The ordination of female Episcopal Bishop in a Catholic Church

[MagdalenaRita]

The SSPX of today CHOSE to do what they did

tafan2:

I suspect many of the SSPX did not choose to go into schism in 1988. But they choose the SSPX over Rome today. The Episcopal Church members choose their churn over Rome today
Yes there are Catholics who have left more recently and gone to the SSPX, but there are Catholics who have left and gone to the Episcopal Church. In absolute numbers, the former group might very likely be larger than the latter group. Is the difference as significant as you think?

Thus is an excellent answer. Many Catholics today have grown up in the SSPX just the same as protestants of today grew up in protestantism and many Catholics choose protestantism today the same as some Catholics choose SSPX.

Those in the SSPX are also our brothers and sisters in Christ.

 

[tafan2]

And we are a heck of a lot closer to being in communion with them than the Episcopals, or even the Orthodox. Yet some think it is better to let the Episcopals use our Churches than the SSPX?

ETA: please note that I am not advocating that the SSPX or any schismatic group be allowed to have ordinations in Catholic churches.

 

[ThomasMT]

To be clear, there is yet to be found a straight, unambiguous answer as to whether or not SSPX is indeed in schism. Well… maybe not too clear.

 

[tafan2]

Fair enough, which makes my point stronger

 

[FirstFiveEighth]

I thought Pope Benedict had allowed a regularization of the relationship between the SSPX and Rome? Could have sworn he allowed that SSPX services were valid and people could attend them, but I could be wrong. :man_shrugging:t2:

 

[OneSheep]

The Episcopal Diocese of Southern Virginia will no longer hold an episcopal consecration and ordination at a Catholic parish in Williamsburg, following an internet petition signed by over 3,000 people objecting to the event.

I am wondering if those 3000 petitioners are familiar with “Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.”

I think that it becomes quite clear that in this case, the light of Christ is seen in the actions of the Catholic Bishop and the Episcopal congregation, a Spirit of charity and welcome, a Spirit of generosity, rather than condemnation.

 

[ThomasMT]

I am wondering if those 3000 petitioners are familiar with “Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.”

I think that it becomes quite clear that in this case, the light of Christ is seen in the actions of the Catholic Bishop and the Episcopal congregation, a Spirit of charity and welcome, a Spirit of generosity, rather than condemnation.

Not if it means endorsing and facilitating anti-catholic heresy. There is no love in charity without truth. Our culture of PC “tolerance” is very flawed in this manner. The devil is a master of taking a tiny spec out of truth, wrapping it with endless lies, and then presenting it in charitable form.

In this case, an expression of the spirit of charity and generosity would involve every attempt to bring the Espiscapalian “bishop” to the fullness of truth that is offered by the Catholic church. Instead, we push her farther away by entertaining her flawed beliefs. We are also putting our own flock at risk by exposing it to false doctrine.

Is the Catholic Bishop acting like a good shepherd, willing to lay down his life for his flock, or a hired hand? That may not be for me to answer, but I do find that the “light of Christ” shines a lot brighter when His Blessed Sacrament isn’t told to take a hike, and the sanctuary lamp extinguished, so that His house can be defiled with a perverse, scripturaly blasphemous ceremony.

 

[ThomasMT]

They are valid… but its complicated. Mostly, it comes down to the intent of the person attending, the frequency of attendance, availability of regular parishes nearby… etc. My understanding is that it is discouraged, but tolerated. If you google “is sspx mass valid,” you will get a sense of the ambiguity that I refer to. I personally find myself hard-pressed for difinitive conclusions on the matter.

 

[OneSheep]

Not if it means endorsing and facilitating anti-catholic heresy.

Being charitable to Episcopalians is an anti-Catholic heresy?

There is no love in charity without truth.

Yes, the truth is that the Bishop was opening the doors to people in need.

The devil is a master of taking a tiny spec out of truth, wrapping it with endless lies, and then presenting it in charitable form.

Are you familiar with Mark 3:20-35?

Is the Catholic Bishop acting like a good shepherd, willing to lay down his life for his flock, or a hired hand?

He is loving his neighbor as himself. He is doing unto others as we would have others do unto us. Are you familiar for the Gospel call to give others the benefit of the doubt? Those 3000 petitioners had something to learn from the Bishop’s welcoming generosity. Did not Jesus eat with sinners? Yet, this something only involving a simple building, a place to hold services, worship together, and share His body, which brings us together.

Are you suggesting His Body, which was so inclusive in His own ministry, is now there to exclude people?

but I do find that the “light of Christ” shines a lot brighter when His Blessed Sacrament isn’t told to take a hike

I think you have something there. Why move the Blessed Sacrament? Did someone think that it would be defiled?

 

[OneSheep]

so that His house can be defiled with a perverse, scripturaly blasphemous ceremony.

I would like to let my wonderful Episcopalian brothers and sisters know that this man’s words are extremely rare in our church. We love you and see that you are also following Jesus, blessed with His light and Spirit, and we recognize that both of our Churches are not perfect, nor are we done growing spiritually, getting closer to our Lord. You must also be familiar with those in your own church who would rather close the doors to strangers, who would rather not share His body with those who see things a little differently, who have different experiences and images of God and humanity.

Pray with me, that there be an end to the fear and condemnation that accompanies the closing of doors, the building of walls, the denial of charity and welcome.

That all wounds are healed, the wound of those who are now misled by the unwelcoming Christians, the wounds of those who are marginalized by the closing of doors, the wounds of those who petitioned for the closing, we pray to the Lord.

Amen

 

[Feanor2]

ThomasMT:

so that His house can be defiled with a perverse, scripturaly blasphemous ceremony.

I would like to let my wonderful Episcopalian brothers and sisters know that this man’s words are extremely rare in our church. We love you and see that you are also following Jesus, blessed with His light and Spirit, and we recognize that both of our Churches are not perfect, nor are we done growing spiritually, getting closer to our Lord. You must also be familiar with those in your own church who would rather close the doors to strangers, who would rather not share His body with those who see things a little differently, who have different experiences and images of God and humanity.

Pray with me, that there be an end to the fear and condemnation that accompanies the closing of doors, the building of walls, the denial of charity and welcome.

Amen

Thanks for that.

It’s better to light a candle than curse the darkness.

 

[ThomasMT]

Thank you for the opportunity for further clarity.
I am always a fan of meaningful dialogue.

I’ll jump to your last point, as I suspected that it would be raised as soon as I posted my earlier rant.

I think you have something there. Why move the Blessed Sacrament? Did someone think that it would be defiled?

It would be defiled by being exposed to the defilement of its sanctuary. The sanctuary would be hosting what is not a catholic ordination, therefore a false/imitation ordination, therefore a mockery of a true ordination.
It would also diminish true and proper future ordinations by inadvertently likening them to false ordinations. It’s not about condemnation but preservation.

Being charitable to Episcopalians is an anti-Catholic heresy?

No, compromising Catholic teachings, culture, sacred spaces reserved for sacred worship, and the fullness of truth is not charitable. It is destructive and does not bring the Episcopalian church any closer to Christs church, just the contrary. Is it charitable give a schizophrenic an imaginary radio, so that he can get better reception from the aliens? Is it charitable to give an addict the money he needs for his habit? No! We know very well how to help in such cases. Whether or not they are willing to accept the help doesnt change the fact that we know the truth, and how to offer it in a trully charitable fashion. I am not trying to be disrespectful with such harsh analogies, but I really don’t know how else to drive the point.

Yes, the truth is that the Bishop was opening the doors to people in need.

What about the needs of the church that he is charged to protect? Least of all from what is, in the catholic church, false doctrine.

Are you familiar with Mark 3:20-35?

Are you suggesting that what I see as capitulation to false doctrine is actually fruit of the… and I am blaspheming? Let us both tread carefully here. That seems a bit like a hit below the belt, but I will reflect on that. After all, we both seek the truth I, pray.

I will leave a couple of quotes for you to reflect on as well…
Isaiah 5: 20
Mathew 15: 21 - 28

I’ll admit that since I have yet to ready the bible from cover to cover, I am hesitant to use verses for arguments sake. I understand that they can be taken out of context, without a holistic understanding. So, feel free to correct me (and I know you will) if my present understanding is wrong. Christ did not bend to the Canaanite women’s truth. It was only when she expressed faith in His that the charity she sought was granted.

Did not Jesus eat with sinners?

Again, I’m not as well versed as I would like, but I’m pretty sure that that came with expectations of repentance and a willingness to sin no more, rather than mearly endorsing fallacy.

 

[AlNg]

The ordination of female Episcopal Bishop in a Catholic Church.

Some have been pushing for women priests in the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[ThomasMT]

It’s better to light a candle than curse the darkness.

Is it possible that in our times, the following verse is one to reflect on…Isaiah 5:20
"Woe to you that… put darkness for light, and light for darkness: that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter. " DRC

I could be wrong to put it the context of this discussion, I’m always open to clarity. Thank you.

 

[TMC]

I think that verse may well apply, but in the opposite direction that you seem to be suggesting.

 

[ThomasMT]

Then let us pray that the one at fault be corrected before the hour is at hand.

 

[tafan2]

Why move the Blessed Sacrament? Did someone think that it would be defiled?

Anytime a church is to be used for a secular purpose, the Blessed Sacrament us to be removed. In this case, I think I remember reading the bishop had said to remove the Blessed Sacrament when he gave the permission to use the Church to the Episcopals.

 

[ThomasMT]

I would like to let my wonderful Episcopalian brothers and sisters know that this man’s words are extremely rare in our church. We love you and see that you are also following Jesus,

Yes, dismiss and marginalize those whom do not share your opinions. Sounds like a very familiar playbook. Of course we love them, that’s why we should be aspiring to bring them to the fullness of truth, in Christ’s church. There are also numerous non-denominational fellowships and collaborations which we may, should and do share. This is not one of them, for reasons already stated.

 

[OneSheep]

It would be defiled by being exposed to the defilement of its sanctuary.

Jesus shared bread with Pharisees. He was sure to have followers with him, yet he did not worry about himself or his followers being defiled.

Pharisees, of course, did the opposite of follow Him, they mocked and belittled Him.

Episcopalians are followers of Christ, they are Christian, as we are Christian.

mockery of a true ordination.

Mark 9:38-41 New International Version (NIV)

Whoever Is Not Against Us Is for Us​

38 “Teacher,” said John, “we saw someone driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us.”

39 “Do not stop him,” Jesus said. “For no one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, 40 for whoever is not against us is for us. 41 Truly I tell you, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to the Messiah will certainly not lose their reward.

No, compromising Catholic teachings, culture, sacred spaces reserved for sacred worship, and the fullness of truth is not charitable.

They have no intent to compromise them, they merely read them differently. They are followers of Christ, they value His word, they share our faith.

Is it charitable give a schizophrenic an imaginary radio, so that he can get better reception from the aliens? Is it charitable to give an addict the money he needs for his habit?

Please, do unto others. Would you want Episcopalians comparing you to the mentally ill and addicts?

What about the needs of the church that he is charged to protect?

Please tell me what the “need” is of a Catholic who wishes to condemn other Christians.

Isaiah 5: 20

Ordaining a woman Bishop is not evil. If you think it is misguided, that’s up to you, but the language of condemnation is uncharitable. It is not loving our neighbor at all.

Mathew 15: 21 - 28

You are using a verse about Jesus being merciful as a means of making a point supporting being unwelcoming to people?

 

[OneSheep]

I’m pretty sure that that came with expectations of repentance and a willingness to sin no more, rather than mearly endorsing fallacy.

Matthew 9:10-17 New International Version (NIV)

10 While Jesus was having dinner at Matthew’s house, many tax collectors and sinners came and ate with him and his disciples. 11 When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?”

12 On hearing this, Jesus said, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. 13 But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’ For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”

The stance you are endorsing is pharisaical. The Pharisees were “righteous” and exclusive, yet Jesus ate with the outcasts, those who were condemned by the “righteous”. Jesus’ ministry was very inclusive. The Samaritans considered themselves the “chosen”, but had a different political/tribal center, and their practice was not as “orthodox” as people from Jerusalem. Their practices borrowed a little from other local religions, if I remember right. Sounds very “compromised”, does it not? Yet Jesus used the Samaritans as examples of the merciful and holy.

Yes, dismiss and marginalize those whom do not share your opinions.

I did nothing of the sort. Most Catholics, in practice, are very loving and accepting of Episcopalians. The Bishop welcomed them to use our Church building, and because of the action of those 3000, the Episcopalian community no longer felt welcome, and chose to go elsewhere.

Being unwelcoming to anyone is not born of love. In this case, it is born of fear and condemnation. Use of the words “heresy” and “compromised” and comparing them to the mentally ill and addicts only adds more insult to injury, at least in context.

Of course we love them, that’s why we should be aspiring to bring them to the fullness of truth, in Christ’s church.

The 3000 did not give us a chance to show the Episcopalians that we are charitable. Instead, the once welcomed saw condemnation. Is that who God is, the God of condemnation?

John 3:17 For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.

Do you see the difference? What did the Episcopalian group experience, God’s merciful salvation (the Light of Christ), or man’s judgment?