News: "Pope urges Catholics and Lutherans to recognize past errors"
#11
(11-03-2016, 12:04 AM)Poche Wrote: Cardinal Kurt Koch explained that sharing Communion is a sign of full unity among Christians—a unity that Catholics and Lutherans have not achieved. He said that on some special occasions, such as a marriage ceremony uniting a Catholic and a Lutheran, the non-Catholic party might receive the Eucharist. But this, he said, would be a case of “Eucharistic hospitality”(!) rather than “Eucharistic communion.” Eucharistic hospitality, he said, is offered in individual cases, and it would be “very difficult to give a universal declaration because the pastoral situations are very different.”

http s://www.catholic culture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=29807

"Eucharistic Hospitality" 

What a euphemism there, Cardinal Kurt Koch.  Very charitable of you to encourage sacrilege on an unsuspecting party.!

Those little loopholes opened up in the New code of canon law just get bigger and bigger. Very clever.

Reply
#12
(11-03-2016, 08:24 AM)BC Wrote:
(11-03-2016, 12:04 AM)Poche Wrote: Cardinal Kurt Koch explained that sharing Communion is a sign of full unity among Christians—a unity that Catholics and Lutherans have not achieved. He said that on some special occasions, such as a marriage ceremony uniting a Catholic and a Lutheran, the non-Catholic party might receive the Eucharist. But this, he said, would be a case of “Eucharistic hospitality”(!) rather than “Eucharistic communion.” Eucharistic hospitality, he said, is offered in individual cases, and it would be “very difficult to give a universal declaration because the pastoral situations are very different.”

http s://www.catholic culture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=29807

"Eucharistic Hospitality" 

What a euphemism there, Cardinal Kurt Koch.  Very charitable of you to encourage sacrilege on an unsuspecting party.!

Those little loopholes opened up in the New code of canon law just get bigger and bigger. Very clever.
Ughhh, they love equivocation and prevarication, don't they?
Reply
#13
(11-03-2016, 10:50 AM)Papist Wrote:
(11-03-2016, 08:24 AM)BC Wrote:
(11-03-2016, 12:04 AM)Poche Wrote: Cardinal Kurt Koch explained that sharing Communion is a sign of full unity among Christians—a unity that Catholics and Lutherans have not achieved. He said that on some special occasions, such as a marriage ceremony uniting a Catholic and a Lutheran, the non-Catholic party might receive the Eucharist. But this, he said, would be a case of “Eucharistic hospitality”(!) rather than “Eucharistic communion.” Eucharistic hospitality, he said, is offered in individual cases, and it would be “very difficult to give a universal declaration because the pastoral situations are very different.”

http s://www.catholic culture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=29807

"Eucharistic Hospitality" 

What a euphemism there, Cardinal Kurt Koch.  Very charitable of you to encourage sacrilege on an unsuspecting party.!

Those little loopholes opened up in the New code of canon law just get bigger and bigger. Very clever.
Ughhh, they love equivocation and prevarication, don't they?

They have been so wildly successful using it, why stop now?
Reply
#14
(11-03-2016, 08:24 AM)BC Wrote:
(11-03-2016, 12:04 AM)Poche Wrote: Cardinal Kurt Koch explained that sharing Communion is a sign of full unity among Christians—a unity that Catholics and Lutherans have not achieved. He said that on some special occasions, such as a marriage ceremony uniting a Catholic and a Lutheran, the non-Catholic party might receive the Eucharist. But this, he said, would be a case of “Eucharistic hospitality”(!) rather than “Eucharistic communion.” Eucharistic hospitality, he said, is offered in individual cases, and it would be “very difficult to give a universal declaration because the pastoral situations are very different.”

http s://www.catholic culture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=29807

"Eucharistic Hospitality" 

What a euphemism there, Cardinal Kurt Koch.  Very charitable of you to encourage sacrilege on an unsuspecting party.!

Those little loopholes opened up in the New code of canon law just get bigger and bigger. Very clever.

I could understand communicatio in sacris in cases where the Church in question has valid sacraments and a common understanding of the Eucharist. I could also understand communicatio in sacris where an individual Protestant was able to profess an understanding of the Eucharist that is the same as that of the Catholic Church. 
Reply
#15
(11-03-2016, 08:24 AM)BC Wrote: "Eucharistic Hospitality" 

What a euphemism there, Cardinal Kurt Koch.  Very charitable of you to encourage sacrilege on an unsuspecting party.!

Those little loopholes opened up in the New code of canon law just get bigger and bigger. Very clever.

"Oh, Madge, so glad you could come! Please, try the cheese puffs; they're wonderful! And how's about a little Jesus amuse-bouche before dinner?"

Idiots. Unspeakable.
Reply
#16
What's hospitable about defiling the Eucharist by giving it to someone who is part of a heretical sect? What about hospitality to Our Lord?
Reply
#17
(11-03-2016, 11:51 PM)Poche Wrote:
(11-03-2016, 08:24 AM)BC Wrote:
(11-03-2016, 12:04 AM)Poche Wrote: Cardinal Kurt Koch explained that sharing Communion is a sign of full unity among Christians—a unity that Catholics and Lutherans have not achieved. He said that on some special occasions, such as a marriage ceremony uniting a Catholic and a Lutheran, the non-Catholic party might receive the Eucharist. But this, he said, would be a case of “Eucharistic hospitality”(!) rather than “Eucharistic communion.” Eucharistic hospitality, he said, is offered in individual cases, and it would be “very difficult to give a universal declaration because the pastoral situations are very different.”

http s://www.catholic culture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=29807

"Eucharistic Hospitality" 

What a euphemism there, Cardinal Kurt Koch.  Very charitable of you to encourage sacrilege on an unsuspecting party.!

Those little loopholes opened up in the New code of canon law just get bigger and bigger. Very clever.

I could understand communicatio in sacris in cases where the Church in question has valid sacraments and a common understanding of the Eucharist. I could also understand communicatio in sacris where an individual Protestant was able to profess an understanding of the Eucharist that is the same as that of the Catholic Church. 

Listen to what you are saying.  Trying to rationalize these statements is not what you want to do.

What Protestant is able to profess an understanding of the Eucharist the same as that of the Catholic Church?  There is not one, or they wouldn't be a Protestant.  What could a "common understanding of the Eucharist" look like anyway?

In any case, reception of communion requires much more than just a belief in the Eucharist; namely one must accept the entirety of the Catholic Faith and be reconciled to the Church, make an abjuration of heresy, and sacramental confession prior to doing so.

But the idea of a "common Eucharist" with non-Catholics has been out there for a while now and it is truly scandalous.
Reply
#18
(11-04-2016, 01:53 AM)Vox Clamantis Wrote:
(11-03-2016, 08:24 AM)BC Wrote: "Eucharistic Hospitality" 

What a euphemism there, Cardinal Kurt Koch.  Very charitable of you to encourage sacrilege on an unsuspecting party.!

Those little loopholes opened up in the New code of canon law just get bigger and bigger. Very clever.

"Oh, Madge, so glad you could come! Please, try the cheese puffs; they're wonderful! And how's about a little Jesus amuse-bouche before dinner?"

Idiots. Unspeakable.

It's just too nuts and would obviously be laughable if we were not talking about literally the most serious thing on Earth.
Reply
#19
(11-03-2016, 11:51 PM)Poche Wrote:
(11-03-2016, 08:24 AM)BC Wrote:
(11-03-2016, 12:04 AM)Poche Wrote: Cardinal Kurt Koch explained that sharing Communion is a sign of full unity among Christians—a unity that Catholics and Lutherans have not achieved. He said that on some special occasions, such as a marriage ceremony uniting a Catholic and a Lutheran, the non-Catholic party might receive the Eucharist. But this, he said, would be a case of “Eucharistic hospitality”(!) rather than “Eucharistic communion.” Eucharistic hospitality, he said, is offered in individual cases, and it would be “very difficult to give a universal declaration because the pastoral situations are very different.”

http s://www.catholic culture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=29807

"Eucharistic Hospitality" 

What a euphemism there, Cardinal Kurt Koch.  Very charitable of you to encourage sacrilege on an unsuspecting party.!

Those little loopholes opened up in the New code of canon law just get bigger and bigger. Very clever.

I could understand communicatio in sacris in cases where the Church in question has valid sacraments and a common understanding of the Eucharist. I could also understand communicatio in sacris where an individual Protestant was able to profess an understanding of the Eucharist that is the same as that of the Catholic Church.

I know that what you are saying seems to be the understanding of the 1983 Code, but it is a nonsensical position. The Catholic Faith is more than the Real Presence, important and central as it is. A Protestant may accept the Real Presence, but does he accept the ordained priesthood? That is, does he believe that a true priest is required to confect the Eucharist? If not, he is a heretic, and he does not have the Catholic Faith. And the questions could be multiplied. If the putative Protestant does believe all these things, then what reason would he have to not become Catholic?
Reply
#20
(11-04-2016, 01:14 PM)aquinas138 Wrote: I know that what you are saying seems to be the understanding of the 1983 Code, but it is a nonsensical position. The Catholic Faith is more than the Real Presence, important and central as it is. A Protestant may accept the Real Presence, but does he accept the ordained priesthood? That is, does he believe that a true priest is required to confect the Eucharist? If not, he is a heretic, and he does not have the Catholic Faith. And the questions could be multiplied. If the putative Protestant does believe all these things, then what reason would he have to not become Catholic?
I don't think the code is non-nonsensical per se, it just becomes so when applied to this kind of "Eucharistic hospitality."  It envisioned rather more urgent and exceptional cases.  A mixed marriage itself is communcatio in sacris, but the Eucharist is different because there are two ways to receive the Eucharist in a harmful way: (1) not discerning the Body and Blood of the Lord, which is why a manifestation of a belief in the truth of the sacrament is necessary (note, according to par. 46 of JPII's Ecclesia de Euchastia which is on this topic, belief in "the truth regarding the need of the ministerial priesthood for their validity" is an indispensable part of this) and (2) receiving unworthily, which is why one must be "properly disposed" (this would include being in good faith for a non-Catholic). 

I think the original draft schema for "De Ecclesia" (the one Archbishop Lefebrve worked on and said was completely orthodox) did a better job of justifying giving the sacraments to non-Catholics than the later documents actually promulgated.  It points out that the baptized, if in good faith, are per se capable of receiving the other sacraments fruitfully, but that the Church places more general restrictions to avoid the dangers of those not in good faith approaching, as well as the risk of scandal, associated with more indiscriminate methods (which is why you see in the draft and in the final documents, that as long as there is some good to be had and no danger of these things, it can be ok). The draft quotes and cites Cardinal Gasparri's  canonical treatise on the Eucharist in particular on this point. (Gasparri was appointed by St. Pius X as the architect of the 1917 Code). For whatever reason, this citation was left out of the final documents.

Of course, since the decision to give a non-Catholic the sacrament is so circumstance specific with both objective and subjective elements, the Code has to use more general terms like "properly disposed."  This would be fine for a diligent and competent pastor who puts the well-being of souls as his highest goal, but others could certainly abuse the subjectivity (which is likely why the law previously just said don't do it at all).

Anyway, your point certainly stands that absent some extreme exceptional circumstances, someone who professed a belief in the right things and desired the sacrament should be encouraged to go about the ordinary way (by becoming Catholic)--I don't see why there being a special occasion, like a wedding, would require the ordinary way to be dispensed with.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)