Tuesday, December 1, 2015
WILL SUCH FRANKNESS (FRANCIS, GET IT?) GET CARDINAL ROBERT SARAH REBURKED? I MEAN REBUKED?
While his books were not magisterial, as Pope Benedict clearly pointed out, he was careful not to promote heterodoxy or to lead the faithful astray even though anyone could have critiqued these writings.
Anyone who has read the Baltimore Catechism (most children in the 1950's) knows that not everything a pope says is magisterial. Popes can have opinions. Their opinions can be wrong even when commenting on churchy sorts of things.
Thus, people who are ignorant of Church teaching and don't even know the minimal basics of the Baltimore Catechism get all bent out of shape when Pope Francis speaks off-the-cuff as though these off-the-cuff statements constitute magisterial teachings. They don't of course! A second grader in the 1950's knew that!
Thus we have a cardinal of the curia disagreeing publicly with Pope Francis about an individual who is not Catholic, in this case, a Lutheran and Pope Francis musing that she can go to communion if her conscience dictates she should after bringing it to the Lord! (Sounds like fundamentalism to me, but who am I to judge?)
Cardinal Robert Sarah, Prefect of the Congregation of Divine Worship publicly rebuked Pope Francis in no uncertainly clear terms:
Catholic World News
Cardinal Sarah: opening the doors to intercommunion would ‘promote profanation’
December 01, 2015
Cardinal Robert Sarah, the prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, warned that opening the doors to the reception of Holy Communion by Protestants, apart from “very exceptional circumstances,” would “promote profanation” of the Blessed Sacrament.
The prelate’s remarks, made in an interview with Aleteia, came two weeks after a Lutheran woman asked Pope Francis why she cannot receive Holy Communion. The Pope responded, “I would never dare give permission to do this as it is not my competence. One Baptism, one Lord, one faith. Speak with the Lord and go ahead. I dare not say any more.”
Asked, “If we’re not unified in faith and doctrine, do you think opening the doors to intercommunion would undermine belief in the True Presence?”, Cardinal Sarah responded:
I think it would promote profanation. We cannot do this. It’s not that I have to talk to the Lord in order to know if I should go to Communion. No, I have to know if I’m in accord with the rule of the Church. It’s my conscience that says: “Go.” My conscience must be enlightened by the rule of the Church, which says that in order to communicate, I need to be in the state of grace, without sin, and have the faith of the Catholic Church …
It’s not a personal desire or a personal dialogue with Jesus that determines if I can receive Communion in the Catholic Church. How can I know that the Lord has really said: “Come and receive my Body.” No. A person cannot decide if he is able to receive Communion. He has to have the rule of the Church: i.e., being a Catholic, being in a state of grace, properly married [if married].
In response to the question, “Could a priest give Holy Communion to both husband and wife if he knows one is Catholic and one is not?”, Cardinal Sarah replied:
No, we give Communion to Catholics. Many priests have told me: “I give Communion to everybody.” It’s nonsense. Sometimes, an Anglican who is very far away from his church for a very long period of time and who desires to receive Communion, can participate in Mass and receive Communion in the Catholic Church, where there is no sin, and he is properly married. Because they believe in the Eucharist, even if in the Anglican church is it not actually the Eucharist because there is no priesthood. But it is rare and would happen under very exceptional circumstances. This is something extraordinary and not ordinary.
But a Catholic cannot receive communion in the Anglican church, because there is no Communion; there is only bread. The bread is not consecrated, because the priest is not a priest. With the break of Henry VIII with the Catholic Church, priestly orders in the Anglican Church became null and void. So the consecration isn’t valid, and therefore it’s not the Eucharist.