|
Forums26
Topics35,516
Posts417,601
Members6,169
| |
Most Online4,112
Mar 25th, 2025
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 478
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 478 |
JBenedict, Francis, can you point out to me where it is defined that one must make a profession of faith to be a member of the Church and receive Communion? With all due respect, I find this question a bit baffling. How else does one become a member of the Church other than professing the faith? This has always been the practice of the Church Do we need it defined explicitly to realize this? But it is defined in Canon Law: Canon 205: Those baptized are fully in communion with the Catholic Church on this earth who are joined with Christ in its visible structure by the bonds of profession of faith, of the sacraments and of ecclesiastical governance. Thus Brother Roger fails to meet the test of being "fully in communion with the Catholic Church". He did not make a profession of faith, and furthermore, he was not under ecclesiastical governance. It does come down to a very broad interpretation of Canon 844 (which is the canon referenced in the Catechism quoted earlier): Canon 844: If the danger of death is present or if, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops, some other grave necessity urges it, Catholic ministers administer these same sacraments licitly also to other Christians not having full communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who seek such on their own accord, provided that they manifest Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments and are properly disposed.
(emphasis added) Clearly, for some reason Pope John Paul II, Cardinal Ratzinger, and Cardinal Kasper thought that some "grave necessity" existed in the case of Brother Roger, but I honestly cannot see how that can be justified in his case. Especially considering the canon explicitly limits this to situations in which a non-Catholic cannot approach a minister of his own communion. Considering he was a minister himself, this situation is impossible.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,045
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,045 |
My problem with Calvinism is that some of its 5 point Calvinist followers seem to take it to the point where free will is undermined. That even the damned are damned because they were not chosen. That some people are predestined for hell and the cross only offers limited atonement, that is, only enough for those who God knew would believe. I am no expert, so it is possible I am missing something, but I do know that the more you look at salvation as God choosing some and not choosing others the most strict Calvinist has to affirm that by not choosing some that God is somehow choosing some for destruction. Whereas I truly believe regardless of whether all will be saved that God wants all men to be saved and does give each individual opportunity.
By emphasizing works sometimes I think the Church has done an injustice because a lot of people will leave the church when they "hear the gospel for the first time." This happened a lot at my earlier Baptist Church. Even thogh the mass/liturgy proclaims the gospel every day! But if you do not emphasize works there is danger toward complacency and from there potential falling away or lukewarmness. If you overemphasize the we fear God and forget that only grace and our cooperation with it (which is a fruit of grace anyway) will actually lead anyone toward salvation, so salvation is entirely by grace, just not without our participation in the matter. Sometimes in some places I think that the Catholic Church fails to make it clearly understood, but other times I think that we are wisely less concerned with getting people to memorize deep theological matters, and more interested in giving them the practical means of working out their salvation. Though both would be ideal so that they do not fall prey to those who preach a gospel that may at times be a bit incomplete or over simplified (say this prayer and you can know that you will be saved forever type of altar call gospel).
I will refrain from making any personal judgment on the matter at hand though. you are so n target about the works thing, I couldn't agree with you more. what s interesting to note when discussing "Five Point Calvinists" is that all to often in history, disciples of a teacher like to "improve" on the original teaching thus embellishing the original teaching, thus putting words in the mouth of the teacher, much to his astonishment, assuming that he can see this from his present vantage point in Eternity. unless you see what later disciples of Calvin purport in Calvin's "Institutes", then you can pretty much dispense with it. after all, when I mentioned precedents in my original post, I cannot help but think of Jesus dealing with embellishments to Torah from later sources. so, did Calvin really teach TULIP (The Five Points of Total Depravity, Unconditional Election,Limited Atonement, Irresistable Grace,Perseverance of the Saints)exactly as Calvin presented it or are they convenient restatements? Predestination has been carried to extremes tat are mind boggling. thought I do hold that Jesus taught that the Holy Spirit would bring certain people to Him and not others, and I do not presume to wonder why it is so. But again, I agree with your thought that the emphasis on works has driven Catholics away. after all, just how much is enough to merit Heaven? how can any one tell Jesus how much good works he has done, how many prayers, how much money given, and expect that Jesus would approve and say "okay, you're in"it is by His Precious Blood, and not our own efforts that makes Heaven possible (Ephesians 2:8,9), and only after that can one quote Ephesians 2:10, about good works. context, context, context. Much Love, Jonn
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,028
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,028 |
I posted the link to the Remnant quote and an extensive quote from it on Rorate Caeli. I got the following response in the combox: https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=19978542&postID=7898828975345044305Interview with Brother Alois Something that was without precedent Following an article published in “Le Monde” on 6 September 2006, Brother Alois replied to questions put by “La Croix”. La Croix: Did Brother Roger ever formally convert to Catholicism, as Yves Chiron, the historian, has just affirmed? Brother Alois: No. Brother Roger never “converted” formally to Catholicism. If he had, he would have said so; for he never hid anything about the path he was following. All through his books, often written in the form of a journal, he explained as he went along what he was discovering and what he was living. What exactly happened in 1972, in the chapel of the bishop’s house in Autun? - In 1972, the then Bishop of Autun, Mgr Armand Le Bourgeois, simply gave him communion for the first time, without requiring any other profession of faith from him besides the Creed recited during the Eucharist, and which is held in common by all Christians. Several witnesses were present, three of my brothers, a couple who are friends of ours; they can attest to this. Why at that precise moment? - That date was chosen because Brother Roger was preparing to receive the life commitment of the first Catholic brother of the community and it was unthinkable not to receive communion at the same Eucharistic table. Several months later, Mgr Le Bourgeois came to Taizé and, in the same way, gave communion to all the brothers of the community. Did Brother Roger himself testify explicitly to that development? - He understood very early in his life that in order to pass on the Gospel to young people a reconciliation of Christians was necessary. After John XXIII and the Second Vatican Council, he considered that the time for reconciliation had come. He often told how, during his last meeting with John XXIII, in 1963, he was eager to hear a spiritual testament from the pope and he asked him about the place of Taizé in the Church. John XXIII replied, making circular gestures with his hands, “The Catholic Church is made of concentric circles that are always bigger and bigger.” The pope did not specify in which circle he saw Taizé but Brother Roger understood that the pope wanted to say to him: you are already within, continue simply on this path. And that is what he did. You were close to him for many years; he even designated you as his successor, what was really at issue for Brother Roger in this way that he followed? - The way that he followed led him more and more to discover and bring to light the fullness of the tradition of the Church. He was not interested in an individual solution for reconciliation but, through many tentative steps, he sought which way could be accessible for others. Of Protestant origin, he accomplished something that was without precedent since the Reformation. In 1980, during a European young adult meeting in Rome, he expressed this publicly in the following terms in Saint Peter’s Basilica, in presence of Pope John Paul II, “I have found my own identity as a Christian by reconciling within myself the faith of my origins with the mystery of the Catholic faith, without breaking fellowship with anyone.” Receiving an Orthodox delegation one day, John Paul II later spoke of a communion that is “neither absorption, nor fusion, but a meeting in truth and in love”. Why was there so much discretion around something he wanted to be a testimony? - Since his approach was progressive and completely new, it was difficult to express and to understand. It was easy to misinterpret it. Thus, to speak in terms of “conversion” is not to understand the originality of what Brother Roger was seeking. The word “conversion” is weighed down with history; “conversion” implies a break with your origins. Brother Roger accepted that for some an individual conversion might be a way, but for himself and for our community he preferred to speak of communion. For him, entering progressively into a full communion with the Catholic Church was given concrete expression in two points he never kept secret: receiving the Eucharist and recognizing the necessity of a ministry of unity exercised by the Bishop of Rome. Even at the price of still being misunderstood? - Brother Roger’s aims have not been understood by everyone, but they have been welcomed by many; by Pope John Paul II, by Catholic bishops and theologians who have come to celebrate the Eucharist at Taizé, and also by leaders of Protestant and Orthodox Churches with whom Brother Roger patiently built up trust in the course of many years. Interview by Jean-Marie GUENOIS http://www.taize.fr/en_article6739.html
Last edited by asianpilgrim; 08/29/08 01:53 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 200
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 200 |
you are so n target about the works thing, I couldn't agree with you more....
But again, I agree with your thought that the emphasis on works has driven Catholics away. after all, just how much is enough to merit Heaven? how can any one tell Jesus how much good works he has done, how many prayers, how much money given, and expect that Jesus would approve and say "okay, you're in"it is by His Precious Blood, and not our own efforts that makes Heaven possible (Ephesians 2:8,9), and only after that can one quote Ephesians 2:10, about good works. context, context, context.
Much Love,
Jonn [/quote]
I am glad we are in agreement. Though I will state for the record I have no problem with what the actual theology of salvation is in reality as I read it in various sources. I do not think that Catholicism has it wrong. I love their view as it is all based on grace and participation. Or synergy you might say. But I think that the problem comes in with explaining it on the local level. I hope that maybe the existence of these evangelical groups can help us to sharpen and clarify our teaching and help people to understand to prevent more from leaving the faith or bring more back once they realize that what they left the Church for is not exactly or entirely the opposite of what we actually believe. But not to the point of relaxing one's effort toward holiness, but maybe to ease off the fear or sense that salvation is something I have to earn for myself apart from grace or fear that they have never done enough. I would never have become Catholic if I believed salvation was not a gift, but something that we had to be good enough for. The key for me was in realizing that Paul's statements about salvation not being from works was in realizing that he was largely referring to the futility of seeking salvation by merely keeping the Jewish law, or that it was works we did to make God obliged to reward us. As if through good works done apart from God's grace we could become a good enough person to atone for sin and earn heaven. Or that it is a points system of needing enough credit to get in.
The tricky thing is balancing that we can not earn salvation with the fact that we will be judged and taken to account and that moved by grace our works are necessary because they are evidence that we really have and live by faith, which moved and informed by grace saves. Anyway, I am not a theologian so I should stop, but my point is that the issue seems to rest on balance and context and synergy. Sometimes people focus to much on one pint or the other. But some of it is going to be mysterious till we die, so we should neither despair nor presume but trust and approach God not as a slave or a hireling but a son zealous for His glory.
So my problem has been maybe more in the application or teaching at some of the local levels, not with the theology itself which I think is accurate.
My experience with the apostolic faiths is that mere initial conversion or being saved really is not the goal anyway. Just the start, but definitely a gift as it is given in Baptism. So I think some of the works emphasis rightly belongs not in the category of earning salvation so much as avoiding lukewarmeness and of course seeking Theosis. Why be satisfied with little? We should ant to plunge as deeply into the love of God as possible, and not for any specific reward like heaven, but for the sake of God Himself. This is why we labor and train in a way to win the prize. For their is so much at stake beyond merely not being damned including taking part is the work of helping others know the joy of Christ and His church. There is deeper union to pursue. Who would want to get married and then just be satisfied with looking at the marriage license? Of course, a married person should want to develop and grow ever closer to their spouse.
So, part of why Catholicism may confuse people on these matters is that it's goal can be loftier, and there is some awareness that we can fall away. All these things are good if, as you say, taken in context with the message of the incarnation, cross and resurrection and the grace of God giving us what we can not earn and the strength to persevere if we only ask and seek.
"Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof..."
"May the partaking of your holy mysteries, O Lord, be not for my judgment or condemnation but for the healing of soul and body."
"O Lord, I also believe and profess that this, which I am about to receive, is truly your most precious body and your life-giving blood, which, I pray, make me worthy to receive for the remission of all my sins and for life everlasting. Amen.
O God, be merciful to me, a sinner.
O God, cleanse me of my sins and have mercy on me.
O Lord, forgive me for I have sinned without number."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 79
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 79 |
.... how can any one tell Jesus how much good works he has done, how many prayers, how much money given, and expect that Jesus would approve and say "okay, you're in"it is by His Precious Blood, and not our own efforts that makes Heaven possible (Ephesians 2:8,9), and only after that can one quote Ephesians 2:10, about good works. One remembers the parable of the talents, and how the Master was pleased with all but the one who buried the talent. Much like parents who raise their children and then look with hope/expectation to see what positive outcomes might emerge from each, despite the challenges and problems faced. Or like the father of the prodigal and good son - pleased with both though the two had their own insecurities - one "following the rules" and the other seeking forgiveness after failures. Both had unique failures but heard their father's profession of love for them. Didn't the good son have the perspective of "if I follow the rules I deserve more." But the father of the two did not reject either. Similar to the owner of the garden who paid those starting work at 4pm the same as those laboring all day. Who are we to limit the Lord's generosity.... My hope and prayer is that Catholic and Calvinist receive the Lord's love and blessing - and accept it. One thinks the Lord will find a way to each heart trying to honestly seek him - despite personal upbringing, psychology, and culture. Ecumenism is said to have begun in mission lands where Catholics and Calvinists were thrown into interaction, living as neighbors from their same western cultures in distant non-western lands. Stereotypes each had of the other slowly started to erode. One could no longer glibly dismiss the other as "a wicked heretic." Small miracles can lead to larger miracles - the Holy Spirit is working to bring unity in the Church. One might trust the hierarchy as with Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew or Holy Fathers John Paul II or Benedict as they "push the envelope" in their mission to the Christian Community and the world. Peace, Pustinik ---------------- "Acquire a peaceful spirit, and thousands around you will be saved." –St. Serafim of Sarov
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,131
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,131 |
Thus Brother Roger fails to meet the test of being "fully in communion with the Catholic Church". He did not make a profession of faith, and furthermore, he was not under ecclesiastical governance. I am sorry Francis, but I am left wondering how many times it must be asserted - Br. Roger DID make a profession of faith, he ceased to preside or attend Protestant communion services and was for the last thirty years of his life a daily communicant as a Catholic. Again: ... This "passage", this conversion, took place in 1972, in the chapel of the Bishop of Autun, the diocese where Taizé is located. There was a profession of the Catholic Faith then Communion was given by Mgr. Le Bourgeois. [emphasis mine]
No written certificate remains, it seems, of that event, but Brother Roger has given oral testimony of it and of his adherence to the Catholic Faith to the successor of Mgr. Le Bourgeois, Mgr Séguy.
Later on, Catholic practices like Eucharistic adoration and the Sacrament of Confession were established in the Taizé Community. Roger Schutz, having become Catholic, evidently no longer celebrated the Protestant service at Taizé or anywhere else and, since he did not become a priest, he received holy Communion only from a Catholic priest. "For that which concerns the ministry of the Pope, he declared and wrote that the unity of Christians centers on the pastor of the Church of Christ, who is the Bishop of Rome." 3
Roger Schutz liked to say: "I have found my proper Christian identity in reconciling in myself the faith of my past with the mystery of the Catholic Faith, without rupturing communion with anyone." (from an allocution of Pope John Paul in 1980 at the time of his Meeting with European Youth in Rome). The expression, repeated again in his last book (God Can Only Love), could be judged to be very unsatisfactory because it says nothing of the retractions necessary for a conversion. But Roger Schutz was not a theologian.
It is true that this secrecy of his conversion has not the limpidity and the solemnity of an abjuration. But who dares to doubt his sincerity? Cardinal Ratzinger, in giving him Communion in April 2005, certainly acted with full knowledge of the facts. And it is bad form to accuse him still today of "having given communion to a Protestant." Again, he DID make a profession of faith. He IS Catholic.
Last edited by A Simple Sinner; 08/29/08 09:23 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,678 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,678 Likes: 1 |
Doesn't one need to be confirmed upon his conversion to Catholicism?
It's funny that I had to go through all that RCIA business and the bothersome procedure of the Sacrament of Confirmation! You're telling me all I had to do was make a "profession of Faith," which was apparently the Nicene Creed I'd said as a Methodist anyway, and I could be considered fully Catholic and could take Communion? Cool!
Guess that stuff about needing in a state free of mortal sin goes out the window, too, since apparently Brother Roger could take Communion without ever having confessed (at least the first time).
Again, I ask: does no one else see such a complete disregard for the multi-millennial practice of the Church and past and PRESENT Canon Law to be a gross display of arrogance and presumptuousness? I definitely do.
Alexis
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,690 Likes: 8
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,690 Likes: 8 |
RCIA is a relatively new teaching method, it is recommended but not required for reception into Catholicism. The Nicene Creed which a Methodist professes uses the same words as the one a Catholic professes, except the Catholic should understand the complete (catholic) definition of the words he is professing - not coughing at the mention of "Catholic and Apostolic" or "baptism for the forgiveness of sins".
I'm fairly certain that the monastic community took part in Confession, and it has already been stated that Mass was only celebrated by Catholic priests.
I understand the difference here between the norm of reception of protestants (i.e. baptism, then Confirmation), and the extraordinary form that possibly took place here (of course we don't know for certain whether the bishop Confirmed Br. Roger or not), but this method of reception is no reason to be upset. After all, canonically the competent authority is the Bishop and it is the Bishop of the Diocese who received Br. Roger in this instance.
It seems to me that since the full story of how Br. Roger was received is not known to any of us, we have no choice but to give him the benefit of the doubt. From all of the actions he took at the community, it seems he had accepted sacramental Catholic Communion and never returned to protestant communion..
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 478
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 478 |
I am sorry Francis, but I am left wondering how many times it must be asserted - Br. Roger DID make a profession of faith, he ceased to preside or attend Protestant communion services and was for the last thirty years of his life a daily communicant as a Catholic. But it appears that this is in doubt - some sources say so, but others dispute it. I am left wondering: if it is so clear cut as you seem to indicate, why did Cardinal Kasper not simply state this as you did? His statements leaves one believing that Br. Roger did not simply enter the Catholic communion as every one else does, but instead stayed a Protestant in some form. Obviously, I hope that Br. Roger simply joined the Catholic communion years ago and there was not any abnormality in his situation. But I am more concerned with the confusion caused by Cardinal Kasper's statements. If Br. Roger was Catholic, simply state so. If not, then please explain more clearly how JPII and Ratzinger's actions do not contradict clear Catholic practice and teaching in this regard.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,125 Likes: 1
Za myr z'wysot ... Member
|
|
Za myr z'wysot ... Member
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,125 Likes: 1 |
... if it is so clear cut as you seem to indicate, why did Cardinal Kasper not simply state this as you did? His statements leaves one believing that Br. Roger did not simply enter the Catholic communion as every one else does, but instead stayed a Protestant in some form. Francis, It is clear from Br. Roger's own statements that he embraced Catholicism without repudiating Protestantism, and that his intention in doing so was "... reconciling within myself the faith of my origins with the Mystery of the Catholic faith, without breaking fellowship with anyone." So, in this respect he did indeed "stay a Protestant in some form," emphasizing that these are not antithetical positions, but can be reconciled. The real issue, of course, is--can they? Those who reject the validity of Br. Roger's conversion point out that it was incomplete because it was not accompanied by a rejection of former errors. His whole point, however, was to bear witness to the fact that such a reconciliation was possible, and that by accepting this fact we open the door for further reconciliation. Can we not, for example, say that in embracing Christ fully, we necessarily embrace by implication all others who embrace Him? While we can try to get out of this by saying that they don't really embrace Him, but a caricature of Him that is really the devil, we have to be aware that this is not only a very harsh accusation, but a judgment that is at odds with a number of known facts. For my part, I will abide with the judgment of four popes regarding Br. Roger and the work he has done--a judgment that is fully in the spirit of the Gospel as I understand it. Peace, Deacon Richard
|
|
|
|
|
