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) John-971967 said:


Bernard, you start out by stating that the ACTION of a Cardinal is "stupid". But you end up rejecting all objective comments that demonstrate his actions are not a threat to the Catholic Faith. Thus, instead of learning some more about true Catholic teaching that you yourself apparently do not understand you instead choose to foist upon the rest of us a narrow minded approach that fits your scewed way of thinking and you conclude to use the story to criticize the individual (the Cardinal). And then you use the signature Bernard broom to slop a bunch of untraceable nonsense on Catholics who see the flaws in your presentation.

You have not addressed, nor has anyone debunked Gerald's points. Those points are relevant. You ignore them to your detriment.

Out of the blue, it is no longer just the Cardinal's actions that you dismiss; you project where few minds would go. You have indignance to the man already, for who knows what reasons. This is evident in that you then proceed to criticize the rest of us Catholics for being just as bad as he (note: no longer the actions, but the individuals) who dare to bring to your attention your nonsensical projections you unwittingly asssume to be facts.

Bernard look at your other three fingers: where are they pointing while you point the one at the Cadinal when saying "stupid"? It's just a question for you.

----

Bernard,

On a totally separate note, a month or so ago, you stated that you would not be renewing your CM membership after the end of this month, after being a member here since practically the inception of this site.

Is that still true?

If so, I do wish you the best, and sincerely hope that you decide to increase your Catholic understanding and adapt a more charitable attitude towards others. I know much was wrestled from Catholics in the Post Vatican II wake that took away our comfort zone. But such is life. We have to deal with what comes our way. I truly hope you find the means to find greater contentment while away from CM.

Yes my membership has expired and I am not renewing after almost 13 years.Mainly because of money.Catholic Match is as good as it gets for Catholic sites.I have no regrets.Good luck in your search. wave
Jan 19th 2014 new
(quote) Bernard-2709 said: Yes my membership has expired and I am not renewing after almost 13 years.Mainly because of money.Catholic Match is as good as it gets for Catholic sites.I have no regrets.Good luck in your search.
Be well Bernard!
Jan 19th 2014 new
(quote) John-971967 said: Be well Bernard!
Thank you John.God bless you. theheart
Jan 19th 2014 new
(quote) Bernard-2709 said: Thank you John.God bless you.

Thank you as well.

Hey, how is it that you can still post, if your account has expired?

Jan 20th 2014 new
(quote) John-971967 said: 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?
As of yesterday I was choosing not to say anything more than my response to Gerald's propositions. I have since thought it over and do now want to make a point:

What the Cardinal did in essence is to pretend some religious significance (other than sacrilege) to an extra-ecclesial religious ceremony. I wonder what he thought this religious significance was, whether it was aiding him toward salvation or spiritual perfection. If he thought either, then that is a property of religious indifference.

Also, it's a topsy-turvy world in which a layperson (i.e., who has neither regular faculties, nor indelible character of Holy Orders, nor the fullness of the priesthood, nor membership in the Catholic Church) is allowed to administer a "sacramental" (even if it is a pseudo-sacramental) to a prince of the Church. This is evidence of the opposite extreme response to clericalism.

If the act meant nothing, then why was the Cardinal there? If the act meant something, then why is it not encouraged of all?
Jan 20th 2014 new
(quote) Chelsea-743484 said: As of yesterday I was choosing not to say anything more than my response to Gerald's propositions. I have since thought it over and do now want to make a point:

What the Cardinal did in essence is to pretend some religious significance (other than sacrilege) to an extra-ecclesial religious ceremony. I wonder what he thought this religious significance was, whether it was aiding him toward salvation or spiritual perfection. If he thought either, then that is a property of religious indifference.

Also, it's a topsy-turvy world in which a layperson (i.e., who has neither regular faculties, nor indelible character of Holy Orders, nor the fullness of the priesthood, nor membership in the Catholic Church) is allowed to administer a "sacramental" (even if it is a pseudo-sacramental) to a prince of the Church. This is evidence of the opposite extreme response to clericalism.

If the act meant nothing, then why was the Cardinal there? If the act meant something, then why is it not encouraged of all?
In that sense, the act itself is a violation of truth because it upends the relationship between clergy and lay. It is a Prince of the Church, who has the right to give a sacramental blessing, asking for a blessing to be conferred by someone who is a layperson and...

1), Does not have Holy Orders,
2). Comes from a community that denies Holy Orders, and even if it doesn't...
3). States that they have the power to confer what the Church has said it cannot confer, namely Holy Orders upon woman.

Even by the standards of The VII Decree on Ecumenism, this doesn't cut the mustard. Take a close reading of paragraph 8 of the document.

www.vatican.va

Here is the relevant paragraph:

In certain special circumstances, such as the prescribed prayers "for unity," and during ecumenical gatherings, it is allowable, indeed desirable that Catholics should join in prayer with their separated brethren. Such prayers in common are certainly an effective means of obtaining the grace of unity, and they are a true expression of the ties which still bind Catholics to their separated brethren. "For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them".(33)

Yet worship in common (communicatio in sacris) is not to be considered as a means to be used indiscriminately for the restoration of Christian unity. There are two main principles governing the practice of such common worship: first, the bearing witness to the unity of the Church, and second, the sharing in the means of grace. Witness to the unity of the Church very generally forbids common worship to Christians, but the grace to be had from it sometimes commends this practice. The course to be adopted, with due regard to all the circumstances of time, place, and persons, is to be decided by local episcopal authority, unless otherwise provided for by the Bishops' Conference according to its statutes, or by the Holy See.



Jan 20th 2014 new
(quote) Steven-706921 said: In that sense, the act itself is a violation of truth because it upends the relationship between clergy and lay. It is a Prince of the Church, who has the right to give a sacramental blessing, asking for a blessing to be conferred by someone who is a layperson and...

1), Does not have Holy Orders,
2). Comes from a community that denies Holy Orders, and even if it doesn't...
3). States that they have the power to confer what the Church has said it cannot confer, namely Holy Orders upon woman.

Even by the standards of The VII Decree on Ecumenism, this doesn't cut the mustard. Take a close reading of paragraph 8 of the document.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html

Here is the relevant paragraph:

In certain special circumstances, such as the prescribed prayers "for unity," and during ecumenical gatherings, it is allowable, indeed desirable that Catholics should join in prayer with their separated brethren. Such prayers in common are certainly an effective means of obtaining the grace of unity, and they are a true expression of the ties which still bind Catholics to their separated brethren. "For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them".(33)

Yet worship in common (communicatio in sacris) is not to be considered as a means to be used indiscriminately for the restoration of Christian unity. There are two main principles governing the practice of such common worship: first, the bearing witness to the unity of the Church, and second, the sharing in the means of grace. Witness to the unity of the Church very generally forbids common worship to Christians, but the grace to be had from it sometimes commends this practice. The course to be adopted, with due regard to all the circumstances of time, place, and persons, is to be decided by local episcopal authority, unless otherwise provided for by the Bishops' Conference according to its statutes, or by the Holy See.



In your quote, last sentence above, you have tyour answer: "is to be decided by local episcopal authority."

The Cardinal is also a bishop, therefore an "episcopal authority," so he is showing us what IS appropriate. If your point, my splitting colleagues, is that authority is important, then you should yield to the cardinal's authority on this issue. If Pope Francis chastises him, I may have to change my mind; but don't hold your breath on that one! [End of statement.]

Jan 21st 2014 new
(quote) Gerald-283546 said:

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.

This situation (w/ Cardinal O'Malley) does seem to have some interesting similarities with the story of Jesus being "anointed" by the sinful woman. What I find perhaps more interesting is the conversation that Jesus had with Simon (the Pharisee) about the whole situation. I have reprinted the story below, as copied from the online version of the USCCB Bible:

www.usccb.org

Copied from Luke, Chapter 7, 36-50:

The Pardon of the Sinful Woman.
>36> A Pharisee invited him to dine with him, and he entered the Pharisees house and reclined at table.

>37> Now there was a sinful woman in the city who learned that he was at table in the house of the Pharisee. Bringing an alabaster flask of ointment,

>38> she stood behind him at his feet weeping and began to bathe his feet with her tears. Then she wiped them with her hair, kissed them, and anointed them with the ointment.

>39> When the Pharisee who had invited him saw this he said to himself, If this man were a prophet, he would know who and what sort of woman this is who is touching him, that she is a sinner.

>40> Jesus said to him in reply, Simon, I have something to say to you. Tell me, teacher, he said.

>41> Two people were in debt to a certain creditor; one owed five hundred days wages* and the other owed fifty.

>42> Since they were unable to repay the debt, he forgave it for both. Which of them will love him more?

>43> Simon said in reply, The one, I suppose, whose larger debt was forgiven. He said to him, You have judged rightly.

>44> Then he turned to the woman and said to Simon, Do you see this woman? When I entered your house, you did not give me water for my feet, but she has bathed them with her tears and wiped them with her hair.

>45> You did not give me a kiss, but she has not ceased kissing my feet since the time I entered.

>46> You did not anoint my head with oil, but she anointed my feet with ointment.

>47> So I tell you, her many sins have been forgiven; hence, she has shown great love. "But the one to whom little is forgiven, loves little.

>48> He said to her, Your sins are forgiven.

>49> The others at table said to themselves, Who is this who even forgives sins?

>50> But he said to the woman, Your faith has saved you; go in peace.
---------------------------

Ed

Jan 21st 2014 new
(quote) ED-20630 said: This situation (w/ Cardinal O'Malley) does seem to have some interesting similarities with the story of Jesus being "anointed" by the sinful woman. What I find perhaps more interesting is the conversation that Jesus had with Simon (the Pharisee) about the whole situation. I have reprinted the story below, as copied from the online version of the USCCB Bible:

http://www.usccb.org/bible/luke/7

Copied from Luke, Chapter 7, 36-50:

The Pardon of the Sinful Woman.
>36> A Pharisee invited him to dine with him, and he entered the Pharisees house and reclined at table.
>37> Now there was a sinful woman in the city who learned that he was at table in the house of the Pharisee. Bringing an alabaster flask of ointment,
>38> she stood behind him at his feet weeping and began to bathe his feet with her tears. Then she wiped them with her hair, kissed them, and anointed them with the ointment.
>39> When the Pharisee who had invited him saw this he said to himself, If this man were a prophet, he would know who and what sort of woman this is who is touching him, that she is a sinner.
>40> Jesus said to him in reply, Simon, I have something to say to you. Tell me, teacher, he said.
>41> Two people were in debt to a certain creditor; one owed five hundred days wages* and the other owed fifty.
>42> Since they were unable to repay the debt, he forgave it for both. Which of them will love him more?
>43> Simon said in reply, The one, I suppose, whose larger debt was forgiven. He said to him, You have judged rightly.
>44> Then he turned to the woman and said to Simon, Do you see this woman? When I entered your house, you did not give me water for my feet, but she has bathed them with her tears and wiped them with her hair.
>45> You did not give me a kiss, but she has not ceased kissing my feet since the time I entered.
>46> You did not anoint my head with oil, but she anointed my feet with ointment.
>47> So I tell you, her many sins have been forgiven; hence, she has shown great love. "But the one to whom little is forgiven, loves little.
>48> He said to her, Your sins are forgiven.
>49> The others at table said to themselves, Who is this who even forgives sins?
>50> But he said to the woman, Your faith has saved you; go in peace.
---------------------------

Ed
I don't think the comparison is that apt, Ed.

Cardinal O'Malley was not (and has not as of yet called) calling the Methodist woman either a heretic, false prophet or a sinner in general. The whole situation was treated as one of "sacramental" religious significance, not that of a pastor of souls forgiving the sins of a very evil woman due to her contrition and public acts of attempted satisfaction for the evil she has done.
Jan 21st 2014 new
The 'which he should not have?' phrases are not stating my opinion. They are asking whether everything about the Cardinal's attendance bugs the writer of the article, or only some of them.


Yes, the sight of a cardinal receiving some kind of blessing from a Christian 'priestess' does look like a problem, but is it?


Submitting to 'reaffirmation' by a woman minister could be construed by onlookers from the Catholic pews that Cardinal O'Malley is possibly soft on the issue of women's ordination, or that the Church itself is going to become soft on the issue of women's ordination, but doesn't it depend on who is doing the onlooking from the Catholic pews, or, specifically, on how well they know their own Church?


Paradoxically, scandal can be created only for those of the laity who don't know what the Church thinks of this or that practice of the United Methodist Church. For those members of the laity who do know about the differences between the two churches, what scandal can be created? All they need to know is whether the Cardinal believes in women's ordination. If he tells them that he doesn't, is there an issue? Doesn't it all depend on the Cardinal's reasons, given from his own mouth, as to why he did what he did?


Gerald has cited the scenario of the washing of feet. Perhaps we could look at this episode in another way. Perhaps we could imagine Peter or another disciple asking Jesus, in a question similar in phrasing to a question with which Jesus is already quite familiar, "Why do you always eat with these Pharisees? They're confirmed hypocrites. They won't change their spots no matter how often you have dinner with them!" What if Jesus answers, "If I don't have dinner with them, I'll never give them a chance to know me"?


Why does Sean O'Malley always hang around with Protestants in the Boston area? Well, I don't know if he does, but let's say he does. Suppose we ask him, "Why do you always hang around with these heretics? They're never going to change their spots no matter how often you attend their services as a special guest or whatever!" What if he answers, "Someone who knows and can speak for the Catholic Church in Boston has to do it. Well, that's me. If I don't, I won't be giving them a chance to know what Catholicism is." What are you doing to say? What if he says, "Have you heard of the story about the wheat and the tares? About the gardener who asked for an extra year's permission to see what he could do for the unproductive fig tree?"


Yes, all of your fears, and your citations of reservations in Church documents about the dangers of engaging willy-nilly in 'ecumenism', are real concerns that should be carefully addressed, and not stigmatised as the paranoia of cave-dwelling traditionalists. But, as far as outreaching to Protestants, or to gays, lesbians, Satanists or whatever, the Cardinal, or the Pope, is like a military scout, tied to rules but also given discretion as to how to deal with the enemy terrain.


In situations like these, a lot depends on the 'personals' of the man himself, on his integrity, on the grey matter between his ears, on the unseen relationship between him and his God, on the protection of the Holy Spirit over him. Leaders can't be robots in how they do their job. They have to deal with unknowns. It's in the nature of a leadership role that the leader is trusted with areas of discretion. Sometimes, leaders can even be exempted from rules that the junior members are obliged to follow.


Hopefully, somewhere, to assuage the concerns of the faithful, is something from the Cardinal about why he did what he did. Leaders both ride ahead of the troops as well as bring the troops with them.
Posts 31 - 40 of 112