The Catholic
COUNTER-REFORMATION
IN THE XXth CENTURY

OCTOBER 1973

ÉDITION MENSUELLE EN LANGUE ANGLAISE DE LA CONTRE-RÉFORME CATHOLIQUE AU XX^e SIČCLE
Editor : R. P. Georges de Nantes

THE CHURCH AND «THE SPIRIT»

It is easy enough to complain that the world is not as good a place as it should be – and the cynic will tell you to make the best of it by adapting yourself to its deficiencies. But the statement implies either that a better job could have been made of it in the first place, which would be an insult to the Creator, or that things had been better in the beginning, or could perhaps become so (again) in the future. The philosophy of religious "Integrism" is concerned with showing that the world had been perfect on the Day of Creation, and that evil had entered into it thereafter, causing all its subsequent imperfections. This philosophy is more interested in the reason for the deficiencies than with their possible remedy. The forward-looking, "progressive" mentality, on the other hand, is concerned with attaining, or returning to, a hypothetical state of perfection in the future. It can manifest itself as a progressive "Utopianism", such as we find so prevalent today. But it is possible to adopt a forward-looking attitude also in the knowledge that, while we cannot expect the "New Order" of the future to be brought about by human hands, the world can indeed be perfected by the Hands of God.

In the course of our kerygmatic research this year¹, we have deliberately adopted the forward-looking perspective as being more in line with the Virtue of Hope. But our sort of "progressivism", our "Messianism", has for its cornerstone the only genuine Renewal – the only one that can truly revolutionise the course of history – which is none other than Jesus Christ, His Death, Burial, and Resurrection. The first Easter formed a New Beginning in the history of mankind: it represents what in modern jargon might be referred to as the inauguration of a Utopia, but which Jesus Himself, with greater force and realism, called the Kingdom of God set up in our midst.

If Christ, after being crucified, dead, and buried, had disappeared for ever, Christianity would be nothing more than yet another system of philosophy with its own moral code. And many people do indeed seem to think and behave as though the Resurrection had not taken place. These include the adherents of the reactionary philosophy of "integrism" – which limits its concern to the restoration of the divinely ordained Natural Order, as well as the "progressives" who want to install a new human order which leaves Christ out of account. Our message to the adherents of both schools of thought is to remind them that through the Death of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God who was Himself perfect in His Person and in all He did, we were reconciled with God, and that through His Resurrection we became partakers of His Life and His Victory over death and evil. "Renewal", "perfection" in this world do, therefore, have a place in genuine Christian thought, for the seed of this perfection was sown – in the midst of a world of death and corruption, injustice, violence and despair – by Christ the Son of God and the Son of Mary, who was delivered up for us and, having risen from the dead, became for our sake the Food of life everlasting, the gateway to resurrection for many. In this sense, then, we can rightly speak of a New Order, a New Era, a "revolution" that took place once and for all. And the Founder of this New Order is Jesus Christ, and not any other.

The only question that remains to be asked, therefore, is this: Where is this Kingdom to be found today? Where is the Revolution which overcomes death and evil actually taking place? What must we do in order to enter into this new world and become partakers in the resurrection of mankind?

The answer is, as we shall see, very simple indeed, but here we will seek the truth in a roundabout way, examining first some of the alternatives proposed by the "progressives" of our day and age, who are always ready to tell us that "Christ is here, or He is there" – who today seek "the spirit of Jesus", a "living Christianity", outside the ancient barque of "the institutional Church" – in "basic Christian communities" or in "Pentecostalism", which, until recently limited to the Protestant denominations, is now spreading among Catholics. Its importance is indeed likely to increase, for did not Cardinal Suenens welcome it as that "springtime of the Church" whose return had been prophesied by Pope John? The reigning Pope had, so we are told, extended his warm welcome to the movement in which he too thought to recognise the fulfilment of his predecessor’s dreams. We may have occasion to discuss the "Pentecostalists" before long. Tomorrow – who knows – their place may be taken by the Jehovah’s Witnesses: for the "mystery religions" are flourishing as in the earliest centuries when Christianity was beginning to spread in the midst of a pagan world.

From among a number of possible examples, we have chosen to study "the Phenomenon of Taizé", for Taizé is something concrete and already well-established, and an extraordinary source of attraction for the young. The facts and documents are available to all². So let us examine whether there is anything in it after all. Does "the spirit really blow in Taizé?

THE ROAD THAT SEEMED TO LEAD TO ROME

In August 1940 there arrived in France from Geneva the young Swiss Calvinist Roger Schutz, searching for a place suitable for the founding of a spiritual community. His journey took him towards the neighbourhood of Cluny, where an uncle of his was pastor, and that is how he came across a large house for sale, situated upon the hill of Taizé. We read in Paupert’s account that seventeen years before, a Benedictine nun had had a dream in which she foresaw that this particular house would some day be the site of a monastic foundation. The evidence concerning the prophetic dream appears to be perfectly genuine.

From the moment of his arrival, the young Protestant began to concern himself with charitable works – in particular the shelter of Jewish refugees. Thus he spent two years in a life of prayer and the service of his fellows. But it is important to realise – for it involves an essential aspect of the man’s character – that in his search for the ancient roots of monasticism he did not break with Protestant tradition, but looked always for the "common denominator". He felt disgusted at the sectarianism shown by Protestants towards other Christians, and towards the Catholic Church in particular – so he devoted himself to seeking to overcome the divisions by turning back to the "common origins". It had been as a result of pursuing this interest that he had become attracted to the monastic ideal, which had in turn led him to leave his native land – like Abraham of old – and pitch his tent in the nominally Catholic but largely de-Christianised land of France, at the hour of her great distress… It certainly seemed a promising beginning.

In 1942 the invasion of unoccupied France by the Germans led him to return to Geneva, in order to avoid arrest. During this time, which he spent back in his own country, he set himself to complete the elaboration of a monastic Rule. It was then that he met Max Thurian, who became his fellow-worker and the "theologian" of Taizé. When they returned to France, in the autumn of 1944, their number had increased to four. In the best Calvinist – and biblical! – tradition, which links religion closely to social works of charity, they opened their door to homeless children, taking in as many as the large house would hold, and undertaking to bring them up in a spirit of "freedom and love".

The seven years which followed proved to be the time of decision, according to Poupert. It seemed to all – Protestant as well as Catholic – who were watching the development of this community during those years, and seeing its life approximate more and more closely to the ancient monastic ideal, that the sure and inevitable result would be their conversion to Catholicism. They were moving towards it in their ideas on the Eucharist, on Penance, on Celibacy… they recited the Divine Office. They felt obliged to justify their ways in the eyes of their Protestant brethren and they did so by appealing to the earliest of the Reformers, who had continued to respect those same traditions; in other words, all they were doing was to go back to the genuine and ancient Protestant tradition! Such a defence was hardly calculated to please their Protestant critics, whom they were thus accusing of having betrayed their heritage! No, it could only bring them nearer to Rome!

At the same time, Poupert tells us, there was manifesting itself the spirit which was to become characteristic of Taizé itself, the spirit of compassion and total forgiveness, whose guiding principle was never to humiliate anyone… In this Brother Roger set an unprecedented personal example." These words are highly relevant to subsequent developments.

These years saw an accelerating growth and development, with vocations flooding in from a number of different Protestant denominations. To all appearances they were moving in the direction of Rome. 1949 saw the Profession of Celibacy, and 1951 the definitive Rule of Taizé. Two decisions taken around this time were to have an important influence on the future.

The first was the outcome of the farsighted advice given to the community by the wife of Pastor Boegner, who dissuaded them from following a suggestion that they should disperse in to tiny groups, on the model of the Little Brothers of Jesus which, among Catholic Religious Orders, was the one they most closely resembled. Mme Boegner convinced the community, who at that time numbered around forty, that they could not hope to set an example, to lead the way as they hoped to do, unless their own unity was apparent for all to see. Subsequent events have shown how wise this counsel had been – when we consider that today the Little Brothers of Jesus are scattered like so many grains of dust, without cohesion because without a home – while Taizé, set upon its hill as upon a rock, is looked upon as the corner stone of "the Church of the future" – the "place where the spirit blows".

While this first decision had been not merely wise but, in a sense, a "Catholic" one, the second was essentially "Protestant". Brother Roger was not consciously seeking to maintain a balance, but simply acting in accordance with the innermost promptings of his character. Having visited England and studied the "Oxford Movement’, he decided that Taizé must never become confined within the boundaries of any one denomination. Whatever the difficulties, this venture must be a truly ecumenical one. Taizé must never be a "ghetto", the property of any one "Church" but, just as it stood out physically above its surroundings, so it must remain above all sectarianism. Unconscious of the pride underlying such an attitude, he believed that Taizé would thus become a beacon pointing the way to the future, to that ultimate "reunion" of all religions in peace and charity, which would know neither victor nor vanquished.

It was these two decisions which assured the continuing existence of Taizé as a visible "rock of unity" and ecumenical brotherhood. It was not long before Catholics as well as Protestants came to look upon it as a sign of hope and a guide light for the future – as an advance post of that "universal Church" towards which the individual "Churches" were beginning to move.

To an impartial observer at this time – around 1950 – it must have been evident that there would be a long and hard conflict between the two opposing attractions – the Catholic and the Protestant – which were at work here. Which "message" would eventually be heeded? Our observer would have guessed, almost certainly the Catholic, with its enthusiasm for the ancient monastic life reinforced by the rigorous pursuit of theological studies under the lead of Brother Max. Nevertheless, he would have expected the road to be a long and hard one, involving, as it must, the giving up of that other guiding principle of Taizé – the avoidance of division and the determination never to belong to any particular "Church". For Schutz himself, the anticipated conversion would needs mean the death of his pet ideas, while for the rest of the community it would mean the abandoning of that liberalism which had brought them together.

THE CRITICAL YEARS, 1950 - 1965

In 1949 and again in 1950 Brother Roger and Brother Max visited Pope Pius XII and his Deputy – Mgr Montini. The book does not tell us anything of what passed during those audiences. We can make a good guess at the reason for this silence. Those were the days of the canonisation of Pius X, of the Encyclical Humani Generis, of the proclamation of the Dogma of the Assumption… The prestige enjoyed by Pius XII was at its height, and so was that of Cardinal Ottaviani. Both men must have made a great impression on their visitors. Quite possibly, the latter were prepared already to commit themselves to some extent, to take the first steps of the journey that would lead them back to Rome – thus bringing upon themselves wrath from the side of various Protestant groups. In any case, it seems certain that at that time they felt that some day they would have to take such a step – and Pastor Schutz would not wish to be reminded of that today! He would rather think back to that other interview, with the Deputy, who spoke to his visitors in a totally different language, surprising them by the heartfelt admiration he expressed for their community and the absence of any appeal for their return to the fold. On the contrary, Mgr Montini was only too anxious to stress that Taizé must remain as it was – a bridge between two worlds – with no attempt to align itself with one "side" or the other, etc., etc. For already, the conflict between God and the World had penetrated into the Vatican!

Pure imagination, you will say? Not at all: it is, rather, the logical reconstruction of the missing link in the story. When they visited Rome, the two young men came up against a Church that was already divided against herself, with Pius XII and Ottaviani on the one hand, and the up and coming Montini on the other. The former were ageing and their power already on the decline, while the latter would soon emerge victorious. The two men from Taizé, thinking no doubt that they were mapping out their own route, were in fact following the changing direction in which the Church herself was moving. Finding themselves in a no-man’s-land – neither Catholic nor Protestant – and regarded with suspicion by the traditional wings of either side, they followed the promptings of their friends in Rome who, while giving them every encouragement and flattering their pride, were keeping then at arm’s length from the Church of Rome, in whose direction they had been moving. No, let it be Rome who would move towards them, for it too was in search of the New Church whose foundation stones were being laid at Taizé! Nor did it help that, while their dogmatic beliefs were prompting them to move towards Catholicism, some traditionalist Catholics were already beginning to look upon Taizé as a place of perdition.

The resolution of this conflict came with the calling of the Council – it was this which finally halted their tentative steps in the direction of Rome. Quite clearly now, Rome wanted them to remain where they were. They were approached by delegates from Pope John and from the French bishops, asking them to indicate what Taizé was hoping for from the Council. Pastor Schutz, who but yesterday had felt himself constrained to make the painful choice between Catholicism and Protestantism, now became suddenly free to stay where he was, waiting for Rome to move towards him. He was the one being consulted by the Church of Rome on the subject of reconciliation with Protestants. The outcome was a long report, containing Taizé’s advice to Rome, about interpreting "ecumenism as universal reconciliation with Christ", and "the Church of the Poor, humility, outward poverty…" and so on.

There followed a visit by the President of the World Council of Churches –Wisser’t Hooft – and the establishment of close links between that body and Taizé. Then Brother Roger began a series of ecumenical visits, the most important among which was that to Pope John, who conceived the idea of inviting him to the Council as "observer". Thus encouraged, he began addressing Catholic Bishops in the tone of an elder brother. 1960 and 61 saw the visit to Taizé of certain French Bishops, who came to discuss the blueprint of the charter for the New Church, which was to be prepared by the Council. In 1962, Brother Roger visited Archbishop Athenagoras, and then the clergy of Spain, where he was well received by the younger generation of priests. Archbishop Nikodim of Leningrad – an agent of international Communism – did not consider it beneath his dignity to proceed in person to "the hill where the Spirit blows".

The highlight of this period was the inauguration of "the Church of Reconciliation", which took place on 5th and 6th August 1962, attended by dignitaries of all denominations – including Archbishops and Bishops, Abbots and the Superiors of Catholic Religious Orders. The hope which inspired Taizé was expressed in a legend inscribed upon a hoarding which greeted visitors as they approached the place:

"Become reconciled, all you who enter here;
The father with his son,
The husband with his wife,
The believer with him who cannot believe,
The Christian with his separated brother."

(Note that one thing is missing – reconciliation with God!)

Invited to attend the Council, "the Prior and Brother Max" set themselves to "building a model of Taizé within the heart of the City" (of Rome), where they began preparing the "community’s contribution to the Council". The "contribution", of course, consisted in giving support to the ecumenically minded "majority", in encouraging the idea of reconciliation without denominational frontiers, in the Protestantisation of the Church. In this task, Congar became their enthusiastic collaborator.

What else could we expect them to have done when they had the assurance that the path they were following was the right one, from the Pope himself – for John XXIII flattered them, and they became also the favourites of Paul VI who presented Pastor Schutz with a Chalice – for what purpose? For the celebration of Mass? Or for the Protestant Supper? Or, perhaps, for something that would be both one and the other at the same time?? Were they not witnessing the rehabilitation of Luther, in Rome itself, aided by their own small-scale model of Taizé in the heart of the Eternal City? Schutz began to intervene, with every semblance of authority, in the disputes between Catholics, and to tell the Church what she ought to do. In his "fraternal admonitions", he called upon us to follow the path "of constant progress" and to discard all that savoured of "denominational segregation" – that "virus…which had infected our modern societies" – in other words, to leave behind the principles established by the Counter-Reformation of Trent, and follow the New Reformation which was being effected by Vatican II, under the expert guidance of Taizé!

TAIZÉ - THE MEETING PLACE OF YOUTH

The boost given to it by the Council helped to establish Taizé’s place in public opinion, and Poupert was not alone in looking upon it as "the greatest spiritual achievement of our age". There began a series of charitable projects – "Operation Hope", "A Million Bibles for Latin America", etc, carried out with money collected in Europe from both Catholic and Protestant sources. As of everything bearing the hallmark of Taizé , their importance was exaggerated out of all proportion to their scale.

Gatherings of young people took place on an increasing scale and again, these received an inordinate amount of publicity through the press and every encouragement from the various Catholic youth organisations. By 1970, the gatherings were snowballing and last Easter the numbers were in five figures – say 14,000 – though La Croix gave a more generous estimate of 20,000.

When you ask the reason for this supposed "magnetic attraction" which the place has for the young, the answers found in the press reports are singularly meaningless: "An atmosphere devoid of all repression…all dogmatism… A total freedom… Communal exchange… friendly contact…" And so on. In other words, it is "the spirit of Taizé". But is it really as spontaneous as the media would have us believe? And how do the older generation know that their presence is not welcome there, unless, that is, they happen to be Church dignitaries? And is the constantly manifested rejection of all adult values, of Western society and its dogmatic religions, an entirely spontaneous development?

No, it is not by pure chance that young people rush to Taizé in their thousands, all on the same dates, driven by some charismatic impulse – as we would be made to believe. It is a result of well-organised publicity, and the tools of this are the existing structures of the Catholic Church, whose parishes, schools, and youth movements have been working hard for some ten years to encourage these visits by the young Catholics entrusted to their care. (This applies of course mainly to France - Tr.’s note) The future Cardinal Villot, for example, took a group of students from Lyons to Taizé, way back in April 1964, instead of on the traditional pilgrimage to Ars. The "system" is working for Taizé.

In order to nourish the dreams of youth – their belief that the future lies in their hands, Brother Roger has promised them a "Council of Youth" which is to be opened at Taizé on 30 August 1974, and subsequently extended all over the world. At last, the Voice of Youth is to be heard! No one knows any details of the proposed Council, not even Brother Roger himself, but that doesn’t matter. What is clear, to the press at least, is that "the Spirit blows in Taizé…" – with gale force! We know that Taizé is always "news".

Take last Easter, when between ten and twenty thousand young people assembled there. The local Bishop celebrated Mass for them, Cardinal Marty paid them a visit to tell them how full he was of admiration for their desire to put the world right, and then, in the evening, there arrived a telegram from the Pope who also paid them his congratulations. In the falling darkness, Pastor Schutz addressed them in glowing terms on the tremendous responsibility that had fallen upon him: of listening to what they, the young people, had to say, of finding out their desires and needs, in preparation for this Council in which only young people – from all four corners of the world – would be entitled to take part. He took the occasion to announce the forthcoming visit of Dr Ramsey. After that, he led them in a nocturnal procession across the plain, carrying lighted torches and lamps in their hands – to symbolise the march of youth towards the future… Borrowed from the ancient Roman Liturgy which Calvinism had rejected and which the progressive priests of today have discarded, this symbolism serves to strengthen the emotional appeal of something which – in intellectual terms – has scanty substance indeed: the idea of a yet unformed future which youth shall fashion to its own design.

There is one last point – a very real one but one upon which I do not wish to dwell. The emotion-laden atmosphere of Taizé is in the nature of things likely to encourage permissiveness, in a manner comparable to the pagan feasts which brought licence in their wake. It is the come-back of Aphrodite. That the spiritual embraces of the day are often followed by carnal embraces during the night is a well-attested fact. The brothers, while not encouraging it in any way, seem not too perturbed by it. They accept is as a consequence of "that need for total intimacy which exists in every human being". The pagans, at least, were more frank!

WHAT IS THE SPIRIT THAT BLOWS AT TAIZÉ?

What is that future to which this Protestant monastic community with its vast following of young people, is dedicated? Is it the Holy Spirit that blows at Taizé or merely a form of juvenile mass enthusiasm? To give a true answer, we must examine the phenomenon in a supernatural context. What are the avowed guiding principles? Essentially, these are contained in the headings for the programme of the proposed Council of Youth: "Struggle and Contemplation, with the Aim of attaining Fraternal Communion".

Struggle. This concept is essentially alien to Taizé, but has been allowed to creep in, as it were, to satisfy consumer demand. Brother Roger realised that he would not be able to retain the young people unless he let them have a little political contestation. So, as his contribution towards "updating", he extended his natural philanthropic inclinations to include the currently inevitable commitment to revolution: "In this struggle to allow clandestine voices to be heard, to lend an ear to those who have no voice, in the fight for men’s liberation, we shall not be content to remain in the rear. Our place is in the front ranks." (From the Taizé Newsletter, May 1973) Clearly, it would be unthinkable that Taizé should be anywhere but in the front ranks. Nevertheless, as other progressive movements have not been slow to point out, they have not the making of killers. They are better fitted to be choir boys.

Communion. While we can forget about "struggle", in this analysis of the principles upon which Taizé has built its reputation, the second one – that of "communion" – is fundamental. Political and social contestation are admitted only as an adjunct to this aim of the fraternal communion of all men. For this is the real aim, a "visible unity of all" which shall not be hindered by anything that "stands between" men – not even those differences and hierarchical distinctions which are an essential part of the structure of every society and of religion itself. Herein lies the danger, for this, the essential inspiration of Taizé, is a form of spiritual subversion calculated to turn its devotees away from the religious and moral convictions they have inherited from their families and received through the Church. Herein lies the message spread by the "spirit" which speaks through the mouth of Brother Roger. "Reconciliation", "friendship" in this sense, must needs entail also a degree of hatred for all institutions opposed to the ecumenical spirit of Taizé. But the idea is fashionable and has such a wide appeal that Pastor Schutz has, on the strength of his rather insignificant writings, which simply turn this same idea over and over again, been described as one of the greatest living theologians (by Poupert). It is of course part of this idea that, in working for such a unity, Taizé itself, being as it is free of all denominational allegiance, must play a leading role.

Contemplation. This element certainly has its appeal; but for it, a large proportion of the young people who today go to Taizé would not be attracted to the place at all. They would go, instead, to Chartres, or to the solitude of other monasteries. For they do go there to pray, if in a somewhat novel manner – which seems to them easier and more attractive than the "stereotyped forms" which they find in their own churches. It is also true that this mode of prayer offers them the possibility of quasi-mystical experiences which only increase the aura of the place. But, leaving aside the visitors for the moment, we are left with a community of some sixty monks who, for the past twenty years, have been practising prayer and contemplation and living a life of chastity and good works which deserve all our admiration. It is in this contemplative life – which, moreover, has borrowed many elements from Catholic mysticism – that the strength of Taizé lies. Without it, there would have been neither the steady flow of candidates to the community, nor the influx of visitors. The fact remains that, while in certain individual cases the practice of contemplation may be entirely genuine, for the majority of them it serves as a means to an end, which is human communion. In genuine mysticism, on the other hand, the sole aim is God, and the striving to love and serve Him better. But at Taizé, it is Man who takes pride of place, while God comes a mere second. Herein lies the weakness of the venture… No, the Holy Spirit does not work in this way!

ILLUMINISM

The "inspiration" of Taizé comes, not from the Holy Spirit, but from Brother Roger’s own personality, with its attractive admixture of Protestant liberalism and Catholic monasticism. He is always ready to listen, sometimes to "arbitrate", but never to pass judgement or condemn. This does not make him a true mystic. Poupert describes his "presence" in glowing terms: his bright blue eyes and his serene smile as he listens: "His face lights up as he sees you – making it seem as though he had been waiting only to make your acquaintance and that it makes him happy to be in your presence. For the visitor, time seems to stand still during these minutes that he is in his presence, speaking to him, conscious of the depth of the gaze of those blue eyes…

"And then we are filled with a desire to know whence comes this man, this ‘Brother’, and whence blows this Spirit."

The writer admits, therefore, that it is from Brother Roger himself that "the Spirit" is blowing. On reading the description, you may wonder whether he is writing about some idol of the screen; for his language is that of an extreme romantic impressionism. This is not a manifestation of the Holy Spirit. For there is One who is absent from this place, and that is Christ Himself, though all profess Him to be present when Brother Roger celebrates his Holy Supper, because in the interest of unity, they are prepared to forget about the "distinctions" that would be "divisive"… Last year, I happened to include Pastor Schutz, in one of my conferences, among the "false Christs" and "false prophets" who are so plentiful today, when two longhaired youths jumped up to interrupt: "What have you got against Taizé? We have just been there. It is fabulous…" I answered: "Maybe, but when they celebrate the Holy Supper, do the Body and Blood of Christ really become present, or is there just bread and wine?" "What do we care about that, you b… theologians!"

Does the Holy Spirit blow at Taizé? Without denying that His influence may be at work in a mystical manner within certain souls who, in their lives as Protestant monks, are genuinely seeking God – and who to this extent must necessarily be drawn towards the Church – we can state categorically that, where the Body and Blood of Our Lord are left out of account, regarded as something about which it would be uncharitable to argue, there the Holy Spirit cannot be.

And the fact that neither Pope nor Council nor Bishop should challenge them, should demand to see their credentials in the eyes of God before sending the best of our Catholic youth to such a place, is the greatest scandal of our day. A Pope who sends them his congratulatory telegrams, the Bishops who show their overt approval, are failing in their duty as Vicar, or as the Representatives, of Christ. It is they above all others, who are responsible for perpetuating the imposture of Taizé, for they too "discern not the Body and Blood of Christ."

Through Vatican II, and since, the Catholic Church has defaulted in her obligation to uphold the Truth. We read in the Decree on Ecumenism (Unitatis Redintegratio), No 22 :

"Ecclesial communities separated from us may be lacking the full unity with us which derives from baptism; we may believe (sic) them to have failed to preserve the whole, authentic substance of the mystery of the Eucharist, especially in view of their lack of the sacrament of Order. Nevertheless, they do enact the memorial at the Last Supper of the Lord’s death and resurrection and, in so doing, they proclaim that its meaning is life in the fellowship of Christ and they are looking forward to his coming in glory. For this reason, the teaching on the Lord’s Supper, the other sacraments, the worship and ministry of the Church should constitute the subject matter of the dialogue." ("Dialogue" – or "surrender"?)

The passage cited is at best hypocritical double-talk, but it was not long before Cardinal Bea changed it into frank error: "Many of the sacred acts of the Christian religion are performed also by our separated brethren, in varying manners and according to the different situations of each Church or community. These acts are certainly able effectively to bring about a life of grace, and we must acknowledge that they open the way towards a communion of salvation." And then he continues, driving his point home: "In short, even though the Decree (i.e. Unitatis Redintegratio) states loyally (sic!) that non-Catholic Christians do not enjoy the fullness of the means of grace, it affirms at the same time that by virtue of Baptism, the Holy Spirit is at work within both the individuals and the Communities, giving them a share in grace. And that is sufficient… What we have said suffices to affirm that the Holy Supper can become for our non-Catholic brethren of the Reformed Churches, a unifying source of grace, though in a manner and to an extent which are known to God alone. We can therefore say in a general manner of all Christians: the more they unite themselves to Christ in eating His Body and drinking His Blood, the easier it will become to overcome the present divisions and to attain that complete unity to which we are all called by virtue of our Baptism." (Cardinal Bea’s Discourse given at the Eucharistic Congress at Pisa, 10 June 1965)

This is all very well, except that what our Protestant brethren receive in their Holy Supper is not the Body and Blood of Christ. This essential fact Cardinal Bea was prepared to leave entirely out of account, in the interests of unity. Or rather, he was prepared to pretend – to act as if – the Body and Blood of Our Lord were there, because it is no longer these redeeming Gifts, which unite us to the Word made Flesh, that matter, but only a "communion" in the sense of reconciliation among fellow-men. This aim is worth even the sacrifice of the truth: and so we have the miserable ecumenism which Taizé has to offer us, by the grace of Paul VI.

The unfortunate Max Thurian who, as a result of the corrupting influence of the Church of Rome, had changed from a conscientious theologian into a mere juggler with words, wrote: "The ecumenical discussions of the past were dominated by the concepts of power and validity. Such concepts have their importance, but they need to be supplemented by reflecting upon the gifts of the Spirit, who blows where he wills, and upon the values and the fruits of the Spirit – for we need to recognise these in the various different Churches, regardless of their canonical position. In the case of Catholic theologians, this entails a study of doctrinal and sacramental values outside the limits of the Roman Catholic Church. What, for example, is the significance of a eucharist celebrated outside the apostolic succession, but with the firm and sincere intention of accomplishing the action of Christ, in conformity with the primitive tradition of the Church?" Ah well… thanks to Cardinal Bea, who leads him to believe that "ecumenical progress" is moving in this direction, he is prepared to claim that the Presence of Christ in all its fullness can be brought about by a Protestant minister, provided he happens to have the right "intention".

"Unity cannot come about through the ecclesiastical and doctrinal victory of one member, at the expense of the defeat of the rest. We must, in accordance with the words of Pope John, all move forward together. That which unites us is stronger and more important than that which keeps us apart. A day will come when we shall each have penetrated so deeply into the others that we shall look upon our divisions as being merely within the one, single, visible Church of Christ – to which we all belong. There will remain only for us to ask God to remove these internal divisions, though without any need to impoverish that diversity which will continue to enrich our rediscovered unity." (Thurian: The Courage of the Days to Come)

When the young people who flock to Taizé can see no difference between the bread and wine which they are offered there, and the Body and Blood of Our Lord, we can forgive them, because they do not know any better. But when a Pope Paul VI, and a Cardinal Bea or Willebrands, connive with Brothers Roger Schutz and Max Thurian to pretend that the difference does not exist – then indeed we can be sure that this is not the work of Christ but of Belial. A religion which refuses to discern the Body and Blood of Christ for the sake of a friendly human companionship is not a religion of Christ. Brother Roger should have the decency to say out loud that he is not the Christ, nor His prophet, nor His priest – nor even one of His faithful. But if he will not say so, it should be the duty of the Pope to remind him of it! Then, at least, it would be clear to all that the New Church which is being built, high up on the Rock of Taizé, belongs to those who are building it, and that it is their "spirit" and not that of God, which blows at Taizé.

THE HOLY SPIRIT IS TO BE FOUND ONLY IN THE CHURCH!

"And Thou shalt renew the face of the earth." Thousands of millions of human beings have found and will continue to find the realisation of their hopes in that one divine Plan which is the essence of our Religion. Beside this, all the various religious systems which have an ephemeral success, only to be soon forgotten, must remain insignificant.

The "integrist" philosophy restricts its concern to the certainties – natural or revealed – which we have already acquired: to good and evil, virtue and vice, truth and error, order and disorder. Thanks to the grace we have received from Christ, we are each free to choose which we will, so that the system is viewed as being in a state of steady balance between the extremes which, at the end of time, will be definitively separated from each other by the Last Judgement, when the good will go to Heaven and the wicked to Hell. The only evidence we need in order to believe is provided by the Resurrection. Beyond that, it does not matter what happens, for, as long as we believe, we can be certain of being saved. Such a philosophy is not concerned with the results of our good works and hardly even with the merits we gain through these. Hence, there is no temptation to measure the value of any particular form of religion by its success.

The forward-looking, "progressive", faith, on the other hand, is insistent on proclaiming that Christ’s design encompasses the whole world – that the Kingdom of God shall come. Here the perspective is a "historical" one, which sees the supernatural forces battling to gain a step-by-step victory over the powers of darkness, ignorance, and error. While "integrism" requires no proof other than that of transcendent Truth, the "progressive" philosophy looks for evidence of success – of the expansion of the Kingdom. Faith and good works are no longer seen as independent of each other, but faith itself becomes the most powerful among good works – as the prime influence that is renewing the face of the earth, working on its constituent elements, the individual souls of men. The conquest of the world by Christ – as witnessed by history – becomes evidence for His Godhead.

If we survey the apparently great modern religious movements in the light of the requirements of either of these philosophies, we find them all to be deficient. We have been considering Taizé – but we could equally well have chosen Pentecostalism, or any number of other new forms of Messianism which are acclaimed one day, only to disappear the next. For the "integrist", there is no temptation to take them seriously, for he is concerned only with whether or not they have the absolute truth and in this respect their credentials are immediately seen to be deficient. But the "progressive" feels drawn towards them, because their influence upon the masses – their apparent "success" – is very great. Yet he must realise that the appearance is deceptive, and their impact on mankind as a whole remains negligible. To attend a Pentecostal congress in America may suggest that a large proportion of humanity is gathered there, and the young people walking in procession at Taizé last Easter, carrying their lighted torches, will have felt the same – but what are even 20,000, when viewed in a context embracing all mankind, past and present? The "integrist" may well laugh at the credulity with which men will range themselves behind one new "messiah" after another – be he a Hitler, Stalin, or Mao or, on a more modest scale, a Billy Graham – what, by the way, has become of him? – or a Pastor Schutz, a Cardonnel, a Helder Camara… for none of these has risen from the dead! Did not Napoleon suggest to some disappointed founder of a new religion, who complained of his lack of success, that all he had to do was to die, and then rise again, and he could be assured of his following? For what can one human being do for another, when both are in the power of mankind’s state of sin, when they have no weapon against this except their own grand ideas? Pastor Schutz will pass, and Taizé with him, for the Body of the Lord, the Sacrament which alone gives the power to overcome sin and evil, is absent from his hill.

We must repeat, as we said at the beginning, that through the Resurrection of Christ, we too and the whole of creation, can obtain life: "For the expectation of the creature waiteth for the revelation of the sons of God. For the creature was made subject to vanity; not willingly, but by reason of him that made it subject, in hope. Because the creature also itself shall be delivered from the servitude of corruption, into the liberty of the glory of the children of God." (Rm 8.19-21) Christ, having risen, has not entered into His rest, but continues His work "at the right hand of the Father". He not only died for us and our justification, but He rose, in order to continue the work of our sanctification.

The Power to renew and transform the world belongs to God alone. He was made Man in order to raise us up to a supernatural state. This transformation He effects through the instrument of the ever-living Body of Christ. Because this work is effected through a physical means, He endowed the Apostles – the first to eat His Body and drink His Blood, and thus become partakers of His Resurrection – with the physical Power to continue this work of consecrating and blessing material things, and human hands, and to change bread and wine into the Lord’s Body and Blood. The Apostles were the first to receive the Words – human and divine – of Christ, and it is only to them and through them that there passed these Powers of blessing and transforming. The Church, Christ’s Mystical Body, continues the work effected by His visible, bodily Presence. She alone is His Spouse, the object of His continuing and life-giving love. Secondly, she is the sign of His Presence in the world, carrying on the teaching He gave while on earth. Thirdly, she is the instrument by which He sanctifies and assumes to Himself the whole of creation; it is in this sense that the Church can truly be referred to as a "sacrament".

"Where the body is, there shall the eagles be gathered together." By the "eagles" we are to understand those who are gathered in the Mystical Body and who receive physically the actual Body, the Holy Eucharist. It is these who shall presently fly heavenward on their wings, to the places prepared for them on the Right Hand of the Father. We must not seek any "New Order", any "Kingdom of Heaven on earth", anywhere else!

Just as the body forms the vehicle for the soul, the spirit, so the Body of Christ – the Mystical Body as well as the Physical Body, the Holy Eucharist, to which it is closely linked – forms our means of access to, and union with, the Holy Spirit. Today it is fashionable to take advantage of the invisible, ethereal, nature of the Holy Spirit, and see His presence here, there and everywhere. There is a glut of private "revelations" and "prophecies" laying claim to the presence of the "Spirit", apart from any link to the visible Body, the Church. Moreover, with the exception of a small handful of private revelations – those of Garabandal, San Damiano, etc. – which are in line with Catholic Tradition, these are given every official encouragement: today’s tendency is to ascribe the presence of the "Spirit’ to all and sundry, and even to expect Him to sort out the troubles of the Church through such unofficial channels. But we must remember that the Third Person of the Holy Trinity is not an ectoplasm, whose shape you can adapt to your own requirements, but the Paraclete, sent by Christ to witness to the Father and the Son, and sent only to His Church. Though invisible, the Spirit of God is nevertheless identifiable with certainty, through His works. His manifestations are miracles, prophecies, and truly marvellous acts of wisdom, charity, apostolic zeal – as were the prodigies of Yahweh in the Old Testament and the miracles and signs of Jesus in the New. Such, today also, are the Works of the Holy Spirit in the Church. They bear the hallmarks of sanctity, by contrast with the indifferent qualities – or frank evilness – of mere human works. Just as our intellect is able to discern their nature, so our faith will be able to recognise their Origin, so that we can, indeed, know whether the Holy Spirit is at work.

(1) The 1973 issues of the CRC (French Edition) contain a series of theological conferences given by the Abbé de Nantes. While most of these are beyond the scope of the present translator, the current one (taken from CRC No 72, for September 1973) is likely to be of interest even to readers for whom the "kerygmatic" discussion is too difficult, because it includes ,as illustrative material for this discussion, an account of the development of the community of Taizé, which has not, to my knowledge, been previously available in the English language. (Translator)  –   (2) The account is based on a book by J.M. Paupert, entitled Taizé and the Church of the Future.