Taize founder murdered during services

  • Thread starter Thread starter aisb23
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

aisb23

Guest
Brother Roger, the 90 year old founder of the ecumenical monestary at Taize, France, was murdered in front of 2500 worshippers today.

Pope Benedict condemns the crime.

Get the story.

–arthur
 
Does anyone know if Bro Roger converted to the Catholic Faith. I ask, because he was reported as having received Holy Communion, from the hands of (then-) Cardinal Ratzinger at the Requiem Mass for our late Holy Father. The event was televised, but the picture I saw was unclear. Cetainly the person purportedly he, was wheelchair bound and looked like him from a distance. If he hadn’t become a Catholic, why was he allowed to receive Holy Communion (assuming it was him)? Requiescat in pace.
 
He converted? I’ve seen no reference to that in any news coverage of his death, including Catholic media outlets.
 
Was the energizing spirit of the 16th-century Reformation meant to persist forever in structures distinct from Roman Catholicism? Brother Roger tells of meeting with Marc Boegner, a Reformed pastor and president of the Federation of Protestant Churches of France. In the early days of Taizé, Boegner had been critical of Roger’s efforts to advocate reconciliation with Pope Pius XII. But near the end of his life, he wondered if Reformed Christians might best witness to reformation from within a universal church, rather than outside of it. He asked Roger, “Should we now, after the Vatican Council, say that the brackets should be closed on Protestantism?” Roger’s answer was startling: “Of course you should say so, because all the reforms sought after the 16th century have been achieved and more!”

I’m not suggesting that a simple “return to Rome” is the goal of Reformed and Roman Catholic dialogue. Actually, the longer I teach at a Roman Catholic university, the more fully reformed I become (and the more fully catholic as well). To envision in the new millennium a pilgrimage that takes us to an undivided church is not to declare winners and losers or to reach for simple solutions. The way forward to reconciliation is never simply back. Reformed and Roman Catholic Christians have to journey together, as Karl Rahner said, to “a home where none of us has ever been.”
 
Over on Jimmy Akin’s blog www.jimmyakin.org , Jimmy is saying taht he did not convert and that Br Roger’s presences in the line for the Eucharist was some sort of accident. How the accident came about is still a bit of a mystery though.
 
It’s a worrying mystery, because liberals will use this incident (however it occured) to justify inter-communion. I find it hard to believe that (then-) Cardinal Ratzinger would not have recognsed Br Roger, who is something of a cult figure in Western Europe.
 
I have listened, reports in two directions, respect the communion, there are a point in a code that said that people who believe in the sacred eucharisty, they can receive the communion. But he was nearer to the church that many catholics, this is very clear.
 
40.png
Franze:
I have listened, reports in two directions, respect the communion, there are a point in a code that said that people who believe in the sacred eucharisty, they can receive the communion. But he was nearer to the church that many catholics, this is very clear.
Click to expand...
Yet he still chose to stay separated from the Church.

That says a lot to me.
 
40.png
Franze:
I have listened, reports in two directions, respect the communion, there are a point in a code that said that people who believe in the sacred eucharisty, they can receive the communion. But he was nearer to the church that many catholics, this is very clear.
Click to expand...
After thinking about it, I challenge you to supply this “code” that says the only requirement is that one believes in the Eucharist.

There isn’t one.
 
40.png
harveyc:
I don’t have time to find and read CIC 844 right now, but there are some possible exceptions described in a CA tract.
Click to expand...
Ok then, here it is for you.

Code of Canon Law, paragraph 844

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 which of these fit?

Not 1 as that states that Catholic can recieve, not 2 as that says that Catholic can recieve in non-Catholic Churches with valid sacraments if they can not make it to a Catholic Church, not 3 as that says that members of the Eastern Churches not in communion with the Catholic Church can recieve, not 4 as that say in danger of death or in the judgement of the bishop (which in this case there was no bishop of Rome at the time) that the christian who is not in communion with the Catholic Church and can not approach a minister of their own community, and not 5 as that refers to setting up norms for this type of thing.

Which if there was a norm it would have been listed as to why he did recieve.
 
Joe Dunelm:
It’s a worrying mystery, because liberals will use this incident (however it occured) to justify inter-communion. I find it hard to believe that (then-) Cardinal Ratzinger would not have recognsed Br Roger, who is something of a cult figure in Western Europe.
Click to expand...
I understood, perhaps incorrectly, that they were actually friends.
 
§4 is the one open to interpretation. It is up to each local bishop to define what is meant by “some other grave and pressing need.” In some dioceses it has been ruled that this would apply at a mixed-marriage wedding mass, for example, provided the non-Catholic partner believed in the Real Presence.

Br Roger so I understand did believe in the Real Presence, but this particular case was an accident.
 
There was a very strong movement towards Rome from Br Roger. We did see that a funeral Mass was offered for him there in Taize.

I do believe that he asked to be accepted into the Church during the pontificate of John XXIII and this was put on hold.
Heiner Koch, secretary general for WYD said in a statement that, “Brother Roger has always been closely attached to the Catholic Church…We were all happy and grateful that he attended the funeral of Pope John Paul II."

Pope Benedict, who will be in Cologne this week, called the killing “a very sad piece of news which touches me all the more in that I received only yesterday a moving letter from him.”

The Pontiff also revealed that, in the letter Brother Roger wrote, he had “ the desire to come to Rome as soon as possible to meet with me and to tell me that ‘our Taizé community wishes to walk along in communion with the Holy Father.”

Then he wrote by hand: “Holy Father, I assure you of my sentiments of profound communion. Frère Roger of Taizé.”

See the article here:

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=4645
 
buzzcut said:
§4 is the one open to interpretation. It is up to each local bishop to define what is meant by “some other grave and pressing need.” In some dioceses it has been ruled that this would apply at a mixed-marriage wedding mass, for example, provided the non-Catholic partner believed in the Real Presence.

Br Roger so I understand did believe in the Real Presence, but this particular case was an accident.
Click to expand...

Your right here, but seeing that he recieved at the funeral of the bishop who’s diocese the funeral occured in, the bishop could not have ruled in this matter.

But as you said, the Vatican admitted that this was an error.
 
40.png
ByzCath:
But as you said, the Vatican admitted that this was an error.
Click to expand...
Where can I see the article from the Vatican that admits this? Have you a link?

Thanks!
 
40.png
Fergal:
Where can I see the article from the Vatican that admits this? Have you a link?

Thanks!
Click to expand...
If you go to Jimmy Akin’s blog at jimmyakin.org and do a search for Taize you will find this.
Vatican spokesman Joaquin Navarro Valls declared in July 2005 that Roger had been in the queue for Communion by accident. Navarro Valls further stressed that Roger Schutz was against intercommunion, but that he shared the Catholic teachings about the Eucharist (transubstantiation).
Click to expand...
I think this is the closest we will ever get to the Vatican admiting error.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top