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 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 21st 2014 new
(quote) Bernard-2709 said: What is my point? I think you should ask the Cardinal that question.
The good Cardinal will tell you that he did this in order to send "good Catholics" of your ilk scurrying to the restroom.
wink

It's called reaching out. Opening doors. Nothing is being diluted or betrayed.
Jan 21st 2014 new
(quote) Roystan-340472 said: 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.

Yup, yup, yup.... well said, Roystan!

Jan 21st 2014 new
(quote) David-364112 said:
 It's called reaching out. Opening doors. Nothing is being diluted or betrayed.

Hey David, are we agreeing laughing Tell me it isn't so! laughing

I must say to Chelsea, that I empathize to an extent with her sentiments. There doesn't appear to be much there to bear fruit in that service, but one can never discount the attempts to witness that keeps a positive presence instead of a contentious attitude when they desire interaction and dialogue. Chelsea, the likes of this event pushes my comfort zone in these times when it's so hard to find a place of refuge for Catholics to be ourselves. So we must offer it up and hope that the fruits will be sweeter than the journey. We need to be able to understand this, accept this, without compromising the essentials of the Catholic Faith.

Jan 21st 2014 new
(quote) Roystan-340472 said: 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?"
Roystan - I don't believe ANYONE takes issue with Cardinal O'Malley doing his duty to the mission mandate. I find it bewildering to attempt to pass off giving credence to a Methodist ceremony (as if it has religious significance beyond sacrilege) as if it were a moment of evangelisation. What WAS the message of the Cardinal sans words illuminating his actions: that therein the Methodist ceremony was a means of either furthering salvation or spiritual perfection.

The whole question is now: IS THAT TRUE?

It doesn't even make sense in light of dogma. It's not so much a matter of scandal (though there are good reasons to explore that venue), but rather of madness.


Jan 21st 2014 new
(quote) David-364112 said: The good Cardinal will tell you that he did this in order to send "good Catholics" of your ilk scurrying to the restroom.


It's called reaching out. Opening doors. Nothing is being diluted or betrayed.
To my knowledge, the Cardinal made no statement of reaching out or opening doors. All he did was take part in an extra-ecclesial religious ceremony.

If I had two children, one who was disobedient and flouted my authority as mother and tried to incite his brother to do so as well, and another who struggled to obey and affirm my authority, would I not be affirming the position of the former if I go and have every Sunday tea with him, giving no explanation to the latter as to my purpose? What teaching can be gained by the latter son in his mother's actions: her claim to authority is arbitrary, and the position of his brother is the correct one according to the thought of his mother.

What it really looks like is selling out.
Jan 21st 2014 new
(quote) John-971967 said:

Hey David, are we agreeing Tell me it isn't so!

I must say to Chelsea, that I empathize to an extent with her sentiments. There doesn't appear to be much there to bear fruit in that service, but one can never discount the attempts to witness that keeps a positive presence instead of a contentious attitude when they desire interaction and dialogue. Chelsea, the likes of this event pushes my comfort zone in these times when it's so hard to find a place of refuge for Catholics to be ourselves. So we must offer it up and hope that the fruits will be sweeter than the journey. We need to be able to understand this, accept this, without compromising the essentials of the Catholic Faith.

Nothing in the event shakes my assent to His Divine Majesty, Jesus Christ, and obedience to His Church. All I am trying to get across at this point is that there is a point far before burning incense on the altar of an idol that Catholics must by needs avoid in extra-ecclesial religious ceremonies.

The first commandment teaches much.
Jan 21st 2014 new
(quote) Chelsea-743484 said: 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.
The situation did not have sacramental significance in that a person can only be properly baptized once. This was more akin to the reaffirmation of our baptismal promises... as we (at my parish) did several weeks ago during Mass (instead of reciting the creed).

If Jesus would be very positive in accepting an anointing from the "sinful woman" (in the story)... and be impressed to such a manner to absolve her of her sins... and then rebuke Simon (the Pharisee) for showing no such hospitality or care toward Jesus.... then surely he would have accepted such an anointing from a less sinful (presumably), more upstanding (presumably), non-Catholic, Methodist woman (minister or not).

The Methodist woman was not re-baptizing the Cardinal.,.... and we Catholics share the sacrament of baptism with the Methodist religion. It would be quite a different matter if the woman were a Mormon (for instance), as the Catholic Church does not accept Mormon baptism as valid.... So it would be improper to do this sort of reaffirmation with a Mormon, as baptism is something very different for them.

Ed
Jan 21st 2014 new
(quote) ED-20630 said: The situation did not have sacramental significance in that a person can only be properly baptized once. This was more akin to the reaffirmation of our baptismal promises... as we (at my parish) did several weeks ago during Mass (instead of reciting the creed).

If Jesus would be very positive in accepting an anointing from the "sinful woman" (in the story)... and be impressed to such a manner to absolve her of her sins... and then rebuke Simon (the Pharisee) for showing no such hospitality or care toward Jesus.... then surely he would have accepted such an anointing from a less sinful (presumably), more upstanding (presumably), non-Catholic, Methodist woman (minister or not).

The Methodist woman was not re-baptizing the Cardinal.,.... and we Catholics share the sacrament of baptism with the Methodist religion. It would be quite a different matter if the woman were a Mormon (for instance), as the Catholic Church does not accept Mormon baptism as valid.... So it would be improper to do this sort of reaffirmation with a Mormon, as baptism is something very different for them.

Ed
Ed, I don't see why everyone is refusing to differentiate between the sacrament of Holy Baptism and a SACRAMENTAL.

I've not mentioned Holy Baptism beyond my first post, but rather a "sacramental" (or really pseudo-sacramental). A blessing, for example, is a sacramental; it is a channel of added actual graces. Anne Robertson offered a blessing (according to her words) to Cardinal O'Malley. Cardinal O'Malley's archdiocesan office denies the sacramental value of said blessing, yet a priest who claims to know Cardinal O'Malley has stated publicly that Cardinal O'Malley would accept a blessing from a person who arrogates to himself religious authority and is outside the Catholic Church.

The funny thing about the archdiocesan statement is that it says essentially, it's not a blessing because it's just like the sacramental blessing we give ourselves each time we enter a Catholic Church...madness!


www.bostonglobe.com.




Jan 21st 2014 new
(quote) Roystan-340472 said: 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.

If popes JPII and Benedict had not reached out to the Anglicans during their papacies, we certainly would not have so many Anglicans entering the Catholic Church today... with some Anglican ministers also bringing with them many of their congregations.

With all of the collective attacks on Christians in the world today, we (Catholics) will be much better off cooperating with other Christian religions whenever it is possible. If we Christians always stand separately when battling our governments and secular society concerning moral issues and freedom of religion, then we are sure to lose. We must work together when we can.

Ed
Jan 21st 2014 new
(quote) Chelsea-743484 said: Ed, I don't see why everyone is refusing to differentiate between the sacrament of Holy Baptism and a SACRAMENTAL.

I've not mentioned Holy Baptism beyond my first post, but rather a "sacramental" (or really pseudo-sacramental). A blessing, for example, is a sacramental; it is a channel of added actual graces. Anne Robertson offered a blessing (according to her words) to Cardinal O'Malley. Cardinal O'Malley's archdiocesan office denies the sacramental value of said blessing, yet a priest who claims to know Cardinal O'Malley has stated publicly that Cardinal O'Malley would accept a blessing from a person who arrogates to himself religious authority and is outside the Catholic Church.

The funny thing about the archdiocesan statement is that it says essentially, it's not a blessing because it's just like the sacramental blessing we give ourselves each time we enter a Catholic Church...madness!


http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/01/17/church-ritual-shared-between-cardinal-sean-malley-and-me...




One of my Catholic brothers is married to a Methodist woman. Their daughter (my niece) is Catholic. It seems to me, that using your logic, it would be improper or scandalous for my Methodist sister-in-law to "bless" her Catholic daughter.... Using your words....Madness!

Ed
Posts 41 - 50 of 112