Ecumenical Excesses

[Benedicta00]

Dream,

What does the CCC say about communion and non Catholics?

 

[CaDan]

What does the funeral of Frere Roger say about communion and non Catholics?

 

[Benedicta00]

I don't know. I do not claim to have all the answers, nor do I pretend to. I submit myself to the Holy Father and the Catholic Church.

So do I but thinking that this may not be the best move a pope can make is not a sin for a catholic. It wasn’t a sin to think JP didn’t have to kiss the Koran, it isn’t a sin to think benedict didn’t have to allow a whole community of Protestants to commune at a catholic Mass said for a non catholic.

 

[Dream]

Dream,

What does the CCC say about communion and non Catholics?

Must you bait me into answering myself into a corner???

The Catholic Church says exceptions can be made with the Eucharist and non-Catholics. When the Pope makes an excpetion, I am in no place to question him. Period.

I have had enough of this whole debate and I need some sleep. This whole line of thinking only proves to me that the spectrum of liberal and conservatives does indeed wrap around and meet eachother in a center of deadweight extremism.

 

[Benedicta00]

What does the funeral of Frere Roger say about communion and non Catholics?

The is the problem Dan, how can the Church change positions? She can not- the pope has no authority to change what Christ taught that receiving un worthy is receiving in judgement of your sins.

The 50 million-dollar question is, just where is all of this “ecumenism” heading?

 

[plainswolf]

So when the Pope takes part in a discipline that appears to be contrary to tradition, it is Satan that is attacking him?

I am simply pointing out our obligation of praying much for him.. do you believe him immune from the attacks of satan?

I still don't understand this logic. Who are we following here? How can we accept the office of the Pope but reject the Pope himself when he speaks on discipline? Who are we to judge what he does in terms of distribution of the Holy Eucharist? Does the sheep know better than the shepard?

No one is rejecting the Pope, only pointing out that it is possible for him to make an imprudent descision..

Did St. Paul know better than St. Peter, even though he was subject to him, when he publically "withstood him to the face" for his refusal to eat with the gentiles causing scandal because he made it appear as if a heretical belief was correct? Did this constitute a rejection of the first 'Pope himself'? No.. Who was St. Paul to judge what St. Peter does or who he eats with or not? At the time he wasn't St. Paul, he was just Paul... St. Peter was not denying the Faith at all, but he was setting a bad example and causing scandal... we Catholics cannot sit around believing that just because the gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church, which they won't, that this somhow excuses us from our moral obligation to pray for the Holy father... we are all Catholic brothers and sisters on here who love our Church and the Holy Father dearly. We are always to give do respect and consideration to the Popes descisions, but the Pope is human and can falter except when formally teaching faith or morals. But we still must pray for him like we would our own father..

 

[Paul S]

But why are we failing to obey the teachings of Benedict XVI? Does he have to physically write down doctrine for it to be 'taught' to us? Is he not teaching us by his example?

He has to intend to teach infallibly, as head of the Church, in a matter of faith and morals.

Pastor aeternus, from Vatican I. Note the conditions.

we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that

• when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,
  • that is, when,
    1. 
       [*]in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
       [*]in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
       [*]he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,
• he possesses,
  • by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,
• that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
• Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.

Nonsense. Just a minute ago we were speaking about discipline within the Church. Now you are shifting the subject towards sin.

Going against the teaching of the Church is sin. The Pope can teach "it is a sin to do X", and still go out and do "X". He's not impeccable.

So he is in error on faith or morals? Has the Holy Spirit abandoned us?

No, the doctrine of the Church is still that receiving Communion unworthily is a sin. There's no change in doctrine here.

 

[Benedicta00]

Must you bait me into answering myself into a corner???

The Catholic Church says exceptions can be made with the Eucharist and non-Catholics. When the Pope makes an excpetion, I am in no place to question him. Period.

I have had enough of this whole debate and I need some sleep. This whole line of thinking only proves to me that the spectrum of liberal and conservatives does indeed wrap around and meet eachother in a center of deadweight extremism.

I agree exceptions can be made but is it really wise is what is in question. I personally do not think maybe it is because this IMO will provoke many Anglicans and Lutherans and who knows who else to stroll up and take communion.

Like Marica said, why buy the cow when the milk's free?

It is not a sin to have an opinion on the matter.

My opinion is, I hope they all know what they are doing here.

 

[plainswolf]

The Catholic Church says exceptions can be made with the Eucharist and non-Catholics. When the Pope makes an excpetion, I am in no place to question him. Period.

He may be able to make exceptions, but that does not mean it is the most prudent thing to do, it can disrupt the internal unity of the Church or allow too many to form the wrong ideas about Communion to non-Catholics..

** I have an Idea, what if all of us go to confession and communion and pray 5 decades of the Rosary and maybe give a small offering or sacrifice of some kind for the faith, spiritual, and physical health of the Holy Father and for the good sake of the Church? This is something we can all do to help our Holy Father out greatly! I'm serious about this... This is a way we can BEST begin to really help our Church and our Holy Father out.. what do you all say? **

 

[Paul S]

** I have an Idea, what if all of us go to confession and communion and pray 5 decades of the Rosary and maybe give a small offering or sacrifice of some kind for the faith, spiritual, and physical health of the Holy Father and for the good sake of the Church? This is something we can all do to help our Holy Father out greatly! I'm serious about this... This is a way we can BEST begin to really help our Church and our Holy Father out.. what do you all say? **

Wonderful idea. Making reparations and doing penance always pleases God, and is a powerful way to convert sinners.

 

[D'Ann]

Greetings Globalnomad,

I would say, let's trust two of the major cardinals of the Church to know when to bend theological rules. Ratzinger (still a cardinal then) approached Br. Roger VERY deliberately and lovingly on that day... I remember seeing it on TV... He sure was not getting his arm twisted in any way (as if Ratzinger would ever let that happen!)

You are right, we should trust two of the major cardinals of our beloved Catholic Church. The only problem that I have, is that giving the Eucharist to a non-Catholic is not just breaking a "discipline" or "rule". It is going against Catholic Dogma, the Catholic Germ... magisterium teachings. That is why, I would like to know more information about this situation before judging any major cardinals. I'm not an expert on Catholicism and I'm barely know that much about our beloved faith, but I do know that the Eucharist must only be given to Catholics. I know that EOC's can receive from the Catholic Church, because they are another lung of the Catholic Church. But non-Catholics who do not truly and sincerely understand what the Eucharist is and what it means to Catholics, should not partake. It's not to exclude anyone, but to protect those who are not Catholic.

The Eucharist is sacred and Catholics believe in the Transubstantiation of the host becoming the true presence of Jesus... Blood and Flesh. Non-Catholics do not agree with this, nor understand it... It took me a long time to understand this miracle. So, You see, that is why, we are a bit taken back and bit shocked and uncertain as to why or how a cardinal could give the Eucharist to a non-Catholic in any situation. The Eucharist cannot be compromised for the sake of Ecumenism. Dogma cannot be disobeyed or denied in the name of ecumenism and that is why, I need more information on this situation. Perhaps, there was some kind of a misunderstanding on the part of the Cardinal(s), or a misunderstanding in some other area. I'm not an expert and I still have a lot to learn.

And there is no way Kasper would have done what he did without tacit papal approval.

I'm not going to assume that papal approval was given. I'm going to wait and see what becomes of this situation and in the mean time, I will truly pray with all of my heart for all that have been involved in this situation.

So, shall we all just defer to Church authority on this matter, and recognize their guidance on what can and cannot be done, even when it goes beyond our understanding? If we start questioning Church authority on this, tomorrow someone will come asking us why we can't question them on contraception, divorce, condoms for HIV spouses etc.....

You are mistakenly twisting this thing around some. Contraception, divorce, condoms for HIV spouses, abortions, euthanisia and woman priesthood issues all go against Catholic Dogma. The Dogma of these issues cannot be changed and are not up to a vote by anyone. The Pope cannot even go against these issues including the Eucharist. If anyone goes against these issues, they are going against the magisterium, the GERM. Dogma cannot be changed.

I sincerely do not see any contraception being allowed except for NFP due to the Dogma/Magisterium/GERM that is written. I'm not sure about couples being allowed to use condoms due to their spouse having HIV. I'm not familiar with the writings on that specific subject. Divorce is allowed, it is when one wants to remarry that there could be a problem. Anyone can get a divorce, but not everyone will receive an anullment from that divorce and then what? If they remarry, they will be considered to be living in sin and committing adultery... Of course, this is a subject that I know very little about and it could depend on the situation. I'm not sure what the Catholic Church teachings/Dogma is on this subject. When one or both people in the marriage do not give each other as a Sacrament to the other, that could be just cause for an anulment?

As far as abortion, euthanisia and women priesthood... not even a possibility in the CC ever. These issues truly do go against the Catholic Dogma.

So, you see, no one can go against Dogma and I don't think even Cardinals are allowed to go against Dogma... but then like you said... maybe I don't know enough and who am I to question anyone, then let alone judge anyone. There is one thing that we all can do and should do and that is that we need to pray. Pray for God's love and mercy, His strength and courage and direction. We must pray for the Priests, Nuns, Cardinals, Arch Bishops and most of all for the Pope. We must pray for each other too and we must have faith that the gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church... no matter what wrongs and mistakes may occur by whoever.

Or on second thoughts, OK, shall we start questioning their authority... on ALL of these things?

I don't think so. The last thing our Catholic Church needs is more dissenters... more people putting their eternity in peril.

Pax,

Debbie

 

[D'Ann]

He may be able to make exceptions, but that does not mean it is the most prudent thing to do, it can disrupt the internal unity of the Church or allow too many to form the wrong ideas about Communion to non-Catholics..

** I have an Idea, what if all of us go to confession and communion and pray 5 decades of the Rosary and maybe give a small offering or sacrifice of some kind for the faith, spiritual, and physical health of the Holy Father and for the good sake of the Church? This is something we can all do to help our Holy Father out greatly! I'm serious about this... This is a way we can BEST begin to really help our Church and our Holy Father out.. what do you all say? **

Okay, Mark, I'm in. I will do this too for the Holy Father. What a great idea. We must pray for our leaders. They are human... made of blood and flesh as you and I and so I agree with you... we must pray for the leaders, espeically, our beloved Papa... the Pope.

Pax,

Debbie

 

[D'Ann]

CATHOLIC DOCTRINE AND MODERN DISCIPLINE



(1) Under this head the following points are to be noted: (a) In reference to the Eucharist as a sacrifice, the communion, under both kinds, of the celebrating priest belongs at least to the integrity, and, according to some theologians, to the essence, of the sacrificial rite, and may not therefore be omitted without violating the sacrificial precept of Christ: "Do this for a commemoration of me" (Luke, xxii, 19). This is taught implicitly by the Council of Trent (Sess. XXI, c. i; XXII, c. i). (b) There is no Divine precept binding the laity or non-celebrating priests to receive the sacrament under both kinds (Trent, sess. XXI, c. i.) (c) By reason of the hypostatic union and of the indivisibility of His glorified humanity, Christ is really present and is received whole and entire, body and blood, soul and Divinity, under either species alone; nor, as regards the fruits of the sacrament, is the communicant under one kind deprived of any grace necessary for salvation (Trent, Sess. XXI, c., iii). (d) In reference to the sacraments generally, apart from their substance, salva eorum substantia, i.e. apart from what has been strictly determined by Divine institution or precept, the Church has authority to determine or modify the rites and usages employed in their administration, according as she judges it expedient for the greater profit of the recipients or the better protections of the sacraments themselves against irreverence. Hence "although the usage of Communion under two kinds was not infrequent in the early ages [ab initio] of the Christian religion, yet, the custom in this respect having changed almost universally [latissime] in the course of time, holy mother the Church, mindful of her authority in the administration of the Sacraments, and influenced by weighty and just reasons, has approved the custom of communicating under one kind, and decreed it to have the force of a law, which may not be set aside or changed but by the Church's own authority" (Trent, Sess. XXI, c. ii). Not only, therefore, is Communion under both kinds not obligatory on the faithful, but the chalice is strictly forbidden by ecclesiastical law to any but the celebrating priest. These decrees of the Council of Trent were directed against the Reformers of the sixteenth century, who, on the strength of John, vi, 54, Matt., xxvi, 27, and Luke, xxii, 17, 19, enforced in most cases by a denial of the Real Presence and of the Sacrifice of the Mass, maintained the existence of a Divine precept obliging the faithful to receive under both kinds, and denounced the Catholic practice of withholding the cup from the laity as a sacrilegious mutilation of the sacrament. A century earlier the Hussites, particularly the party of the Calixtines, had asserted the same doctrine, without denying, however, the Real Presence or the Sacrifice of the Mass, and on the strength principally of John, vi, 54; and the Council of Constance in its thirteenth session (1415) had already condemned their position and affirmed the binding force of the existing discipline in terms practically identical with those of Trent (see decree approved by Martin V, 1418, in Denzinger, Enchiridion, n. 585). It is to be observed that neither council introduced any new legislation on the subject; both were content with declarirg that the existing custom had already acquired the force of law. A few privileged exceptions to the law and a few instances of express dispensation, occurring later, will be noticed betow (II).

(2) Regarding the merits of the Utraquist controversy, if we assume the doctrinal points involved -- viz. the absence of a Divine precept imposing Communion under both kinds, the integral presence and reception of Christ under either species, and the discretionary power of the Church over everything connected with the sacraments that is not divinely determined the question of giving or refusing the chalice to the laity becomes purely practical and disciplinary, and is to be decided by a reference to the two fold purpose to be attained, of safeguarding the reverence due to this most august sacrament and of facilitating and encouraging its frequent and fervent reception. Nor can it be doubted that the modern Catholic discipline best secures these ends. The danger of spilling the Precious Blood and of other forms of irreverence; the inconvenience and delay in administering the chalice to large numbers -- the difficulty of reservation for Communion outside of Mass: the not unreasonable objection on hygienic and other grounds, to promiscuous drinking from the same chalice, which of itself alone would act as a strong deterrent to frequent Communion in the case of a great many otherwise well-disposed people; these and similar "weighty and just reasons" against the Utraquist practice are more than sufficient to justify the Church in forbidding it. Of the doctrinal points mentioned above, the only one that need be discussed here is the question of the existence or non-existence of a Divine precept imposing Communion sub utraque. Of the texts brought forward by Utraquists in proof of such a precept, the command, "Drink ye all of this" (Matt., xxvi, 27), and its equivalent in St. Luke (xxii, 17, i.e. supposing the reference here to be to the Eucharistic and not to the paschal cup), cannot fairly be held to apply to any but those present those on the occasion, and to them only for that particular occasion. Were one to insist that Christ's action in administering Holy Communion under both kinds to the Apostles at the Last Supper was intended to lay down a law for all future recipients, he should for the same reason insist that several other temporary and accidental circumstances connected with the first celebration of the Eucharist (e.g. the preceding paschal rites, the use of unleavened bread, the taking of the Sacred Species by the recipients themselves) were likewise intended to be obligatory for all future celebrations. The institution under both kinds, or the separate consecration of the bread and wine, belongs essentially, in Catholic opinion, to the sacrificial, as distinct from the sacramental, character of the Eucharist; and when Christ in the words "Do this for a commemoration of me" (Luke, xxii, 19), gave to the Apostles both the command and the power to offer the Eucharistic sacrifice, they understood Him merely to impose upon them and their successors in the priesthood the obligation of sacrificing sub utraque. This obligation the Church has rigorously observed. In John, vi, 54, Christ says: "Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you" but in verses 52 and 59 he attributes life eternal to the eating of "this bread" (which is "my flesh for the life of the world", without mention of the drinking of His blood: "if anyone eat of this bread he shall live forever". Now the Utraquist interpretation would suppose that in verse 54 Christ meant to emphasize the distinction between the mode of reception "by eating" and the mode of reception "by drinking", and to include both modes distinctly in the precept He imposes. But such literalism, extravagant in any connection, would result in this case in putting verse 54 in opposition to 52 and 59, interpreted in the same rigid way. From which we may infer that whatever special significance attached to the form of expression employed in verse 54, Christ did not have recourse to that form for the purpose of promulgating a law of Communion sub utraque. The twofold expression is employed by Christ in order to heighten the realism of the promise -- to emphasize more vividly the reality of the Eucharistic presence, and to convey the idea that His Body and Blood were to be the perfect spiritual aliment, the food and drink, of the faithful. In the Catholic teaching on the Eucharist this meaning is fully verified. Christ is really and integrally received under either kind; and from the sacramental point of view it is altogether immaterial whether this perfect reception takes place after the analogy in the natural order of solid or of liquid food alone, or after the analogy of both combined (cf. III below). In I Cor., xi, 28, to which Utraquists sometimes appeal, St. Paul is concerned with the preparation required for a worthy reception of the Eucharist. His mention of both species, "the bread and chalice", is merely incidental, and implies nothing more than the bare fact that Communion under both kinds was the prevailing usage in Apostolic times. From the verse immediately preceding (27) a difficulty might be raised against the dogmatic presuppositions of the great majority of Utraquists, and an argument advanced in proof of the Catholic doctrine of the integral presence and reception of Christ under either species. "Whosoever", says the Apostle, "shall eat this bread or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord" i.e. whoever receives either unworthily is guilty of both. But it is unnecessary to insist on this argument in defence of the Catholic position. We are justified in concluding that the N.T. contains no proof of the existence of a Divine precept binding the faithful to Communicate under both kinds. It will appear, further, from the following historical survey, that the Church has never recognized the existence of such a precept.


http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04175a.htm

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05584a.htm

 

[Globalnomad]

I said I didn’t have a huge problem with that, I said I can live with it as long as no one is being their own authority, why are you being hostile with me?

I'm sorry, Shelb5, I didn't mean to be hostile at all. I was in an appeasing kind of mode when I wrote it - you know, the way you address someone who is angry, and you put your hand on his arm while talking. I see now that the message would have needed a couple of smileys. Please forgive me.

 

[Cat59]

I'm not an expert on Catholicism and I'm barely know that much about our beloved faith, but I do know that the Eucharist must only be given to Catholics

The catechism has this to say:

1401: When, in the Ordinary's judgment, a grave necessity arises, Catholic ministers may give the sacraments of Eucharist, Penance, and Anointing of the Sick to other Christians not in full communion with the Catholic Church, who ask for them of their own will, provided they give evidence of holding the Catholic faith regarding these sacraments and possess the required dispositions.

So firstly, giving communion to non Catholics is permitted. In these cases two Cardinals- Cardinal Ratzinger and Cardinal Kaspers gave communion to non-Catholics and we should presume that they decided it was a grave necessity to do so.
Although we are all still presuming a lot. This is all based on a press report that may or may not reflect the accuracy of what happened.
What to me is a concern is that people are being quick to jump and judge our pastors rather than finding out the full facts firstly, and secondly to consider that given what Taize was, what happens there, that some of the views people have here on Ecumenism are wrong.
Please, go and look at the fruits of Taize first, go there or talk to people who went there 10, 20 years ago who are still affected by what they learned there. That I think would have a great influence on what happened and why it happened.

 

[D'Ann]

The catechism has this to say:

So firstly, giving communion to non Catholics is permitted. In these cases two Cardinals- Cardinal Ratzinger and Cardinal Kaspers gave communion to non-Catholics and we should presume that they decided it was a grave necessity to do so.
Although we are all still presuming a lot. This is all based on a press report that may or may not reflect the accuracy of what happened.
What to me is a concern is that people are being quick to jump and judge our pastors rather than finding out the full facts firstly, and secondly to consider that given what Taize was, what happens there, that some of the views people have here on Ecumenism are wrong.
Please, go and look at the fruits of Taize first, go there or talk to people who went there 10, 20 years ago who are still affected by what they learned there. That I think would have a great influence on what happened and why it happened.

I don't really have much time here, so I'll make this quick. Number one, you need to read my post completely. I didn't make any judgement calls either way except that I was under the impression that we are not allowed to give the Eucharist to non-Catholics. Although, we do have the right to question why something is done... in order to grow in our understanding of these occurrences.

Secondly, Kasper is very liberal as Mahony. These two are very much identical. So, I will question Kasper, but as far as B16... I will not question him on this. Although, we are allowed to.

Everyone here has voiced their opinion, have you responded to them in the same way that you have responded to me? I think not, so I wonder why you have pinpointed me out? Just curious. Maybe I'm a bit tired and a bit overly sensitive, if so, please forgive me.

Thirdly, what I recommended was for all of us to pray for our leaders and for each other as they make these decisions.

Fourthly, I asked my husband about this subject and what he told me is that usually when a person who is not a Catholic is given the Eucharist is when he is on their deathbed. They have been hopefully baptized, they have confessed their sins to a priest and have asked for forgiveness and request the Eucharist and thus, they most certainly should be given the Eucharist. Perhaps, this was the case in B16's situation? I don't know that much about it... obviously... and like I previously written I don't know too much about the situation in Taize... So, I'm trying to be fair here and to understand something that seems a bit wrong or foreign to me and what I was taught in RCIA. So, if I'm wrong... please correct me, but do so with kindness and love and respect ... or just don't bother.

Pax,

Debbie

 

[Cat59]

Debbie, I'm not picking on you, honestly!
It was a general response to the thread and I used that statement to illustrate what the catechism said.
Last week I sat here in tears when I found out what happened to Brother Roger. It was one of those moments that will live with me for a long time- the whole manner of his death, how it happened, when it happened, where it happened. Taize means so much to me and Brother Roger was one of my heroes.
Please, I regard you as a friend and I would not want to upset you for the world.
That's the problem with the internet- we cannot see each other and realise what is happening in each others hearts.
Peace be with you too,
Cat

 

[D'Ann]

Debbie, I'm not picking on you, honestly!
It was a general response to the thread and I used that statement to illustrate what the catechism said.

Sorry... I'm tired and thus... I over re-acted. I'm grateful to you for posting the Catechism statement because prior to reading the statement, I really was confused and unsure. I've been taught so much about the Eucharist and it was surprising to me when I read the article. At the sametime, who am I to judge? I truly don't know that much about the situation that occurred. There is still sooooo much to learn.

Last week I sat here in tears when I found out what happened to Brother Roger. It was one of those moments that will live with me for a long time- the whole manner of his death, how it happened, when it happened, where it happened. Taize means so much to me and Brother Roger was one of my heroes.

I didn't know this at all. My heart goes out to you and I will keep you and him and his family in my prayers.

I read about what happened and I didn't know what to think except that it was a horrible thing to had have happened. I don't know too much about Taize or Bro. Roger. Is there any books or links that you can recommend to me for reading about him?

Please, I regard you as a friend and I would not want to upset you for the world.
That's the problem with the internet- we cannot see each other and realise what is happening in each others hearts.
Peace be with you too,
Cat

I regard you as a friend too and I wouldn't want to upset you or add to your sadness ever. You are right about the internet. It is difficult to really fully understand without being able to look at someone's eyes and expression and body language. The good thing though is that in Christ we are One and because of our love for Christ, we have love for each other and with love all things are possible. I pray the best for you always.

Pax,

Debbie

 

[Cat59]

This is the link to the Taize website..
http://www.taize.fr/en
I would recomend reading Kasper's address at the funeral- it sums up Brother Roger..
http://www.taize.fr/en_article2543.html
What many people speak of, Brother Roger lived.
Sleep well Debbie and may the Lord always bless you and keep you safe in His care.

 

[Globalnomad]

Friends, I propose to refresh this discussion with a new provocative question(actually I think it's a perfectly straight one).

Some of us seem to be assuming that it is a matter of basic faith (dogma, unchangeable) that Communion cannot be given to non-Catholics. Our source is the Pauline warning not to take the body of the Lord unworthily, and the interpretation that the Church has "always" made of this. From there you deduce that even the Pope cannot make exceptions to this.

But when you think about it, the only immutable doctrine is that "it must be taken with the right understanding and disposition". How we define "right understanding and disposition" is actually a Church interpretation of doctrine: it can develop, just as our interpretation of monophysitism and of the internal dynamics of the Trinity (the Filioque clause) has been re-defined to overcome the old East-West theological disputes.

(Regarding the theology of the Real Presence, I don't know the details, but I know that theological discussions with the Evangelicals (the original German Lutheran Protestants) are so advanced, that we are very near the point of allowing intercommunion, to the same extent as with the Orthodox.)

Keeping this in mind, I would say that the Pope is certainly far ahead of us in understanding the theology and doctrine involved, and that he has every right to take the decision that he did. I would say that the extraordinary spirit of Taizé may well be defined as constituting "right understanding and disposition" for those who want to partake of the Eucharist at a unique event in that unique place.