German Bishop: Pope Francis Has Effectively Approved of the Intercommunion Handout

One Peter Five ^ | May 10, 2018 | Maike HIckson

[ebb tide]

As was to be reasonably expected, the progressive wing of the German episcopacy now tries to interpret favorably the recent 3 May message sent by Pope Francis to the German bishops through Archbishop Luis Ladaria, the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The pope had told the German bishops in Rome that he wishes for a unanimous solution among them and thus effectively declined to give any further doctrinal clarity in the matter of the new German pastoral handout that allows certain Protestant spouses of Catholics to receive Holy Communion on a regular basis.

After the initial silence of the progressive wing of the German bishops, that wing has now taken an initiative in public and has given its own interpretation of the pope’s recent advice and action. Archbishop Stefan Hesse, of Hamburg, just met on Tuesday in Münster with the assembly of the Central Committee of German Catholics (ZdK) prior to the bi-annual Katholikentag (Catholics Day) which also takes place in that same town and which started on Wednesday and which will last until Sunday. He told the assembly according to a Katholisch.de report, that Pope Francis has given “a clear hint about the direction” [emphasis added] with regard to the current struggle in the German Catholic Church about Holy Communion for Protestant spouses of Catholics.

Hesse explained that Pope Francis, by returning the conflict back to the German bishops instead of solving it in Rome, has sent a signal that a bishops’ conference has very well the competence to decide such a question. Additionally, the pope, in Hesse’s eyes, has made it clear that the German Bishops’ Conference may decide on this question as it has already done with its majority vote. So far, no more is known about Hesse’s other words at that ZdK gathering. However, they give us already enough of an idea of how, most probably, the progressives will try to steer the upcoming discussions within the German episcopacy in order to gain that papally desired cooperative and “unanimous consent.”

That Archbishop Hesse’s own interpretation of the papal guidance is essentially correct can be seen in the fact that Cardinal Gerhard Müller, the former Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, is himself not pleased with Pope Francis’ decision (or indecision) with regard to the German intercommunion dispute.

As Edward Pentin, Rome Correspondent of the National Catholic Register, reports, Cardinal Müller “expressed his disappointment with the outcome, saying the statement was ‘very poor’ as it contained ‘no answer to the central, essential question.’” The cardinal also stressed that it is not possible for one to be in “sacramental communion without ecclesial communion.” Importantly, the German cardinal stressed that, if this principle of Catholic identity, thus requiring both sacramental and ecclesial communion, is destroyed, “then the Catholic Church is destroyed.” [emphasis added] A “clear expression of the Catholic faith” is needed, thus the need for the Pope himself to “affirm the faith,” especially about the “pillar of our faith, the Eucharist,”  Müller added. The Pope and the CDF, he went on, are called to “give a very clear orientation” not through “personal opinion but according to the revealed faith.” “I hope more bishops will raise their voices and do their duty,” Cardinal Müller added. He also reminds every cardinal of his duty:

Every cardinal has a duty to explain, defend, promote the Catholic faith, not according to personal feelings, or the swings of public opinion, but by reading the Gospel, the Bible, Holy Scripture, the Church fathers and to know them. Also the Councils, to study the great theologians of the past, and be able to explain and defend the Catholic faith, not with sophistic arguments to please all sides, to be everyone’s darling.

Müller also regrets that there will now be a continued conflict over this matter, especially if it continues “without the clear necessity for a declaration about the Catholic faith.” “More clarity and courage must be encouraged,” he said.

Therefore, just as Cardinal Müller shows himself to be concerned about the pope’s approach to the intercommunion dispute, Archbishop Hesse, by way of contrast, is glad and optimistic. As Edward Pentin has reported – from a source close to the seven bishops who have opposed the new pastoral intercommunion handout – during the next six months, Cardinal Reinhard Marx himself will attempt to win over some of the opposing seven bishops that they be in concord with the progressivist camp. As the source added: “Our job now is to strengthen the seven bishops, to strengthen our priests in the argumentation” as the source said. “It’ll be a long fight and over the next six months, this is what we’ll be dedicating ourselves to.”

That at least one of the seven opposing bishops will not easily falter could be seen this past Wednesday, one day after the intervention of Archbishop Hesse. This time, it was Bishop Rudolf Voderholzer, of Regensburg, who is said to have been the crucial one in the earlier writing of the Seven Bishops’ Letter opposing the new German pastoral intercommunion guidelines. Voderholzer gave a forceful homily yesterday, on the vigil of today’s Feast of the Ascension. In his homily, which was published by the Austrian Catholic news website Kath.net, Voderholzer cautions us not to use the occasion of the current Katholikentag (with some 50,000 participants) in Münster in order to push “loud claims concerning matters of the faith, especially concerning the questions of the sacramental teaching and its related theology.” It would be a strange, yes a false signal,” adds the prelate, if the Katholikentag would “carry into the larger public the old, well-know ecclesial-political demands.” Voderholzer specifies his warning: “I especially warn against building up pressure now, for current purposes, in the debate concerning the [permissible] reception of Communion for Protestant spouses in mixed marriages.”

It nearly seems as if Voderholzer is here already responding to Archbishop Hesse.

Subsequently, the Bavarian bishop explains that he and his six co-signers of the letter to Rome are “convinced” that this discussion “touches upon the doctrine of the faith” and is not merely a “pastoral matter.” According to Voderholzer, pastoral questions in this regard would be, for example, how one has to receive Holy Communion, whether on the tongue or into the hand, whether kneeling or standing. He continues, saying:

Where it is, however, about the conviction of faith and the Church membership of the communicant, there is more at stake; that is to say, the understanding of Church and the profession [of faith] as a whole.

Indirectly contradicting Pope Francis and his de-centralizing decision to return the conflict to the German Bishops’ Conference, Voderholzer makes it clear that “such a far-reaching change of the heretofore [Catholic] teaching” cannot be made “on the level of only one bishops’ conference.” “What is valid here with us, must also be valid in Chicago, Shanghai, and Johannesburg,” he adds.

Moreover, Voderholzer mentions his own visit to Rome and his conversation with Cardinals Reinhard Marx and Rainer Woelki, as well as some other German and Vatican representatives, and he quotes Pope Francis’ request that the German bishops find a “unanimous” solution in the conflict. “This task will not be easy to fulfill, since the ecclesial community reaches beyond the limits of the Church of Germany.” Directly in opposition to Pope Francis, Voderholzer makes it clear that such a “preferably unanimous rule can only exist in communion with the world’s episcopacy, with the whole Universal Church,” and with each and every national bishops’ conference. For this bishop, “it is about a true theological grappling, about a question which binds us in our consciences.”

It is in this context – and especially in light of the fitting awe to be rendered before the Holy Eucharist, which is often misunderstood in the larger public – that the bishop regrets that this agenda is being pushed on a level of “political strategies” and “personal animosities.” “It is not a question of politeness or niceness, but, rather, it is about the circumstances and preconditions of an encounter with the Blessed Sacrament.”

Voderholzer now receives from a Protestant source further support for his insistence on a careful treatment of the matter of intercomunion. Professor Thomas Schirrmacher, the General Secretary of the World Evangelical Alliance – the largest international organization of Evangelical churches which has 700 million members worldwide – responds to an inquiry from Onepterfive, as follows:

Most Evangelicals agree with the Catholic Church that intercommunion is the end goal of ecumenism, not the start. That is what we just discussed at the Global Christian Forum in Bogota [Colombia]. There are, however, in the evangelical realm also representatives of the Transsubstantiation; they could theoretically, of course, participate in the Catholic Mass if that were to be permitted by the Catholic side. We as the Worldwide Evangelical Alliance nevertheless would counsel against it.

The conservative bishops in Germany – in addition to the clearly supportive high-ranking prelates Cardinal Müller and Cardinal Willem Eijk – now also receive further support from a German theologian, Professor Klaus Obenauer, who teaches Dogmatic Theology at the University of Bonn. In an open appeal today, he describes the “massively irresponsible” decision of Pope Francis to decline “to decide unambiguously in favor of the unity of Church membership and the reception of the sacraments – especially of the Eucharist – in order to leave the dynamics of conflict up to the local ecclesial level.” With reference to the First Vatican Council’s Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus (S 3063), Obenauer makes it clear that the pope has the duty to take sides in doctrinal and pastoral matters – in favor of faith and law – “especially when there exists the proximate danger that the faithful could be led into error.”

Amoris Laetitia, Gaudete et Exsultate, as well as the 3 May papal decision not to intervene decisively into the German intercommunion conflict – all of these statements and measures, says the theologian, “give the impression that Pope Francis has an aversion” to the taking of clear and consecutive practical actions “with regard to being a Catholic, especially there where it gets decisively and intimately important [“einschneidend auf den Leibe rücken”].” On the contrary, the author says, the pope seems to wish to “paralyze such expectations.” Instead, he adds, the pope gives “free reign to centrifugal forces on the local level, with the further effect that the faithful Catholics are being more and more marginalized.” Professor Obenauer concludes his stirring and inspiring appeal with the following words:

This cannot go on like this! I therefore thank Cardinals Müller (Rome) and Eijk (Utrecht) that they have found clear words. And therefore I myself wish to ask, in a very, very heartfelt and humble manner, all cardinals and bishops who see and regret these dangerous tendencies of this Bergoglio pontificate finally to take public and clear position against this unholy ratio agendi [the rationale of action] of Pope Francis. Do not the statements of the above-mentioned cardinals give us enough of a sense of the inner dramatic? “Usque quo?”[unto where, unto what?] Or: Do we wish to wake up at some point and realize that we, by way of a sleeping car, have arrived at the end station: apostasy?

[Jim W N]

The Gospel of the Grace of Christ by which we are “accepted in the Beloved” is not bound nor limited by the dogmas of the Church nor the commandments of man.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Whose Church?

[Jim W N]

“Church” (capital “C”) generally refers to the Catholic Church and the commandants of men come from a whole lot of churches, Catholic and Protestant.

[I want the USA back]

The pope knows that silence is approval. Therefore he approves. Therefore he opposes the clear, constant teaching of the Church that he pretends to lead.

[Mrs. Don-o]

I of course agree that, as you say, Church-with-a-capital-C means the Catholic Church. However, there are different kinds of law --- certainly if you look at Canon Law ---ranging from thing which are customary, to things which are disciplinary, to things which are manifestations of the Divine Eternal law.

A careful discernment here is important.

For example: today (6th Thursday, or 40 days after Easter) is customarily, small-'t'-traditionally, celebrated as Ascension Thursday, but that's been transferred to the following Sunday, instead, and has been since I was a girl. Custom. Small='t' tradition. Man's law.

In contrast: the teaching that Communion should not be received unworthily, --- shall we say, in a state of direct objective contradiction --- comes Sacred Scripture. Here 1 Cor. 11ff rewards careful reading.

Unworthy reception of Communion is not wrong because it's against Canon Law.

It's against Canon Law because it's wrong.

Even if the Pope says it's OK, it's wrong. Leaving this up to National Conferences of Bishops (like the Germans) is precisely taking something that is solid doctrine and shrugging it off to the vagaries of local preference and custom. This is exactly what the Pope does not have the authority to do.

He gives a most un-papal and frankly unfaithful response: "Yes. No. I don't know. You figure it out."

[Jim W N]

Natural Law is good and a guide to a sound peaceful life and society.

But NO ONE is JUSTIFIED before God by the works of the law as the Gospel of the Grace of Christ makes plain especially in Romans and Galatians.

[Petrosius]

You do know that Paul’s references to “works of the Law” referred to the Mosaic Law and circumcision, don’t you?

[ealgeone]

Canon Law is more man made rules akin to those of the Pharisees.

[Jim W N]

If by grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace. But if it is of works, it is no longer grace; otherwise work is no longer work.

Romans 11:6.

Doesn't matter what kind of works. We are justified by HIS grace, not OUR works. If by OUR works, any works, then it is not by HIS grace. Scripture declares that HIS grace and OUR works are mutually exclusive.

You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.

Galatians 5:4

Scripture equates the "law", the "works of the law", and "works". They are all SELF-EFFORT and SELF-RIGHTEOUSNESS by which no man is justified.

[ealgeone]

Good luck with your argument. The Roman Catholic thinks if the keep only the 10 Commandments they’re good. What they don’t understand is you cannot keep the 10 Commandments.

[Jim W N]

Well, we’re about to see a great move of God in HIS church - a “Grace Revolution” - that will reinstate the ONLY gospel - the gospel of the grace of Christ. Many, many people will come to Christ in these last days as they rejoice in the free gift of eternal salvation wrought by Christ’s perfect and eternal work on the cross.

We, like Paul, are called to live by and extend to others, this gospel of grace as Jude exhorts us regarding the last days that we are in, “exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3) in reference to “the grace of our God” (Jude 4).

It’s a fight of faith and it is a good fight.

[Petrosius]

Romans 11:6 is a continuation of the argument that Paul has been making in the previous chapters, i.e. "For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; the same Lord is Lord of all, enriching all who call upon him." (v. 10:12) He is arguing against reliance on the Mosaic Law. His is not preaching against the need for good works. We are both agreed that we are saved by the grace of God and are not saved by our own merits, but you are wrong to say that we do not have to cooperate with God's grace. And no, "law," "works of the law," and "works" do not always have the same meaning in Scripture. You have to look at the context. Look at Chapter 2 of Romans, vv. 1-16:

Therefore, you are without excuse, every one of you who passes judgment. For by the standard by which you judge another you condemn yourself, since you, the judge, do the very same things. We know that the judgment of God on those who do such things is true. Do you suppose, then, you who judge those who engage in such things and yet do them yourself, that you will escape the judgment of God? Or do you hold his priceless kindness, forbearance, and patience in low esteem, unaware that the kindness of God would lead you to repentance? By your stubbornness and impenitent heart, you are storing up wrath for yourself for the day of wrath and revelation of the just judgment of God, who will repay everyone according to his works: eternal life to those who seek glory, honor, and immortality through perseverance in good works, but wrath and fury to those who selfishly disobey the truth and obey wickedness. Yes, affliction and distress will come upon every human being who does evil, Jew first and then Greek. But there will be glory, honor, and peace for everyone who does good, Jew first and then Greek. There is no partiality with God.

All who sin outside the law will also perish without reference to it, and all who sin under the law will be judged in accordance with it. For it is not those who hear the law who are just in the sight of God; rather, those who observe the law will be justified. For when the Gentiles who do not have the law by nature observe the prescriptions of the law, they are a law for themselves even though they do not have the law. They show that the demands of the law are written in their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even defend them on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge people’s hidden works through Christ Jesus.

Here Paul is using "law," i.e. the moral law, differently than in Chapter 11 where he is referring to the Law of Moses. Unless you would have Paul disagree with himself, the Protestant reading of Romans and Galatians is incorrect. Romans and Galatians are a response to the Judaizers who wanted to maintain the Mosaic Law, not a polemic about the Catholic-Protestant dispute about faith and works. Reread Romans from the beginning without relying on the man-made traditions of the Protestant Reformers.

[Petrosius]

The Roman Catholic thinks if the keep only the 10 Commandments they’re good. What they don’t understand is you cannot keep the 10 Commandments.

A complete misrepresentation of Catholic teaching. Have you not heard of the Catholic sacrament of Confession/Penance? If after we sin we turn to God with sorrow for our sins and the firm purpose (intention, not guarantee) to sin no more, then within Confession our sins are gratuitously forgiven by God without any merit on our part.

Do you believe that we will be saved by faith if at the same time lack sorrow for our sins and have the intention to keep sinning?

[Jim W N]

The gospel of the grace of Christ is very clear: a person is not justified by the works of the law (his own works), but by faith in Jesus Christ (Romans 3:28; Gal 2:16).

God is so jealous of the gospel of grace not being perverted by "another gospel" of justification by works that he puts a double curse on those who preach "any other gospel".

I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, 7 which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.

Galatians 1:6-9.

"Works" follow "believing". If you believe right, you'll live right (Rom 6:14) but not to be justified before God, only to live out the blessed life God has provided for us.

[JesusIsLord]

Reread Romans from the beginning without relying on the man-made traditions of the Protestant Reformers.

You believe Roman Catholic traditions are inspired by God and Protestant traditions are man-made? Most Protestants would disagree with many Roman Catholic traditions because they are not supported by the New Testament or they conflict with the New Testament. E.g., just to name a few:

- Praying repetitive words using Rosary beads

- Mary a Co-Redemptrix

- Roman Catholic "Saint" theology

- Celibate priests

- Grace through images, icons, inanimate objects

- Purgatory theology

One might suggest you reread the New Testament without relying on the man-made traditions of the Roman Catholic church but I will not. Rather, I pray the Holy Spirit open your eyes to see the Truth that is in the living and written Word and I pray the Holy Spirit open your eyes to falseness in any Christian church teaching.

[Mrs. Don-o]

I never said, and the Church does not say, that people are justified by the law. Here's Canon #1 from the Council of Trent, teaching as Scripture teaches:

Canon 1. If anyone says that man can be justified before God by his own works, whether done by his own natural powers or through the teaching of the law, without divine grace through Jesus Christ, let him be anathema.

[ealgeone]

>>The Roman Catholic thinks if the keep only the 10 Commandments they’re good. What they don’t understand is you cannot keep the 10 Commandments.<<

A complete misrepresentation of Catholic teaching.

Not as told by some of your fellow Roman Catholics on these very threads.

We are constantly told we have to keep the 10 Commandments. I continue to point out if you are trying to keep the 10 you also have to keep all 614. That's when your peers usually go silent.

Have you not heard of the Catholic sacrament of Confession/Penance? If after we sin we turn to God with sorrow for our sins and the firm purpose (intention, not guarantee) to sin no more, then within Confession our sins are gratuitously forgiven by God without any merit on our part.

My understanding of the Roman Catholic practice on this is the petitioner is usually assigned some work such as say 50 Hail Mary's or something along those lines to help "atone" for their sin.

A completely un-Biblical position.

If the shed blood of Christ is insufficient to forgive your sins, then no amount of Hail Mary's will help.

Do you believe that we will be saved by faith if at the same time lack sorrow for our sins and have the intention to keep sinning?

Well, based on what Paul writes:

8But what does it say? “THE WORD IS NEAR YOU, IN YOUR MOUTH AND IN YOUR HEART”—that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, 9that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; 10for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation. 11For the Scripture says, “WHOEVER BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED.” 12For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him; 13for “WHOEVER WILL CALL ON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED.” Romans 10:8-13 NASB

[ealgeone]

Roman Catholics have a lot of man-made rules.

Compare this one to Scripture:

Canon 15: If anyone says that a man who is born again and justified is bound ex fide to believe that he is certainly in the number of the predestined,[119] let him be anathema.

Now, compare this to what John recorded Jesus saying:

14“As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up;

15so that whoever believes will in Him have eternal life.

16“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

17“For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.

18“He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. John 3:14-18 NASB

24“Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life. John 5:24 NASB

The clear promises of Christ stand in stark contrast to the false teachings of Roman Catholicism.

[Jim W N]

OK, well that’s good news (the “gospel”).

God bless.