Those that receive it declare they hold the same faith as the church, something not possible for those who are not catholic
ii)Those that receive it declare their obedience to the Church as represented through its bishops and popes, again something not possible for those who are not catholic
iii) The sacrament ‘knits’ those within the church closer together, as non-catholics appear not to be members of the Church of Christ though they may as individuals be so they cannot be ‘knitted together’
iv) Material heretics and schismatics must be presumed to be outside of the church, they are certainly so a body corportate, having rejected the true faith and although they may individually be within the church only God knows this and therefore to administer communion to them is gravely sinful if not outright sacrilegous
v) Because of all this those who are not catholic who receive communion receive it not as a ‘saving plea unto forgiveness but a condemnation unto punishment’ (to paraphrase the prayer of St Thomas Aquinas) and therefore far from doing them a ‘favour’ the church adds to their woes

Secondly by receiving communion non-catholics proclaim a unity between them and the catholic faith that does not in fact exist, and so essentially though without meaning to deceive others.

Thirdly, it is simply not possible to ‘avoid the error of indifferentism’ when administering communion to christians who are not catholics except if they are baptised, repent of their errors and accept the catholic faith. Anything else inherently leads to the error of indifferentism, regardless of ‘individual circumstances’ or not.

Fourth, to ever give communion to those in churches that are not ‘eastern’ is illogical, there is no way of knowing whether they hold the faith of the church or whether they understand the sacramental nature of the church and if the danger of death is present there is no way of knowing whether they truly hold the faith or not. Therefore to avoid their communion becoming ‘a condemnation unto punishment’ they should not be given communion.

Fifth, The eastern Orthodox do not have the same faith of us and regardless are obstinate schismatics as can be seen from their repeated rejections of reunion with the Catholic Church.

In the end Canon 844 is one of many reasons why many traditionalist catholics reject the new code of canon law and one of the most obvious innovations in the Catholic faith post 1960. This can be seen because the 1917 code expressly forbid administering any of the sacraments to non-catholics, reserving the penalty of excommunication for those who did so. Somehow in 70 or so years the church went from believing it was a crime worthy of excommunication to something to be encouraged :confused:
 
James924 said:
Clinton received communion?!
Click to expand...
Yes, at a Mass in South Africa Bill Clinton approached the local priest and he gave him communion. However, I don’t remember Blessed Pope John Paul II being there. There was a bit of an uproar over it and several Cardinals publicly stated it should not have happened.
In defense of the local priest, if the leader of another country approached me for communion I would have no idea what his religion is or if he was eligible to receive.
 
jmj1984;

Somehow in 70 or so years the church went from believing it was a crime worthy of excommunication to something to be encouraged :confused:
Click to expand...
Christians have been killing each other for hundreds of years, for all kind of reasons. Now where I live, we can pray for each other and with each other, despite our differences.🙂
 
Eric_Hyom said:
Christians have been killing each other for hundreds of years, for all kind of reasons. Now where I live, we can pray for each other and with each other, despite our differences.🙂
Click to expand...
I’m not really sure what the relevance of this is? Pleaded tell me you’re trying the old ‘now all Christians can hold hands and live happily ever after’ line apart from being historically inaccurate it’d also doctrinally and theologically flawed. As st Augustine said ‘but the death of the soul is worse than the freedom to err’.

Frankly when compared to the total number of deaths due to greed, pride and purely secular reasons the number of Christians killed just for belonging to a different church or sect is minuscule. Even when people appeared to be killed for religious differences this was often just an excuse to kill when the real reasons were altogether more mundane. There haven’t been any crusades for a very very long time and yet during this time the church maintained the same hardline views on non-Catholics so that seems to weaken the case for there being any causal link between the two. One should also note that the church fathers and numerous ecumenical councils held the same view so again someone saying that we should encourage eucharistic hospitalitya and common prayer by virtue of necessity states they were all wrong.

Last but not least attempting to establish a causal link between the two is absurd, it is a little like saying ‘well if the church changed its views on homosexuality there would be a reduction in homophobic attacks so they should change their views’ or ‘if the church changed its views on marriage people born out of wedlock wouldn’t be insulted so they should change that’ The list goes on , it is in short a totally absurd argument.
 
NewEnglandPries said:
Yes, at a Mass in South Africa Bill Clinton approached the local priest and he gave him communion. However, I don’t remember Blessed Pope John Paul II being there. There was a bit of an uproar over it and several Cardinals publicly stated it should not have happened.
In defense of the local priest, if the leader of another country approached me for communion I would have no idea what his religion is or if he was eligible to receive.
Click to expand...
In that case I would refuse him.
 
If Jesus offered bread and wine to Judas, who are we to judge if anyone should, or should not receive communion?

Blessings

Eric
 
James924 said:
I’m told that
Thanks,
Click to expand...
first find an actual source or link
I am told that is not a source
you will actually find it here as this was widely discussed at the time
bottom line, no problema
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=79136&highlight=taize
one of the threads discussing the allegation, which leads off by the rebuttal by George Wiegal. of “what I was told” in the media and how it was twisted and falsified

to illustrate how unreliable “I was told” is as a source, it was Cardinal Kaspar, not Cardinal Ratzinger btw.
 
Eric_Hyom said:
If Jesus offered bread and wine to Judas, who are we to judge if anyone should, or should not receive communion?]
Click to expand...
Sigh. Jesus is God. He can do anything He wants. God is not bound by the sacraments, we are.
 
Hmm… So far, Church policy on not delivering the Eucharist to Non-Catholics is an extremely prudent idea. If they don’t share the belief in the Real Presence, then we don’t want to unwittingly make them “eat and drink judgment upon themselves” as Paul puts it. However, well… what a sticky situation. I’ll just assume that he was human too and that he was under a lot of pressure. I mean, how many people were there?
 
Melchior said:
Brother JR posted in another thread about this, I’ll see if I can find it.

Cliff notes; dude legit believed in the Real Presence, which was apparently a big sore spot between him and other Lutherans.

Here’s a link that has some info too; catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0504883.htm

*Because the questions about Brother Roger’s taking Communion would not go away, the Vatican made available in July an informal, unsigned statement of explanation.

The bottom line appeared to be: It was all an unfortunate mistake. Brother Roger, it seems, had been moved to a closer vantage point at the start of the Mass and had unwittingly ended up in the section reserved for those receiving Communion from the chief celebrant, Cardinal Ratzinger.

When he was wheeled forward, “it did not seem possible to refuse him the most Blessed Sacrament,” the Vatican said.

The statement noted that Brother Roger shared the Catholic belief in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. It also said his situation was unique and stressed that his receiving Communion did not represent a generalized policy.*
Click to expand...
Yeah. Lots of candidates and catechumens believe in the real presence. And yet…
 
Regarding Clinton, I made a mistake. Pope John Paul II gave communion to Tony Blair (while he was still Anglican), not former president Clinton. But, Clinton did receive in South Africa. I’m not sure if this is any better, though…
 
ByzCath said:
So when you go to a Catholic Church and are not known to the priest should you be refused?
Click to expand...
That is not even close to the same, Bill Clinton and Tony Blair are both well known and so is there policy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top