Kasper and Kolvenbach, Converts to the Neocon Way

Chiesa.com ^ | March 8, 2005

[NYer]

ROMA, March 8, 2005 - Within the Vatican curia, only one cardinal is capable of holding his own with Joseph Ratzinger on his turf, that of advanced theology. It is Walter Kasper, president of the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity (see photo).


Both are German, and they have had very similar careers. Like Ratzinger, Kasper began as a theologian, became a bishop, for Rottenburg and Stuttgart, and finally obtained an important post in the Vatican.

But under current classifications - partly in view of the future conclave - the two are placed on opposite sides: Ratzinger as the world leader of the neoconservatives, Kasper as leader of the progressivists.

The refined theological dispute about the relationship between the universal Church and the local Churches, which has divided the two in the past, has seemed to confirm the above mentioned classification.

Another confirmation: as head of ecumenism, Kasper is the cardinal in the curia who has attracted by far the most opposition from the traditionalists.

But the facts do not always fit the prepared schemes.

For example, in the closing homily for the annual week of prayer for Christian unity, last January 25, Kasper said some things out of keeping with his reputation as a progressivist.

He made strong references to faith in Jesus Christ as the "only savior of all humanity" - in full agreement with the declaration "Dominus Iesus" published by Ratzinger in 2000 and bitterly contested by the advocates of dialogue - and continued:

"But is this reality still clear to all of us? Do we keep it well in mind during our discussions and reflections? Or do we not rather find ourselves in a situation in which our primary task, our greatest challenge, is to remember and reemphasize this common foundation, and prevent its being rendered meaningless by the so-called 'liberal' interpretations which define themselves as progressivist but are, in reality, subversive? Precisely at this moment, when everything is becoming relative and arbitrary in postmodern society, and everyone creates his own religion à la carte, we need a solid foundation and a common point of reference that will be trustworthy for our personal life and for our ecumenical work. And what foundation could we have, except Jesus Christ? Who better than He to guide us? Who can give us more light and hope than He can? Where, except in Him, can we find the words of life (cf. Jn. 6:68)?"

* * *
But even more strongly in contrast with the current progressivism is what Kasper has written in a book recently published in Germany and Italy, by the publishing houses, respectively, of Herder and Queriniana: "Sacrament of Unity: The Eucharist and the Church."

Kasper published this book for the occasion of the eucharistic year proclaimed in 2004 by John Paul II. The year will conclude in October of 2005 with a synod of bishops dedicated precisely to the theme of the eucharist.

In 2003, the pope published an encyclical on the eucharist: "Ecclesia de Eucharistia."

According to the dean of Italian theologians, Giuseppe Colombo (see "Teologia," the magazine of the Theological Faculty of Northern Italy, no. 4, 2004), the "prevailing intention" of the encyclical was "that of denouncing the abuse, probably the one most widespread in the Church today, of celebrating the mass without an ordained priest, due to the scarcity of priests or to an erroneous interpretation of the equality of all Christians."

And in fact many eucharistic liturgies in Latin America and central Europe are celebrated in this way, in small groups without a priest, by ordinary men and women. And there are even some in the progressivist camp who defend this practice as an innovation that the Church should approve without reservation.

On this matter, cardinal Kasper's "no" is absolute:

"A celebration of the eucharist without the ministry of the priest is unthinkable. The ministry of the priest is integral to the celebration of the eucharist. This is also true in cases of extreme emergency. Wherever there have been situations of extreme persecution, in which it has not been possible to have a priest for years or for decades, we have never heard of a parish community or an individual group celebrating the eucharist by their own initiative, without a priest."

The "extreme situations" referred to are, for example, that of Soviet Russia, or of China. Never was there seen in these cases the practice Kasper rejects as "inadmissible," not for disciplinary but for theological reasons, which are developed on many of the pages in his book.

The homily - Kasper says with support from the New Testament - must also be reserved to the priest. In absolutely exceptional cases a layman could address a "spiritual address" to the community, but this must always be "distinguishable from the homily."

Kasper contests the tendency to "interpret in a simple metaphorical and purely symbolic" sense the words of the consecration:

"The words of Jesus 'This is my body' and 'This is my blood' must be understood in the real sense, and in this sacramental sense we speak of the real presence; that is, the true, real, and substantial presence of Jesus Christ under the signs of bread and wine."

The cardinal contests the obfuscation of the mass as sacrifice and its reduction to a meal at which "the celebration of the eucharist is almost indistinguishable from a banquet or a party."

Another target of Kasper's criticisms is the "functionalist" interpretation of the eucharistic liturgy:

"The mass is not a 'service' which, following the law of supplication and offering, is oriented primarily according to the needs or desires of certain groups. It is not a means to an end, but rather an end in itself. It must not become a 'happening'. It is wrong to evaluate it on the basis of its capacity to entertain. The liturgical celebration must be animated, instead, by respect for the holy God and for the presence of our Lord in the sacrament. It must be a space for silence, reflection, adoration, and personal encounter with God."

And again:

"The primary meaning of the eucharistic celebration is the 'cultus divinus', the glorification, adoration, praise, and exaltation of God in remembrance of his mighty deeds. This aspect becomes all the more difficult to understand in our society, which is focused upon human needs and their satisfaction. And yet, this is where lies the true reason for the crisis of the liturgy and the widespread inability to understand it. Neither the priestly ministry not the eucharist may be derived 'from below' and from the community. A reduction of the eucharist to its anthropological meaning would be a false renovation of the Church."

Kasper also takes issue with the "gloomy Puritanism" of so many masses that are stripped of all solemnity:

"The candles, the vestments, the music, and everything human art has to offer, must not be eliminated as if they were superficial pomp. The entire celebration of the eucharist should be a foretaste of the coming kingdom of God. In it, the heavenly world descends to our world. This aspect is particularly vivid in the liturgy and theology of the Eastern Church. In the West, however, after the council both the liturgy and theology have unfortunately become puristic and culturally impoverished in this regard."

As for communion, Kasper confirms that "we cannot invite everyone to receive it." Exclusion applies especially to non-Catholics:

"The eucharist presupposes, as the sacrament of unity, that we are in full ecclesial communion, which finds its expression above all in communion with the local bishop and with the bishop of Rome, as the holder of the Petrine ministry, which is at the service of Church unity."

But it also applies to Catholics in a state of grave sin. Kasper recalls the duty - largely fallen into disuse - to make recourse to the sacrament of penance, in order "not to eat and drink unworthily the body and blood of the Lord":

"Here we meet with another weak point of postconciliar development. The affirmation that unity and communion are possible only in the sign of the cross includes another affirmation, that the eucharist is not possible without the sacrament of forgiveness. The ancient Church was fully aware of this nexus. In the ancient Church, the visible structure of the sacrament of penance consisted in the readmission of the sinner to eucharistic communion. Communion, excommunication, and reconciliation constituted a single unity. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the Lutheran theologian executed by the Nazis in 1945, rightly warned against cheap grace: 'Cheap grace is the sacrament on sale, it is the Lord's supper without the remission of sins, it is absolution without personal confession'."

Immediately after this citation of Bonhoeffer, an icon of the progressivists, Cardinal Kasper adds his own comment:

"Cheap grace is, for Bonhoeffer, the cause of the Church's decline. The rediscovery and renewal of the character of the assembly and of the banquet of the eucharist have undoubtedly been important, and no intelligent person thinks of undoing them. But a superficial conception of these, detached from the cross and from the sacrament of penance, leads to the banalization of these aspects and to a crisis of the eucharist such as we are witnessing in the life of the Church today."

And on another page of the book he writes, even more succinctly:

"The crisis of the conception of the eucharist is the very nucleus of the crisis of the Church today."

[NYer]

The book:

Walter Kasper, "Sacramento dell' unità. Eucaristia e Chiesa", Queriniana, Brescia, 2004, pp. 184, euro 16,00

John Paul II's encyclical on the eucharist:

Ecclesia de Eucharistia

[AlbionGirl]

Here's an as you said, and thought you'd be interested ping:

For example, in the closing homily for the annual week of prayer for Christian unity, last January 25, Kasper said some things out of keeping with his reputation as a progressivist.

I tried reading Kasper's book, Jesus The Christ. Not that I finished it, but even from the get go it was one, big, vacillation fest. Impossible, IMO, to pin him down as friend or foe.

[AlbionGirl]

He made strong references to faith in Jesus Christ as the "only savior of all humanity" - in full agreement with the declaration "Dominus Iesus" published by Ratzinger in 2000 and bitterly contested by the advocates of dialogue - and continued:

My goodness, think about that sentence. The grandest of all concession by a progressivist is the cornerstone of the Faith.

Holy smokes are we in for some interesting times, if this is the guy for whom the white smoke wafts.

Prayers being offered up now, in advance, that the Holy Spirit deliver us from Kasper.

[Tantumergo]

Thanks for the ping.

These quotations are unrecognizable from the man of only 2 years ago.

What do you reckon? Has he had a conversion experience or is he laying out an election manifesto to appeal to the widest possible electorate?

[murphE]

Watch now, as many come to defend his "orthodoxy". "He's not really heterodox" they will say, "just misunderstood."

[hispanichoosier]

I don't think we have to worry about the white smoke rising for Kasper. Though at times I think it's unseemly, www.paddypower.com has odds on who the next pontiff will be. PaddyPower can be remarkably accurate, as was shown during the 2004 presidential election. Kasper isn't even mentioned as a possibility on the website.

[AlbionGirl]

"A reduction of the eucharist to its anthropological meaning would be a false renovation of the Church."

Better late than never, but my goodness is he late for the train, or what?

"The candles, the vestments, the music, and everything human art has to offer, must not be eliminated as if they were superficial pomp. The entire celebration of the eucharist should be a foretaste of the coming kingdom of God. In it, the heavenly world descends to our world. This aspect is particularly vivid in the liturgy and theology of the Eastern Church. In the West, however, after the council both the liturgy and theology have unfortunately become puristic and culturally impoverished in this regard."

As for communion, Kasper confirms that "we cannot invite everyone to receive it." Exclusion applies especially to non-Catholics: But it also applies to Catholics in a state of grave sin. Kasper recalls the duty - largely fallen into disuse - to make recourse to the sacrament of penance, in order "not to eat and drink unworthily the body and blood of the Lord":

"Here we meet with another weak point of postconciliar development. The affirmation that unity and communion are possible only in the sign of the cross includes another affirmation, that the eucharist is not possible without the sacrament of forgiveness. The ancient Church was fully aware of this nexus. In the ancient Church, the visible structure of the sacrament of penance consisted in the readmission of the sinner to eucharistic communion. Communion, excommunication, and reconciliation constituted a single unity. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the Lutheran theologian executed by the Nazis in 1945, rightly warned against cheap grace: 'Cheap grace is the sacrament on sale, it is the Lord's supper without the remission of sins, it is absolution without personal confession'."

"Cheap grace is, for Bonhoeffer, the cause of the Church's decline. The rediscovery and renewal of the character of the assembly and of the banquet of the eucharist have undoubtedly been important, and no intelligent person thinks of undoing them. But a superficial conception of these, detached from the cross and from the sacrament of penance, leads to the banalization of these aspects and to a crisis of the eucharist such as we are witnessing in the life of the Church today."

It's good to hear this, but the irony of his laying it out like this is almost too much to bear. Everything he said here has been said, ad nauseum, by the Traditionalists for the past 30 years.

[murphE]

These quotations are unrecognizable from the man of only 2 years ago.

That exact statement could be made about Hillary Clinton too. Except maybe the "man" part.

[Mershon]

"Everything he said here has been said, ad nauseum, by the Traditionalists for the past 30 years."

Amen. But we should still pray the perhaps finally the traditionalist warnings for 30 years are maybe now having some effect.

[AlbionGirl]

Maybe this guy is all about 'nuance'. Maybe I'm wrong, and he's not a big vacillator, but the mere fact that I'm having to weigh this creates a smoke I can't see through.

[AlbionGirl]

But we should still pray the perhaps finally the traditionalist warnings for 30 years are maybe now having some effect.

Amen!

[marshmallow]

Isn't it just a major downer when the neat little cyberworld pigeon holes which us keyboard jockeys build for people, don't measure up to reality?

Of course, the error is never ours. Unthinkable.

Here in our little world of keystrokes, we know exactly and infallibly what the Church needs. If only it would do just as we say. All would be well.

"Damn thee to hell, Kasper. I have already condemned thee. Why dost thou still push thy head out of the pit?"

[murphE]

On cue.

[NYer]

Everything he said here has been said, ad nauseum, by the Traditionalists for the past 30 years.

Someone must have tossed him a life preserver.

[Tantumergo]

"On cue."

ROFLMAO! Kudos to you - you called that one perfectly!

Isn't it amazing? - antichrist has scented the Pope's blood, done a makeover, commenced his advance, and already they are queuing to worship at his feet!

[tjwmason]

My goodness, think about that sentence. The grandest of all concession by a progressivist is the cornerstone of the Faith.

Exactly, it is more a measure of the problems within the Church when somebody writing that can be considered conservative as a result.

[ultima ratio]

This is like Hillary suddenly decrying abortion. I would be wary of "conversions" at this time. A papal election is coming up--the perfect time for moving to the right. Kasper should never have been made a cardinal in the first place.

Pope Pius XII, in Humani generis, warned that the new theologians taught modernism in a secretive way, "although they express themselves with prudence in their printed works, they nevertheless speak much more openly in their notes which they hand out in private..." (Humani Generis)

And Pius X said this about modernists in general: "While they make a pretense of bowing their heads, their minds and hearts are more boldly intent than ever on carrying out their purposes - and this policy they follow willingly and wittingly, both because it is part of their system that authority is to be stimulated but not dethroned, and because it is necessary for them to remain within the ranks of the Church in order that they may gradually transform the collective conscience" (Pascendi)

[ultima ratio]

Kasper is a heretic. He denies the historicity of the Gospel miracles, including the accounts of the Resurrection.

[Theophane]

Read both articles on the Chiesa site. They look very interesting.

Keep an eye on Bergoglio. Both Sandro Magister (rather explicitly) and John Allen (by implication) seem to think he is a real front runner at this point.