Pope Francis on Intercommunion with Lutherans
#1
  http://www.catholic.com/blog/jimmy-akin/...-lutherans

  On the Pope's question: "but don’t we have the same baptism?"

  Nothing personal on the Pope, but any grade school kid in Catechism class circa  50-60 would have the answer.

  The answer has always been no, even though the Church has recognized the "all encompassing" yes.

  The problem has always been that these baptisms are insincère. To review, Baprtism is a promise to live the
  life and rules of Christ. One of those rules is to accept ALL of the requisites in order to be a member, one being
  accepting the Dogma of his Church. 

  Why is it the gospel is strewn with warnings to the anathemic obstinates.? For that very reason.

  I'm with the opinion of commenter Frank P. who has it right on:

  This Holy Father just continues to confuse the living daylights out of me, and trying to find technicalities as a means of defending him just frustrates me even more. I see a man who is trying to appease the immature passions of the world. My wife who converted to the Catholic Church 15 years ago recently asked me what was the point of her converting to the church if the church was just going to become more Protestant. These are strange times, and I have to admit, my faith is being tested like never before

  But consider also. If Lutherans qualify now without inner change, then the reverse is also true. Catholics are not obligated to confess their capital sins and can accept communion. Our Baptism could be born on a lie and insincerity, and it means nothing. This is just the tip of the iceberg.

  What of the hundreds of years of Catholic mothers who strove to have their children taught in the Church. Who trusted the Church in
what it taught, who steered away from protestism, and knew in their heart that only Christ's True Church offers the only valid Baptism.. 

  This Pope just lost credibility. His hesitation speaks volumns.

   
 
Reply
#2
The answer has always been no, even though the Church has recognized the "all encompassing" yes.

Actually the Pope didn't give her permission to go to communion in the Catholic Church.
Reply
#3
Unfortunately Francis was not in any way clear on this issue. The fact that people are debating whether or not he just gave permission for Lutherans to recieve Communion in a Catholic Church orovided they have a clean conscience speaks volumes about how ambiguous he was. Did he or didn't he?

From my own reading of it he seems to suggest that it's really up to the conscience of the individual,mand that somehow baptism makes everyone a member of the Roman Catholic Church. By being married to a Catholic and being baotized this woman--- provided she believes in the Real Presence and has a clean conscience--- can approach for Holy Communion.

I'm not sure how Jimmy Akin, Doctor Jeffery Mirus or any other of the myriad Neo Catholic spin doctors can explain away this one. The Pope could have clearly suggested she simply become a Roman Catholic but he did not. That speaks volumes in and of itself.
Reply
#4
  The point is the question isn't a complex one as he makes it out to be. It had a straight forward answer, and a few commentors had the right response to her question. He is actually embarrassing to Catholics. The Lutherans know the Catholic position and must have found it humerous to watch him squirm. 
Reply
#5
Um, I've never heard this. I was baptized Lutheran. My priest told me that anyone baptized in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit is baptized. Period. Baptism doesn't even have to be performed by a Christian, according to my sources.
Reply
#6
A Lutheran can be validly baptized and therefore their baptism is the same: there is only one baptism. 

Anyway, yeah he was very vague, beat around the bush, and rambled confusingly, but I think in the end he actually just said what the Church says.  He wouldn't give permission for it, but ultimately seemed to hint that it might be ok if the person was in good faith.

This is an example of one area that the original draft documents for Vatican II (the ones Archbishop Lefebvre helped draft and which he said were totally orthodox) explained better.  In the draft "De Ecclesia" which later became Lumen Gentium and the decree on ecumenism, the draft cites Cardinal Gasparri's  canonical tract on the Eucharist (Gasparri was the  architect of the 1917 Code) when stating:

Draft De Ecclesia Wrote:On the other hand, kindly Mother Church most greatly desires that the separated brethren, insofar as it is possible and they need it, come to share in the many goods which Christ entrusted to his Bride alone;13 for, as properly baptized, they too, if they are in good faith, are per se capable of receiving the other sacraments fruitfully. 14

14. See P. Gasparri, Tract. canonicus de SS. Eucharistia, t. II, Paris, 1897, p. 354: "Baptized wayfarers in virtue of the divine law are capable of receiving Holy Communion. But...the Church...forbids that Holy Communion be given to some people, even though capable of it by divine law."
https://jakomonchak.files.wordpress.com/...s-1-11.pdf

The key is "being in good faith" to receive them fruitfully, otherwise they would receive them harmfully.  And this is why, in general, the Church as a rule forbids it.  However, the Church acknowledges that it is possible for there to be legitimate exceptions. 

Pope St. John Paul II, Ecclesia de Eucharistia Wrote:45. 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.

This was the approach taken by the Second Vatican Council when it gave guidelines for responding to Eastern Christians separated in good faith from the Catholic Church, who spontaneously ask to receive the Eucharist from a Catholic minister and are properly disposed.95 This approach was then ratified by both Codes, which also consider – with necessary modifications – the case of other non-Eastern Christians who are not in full communion with the Catholic Church.96

46. In my Encyclical Ut Unum Sint I expressed my own appreciation of these norms, which make it possible to provide for the salvation of souls with proper discernment: “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”.97

These conditions, from which no dispensation can be given, must be carefully respected, even though they deal with specific individual cases, because the denial of one or more truths of the faith regarding these sacraments and, among these, the truth regarding the need of the ministerial priesthood for their validity, renders the person asking improperly disposed to legitimately receiving them. And the opposite is also true: Catholics may not receive communion in those communities which lack a valid sacrament of Orders.98

The faithful observance of the body of norms established in this area 99 is a manifestation and, at the same time, a guarantee of our love for Jesus Christ in the Blessed Sacrament, for our brothers and sisters of different Christian confessions – who have a right to our witness to the truth – and for the cause itself of the promotion of unity. 
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/specia...ia_en.html

Despite his equivocating and hemming and hawing, it does seem Pope Francis ultimately just said what the Church has put forth.

That being said, as others have mentioned, I think he should have followed up and asked the person to consider why she believes in the Catholic Eucharist and desires to receive it, rather than go to a Lutheran minister for it, and encourage her to consider if she can overcome the obstacles to her receiving fruitfully without any doubt.
Reply
#7
(11-23-2015, 04:15 AM)xandratax Wrote: Um, I've never heard this. I was baptized Lutheran. My priest told me that anyone baptized in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit is baptized. Period. Baptism doesn't even have to be performed by a Christian, according to my sources.

Yes this is what I have always been taught. From my understanding all protestant baptisms are valid...
Reply
#8
The Pope could have gently told her that non Catholics should not recieve communion because they do not share the same faith, and that should she want to become Catholic he'd personally help her make that possible. He could have said all that gently, charitably and serenely and perhaps even led to her conversion and set an example unparalleled in the last 60 years amongst popes and prelates.  The media would have accused him of proselytism and of going against the teachings of Vatican II, but he'd have set a positive example. If the Pope himself will not clearly but gently help lead a seemingly sincere seeker to the Church something is rotten in Denmark as the saying goes.


All he actually did was use the same manner of official Vatican speak of the last 60 years that can be taken either as an endorsement of Lutheran intercommunion or not, all depending on how you want to read it. Same old same old. Clarity is in order. When will any pope or prelate speak clear about anything of substance?
Reply
#9
"That being said, as others have mentioned, I think he should have followed up and asked the person to consider why she believes in the Catholic Eucharist and desires to receive it, rather than go to a Lutheran minister for it, and encourage her to consider if she can overcome the obstacles to her receiving fruitfully without any doubt".

The problem is, baptized in a Lutheran church, and assuming the subject is a devout Lutheran, then it's dogma can only take him to a maturity in faith that reflects the imposed limits of Lutheran dogma. He can not benefit of those sacraments/principles that the Lutheran church deliberately withholds from him that would otherwise take him to the remainder of that maturing Faith. Christ's laws are to be taken in their entirety.  All that he said is required describes the complete Christian. 

Radio Replies Vol I:                  http://www.radioreplies.info/

Q255. "We have the Creeds, Saints' Days, Baptism, Confirmation, and Holy Communion. These things guarantee that we are true Christians".

    Some Protestants have those things, at least theoretically. Others have some of them. Others have none of them. But in any case they would not prove Protestants to be true Christians. At most they prove that some Protestants are attempting to do some Christian things. But a true Christian accepts the complete teaching of Christ, and does all that He commands. And all is accepted on the authority of Christ, not on the authority of one's own human judgment. A self-made religion built upon a personally approved selection from the teaching of Christ does not give us the Christian religion. 

Q817 "I was baptized  in the Church of England. What is the religion of my Baptism?" 

    The Catholic religion. Baptism, if valid, makes a Christian. Now Catholicity is the only true form of Christianity. Therefore everyone validly baptized is radically a Catholic, even though he be unaware of it.

Q818  "Do you deny that Baptism can belong to the Anglican Church?"
"
    Yes. All the Sacraments were instituted by Christ, and belong to Christ. Now Christ founded the Catholic Church and committed His religion to her keeping only. Therefore the Sacraments, without exception, belong to her. Not a valid Sacrament is proper to the Church of England or to any other Protestant Church. There is but one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism. If Baptism administered by an Anglican be valid, the subject is baptized in the Church of England but not into the Church of England. Christ instituted Baptism into the Catholic Church, not Baptism into the Church of England. 


    Any insincerity negates the effect, as it is a false promise.   
Reply
#10
(11-23-2015, 02:59 PM)DeoDuce Wrote:
(11-23-2015, 04:15 AM)xandratax Wrote: Um, I've never heard this. I was baptized Lutheran. My priest told me that anyone baptized in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit is baptized. Period. Baptism doesn't even have to be performed by a Christian, according to my sources.

Yes this is what I have always been taught. From my understanding all protestant baptisms are valid...

Not all. I used to have the list, but can't find it.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)