A “puzzled” and “surprise” Card. Kasper is “furious”

You know how Communion in the hand was accomplished.  You know how the use of “altar girls” was achieved.

Libs intentionally violate the law until the law is changed.  That’s what happened. Moreover, even the restraints and caveats in the modified laws were ignored.   Libs do whatever the hell they want, while – channeling their inner Alinsky – point their fingers at the slightest deviation of law by more conservative Catholics.

I read something interesting at CNA about the reaction of some German bishops to the instruction from the Holy See’s CDF – clearly at the direction of Pope Francis – that they were not to issue a document about Communion for non-believing non-Catholics.

[…]

One day after Bishop Feige, Cardinal Walter Kasper also went public with an editorial published by the German bishops’ conference website.

After writing that he is “furious” that the letter to Cardinal Marx apparently was leaked to the press before even reaching its destination, Kasper expressed “puzzlement” at “the impression that even those who should know better should claim that non-Catholic Christians are fundamentally excluded from communion, or that this should at least first be clarified by the Universal Church.” [Did you get that?]

Kasper, who is the emeritus Archbishop of Rottenburg-Stuttgart, also flatly rejected concerns that the German proposal constitutes a Sonderweg, i.e. a form of German exceptionalism[Uh huh.  Keep repeating that.  Even at the risk of looking ridiculous, stick to it!]

Furthermore, Cardinal Kasper wrote that he is “all the more surprised” since [NB] in German dioceses “there already is a widespread practice of non-catholic spouses, who consider themselves serious Christians, stepping up to [receive] Communion, without any bishops, who after all know of this practice, thus far voicing concerns.” [They consider themselves “Christians”.  But Christians don’t all believe the same things about the Eucharist, priesthood, the meaning of Calvary, etc.  And bishops there are doing nothing.]

In his comments, Kasper also rejected concerns – raised by several other cardinals and bishops – that the German “pastoral handout” would constitute a normalization of Protestants receiving Holy Communion in general, explaining that proposal’s approach pertained to an “individual decision of conscience and pastoral counseling.”   [Sounds just like Amoris laetitia ch. 8, doesn’t it.]

See what’s going on?

 

Please share!

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in B as in B. S as in S., Liberals, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, Pò sì jiù, The Coming Storm, The Drill and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to A “puzzled” and “surprise” Card. Kasper is “furious”

  1. TonyO says:

    “there already is a widespread practice of non-catholic spouses, who consider themselves serious Christians, stepping up to [receive] Communion, without any bishops, who after all know of this practice, thus far voicing concerns.”

    And thus silence in the face of error and abuse is taken to mean a change in teaching about the matter. This is how liberalism, and modernism, work. They punish bishops who speak out, so that fewer and fewer speak out against an abuse. Then they take the silence as consent that it isn’t abuse, it’s good. That’s how girl altar-boys were brought about.

    The failure occurs at the papal level, too. In 1994, when JPII shamefully abused canon law to permit girl altar-boys, in the face of widespread abuse and defiance of the explicit law and 2000 years of custom, he permitted a change in the local law where the practice already existed. In immediate response, nearly every bishop in America ran off into permitting girl altar-boys, even in places where the abuse had not existed before. If he intended to extend permission where the law was already being abused, he should have required, instead, that EACH BISHOP individually admit that the law was being abused in his diocese, admit that he had not addressed the illicit and sinful abuse of his own priests, and then ask for permission to change local law to allow it. Then JPII should have made a note that NO PRIEST from any one of those diocese should EVER become a bishop in the next 100 years (if ever), for their priestly formation and praxis (to use the liberalnazi term) did not produce proper priests. For, no priest who is well formed can FAIL to realize the disorder in introducing girl altar-boys into the existing Church. Then he should have instigated investigations of those seminaries, and pulled the plug on the priests and professors who had pushed this garbage. Benedict, as Cardinal Ratzinger, did no better than JPII. This was a MASSIVE failure of the hierarchy, all the way up to the highest levels.

  2. bobbird says:

    In a warped way, the German bishops are being more honest than many others in dioceses throughout the world and particularly in the US … who KNOW at every funeral, marriage or Christmas/Easter feast that non-Catholics are taking HC … or Occasional Mass Attenders are also doing so … or pro-abort politicians … or people who have not been to confession in ages … and say absolutely nothing in either general terms or remind people to inform themselves of the Guidelines. The cumulative effect to this laxity, aside for not caring a whit about these souls, is a diminution of the Sacrament to Something merely symbolic, “no big deal”, or an exercise in seasonal, familial or ceremonial piety.

  3. RichR says:

    If they are so eager to receive Holy Communion and they know the truths of the Catholic faith require conversion, then what’s stopping them from converting to Catholicism? If they do not believe in the Real Presence, why on earth would they receive such an idol and cause grave scandal to their protestant brethren? Make a choice. Don’t be a wimp.

  4. JesusFreak84 says:

    “After writing that he is “furious” that the letter to Cardinal Marx apparently was leaked to the press before even reaching its destination,” is as far as Kasper gets before I smash my head on the keyboard.
    My Methodist grandparents received at my youngest sister’s First Communion. I don’t blame them, though; I blame the Catholics who told them that it was okay. (They’re from out-of-state, so it’s not like the priest could have reasonably known they weren’t Catholic.)

  5. TonyO says:

    If they are so eager to receive Holy Communion and they know the truths of the Catholic faith require conversion, then what’s stopping them from converting to Catholicism?

    RichR, this is a great point. Thanks for reminding us.

    Like with the obligation to repent of sin, especially mortal sin, whenever we are aware of having committed such, we are also obliged to conform our faith with the truth as we understand it, all the time. If a Methodist were to come to believe – contra Methodist teachings – that Holy Communion is what the Catholics believe it is, and want to receive because they want to commune with Jesus in his whole incarnate reality, then they are effectively saying “I believe that Catholicism is right and this implies that Methodism is wrong, but I still don’t want to go through the work of converting to Catholicism”. If, on the other hand, they DON’T believe that Catholicism is right about Holy Communion, by receiving they are effectively committing idolatry, not (like the martyrs’ situation) to avoid torture and death, but for mere friendliness sake.

  6. robtbrown says:

    TonyO says,

    The failure occurs at the papal level, too. In 1994, when JPII shamefully abused canon law to permit girl altar-boys . . .

    He didn’t abuse canon law. The relevant canon (230) was, and continues to be, ambiguous. What JPII did was contradict what had already been affirmed.

    In fact, I was in Rome during that time. A German friend told me it was going to happen. I was skeptical. He said a friend saw it when he was in the office of the Sec of State with his bishop. Nb: My friend is never wrong about these things.

    The altar permission was supposed to be done without releasing it through the media and to happen about the same time of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. OS would garner all the attention. But someone leaked the altar girl letter to the media, and everyone knew.

  7. Imrahil says:

    If a Methodist were to come to believe – contra Methodist teachings – that Holy Communion is what the Catholics believe it is, and want to receive because they want to commune with Jesus in his whole incarnate reality, then they are effectively saying “I believe that Catholicism is right and this implies that Methodism is wrong, but I still don’t want to go through the work of converting to Catholicism”.

    Note that this is so far not altogether ununderstandable, especially if it really is work to convert to Catholicism (i. e., obligatory RCIA, or what’s that called, programs and some such).

    The desire to bypass official formalities because we are amongst ourselves and know each other has always had its sympathies in Catholic Christendom…

    if only the person in question does consider him positively a Catholic and positively not a Methodist.

  8. JMody says:

    Hm, all issues of job performance come down to will or ability, so how far from “the job description” does one have to stray before the question of treasonous malevolence or catastrophic incompetence comes out into the open? I for one am furious that so many seem so puzzled by what to do with this … prince of the Church. Surely there is a dicastery of Manual Excavation as Prayer in need of his leadership and judgment.

  9. Benedict Joseph says:

    They are surprised?
    That would indicate that this subterfuge has been long practiced before the Bergoglian captivity.
    What is surprising is the temerity to appeal to papal authority for anything when they have brazenly disregarded papal authority for decades.
    The Church in Germany is a very tormented entity. God alone knows what is transpiring there in closed minds behind the Teutonic “wink and the nod.” But I can imagine, and I am not merely not edified, I am scandalized that men ordained for the service of Jesus Christ could be engaged in such nefarious and duplicitous doings.
    The German ethos has decomposed into a demonic toxin. Responsible churchmen are required to call it out for what it is. Ecclesiastical protocols and etiquette are a poor substitute for the simplicity of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. They advocate for clerical marriage but don’t exhibit the masculine qualities which are required for simple honesty.
    It is nothing less than contemptable.
    Who would have them?

  10. maternalView says:

    I love that there are others like me who still refer to them as girl altar-boys. That’s what we called it in my family back when it got started. We also understood what was behind it.

  11. TonyO says:

    He didn’t abuse canon law. The relevant canon (230) was, and continues to be, ambiguous. What JPII did was contradict what had already been affirmed.

    robtbrown, I still think it was an abuse. The prior code of Canon law was clear (1917). The prior practice and custom was clear and definitive, and the 1917 code merely stated what was already the custom. By stating a custom, law does not “take over” the custom and make it no longer customary.

    Custom has the force of law in some degree. Nobody should be changing custom especially long-standing and noble custom, except for positive need. And there was no need. When JPII approved the 1983 code, it was foolishly ambiguous in regard to the sex of the servers. This was a mistake in stating law, because there was no ambiguity in the prior law or in the custom which the prior law upheld. When the ambiguity was pointed out by bishops asking about whether girls could be altar boys, the correct thing to do would have been to CORRECT Canon Law to state clearly what it had always meant before, and thus uphold the custom. There is no problem with correcting a defect in Canon Law. Secondarily, a lesser but still acceptable option would have been to state definitively that the canon, though ambiguously phrased, was meant to keep constant the prior practice and carry forward the prior law, and therefore interpret the law authoritatively by insisting that it applies to males and not to females. It was an abuse to run roughshod over 1500 years of clear custom on account of DISCOVERING that the 11-year old new code just happened to be ambiguous in a way that the legislator himself did not intend.

    Like Paul VI before him, as great as JPII was, he showed a remarkable inability to admit that a legislative act was imperfect, and SIMPLY LEGISLATE AGAIN so as to correct the imperfection.

  12. Pingback: MONDAY MORNING EDITION – Big Pulpit

  13. robtbrown says:

    TonyO,

    The relevant text isn’t the 1917 code but rather Ministeria Quaedam. MQ suppressed Minor Orders (and the subdiaconate), instituting Lay Ministries instead. The former are restricted to men, by definition the latter are not. Any attempt to restrict Lay Ministries to men (viri laici) makes no sense. The decision to allow altar girls simply follows MQ.

    IMHO, Ministeria Quaedam is another example of the lack of competence of Paul VI.

    The first part of JPII’s papacy was about morals and defeating Communism. After the Soviet Union collapsed, it was about morals and Ecumenism. Defeating Communism and Ecumenism were both related to the Unity of Europe.

    At the beginning of JPII’s papacy, Communion in the hand was a no no. Toward its end Communion in the hand was introduced in Poland.

  14. Imrahil says:

    I don’t think MQ “suppressed minor orders”.

    What it did do was:
    1. decree that “the major order of subdeaconate is henceforth abolished”, i. e., the subdeaconate (in so far as still existent) would now be considered a minor order – which admittedly was a somewhat disputed case in Church history,
    2. decree that the legal state of “clergyman” – which as ever is somewhat distinct from the sacramental or sacramentalian state conferred by ordination*) began at the deacon, not with the reception of first tonsure,
    3. said that instead of “minor orders”, the term “service ministries” should now be preferred (as if the major orders had nothing to do with service… but I digress),
    4. decreed that no further ordinations to ostiarian, exorcist or subdeacon should take place (which did not, I guess, interfere with the validity of, say, SSPX ordinations, and certainly not with the validity or liceity of EF ordinations given under subsequent indults),
    5. allowed Episcopal Conferences to title as “subdeacons” what, in reality, are acolytes (did any Conference actually do so?).

    But who is “instituted as”, as it is now called, a lector or an acolyte is and remains just as much of a lector or an acolyte as if he had been a pre-1970 seminarian and been ordained to these orders according to the traditional formulas.

    Which is (perhaps) why (in any case it is the case that) the new CIC expressly and unambiguously forbids women to enter the offices of lector and acolyte.

    – What was allowed in the altar-girl decision was that though they cannot become lectors, they can substitute for them.

    [* hence, there is such a thing as a laicized priest.]

  15. robtbrown says:

    Imrahil,

    Trent affirmed there are Seven Grades of Order: Three Major and Four Minor constitute the clerical state. Following Vat II the clerical state was limited to Deacons, Priests, and Bishops; the Subdiaconate and the Four Minor Orders were no longer considered part of the clerical state. Lectorate and Acolyte were called ministries.

    Consequently, those receiving Lector and Acolyte, not being clerics either before or after, receive Lay Ministries, which precludes any reference to Orders, thus reservation of them to males.

    The validity of SSPX ordinations is not and has never been in dispute.

    Lector and Acolyte have been defined as service at the altar–jobs during mass. The minor orders were considered as states, consequently lives appropriate to someone studying for the priesthood.

Do you have a comment? Think BEFORE posting! Proof read. For special characters use Unicode.