Br Schutz Funeral- protestants given communion


#1

I would like to draw attention to this article in the NY times online addition.

Here are some pieces that Bothered me!

TAIZÉ, France, Aug. 23 - Brother Roger Schutz pursued many ecumenical dreams in his long life, but in death one of them came true: At a Eucharistic service celebrated Tuesday by a **Roman Catholic cardinal ********My own addition is in italics: Cardinal Walter Kasper, the president of the Vatican’s council for the unity of Christians,] for Brother Roger, a Swiss Protestant, communion wafers were given to the faithful indiscriminately, regardless of denomination.

later in the same article

Watching the funeral of Pope John Paul II on television, they saw Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, give communion to Brother Roger, even though he was not Catholic. “That struck us,” she said.

How can this be ? is this not true or what ?

I know that newspapers dont always give the correct information, that is why I ask some of you apologists who may know more about these events !

m.


#2

Just a bit of background, as there are no replies as yet.

Brother Roger Schutz(R.I.P.), 90 years of age, was a protestant, who started a community for all denominations of christians at Taize in france. It is a world famous site for this reason. He spent his life building bridges across Christian groups. Last week, during vespers, whilst surrounded by children and an audience, A women in her thirties, walked up behind him, and stabbed him in the neck. and he died.

His funeral was lead by Cardinal Kasper, head of Vatican’s council for the unity of Christians, and the charge has been made that all christians were admitted to communin according to the article.

cant understand how this could be true!


#3

the silence from you guys is starting to worry me.


#4

[quote=blackfish152]the silence from you guys is starting to worry me.
[/quote]

Maybe you can attribute the silence from us as being that we do not believe the report of the MSM in this case. All the reporting I have seen from Catholic sources and from the website of the community do not mention this at all.


#5

[quote=blackfish152]the silence from you guys is starting to worry me.
[/quote]

Blackfish,

Sorry, I’ve been dealing with some wind and rain today.

I will agree with ByzCath and quote C.S. Lewis: “I would not hang a dog based on newspaper accounts.”

  • Liberian

#6

Ah, The NY Times! If I called them and said that the Catholic church has decided to worship Mister Rogers now instead of God and then hung up, they would run an article with no proof saying only that a “prominent Catholic informant” gave them an insider’s report.

General rule of thumb: if it didn’t come from a Catholic source, be wary! :rolleyes:


#7

[quote=MariaGorettiGrl]Ah, The NY Times! If I called them and said that the Catholic church has decided to worship Mister Rogers now instead of God and then hung up, they would run an article with no proof saying only that a “prominent Catholic informant” gave them an insider’s report.

General rule of thumb: if it didn’t come from a Catholic source, be wary! :rolleyes:
[/quote]

A Catholic source can be just as biased as any newspaper.


#8

It has been my understanding that in certain circumstances, bishops (Cardinal Kasper) could set aside this rule on a case by case basis. I cannot guarantee that my understanding is correct.


#9

Then Cardinal Ratzinger did communicate Brother Roger at Pope John Paul’s funeral. If Cardinal Kasper distributed Communion to Protestants at Brother Roger’s funeral, it says a lot about the credibility that Taize holds in the Catholic community. The choice of the word “indiscriminately” by the Times is unfortunate because the gathering at this funeral was undoubtedly highly “discriminating” in its understanding of the Catholic position on the Eucharist.

I strongly challenge the custom of the American Church of permitting non-Catholics to receive Communion at Catholic weddings and funerals “if they believe it is the Body and Blood of Christ” because blokes off the street largely have no idea what Catholics mean by that. To the contrary, those attending Brother Roger’s funeral undoubtedly approached the Sacrament with at a much higher level of appreciation for what it is and would not have approached it if they had any intention of disrespecting it.


#10

[quote=mercygate]Then Cardinal Ratzinger did communicate Brother Roger at Pope John Paul’s funeral. If Cardinal Kasper distributed Communion to Protestants at Brother Roger’s funeral, it says a lot about the credibility that Taize holds in the Catholic community. The choice of the word “indiscriminately” by the Times is unfortunate because the gathering at this funeral was undoubtedly highly “discriminating” in its understanding of the Catholic position on the Eucharist.

I strongly challenge the custom of the American Church of permitting non-Catholics to receive Communion at Catholic weddings and funerals “if they believe it is the Body and Blood of Christ” because blokes off the street largely have no idea what Catholics mean by that. To the contrary, those attending Brother Roger’s funeral undoubtedly approached the Sacrament with at a much higher level of appreciation for what it is and would not have approached it if they had any intention of disrespecting it.
[/quote]

Yet there was an unsigned statement from the Vatican stateing that Br Roger was in line for th Eucharist by mistake.

Also there is no credible source saying that non-catholics recieved the Eucharist at the funeral. If they did then it is a slap in the face of Br Roger who is on record as being against intercommunion and against the community which does not practice intercommunion.


#11

[quote=ByzCath]Yet there was an unsigned statement from the Vatican stateing that Br Roger was in line for th Eucharist by mistake.

Also there is no credible source saying that non-catholics recieved the Eucharist at the funeral. If they did then it is a slap in the face of Br Roger who is on record as being against intercommunion and against the community which does not practice intercommunion.
[/quote]

I like your version of this better than mine. But I still think everybody knew exactly what was going on in both settings.


#12

This link has something interesting timesonline.co.uk/article/0,2-1310733,00.html

And here’s part of an article I copied from it (it was about Tony Blair’s receiving communion in a Catholic Church):

“. . . . .the use of the principle of epikeia, which allows exceptions to rules under certain circumstances, in such situations. The epikeia principle, outlined in Canon 1752, allows priests to override the strict letter of the law in cases where rigid application of the law would frustrate the intentions of the author, or God. The Canon states that the salvation of souls in the Church must always be the supreme law. Sources close to the Archbishop of Westminster, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, indicated that under the epikeia principle, there would be no objection if Mr Blair had been receiving Communion. Father Russ said that he was concerned about the Prime Minister’s views of the moral order and the sanctity of family life.”

http://images.thetimes.co.uk/images/trans.gif


#13

Here’s the canon:

Can. 1752 In cases of transfer [RyanL says “of a priest”], the provisions of Can. 1747 are to be applied, always observing canonical equity and keeping in mind the salvation of souls, which in the Church must always be the supreme law.

I don’t see where they get the “free Eucharist for all” clause…


#14

I don’t see why anyone is surprised about Brother Roger or any other Protestant receiving the Eucharist. Have you read the guidelines in our Sunday missals at church? Or the new code of canon law even allows for this under certain circumstances (for the first time in the 2000 year history of the church which has always until now taught that giving non-Catholics holy communion was always mortally sinful). I find our missals especially interesting with regard to schismatic “orthodox” Christians. The guidelines actually state that these schismatic Christians are “urged” to follow the discipline of their own churches. Note that they are not urged to find out if the Catholic faith is true and if so to join our Church, rather they are urged to follow the discipline of “their own churches.” Yet the missalettes go on to say in the guidelines that the Catholic Church has no objection to members of the (non-Catholic) Orthodox churches receiving communion in the Catholic church. Strange I think… Love, Jaypeeto2


#15

[quote=Jaypeeto2]I don’t see why anyone is surprised about Brother Roger or any other Protestant receiving the Eucharist. Have you read the guidelines in our Sunday missals at church? Or the new code of canon law even allows for this under certain circumstances (for the first time in the 2000 year history of the church which has always until now taught that giving non-Catholics holy communion was always mortally sinful). I find our missals especially interesting with regard to schismatic “orthodox” Christians. The guidelines actually state that these schismatic Christians are “urged” to follow the discipline of their own churches. Note that they are not urged to find out if the Catholic faith is true and if so to join our Church, rather they are urged to follow the discipline of “their own churches.” Yet the missalettes go on to say in the guidelines that the Catholic Church has no objection to members of the (non-Catholic) Orthodox churches receiving communion in the Catholic church. Strange I think… Love, Jaypeeto2
[/quote]

And have you read those guidlines? If so then you would not be surprised.

Now the Orthodox may recieve, provided that their Church lets them.

As for protestants… Here is the revelant Canon from the Code of Canon Law.

Can. 844 §1 Catholic ministers may lawfully administer the sacraments only to catholic members of Christ’s faithful, who equally may lawfully receive them only from catholic ministers, except as provided in §§2, 3 and 4 of this canon and in can. 861 §2.

§2 Whenever necessity requires or a genuine spiritual advantage commends it, and provided the danger of error or indifferentism is avoided, Christ’s faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a catholic minister, may lawfully receive the sacraments of penance, the Eucharist and anointing of the sick from non-catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.

§3 Catholic ministers may lawfully administer the sacraments of penance, the Eucharist and anointing of the sick to members of the eastern Churches not in full communion with the catholic Church, if they spontaneously ask for them and are properly disposed. The same applies to members of other Churches which the Apostolic See judges to be in the same position as the aforesaid eastern Churches so far as the sacraments are concerned.

§4 If there is a danger of death or if, in the judgement of the diocesan Bishop or of the Episcopal Conference, there is some other grave and pressing need, catholic ministers may lawfully administer these same sacraments to other christians not in full communion with the catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who spontaneously ask for them, provided that they demonstrate the catholic faith in respect of these sacraments and are properly disposed.

§5 In respect of the cases dealt with in §§2, 3 and 4, the diocesan Bishop or the Episcopal Conference is not to issue general norms except after consultation with the competent authority, at least at the local level, of the non-catholic Church or community concerned.

Now please, under which of these sections of Canon 844 can protestant recieve at a regular Mass.

Here is a hint, none!


#16

[quote=ByzCath]Yet there was an unsigned statement from the Vatican stateing that Br Roger was in line for th Eucharist by mistake.

Also there is no credible source saying that non-catholics recieved the Eucharist at the funeral. If they did then it is a slap in the face of Br Roger who is on record as being against intercommunion and against the community which does not practice intercommunion.
[/quote]

I find it hard to believe that this was a mistake. How do you mistakenly wheel someone up for Communion? How do you mistakenly hold out your hand and receive Communion?

Here is photo evidence of Cardinal Ratzinger handing Communion to Schutz, and Schutz gladly receiving. I can’t get past this. It is such a grave scandal to me that our pope would give Communion to this non-Catholic, and that one of his Cardinals would later distribute Communion to non-Catholics at Schutz’s funeral.

catholic.org/cathcom/international_story.php?id=16307

http://www.catholic.org/images/ins_news/2005083411.jpg


#17

[quote=Scotty PGH]I find it hard to believe that this was a mistake. How do you mistakenly wheel someone up for Communion? How do you mistakenly hold out your hand and receive Communion?

Here is photo evidence of Cardinal Ratzinger handing Communion to Schutz, and Schutz gladly receiving. I can’t get past this. It is such a grave scandal to me that our pope would give Communion to this non-Catholic, and that one of his Cardinals would later distribute Communion to non-Catholics at Schutz’s funeral.
[/quote]

Scotty,

OK, evidently it did actually happen, and evidently it was not a mistake. I would submit to you the possibility that Cardinal Ratzinger knew Brother Roger (is that the same person as Schutz?) rather better than we did, and decided that it was an appropriate thing to do.

  • Liberian

who has more important things to do with his time than to try to second-guess the Pope


#18

[quote=Scotty PGH]I find it hard to believe that this was a mistake. How do you mistakenly wheel someone up for Communion? How do you mistakenly hold out your hand and receive Communion?

[/quote]

I don’t care about the photo, I know it happened. I also know that the Vatican said that Br Roger got in the line for the Eucharist by mistake.

I also know that Pope Benedict is against intercommunion.

I also know that the Vatican said that this incident in no way should be taken as a change in the Church’s Teachings on intercommunion.


#19

[quote=Scotty PGH]I find it hard to believe that this was a mistake. How do you mistakenly wheel someone up for Communion? How do you mistakenly hold out your hand and receive Communion?

Here is photo evidence of Cardinal Ratzinger handing Communion to Schutz, and Schutz gladly receiving. I can’t get past this. It is such a grave scandal to me that our pope would give Communion to this non-Catholic, and that one of his Cardinals would later distribute Communion to non-Catholics at Schutz’s funeral.

catholic.org/cathcom/international_story.php?id=16307

http://www.catholic.org/images/ins_news/2005083411.jpg
[/quote]

It is impossible to condemn this act strongly enough. There are no words severe enough - certainly not if one wants to avoid being banned.

This action tears every word of that pope against indifferentism, sacrilege, disrespect for the Eucharist, into a trillion tiny pieces. And every word of the Vatican dicasteries on the same subjects. An action is worth a thousand words.

Certain bodies and Churches have their shortcomings - but at least they would die rather than allow this.

This is not a scandal - it’s an abomination, a sin crying to Heaven for vengeance. No Saint would ever have allowed that. They would have died first. This is an enormous insult to the English Martyrs, who died precisely because they would not, under any circumstances whatever, receive a non-Catholic Eucharist. Saints have died rather than allow such a profanation as this. ##


#20

[quote=ByzCath]Yet there was an unsigned statement from the Vatican stateing that Br Roger was in line for th Eucharist by mistake.

Also there is no credible source saying that non-catholics recieved the Eucharist at the funeral. If they did then it is a slap in the face of Br Roger who is on record as being against intercommunion and against the community which does not practice intercommunion.
[/quote]

see this thread for discussion of the issue:

forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=69913

If this gets out of hand, I may change my reserved opinion.

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.