Faith Focused Dating. Create your Free Profile and meet your Match! Sign Up for Free
A place to learn, mingle, and share

This room is for discussion for anyone who adheres to the Extraordinary form of the mass and any issues related to the practices of Eastern Rite Catholicism.

Saint Athanasius is counted as one of the four Great Doctors of the Church.
Learn More:Saint Athanasius

Jan 19th 2014 new
(quote) Bernard-2709 said: That so called female minister is a nobody in the world of Authority from God.

Bernard, your statement reveals your thoughts of bigotry, or at the least snobbishness, you expect our hierarchy to succumb to.

Above all, Christ's shepherds are servants to the least of us; Catholics already or non-Catholics.

So, a kind gesture even from a non-Catholic, without even an ounce of authority from the Catholic Church or form God should get the snubbing of the nose of the Cardinal, or the Pope?

I don't know you well enough, but using the logic that you so often use towards others and your statement above, one could be led to believe that you are a bigot.

Jan 19th 2014 new
(quote) Roystan-340472 said: What exactly is the issue that is aggravating the opposition:


that Cardinal O'Malley attended the special service ---- which he should not have?

or

that he attended the service as a participant rather than a spectator ---- which he should not have?

or

that he called down God's blessing on the water --- which he should not have?

or

that he submitted to the reaffirmation ritual at the hands of a woman instead of, say, the male United Methodist bishop --- which he should not have?

or

that he submitted to the ritual (which isn't a formal United Methodist sacrament as would be their holy communion, but a group cohesion-type thing, rather like renewing one's marriage vows in some kind of ceremony which is not, of course, repeating the sacrament of marriage).


Is an ecumenical ceremony to remember the common baptism a no-no? Should the Catholic Church have been unrepresented at that ceremony? Should it have been represented by a lower ranking cleric? What if that senior American still well-regarded by social and political conservatives, George W. Bush, a member of the United Methodist Church, been an official guest? What if this had taken place during his presidency? Still a no-show from the local ranking cleric of the Catholic Church?
Well, how about all tbe thing you agreed he shouldn't have done?

Let's go with the fact that it was done before a Protestant minister from a community that does not believe in the ministerial priesthood and make women ministers. Given the Vatican II caution about bearing witness to the particular truths of the Faith in ecumenical acts, what does that say about thus prayer in common?

Do not forget or underestimate how such actions are seen by those in the pew, which I bave to give examples about. For one thing, it further dilutes the distinction between clergy and lay which is already rampqnt as a result of changes in the worship over the last forty years.
Jan 19th 2014 new
(quote) Steven-706921 said: Well, how about all tbe thing you agreed he shouldn't have done?

Let's go with the fact that it was done before a Protestant minister from a community that does not believe in the ministerial priesthood and make women ministers. Given the Vatican II caution about bearing witness to the particular truths of the Faith in ecumenical acts, what does that say about thus prayer in common?

Do not forget or underestimate how such actions are seen by those in the pew, which I bave to give examples about. For one thing, it further dilutes the distinction between clergy and lay which is already rampqnt as a result of changes in the worship over the last forty years.

I guess I should have addressed the female thing specifically. It didn't occur to me that men would jump all over that on a dating site!

Since anyone, Catholic or non-Catholic, priest or lay, male or female, may perform Baptism in certain circumstances, there is certainly no prohibition against having a Christian woman lead a renewal of baptismal promises or a memorial of baptism. Why would this be wrong? It is a loving thing to do.

I suppose if the ceremony were attempting to replicate what Roman Catholics believe only a priest can do, such as confect the Eucharist, then there would be cause to question the propriety of the Cardinal's participation. But that is not what appears to be happening here. He chose an ecumenical ceremony where the ministerial priesthood was not at issue. That is reaching out in an appropriate way, I think.

I, for one, would be honored to be anointed by a holy woman, and am not at all concerned that a Cardinal feels the same way. Wasn't Jesus anointed by a woman who poured oil on his feet and cleaned them with her very hair? How did Christ react to that? I see the cardinal in persona Christi here.

Jan 19th 2014 new
(quote) Gabor-19025 said: "These notions are not condemned now. Things have changed. People are more intelligent and open minded these days. The Church is evolving."

How can the Truth become a lie and a lie become the truth? Only the devil can do this. The truth is everlasting and unchanging. I am in no hurry to get a blessing from a female Hare Krishna Guru but some priests are seeking counsel from these fonts of goodness.

Gabor,

Decoupled from Bernard's original posting, whose words in quotations in your post are those? Are they your interpretation, your own words, or is it something that someone else said? If someone else, whose words are they? I could not find it in any of the postings or those referenced by anyone posting on the thread.

If from a Catholic, then clearly that observation is wrong in the first sentence in quotes. The Syllabus today applies as it did 100+ years ago. The second sentence is obvious, every moment in time is different from any other, but eternal truths remain unchanged. The third sentence is nonsense since it basically cannot be proved or disproved by man. Only God has the capacity to gage that one. And this narrow view of the "Church is evolving" seems to imply a reference to the Church on earth... a small part of the complete Church. We see what Catholics are doing and we confuse that with what the Church teaches.

Essential teachings have not changed.

Why beleive such stuff. It has no weight.

Jan 19th 2014 new
(quote) Gerald-283546 said: 1. It was not a Sacrament but a renewal/reminder.

2. Baptism is a sacrament that can be administered by laity and even by Pagans, as has been the Catholic Tradition since Roman soldiers baptized saints before their martyrdom in the early years of the Church.

3. And, Methodists are part of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church, as defined by Vatican II, although in imperfect communion due to some doctrinal and disciplinary disagreements. If you have ever had devout Methodist friends, you will know that their Faith is very, very similar to ours.

1. So what?

2. Baptism may only be administered by laity in specific circumstances, otherwise grave sin is committed in the act. (

Can. 861 1. The ordinary minister of baptism is a bishop, a presbyter, or a deacon, without prejudice to the prescript of can. 530, n. 1.

2. When an ordinary minister is absent or impeded, a catechist or another person designated for this function by the local ordinary, or in a case of necessity any person with the right intention, confers baptism licitly. Pastors of souls, especially the pastor of a parish, are to be concerned that the Christian faithful are taught the correct way to baptize.)


3. As Lumen Gentium defines, Methodists are separated from the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church:

14. This Sacred Council wishes to turn its attention firstly to the Catholic faithful. Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism(124) and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.

They are fully incorporated in the society of the Church who, possessing the Spirit of Christ accept her entire system and all the means of salvation given to her, and are united with her as part of her visible bodily structure and through her with Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. The bonds which bind men to the Church in a visible way are profession of faith, the sacraments, and ecclesiastical government and communion. (Chelsea's comment: Methodists reject parts of the Church's system and some of the means of salvation given to her) He is not saved, however, who, though part of the body of the Church, does not persevere in charity. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but, as it were, only in a "bodily" manner and not "in his heart."(12*) All the Church's children should remember that their exalted status is to be attributed not to their own merits but to the special grace of Christ. If they fail moreover to respond to that grace in thought, word and deed, not only shall they not be saved but they will be the more severely judged.(13*)

Catechumens who, moved by the Holy Spirit, seek with explicit intention to be incorporated into the Church are by that very intention joined with her. With love and solicitude Mother Church already embraces them as her own.

15. The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter. (14*) For there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour. (15*) They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ. They also recognize and accept other sacraments within their own Churches or ecclesiastical communities. Many of them rejoice in the episcopate, celebrate the Holy Eucharist and cultivate devotion toward the Virgin Mother of God.(16*) They also share with us in prayer and other spiritual benefits. Likewise we can say that in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power. Some indeed He has strengthened to the extent of the shedding of their blood. In all of Christ's disciples the Spirit arouses the desire to be peacefully united, in the manner determined by Christ, as one flock under one shepherd, and He prompts them to pursue this end. (17*) Mother Church never ceases to pray, hope and work that this may come about. (Chelsea's comment: This makes ABSOLUTELY NO sense if the Methodists, et al., are already united to Holy Mother Church) She exhorts her children to purification and renewal so that the sign of Christ may shine more brightly over the face of the earth.





Jan 19th 2014 new
Chelsea, wouldn't your answer to #1 "So what?" make all other points you cite, as irrelevant, because no new baptism is performed?
Jan 19th 2014 new
John, no, because I am not making a point. I wrote three responses (numbered 1, 2, and 3) to Gerald's three propositions.
Jan 19th 2014 new
(quote) Chelsea-743484 said: John, no, because I am not making a point. I wrote three responses (numbered 1, 2, and 3) to Gerald's three propositions.

I understand that, I think.

But Gerald's first point was the only one that (it seems to me) is relevant to that situation as it appears to have happened on that occasion. There was no second baptism. Catholics can be baptized only once. The other points Gerald offered were to make Bernard think outside his box. At least that is how I interpret it.

You expanding and giving more clarity to Gerald's points is all well and good.

So, since you seem to see something more, can you point out to me what specifically Cardinal O'Malley did that he should not have? Is there evidence that he has committed a public sin or scandal?

Jan 19th 2014 new
Ah, sorry Chelsea, I was not understanding your "no". For some reason it sailed over my head. You are just presenting more clarity to Gerald's points. You are choosing to make no other observations. Did I get it right this time?
Jan 19th 2014 new
(quote) John-971967 said:

Bernard, your statement reveals your thoughts of bigotry, or at the least snobbishness, you expect our hierarchy to succumb to.

Above all, Christ's shepherds are servants to the least of us; Catholics already or non-Catholics.

So, a kind gesture even from a non-Catholic, without even an ounce of authority from the Catholic Church or form God should get the snubbing of the nose of the Cardinal, or the Pope?

I don't know you well enough, but using the logic that you so often use towards others and your statement above, one could be led to believe that you are a bigot.

The Cardinal should not give credence to a female minister of another faith by allowing her to annoint him.She has no authority from God as a Minister.It's a big sham.Catholics need to wake up and stop supporting this nonsense.Speak up.I don't expect the Cardinal will ever get it,because he is a modernist.No prelete in his right mind,or in the True Faith would ever do such a thing.ARE YOU KIDDING ME! He is a traitor to the One True Catholic Church.No I am not a bigot.I just see things as they really are.Something many Catholics have a difficult doing,because they have been indoctrinated by IDIOTS like this Cardinal! smile
Posts 21 - 30 of 112