Taize founder murdered during services

[Fergal]

I have just looked at that site and there is no credible reference for that theory. Therefore ‘error’ remains only a theory.

What is offered on the site as an explination is only as far as the author can tell! Its not good enough to say that it was error on an explination that is only an authors theory. I quote:

"As far as I can tell, this is the straight story on what happened: "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).""

There was certainly more to this than just an error. Br Roger had made up his mind to become Catholic and therefore to receive at such an event is perfectly permissible. Br Rogers desire for total Communion was enough to warrant reception of the Host.

 

[buzzcut]

A somewhat different story here:

Lors de la messe d’enterrement de Jean Paul II à Rome, le vendredi 8 avril dernier, Frère Roger avait reçu la communion des mains du cardinal Ratzinger, devenu quelques jours plus tard le pape Benoît XVI. “Un cas particulier” dont il ne faut déduire aucune conclusion sur la position de l’Eglise catholique à propos de l’intercommunion, avait précisé Joaquin Navarro-Valls, porte-parole du Saint-Siège à propos de l’eucharistie à laquelle avait accédé le fondateur de la communauté oecuménique de Taizé, d’origine protestante.

theologia.fr/article/index.jsp?rubId=16594&docId=2240462

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Fergal:

I have just looked at that site and there is no credible reference for that theory. Therefore ‘error’ remains only a theory.

What is offered on the site as an explination is only as far as the author can tell! Its not good enough to say that it was error on an explination that is only an authors theory. I quote:

"As far as I can tell, this is the straight story on what happened: "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).""

There was certainly more to this than just an error. Br Roger had made up his mind to become Catholic and therefore to receive at such an event is perfectly permissible. Br Rogers desire for total Communion was enough to warrant reception of the Host.

Sorry but I disagree with you. To be in line “by accident” means he was in line when he should not have been.

I will add, that a desire for total Communion is not enought to warrant reception of the Host as I, and many others here, had that desire but we were made to go though RCIA and be confirmed and confessed before we were allowed to recieve the Eucharist.

I will further add that there “desire” of Br Roger is not evident to me as he had not enter the Church before the time of his death.

Yes there is some evidence of a letter that was written saying that he and his community wished for communion with the Church but that does not mean that the communion they want was not on their own grounds.

 

[Fergal]

Other Christians and Communion

catholic.com/library/Who_Can_Receive_Communion.asp

The guidelines for receiving Communion, which are issued by the U.S. bishops and published in many missalettes, explain, "We welcome our fellow Christians to this celebration of the Eucharist as our brothers and sisters. We pray that our common baptism and the action of the Holy Spirit in this Eucharist will draw us closer to one another and begin to dispel the sad divisions which separate us. We pray that these will lessen and finally disappear, in keeping with Christ’s prayer for us ‘that they may all be one’ (John 17:21).

"Because Catholics believe that the celebration of the Eucharist is a sign of the reality of the oneness of faith, life, and worship, members of those churches with whom we are not yet fully united are ordinarily not admitted to Communion. Eucharistic sharing in exceptional circumstances by other Christians requires permission according to the directives of the diocesan bishop and the provisions of canon law. . . . "

Scripture is clear that partaking of the Eucharist is among the highest signs of Christian unity: “Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread” (1 Cor. 10:17). For this reason, it is normally impossible for non-Catholic Christians to receive Holy Communion, for to do so would be to proclaim a unity to exist that, regrettably, does not.

Another reason that many non-Catholics may not ordinarily receive Communion is for their own protection, since many reject the doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Scripture warns that it is very dangerous for one not believing in the Real Presence to receive Communion: “For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died” (1 Cor. 11:29–30).

Possible exceptions

However, there are circumstances when non-Catholics may receive Communion from a Catholic priest. This is especially the case when it comes to Eastern Orthodox Christians, who share the same faith concerning the nature of the sacraments:

“Catholic ministers may licitly administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist and anointing of the sick to members of the oriental churches which do not have full Communion with the Catholic Church, if they ask on their own for the sacraments and are properly disposed. This holds also for members of other churches, which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the same condition as the oriental churches as far as these sacraments are concerned” (CIC 844 § 3).

Christians in these churches should, of course, respect their own church’s guidelines regarding when it would be permissible for them to receive Communion in a Catholic church.

The circumstances in which Protestants are permitted to receive Communion are more limited, though it is still possible for them to do so under certain specifically defined circumstances.

Canon law explains the parameters: “If the danger of death is present or other grave necessity, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or the conference of bishops, Catholic ministers may licitly administer these sacraments to other Christians who do not have full Communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and on their own ask for it, provided they manifest Catholic faith in these sacraments and are properly disposed” (CIC 844 § 4).

It is important to remember that, under the rubrics specified above, even in those rare circumstances when non-Catholics are able to receive Communion, the same requirements apply to them as to Catholics.

 

[Fergal]

buzzcut:

A somewhat different story here:

Lors de la messe d’enterrement de Jean Paul II à Rome, le vendredi 8 avril dernier, Frère Roger avait reçu la communion des mains du cardinal Ratzinger, devenu quelques jours plus tard le pape Benoît XVI. “Un cas particulier” dont il ne faut déduire aucune conclusion sur la position de l’Eglise catholique à propos de l’intercommunion, avait précisé Joaquin Navarro-Valls, porte-parole du Saint-Siège à propos de l’eucharistie à laquelle avait accédé le fondateur de la communauté oecuménique de Taizé, d’origine protestante.

theologia.fr/article/index.jsp?rubId=16594&docId=2240462

There is no mention of an error or an accidental line up here!!

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Fergal:

Other Christians and Communion

catholic.com/library/Who_Can_Receive_Communion.asp

I posted the exact Canon from the Code of Canon Law back in post number #14, rather than posting what Catholic Answers thinks this says, why don’t you tell me exactly which part of this Canon states that a protestant, even one who believes the same about the Eucharist, is free to recieve the Eucharist when ever he wants.

Its not there.

But your link does say,

Eucharistic sharing in exceptional circumstances by other Christians requires permission according to the directives of the diocesan bishop and the provisions of canon law. . . .

Now this permission could not have been given by the diocesean bishop as Br Roger recieved communion at the funeral of the diocesean bishop.

The possible exceptions in your link are listed as Eastern Orthodox who can not approach their own ministers, Br Roger was not Orthodox. Danger of death, which also was not the case.

Lastly it says,

The circumstances in which Protestants are permitted to receive Communion are more limited, though it is still possible for them to do so under certain specifically defined circumstances.

Which there were none or the Vatican would have listed it rather than say it was an “accident”.

I am sorry, Br Roger may have been a great man, he may have believed in the Real Presence but he never formally entered into Communion with the Catholic Church.

There are many protestants that believe in the Real Presence. Consubstantation is a belief in the Real Presence, but it is not the same belief as the Catholic Church.

It sets a bad example to allow non-catholics (excluding Orthodox) to recieve communion, after all, if you believe in the same as the Church Teaches then you would not wish to recieve without confession, after all, even the Children in the Latin Catholic Church do not recieve communion after the age of reason without First Confession.

So, as protestants do not believe confession is necessary, can they really hold to the same beliefs as Catholics?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Fergal:

I have just looked at that site and there is no credible reference for that theory. Therefore ‘error’ remains only a theory.

What is offered on the site as an explination is only as far as the author can tell! Its not good enough to say that it was error on an explination that is only an authors theory. I quote:

"As far as I can tell, this is the straight story on what happened: "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).""

There was certainly more to this than just an error. Br Roger had made up his mind to become Catholic and therefore to receive at such an event is perfectly permissible. Br Rogers desire for total Communion was enough to warrant reception of the Host.

Yes you are correct, as far as the author (Jimmy Akin) can tell, as you underlined but you seem to leave out that it is the Vatican spokesman who said that he was in line by accident.

Again, if the Vatican spokesman says he was in line by accident, then he shouldn’t have been in line, so it was an error.

 

[buzzcut]

Fergal:

There is no mention of an error or an accidental line up here!!

Fergal, you’re absolutely right. I can vaguely remember hearing on the radio that “un cas particulier” somehow became changed to “an accident” overnight.

 

[trth_skr]

buzzcut:

A somewhat different story here:

Lors de la messe d’enterrement de Jean Paul II à Rome, le vendredi 8 avril dernier, Frère Roger avait reçu la communion des mains du cardinal Ratzinger, devenu quelques jours plus tard le pape Benoît XVI. “Un cas particulier” dont il ne faut déduire aucune conclusion sur la position de l’Eglise catholique à propos de l’intercommunion, avait précisé Joaquin Navarro-Valls, porte-parole du Saint-Siège à propos de l’eucharistie à laquelle avait accédé le fondateur de la communauté oecuménique de Taizé, d’origine protestante.

theologia.fr/article/index.jsp?rubId=16594&docId=2240462

A Google machine translation:

“At the time of the mass of burial of Jean Paul II in Rome, Friday last 8 April, Frère Roger had received the communion of the hands of the Ratzinger cardinal, become a few days later the pope Benoît XVI. “a particular case” from which one should not deduce any conclusion on the position from the catholic Church in connection with intercommunion, had specified Joaquin Navarro-Valls, spokesman of the Holy See in connection with the eucharistie which the founder of the oecumenical community of Taizé had reached, of Protestant origin.”

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

buzzcut:

Fergal, you’re absolutely right. I can vaguely remember hearing on the radio that “un cas particulier” somehow became changed to “an accident” overnight.

Becuase one can not translate with out interpretation occuring.

Hence the issues with the brothers of Jesus in the English translation of the Bible.

trth_skr:

A Google machine translation:

“At the time of the mass of burial of Jean Paul II in Rome, Friday last 8 April, Frère Roger had received the communion of the hands of the Ratzinger cardinal, become a few days later the pope Benoît XVI. “a particular case” from which one should not deduce any conclusion on the position from the catholic Church in connection with intercommunion, had specified Joaquin Navarro-Valls, spokesman of the Holy See in connection with the eucharistie which the founder of the oecumenical community of Taizé had reached, of Protestant origin.”

Thank you Mark, this is more of a transliteration than a translation. As it mainly translate word for word without trying to adjust for the language it is being translated into.

But with this we can see. ““a particular case” from which one should not deduce any conclusion on the position from the catholic Church in connection with intercommunoiin,”

So with that being said, we can not say that he should have recieved the Eucharist as we can not deduce any conclusion on the position.

I would add that it very clearly states that Br Roger and his community are of protestant origin.

 

[Fergal]

ByzCath:

Now this permission could not have been given by the diocesean bishop as Br Roger recieved communion at the funeral of the diocesean bishop.

americamagazine.org/papaltransition.cfm

In a diocese, a coadjutor or auxiliary bishop automatically takes over; otherwise, the diocesan bishop is supposed to have drawn up a list of those to be named. Only if there is no list do the consultors [a committee of priests appointed by the bishop] elect an administrator. The pope already has an auxiliary—the cardinal vicar of Rome, who does the daily running of the Roman diocese for the pope. On the other hand, when a pope dies, the camerlengo together with two other cardinals provides a sort of collegial administration until a new pope is elected. A similar process could be followed if a pope were impeded. But this would be different from the way the law says an impeded diocese is to be run, and it should be worked out in the section on “special laws” for the impeded Roman See that is still missing. But the person who takes over would not be pope, and so could not exercise those special prerogatives that go with the papal office, such as the exercise of supreme jurisdiction or the gift of infallibility. This would hold up the appointment of bishops, action by the Roman Curia on issues of major importance that require the pope’s prior approval, the creation of new dioceses and the like.

 

[harveyc]

ByzCath:

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.

Thanks, Byz. To clarify, I did not mean to imply that any of these fit and did not know of an online source to the Code of Canon Law. Thanks for posting it. Please check for an e-mail I sent you.

 

[Fergal]

ByzCath:

Again, if the Vatican spokesman says he was in line by accident, then he shouldn’t have been in line, so it was an error.

Can I have the official link to this statement please? If the Vatican spokesman has said this then it should be available. If its available officially then fine!! That’s proof enough for me!!

If not then the above theory is all hot air.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Fergal:

Can I have the official link to this statement please? If the Vatican spokesman has said this then it should be available. If its available officially then fine!! That’s proof enough for me!!

If not then the above theory is all hot air.

Here you go, a story at the Catholic News Service.
Shared Communion: Brother Roger’s death spotlights perennial issue

In the article it is stated,

So when Cardinal Ratzinger celebrated Pope John Paul’s funeral Mass in April, he was probably surprised to see Brother Roger being rolled up in a wheelchair at the head of the Communion line.

What to do? Cardinal Ratzinger had long defended the church’s general prohibition on shared Communion. Special circumstances might allow for Communion, but the cardinal could hardly probe the matter in the middle of the pope’s funeral.

In the end, he did what many pastors in local dioceses do in such circumstances: He gave Communion. What made it different was that the world was watching, and wondering. Immediately people began asking: Had Brother Roger converted to Catholicism? Or had Cardinal Ratzinger changed his mind about shared Communion?

So, then, Cardinal Ratizinger was not aware of any “special circumstances” that would allow Br Roger, a minister of the Swiss Reformed Church, to recieve the Eucharist and did not wish to “quiz” him at the time.

It goes on to say,

The answer in both cases was no, according to Vatican officials interviewed over the summer.

Because the questions about Brother Roger’s taking Communion would not go away, the Vatican made available in July an informal, unsigned statement of explanation.

The bottom line appeared to be: It was all an unfortunate mistake. Brother Roger, it seems, had been moved to a closer vantage point at the start of the Mass and had unwittingly ended up in the section reserved for those receiving Communion from the chief celebrant, Cardinal Ratzinger.

When he was wheeled forward, “it did not seem possible to refuse him the most Blessed Sacrament,” the Vatican said.

So with the first sentence and then add that the unsigned statement from the Vatican (a reason why you won’t find an offical statement) that him being in the line was an “unfortunate mistake” means that his being in line for the Eucharist was an error.

I will add, in comment to another reply of yours, when a bishop dies there are those who cover the job of bishop yet they are not the bishop of the diocese and can not do everything the bishop does. Like the ordaintion of priests and deacons, no priest or deacon can be ordained in a diocese when the bishops office is vacant.

I would add, that when the Pope dies, even though the Chancilor may do some of his functions, he is still not the pope nor the bishop of Rome. Neither are any coadjutor or auxiliary bishop as to be the bishop of Rome is to be the Pope.

 

[trth_skr]

ByzCath:

…But with this we can see. ““a particular case” from which one should not deduce any conclusion on the position from the catholic Church in connection with intercommunoiin,”

So with that being said, we can not say that he should have recieved the Eucharist as we can not deduce any conclusion on the position.

I would add that it very clearly states that Br Roger and his community are of protestant origin.

Also, since it was the Pope who gave the communion (at least in this case), and supposedly he is a friend of the Pope’s, many things could have transpired between the two of them. There is still the “scandal” issue, but I think we should give the Pope the benefit of our personal doubt in a specific and undefined case like this.

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

trth_skr:

Also, since it was the Pope who gave the communion (at least in this case), and supposedly he is a friend of the Pope’s, many things could have transpired between the two of them. There is still the “scandal” issue, but I think we should give the Pope the benefit of our personal doubt in a specific and undefined case like this.

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

Well to be correct, he was not the pope at the time the communion was given, but I think you have the spirit right here.

As for the scandal, I think that was dealt with by the Vatican with the issue of the unsiged statement to the press.

It stated that nothing has changed in what the Church Teaches. That is good enough for me.