|
MAX
THURIAN IS HE TRULY CATHOLIC?
Max
Thurian: "Catholic priest" (?) and member of the
International Theological Commission.
THE
FACTS
We
heard that he had become a "Catholic priest" without
ever knowing if he was even a Catholic.1
Then, on September 30, 1992, we learned that he had been
named by John Paul II as a member of the International Theological
Commission. To set the record straight about Max Thurian,
let us speak a little about this brother from the "community"
of Taizé.
Created
in 1969, the International Theological Commission has the
job of advising the Congregation for the Doctrine of the
Faith. Its members (thirty at the most, known as the "High
Council of Thirty") are designated by the pope, upon
recommendation by the Cardinal Prefect of the above Congregation,
who is also the Commission's president (presently Card.
Ratzinger). It was Paul VI's wish that its members represent
the various theological trends. Which "theological
trend" would Thurian represent in this organization?-the
obviously heretical "ecumenical" trend of "double
adherence" to two different confessions? Unfortunately,
everything leads us to think this.
"DOUBLE
ADHERENCE"
Born
in Geneva in 1921, the Protestant minister, Max Thurian,
along with Roger Schutz, founded the "community"
of Taizé. Both men had been invited as non-Catholic
"observers" to the Council. In 1966, along with
five other non-Catholic "observers," Thurian also
participared in the Consilium, which had the responsibility
of preparing the liturgical reform of the Catholic Church.
The new rite, he declared in a satisfied manner, can be
celebrated by Catholics as well as Protestants.2
Would he have become a "Catholic priest" if he
had to celebrate the Tridentine Mass?
The
two Protestant "observers" from Taizé were
to exert a considerable amount of influence at Vatican II.3
Roger Schutz described a typical day from that period
of time in the following manner:
"Before
noontime, while leaving the Council meetings, we would
meet up with the bishops we had made appointments with,
and bring them to our apartment....There was no lack of
conciliar work to discuss. For example, we would closely
study the evolution of the texts, write up notes, and
give our point of view when asked. Signs of friendship
toward us were impressive. One could even say that they
expected too much [involvement] from us….4
In
spite of these signs of friendship, Roger Schutz and Max
Thurian remained profoundly attached to their Protestant
origins. Their understanding of the "Church" was
such that they wanted Catholics and Protestants to be considered
as part of the same "Church." On May 25, 1975,
at Katowice, Poland, Roger Schutz made the following statement:
What
we ask of the bishop of Rome [sic] is that a reconciliation
come about without requiring non-Catholics to repudiate
their origins. Even with truly...catholic communion
in view, repudiation goes against love. Besides this,
repudiation is alien to the thinking of modem man.5
Then,
in Rome, during a conference held at the Studies Center
of St. Louis of France on March 11, 1976, Max Thurian stated
the following: "For a Protestant, belonging to the
visible Church is in the order of faith [this is true],
even if certain institutional aspects are excluded from
it. In this sense, if a Protestant has the conviction that
the Catholic Church, following the Second Vatican Council,
rediscovered conformity with the apostolic Church, he can
then consider himself to be a member of that Church without,
however, renoucing his adherence to another ecclesial community.”6
In other words, “double membership,” as if God has
revealed opposing truths. From this arises the question
of whether Max Thurian converted to the Catholic Faith before
being ordained a “Catholic priest” in Naples. Had he truly
converted, or was he merely convinced that it was the Catholic
Church that had converted after having "rediscovered"
conformity with the apostolic Church? Who knows? The community
of Taizé, when asked whether Thurian had repudiated
his Protestantism, responded: "No, certainly not. No
abjuration of the Protestant religion took place."1a
Although
Catholic authorities have been pressured to respond to this
very serious and legitimate question, it has been impossible
to obtain a single word from them about this matter. Moreover,
the ordination performed by Card. Ursi in Naples was kept
secret until May 11, 1988.
A
RESPONSE
Without
knowing whether he is a Catholic or a Protestant, we will
look for an answer in his last book, L 'identité
du Pretre (Identity of the Priest). Msgr. Bruno
Forte, the Neapolitan "theologian" of the Italian
Bishops Conference, presents this book to us, sounding its
praises in terms that arouse our suspicions. He writes that:
...(T)he
oft-repeated differences [in this book] between the Catholic
position and that of the Reform are not to be seen as
polemical in nature, but rather as being the echo
of two souls working deeply within the conscience
of this significant testimony of our times, arriving at
the choice of "fulness." This fulness does
not deny the value of what evangelical spirituality and
theology have given to the author, but rather
includes it within the very conscience of "catholicity,"
whose roots are to be found in Scripture and the great
traditions of the Christian faith. To have "Apostolic"
intentions does not mean having "polemical"
intentions: Brother Max demonstrates throughout this book
such a great love for his Mother Church [the
sect he is from-Ed.], that nothing of what
he has received [in his Protestant sect],
starting from baptism, can be considered as lost
[Not even heresy and schism?-Ed.].
In
fact, this is what Thurian says about the so-called "Reform"
in his book: "The division [sic] that came about over
eucharistic considerations in the 16th century does
not make sense. Some [the Catholics] wanted, in
particular, to underscore the aspect of sacrifice, supplication,
intercession and propitiation. Others [the Protestants]
wanted to stress, exclusively the aspect of communion, praise,
and thanksgiving....Both sides forgot that it is impossible
to separate these elements, which are indissolubly linked
in the eucharistic prayer." Thurian apparently forgets
that the Reform was not simply a "division...over eucharistic
considerations," (as if it were merely an argument
over a disputed question between two Catholic theological
schools of thought), but that it was, rather, a violent,
heretical assault by the Reformers on the sacrificial aspect
of the Mass. He also forgets that at the time of the Reform,
there was not only an inevitable clash between Catholics
and "Protestants," but that the Church solemnly
and infallibly intervened through the Council of Trent,
defending and reaffirming the Catholic Faith against the
heresies of the "Reformers." To say that Catholics,
like the Protestants, were mistaken in separating the indissoluble
elements of the eucharistic prayer, (besides being an historical
untruth), is the same as saying that in the 16th century,
the Catholic Church (which, for Thurian, is not infallible)
had deviated, as much as the Protestant sects, from "conformity
with the apostolic Church." It is supposedly this conformity
that allows Thurian to consider himself to be a member of
the Catholic Church, without having to abjure his Protestantism.7
This is exactly what Thurian said (and has never repudiated)
in Rome during a meeting on March 11, 1976. This is also
the very same pretension held by ecumenists, a pretension
that Pius XI condemned in the following manner:
While
you may hear many non-Catholics loudly preaching brotherly
communion in Jesus Christ, yet none will you find to whom
it ever occurs with devout submission to obey the Vicar
of Jesus Christ in his capacity of teacher or ruler [and
in fact, one searches in vain in Thurian's book for references
to the papal magisterium...with the exception of the writings
of John Paul II!] Meanwhile they assert their readiness
to treat with the Church of Rome, but on equal terms,
as equals with an equal. But even if they could so treat,
there seems little doubt that they would do so only on
condition that no pact into which they might enter should
compel them to retract those opinions which still keep
them outside the fold of Christ. (Pius XI-Mortalium
Animos, Angelus Press Edition. Price $3.75 postpaid)
A
"PROPHETIC GESTURE"
Finally,
what conclusions are we to draw concerning Thurian and his
teachings? Are we supposed to think that "the Catholic"
is not the Catholic Church, but that it is rather the ecumenical
Super-Church which is silently, though actively being built
up before our eyes, in which the one true Church of Christ
is merely a "Christian tradition" amongst others?8
Are we to understand that the ordination (without
abjuration of heresy) of a Protestant is one of those "prophetic
gestures" so loved by modernists?
As
far back as 1975, Fr. Toinet of the Ecumenical Institute
of Paris wrote to Max Thurian:
You
would have us understand that the doctrine of Vatican
II...is favorable to a call to the kind of "reconciliation"
that would not require Protestants to totally abandon
their Church. But this would mean leaving the definition
of the words "reconciliation," "require,"
"abandon," and "Church" in the greatest
confusion. It would also suggest interpretations whose
dogmatic consequences would be endless, interpretations
that would go against every Catholic tradition....On
the day that the Church founded by Peter should officially
adopt the underlying thesis of "double adherence,"
She would simply cease to exist, having admitted the equality
of Her doctrines with the various reformed doctrines,
thereby rejecting the very idea of orthodoxy; at that
point the [schismatic] Eastern Church could justifiably
consider Her to be heretical.9
Canisius
Courrier
de Rome, October 1994
N.B.
Recently, Max Thurian has been appointed as an adviser for
the Congregation for the Clergy (cf. L 'Osservatore Romano,
February 20, 1994).
"SUBSISTIT
IN" AND THE DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION LUMEN GENTIUM OF
VATICAN II
OUR
READERS WRITE
We
received the following letter from Germany:
The
Second Vatican Council was searching for a new definition
of the Catholic Church. Was this definition to become
a new dogma, since the constitution [Lumen Gentium]
is called "dogmatic"? Opinions differed, and
discussions on the matter were long and stretched out.
On the one hand, we did not want to diverge from the truth,
and on the other hand we did not want to offend non-Catholic
Christians.
At
the Council, one of the Protestant observers made the
following proposition to one of the Fathers: Christi
Ecclesia....subsistit in Ecclesia catholica (Lumen
Gentium, 8). The Father accepted this proposition,
and it was in this manner that a Protestant idea became
a Catholic one, and the opinion of a non-Catholic Christian
was introduced into Catholic ecclesiology - into the very
definition of the Church, into the heart of the famous
dogmatic constitution. Therefore, the basic definition
of the Church was formulated not by one of its own theologians
(like de Franzelin during Vatican I), but by someone from
the non-Catholic world.
It
was during the time of the Council that this Protestant
minister told me about these events. We are still bound
by close ties of friendship today.
Name
withheld by request
OUR
COMMENTARY
This
testimony is in perfect accord with what Giandomenico Mucci,
S.J., wrote in the editorial section of La Civilta Cattolica,
December 5, 1988 (see also Courrier de Rome #93 [283],
June 1988: "Subterfuge in the Face of Revealed Truth:
the Subsistit in and Lumen Gentium).
This
Jesuit admitted that there was a "striking difference"
between the Council's document and previous Catholic ecclesiology:
It
is one thing to say that the Mystical Body of Christ and
the Catholic Church are perfectly identical; to state,
consequently and necessarily, that the Roman Catholic
Church is the only Church of Christ. It
is another thing to say that the Church of Christ
subsists in the Catholic Church (emphasis added
by sì sì no no).
It
seems, however, that he was able to justify this striking
difference: having gone "from one definition (est)
to another (subsistit in) was done for ecumenical
purposes." And, he added, "during the conciliar
discussions, concern for ecumenism undoubtedly grew, and
quite noticeably at that." This concern for ecumenism
found its way in through the more or less secret work of
the "new theologians," "separated brothers,"
and "observers," all of them manipulators of the
Council.
When
Pius IX summoned the First Vatican Council, he exhorted
non-Catholics to profit from it in order to "liberate
themselves from a state in which they could not be sure
of gaining salvation. " Dr. Cumming from Scotland asked
him if Protestants could present their arguments to the
Council. The Pope answered that:
...(T)he
Church could not allow for these errors to be put up for
discussion again, since they had already been examined,
judged and condemned (Papal brief Per Ephemerides Accepimus
to Card. Manning, September 4, 1869).
The
re-discussion of errors is exactly what was allowed behind
the scenes in Vatican II. This Council is proving itself
to be a great fraud, and will be known to history as such.
sì
sì no no, July-August 1994
FOOTNOTES
1.
Présent from May 19, 1988: "Max Thurian,
prête catholique...et toujours pasteur Protestant"
("Max Thurian, Catholic Priest,...and still Protestant
Minister"); SÌ SÌ NO NO, June
15, 1988, p.8; September 30, 1988, p.2; January 15, 1989,
p.8. The ordination in Naples by Card. Ursi on May 3, 1987,
was only made known on May 11, 1988.
2.
sì sì no no a. X. n°16. "The
Indult?"
3.
Rousselot, "L'influence de Taizé" in Palestra
del Clero, October 1, 1986, pp.1194-1207; see also F.
Spadafora, Fuori della Chiesa non c'è salvezza,
Krinon, ed., 1988, pp.91-99.
4.
J.L. Gonzales-Balado, Le défi de Taizé,
Editions du Seuil, 1977, p.13.
5.
Ibid., p.60.
6.
La Documentation catholique, April 18, 1976, p.370.
1a.
Présent from May 19, 1988: "Max Thurian,
prête catholique...et toujours pasteur Protestant"
("Max Thurian, Catholic Priest,...and still Protestant
Minister"); SÌ SÌ NO NO, June
15, 1988, p.8; September 30, 1988, p.2; January 15, 1989,
p.8. The ordination in Naples by Card. Ursi on May 3, 1987,
was only made known on May 11, 1988.
7.
On the subject of Protestants adhering to the Catholic Church
without renouncing their Protestantism, see Courrier
de Rome, n°90 (290) of March 1988: "Taizé:
use apostasie sous couvert de bons sentiments"
8.
Courrier de Rome n°147 (337) of June 1993: "Urs
von Balthasar, le père de l'apostasie oecuménique,"
p.3.
9.
Nova et Vetera (periodical), Geneva, July 1975, cit.
by Fr. Spadafora in Fuori della Chiesa non c'è
salvezza, Krinon, ed., 1988, Caltanisetta, p.99.
Courtesy of the Angelus
Press, Kansas City, MO 64109
translated from the Italian
Fr. Du Chalard
Via Madonna degli Angeli, 14
Italia 00049 Velletri (Roma)
|
