Qui plus aequos: praefectus militiae Gaddafi, Eucharistiae et Cardinalis Kasper contumeliam Lutheri haereses approbet? 15 May 201815 May 2018 isoladipatmos Quis sympathetico tradituf: Praefectus militiae Gaddafi, Camerarius et Cardinalis Martini Lutheri Haereses probatque KASPER qui probitati eius insultant AD EUCHARISTIAM SPECTANTIBUS? . Et quaestio de auctore communicet tunc Protestantes in re responsibility Iuris Canonici innovatur, but the question is however linked to dogmatics and ecclesiology, while Cardinal Kasper, unfortunately, does not take these constraints into account and thus ends up approving the Lutheran heresies. . . auctorJohn Cavalcoli, o.p. . . PDF article print format . . . Colonel Gaddafi [1942-2011] leader of Libya The Concilium Vaticanum insider news agency reports an interview by dr. Andrea Tornielli to Cardinal Walter Kasper on the question of the legitimacy of Eucharistic communion for Lutherans [see interview, hIC]. In question it is not the interviewer, but the interviewee. Ergo, those who stigmatize Andrea Tornielli, as is happening, makes a serious mistake. It would be like accusing Oriana Fallaci of having interviewed Colonel Gaddafi in 1979, in a memorable interview contained today in the history of journalism. The mrs. Fallaci, he only did his job [see text, hIC]. Or as Father Ariel S. Levi di Gualdo told me: “It would be like I was called to the bedside of a dying serial killer, and I refuse to hear his confession!” In any case, establishing who among the two, Cardinal Kasper and Colonel Gaddafi, is more amiable and less dangerous, is not a problem linked to this article. We leave it to the jury’s readers to award the sympathy prize to Cardinal Kasper or Colonel Gheddafi, because today, more than ever, the imagination of the grotesque seems to have really taken power. . We have already motivated in our other articles the teaching and directives of the Church on this delicate theme of the sacrament of the Eucharist and of its administration, which, as Saint John Paul II says in the encyclical Ecclesia de Eucharistia of 1993: «summarizes the core of the mystery of the Church» [n:. 1]; the Eucharist «builds the Church» [c. II] and is «the culmination of all the sacraments in bringing to perfection communion with God the Father through conformity with the Only Begotten Son through the work of the Holy Spirit» [n:. 34]. . The Cardinal Kasper claims that the granting of the permission of the Communion to the Lutherans is contained both in the Decree Unitatis redintegratio de Oecumenismo of the Second Vatican Council, and in two encyclicals of St. John Paul II. Now, if we read these documents, we will notice that they conform to the dictate of Canon Law [potes. 844 § 3-4], which I quoted and commented on in a previous article of mine. . As for the conciliar document, it reads as follows: . «This communication is governed above all by two principles: to express the unity of the Church, to participate in the means of grace”. These are two principles in tension among themselves, which therefore must be prudently connected: the first concerns communion with the Church; the second is the salvation of the believer. The first is more attentive to the external forum; the second, at the internal forum. In the first case justice is stressed, in the second case the mercy». . In this regard, as canon law underlines, the pastoral authority of the Episcopal Conference or of the individual diocesan bishop operates. In eo, the decree states: . «Regarding the concrete way of acting, having regard to all the circumstances of time, place and people, prudently decide the episcopal authority of the place». . The law guarantees the Church to meet the requests of separated brothers only in cases of serious urgency. The case that the applicant is the non-Catholic spouse is not at all contemplated. In eo, the situation of the Lutheran in danger of death, spouse or non-spouse, provided by law, is incomparable with that of the Lutheran spouse not in danger of death but in good physical health. The first, as it is supposed, is about to account to God for his life, while it is supposed that the latter has time and way to educate himself and correct himself on the sacrament of the Eucharist and to repent of his previous Lutheran conduct. . He Cardinal Kasper quotes the texts of the two encyclicals of John Paul II and says: . «Ut unum sint  et Ecclesia de Eucharistia  formulated a more advanced position which may be the interpretative norm of the canon in full harmony with the Second Vatican Council». . In the first of the two encyclicals of St. John Paul II, the number 24 we read: . «It is a source of joy to remember that Catholic ministers can, in special cases, administer the sacraments of the Eucharist, of Penance, of the anointing of the sick to other Christians. that they are not in full communion with the Catholic Church, but who ardently desire to receive them, to ask them freely and to show the faith that the Catholic Church confesses in these sacraments». . While in the second Encyclical of the same Pontiff, at n. 45, we read: . «If concelebration is not legitimate in the absence of full communion, the same does not happen with regard to the administration of the Eucharist, in particular circumstances, to individual persons belonging to Churches or Ecclesial Communities not in full communion with the Catholic Church: in this in fact, the goal is to provide for a serious spiritual need for the eternal salvation of the individual faithful». . And the Cardinal Kasper comments: . «The two encyclicals insist a great deal on the adhesion of the Protestant side to the Catholic doctrine on the Eucharist, that is, in “manifesting” the faith that the Catholic Church confesses”, to quote John Paul II himself. This seems very important, because the sacraments are sacraments of faith. For a true Lutheran, who is based on the confessional writings, the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist is obvious […] Certainly it is not possible to ask a Protestant what is normally required of a Catholics. Just believe: “This is (east) the body of Christ, given for you”. Luther has also insisted on this too. The more developed doctrines on transubstantiation or consubstantiation, even a “normal” Catholic faithful do not know them … ». . Confutation of the errors of Cardinal Kasper . In eo, the Cardinal falls into a frightful void of air, if «we can not ask a Protestant of what is normally requested by a Catholic», then we must say frankly to this Protestant who can not access the communion. Then, Cardinal Kasper’s plane crashes when he says: “Just believe:” This is (east) the body of Christ, given for you. “Luther also insisted on this: the more developed doctrines on the transubstantiation or the consubstantiation, even a “normal” faithful of the Catholic Church does not know them …». . But “believe” that dares? A Catholic who does not know and does not accept the dogma of transubstantiation is not a “normal” Catholic, but an ignorant Catholic, who must be urgently instructed, so that he does not fall into heresy and does not understand, as Saint Paul warns, that one must not eat the body unworthily. of the Lord, because he who does this «eat his own condemnation» [1 Cor 11:29] In any case, si, as the Cardinal says, the Protestant truly believes in the words «this is the body of the Lord», pronounced by the priest at Mass, it means that he believes in transubstantiation. And if he believes in it, he can not continue to keep the Lutheran faith, he should say: «in this bread is the Lord». Then it will mean that he converted to Catholicism. . Then adds Kasper: . «If these people, in a fairly secularized context, are true believers who believe and are united in the same baptism and therefore are part of the one Church of Christ (though not in full communion), and are also bound in the same sacrament of marriage, and they represent the mystery of the union between Christ and his Church and live it, and they are together with their children a domestic church, it is normal that they feel the intimate desire to also share the Eucharist and the Eucharistic Faith, what prevents it?» [See Acts of the Apostles 7, 37; 10.47]. . The texts of St. Paul are not at all consistent with the thesis of the cardinal because they deal with other questions. On the other hand, we know how demanding ecclesiology and the sacramental dogmatics of the Blessed Apostle Paul are, who do not ignore the inferior or imperfect degrees of ecclesial communion belonging to the catechumens, but when it comes to Eucharistic communion it requires full ecclesial communion, as can be seen with the same term “communion”. . Saint Paul is famous for his respect for the differences and for the values of the Greco-Roman culture, for the sense of the universality of the Gospel message and for his understanding of the weaknesses of human nature, for his ability to dialogue with everyone and look for the positive to be brought to Christ everybody. . Paul’s ecumenism, autem, is not a game of misunderstanding, a silence about error rather than correcting it; it is not an inconclusive emptiness, like always standing on the threshold of the Church, never encouraging the brother to enter the sanctuary, but on the contrary it is a factor of authentic reciprocal reconciliation in Christ and in the Church under the guidance of Peter, always moved by a frank invitation to conversion and to accept the truth fully, is a powerful and warm invitation to deeply experience the mystery of Christ and his Church. . Regarding the Pope’s invitation to the Bishops to “find a common solution”, says Cardinal Kasper: . «I think the Pope gave a very wise response, remaining in full harmony with the idea of synodality of the Church, but he also stressed that on fundamental issues the majority is not sufficient from a canonical legal point of view, it requires unanimity» . . The Pope, in exhorting the Bishops to arrive at a “possible unanimity”, can not certainly nor have understood that they can grant communion in the sense intended by Cardinal Kasper, which would imply a profanation of the Eucharist, nor can it be understood that they must be agree with a simple majority vote, as they would like to interpret others, ready to accuse the Pope of irresponsibility, not being able to assess the seriousness of the problem because it acts politically, but certainly implies that the agreement must be based on Scripture, the tradition of canon law. . It can not be excluded that the discussion of the Bishops on this topic demonstrates a proposal to the Pope to change the current provisions on canon law, but always obviously in harmony with the requirements of the divine law, for which it can not be lawful to treat a brother which is not in full communion with the Church, and which does not intend to be so, as if it were in full communion with the Church which he himself refuses. Unlike the case of a Protestant who wishes to become a Catholic, as in the implicit case of a Protestant who asks for the sacraments in danger of death. . Cardinal Kasper continues his speech: . «I think of the admonition of the apostle Paul, examining oneself to see if we can eat and drink from the altar» [1 Cor 11:26]. This warning is not only addressed to Protestants but also to Catholics, who must ask themselves: do I really believe in the Eucharistic mystery? Is my conduct of life in harmony with what is celebrated and is present in the Eucharist? . The Cardinal Kasper does not realize the difference between Catholics and Protestants. While in reality the Catholic can certainly make a sacrilegious communion, if he approaches the Eucharist in a state of mortal sin and without the necessary spirit, the Lutheran is deprived of the necessary provisions just as Lutheran, for which, save the case of good faith, if he does not remedy in advance removing these bad dispositions, but keeping them consciously and voluntarily, he can not fail to be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord in a way serious than the Catholic, who accepts the dogma of the Eucharist with all the truths of faith and the moral values that are connected and is in full communion with the Church, even if with that sacrilege, the Bad Catholic, compromises this communion and therefore must repair. autem, unlike the Protestant, who remains only in a partial communion, the Catholic at least knows what he must do to recover the cracked communion, and of course he should do it. . Again Cardinal Kasper: . «If a Protestant participates in the Eucharistic celebration, listen to what we say in the Eucharistic prayer, we must ask ourselves: at the end of doxology we can truly respond with the whole assembly:” amen, etiam, I believe. “If you have heard that we mention the Pope and the bishop during the Holy Mass, which means that we celebrate in communion with him, then we must ask ourselves: “Do you really want this communion?». . I believe that if a Protestant, sincerely, in a Holy Mass does and believes all the things that Cardinal Kasper talks about, then he must ask himself whether he has not abandoned Lutheranism to become a Catholic. In this case it is certainly ready, available and admitted, after entering into the communion of the Catholic faith. . Continue by saying Cardinal Kasper: . «I have met many Protestants who have more esteem and often more love for the current Popes than those who have critical and skeptical Catholics». . Unfortunately, the estimate that many Protestants today have for the Pope has nothing to do with welcoming the supremacy of the Supreme Pontiff, infallible teacher of the doctrine of the faith, guardian of the «keys given to St. Peter the Apostle», supreme master of the faith , Custodian and Dispenser of the sacred Mysteries and Sacraments of salvation, Moderator of the Divine Liturgy. Their esteem is often motivated by purely human interests, by the simple fact that Pope Francis does not correct them in their errors and does not exhort them to convert to the Catholic Church. But if these Protestants read however what Pope Leo X or Saint Pius V, the Blessed Pius IX, Leo XIII or Saint Pius X said about Luther, I think they would change their opinion about the papacy. . On the other hand, it is true that some Catholics, too attached to the past and rebels at the Second Vatican Council, give a bad example of conduct towards the pope. But there are also those who turn to the Pope, with due respect, a legitimate critique, only to help him lead the Church, which is the People of God, guided by the Spirit and by Peter assisted by the college of the apostles. . We conclude these considerations by observing that the desire of the Lutheran spouse to receive communion must be taken seriously, but must be carefully examined, to verify that it is not dictated by psychological emotions, human sympathies and need for empathic sharing, by instinct of imitation, by the desire not to feel excluded or to become interesting, and other things like that. . The Protestant must be brought gradually and methodically to the Eucharist with adequate catechesis, so that they are removed, as the Unitatis Redintegratio teaches [n:. 3], all those “obstacles” that Luther has interposed, with his false reform. . In eo, the desire to make the Communion while remaining Lutheran has no sense and is an inconsistent attitude not to say schizophrenic and that has nothing to do with ecumenism. The lack of Lutheran ecclesiology, in fact, consists precisely in the absence of the noblest and supernatural factors of the ecclesial reality, such as the sacraments, among which the most sacred and the most divine of all is precisely the Eucharist, introduced by sacrament of Penance. . Ergo, if a Lutheran wants to approach the Communion sincerely, this must be the proven and clear sign that he wants to recover all those elements of the Church and all those elements of faith that Luther had destroyed and that are a precondition for the reception of the Eucharist; in other words, it will be a sign that he wants to be Catholic. And God be blessed for this heavenly inspiration! . The basic error of Cardinal Kasper’s theology . All of Cardinal Kasper’s argument is based on a serious vice of a gnoseological nature, which I illustrated in a paper of my forthcoming essay dedicated to the epistemology of Cardinal Kasper. The spy of this vice is given by the following words: . «Certainly theological principles are always valid, but their concrete application is not done in a deductive and mechanical way. If we did, it would be the heresy of gnosis, which is rightly denounced by the present Pope». . It is the method of rational deduction both, speculative and moral, that for Cardinal Kasper is not founded on the objectivity of reality and truth, but on the «modern principle of subjectivity», that is, on the Cartesian cogito «for which man he becomes aware of his freedom as autonomy and makes it a starting point, a measure and a means for an entire conception of reality»[Cf.. Jesus the Christ, Queriniana Ed., 1981, iterum. 253]. Consequently, Cardinal Kasper continues: «a God who is now thought within the horizon of subjectivity can no longer be understood as the supreme Being, most perfect and immutable», for which we need a «de-substantialization of the concept of God». . Ergo, for Kasper, as for Hegel, being identifies with becoming, God becomes mute, and identifies with history: the Absolute is not above history, but in history, according to the title of one of his studies on Schelling. Hence the mutability of human nature and the moral law, as already denounced Saint Pius X in his encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis. . Now the Cartesian cogito contains in itself, as the studies of Cornelio Fabro and Jacques Maritain show, the principle of Hegelian idealism and pantheism, as evidenced by a careful observation of the history of philosophy, and by the explicit reference to idealists and pantheists of Descartes. This means that the cogito already contains the principle of absolute knowledge of Hegel, which is precisely the most elaborate form of modern gnosticism. . If today there is therefore to be accused of someone of Gnosticism, this is precisely Cardinal Kasper and not the mechanism of logical deduction, which applies the moral principle in particular cases. The positive ecclesiastical law admits exceptions, but not the natural moral law, except in the case of the epieikeia, where it is not properly an exception, but suspends the application of a lower law in the name of the application of a higher law. But the divine law never even admits epieikeia. . The issue of the authorization of Communion to the Protestants is in fact responsibility of canon law, but the question is linked to dogmatics and ecclesiology, while Kasper, unfortunately, does not take these constraints into account and ends up approving Lutheran heresies. . Varazze, May 14th 2018 . . . «Et cognoscetis veritatem et veritas liberabit vos» [Gv 8,32], sed adducere, nedum veritatem diffundendam et defendendam sed metus in costs. Auxilium nostrum commenticium confirmaret Island cum ratio praebet per secure Coin Paypal: nec posse in computo: IT erant 08 J 02008 32974 001436620930 in hoc casu,, mitte nos an email Monitum, quia ripa Non potuimus mittere email vos praestate gratiarum actione percipitur [ email@example.com ] . . . . .