Faith Focused Dating. Create your Free Profile and meet your Match! Sign Up for Free

info: Please Sign Up or Sign In to continue.

A place to learn, mingle, and share

This room is for the discussion of current events,cultural issues and politics especially in relation to Catholic values.

Saint Thomas More was martyred during the Protestant Reformation for standing firm in the Faith and not recognizing the King of England as the Supreme Head of the Church.
Learn More:Saint Thomas More

Jun 24th 2013 new
(quote) John-336509 said: I was indeed being sarcastic.

Putting that aside, you are making a lot of assumptions as to the motives behind the decision here. It is within the realm of possibility that you might be right. But the only "evidence" presented in this discussion by any of the opposition to the decision has been nothing but conceit and disdain of Protestants. I don't find that convincing.

If somebody would like to present an argument that this particular case is a bad way to pursue ecumenical action because of particular criteria other than automatic contempt for all things Protestant, I'd be quite willing to listen and may well agree.

However, it started with nothing more than hysterical screaming about blasphemy and heresy. Once that toned done a little bit, we still have nothing more than "we're right and Protestants are wrong." While I agree with that last point as a general statement on theology, it does not follow that each and every individual action taken by a Protestant must therefore be morally incorrect.
You didn't "Tone" anything, you denied and threw sarcasm as a monkey flings...whatever...at a computer.

But let's look at what you thought this was about; namely the "hysterical screaming about blasphemy and heresy," you claim to have "toned down."

First, heresy. Beyond the heresy of the Methodists in their denial of the Real Presence and other issues, we have the active heresy of Indifferentism that I pointed out and that you responded sarcastically by your own admission. Religious Indifferentism is a heresy, and where allowed to fester in the Modern Church has cost the Church dearly in terms of lost souls.

Now, how was this incident blasphemous? According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, " Blasphemy (Greek blaptein, "to injure", and pheme, "reputation") signifies etymologically gross irreverence towards any person or thing worthy of exalted esteem."

www.newadvent.org

Probably not to the Methodists, who likely performed what they considered right worship, even though they are objectively incorrect on this. Nor, thinking a Catholic Cathedral as anything other than a venue for an event, did they objectively commit irreverence toward the Cathedral, especially since, again, they deny the Real Presence of Our Lord, present in the Cathedral.

Did anyone? Here I would say those that treated a worthy thing in an irreverent manner were those in the Diocese that allowed this service to take place. They know that it is the seat of the Bishop, and ought to know that our Lord is truly present in the Most Holy Eucharist there. Further, as the main Church for the diocese, it is of higher esteem even than a typical parish.

In truth, however, blasphemy does not apply because it is primarily a sin of the tongue. What was permitted falls under the sin of Sacrilege, which is "the violation or injurious treatment" of a sacred object (again referring to the Catholic Encyclopedia). Among the violations of a local space such as a Cathedral is the following:

the doing of certain things (whether sins or not), which, either by their own nature or by special provision of law, are particularly incompatible with the demeanour to be maintained in such a place. Such would be for instance turning the church into a stable or a market, using it as a banquet hall, or holding court there indiscriminately for the settlement of purely secular affairs.
www.newadvent.org







Jun 24th 2013 new
(quote) Steven-706921 said: You didn't "Tone" anything, you denied and threw sarcasm as a monkey flings...whatever...at a computer.

But let's look at what you thought this was about; namely the "hysterical screaming about blasphemy and heresy," you claim to have "toned down."

First, heresy. Beyond the heresy of the Methodists in their denial of the Real Presence and other issues, we have the active heresy of Indifferentism that I pointed out and that you responded sarcastically by your own admission. Religious Indifferentism is a heresy, and where allowed to fester in the Modern Church has cost the Church dearly in terms of lost souls.

Now, how was this incident blasphemous? According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, " Blasphemy (Greek blaptein, "to injure", and pheme, "reputation") signifies etymologically gross irreverence towards any person or thing worthy of exalted esteem."

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02595a.htm

Probably not to the Methodists, who likely performed what they considered right worship, even though they are objectively incorrect on this. Nor, thinking a Catholic Cathedral as anything other than a venue for an event, did they objectively commit irreverence toward the Cathedral, especially since, again, they deny the Real Presence of Our Lord, present in the Cathedral.

Did anyone? Here I would say those that treated a worthy thing in an irreverent manner were those in the Diocese that allowed this service to take place. They know that it is the seat of the Bishop, and ought to know that our Lord is truly present in the Most Holy Eucharist there. Further, as the main Church for the diocese, it is of higher esteem even than a typical parish.

In truth, however, blasphemy does not apply because it is primarily a sin of the tongue. What was permitted falls under the sin of Sacrilege, which is "the violation or injurious treatment" of a sacred object (again referring to the Catholic Encyclopedia). Among the violations of a local space such as a Cathedral is the following:

the doing of certain things (whether sins or not), which, either by their own nature or by special provision of law, are particularly incompatible with the demeanour to be maintained in such a place. Such would be for instance turning the church into a stable or a market, using it as a banquet hall, or holding court there indiscriminately for the settlement of purely secular affairs.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13321a.htm







Steven, John did not say that he had toned down anything. Read his statement again, It is clear that he is saying that 1) the subject via its very first posting, as well as those immediately following in support were virtually hysterical in narture hurling accusations of blasphemy, heresy, etc. and 2 ) when the discussion progressed, that hysterical level was toned down.

As far as your other points, I will again point out that once the Blessed Sacrament was removed from the main body of the Church, there could be no blasphemy directed at the Blessed Sacrament by the action that was allowed to take place.

I can agree that since it was the Cathedral Church, scandal can be given because of the automatic stature a Church which is the seat of a diocese has no matter what its appearance or lack of physical grandeur.

However, if the ordinary has given permission, then that question no longer has value.

As to your argument of indifferentism; sorry it just does not hold water. Neither the Ordinary, his Vicar, the Pastor of the parish or any other Catholic Clergy took part in the ceremony. So no show of indiffentism took placve.Church law allows for the use of Churches for other purposes than celebration of Catholic liturgy in whatever form. The law only requires the removal of the Blessed Sacrament and that it is not to be used for secular purposes; i.e no rock concerts, political meetings, etc.

In this case the purpose, although not Catholic in nature, was, in fact, religious in nature.

If you insist on your position than you must convict Christ Himself of the same sin (heresy) of indifferentism. After all he consorted with sinners and tax collectors and a whore as I recall, and was accused of that very sin by the Pharisees, or so the Gospels tell us..
Jun 25th 2013 new
(quote) Steven-706921 said: You didn't "Tone" anything, ...

...we have the active heresy of Indifferentism that I pointed out and that you responded sarcastically by your own admission. Religious Indifferentism is a heresy, and where allowed to fester in the Modern Church has cost the Church dearly in terms of lost souls.

...

Did anyone? Here I would say those that treated a worthy thing in an irreverent manner were those in the Diocese that allowed this service to take place. They know that it is the seat of the Bishop, and ought to know that our Lord is truly present in the Most Holy Eucharist there. Further, as the main Church for the diocese, it is of higher esteem even than a typical parish.

In truth, however, blasphemy does not apply because it is primarily a sin of the tongue. What was permitted falls under the sin of Sacrilege, which is "the violation or injurious treatment" of a sacred object (again referring to the Catholic Encyclopedia). Among the violations of a local space such as a Cathedral is the following:








As Paul has pointed out, I do not claim to have personally toned anything down. I merely note that for whatever reason it has toned down.

I am not unsympathetic to the point of view that a Catholic cathedral is not the best place to be holding Protestant services. I'm not inclined to go so far as to make the statement that it black-and-white always the case that it necessarily must be sacrilegious to do so.

You continue to make the charge of indifferentism without evidence to the specific case. I will agree that it is generically possible for that to be true. I will agree that it certainly has happened at various times and places. None of the proves it in this time and place.

Again, I'm willing to listen to the evidence if anybody has any. But so far all I've heard are assumptions that the diocese in question must be acting wrongly.
Jun 25th 2013 new
(quote) John-336509 said: As Paul has pointed out, I do not claim to have personally toned anything down. I merely note that for whatever reason it has toned down.

I am not unsympathetic to the point of view that a Catholic cathedral is not the best place to be holding Protestant services. I'm not inclined to go so far as to make the statement that it black-and-white always the case that it necessarily must be sacrilegious to do so.

You continue to make the charge of indifferentism without evidence to the specific case. I will agree that it is generically possible for that to be true. I will agree that it certainly has happened at various times and places. None of the proves it in this time and place.

Again, I'm willing to listen to the evidence if anybody has any. But so far all I've heard are assumptions that the diocese in question must be acting wrongly.
You are splitting hairs on this. I gave you the article defining indifferentism and showing how it applied, and the article on Sacrilege. Do you honestly not see how the performance of a false ordination by a woman pretending to have apostolic authority (which is what a bishop is) is a disrespectful use of the Cathedral? Even events that were not themselves sinful but inappropriate to the Cathedral, such as having a secular business meeting or using it to store animals, would be sacrilegious by the nature of the place. How much more to have a man-made sect perform a service unpleasing to God in His house?
Jun 25th 2013 new
(quote) Steven-706921 said: You are splitting hairs on this. I gave you the article defining indifferentism and showing how it applied, and the article on Sacrilege. Do you honestly not see how the performance of a false ordination by a woman pretending to have apostolic authority (which is what a bishop is) is a disrespectful use of the Cathedral? Even events that were not themselves sinful but inappropriate to the Cathedral, such as having a secular business meeting or using it to store animals, would be sacrilegious by the nature of the place. How much more to have a man-made sect perform a service unpleasing to God in His house?
Just because I give you the legal definition of homicide and show that there is a dead body in the morgue doesn't mean that I've proven that a murder has occurred. People die of natural causes. You are making assumptions about what is displeasing to God. We are all God's children, even the Protestants. If a parent had one child who was gifted in art and another who wasn't, would the parent be displeased with a crudely drawn crayon picture from the non-gifted child just because it was no where near as good as an oil painting done by the gifted one? Note, I'm not saying it's all fine and dandy to be a religious nomad and flit around from denomination to denomination as the wind of personal whimsy may happen to blow. But I think a lot of people are completely failing to distinguish between somebody who is backsliding or drifting aimlessly and somebody who is doing the best with what they've got. My basic objection is that the entire theory here seems to be "they let Protestants into the Cathedral, therefore it has to be wrong." I understand why having a woman doing the ceremony raises Catholic eyebrows. But since no part of Methodist clergy is valid from the point of apostolic succession anyway, I don't know that a woman "bishop" actually matters. No Methodist period is a valid bishop in the Catholic sense of the word. There are a lot of questions that need to be asked here, but aren't. Was this use of the Cathedral a regular thing, or a one-time-only event? What was the rationale for allowing it? What were the circumstances causing the Methodists to make the request in the first place? Is this advancing some active agenda for outreach aimed at reunification, or is it really just somebody saying who cares, we're all the same? Are the views of the Catholic Bishop in question basically orthodox, or are they problematic?
Jun 27th 2013 new
Much ado about nothing after all a catholic church bought the Crystal Cathredral and still allows the original church memebers to use it even though they don't hold catholic ceremonies. It's about economics. As long as the groups are christian I don't see a problem. Now if they were doing something to disrespect the church I could issues.
Jun 27th 2013 new
(quote) Ann-69118 said: Much ado about nothing after all a catholic church bought the Crystal Cathredral and still allows the original church memebers to use it even though they don't hold catholic ceremonies. It's about economics. As long as the groups are christian I don't see a problem. Now if they were doing something to disrespect the church I could issues.
You have to understand, to those complaining, the very presence of a Protestant in a Catholic Church is to disrespect it.
Jun 27th 2013 new
Well most of my family was in different denominations so I have been to different services and honestly not seen that much of a difference. With Christians being persecuted all over the world I feel there's bigger fish to fry and christians need to work with each other instead of worring so much about theological differences which in the end only separate us from each other. If it was the Mormon group or Jehovah Whitness group I might understand the upset but there may be a day which churches closing every that we have to consolidate churches to the point where multple groups are using the same place of worship I've actaully seen this happen in some small towns.
Jun 27th 2013 new
(quote) Ann-69118 said: Well most of my family was in different denominations so I have been to different services and honestly not seen that much of a difference. With Christians being persecuted all over the world I feel there's bigger fish to fry and christians need to work with each other instead of worring so much about theological differences which in the end only separate us from each other. If it was the Mormon group or Jehovah Whitness group I might understand the upset but there may be a day which churches closing every that we have to consolidate churches to the point where multple groups are using the same place of worship I've actaully seen this happen in some small towns.
One problem I have run into in trying to research this news item in more detail is that the only commentary I have been able to find comes solely from ultra or radical Catholic Traditionalist sources.

Now their criticism, aside from this instance, of Houston's Archbishop may be accurate. They do label him derisively as similar to the Cardinal Archbishop of WA.. DC whom they label as a virtual,heretic.

That of course begs the question since in any aspect of human life anyone who takes an extreme position on any subject is usually, although admittedly not always, wrong.

One clue as to why any Catholic Bishop might extend this courtesy to a non-catholic denomination is the fact that the United Methodist Church was holding its annual convention at the time in Houston. That could indicate that the Methodists expected a crowd to attend the ordination ceremonies too large for any of their own churches to accommodate.

It is understandable that any Ultra or radical traditionalist Catholic would be scandalized by this. The only question that needs to be answered is: Was it really scandalize? Was it really an heretical act?

Obviously ultra and radical Catholics would answer yes.But these same people believe JPII and Benedic XVI both committed scandalize and heretical acts by taking part in prayer services with non-Catholics of many religious persuasions.traditions. Hence, I believe the questions raised answer themselves. In these cases those on the extremes are wrong, as usual.
Jun 27th 2013 new
(quote) Ann-69118 said: .... If it was the Mormon group or Jehovah Whitness group I might understand the upset but there may be a day which churches closing every that we have to consolidate churches to the point where multple groups are using the same place of worship I've actaully seen this happen in some small towns.
Unfortunately, there is no shortage of people here who flat out state that Protestants are no different than Muslims or pagans or atheists. Hence the upset.
Posts 41 - 50 of 50