Cardinal Kasper says lack of shared communion his greatest regret

I've had to explain to others that in my church (Orthodox) my participation in Holy Communion is in the context of the entire sacramental ministry, particularly the pastoral responsibility of the priest to give Communion to those who are in good standing and have prepared according to the practice of the church through proper examination of conscience and confession of sin. Truthfully, there are actions today that are considered sinful in some churches and not in others. So unless one is prepared to argue that Communion is simply "come as you are" without proper preparation, these differences and those regarding preparation, as well as in what constitutes good standing and belief will need to be addressed. The division all the same is a sad one, especially within families.

By Anli Serfontein

Stuttgart, Germany, 22 July (ENI)--The recently retired senior Vatican official responsible for ecumenical affairs has said his biggest regret during his tenure in Rome is that he did not achieve an agreement on a common communion with Protestants.

"Today, there is a lot of convergence. So, we got closer to each other but we could not achieve the final breakthrough. I regret it very much but you cannot push the issue," said Cardinal Walter Kasper, who retired on 1 July as president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity.

"The main thing that I did not achieve is the sharing of Holy Communion," Kasper told ENInews in an interview in Stuttgart, while attending, as a special guest, the 20-27 July assembly of the Lutheran World Federation.

Kasper, now 77, became president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity in 2001; he had served the previous two years as its secretary. Originally from Germany, Kasper is a former professor of theology in Münster and Tübingen, and was bishop of Stuttgart from 1989 to 1999.

Soon after he became secretary of the Vatican's unity council, Kasper took part in the signing on 31 October 1999, Reformation Day, of the "Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification" between the Roman Catholic Church and the LWF. This aimed to overcome condemnations, dating back to the 16th century, between the papacy and reformer Martin Luther and his followers.

However, sharing in the Eucharist, or Holy Communion, the central Christian sacrament that commemorates Jesus' last meal with his disciples, remains a point of contention. Catholic teaching prevents Protestants in most situations receiving communion from Catholic priests, and says Catholics should not receive communion in Protestant churches.

"Of course, I regret it very much because I know the concrete problems in families, and between good friends and partners," said Kasper. "I know what these problems are but I cannot jump over the whole existing doctrine. It is a problem that still exists but I think we also achieved some things. Maybe not consensus but convergence."

Kasper's words echoed those of LWF president Mark S. Hanson from the United States, who earlier in the day told a media conference that the Lutheran commitment to ecumenism will not end until Lutherans can share the Eucharist with other churches.

"We must continue the dialogue about theological issues that still prevent us from communing together," said Hanson.

The LWF president had been asked if he could envisage a day when a married couple in which one partner was a Catholic and the other a Lutheran could share in communion together with the blessing of both churches. Hanson responded by saying that it is the lay people of the churches who are driving and sustaining these conversations, and he acknowledged the "grassroots ecumenism" that is alive among lay people.

"If Roman Catholics and Lutherans can feed the hungry together, wouldn't it be good if they could be fed at the Lord's Table together?" Hanson said.

Kasper said in an address to LWF assembly delegates, "In the last years, we have been harvesting the fruit of the dialogue. I was more than surprised to see such a rich harvest, and that we have achieved much more than we could even dream before. There has been no ecumenical winter."

Still, he acknowledged that there is an unfinished agenda and that this should be the reason to continue the search for unity. "We can no longer afford to stick to our differences," Kasper told delegates.

In his ENInews interview, the former Vatican official stressed that dialogue and debate should continue. "I think for both sides it is the same thing. You must be patient, and you must be impatient at the same time," he said with a smile. [Copyright Ecumenical News International, reprinted by permission]

Comments

[matt tapie]

"If Roman Catholics and Lutherans can feed the hungry together, wouldn't it be good if they could be fed at the Lord's Table together?"

Interestingly, on John Howard Yoder's terms, the Eucharist is, in the New Testament, the practice of disciples of Christ sharing bread at ordinary tables (see Body Politics). Thus these two groups of divided Christians, when feeding the hungry, are already at Lord's Table regardless of what "meanings" the feeding might otherwise have for them.

[Steve Nicoloso]

The trouble is, and will always be while the western Church is divided, a lack of symmetry. If you believe communion is largely or purely symbolic, i.e., that it does not change substance upon being consecrated, then there is probably no principled objection to receiving communion from the hand of a RC or Orthodox priest. But if you believe in the change of substance, then receiving communion from a Protestant pastor is either A) receiving nothing at all (which is insulting to the Protestant); or B) assuming an ability (i.e., to confect a valid Eucharistic offering) in the Protestant pastor that he not only doesn't himself believe he possesses, but one which he believes doesn't even exist (which is, in turn, contrary to the teachings of your Church). So, inter-communion (simply understood at least) only really ratchets in one direction: that one of defining "down" communion, i.e., to the least common denominator. Of course, RCs and Orthodox believe communion is a symbol, and a communal meal, and yada yada, they just believe it is those... and more... and the more is that without which it ain't communion.

So, I don't really understand this beating of the breast, by the good Cardinal, about intercommunion. I mean, sure it's sad, but we don't agree (e.g., with Lutherans, or any Protestants AFAIK) on the nature of communion because we don't agree on the nature of the Church. So why aren't we beating our breasts about the nature of the Church. That seems to me to be the primordial issue.

[Michael Bauman (not Dr.)]

Mr. Nicoloso, you have taken the words from my head, actually better than what was in my head. It is ecclesiology that separates (which is ultimately a form of Christology). Can we be honest and true to what we belief (any of us) and compromise that?

[Deacon Michael D. Harmon]

Lutherans don't believe in the Real Presence? Then why, when debating the topic with those who didn't, did Martin Luther take a piece of chalk and as his final statement, write, "Hoc est corpus meam" on a table before departing? I'm pretty sure Calvin also had a high view of it, too.

Granted, the Catholic (and I believe Orthodox) belief about communion that it should be shared only with those who agree with all the doctrinal positions of each communion. I would suggest that means that in every Catholic church (dunno about the Orthodox) there are lots of people who call themselves Catholics receiving communion wrongly, because they disagree with one or another points of doctrine.

On the other hand, you can believe in the Real Presence and think communion should be open to all those baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit who also discern the Body and Blood in the forms of bread and wine, because it is God's Eucharist and not ours, and He will judge who receives it validly and who does not. Which is worse -- to allow someone to potentially receive invalidly, or deny someone not a notorious sinner or otherwise under interdict the saving, sacred Meal whom God wants to receive it? I figure the latter, and the Eucharist in our communion is open to all baptized Christians. Catholics and Orthodox, even.

[Steve Nicoloso]

Well, Dcn Harmon, I've heard the Lutheran's believe in the Real Presence? Although to be sure I'd have to ask why they do with leftover consecrated hosts... Calvin's view was higher than Zwingli's, but nowheres near as high as Luther's...

You seem to be missing my point. Even if you grant that Lutheran's agree fully with Catholics on the supposed "Real Presence" in the Eucharistic species, the question still remains as to how Christ's presence got there. And the Catholic, even if he agreed with you about the substantial change of earthly elements, would not (if he were following his Church) recognize an ontological change in the Lutheran pastor requisite to the implementation of that confection... To be fair, neither would the Lutheran pastor, for (AFAIK) the Lutheran pastor doesn't believe an ontological change (in himself) is necessary to so confect. So again, it ratchets only one way. The one obstacle to communion remains: Ecclesiology, and not, at base, this or that nuance about sacramental grace.

I'm not aware that the Catholics (or Orthodox) are so exclusive as to maintain that one must consciously agree with every point of doctrine of their Church to receive worthily the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ. This for the simple reason that there is no reasonable expectation that all the faithful could even understand every point of doctrine that the Church authoritatively teaches. The bar is far lower than that: you must be a baptized Christian, you should believe what the Church teaches about communion (i.e., that it is the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ, and if you do then you will be Catholic or Orthodox) and that you should not be conscious of unconfessed grave sin. Period. And please note that this bar serves not to protect Catholic identity or winnow the flock, but to protect the souls of those receiving, because anyone not meeting these three requirements would be objectively receiving unworthily, and thus subject to damnation by the very act. Now I'll grant, alas, with sadness, as you allude, a vast number of regularly communicating Catholics don't even reach this relatively low bar, but that's not the issue here... and no Catholic priest can forbid any sacrament to a person properly disposed to receive it, a rule that could under grave circumstances apply even to a Lutheran or a Baptist wanting to receive Eucharist. Yes, the priest, like the Lutheran pastor, is ultimately dependent upon God to sort out who receives worthily or otherwise.

Can we be honest and true to what we belief (any of us) and compromise that?

Michael, no. But by humble sumission to a beloved (or necessary) authority figure, we can, when necessary, change what we believe.

[Deacon Michael D. Harmon]

Thank you for your clarifying comments, Steve.

But hey, since I do believe the Eucharist to be the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ, I am Catholic. Or Orthodox. Or both. I'm glad the bar is low enough I can squeeze underneath.

But somehow I'm not exactly certain that's precisely what you meant...

[Steve Nicoloso]

If you were in danger of death, a Catholic priest would be willing to give you last rites if you requested it.

[Robert Espe]

As I understand things, it is permissible for an Orthodox Christian to take communion in a Roman Catholic Parish, but the Orthodox Church will still not permit Catholics to receive communion in theirs. Since they both believe in the real presence, either there is another issue causing the division, or there is simply too much arrogance surrounding the whole issue.

I'm a protestant who believes in the real presence insofar as Christ stated it exists, but I think the debate about the how the change occurs would be laughably pointless if it weren't for the harm Christians do eachother in its discussion.