The Poison of Taizé Continues Apace…

Image (Vatican Radio) Starting on Saturday, about 25,000 young adults from across Europe will gather for three days in Strasbourg, Austria, for the ecumenical Taizé community’s 36th annual European meeting.

The three days of prayer, fellowship, seminars and reflection will be led by the prior of the Taizé community, Br Aloїs.

The meeting was organized upon the request of the Catholic dioceses and Protestant churches on both sides of the Rhine River.

In an interview, Br Aloїs told Vatican Radio that one important aspect of the meeting is hospitality. Participants will be hosted in homes and local church communities in view creating more understanding among people from different countries and Christian denominations.

This year’s theme, he said, is to look for visible communion among all those who love Christ.

All of the European meetings are “like stations on our pilgrimage of trust on the Earth,” he said.

“Today, faith is not just anything young people receive as a tradition that they continue in a natural way, but they question faith. They want to have a personal conviction,” he said.

“And it is very important as Christians that we do not remain separate in our different confessions,” he added, “but that we try to do all together that we can do together.”

The other objective of the meeting is to face very concretely all of the questions that young people have, he said. “There is unemployment. It is more difficult to make plans for the future. So how can faith help to go through these times that are more difficult now?”

Listen to the full interview with Br Aloїs:

Text from page http://en.radiovaticana.va/articolo.asp?c=759067 of the Vatican Radio website. Tell us your thoughts on the likely effects of the ecumenical  Taizé mish-mash  on young Catholics today, who are notoriously ignorant of the most basic tenets of the Catholic religion.  

Or maybe you think there should be a Taizé group in every parish and Catholic school?

45 responses

    • Fintan1944,

      The reference to “Strasbourg, Austria” is from the text on the Vatican Radio website. You need to contact them to correct their geography; we are merely quoting them. The only words attributable to Catholic Truth in the article, are the following, at the end of the piece…

      Tell us your thoughts on the likely effects of the ecumenical Taizé mish-mash on young Catholics today, who are notoriously ignorant of the most basic tenets of the Catholic religion.

      Or maybe you think there should be a Taizé group in every parish and Catholic school?

      See? No mention of Strasbourg. So, do contact Vatican Radio to put them right – only first, tell us your thoughts about the much more important issue of Catholic bishops encouraging ignorant young Catholics to participate in ecumenical nonsense such as that peddled at Taizé. After all, getting a geographical location wrong won’t keep anyone out of Heaven (not even the staff at Vatican Radio!) Loss of Catholic Faith? Now, that’s on a whole different level of “getting it wrong” altogether…

      • Lily and Petrus,

        The real question is, not whether they mean Strasbourg France or Austria, but do they mean to strengthen the Faith of the Catholic youngsters who are being encouraged to participate in the ecumenical experience of Taizé?

        • Editor

          Of course they don’t want to strengthen the Catholic Faith of youngsters. It’s an attempt to create a new religion. Doesn’t it say above that they don’t want youngsters entrenched in their own denomination? Obviously I’m paraphrasing slightly, but this is what they mean. This should set alarm bells ringing for any right thinking Catholic.

          Although I must admit to a guilty secret…..I like the Taize music!

  1. I had a memory of a clear statement in the Vatican II document on ecumenism about the purpose being to bring the separated brethren (as they used to be called) back to the Church but was very concerned to find the following statements:

    3. Even in the beginnings of this one and only Church of God there arose certain rifts,(19) which the Apostle strongly condemned.(20) But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions made their appearance and quite large communities came to be separated from full communion with the Catholic Church – for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame. The children who are born into these Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation, and the Catholic Church embraces upon them as brothers, with respect and affection. For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect. The differences that exist in varying degrees between them and the Catholic Church – whether in doctrine and sometimes in discipline, or concerning the structure of the Church – do indeed create many obstacles, sometimes serious ones, to full ecclesiastical communion. The ecumenical movement is striving to overcome these obstacles. But even in spite of them it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ’s body,(21) and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.(22)

    Moreover, some and even very many of the significant elements and endowments which together go to build up and give life to the Church itself, can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church: the written word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, and visible elements too. All of these, which come from Christ and lead back to Christ, belong by right to the one Church of Christ.

    The brethren divided from us also use many liturgical actions of the Christian religion. These most certainly can truly engender a life of grace in ways that vary according to the condition of each Church or Community. These liturgical actions must be regarded as capable of giving access to the community of salvation.

    It follows that the separated Churches(23) and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church.
    http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html

    Maybe the one I was thinking of is in there somewhere further on, but that doesn’t change the fact that the above is very worrying indeed. It seems clearly to be saying that the Protestant churches can bring salvation. Or am I misunderstanding?

    • This modern notion of “full communion, imperfect communion, limited communion, a wee bit of communion” etc is crazy. Either you are in Communion or not.

      The way the modern notion works is this:

      If you are a Protestant or Orthodox, you are in Communion, but this is imperfect. If you are a Jew or Muslim, belief in the one God means there’s a certain sense of Communion. However, if you are a Hindu, Buddhist, pagan, witch, Moonie etc then your good will and belief in humanity binds you close to the Catholic Church.

      If, however, you are the SSPX then you are schismatic and heretical. There is no Communion and you are outside the Church.

      The brave New World of Holy Father Francis and Monsignor Basil Loftus!

      • Petrus,

        I have had, as Editor will graciously verify, a great deal of trouble regarding who is in Communion and who isn’t with my Parish Priest in the RCIA program. My Priest bleats on about Anglicans, Presbyteeeeerians etc being Christians due to the valid Baptism (which many of you said we can never be sure of) but not proper Churches due to invalid Sacraments, and that Muslims/ Jews believe in the same ‘god’ as us and vice versa (despite the fact that they both reject the Deity of Christ, the Trinitarian God, Incarnation, Crucifixion, Resurrection) and as you say about Hindus etc- they have good beliefs and we must ‘respect’ them.

        I personally get sick to the back teeth of this modern and liberal wishy washy claptrap, and it confuses people and leads them to think we are all equal. I remember talking to a non-Catholic woman who told me, all religions are a path to God (cliche). To which I said every infallible Catholic document says we are only saved within Christ and His Church- and she had the nerve to say ‘God gave us choice to believe what we want’. Obviously he did, but his do you break the 10 Commandments on a daily basis? What a dweeb!!!

        As Gabriel Syme said on another thread- ‘if you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, blind them with BS’*

        *BS- an abbreviation for male bovine excrement.

        • Catholic Convert,

          It is a common misconception that “God gave us the choice to believe what we want.” He did nothing of the sort.

          God gave us the freedom to choose the right and the true path and to reject evil, because He wanted us to freely choose salvation and not be good because “forced” to be, like puppets. It’s not a “choice” in the popular sense. It’s a duty. Only one “religious leader” claimed to be God and to be “the Way, the Truth and the Life”… There’s not a lot of choice in that crystal clear statement – is there?

        • I do not believe in the “god” of the Koran. I explicitly reject that “god”, whatever “god” that is.

  2. If I am not misunderstanding then there is a real danger of Taizé encouraging young Catholics to think it doesn’t matter which church they belong to.

    • Not only Taizé Nicky. The Vatican II document Lumen Gentium requires all Catholics to accept that the Catholic Church subsists within the Church of Christ, which seems to support indifferentism and the belief that it doesn’t matter which Church one belongs to.

      Note that this is not an infallible document, and yet the Catholic Church of today requires all Catholics to accept it.

      • ‘The Vatican II document Lumen Gentium requires all Catholics to accept that the Catholic Church subsists within the Church of Christ’. What exactly is wrong with this statement from Lumen Gentium. ‘Subsistit in’ means ‘subsists in’ and ‘subsistit est’ means ‘subsists in and is’. What’s the difference between the two. My PP says this is just semantics, and on this rare occasion, I am inclined to agree, until one of you good people corrects me, and you surely will.

          • But how does it give that impression? It clearly says ‘subsists in’. I can’t see the difference between the two.

            • The difference, is, Catholic Convert, that to claim that the Church of Christ IS the Catholic Church is different from “the Catholic Church is found within the Church of Christ” – leaving room for heretics to claim, as they do, that the Catholic Church is only one part or branch of “the Church of Christ.” That there are other parts or branches…

              Christ established only ONE Church and that Church of Christ IS the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is not “within” the Church of Christ – it IS the Church of Christ.

              • I will submit myself to the superior knowledge of your good self and Petrus, as you are much better versed in all of this, but personally I can’t see much ambiguity in all this. To me, it seems like nitpicking to look for for things that aren’t there.

                • Catholic Convert,

                  It’s not nit-picking. If I point to a stranger and say “your mother is like this woman” you can shrug and go on your way. But if I say, “this woman IS your mother” – wow! Your entire life turns around.

                  Not semantics, not nit-picking. Chalk and cheese.

                  • Subsistit in= subsists in
                    Subsistit est- subsists in and is

                    I don’t see any ambiguity, but I will say that the latter is more explicit.

                    You yourself have said that other religions contain some truth, but only if it has a mirror in Catholicism. Examples include the Pillars of Islam, which contain almsgiving, prayer and pilgrimage amongst others.

                    • CC,

                      There’s no need for the word “subsists”. The Catholic Church is the only Church of Christ.

                      Think of the example you used. Can we say, therefore, that the Church of Christ subsists in Islam? Of course not!

      • Leprechaun

        Whilst I agree with what you say, the real problem with Lumen Gentium is the ambiguity, which is much more dangerous. For example: “Lumen gentium, 14: “They could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it, or to remain in it.”

        Now this a beautiful Catholic doctrine, but as you rightly point out, in other places it suggests other things. So, therein lies the real issue with Lumen Gentium.

        This ties in perfectly with what St Pius X said about tactics of Modernists. They express beautiful doctrine on one page, only to undermine it on the next.

  3. Poor old Brother Roger came to grief……

    as Artie Shaw said of Glenn Miller…….he should have lived…..his music should have died…..!!

    Poor old protestant / alleged catholic Brother Roger…..should have died in his sleep….his ghastly fake monastery …..should have been put to the sword….!!

  4. Did ‘brother’ Roger not receive Communion from Cardinal Ratzinger, the so called defender of the Faith? Interestingly, it wasn’t until 1969 that the first Catholic brother joined, when the rot had fully set in the Church.

    Roger was the most dangerous man ever to inflict himself upon the Church, or at least one of them. I almost forgot about Bugnini. Ecumenism is abhorrent and is a serious wound in the Church.

    • catholicConvert,

      I see by your link that there was a question that Brother Roger Schutz had converted to Catholicism. See this link below and see if it confirms/or not whether there was any truth in that matter.

      http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/archive-2006-0831-shutz-conversion.htm

      Michael Matt printed an article written by Yves Chiron who seems to say that Brother Roger did. If it really were the case the Brother Roger of Taize fame ever did. Why was there such silence about the matter.

      John Vennari had written in Catholic Family News way back in October 2006 about this matter, and he disagreed. I am sure he contacted a Brother Alois who took over Taize following the death of Brother Roger, who in fact denied that he had ever converted to Catholicism and remained confirmed in his Lutheran beliefs.

      1. If Brother Roger did indeed convert to Catholicism. Why was there such a silence about it.
      2. If John Vennari is correct in collecting details that denied that there was a conversion to Catholicism, it being said no such conversion existed, it then begs the question, is this a good way of muddying the waters and confirming the view that one religion is just as a good as another?

      3. The thought that there is no such thing as “No salvation outside the Catholic Church”.

      See the link of John Vennari’s.

      http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/bO11ht_BrotherRogerProt_Vennari.htm

      • Brother Roger (and several other brothers) did in fact convert. They – eventually- got permission to be received inro the Church. They were instructed by Rome NOT to speak or write of this as they were ‘doing more good’ as they were (ie an interdenominational community). I know this as fact as I interviewed Br Roger. it took quite some time to wheedle the full facts out of fim and his fellow brothers as they were keen to be obedient to Rome (this was under JPII). Obviously, then- Cardinal Ratzinger was fully aware of all the facts. Thusvhe happily distributef Holy Communion to Roger at St Peter’s.

        • Theresa Rose & Delacruz,

          What a scandal! “Hushing up” a conversion in the believe that ecumenism is more important – and this from a Pope and the then Head of the CDF. I’m beginning to think that “diabolical disorientation” is the understatement of the millennium.

          • Unfortunately, dear Editor, I also learned at aboutvthe same time (late 80s) of an entire community of Lutheran ‘nuns’ in Germany who wanted to convert en masse. Rome also told them to stay where they were! (I don’t know if they made any further progress under Pope Ratzinger, who did, after all, ‘allow’ – even encourage – whole groups of Anglicans to come aboard.

              • Delacruz & Sixupman,

                Really, I / we shouldn’t be surprised. Such “conversion refusal” is the logical conclusion of the indifferentism generated by the entire ecumenical industry. It’s a wonder we’re not all being actively encouraged to join the Anglicans and Presbyterians! I suppose we should be thankful for small mercies 🙂

  5. Editor,

    I thought it a very strange affair. “Hushing up” a conversion in the belief that ecumenism is far more important.
    No wonder that the Third Secret of Fatima is being buried deep within the Vatican. Did not Our Lady say that apostasy begins at the top. Diabolical orientation is rife.

    Our Lady did say that the Consecration of Russia would be done, but carried out late. How many souls in the meantime will end up in hell?

  6. I’ve no idea if Brother Roger converted or not, but I’m surprised no one has commented on the most outrageous comment on this thread on this whole blog….

    Petrus likes taize music!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I’m sure there must be something in Pascendi warning about this matter!!!!!

    All joking aside as much as I agree with all the problems of the ecumenical aspect of the community I do also quite like some of their music.

    In fact in a school liturgy we sometimes use taize stuff, it’s not perfect but its an easy way to get some Latin into the liturgy. Those who decide on the music generally aren’t very pro Latin, but love Taize for some reason, but its better than nothing!!!!

    • Nolite Timere,

      I like your last comment a lot. It made me smile.

      Whilst I would never suggest introducing Taize music at Mass (Could you imagine the SSPX priests’ reactions if I suggested it?), I can understand your reasoning behind introducing Latin through Taize music.

      It’s actually been a long time since I listened to the music. The whole notion of Taize puts me off, even if I do like the tunes. Some of the modern hymns are quite likeable and fine for singing/listening to at home.

      Last week I had reason to go to a Novus Ordo Mass. It wasn’t the worst Mass experience of my life, but I left right after the final blessing. When my wife asked why I didn’t stay for the last hymn, I told her it was “I The Lord of sea and sky” and I had no interest in indulging in a bit of role play at Mass. However, I might wander around the house singing it.

      Anyway, I’m havering. I enjoyed your post, Nolite, and I’m glad I shocked you!

  7. About seven years ago, on France 2 channel, we were given propaganda for Taizé, so I responded as follows:
    LE JOUR DU SEIGNEUR (THE LORD’S DAY ON FRANCE 2 TV), Sunday, 8/20/2006:

    Paris, le 20 août 2006

    TAIZÉ, LA NOUVELLE IDOLE / TAIZÉ, THE NEW IDOL

    Dans cette communauté, « on surpasse tout en excellence », on baigne en plein illuminisme !
    Rien n’y est clair ni lumineux. Pas de « santo subito ! » à Taizé, car là-bas, on ne reconnaît pas les saints ni, par voie de conséquence, l’autorité de Rome en matière de canonisation.
    Voilà ce que proclament les propagandistes de Taizé à la télévision : « si tous les chemins mènent à Rome, toutes les routes mènent à Taizé », pourquoi pas les autoroutes pendant qu’ils y sont ? Pour qui se prennent-ils ? Ils ont érigé une « nouvelle Rome œcuménique et fraternelle ».
    Pour ma part, je trouve qu’en empruntant les « chemins » on se prête plus à l’observation et à la méditation que sur les « routes » et les « autoroutes ». Peut-être que les dirigeants de Taizé ne tiennent pas tellement à ce que les adeptes réfléchissent trop ni à ce qu’ils acquièrent des certitudes ? Ce qui pourrait nécessiter quelques explications…
    Par ailleurs, il paraît que Frère Roger pouvait se rendre « incognito » à Budapest pendant la période communiste, pendant que les chrétiens, les vrais, y étaient persécutés, peut-être même pendant que le Cardinal Mindszenty, Prince Primat de Hongrie, s’y trouvait reclus à l’Ambassade des USA… Curieuse révélation, n’est-ce pas ? « Incognito » à Budapest, Frère Roger ? Eh bien je n’y crois pas, car derrière le « rideau de fer », on ne pouvait pas passer « inaperçu » ; tous ceux qui ont connu cette époque le savent…
    Quant à la militante tout exaltée de ce mouvement qui fut interrogée par un des propagandistes, elle proclame que jadis elle s’ennuyait à l’église pendant la célébration de la Messe, traditionnelle il va sans dire, et qu’en revanche, dans la communauté de Taizé, elle a reçu la « lumière » et tout y est merveilleux et divertissant, sans préciser toutefois en quoi consiste cette « lumière », car , tout de même, dans ce lieu, les adeptes revendiquent, d’une façon tout à fait insolite, leur appartenance à la fois « au catholicisme et au protestantisme », comme si l’un et l’autre étaient compatibles. La communauté de Taizé, ce n’est qu’une nébuleuse sans consistance. La seule clarté qui s’y dégage, c’est que les adeptes ne brillent pas par leur modestie ; le reste demeure dans une totale opacité et nous savons que le démon fuit la Lumière et se dissimule efficacement dans les ténèbres et a l’art de « nous faire prendre des vessies pour des lanternes ».

    TRANSLATION:

    In this community, “it surpasses all in excellence”, one is plunged in full enlightenment!
    There is nothing clear nor bright. No “santo subito!” in Taizé, because there, one does not recognize saints nor, consequently, the authority of Rome in canonization.
    Here follows what the propagandists of Taizé proclaim on television: “if all pathways lead to Rome, all roads lead to Taizé”, why not highways while they are there? What do they think we are? They have erected a “new ecumenical and fraternal Rome”.
    For my part, I find that taking the “pathways” is longer suitable for the observation and meditation than on the “roads” and “highways”. Maybe the leaders of Taizé do not include this idea so that fans do not think too much nor do they acquire certainty? Which may require some explanation…
    Moreover, I heard that Brother Roger could go “incognito” in Budapest during the communist period, while Christians, the true ones, were persecuted, perhaps even when Cardinal Mindszenty, Prince Primate of Hungary, was there as a recluse to the U.S. Embassy… Strange revelation, is not it ? “Incognito” in Budapest, Brother Roger? Well I do not believe it, because behind the “iron curtain”, nobody could go “unnoticed” and all those who have experienced this time know…
    As for the exalted militant of the movement who was questioned by propagandists, she proclaims that once she was bored at church during the celebration of the Mass, traditional it goes without saying, and in contrast, in the Taizé community, she received the “light” and everything is wonderful and entertaining, however without specifying what is that “light”, because, after all, in this place, proponents claim, in a manner entirely quite strange, belonging to both “Catholicism and Protestantism”, as if both were compatible. The Taizé Community, it is a nebula without consistency. The only light which emerges, is that fans do not shine by their modesty, the rest remains in total darkness and we know that the devil shuns light and effectively hides in darkness and has the art of “making us take bladders for lanterns”.

    • Lionel (Paris),

      Bravo! That was a wonderful response. Taizé is the work of the Devil, there is no doubt about it but so is the whole ecumenical movement.

    • ERRATA ON TRANSLATION:
      please read
      1) “In this community, “one surpasses all in excellence”” instead of “In this community, “it surpasses all in excellence””
      2) “What do they think they are?” instead of “What do they think we are?”
      With my apologies LD

%d bloggers like this: