Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Shared communion ban with non-Catholics reaffirmed
Spero News ^ | March 15, 2007 | Luigi Sandri

Posted on 03/15/2007 1:48:10 PM PDT by Alex Murphy

Pope Benedict XVI has reaffirmed a strict ruling forbidding eucharistic concelebration with ministries of non-Roman Catholic churches, while at the same time giving priests the go-ahead to revive Latin as the main language used during the church service known as the Mass.

"The celebration and worship of the Eucharist enable us to draw near to God's love and to persevere in that love," Benedict said in an apostolic exhortation entitled "Sacramentum Caritatis" ("The Sacrament of Charity"). The 131-page document, released by the Vatican on 13 March, is a summary of papal reflections on discussions at the 2005 World Synod of Bishops on the Eucharist.

In his summary, the Pope restates his strong opposition to Catholics remarrying, and also asks priests to refrain from celebrating the Mass during weddings or funerals attended by non-practising Catholics.

"The Eucharist," Pope Benedict wrote, "implies full communion 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 impossible for non-Catholic Christians to receive the former without enjoying the latter.

"Only in exceptional situations, for the sake of their eternal salvation, can individual non-Catholic Christians be admitted to the Eucharist, the sacrament of reconciliation and the anointing of the sick," said the 79-year-old pontiff.

Quoting from "Sacramentum Caritatis", the Pope confirmed "the Church's practice, based on sacred scripture, of not admitting the divorced and remarried to the sacraments, since their state and their condition of life objectively contradict the loving union of Christ and the Church, signified and made present in the Eucharist."

The Pope also reaffirmed, "the beauty and the importance of a priestly life in celibacy as a sign expressing total and exclusive devotion to Christ and to the Church. Therefore I confirm that it remains obligatory in the Latin tradition." He added, "'I ask that future priests ... be trained to understand and celebrate Holy Mass in Latin, use Latin texts and execute Gregorian chants."

Church rules adopted after the Second Vatican Council of 1965 said that congregations wishing to celebrate Mass in Latin had to seek permission from Rome or their local bishops.

The Second Vatican Council and the abandonment of the traditional Latin rite led to a schism within the church led by Marcel Lefebvre, a French archbishop who was later excommunicated by the late Pope John Paul II for consecrating four bishops in violation of canon law.


TOPICS: Catholic; Evangelical Christian; Mainline Protestant; Worship
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-75 next last
To: Suzy Quzy

You know I am wondering on this funeral component. Here's why and for example. I have a 94 year old aunt that is too feeble to go to mass. She went every day as long as she was able. She watches every day on the tv and when not watching ewtn is praying the rosary so are we saying that she cannot have a funeral mass. That hardly seems correct does it?


41 posted on 03/15/2007 10:27:55 PM PDT by genxer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: genxer

I think yours is definitely misleading reading of the statement.

Also, if you wish, check with your parish about how they minister to house bound folks and the Eucharist..


42 posted on 03/15/2007 11:07:05 PM PDT by D-fendr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: trimom; peteram

I think you are misreading it. The Catholics attending who are in a state of Grace may receive, and the non-Catholics may not. The same way it has always been, or supposed to have been.

Non-Catholic are invited to come forward for a blessing from the priest.


43 posted on 03/16/2007 12:14:55 AM PDT by Jeff Chandler (] Tagline Under Construction [)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: genxer
I have a 94 year old aunt that is too feeble to go to mass.

The elderly who are feeble are exempt from many obligations. Your aunt is probably more pleasing to God than the rest of us.

44 posted on 03/16/2007 12:17:44 AM PDT by Jeff Chandler (] Tagline Under Construction [)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick

Does anyone fully understand the Eucharist? It's a mystery that can't be understood by us mere mortals.

The proper procedure (yes, the Pope is incorrect) is to allow the priests to exercise discretion in distributing Eucharistic elements to non-Catholic Christians.

NOBODY HAS A RIGHT TO RECEIVE COMMUNION- this applies to Catholics and non-Catholics alike. Unfortunately, a blanket policy such as the one discussed in this article gives the impression that those persons who are officially Roman Catholic have the right receive regardless of what they do the rest of the week (ahem Ted Kennedy) whereas those who are good and faithful Christians have no business at the Table.

Does Billy Graham espouse the same Eucharistic theology as the Pope? Not likely. Should it matter? Why? The Holy Spirit makes bread and wine into what He makes it- regardless of what we mortals think. The world is round regardless of those who once thought it to be flat. The body and blood or Christ is nourishing to all people who know and love Him, and It is spiritual poison to those who despise Him.

The clergy should be permitted to exercise caution when distributing to Roman Catholics and extreme caution when distributing to other Christians (remember, Pope John Paul II personally served Communion to PM Tony Blair).


45 posted on 03/16/2007 4:36:53 AM PDT by bobjam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: genxer

Of COURSE your aunt will have a funeral MASS!! Are you a Catholic? If so, you don't know too much about your religion.


46 posted on 03/16/2007 6:06:14 AM PDT by Suzy Quzy (Hillary '08.......Her Phoniness is Genuine!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: bobjam
Does anyone fully understand the Eucharist? It's a mystery that can't be understood by us mere mortals.

That is absolutely true. We can describe the great mysteries of our Faith, such as the Trinity, using the words we've been taught, but fully understanding them is beyond our capacity at this stage of our lives.

"For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then, face to face. Now I understand in part; then I shall understand fully, even as I have been fully understood."

47 posted on 03/16/2007 6:13:57 AM PDT by Tax-chick (John Edwards is a gamma male. "Yeah, buddy, that's his own hair!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: AnAmericanMother
So? It's us vs them according of the Catholic church? We're the gateway to God and salvation?

Please note that nowhere in the scriptures does Jesus indicate that the salvation of souls and eternal life is reached by eating the bread and drinking the wine. He said to do it in remembrance of Him.

Someone who has not sworn fealty to the Catholic church can't take communion in remembrance of Jesus and be recognized as doing so by Christ?

48 posted on 03/16/2007 7:26:13 AM PDT by William Terrell (Individuals can exist without government but government can't exist without individuals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: B-Chan
Note that Jesus only said to eat the bread and drink the wine in remembrance of Him. Nothing else. Anything else is sewn together out of whole cloth for a self-serving motivation: power over people and wealth. Not exactly consistent with the Gospel.

If one acknowledges that the written testimonies are true and divinely inspired, then anything else inserted that was not written must conform to that which is written.

49 posted on 03/16/2007 7:38:14 AM PDT by William Terrell (Individuals can exist without government but government can't exist without individuals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: William Terrell
Anything else is sewn together out of whole cloth for a self-serving motivation: power over people and wealth. Not exactly consistent with the Gospel.

Attributing bad motives to others falsely is a sin.

50 posted on 03/16/2007 7:42:31 AM PDT by Pyro7480 ("Jesu, Jesu, Jesu, esto mihi Jesus" -St. Ralph Sherwin's last words at Tyburn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick
As a Missouri Synod Lutheran, I feel far more comfortable attending Mass, when I can't find a congregation of my own denomination, than services at mainline Protestant churches. It's always been my thought that I would rather observe a service where Christ is thought to be present than to participate in a service where He is thought not to be.

But even though orthodox Lutherans believe Christ when he told us He would be truly present, we're clearly not in communion with the Catholic Church and it would be vainly disrespectful to expect to receive the body of Christ at Catholic Mass.

51 posted on 03/16/2007 7:50:43 AM PDT by Mr. Lucky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480
Attributing bad motives to others falsely is a sin.

Attributing bad motives to others falsely is a sin. The Catholic church has eliminated the "falsely" quite thoroughly over the centuries.

52 posted on 03/16/2007 7:56:37 AM PDT by William Terrell (Individuals can exist without government but government can't exist without individuals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: William Terrell
Christ's words recorded at John 6:53 are unambiguous. Whether or not you choose to believe those words, those of us who do (and this isn't just a Roman Catholic belief) certainly have not made up that belief "whole cloth".
53 posted on 03/16/2007 8:05:06 AM PDT by Mr. Lucky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: William Terrell
The Catholic church has eliminated the "falsely" quite thoroughly over the centuries.

What???

54 posted on 03/16/2007 8:13:10 AM PDT by Pyro7480 ("Jesu, Jesu, Jesu, esto mihi Jesus" -St. Ralph Sherwin's last words at Tyburn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Lucky
we're clearly not in communion with the Catholic Church and it would be vainly disrespectful to expect to receive the body of Christ at Catholic Mass.

I agree - and the same for someone who was not a member of your LCMS church. My father had cousins who were LCMS, and when our family visited them, we went to church with them but did not receive communion. Their communion was for the members of their congregation, and none of us saw any problem with that.

55 posted on 03/16/2007 8:21:18 AM PDT by Tax-chick (John Edwards is a gamma male. "Yeah, buddy, that's his own hair!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: William Terrell
He said to do it in remembrance of Him.

Only in Luke.

Matthew 26:

26And while they were eating, Jesus having taken the bread, and having blessed, did brake, and was giving to the disciples, and said, `Take, eat, this is my body;'

27and having taken the cup, and having given thanks, he gave to them, saying, `Drink ye of it -- all;

28for this is my blood of the new covenant, that for many is being poured out -- to remission of sins;

29and I say to you, that I may not drink henceforth on this produce of the vine, till that day when I may drink it with you new in the reign of my Father.'

Mark 14:

22And as they are eating, Jesus having taken bread, having blessed, brake, and gave to them, and said, `Take, eat; this is my body.'

23And having taken the cup, having given thanks, he gave to them, and they drank of it -- all;

24and he said to them, `This is my blood of the new covenant, which for many is being poured out;

25verily I say to you, that no more may I drink of the produce of the vine till that day when I may drink it new in the reign of God.'

Moreover, in John 6, Christ is very explicit that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood, or there is no life in us. His listeners challenge Him repeatedly - He never says, "this is a parable" as He did in so many other places. And many were so revulsed - "this word is hard - who is able to hear it?" - that they turned away and walked with him no more.

As for your other question, to paraphrase C.S.Lewis, it's not that the Catholic church is right and everybody else is all wrong. The Catholic Church contains the fullness of faith as established by Christ (that's why it's called the universal church). But if one doesn't believe in the Catholic church, he shouldn't take communion there, because he would be eating and drinking his own damnation.

Similarly, there are other churches with closed communions, either because it's restricted to members in good standing (some Baptist, Mennonites, LDS, and JWs) or because of the theology of the Eucharist (conservative Lutheran and Greek or Russian Orthodox). I would never violate their church order were I to visit with them.

56 posted on 03/16/2007 8:52:06 AM PDT by AnAmericanMother ((Ministrix of Ye Chase, TTGC Ladies' Auxiliary (recess appointment)))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Lucky
Do you not understand John 6:53? Do you think it's literal? Elsewhere Jesus said nothing of the sort. If Jesus meant his literal body and blood, well He was right there. Why did not He carve off a chunk of flesh and feed it to them and drain out a cup full of His blood for them?

57 posted on 03/16/2007 10:03:35 AM PDT by William Terrell (Individuals can exist without government but government can't exist without individuals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480
I accused the Catholic church of seeking power and wealth. You say that is a false accusation. I say its actions and dogma made over the centuries prove what I said.

58 posted on 03/16/2007 10:06:23 AM PDT by William Terrell (Individuals can exist without government but government can't exist without individuals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: AnAmericanMother
Only in John.

As I asked another poster. Jesus was right there. Why did He not carve off a pieces of His flesh and drain some of His blood and give that to them if He meant it to be literal?

59 posted on 03/16/2007 10:08:42 AM PDT by William Terrell (Individuals can exist without government but government can't exist without individuals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: William Terrell

Why were many of the Jews scandalized by His words? As the old saying goes, "in God's own time." He decided to give them His Flesh and His Blood to consume at the Last Supper.


60 posted on 03/16/2007 10:16:01 AM PDT by Pyro7480 ("Jesu, Jesu, Jesu, esto mihi Jesus" -St. Ralph Sherwin's last words at Tyburn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-75 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson