tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21487528.post8189947125716768084..comments2023-08-19T23:23:19.849+10:00Comments on Sentire cum Ecclesia: St Roger of Taize?Schützhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05026181010471282505noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21487528.post-3232771841951685402010-08-14T03:39:59.000+10:002010-08-14T03:39:59.000+10:00I assume, accepting your theory for the moment, th...I assume, accepting your theory for the moment, that his conversion/entry into full communion was kept private to avoid scandal - however, and this is a big however, is not there something wrong about treating one's reception into the visible communion of the Church as a potential scandal or stumbling block?<br><br>I think the Cause for his canonization might well come undone when confronted by the scandal of his being in full communion being kept quiet for fear of scandal.<br><br>BTW, what are the terms for true scandal and false scandal, if you know what I'm trying to say!?<br><br>Would not fear of scandal in the bad sense be rather fear of what the scoffing world might say - as in the way that the positive value of virginity is not exactly bruited about (or would that be rather casting pearls before swine?)?Joshuahttp://psallitesapienter.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21487528.post-61258892995454069822010-08-14T13:00:40.000+10:002010-08-14T13:00:40.000+10:00If that is how Br. Roger saw the matter, and if su...<em>If that is how Br. Roger saw the matter, and if successive popes apparently agreed with him, who are we to be quibbling about canonical processes? </em><br><br>That's basically what I am saying, Perry. And I think the fruit of his life demonstrates that he, essentially, manifested the Catholic Faith and was properly disposed toward the sacrament. I don't think his Catholic faith was kept hidden, it simply wasn't trumpeted. Again, I don't think that was because he wanted to "avoid scandal" so much as he wanted to be - as St Paul - "all things to all men". You can argue with that, but obviously a number of popes - including our present one - didn't. I reckon the bloke was a saint. (Mind you, I reckon Deitrich Bonhoeffer was a saint too, but just put that down to my latent Lutheranism...)Schützhttp://www.scecclesia.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21487528.post-80548792932754218052010-08-16T22:21:10.000+10:002010-08-16T22:21:10.000+10:00'Latent Lutheranism'? Your tongue my be f...'Latent Lutheranism'? Your tongue my be firmly in your cheek with that confession David. However, with a picture of archheretic Martin Luther on your wall (next to Our Lady!) I wonder whether you have reached the Tiber yet, or are you still paddling in the Rhein?<br><br>The Br Roger episode was more of a scandal than something that should be 'celebrated' and held up as an example with moves for a canonisation. I am sure it was uncomfortable for +Newman (also on yor wall) to publicly convert, but we received no such Apologia Pro Vita Sunt from Br Roger did we?Marcelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21487528.post-8646087131157418012010-08-17T05:22:38.000+10:002010-08-17T05:22:38.000+10:00I admit I am confused by the case of Br. Roger. B...I admit I am confused by the case of Br. Roger. Br Alois, in the aftermath of Br Roger's death said: "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.”<br><br>I thought the only 'evidence' for his conversion was the reception of Holy Communin at the funeral Mass for John Paul II. Is it not still an open question? I would be extremely happy to be corrected.Marcelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21487528.post-13035870685391501362010-08-19T03:06:24.000+10:002010-08-19T03:06:24.000+10:00Thank you Peregrinus for that succinct summary of ...Thank you Peregrinus for that succinct summary of events.<br><br>If everything you say in that post is correct then I cannot see how Br. Roger could be considered a Catholic. So a canonisation is completely out of the question. His improvident death outside the Church was a great misfortune.Marcelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21487528.post-43501364747078813682010-08-19T05:13:39.000+10:002010-08-19T05:13:39.000+10:00"The name of the particular brother I am thin...<i>"The name of the particular brother I am thinking of is on the tip of my tongue, but I can’t quite remember it. He wrote a good little book on the Sacrament of Reconciliation. Can someone help jog my membory?"</i><br><br>Max Thurian. He not only became a Catholic without "converting", in the same way as Br. Roger, but was ordained a (Catholic) priest in 1987, and was appointed by JPII to the International Theological Commission in 1994.Peregrinusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21487528.post-36812833240819376272010-08-19T12:39:10.000+10:002010-08-19T12:39:10.000+10:00That's the man! And i seem to remember he expl...That's the man! And i seem to remember he explained his conversion to the Catholic Church (which was formal and public) in exactly the same terms that Br Roger used to explain his relationship with the Catholic Church, which again gives me reason to think that Br Roger believed that he had done the same thing.Schützhttp://www.scecclesia.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21487528.post-32059003670704893792010-08-20T04:29:25.000+10:002010-08-20T04:29:25.000+10:00Well, this gets more and more interesting. We can ...Well, this gets more and more interesting. We can assume that because Max Thurian was ordained that he must have been officially received into the Church beforehand (via confirmation although we have no knowledge of when or by whose hands that happened), since, as we all know, one cannot be ordained a Catholic priest without being a baptised and confirmed Catholic. Br Roger was not ordained, but he was on more than one occasion given communion by the Holy Father, and usually this is only done for those who are baptised and confirmed Catholics. A reasonable assumption in the former case would therefore also be a reasonable assumption in the latter, wouldn't it? IF the Church were to go ahead and allow a cause for his sainthood to be opened up, that would put the matter to rest as surely as Max Thurian's ordination did.Schützhttp://www.scecclesia.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21487528.post-2619805283390884302010-08-20T05:48:33.000+10:002010-08-20T05:48:33.000+10:00On the other hand, it might be seen as asserting p...On the other hand, it might be seen as asserting precisely the kind of "claim" that Br. Roger would have been so averse to. <br><br>(Plus, confirmation is a canonical necessity for ordination, but not for taking the Eucharist. So the basis for assuming confirmation in Br. Roger's case is not quite so strong. Plus, reports of the "reception" of Br Roger by the Bishop of Autun affirm that he was <i>not</i> confirmed on that occasion, which I think suggests a positive decision not to be confirmed. That, of course, might have been reconsidered at a later date, but have we any reason to suppose that it was?)Peregrinusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21487528.post-14257416842638483202010-08-20T21:18:14.000+10:002010-08-20T21:18:14.000+10:00This raises an important issue much on the minds o...This raises an important issue much on the minds of Anglicans considering taking up the offer made in <i>Anglicanorum cœtibus</i>: many of these Anglo-Catholic layfolk have always held a high doctrine of confirmation, and honestly find having to be confirmed "again", as they see it, as part of the rite of reception into full communion, to be a real scandal and stumbling-block.<br><br>I know of two cases (and there must be many more) of Anglicans who have been received into the Church, but who have deliberately managed to avoid being confirmed in the process, precisely because they believe they were confirmed by an Anglican bishop and that that suffices.<br><br>Now, I know little of Calvinistic practice, but would Br Roger have been "confirmed" in some Reformed ceremony when he was a youngster?Joshuahttp://psallitesapienter.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.com