On his blog at l’Espresso, Vatican-watcher Sandro Magister relates the events of an ecumenical gathering happening in Rome this week. We’re still working on getting an official translation, but Google translate (with a little grammatical assistance from your editor) provides us with this:
“I ask myself: but we have the same baptism? If we have the same baptism we must walk together.”
That said, by the way, by Pope Francis, in a reply on 16 November to a Lutheran who had asked if she could take communion at Mass with her Catholic husband.
In a general audience on Wednesday, 20 January, the Pope has taken the same concept:
“At the center of the Lutheran Cathedral in Riga there is a baptismal font dating back to the twelfth century, to the time when Latvia was evangelized by St. Maynard. That font is an eloquent sign of a source of faith recognized by all Christians of Latvia, Catholics Lutherans and Orthodox. This origin is our common baptism … Sharing this grace creates an unbreakable bond between us Christians, so that, by virtue of baptism, we can be really all brothers … All, Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants, we form a a royal priesthood and a holy nation. ”
Francis this time took it further. Meanwhile, however, the Lutheran pastor from Rome, Jens-Martin Kruse, who had welcomed the visit of the Pope in his church on Nov. 16 and had heard the words, has already come to these conclusions:
“The pope has invited all the faithful to take responsibility before God, to decide according to their conscience if it is possible joint participation, between Catholics and Protestants, the Eucharist. There are no theological reasons why this is not so.”
Pastor Kruse said that in an interview to Zenit on 19 January. And on this very day in Rome, there are those who have gone from words to deeds.
On the morning of January 19, Francis gave an audience in the Vatican to a delegation from the Lutheran Church of Finland, led by a woman, Irja Askola, Bishop of Helsinki, accompanied by representatives of the minority Orthodox and Catholic bishops Ambrosius and Teemu Sippo.
But after the audience with the Pope, in the course of the liturgical celebrations that the delegation has officiated in Rome along with groups of faithful who came also from Finland, it happened during a Catholic Mass that communion was also given to the Lutherans.
This, at least, is what was reported by the Finnish Lutheran weekly “Kotimaa”, signaling the surprise of a member of the delegation, Samuel Salmi, bishop of Oulu, according to which the Catholic officiants knew very well to give communion to the Lutherans…
So, taking all that is said here, what do we know?
Magister begins by reaching back to the ecumenical event in November, wherein he strongly insinuated that a Lutheran woman could receive Holy Communion with her Catholic husband if her conscience and prayer led her to do so. You may recall that I wrote about this at the time it took place:
[T]he final paragraph gives us cause for much deeper concern, inasmuch as it indicates not just the pope’s thinking, but a program of action. Let’s look at the relevant section again:
I wouldn’t ever dare to allow this, because it’s not my competence. One baptism, one Lord, one faith. Talk to the Lord and then go forward. I don’t dare to say anything more.
In much of the commentary I’m seeing — commentary trying desperately to square the papal circle — the focus is on the first “dare”. The pope says he wouldn’t dare “allow this.” What is “this”? Permission for Lutherans to receive the Eucharist in Catholic churches. He says that it is “not my competence.”
[…]
The pope has not explicitly given permission to Lutherans to receive Communion. But — and this is a supersized “but” — he’s not telling them not to, either. In fact, he’s insinuating that it’s up to them. The final three sentences give the implicit permission to do just that:
“One baptism, one Lord, one faith.” Talk to the Lord and then go forward. I don’t dare to say anything more.”
Oh, but you must say something more, Holy Father! It is your solemn duty to do so. Good parents, whether they like it or not, have to say “no” to their children when they are doing something that will harm themselves. Even if the child really, really wants to do it.
Of course, we shouldn’t be too surprised by this, even if we find the reality of it rather shocking. We’ve already received plenty of warning that this is what he believes. We saw it in his favor for Kasper throughout the synodal process (and even in the statement above), along with his refusal to distance himself from the so-called “Kasper Proposal”. We saw it in his refusal to reassure the better part of a million Catholics who sent him the filial appeal. We saw it in his latest interview with Eugenio Scalfari, when Francis said, “the de facto appraisals are entrusted to the confessors, but at the end of faster or slower paths, all the divorced who ask [to receive Communion]will be admitted.” We saw yet another signal in the recent article from Fr. Spadaro, close confidant of Pope Francis, in which he indicated that the Synod has left the door open to Communion for the divorced and remarried – an article which Vatican watchers believe is indicative of the mind of Francis on the topic.
Why am I speaking here about Communion for the divorced and remarried when the topic is Communion for Lutherans? Because it’s all of a piece. 1 Corinthians 11:28 makes it clear how we must approach Holy Communion: “Examine yourselves, and only then eat of the bread and drink of the cup.” What Francis, Kasper, and others have been advocating is the idea that this examination is not necessary. That rather than being fearful that we “eat and drink judgment (or condemnation) against” ourselves if we receive the Eucharist unworthily, we should see it as the very means by which we may be strengthened on our “journey.” This is an outrageous form of utilitarianism, in which we use God — our first beginning and final end — to accomplish some other, lesser thing. If our worthiness to receive Him is treated as a matter of no importance, how can this be viewed as anything other than elevating the concerns of man — and man himself — above God?
Of course, this sort of humanism might produce other indicators – say, excessive concern for the material well-being of the poor, distribution of resources, or care for the environment – over and above concern for the salvation of souls.
Here now, Magister connects the same dots I laid out in November. When the pope gives the impression that it is okay for Lutherans who have a clear conscience about it to receive Holy Communion in a Catholic Church, they reach the conclusion that it’s okay for them to receive Holy Communion in a Catholic Church.
In Internet-speak: obvious conclusion is obvious.
And that’s exactly what we have here. Look at Magister’s text again:
…the Lutheran pastor from Rome, Jens-Martin Kruse, who had welcomed the visit of the Pope in his church on Nov. 16 and had heard the words, has already come to these conclusions:
“The pope has invited all the faithful to take responsibility before God, to decide according to their conscience if it is possible joint participation, between Catholics and Protestants, the Eucharist. There are no theological reasons why this is not so.”
Now, to be clear: Jens-Martin Kruse was not, as far as I can tell from this report, present in Rome this week for the ecumenical gathering in question. He was not at the papal audience earlier today. But other Lutherans were. Lutherans who were under the impression that it was perfectly acceptable for them to receive Holy Communion at a Catholic Mass. Lutherans who received Holy Communion at a Catholic Mass from “officiants” (priests) who “knew very well to give communion to the Lutherans.”
The Holy Father was not there. He did not personally give communion to these Lutherans. The Mass in question was held some time after the papal audience. How connected the two were, in terms of those involved in each, is impossible to say from what has been reported.
But what is not impossible is to connect a line directly from the Holy Father’s remarks on November 16th to the open reception of Holy Communion at a Catholic Mass by Lutherans in Rome today.
Words matter. Implications matter. It is a total fallacy to believe that simply because some error isn’t explicitly stated that its presence, hinted strongly at but never fully proclaimed, it does no damage. Leading people to error even by insinuation is still giving scandal; if one engages in such behavior, the responsibility for the consequences are still theirs.
As a Vatican source told Edward Pentin back in November:
The Holy Father’s words have been causing widespread concern in Rome, leading some to go as far as to describe them as an attack on the sacraments. “The Rubicon has been crossed,” said one source close to the Vatican. “The Pope said it in a charming way, but this is really about mocking doctrine. We have seven sacraments, not one.”
We are on a trajectory that includes an official celebration by the Catholic Church, led by the pope, on the 500th anniversary of the deepest wound the Christian faith has ever suffered. We will jointly commemorate the arch-heresiarch, Martin Luther, along with his ideological descendants. What other ecumenical abuses will we endure as this date approaches?
We’re not in Kansas anymore. We’re not in Rome. Hell, we’re not even in Avignon.
This is almost certainly not the last we’ll hear on this issue. God spare us from what comes next.
Son of a …..
try Devil!
“There are no theological reasons [theological reasons excluded] why this is not so.”
The Vatican just brought the Confusion level of the Church up a couple of notches.
at least a couple
And connect this one back to the 04/23/14 dot: “A little bread and wine does no harm, eh?”
This is the one that still hits me like a punch in the gut.
The Pope Francis’ prayer intentions for January 2016 video; Obama’s pan-religious paraphernalia [http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/15/obama-carries-rosary-buddha-monkey-god-and-lucky-poker-chip-in-his-pocket/]; this article, Muslim invasion of Europs, etc. All in lockstep.
*
Doesn’t this point to what others say is their intention, i.e., a New World Order: One World Government and One World Religion? Cf. the Books of the Maccabees.
“Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly.”
How ironic…I leave Protestantism for The True Church just to have our pope teach as Luther.
Sorry about that. It’s really hard to be a Catholic under this Pope.
I find it refreshing and lovely.
Yes, it’s like the Age of Aquarius has finally arrived.
The conservatives bishiops and cardinals can only whine, express their
concerns and do nothing while Pope Francis creates facts. The
conservative cardinals failed to protect the teaching against a Pope who
is at war with the Catholic faith. In the synode they made common cause
with heretics by selling the teaching in the name of worthless fake
unity for a mess of pottage. The conservative bishops and cardinals
certainly can’t wash their hands in innocence when things go wrong.
The Pope Francis’ prayer intentions for January 2016 video; Obama’s pan-religious paraphernalia [http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/15/obama-carries-rosary-buddha-monkey-god-and-lucky-poker-chip-in-his-pocket/]; this article; Muslim invasion of Europe, etc, all in lockstep.
*
Doesn’t this point to what others say is their intention, i.e., a New World Order: One World Government and One World Religion? Cf. the Books of the Maccabees.
If in fact these Lutherans did receive Holy Communion, then the Catholic clergy or lay distributors who administered it were, objectively speaking, guilty of mortal sin.
What Did The Pope Really Say… about Lutherans and Communion?
Posted on 16 November 2015 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf
””
A lot of people become angry and confused about some things that Pope Francis says… and doesn’t say… and then says and doesn’t say at the same time. It’s frustrating to try to figure him out. For example, he tends to speak in derogatory terms about doctrine and law, as if they are not important. BUT… BUT… he doesn’t actually say that they aren’t.
There is the tone with which he speaks and there are the words with which he speaks. We are left to untangle the knot.
That said, for this issue the Pope made a clear statement:
“I wouldn’t ever dare to allow this, because it’s not my competence.”
Before anyone gets out onto the ledge outside the window, read that again and repeat it to yourself. The Pope is not saying that Lutherans can go to Communion.
IANS is having an increasingly difficult time reading Franciscus through Fr. Z. who, one has to say, is doing his level best in a completely insane situation.
Poor, Fr. Z. Pray for him
Indeed pray for Fr. Z. And………someone needs to remind him that Francis DID NOT say Lutherans could receive Communion in the Catholic Church, that HE was not competent to decide that, but the PARTICIPANT is the one ‘after talking to the Lord’ the ONLY one competent to make this decision. A ‘participant’ that does not believe in Catholicism.
What you say is correct, but did the Holy Father’s entire statement create an ambiguity such that one who is not a Catholic in a state of grace might think himself fit to decide of his own volition that he is free to receive? If so, what’s the point of RCIA and for that matter what’s the point of the sacrament of reconciliation? I suspect that Fr. Z has thought the matter through and realizes that the issue doesn’t begin or end with a single Lutheran participant, but has implications far beyond.
My analysis of this back in November included a section about Fr. Z’s take. I respect Fr. Z, but I believe he was wrong:
https://onepeterfive.wpengine.com/good-parents-say-no-pope-francis-on-lutherans-and-the-eucharist/
Has Papal Praxis accepted the idea of a personal relationship with Christ and absorbed it into Sacramentalism?
Essentially, a personal relationship with Christ means a Pope, Bishop, or Priest is an unnecessary intermediary for a prot can get salvation from Jesus directly (prots confess to Christ directly etc) but that idea can continue to exist only if it becomes digested and then, if you will, excreted in an ecclesiastical manner which includes a Sacramentalism not yet entirely dissolved by Ecumenism, the Universal Solvent.
Hell, who knows what is going on in the heads of the revolutionary/modernist/new theologian?
It’s not as if nothing has changed since November. What Fr. Z initially wrote now has to be reconsidered in light of these recent happenings at the Vatican involving the visiting Lutherans. Do they now feel perfectly free (after a personal examination of conscience albeit without the sacrament of penance) to receive the Holy Eucharist?
Pope Francis says something that feels offensive to Catholic piety and then we have Fr. Z, Jimmy Akin, Mark Shea and other mainstream Catholic apologists pulling some improbably looking postulations to normalize the situation.
Of course, someone might say that these people are just giving the Pope the benefit of the doubt. The problem however is that these people are doing far more. They are normalizing the manner of speech of the Pope and the way he acts. In other words, they are desensitizing Catholics to offensive behavior/speech.
For such an insult to Our Blessed Lord, this tool of Satan should be publicly whipped around the streets of Rome.
Better make sure you have this post locked up tight. Someone linked it to a FB closed Catholic group and it got pulled down by FB.
This Pontificate is a punishment from God!!!
I cannot believe anyone would think this. But, if that’s the case, perhaps there is some growing you can do during your punishment.
Oh my goodness… Read the history of the church and Popes for Millenium Prior and you Will see that he’s an anomaly…
He is more Freemasonic than Catholic…
No, he’s Jesuit. I love that he has an Italian history and Venezuelan origin. I love that he makes people think and open their eyes to embedded sin. He is very Catholic. It’s a broad term. There is room in the pew for all of us.
Venezuelan origin? I thought he was born and reared in Argentina.
You are correct, thanks for this.
…but there is no room for the Pope whose job it is to teach with clarity to just play friends with the flock at the expense of duty. Children need parents. A flock needs a shepherd, not just another sheep.
Ah, too bad they aren’t this straightforward.
Well and truly said. What WILL it take for the neo-Catholic first responders finally to admit that there IS something to see here, and that it is a raging fire.
The ‘smoke of Satan’ has indeed turned into a ‘raging fire’ in Rome.
It will, I think, take even more than this.
Some could probably even defend the ordination of women, if the decree came down the pike.
Jimmy Akin will just write another “10 things to know and share” apologia for this latest spiritual affront.
God bless you Ferrara and Steve too, and every Catholic that is struggling to speak the truth during this truly dark age for the Holy Catholic Church, a Church in a Babylonian Captivity of a different kind before, but even worse than the time of the heretics Liberius, Honorius, and John XXII. How can the pope say that heretics and schismatics share the royal priesthood of baptism when Florence taught that heretical baptisms are valid but fruitless and devoid of grace until the obstacle of heresy is removed?
What will it take for most to see the fire that is raging now was first set by Paul VI and began burning bright with JPII? In his encyclical “Ut Unum Sint” (On Commitment to Ecumenism) he instructed us that the Second Vatican Council committed the Church IRREVOCABLY to ecumenism and began the process of apologizing to the world for the Church following its mission to bring all men into the Truth found only in the Catholic Church.
In this same encyclical he stated: “”Nevertheless, besides the doctrinal differences needing to be resolved, Christians cannot underestimate the burden of long-standing misgivings inherited from the past, and of mutal understandings and prejudices. Complacency, indifference and insufficient knowledge of one another often make this situation worse.”
In essence, he lumps the Catholic Church together with the schismatics, as though the Catholic Church had “insufficient knowledge” and “prejudices” that were, in part, a cause of disunity.
“But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides
that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.”
Galatians 1:8
I’ve quoted St. Paul twice today because of the pope. I think it’s also time to plead, “God have mercy on us.”
I don’t see how God could be more merciful to us. In truth and justice, His wrath should have been sent down upon us in a fiery storm of fire and brimstone for the complacency, apathy, and lukewarmness of faith so common place among Catholics. For myself, I cannot ask God to be more merciful than He has been for the sins I have committed.
Greetings,
I ran the Italian article Mr. Skojec linked to in the above article through Google Translate myself, and I got a very different result in the translation of one of the paragraphs. In Mr. Skojec’s translation the paragraph reads: “This, at least, is what was reported by the Finnish Lutheran weekly “Kotimaa”, signaling the surprise of a member of the delegation, Samuel Salmi, bishop of Oulu, according to which the Catholic officiants knew very well to give communion to the Lutherans…” When I ran the Italian through Google Translate the part came out as this (I also went a little farther than Mr. Skojec did when quoting the article since I think the extra words are essential to understanding the paragraph): “This, at least, is what was reported by the Finnish Lutheran weekly “Kotimaa”, signaling the surprise of a Lutheran bishop, Samuel Salmi, Oulu, according to which the officiants Catholics knew exactly who gave communion: The capodelagazione Irja Askola [a further translation from Finnish translates this to be “Head of Delegation Irja Askola”], Lutheran Bishop of Helsinki, is known not only ultra-liberal intercommunion but also on same-sex marriage.” It looks like the article was actually saying that the Lutheran bishop had given communion to the other Lutherans. Going by this translation, perhaps the Lutheran Bishop distributed some of the bread that the Lutherans receive as their “communion” – besides, I highly doubt that, even if people in the Vatican were to allow Lutherans to receive Our Lord, they would allow one of the Lutheran bishops to do the distributing. Another point agains the interpretation that the Catholics distributed (or allowed to be distributed) Holy Communion to Lutherans is the reverence that can be seen in footage of Vatican Masses under Francis’s papacy: people are receiving on the tongue and kneeling with altar servers holding a patent under the Host. Furthermore, the Italian article being quoted here seems to be citing a Lutheran paper as the source for its information about the alleged distribution of Holy Communion. Considering that it appears that Lutherans want to be able to receive Holy Communion, and that people often tend to twist the words of whoever happens to be Pope at the time to fit their agenda, it is possible that the Lutheran paper was playing games. An alternative theory is that we are getting this information on the alleged distribution of Holy Communion to Lutherans fourth hand at least since it came from a Finish, Lutheran newspaper (who possibly did not have a reporter on hand in the Vatican while the delegation was there), which was then translated into Italian and written in an article in that language, after which the Italian article was translated by Google and further edited before it was included in this article on 1Peter5. Isn’t it easily probable that information that has passed through this many channels might have become somewhat distorted even if all of the people who were connected with it were exceedingly committed to the truth? Anyone who has played the party game “telephone” can easily attest that even if people try hard, it is easy for the original message to be lost.
I hope that this comment shows that in this allegation of Holy Communion being sacrilegiously distributed there is enough ambiguity and room for alternative theories to show that there is quite a reasonable doubt that the Pope and other Vatican officials are guilty of such a sacrilege. It is my hope that people will be willing to give Pope Francis the benefit of the doubt, after all a person should be considered innocent until proven guilty, and this evidence seems to be far from conclusive proof.
Sincerely,
Joan Babecka
yeah sure, after 500 ambiguities and 50 statements that have not been ambiguous at all…Who are you to judge, right? ambiguity, subtilty, words said in secret, on the phone, in a letter to ‘old pals,’ the list goes on and on, but he never really defends the Catholic faith now does he? I mean we’ve had since March of 2013 and the only non-ambiguous things we’ve had from bergoglio’s vatican is a lightening bolt from heaven! Good grief man, how many times are Catholics going to go on giving excuses? We need an Athanasius, with whom there were no excuses, a Jerome who didn’t mince words, a Chrysostom who would have had no problemo shouting out at the top of his lungs “ANTIPOPE” who, if Bishops had the moral courage requisite, would meet and denounce and depose. the thirteen cardinals wrote their so delicately worded letter – the implications of which are not that hard to figure out. its just that the first responders all go back to their palaces while Rome burns with heresy and watering down of the Faith. Quite frankly, regardless of whether Francis is welcoming all to communion (are practising homos next? maybe now – all they have to do, they figure, under bergoglio is to loosen their loose conscience upon the rest of us and we’ll have as bad a church as the worst american episcopal joke:) i really think luther and calvin would think this man bergoglio was just too darn modernist and Liberal for them, and would instruct their flocks to have nothing to do with these other lavender and feminist led Lutherans AND Catholics…they might even pray for a high road to Orthodoxy because they’re the only ones who, other than splinter Catholic groups, believe it is part of Christian duty to honour HOLY TRADITION – while we have a Pope who condemns it in his critics!
Joan, I am confident in the gist of the translation I provided. A friend who translates old Catholic books into English offered this (quick and dirty) translation of that section:
“But after the audience with the Pope, communion was also given to the Lutherans in the course of the liturgical celebrations that the delegation had officiated in Rome, along with groups of faithful who also came from Finland, which took place during a Catholic Mass.
This, at least, is what was reported by the Finnish Lutheran weekly “Kotimaa”, signaling the surprise of a member of the delegation, Samuel Salmi, bishop of Oulu, according to which the officiants Catholics knew very well to give communion to the Lutherans:
The head of the delegation, Irja Askola, Lutheran Bishop of Helsinki, is known to be not only ultra-liberal on questions of intercommunion but also on same-sex marriage.
Curiously, however, both these orientations of the Lutherans of Finland are fiercely opposed by the Lutheran churches of the neighboring Baltic countries, and especially the Church of Latvia, the one in which, in the cathedral of Riga, the baptismal font quoted by Pope Francis stands as symbol of ecumenical brotherhood.”
DURING A CATHOLIC MASS is the important thing here. As is “The officiants Catholics knew very well to give communion to the Lutherans.”
I spoke with another of my contacts in Rome, who has lived there for many years and works in a communications capacity for the Church and provides official Italian-to-English translations. He writes:
“What this means is that there was an ecumenical group in Rome, which included Lutherans and Catholics from Finland. They had an audience with the Pope, as one does (groups range in size from a few dozen to several hundred people for this kind of audience).
During the time in Rome — not having any direct connection with the papal audience — the group held liturgical celebrations together. I say not directly related, because the Italian makes it sound like the Mass was celebrated immediately afterwards or in connection with the audience. This is not likely the case.
It is very common in ecumenical groups of this kind for the leaders of “celebrations” to invite anyone who so desires to receive Holy Communion. This happens very often when the service is led by Protestants, and much more rarely when it is a Mass celebrated by a Catholic priest — but even the latter is not uncommon.
Obviously, it is an abuse that should be addressed and stopped by the competent authorities — and one could express oneself much more strongly. ”
Again, I return to my analysis of the pope’s comments in November:
https://onepeterfive.wpengine.com/good-parents-say-no-pope-francis-on-lutherans-and-the-eucharist/
There can only be a benefit of the doubt when there is doubt.
There is. no. doubt.
“Anyone who has played the party game ‘telephone’ can easily attest that even if people try hard, it is easy for the original message to be lost.”
Francis then has then been losing at a party game for three years now.
We have cause to be nervous with the worse helmsman. Pray that his early promise of retirement comes to fruition.
I’m worried he’d be the Jimmy Carter of popes if he retires–always wanting to be in the limelight, never shutting up. This sounds awful, but I think the other exit strategy from his papacy would be preferable.
Jesuits, as Relativists, do they believe in the Sacred Presence of the Eucharist? The Inculturation of heresy is part of our Merciful Jubilee? It’s all good in the Church of What’s Happening Now.
Like Saul, somebody needs to be knocked off his high horse and blinded so that he may see.
Well, as he doesn’t genuflect at the consecration, perhaps it is “just a little bread and wine” for him. (Before the Neo-Catholics jump in with their apologetics about his bad knees, he doesn’t have any trouble bending them to wash the feet of muslim women.)
I wonder…is there the possibility of “un-transubstantiation”? In other words, could Christ withdraw from the Eucharist somehow in certain situations?
No. He suffers still in this situation. The “negative” if you will, is that the person who receives His Body and Blood unworthily brings down more and more sin on his head.
Wait a minute, what did I go through my intense amazing at time incredibly difficult spiritual journey and RCIA for? According to this false Pope I could have just walked up and taken communion?
Why? Because it’s where God called you to be and He will be here long after Pope Francis is gone.
Thanks Patti, I needed that.
We got the Pope we deserve instead of the Pope we need.
I love this pope.
Are there talking points out there somewhere that have this exact syntax at the top of the list? Because I’ve seen it so many times, all equally mindless.
Nothing mindless about sharing that I appreciate this pontiff.
One may also appreciate a parent who discards duty to party with the kids and be their buddy. But there is still a definite need for parenting. And if the parents abdicate for fear of the job being beyond their pay grade or not their expertise then who parents? Nobody?
The Vatican seems to think Holy Communion is like Halloween candy. No matter how scary you are, just come and get it.
At this point, I suppose the only way someone still might be denied Communion
would be if they attempted to receive on the tongue, while kneeling.
Another scandal likely to be ignored by Church Militant, Fr. Z, and other purportedly traditional Catholic media. Will 1P5 please overtly take them all to task for their journalistic cowardice?
I could, but they’d just ignore that, too. I mostly try to stay out of the internecine wars that seem to be a hallmark of online Catholic discourse. They never end well.
I can’t believe I returned to the Catholic faith after several years as an Episcopalian, only to witness this litany of scandalous irreligious behavior.
Scandal does shake the tree, the tree doesn’t break, but alot of fruit does end up on the ground or barely hanging on until the next wind
storm. We believe the Holy Catholic Church is the Tree of Life and no amount of attacks from within or without will topple it. Plus, its not like it doesn’t have a Cherubim at its service, it can whack anybody it wants, when it wants, its showing great restraint, maybe so one book can be closed and another open. Best wishes.
Honestly, there is entirely too much hoopla over this. Is the sky falling?
No.
Does some of the Master’s food fall from the table and get eaten by the dogs? Yes. And those were HIS words. He changed his mind right there. If Jesus can change his mind mid-ministry by reaching out to the Canaanite woman, and tell her that her faith is great, I think its ok to say that sharing communion with other Christians is not the end of the world. A change in tone from Jesus probably threw his disciples for a loop when he even SPOKE to women, much less Canaanite women. He even said she had GREAT FAITH, and INCLUDED her. But, if you’ll notice, In the very next story in scripture has him saying to his disciples that “weak is their faith.”
I even take issue that the “deepest wound the Christian faith has ever suffered” was the reformation. WoW. A lot of hyperbole here.
Do you believe that the Eucharist is truly Christ’s Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity?
Sure. And then some. There is mystery in these things, and absolutes do not ALWAYS serve.
….and the real mystery by your way of logic is why the Pope doesn’t rent a helicopter and seed the clouds with holy water and chrism to baptize all nations without any requisite belief in the tenets of the Catholic Church. No doubt those not seeking baptism are feeling just fine where they are so what’s stopping him?
Better yet there could be a papal decree that sin no longer exists and all are saved regardless of doctrine. That’d likely make folks really popular even if everyone sleeps in on Sunday and withholds any donations.
…and Eve thought the forbidden fruit looked really tasty, too. No thought for the reality of repercussions. Maybe if it were a forbidden super-sized Coke she would have thought twice to avoid weight gain. Funny how religious realities are so easily glossed over but break your diet and – shame on you. You won’t fit into that new bikini!
I guess the teachings of the Catholic Church don’t really mean anything, because if you can reject them and still receive Holy Communion, then why bother following the teachings? Why? I know, it’s all relative.
Shortly before francis made those remarks an eccumenical meeting had took place between the two churches where theological unity had been achieved and when it was still lacking… the eucharist was the only area preventing unification… the group concluded that lutherens be encouraged to take communion in the church and catholics to take communion in the lutheren parishes. The major concern for me was the lutheren objection to the theology of the “sacrifice of the mass” …. this if course brings up daniel 8: 11 – 12
11It set itself up to be as great as the commander of the army of the Lord; it took away the daily sacrifice from theLord, and his sanctuary was thrown down. 12Because of rebellion, the Lord’s peoplea and the daily sacrifice were given over to it. It prospered in everything it did, and truth was thrown to the ground.
From: declaration on the way
1. Eucharist as sacrifice
Historically, Lutherans and Catholics have had disagreements
about how the terminology of “sacrifice” should be applied to
the Eucharist. In recent ecumenical consensus, both sides have
affirmed that it is appropriate to speak of a “sacrifice of praise”
in connection with the Eucharist (The Eucharist, § 37). Still, the
Catholic-Lutheran dialogue group for the Swedish-Finnish church
(2010) observes: “From a Reformation perspective, it is however
unusual to describe the church as involved in the sacrifice of
Christ” (Justification in the Life of the Church, § 230). Thus, some
Lutherans continue to regard the language of “sacrifice” found
in Catholic theology and the Catholic Eucharistic rite to be a
potential stumbling block to unity.94
Download pdf found here
http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/ecumenical-and-interreligious/ecumenical/lutheran/declaration-on-the-way.cfm
Let’s see, I miss Mass and cannot receive Communion until confession to a priest, and Lutherans, who have neve gone to confession with a priest, can receive it. Maybe I should become Lutheran, then I can receive Communion.
This is simply preparation for the 500 year “celebration” of the Protestant revolt that Francis announced he would attend. (January 25, 2016).