It seems as the Taize founder, Brother Roger, understood the meaning of Protestantism being separated brethren. There has been much commotion in the St. Blogs community about whether Brother Roger had converted to Catholicism. But in the statement from the Taize community, this is hopefully cleared up.
As for the bishop emeritus of Autun, Raymond Seguy, he has already qualified his words. Rejecting the term "conversion," he declared to France Presse: "I did not say that Brother Roger abjured Protestantism, but he showed that he subscribed fully to the Catholic faith."
From a Protestant background, Brother Roger undertook a step that was without precedent since the Reformation: entering progressively into a full communion with the faith of the Catholic Church without a "conversion" that would imply a break with his origins
It seems as though he saw his Protestant faith as a starting point, and realize that his search for the Truth lead him into the Catholic Church.
Whoever speaks of "conversion" in this respect has not grasped the originality of Brother Roger's search.
There was never anything hidden about this undertaking of Brother Roger's. In 1980, during a European meeting in Rome, he spoke these words publicly in St. Peter's Basilica, in the 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."
Hopefully this will lead to more honest dialogue between the separated brothers in Christ and our Church. Most Protestants of today could not be tried for heresy as some of the fervent Traditionalists would wish, but most are merely at a different starting place in the faith. Remember the verse, "to whom much has been given, much is expected." Thank God for my birth into the Catholic faith, but it does leave less room for error.
Out of charity, Brother Roger did not wish to scandalize the Taize unity with Protestants, but in Truth he recognized where the fullness of the Truth lay. And that is why he professed his full acceptance of the Creed.
2 comments:
I'd be interested if you could comment on the starting point of authority from a catholic perspective. I'm not particularly a catholic expert by a main divergance between the two groups seems to lay in that the catholics say authority rests in the church while protestants say their authority lay in the written word. Catholics, correct me if I'm wrong view this an an incorrect placement of authority since the Church created the word, the church has a position of authority over the word. Protestants would argue just the opposite, that the church was created an an effect of the word. Thus the two starting points are diametrically opposite. What are your thoughs on how protestants can reconcile this with the Catholic church. And how would the Catholic respond to what appears to be a consisten theme in all of Scripture tha the word seems to create (i.e. the giving of the law created Israel,Apostolic teaching birthed the early church, ect.)
Probably a good place to start would be here at Catholic Answers where they have much better answers than I do.
But from me, the Bible even points to the CHurch as the Foundation of Faith. 1 Timothy 3:15.
Christ didn't give us the Bible but founded a Church. They are not opposed, but draw from each other. The Church herself didn't write the Bible which was inspired by the Holy Spirit. But by the authority of the Holy Spirit guided Church, the Canon of scripture was established.
Apostolic teaching did form the early Church. But the Church had to instruct the faithful in what was actually Spirit inspired scripture and what was merely the writings of men.
Hope that helps. I will put a bit more thought into this and respond further.
Post a Comment