Philadelphia, Pa., May 23, 2018 / 06:04 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- Several bishops from outside Germany have critiqued a proposal to allow Protestant spouses of Catholics to receive communion in German dioceses under some limited circumstances, citing the proposal’s effects on their own local Churches.
The proposal has been championed by Cardinal Reinhard Marx of Munich and Freising, who announced in February that the German bishops’ conference would publish a pastoral handout that allows Protestant spouses of Catholics “in individual cases” and “under certain conditions” to receive Holy Communion, provided they “affirm the Catholic faith in the Eucharist”.
But the proposal was questioned by seven German bishops, who asked the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith whether the question can be decided on the level of a national bishops’ conference, or if rather “a decision of the Universal Church” is required in the matter.
When several bishops from Germany visited Rome May 3, an inconclusive meeting ended with the Vatican sending the Germans back, saying Pope Francis wants the bishops to come to an agreement among themselves.
Archbishop Charles Chaput of Philadelphia was pointed in his criticism of the proposal in an essay published May 23 at First Things, raising doctrinal concerns regarding what it would mean to allow these non-Catholics to receive the Eucharist.
Chaput explains that while bishops everywhere have disagreements, he believes the situation in Germany to be different due to both the “global prominence of the controversy,” as well as the doctrinal issues. He added that “What happens in Germany will not stay in Germany. History has already taught us that lesson once,” citing the effects of Martin Luther’s schism.
“The essence of the German intercommunion proposal is that there would be a sharing in holy communion even when there is not true Church unity,” writes Chaput, noting that there are serious difference between Protestant theology and Catholic theology, including debate over the divinity of Christ among some more liberal Protestants.
Chaput disagrees with the proposal, as it would fundamentally redefine what the Church is as well as who she is, given that the Eucharist “is the sign and instrument of ecclesial unity.”
The German proposal would, “intentionally or not”, then, be “the first stage in opening communion to all Protestants, or all baptized persons, since marriage ultimately provides no unique reason to allow communion for non-Catholics.”
Admitting Protestant spouses of Catholics to Communion would “adopt a Protestant notion of ecclesial identity” for the Catholic Church, in which only baptism and a belief in Christ would be necessary to receive. Chaput questions if the Protestant spouse would have to also profess belief in other sacraments, such as holy orders. If this were not the case, Chaput suggests that perhaps the German bishops do not believe this sacrament relies on apostolic succession, which would be a “much deeper error.”
The proposal also “severs the vital link between communion and sacramental confession,” he stated.
“Presumably it does not imply that Protestant spouses must go to confession for serious sins as a prelude to communion. But this stands in contradiction to the perennial practice and express dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church, the Council of Trent, and the modern Catechism of the Catholic Church, as well as the ordinary magisterium. It implies, in its effect, a Protestantization of the Catholic theology of the sacraments.”
Chaput writes that the intercommunion practice would do nothing more than insert a lie into what should be a profound encounter with Christ.
“To insert a falsehood into the most solemn moment of one’s encounter with Jesus in the Eucharist — to say by one’s actions,’I am in communion with this community’ when one is demonstrably not in communion with that community — is a lie, and thus a serious offense before God.”
Cardinal Willem Eijk of Utrecht was critical of the pope’s request that the German bishops come to a consensus. Writing in the National Catholic Register May 5, Eijk said Pope Francis’ response was “completely incomprehensible,” as the doctrine of the Eucharist has not changed and cannot change, even with unanimity among a bishops’ conference.
“The practice of the Catholic Church, based on her faith, is not determined and does not change statistically when a majority of an episcopal conference votes in favor of it, not even if unanimously,” wrote Eijk.
Instead, Eijk says that he thinks Pope Francis should have been more direct to the German episcopal conference, and should have instead given them “clear directives, based on the clear doctrine and practice of the Church.”
Eijk’s comments were echoed by Archbishop Terrence Prendergast of Ottawa, who said May 23 at the Catholic Register it was “puzzling” that Pope Francis instructed Germany’s bishops to come to a unanimous decision on the issue.
“This kind of open communion is against Catholic teaching and from what I can see in non-Catholic congregations that follow a discipline of ‘open communion,’ it is also spiritually and pastorally unfruitful,” said Prendergast.
He noted that people in his local Church have already been asking about the German proposal.
Prendergast believes there should be more teaching on the benefit of attending Mass without receiving the Eucharist, as well as what it means “to be properly disposed and in the state of grace.”
“We need to invest more in receiving the sacraments worthily and fruitfully. This is true for the Eucharist, but also for Baptism and Confirmation,” Prendergast added.
“In Holy Communion we receive the Lord, and so, to receiving worthily, we need to be fully open to Him and connected to His Church, visibly and invisibly, institutionally and internally. That and nothing less is Catholic teaching.”
As a fellow Jesuit, Archbishop Prendergast also spoke to Pope Francis, thanking him “for reminding us that accompanying people through their lives, especially in dark times, is essential for being a priest.”
“We Jesuits always have to remember that most Catholics are not Jesuits — a fact we tend to overlook sometimes,” he added. “Our spirituality is not for everyone … For me, becoming a bishop was a real change, for then I had to recognize the whole spectrum of theologies, spiritualities, ministries and charisms present in the diocese entrusted to me. Through this I came to realize what a great gift doctrine is for the Church, enabling it to be one, holy, and catholic.”
The Code of Canon Law already provides that in the danger of death or if “some other grave necessity urges it,” Catholic ministers licitly administer penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick to Protestants “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.”
[…]
Prayer and fasting. Always good. Thousands of roses? I am sure. It did make the florists very happy.
Archbishop Cordileone asks us to pray and fast. I ask him to actually DO something. He has indicated that he is still in dialog (I hate that word) with Speaker Pelosi. If he has been doing this for all the years he has been bishop of San Francisco, it apparently has not done much good. She just pushed through the House the most drastic abortion bill ever – 218 democrats for and 210 republicans against. To solve a problem you have to accurately identify it. Those voting numbers show where the problem is in eliminating abortion. I don’t recall seeing that addressed by the bishops.
Archbishop Cordileone *is* doing something. Instead of privately begging NP to change her support of abortion, in utter defiance of Church teaching, as his predecessors have done to no avail, he is putting this out in the public. He gives no doubt as to his defense of Catholic teaching and his desire to save her soul from hell, and for attempting to prevent her from leading others into scandal and mortal sin. I’m not sure what else he can possibly do to get through to NP. It is certainly an Act of Mercy for him to ask for prayers and fasting for her soul and for the end of all abortion in the USA. I admire him for his courage and especially for his service to the Church.
In the history of biblical interpretation, the Book of Revelation’s 666 and antichrist has been wrongly and notoriously read to mean one’s enemy or anybody one detests: the Pope, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Saddam, Obama, or Trump, etc. Similarly, Archbishop Cordileone here grotesquely implies by association that those who uphold abortion rights are Satanic.
Are you attempting to grotesquely imply that those who support infanticide are sanctified?
It certainly violates the 10 commandments, and the two commandments He gave us while here.
He is not “implying” it. He is openly suggesting it. And he is correct, Those who uphold infanticide are in the grip of Satan, whom they willingly serve.
I would also note that Satan has achieved the goal of convincing these poor dullards that he does not exist and thereby condones a belief that any action of hums that fulfills their desires is permissible.
Every now and then a statement such as yours causes me to bring up one of my favorite comebacks from about 50+ years ago in the Chicago Tribune by either Dear Abby or Ann Landers in response to an unusually moronic statement from one of her readers:
“You may have a point but if you keep your hat on maybe no one will notice.”
Pope Francis granted Nancy a private audience yesterday. That would be encouraging, if one actually believed that he confronted her about her support for abortion, which he recently termed as “murder.” It is more likely that he was “pastoral” rather than “political,” which would leave her with the impression that she is doing just fine. I think Jesus would have been “pastoral” and told her that she was endangering her eternal soul with her stance. That would be the most pastoral thing to do, as “pastoral” is not a synonym of “being nice.”
First, it is important that we are passionate to stop the murder of the innocent – especially defenseless children in the womb – is grounded in our love of God and His commandments (all of His commandments), including “Thou shalt not kill.” I fear too much of the time the passion of the Pro-Life movement is more about the movement, more about the cause, than the reason for the movement and cause – the eternal God and His commandments. We should be as passionate to change other evils in society as we are to change the evil practice of abortion (murder of innocent children in the womb). I know this will ruffle feathers of some, but it is intended to cause reflection on the real motivation behind the passion, and to ask for that same passion in defending the laws of God in every area of life and society.
Second, Moloch (also known as Molech, Milcom, Milkim, Malcham, Malik) was the name of the national god of the Ammonites, to whom children were sacrificed by fire. While those who support and/or practice the evil of abortion, which is nothing less than child sacrifice, may not believe they are worshiping Moloch (in effect worshiping demonic forces and even Satan), their beliefs in and practice of abortion is evidence they are submitting to the rule of Satan and demonic forces, in effect worshiping Moloch.
I would like to make some follow-up comments addressing Susan K.’s statement that Archbishop Cordileone is doing something. We have different concepts of what “doing” something is. He has been Pelosi’s bishop for nine years. I by no means think that Archbishop Cordileone is stupid. But there is an old saying that the definition of stupidity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Obviously what he has been doing for nine years has not worked. Pelosi is more pro-abortion now than she was nine years ago.
Doing something would be enforcing Canon 915 of Canon Law – that she cold not receive the Eucharist. Doing something would be saying that being pro-abortion is a disqualifying issue for being elected to any office. These types of actions may have some positive effect on her. Even if not, it may have some effect on the 50% of Catholics who vote for pro-abortion politicians. As it stands, there seem to be many Catholics who believe that since nothing happens to the pro abortionists, then it must be OK to vote for them.
I would also like to see a little outrage in the bishops’ statements regarding the murder of millions of unborn babies. A little “Woe to you pharisees (pro-abortionists) might go a long way.
This doesn’t have to do with Archbishop Cordileone, but I just saw today that Pelosi had a meeting with the pope over the weekend. Several smiling pictures of the two together. But there was also a news item that she attended mass in Rome on Sunday, and the heckling made her leave church. There is a video of the priest saying that he was sorry she had to leave, as she was going to do the second reading. Good Grief!
To be fair, let’s keep in mind that the president and Speaker of the House both claim that they are opposed to abortion, but they do not think that it is helpful to use government power to stop it.
good