Walt weighs in on current “Communion” controversy…
“Cardinal” Kasper says Protestant Spouses who are given Novus Ordo Communion don’t need to believe in Transubstantiation
A lot of adherents of the Novus Ordo Sect are not aware that their church already officially permits Protestants to receive “Holy Communion”, under certain conditions, without them renouncing their false religion and converting to Catholicism.
This topic is of the greatest importance, as it proves definitively that the Vatican II Sect is not the Catholic Church, because according to traditional Catholic teaching, the Catholic Church is incapable of universally legislating disciplinary laws that are in themselves evil, harmful, or heretical:
The Church is infallible in her general discipline. By the term general discipline is understood the laws and practices which belong to the external ordering of the whole Church. Such things would be those which concern either external worship, such as liturgy and rubrics, or the administration of the sacraments. . . . If she [the Church] were able to prescribe or command or tolerate in her discipline something against faith and morals, or something which tended to the detriment of the Church or to the harm of the faithful, she would turn away from her divine mission, which would be impossible.
(Rev. Jean Herrmann, Institutiones Theologiae Dogmaticae, Vol. 1 [4th ed., Rome, 1908], p. 258; quoted here.)
We have addressed this topic a few times on this blog before and argued it at length with copious documentation:
- Where were the Dubia Supporters when John Paul II allowed “Communion” for PROTESTANTS?
- Sacraments for Non-Catholics in the 1983 Code of Canon Law (Introduction to Sedevacantism, Part 3
- Vatican’s Rules on Communion for Protestants could be further Relaxed
This issue has been in the news again recently as Germany’s Novus Ordo bishops have gone on record stating that they would like to begin permitting the Protestant spouses of “Catholics” to receive “Communion”:
When other German Novus Ordo bishops then complained to the Vatican about it, Francis ordered representatives of both sides to come to Rome to discuss the matter — with the result that Francis told them to figure it out themselves. We have produced a brief podcast covering the chaos:
By telling the German pretend-bishops to come, preferably, to a unanimous solution on the issue, Francis is implicitly agreeing that Protestant reception of what is supposed to be the Catholic Holy Eucharist, is perfectly acceptable.
And why shouldn’t he say that, given the teaching and practice of the Vatican II Sect? It is, after all, already condoned in principle in the 1983 Code of Canon Law, promulgated by “Saint” John Paul II and has its remote roots in the Second Vatican Council:
3. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick licitly to members of Eastern Churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church if they seek such on their own accord and are properly disposed. This is also valid for members of other Churches which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the same condition in regard to the sacraments as these Eastern Churches.
4. If the danger of death is present or if, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops, some other grave necessity urges it, Catholic ministers administer these same sacraments licitly also to other Christians not having full communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who seek such on their own accord, provided that they manifest Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments and are properly disposed.
(Antipope John Paul II, Novus Ordo Code of Canon Law, Canon 844.3-4)
In 2003, the same John Paul II reaffirmed this impious and sacrilegious law in an encyclical letter:
While it is never legitimate to concelebrate [the New Mass] in the absence of full communion, the same is not true with respect to the administration of the Eucharist under special circumstances, to individual persons belonging to Churches or Ecclesial Communities not in full communion with the Catholic Church.
(Antipope John Paul II, “Encyclical” Ecclesia De Eucharistia, n. 45)
This goes for the Latin church as much as it does for the Eastern Novus Ordo churches, whose Code of Canons for the Eastern Churches, published in 1990 by the same John Paul II, legislates the exact same thing (see Canon 671 §§ 3-4).
As noted, this sacrilegious and implicitly heretical practice is rooted in Vatican II itself:
…[W]orship in common (communicatio in sacris) is not to be considered as a means to be used indiscriminately for the restoration of Christian unity. There are two main principles governing the practice of such common worship: first, the bearing witness to the unity of the Church, and second, the sharing in the means of grace. Witness to the unity of the Church very generally forbids common worship to Christians, but the grace to be had from it sometimes commends this practice. The course to be adopted, with due regard to all the circumstances of time, place, and persons, is to be decided by local episcopal authority, unless otherwise provided for by the Bishops’ Conference according to its statutes, or by the Holy See.
(Vatican II, Decree on Ecumenism Unitatis Redintegratio, n. 8; underlining added.)
To admit Protestant spouses to receive “Communion” in the Vatican II Church, then, is not inconsistent in the least. It is evil, of course — but for someone who adheres to Vatican II, it is certainly in line with the council and the post-conciliar magisterium of Francis’ predecessors.
On May 15, Vaticanist Andrea Tornielli of La Stampa posted an English translation of an interview he conducted with Fr. Kasper about the current “intercommunion” controversy in Germany. With regard to the stipulation in John Paul II’s Code of Canon Law that says that before they can receive the Novus Ordo Eucharist, Protestants must “manifest Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments”, Kasper said:
The two encyclicals [of John Paul II on Ecumenism and the Eucharist, respectively] insist very much on the Protestants’ adherence to the Catholic doctrine on the Eucharist, that is, on manifesting “the faith which the Catholic Church professes”, to quote John Paul II himself. This seems very important to me, because the sacraments are sacraments of faith. For a true Lutheran, based on confessional writings, the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist is obvious. The problem is the liberal and the reformed (Calvinists) Protestants. Especially with them the problem must be clarified in pastoral conversations. Certainly, one cannot ask [of] a Protestant what is normally asked [of] a Catholic. It is enough to believe: “This is (est) the body of Christ, given for you”. Luther also insisted on this. Even a “normal” Catholic believer does not know the most developed doctrines on transubstantiation or consubstantiation.
(Walter Kasper, in Andrea Tornielli, “The Council and two encyclicals admit cases of Eucharist to Protestants”, Vatican Insider, May 15, 2018)
As a professional Modernist, Kasper knows exactly how to subvert and neutralize every last bit of Catholicism. He also knows how to twist words to end up meaning the opposite of what they actually state.
Look at what Kasper does here: He correctly notes that John Paul II — who, by the way, was not exactly an orthodox Catholic himself — required “Protestants’ adherence to the Catholic doctrine on the Eucharist”. Then he says he agrees with this and pays lip service to what supposedly is that Catholic doctrine. But then he acts like the Lutheran heresy of Consubstantiation is entirely compatible with the Catholic dogma of Transubstantiation, when it is in fact a denial of that dogma!
Kasper’s position is essentially, “Let’s not fuss about this. Lutherans and Catholics both believe that Christ somehow is present, and that’s good enough.” No, it is not! Every Catholic is taught and must believe the dogma of Transubstantiation:
If anyone says that in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist there remains the substance of bread and wine together with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denies that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the body, and of the entire substance of the wine into the blood, the species of the bread and wine only remaining, a change which the Catholic Church most fittingly calls transubstantiation: let him be anathema.
(Council of Trent, Session 13, Canon 2; Denz. 884)
Kasper’s claim that “one cannot ask [of] a Protestant what is normally asked [of] a Catholic” is outrageous and entirely gratuitous. It is offered without any evidence or supporting argumentation. Furthermore, his assertion that it “is enough to believe: ‘This is (est) the body of Christ, given for you'” is encouraging heresy and explicitly condemned by the Church:
The doctrine of the [condemned] synod [of Pistoia], in that part in which, undertaking to explain the doctrine of faith in the rite of consecration, and disregarding the scholastic questions about the manner in which Christ is in the Eucharist, from which questions it exhorts priests performing the duty of teaching to refrain, it states the doctrine in these two propositions only: 1) after the consecration Christ is truly, really, substantially under the species; 2) then the whole substance of the bread and wine ceases, appearances only remaining; it (the doctrine) absolutely omits to make any mention of transubstantiation, or conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the blood, which the Council of Trent defined as an article of faith, and which is contained in the solemn profession of faith; since by an indiscreet and suspicious omission of this sort knowledge is taken away both of an article pertaining to faith, and also of the word consecrated by the Church to protect the profession of it, as if it were a discussion of a merely scholastic question, — dangerous, derogatory to the exposition of Catholic truth about the dogma of transubstantiation, favorable to heretics.
(Pope Pius VI, Bull Auctorem Fidei, no. 29; Denz. 1529)
What Kasper proposes in his interview is even worse than what the 18th-century regional synod of Pistoia proposed regarding the Eucharist, which Pope Pius VI condemned; because Kasper implicitly accepts the heresy of Consubstantiation, acting as though it were not a denial of Transubstantiation but merely an alternate view that does not differ from the true dogma in any essential way. This itself is heresy.
The fact is that many prelates in the Vatican II Church themselves do not believe in Transubstantiation. The most blatant case in point today is “Cardinal” Gerhard Ludwig Muller, who has proposed what might be called “Transcommunication” instead:
Other major Novus Ordo theologians of recent decades have proposed other heretical alternatives to Transubstantiation, such as Transsignification and Transfinalization. Pope Pius XII condemned them:
Some even say that the doctrine of transubstantiation, based on an antiquated philosophic notion of substance, should be so modified that the real presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist be reduced to a kind of symbolism, whereby the consecrated species would be merely efficacious signs of the spiritual presence of Christ and of His intimate union with the faithful members of His Mystical Body.
(Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Humani Generis, n. 26)
For Kasper to insist that it suffices to believe that “This is (est) the body of Christ” is disingenuous, for every Protestant believes that, even those who deny any kind of Real Presence. After all, Christ Himself used these words: “Take ye, and eat. This is my body” (Mt 26:26). The whole theological debate between Catholics and Protestants is about the meaning of the “is” here, so it is simply deceitful to claim that it suffices to acknowledge that “this is my body”.
Lastly, for Kasper to state that “[e]ven a ‘normal’ Catholic believer does not know the most developed doctrines on transubstantiation or consubstantiation” says a lot about the sorry state of Novus Ordo catechesis — but it says nothing about what Catholics must or need not believe.
By the way: When in 2015 Francis was asked directly by a Lutheran woman about whether she would be permitted to receive “Communion” at a “Catholic Mass”, he gave a typical Bergoglian answer: Yes, no, maybe, and you figure it out. And he did it in the presence of none other than “Cardinal” Kasper! Remember?
When it comes to issues on which there can only be one answer, the “Dictator Pope” suddenly prefers not to dictate at all. How he acts all depends on whatever does the most harm to Catholicism. That’s his principle of action.
And so we have yet another episode in the ongoing theological freak show of the Novus Ordo Sect. The irony to it all is that since the “New Mass” of Paul VI (Novus Ordo Missae) is actually invalid, especially (but not only) because it is usually offered by “priests” who are not validly ordained — the Protestant spouses who believe that what they are receiving in Novus Ordo communion is essentially just ordinary bread, are actually right.
This whole thing is beyond parody.
Image source: Wikimedia Commons (Centro Televisivo Vaticano)
License: CC BY 3.0