Could Cardinal Kasper Be Right?

Could Cardinal Kasper Be Right?

by Brother André Marie
December 16, 2015

From Father Paul Nicholson comes this interesting reflection on “spiritual communion,” “baptism of desire,” and the bizarre ramifications of a non-incarnational, pseudo-sacramental Catholicism that parallels the sacramental economy that was instituted by Jesus Christ.

Some points Father Nicholson makes in the YouTube video below remind me of this passage in Father Feeney’s Bread of Life, taken from the chapter, The Purpose of Christ’s Coming:

What the Baptism-of-Desire teachers make of Our Lord’s great text, “Unless a man eat My Flesh and drink My Blood he shall not have life in him,” I am very much puzzled to know. Perhaps there is a Eucharist of Desire, as well as a “Baptism of Desire”? And why could there not be Holy Orders of Desire, as the Anglicans would like to have it, or Matrimony of Desire, which would so please the Mormons? And what becomes of the Mystical Body of Christ, made up of invisible members and a visible head — invisible branches on a visible vine? I would very much like to know!

Our priests in America now go around preaching this dry substitute of “Baptism of Desire” for the waters of regeneration. Their “Baptism of Desire” is no longer an antecedent to the Baptism of Water to come. They make it a substitute for Baptism of Water, or rather an excuse for not having it. These priests have brought our Church in the United States into a desert, far removed from the life-giving waters of Christ.

See also [comment below] Brian Kelly’s From Baptism of Desire to Kasper’s Communion of Desire.

Get AQ Email Updates

2 comments on “Could Cardinal Kasper Be Right?

  1. From Baptism of Desire to Kasper’s Communion of Desire

    by Brian Kelly June 12, 2015

    Father Feeney expressed concern in his lectures about the abuse of the idea of spiritual communions. Not that he was opposed to the devotion as it was promoted by many saints for those who, in past times, were not permitted to receive every day. But he was worried over the fact that liberals were equating spiritual communion with Real Eucharistic Communion, as if the former could effect the same grace as the latter. Father, no doubt, counseled those who were reluctant to receive because of some uncertainty in their mind as to their state of grace to make a spiritual communion, but he did not want them to make a habit of it. It was a good thing to do, but it was not a Eucharistic thing to do. Eucharist means “good thanks” and the best way to thank God at Mass is to accept His invitation to Holy Communion.

    In Holy Communion, Jesus assimilates us into Himself in an utterly unique way. The full effect of this cannot be accomplished by a mere spiritual communion. Father’s chapter on the “Great Gift of God” in his book Bread of Life is all about this. “Christianity is a concorporeal spiritual life!” Father writes, and “The same cowards who make the Church an invisible society, have tried to make the Blessed Eucharist a purely spiritual communion, with nothing to do with our body. The priest says in the Mass: ‘Corpus tuum, Domine, quod sumpsi, et Sanguis quem potavi, adhaereat visceribus meis . . .— ‘May Thy Body, O Lord, which I have received, and Thy Blood which I have drunk, cleave unto my entrails . . . .’ May we be formed and fashioned out of the same substance, concorporeally united, so that we may become other Christs.” If you have not read Bread of Life you are missing out on a theological and devotional masterpiece.

    Cardinal Walter Kasper has taken spiritual communion, or what he calls a “sacrament of desire,” to a new level of equivocal abuse. In his interview with EWTN journalist Raymond Arroyo he expressed his position by referring to none other than Cardinal Ratzinger (Benedict XVI). Monica Migliorino Miller, writing for Crisis Magazine, offers an excellent commentary: “In 1994 the then head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued a letter to bishops affirming that divorced and remarried Catholics are not permitted to receive the Eucharist, yet they may avail themselves of “spiritual communion.” Kasper seizes on this point and argues that by spiritual communion the person is “united with Christ he cannot live in grave sin, this would be a contradiction.” He believes if the divorced and remarried can receive the spiritual benefits of Holy Communion through “spiritual communion” (through sacrament of desire) it is illogical to forbid them to actually receive the Eucharist.” You can read her timely and insightful article here.

  2. Yeah, he’s right and all the popes of the past two thousand years have been wrong. The leftists out there would love for us to believe his nonsense but, sorry, we won’t drink the Vatican II Kool-Aid. St Paul said it clearly in 1 Corinthians 11:28: “But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice.” So, what did he mean “prove himself” if not being in the state of grace? As for spiritual communion, it’s a nice practice but not equal to the real thing and any true Catholic knows the difference. But, that begs the question: Is Kasper a true Catholic or a Lutheran in disguise?

Leave a Reply