From John Paul II:
"While it is never legitimate to concelebrate in
the absence of full communion, the same is not true with respect to the
administration of the Eucharist under special
circumstances, to individual persons belonging to Churches or
Ecclesial Communities not in full communion with the Catholic Church. In this
case, in fact, the intention is to meet a grave spiritual need for the eternal
salvation of an individual believer, not to bring about an intercommunion which remains impossible until
the visible bonds of ecclesial communion are fully re-established."
and
"In this context, it
is a source of joy to note that Catholic ministers are able, in certain
particular cases, to administer the Sacraments of the Eucharist, Penance and
Anointing of the Sick to Christians who are not in full communion with the
Catholic Church but who greatly desire to receive these sacraments, freely
request them and manifest the faith which the Catholic Church professes with
regard to these sacraments. Conversely, in specific cases and in particular
circumstances, Catholics too can request these same sacraments from ministers
of Churches in which these sacraments are valid. The conditions for such
reciprocal reception have been laid down in specific norms; for the sake of
furthering ecumenism these norms must be respected."
from Canon Law:
"If the danger of death is present or if, in the judgement 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."
From Benedict XVI:
"56. The
subject of participation in the Eucharist inevitably raises the question of
Christians belonging to Churches or Ecclesial Communities not in full communion
with the Catholic Church. In this regard, it must be said that the intrinsic
link between the Eucharist and the Church's unity inspires us to long for the
day when we will be able to celebrate the Holy Eucharist together with all
believers in Christ, and in this way to express visibly the fullness of unity
that Christ willed for his disciples (cf. Jn 17:21). On the
other hand, the respect we owe to the sacrament of Christ's Body and Blood
prevents us from making it a mere "means" to be used indiscriminately
in order to attain that unity. (172) The Eucharist in fact not only manifests
our personal communion with Jesus Christ, but also implies full communio with
the Church. This is the reason why, sadly albeit not without hope, we ask
Christians who are not Catholic to understand and respect our conviction, which
is grounded in the Bible and Tradition. We hold that eucharistic communion and
ecclesial communion are so linked as to make it generally (my emphasis) impossible
for non-Catholic Christians to receive the former without enjoying the latter.
There would be even less sense in actually concelebrating with ministers of
Churches or ecclesial communities not in full communion with the Catholic
Church. Yet it remains true that, for the sake of their eternal salvation,
individual non-Catholic Christians can be admitted to the Eucharist, the
sacrament of Reconciliation and the Anointing of the Sick. But this is possible
only in specific, exceptional situations and requires that certain precisely
defined conditions be met (173). These are clearly indicated in the Catechism of the
Catholic Church (174) and in its Compendium (175).
Everyone is obliged to observe these norms faithfully."
My own comments:
Because there has been confusion over what the Roman Catholic Church says or does not say about those outside the umbrella of Rome receiving the Eucharist (or other sacraments) from a Roman Catholic priest or parish, I am indebted to a former Lutheran, Australian David Schutz, now Roman Catholic, who has provided the appropriate and authoritative words on the subject.
I might note that the words of John Paul II in the first two citations sound pretty much like the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod in its stance toward intercommunion between churches in general and its practice of close(d) communion with pastoral discretion in particular. It would seem that in this there is great affinity between the positions of the Roman Catholic Church and the LCMS in this area and that those who practice open communion or who view Eucharistic sharing as a means to greater unity of doctrine and confession stand on the outside of mainstream catholic and universal practice both in antiquity and now.
3 comments:
Lutherans (redundantly, Confessional Lutherans) hold a quia subscription to the words of the Smalcald Articles as the true and unadulterated statement and exposition of the Word of God, which state (Pt. II, Art. II):
"That the Mass in the Papacy must be the greatest and most horrible abomination, as it directly and powerfully conflicts with this chief article, and yet above and before all other popish idolatries it has been the chief and most specious.
"Let [care be taken that] it be publicly preached to the people that the Mass as men's twaddle [commentitious affair or human figment] can be omitted without sin...
[T]he Mass is nothing else and can be nothing else (as the Canon and all books declare), than a work of men (even of wicked scoundrels)...
"In addition to all this, this dragon's tail, [I mean] the Mass, has begotten a numerous vermin-brood of manifold idolatries."
Further explanations are appreciated of how this abomination/twaddle/dragon's tail is foisted off on non-Romanists.
Further explanations of why Lutherans should be in least bit concerned about what Rome thinks about anything would be appreciated.
I would be the last person on earth to deny anyone communion, so help me God. I say this with a view of the cross and Christ, on my knees.
Post a Comment