K
- Status
B
Brendan
Guest
What wrongs is +Burke not bearing patiently? And what evidence do you have that he had not forgiven any wrongs done to him?
Do note, however, that bearing wrongs done personally to him is different that his role as a shepard in not allowing wrongs be done to his flock.
S
stlouismb
Guest
I assume you know for a fact that other Jewish leaders have distanced themselves from her? I assume you also know that many Catholic leaders have distanced themselves from Burke. So what? She should have been welcome in our house to speak on the topic at hand and perhaps admonished to not speak on issues where she may be at odds with Catholic teaching. And Instructed, not told, where she was wrong, if indeed she was wrong.
Ask Talve if that was her intent? It was not. She has stated that publicly and privately to Burke.
So you are allowed here to judge my fondness or lack thereof of Burke, but I am not allowed to judge Burke’s intentions? I have been told so by others here. I do not know him. I am in his diocese.
I have read and heard his statements/press releases, and other writings. Some I agree with and others I don’t. Some affirm my understanding of my faith and others make me squirm. I admit that. I have no reason to dislike him or to decide that no position he would take on any issue is agreeable to me. If my posts here sound like bashing, for that I apologize. My intent was to question, to dialogue, to understand his rationale… not to bash.
Listen, I know I come at this from a different angle than many of you. I am one of those “old” 1960’s Catholics who you are so eager to get rid of. However, I am a Catholic brother of yours. Perhaps I sound too brusque due to the medium. Perhaps, my frustration flares up when I see 3 steps forward and 2 backward in relationship to our other brothers and sisters. I try to pray before posting and especially before answering other’s posts. Thanks for your response to me.
Peace,
Mike
S
stlouismb
Guest
Hi Katherine. I know it was reported that Talve brought the two women with her. They actually live near the parish and were/are members of the St. Cronan’s parish. Talve did not “bring them”.
I think that if we limit the insight(s) we can gain from those who held the Old testament in their language and tradition for so many years, including the prophets (who foretold the birth of the Messiah and many other aspects of the Christian era), up to the time of the Birth of Christ only, we sell our birthright as those grafted in. If the Jewish tradition and interpretation of scripture is no longer relevant to you, I find that very arrogant. We can still learn much from their traditions and teachings, which Jesus himself quoted and from which he taught. So on this point I must disagree with you.
I think that if we limit the insight(s) we can gain from those who held the Old testament in their language and tradition for so many years, including the prophets (who foretold the birth of the Messiah and many other aspects of the Christian era), up to the time of the Birth of Christ only, we sell our birthright as those grafted in. If the Jewish tradition and interpretation of scripture is no longer relevant to you, I find that very arrogant. We can still learn much from their traditions and teachings, which Jesus himself quoted and from which he taught. So on this point I must disagree with you.
S
stlouismb
Guest
I don’t know, nor pretend to know other than his very public press release(s) on the subject seems he has taken this issue very personally and on *behalf of his “flock” *(I guess, of dumb sheep like me, who can’t decide for ourselves how to respond). I think his response has not been a good example to his flock on how to bear wrongs patiently. I think his response has not been a good example to his flock on the fruit of forgiveness. I think that his response was certainly legally his right to make, but “pastorally” a bad example. That is all.
Based on Burke’s example, I should tell my brother, who disagrees openly with me and Catholicism, that he is not welcome to converse in my house about that topic or any topic nor even visit, but must wait outside in the cold and rain.
When I was younger our teachers spoke of teachable moments being lost by the making of dogmatic statements rather than instruction. It reminded me of the Peanuts characters who heard a bunch of squawking when the teacher was telling them something, rather than* teaching *them something.
Then of course there are the saints who thought the best method of instruction was by example rather than always using words.
M
mnmom
Guest
Stlouismb
Perhaps you should visit the website of the Association of Hewbrew Catholics based out of St. Louis and see how much respect they have for Archbishop Burke.
Perhaps you should visit the website of the Association of Hewbrew Catholics based out of St. Louis and see how much respect they have for Archbishop Burke.
F
fix
Guest
Rebellious adolescents.
S
stlouismb
Guest
Well I went there and found a nice letter from Burke to them. Could not find what you referenced. Could you send me a direct link? The website is not easy to navigate…for me.Stlouismb
Perhaps you should visit the website of the Association of Hewbrew Catholics based out of St. Louis and see how much respect they have for Archbishop Burke.
At any rate, I am not arguing that there are people who respect/like/etc each other and those who don’t. I will say, that Talve has said she intended no disrespect. To keep saying that was her intent is un-Christian–in the sense that it bears false witness–and wrong.
J
johnstown_johnn
Guest
God bless Archboshop Burke. Let us keep him in our prayers.:knight1:
M
MarkMilburn
Guest
Hello all. This is my first post and I guess it might as well be about Rabbi Talve and His Excellancy.
Let me invoke some humor here.
A very well placed member of the Jewish community had this to say to me about the “St. Cronan’s-in-the-rain” controversy.
“Why would we (Jewish folks) want to get all our craziness mixed up with all their (Catholic folks) craziness. Shouldn’t we just work on our own crazy controversies first?” (paraphrase)
This seemed like real wisdom to me.
What we have here, to put the matter in psychological terms, is a boundary issue. Figuratively speaking, Rabbi Susan decided to cross a border without a passport. The dreary truth is that no organization, club, senate, state or government, large or small can function with any integrity if non-members get to just cross the border and start voting on changes to the rules.
I don’t mean to make this sound like the Immigration Issue but in a way it is. The membership gets to decide the rules governing any organization. Not the outsiders. And not the “friends” of the membership, no matter how dear.
This is an invariable law of group functionality whether political or religious. Even when St. Paul said “among you there is no male or female, Jew or Gentile…” he meant for the blurring of distinctions to be a distinct marker or characteristic of the Christian community. So even in erasing differences he established a difference in Christ.
Enough! The real question is threefold?
1.) Is Rabbi Talve so unskilled in diplomacy as to not know the simple laws of organizational life?
2.) Or does she feel a need to enter into an agenda to change another denomination’s rules because she suffers from an excess of “ecumenical zeal”?
3.) That is to say, are the St. Cronan’s folks and the Central Reform folks really just one big congregation of religious liberals who don’t really feel any difference between the two systems of belief?.
I’m serious about number 2.) and 3.) When I lived in New York and things like this would happen it would be called by Catholics and Protestants alike “guerilla ecumenism”.
Guerilla ecumenism. There is such a phenomenon! People get so into the “we are all one” mystique that they forget about boundaries which cannot be removed. Guerilla Ecumenism occurs when a deeply felt unity with other human beings (often around social issues) takes first place over unity with one’s original faith community.
Let’s all pray for everyone concerned, especially our beloved Excellancy Raymond Burke. He has a hard job. And it will be harder the day he has to close the doors of St. Cronan’s just to remind folks that there is such a thing as the Roman Catholic Church which is separate from the good deeds it pursues hand in hand with other denominations.
Let me invoke some humor here.
A very well placed member of the Jewish community had this to say to me about the “St. Cronan’s-in-the-rain” controversy.
“Why would we (Jewish folks) want to get all our craziness mixed up with all their (Catholic folks) craziness. Shouldn’t we just work on our own crazy controversies first?” (paraphrase)
This seemed like real wisdom to me.
What we have here, to put the matter in psychological terms, is a boundary issue. Figuratively speaking, Rabbi Susan decided to cross a border without a passport. The dreary truth is that no organization, club, senate, state or government, large or small can function with any integrity if non-members get to just cross the border and start voting on changes to the rules.
I don’t mean to make this sound like the Immigration Issue but in a way it is. The membership gets to decide the rules governing any organization. Not the outsiders. And not the “friends” of the membership, no matter how dear.
This is an invariable law of group functionality whether political or religious. Even when St. Paul said “among you there is no male or female, Jew or Gentile…” he meant for the blurring of distinctions to be a distinct marker or characteristic of the Christian community. So even in erasing differences he established a difference in Christ.
Enough! The real question is threefold?
1.) Is Rabbi Talve so unskilled in diplomacy as to not know the simple laws of organizational life?
2.) Or does she feel a need to enter into an agenda to change another denomination’s rules because she suffers from an excess of “ecumenical zeal”?
3.) That is to say, are the St. Cronan’s folks and the Central Reform folks really just one big congregation of religious liberals who don’t really feel any difference between the two systems of belief?.
I’m serious about number 2.) and 3.) When I lived in New York and things like this would happen it would be called by Catholics and Protestants alike “guerilla ecumenism”.
Guerilla ecumenism. There is such a phenomenon! People get so into the “we are all one” mystique that they forget about boundaries which cannot be removed. Guerilla Ecumenism occurs when a deeply felt unity with other human beings (often around social issues) takes first place over unity with one’s original faith community.
Let’s all pray for everyone concerned, especially our beloved Excellancy Raymond Burke. He has a hard job. And it will be harder the day he has to close the doors of St. Cronan’s just to remind folks that there is such a thing as the Roman Catholic Church which is separate from the good deeds it pursues hand in hand with other denominations.
F
fix
Guest
What is confusing you?
M
MarkMilburn
Guest
This is Mark again posting two blogs in one day. I guess I’m starting to become addicted.
(And I swore I wouldn’t start doing this until I reached retirement age.)
Listen everyone. Has anyone asked the following question?
His Grace Ray Burke said through Fr. Heier after the fake ordinations “the archdiocese will not take part in any interfaith efforts where Rabbi Talve is a major player”. (paraphrase)
It seems no one has examined the issue from the perspective of the Archbishops legal right to set policy.
Let me put the matter in a syllogism.
Major Premise: The invitation to the Rabbi to discourse on Isiah at St. Cronan’s was an “interfaith effort where…Talve is a major player”.
Minor Premise: Archbishop Burke set policy for the Archdiocese when he said that no “interfaith effort where Rabbi Talve is a major player” will be allowed.
Minor Premise: The Church is the Body of Christ in or out of consecrated buildings.
Conclusion: The St. Cronan’s parishioners gathered on Swan Ave.to hear Rabbi Talve were the Body of Christ acting in defiance of Archdiocean policy.
In other words they may have committed a schismatic act!
I don’t want them declared in schism. I’m all for healing this rift. But I think the problem needs to be addressed from the viewpoint of the Archbishop’s authority to guide Catholics both in and outside their real estate.
I would like to hear from someone educated in Canon Law on this aspect of the problem. I would like to know whether the Church-in-the-rain couldn’t be accused of an act of schism.
I’m open minded. I don’t know the law on this. But I would think that sober Catholics might worry about this.
(And I swore I wouldn’t start doing this until I reached retirement age.)
Listen everyone. Has anyone asked the following question?
His Grace Ray Burke said through Fr. Heier after the fake ordinations “the archdiocese will not take part in any interfaith efforts where Rabbi Talve is a major player”. (paraphrase)
It seems no one has examined the issue from the perspective of the Archbishops legal right to set policy.
Let me put the matter in a syllogism.
Major Premise: The invitation to the Rabbi to discourse on Isiah at St. Cronan’s was an “interfaith effort where…Talve is a major player”.
Minor Premise: Archbishop Burke set policy for the Archdiocese when he said that no “interfaith effort where Rabbi Talve is a major player” will be allowed.
Minor Premise: The Church is the Body of Christ in or out of consecrated buildings.
Conclusion: The St. Cronan’s parishioners gathered on Swan Ave.to hear Rabbi Talve were the Body of Christ acting in defiance of Archdiocean policy.
In other words they may have committed a schismatic act!
I don’t want them declared in schism. I’m all for healing this rift. But I think the problem needs to be addressed from the viewpoint of the Archbishop’s authority to guide Catholics both in and outside their real estate.
I would like to hear from someone educated in Canon Law on this aspect of the problem. I would like to know whether the Church-in-the-rain couldn’t be accused of an act of schism.
I’m open minded. I don’t know the law on this. But I would think that sober Catholics might worry about this.
J
johnstown_johnn
Guest
The “ordained women priests” for your information have been excommunicated. They are not part of the Body of Christ and they have endangered their immortal souls…nobody to blame except themselves.
As for the “rabbi” all she did was put a deeper enmity between herself and the Church. She staged her opposition to the Church and, without having to say it, is a bigot and hateful of the Church.
As for the “rabbi” all she did was put a deeper enmity between herself and the Church. She staged her opposition to the Church and, without having to say it, is a bigot and hateful of the Church.
M
MarkMilburn
Guest
John,
FYI I live in St. Louis and I well know that the “ordained women priests” were excommunicated. As for the Rabbi I leave it to our Jewish brothers and sisters to counsel her.
The point of my last blog was different. I’m asking whether the St. Cronan’s parishoners who accompanied the Rabbi did not themselves commit an act of schism by choosing to join the Rabbi rather than join themselves to the wishes of the Archbishop. Does this make them excommunicatable?
I’m asking a technical question of Canon Law.
Mark
J
johnstown_johnn
Guest
Not a Canon expert. I am a very Catholic man and my basic instincts (for what it’s worth) are that it depends on those in attendance as individuals.
Some may have attended out of pure curiousity; others out of having "feministic notions; and some may embrace the “ordinations.”
They; if any one of hypothetical notions apply then it is a matter of DEGREE. The lesser, but still unacceptable, would be the “curiousity seekers.” It is an occasion of sin by placing themselves in that setting.
If the other two it is close to being schismatic. It has an odor of rebellion against the Church.
In any case, Archbishop Burke, should he review all on a case-by-case basis has the authority to excommunicate any he sees warranting it.
Canon law is something you might want to GOOGLE and see what you can find.:knight1:
K
Klydewannab
Guest
I don’t see this as an issue of Canon Law, but of tolerance. But what does tolerance mean? I’ve been reading a book by +Fulton Sheen titled Old Errors and New Labels. There is a chapter in there titled A Plea for Intolerance. And since he can say it better than I can, I am going to quote some of that here:
"America, it is said, is suffering from intolerance. It is not. It is suffering from tolerance: tolerance of right and wrong, truth and error, virtue and evil, Christ and chaos. Our country is not nearly so much overrun with the bigoted as it is overrun with the broad-minded. The man who can make up his mind in an orderly way, as man might make up his bed, is called a bigot; but a man who cannot make up his mind, any more than he can make up for lost time, is called tolerant and broad-minded.
“A bigoted man is one who refuses to accept a reason for anything; a broad-minded man is one who will accept anything for a reason…The breakdown that has produced this unnatural broad-mindedness is mental, not moral. The evidence for this statement is threefold: the tendency to settle issues not by arguments but by words , the unqualified willingness to accept the authority of anyone on the subject of religion, and, lastly, the love of novelty.”
"America, it is said, is suffering from intolerance. It is not. It is suffering from tolerance: tolerance of right and wrong, truth and error, virtue and evil, Christ and chaos. Our country is not nearly so much overrun with the bigoted as it is overrun with the broad-minded. The man who can make up his mind in an orderly way, as man might make up his bed, is called a bigot; but a man who cannot make up his mind, any more than he can make up for lost time, is called tolerant and broad-minded.
“A bigoted man is one who refuses to accept a reason for anything; a broad-minded man is one who will accept anything for a reason…The breakdown that has produced this unnatural broad-mindedness is mental, not moral. The evidence for this statement is threefold: the tendency to settle issues not by arguments but by words , the unqualified willingness to accept the authority of anyone on the subject of religion, and, lastly, the love of novelty.”
K
Klydewannab
Guest
"Not only does the substitution of words for arguments betray the existence of this false tolerance, but also the readiness on the part of many minds to accept as an authority in any field an indivdual who becomes a famous authority in one particular field…that a professor who is an authority on the mathematical interpretation of atomic phenomena is thereby an authority on the interpretation of marriage…The scienc of religion has a right to be heard scientifically through its qualified spokesmen, just as the science of physics or of astronomy has a right to be heard through its qualified spokesmen. Religion is a science despite the fact that some would make it only a sentiment…Religion is not an open question…
"Another evidence of the breakdown of reason that has produced (this type of broad-mindedness) is the passion for novelty, as opposed to the love of truth. …
"Belief in the existence of God, in the Divinity of Christ, and in the moral law are considered passing fashions. The latest thing in this new tolerance is considered the true thing, as if truth were a fashion, like a hat, instead of an institution, like a head.
“There are some that believe that intolerance is always wrong, because they make ‘intolerance’ mean hate, narrow-mindedness, and bigotry. These same minds believe that tolerance is always right because, for them, it means charity, broad-mindedness, American good nature.”
"Another evidence of the breakdown of reason that has produced (this type of broad-mindedness) is the passion for novelty, as opposed to the love of truth. …
"Belief in the existence of God, in the Divinity of Christ, and in the moral law are considered passing fashions. The latest thing in this new tolerance is considered the true thing, as if truth were a fashion, like a hat, instead of an institution, like a head.
“There are some that believe that intolerance is always wrong, because they make ‘intolerance’ mean hate, narrow-mindedness, and bigotry. These same minds believe that tolerance is always right because, for them, it means charity, broad-mindedness, American good nature.”
K
Klydewannab
Guest
"What is tolerance? Tolerance is an attitude of reasoned patience towards evil, and forbearance that restrains us from showing anger of inflicting punishment…Tolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons…
“Greater tolerance, of course, is desirable, for there can never be too much charity shown to persons who differ with us. Our Blessed Lord Himself asked that we “love those who calumniate us,” for they are always persons, but He never told us to love the calumny…Charity then must be shown to persons, and particularly to those outside the fold…Thus far tolerance, but no farther. Tolerance does not apply to truth of principles. About these things we must be intolerant…Intolerance of this kind is the foundation of all stability.”
So the questions is, who, by this definition, was being tolerant and who was being intolerant?
“Greater tolerance, of course, is desirable, for there can never be too much charity shown to persons who differ with us. Our Blessed Lord Himself asked that we “love those who calumniate us,” for they are always persons, but He never told us to love the calumny…Charity then must be shown to persons, and particularly to those outside the fold…Thus far tolerance, but no farther. Tolerance does not apply to truth of principles. About these things we must be intolerant…Intolerance of this kind is the foundation of all stability.”
So the questions is, who, by this definition, was being tolerant and who was being intolerant?
M
MarkMilburn
Guest
Klyde,
(If I may call you that.)
Thanks for your copious quote from F. Sheen. I agree that much of what we’re seening in this comedy is a misuse of the ideal of tolerance.
You probably know the Chesterton quote “the whole point of having an “open mind” is to close it on something solid.” I think in some other work he refered to individuals whose minds were so open their brains fell out.
Both Sheen and Chesterton are pretty much on point here.
Thanks for your contribution.
My question about Canon Law is trivial and not terribly important. However I do worry about what means Archb. Burke will have at his disposal to rectify the situtation.
Part of the problem is that St. Cronan’s and Fr. Kleba have a commendable record for Catholic Social activism. The problem is that once you start making common cause with non-believers there will be some who think that the system of belief (Catholic) is nothing other than the common cause and then perspective gets lost.
That’s part of what I think is happening here. I don’t know the St. Cronan’s folks at all. I am totally ignorant of how that parish works. But I have heard very good things about Fr. Kleba from relatives who have had him as pastor at Immaculate Conception in Dardenne.
I think the problem may be that between Central Reform Congregation and St. Cronan’s there is a single left activist community that might as well be just one big congregation or parish if you wish. They feel closer to each other than they do to His Grace Archb. Burke, which is a natural sentiment since they know each other. Consequently there is a drift towards an emotional and sentimental approach to the issue. I’m guessing that Talve’s people and Kleba’s people are the same people.
Still, nonetheless, Archb. Burke is going to have to play Daddy and do something about this business of Catholics choosing abortion supporting Rabbis over him. And that’s what I worry about. What will he do?
Somebody needs to understand that Catholic Identity is really a number one priority of His Grace and The Holy Father. When His Holiness Benedict XVI said that other denominations were not really Churches he wasn’t being petty or mean. He was simply pointing out that the identity of a Catholic church made Bishops and their authority terribly important. More important than sister-friend-comrade-Rabbis I’m afraid.
Somebody better figure out that this guy (His Grace) is serious. He might just shut that whole show down if it gets any sillier.
(If I may call you that.)
Thanks for your copious quote from F. Sheen. I agree that much of what we’re seening in this comedy is a misuse of the ideal of tolerance.
You probably know the Chesterton quote “the whole point of having an “open mind” is to close it on something solid.” I think in some other work he refered to individuals whose minds were so open their brains fell out.
Both Sheen and Chesterton are pretty much on point here.
Thanks for your contribution.
My question about Canon Law is trivial and not terribly important. However I do worry about what means Archb. Burke will have at his disposal to rectify the situtation.
Part of the problem is that St. Cronan’s and Fr. Kleba have a commendable record for Catholic Social activism. The problem is that once you start making common cause with non-believers there will be some who think that the system of belief (Catholic) is nothing other than the common cause and then perspective gets lost.
That’s part of what I think is happening here. I don’t know the St. Cronan’s folks at all. I am totally ignorant of how that parish works. But I have heard very good things about Fr. Kleba from relatives who have had him as pastor at Immaculate Conception in Dardenne.
I think the problem may be that between Central Reform Congregation and St. Cronan’s there is a single left activist community that might as well be just one big congregation or parish if you wish. They feel closer to each other than they do to His Grace Archb. Burke, which is a natural sentiment since they know each other. Consequently there is a drift towards an emotional and sentimental approach to the issue. I’m guessing that Talve’s people and Kleba’s people are the same people.
Still, nonetheless, Archb. Burke is going to have to play Daddy and do something about this business of Catholics choosing abortion supporting Rabbis over him. And that’s what I worry about. What will he do?
Somebody needs to understand that Catholic Identity is really a number one priority of His Grace and The Holy Father. When His Holiness Benedict XVI said that other denominations were not really Churches he wasn’t being petty or mean. He was simply pointing out that the identity of a Catholic church made Bishops and their authority terribly important. More important than sister-friend-comrade-Rabbis I’m afraid.
Somebody better figure out that this guy (His Grace) is serious. He might just shut that whole show down if it gets any sillier.
- Status