Truly a sad state of affairs

[QNDNNDQDCE]

"A small group disrupted Tuesday night’s ceremony by shouting the rosary and the “Our Father” prayer, and spreading pamphlets saying “followers of false gods must be kept out of the sacred temple.”

So, Jews and protestants follow “false gods?”

Well, Christ did say regarding Jews, “He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.” St. John says in his First Epistle, “Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father.” Christ also said, “He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me.” This could be applied to Protestants. I think it is a bit strong to say that they worship false Gods because they intend to worship the same God, but I think we have to admit that we’re not all on the same page.

 

[JReducation]

Well, Christ did say regarding Jews, “He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.” St. John says in his First Epistle, “Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father.” Christ also said, “He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me.” This could be applied to Protestants. I think it is a bit strong to say that they worship false Gods because they intend to worship the same God, but I think we have to admit that we’re not all on the same page.

We may not all have the same understanding of God or the same degree of understanding, but if we’re faithful to the command that St. Francis gave to the brothers when he sent them to the Holy Land, we would know that there is more to the Gospel than these isolated quotes.

As St. Francis told the brothers. If there was ever a conflict between them and the Muslims, Jews or Orthodox Christians, they were to avoid all manner of confrontation, all manner of arguments, all manner of disruptions and above all, they were to show themselves submissive to all men, regardless of their faith, because our humility and our penance is more pleasing to God than any great sermon that we can preach.

He also told the brothers to remember that others had a right to expect kindness, respect and peace from them. Even though Francis may not have been familiar with today’s jargon, he was certainly familiar with the concept of human rights and natural rights.

To deliberately set out to antagonize another person, especially when they are grieving an evil don to them, is a violation of that person’s right to respect. Man has a higher claim on our respect than do buildings.

 

[vsedriver]

The true home is expressed in the Catholic celebration of the sacraments, and not “ecumenical” ceremonies.

since when is holding a prayer service involving all kinds of people anti-Catholic? Shouldn’t a church be open to anyone who wants to pray? Wouldn’t this be a way to evangelize to Jews and Protestants?

How could this possibly be offensive to God? I can’t think of anything more holy than a diverse group of people praying to the One True God for others who have suffered so much.

The SSPX show an incredible lack of charity toward their fellow man.

 

[RexArthur]

Sacred implies some form of exclusion. If anyone can go into the sacred area and do mundane things, then it’s not sacred any more. If you want to convey to your followers that something is sacred, don’t add banal elements.

I read that a muslim who sees an imam preach in a Catholic Church draws the conclusion that the priest of the church is an apostate. I doubt the muslim would extend the same courtesy to the priest.

Muslims and Jews deny Christ’s divinity, which is the very centre of our religion. Muslims are killing Christians and desecrating their churches in the Near east. We can only ‘play nice’ here because we can bring military force to bear in our (nominally) Christian Western countries, if they try the same thing here.

The only ecumenical initiative that actually had any kind of substantial success in recent history is Pope Benedict’s Anglicanorum Coetibus. He made Anglicans an offer to convert, and some did. That’s ecumenism.

**It is historically strange to see Muslims and Jews speak in Christian churches. This would not have been done in the past. It would have been shocking.

So either our forefathers were wrong or we are.**

The question is not whether a Bishop can let infidels speak from the pulpit in his cathedral; it’s should he?

We’re confused enough as it is.

 

[Contarini]

Sacred implies some form of exclusion. If anyone can go into the sacred area and do mundane things, then it’s not sacred any more. If you want to convey to your followers that something is sacred, don’t add banal elements.

Agreed. What is “banal” here?

I read that a muslim who sees an imam preach in a Catholic Church draws the conclusion that the priest of the church is an apostate.

I don’t think an imam was preaching here, first of all. But I don’t see why Muslims’ opinions are of authority for Christians. Why accept Muslims’ ideas about how to defend your faith?

I doubt the muslim would extend the same courtesy to the priest.

Ah, so I’ve gotten it wrong all these years and Jesus actually told us to do to others as we think they would do to us?

Muslims are killing Christians and desecrating their churches in the Near east.

Right. And apparently you think this has some relevance for how we should treat Muslims. Why? Doesn’t this imply that these radical Muslims have some sort of authority in matters of how to treat people of other religions? Isn’t that a pretty disturbing implication?

Why not follow Jesus instead of Muslims? We do this by treating Muslims with grace and courtesy, whether or not we think they would do the same to us.

So either our forefathers were wrong or we are.

Sure. Is there anything wrong with saying that our forefathers were wrong about non-doctrinal matters?

Your forefathers defended the orthodox Faith. You owe it to them (and far more, to Christ) to continue to do so. You do not owe it to them to do so with exactly the same methods or in exactly the same style.

Edwin

 

[RexArthur]

If you let non-believers into your sacred places and let them speak there you are sending a very clear message, to both them and your followers:

• You don’t believe what your forefathers did;
• Their beliefs have some value.

The result:

• Your believers move closer to indifferentism.
• The non-believers lose respect for you; if your faith can change, then it’s not constant, therefore it’s not worth following. Or that you, the keeper of the temple, are an apostate.

Whatever the author of the spectacle intends doesn’t matter, then. Symbols are important in a religion.

This is part of the problem of the past 50 years. We have had constant apologia that the new X is the same as the old X, when it demonstrably is not. A child can see that it is not. This causes confusion and thus, enervation. So people leave.

 

[willie_duggan]

since when is holding a prayer service involving all kinds of people anti-Catholic? Shouldn’t a church be open to anyone who wants to pray? Wouldn’t this be a way to evangelize to Jews and Protestants?

How could this possibly be offensive to God? I can’t think of anything more holy than a diverse group of people praying to the One True God for others who have suffered so much.

The SSPX show an incredible lack of charity toward their fellow man.

I’ve no difficulty with any non-Catholic - protestant, jew, muslim, atheist - attending a Catholic church where a Catholic sacrament is being concelebrated.
I’ve no difficulty with their attendance whatsoever.

I’d rejoice at the fact that non-Catholics come to our churches to celebrate the Mass and to hear the Good news.

What I do not agree with is non-Catholic services being staged in a Catholic church.
That is my own personal view.

 

[willie_duggan]

This is not Brother’s position. This has been Catholic tradition since the Church was first divided into dioceses. The bishop is the local Church. Only the Patriarch has jurisdiction over the bishop, which in the case of the Latin Church, we no longer have a patriarch; however, the Bishop of Rome has universal jurisdiction. If what the bishop approves is sustained by the Bishop of Rome, none of us has the authority to overrule it.

It is equally important that in expressing our opinions in matters pertaining to Canon Law and the rights of bishops and major superiors that one always preface one’s statement by saying, **"I believe . . . " **or "I it is my opinion that . . . " so that any other person who is reading what we are saying knows that this is not an authoritative statement, but a personal opinion. When necessary one should conclude by telling his reader the authoritative rule or custom. I can say, “I believe that there ecumenical services should not be held in a church and that only Catholic liturgy should be held there. However, Canon Law gives the local bishop the authority to make use of the cathedral for any purpose that he deems is pastorally necessary and for any function that he believes does not take away from the dignity of the church building.” A statement made this way still represents us, but does not mislead the reader by appearing to be authoritative or legislative.

We can certainly express as many opinions against it as we want. But we must accept that our opinions against something like this will be like ashes in the wind. The authority of the local bishop and that of the pope overrule our opinions. It is the Church who defines what is holy and sacred, not us.

Your argument is that this was not a sacred or holy event. As far as everyone knows, this was a memorial which was prayer, with a sermon, hymns and Sacred Scripture. None of these defy the definition of holy. Since this is not a liturgical event, this kind of event falls under the umbrella of Spiritual Theology.

I ask you, where in Catholic Spiritual Theology does it say that only Catholics can pray in a Catholic Church?

Where in Catholic Spiritual Theology does it say that the prayer of an interfaith group is less sacred or holy than the prayer of Catholics?

Where in Catholic Spiritual Theology does it say that one religious tradition’s prayer is more sacred than another?

Catholic Spiritual Theology is very clear that prayer is prayer, regardless of who prays or where they pray as long as they pray with the intent of raising their hearts and minds to God.

The proper use of church buildings is governed not by theology, but by Canon Law.

The next question is where in the Code of 1983 does it say that a bishop cannot invite non-Catholics to pray with his Church in his cathedral?

Where in the Code of 1983 does it say that a church building can only be used for mass?

There is no such prohibition in the Code. The Code is very clear that a church building cannot be used for anything that takes away from the fact that it’s a church. Since Catholic Spiritual Theology defines prayer as raising the mind and heart to God, but it does not say that only Catholics can do this, there is nothing contrary to Canon Law in this gathering.

In fact, in Canon Law there is an imperative that bishops encourage this type of prayerful gathering in our churches. It is also part of the teachings of the current Magisterium.

821c - prayer in common, because “change of heart and holiness of life, along with public and private prayer for the unity of Christians, should be regarded as the soul of the whole ecumenical movement, and merits the name 'spiritual ecumenism;”'

It has also been a long standing custom that Catholic cathedrals have doubled as places of worship and centers of culture and beauty. Thus, they have been and continue to be used for concerts, plays, and the presentation of other art forms. This goes back to the Middle Ages, probably before then since most communities did not have theaters or museums. Until Bl. John Paul constructed the Paul VI Auditorium, the Basilica of St. Peter itself served as a concert hall, theater and a museum. This is why most basilicas and cathedrals keep the tabernacle in an adjacent chapel and not on the main sanctuary or they may have a place of repose for the Blessed Sacrament, which is moved from the main sanctuary.

Where in Canon Law does it legislate for the staging of ecumenical services in a church building?

I would be interested in reading any links which you can provide which legislates for the use of the church to stage ecumenical services.

I have, albeit quickly, reviewed Canon Law documentation, and I cannot see where Canon Law authorises or prohibits, ecumenical services.

It is my own point of view that the sanctity of a church building should be maintained to celebrate Catholic sacraments exclusively.

 

[Timothysis]

Well, Christ did say regarding Jews, “He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.” St. John says in his First Epistle, “Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father.” Christ also said, “He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me.” This could be applied to Protestants. I think it is a bit strong to say that they worship false Gods because they intend to worship the same God, but I think we have to admit that we’re not all on the same page.

Remember that the Blessed Mother, St. Joseph, John the Baptist, Elizabeth, the apostles, disciples and, yes, even Jesus Himself followed the practices of worship of the Jewish people. If you say that those practices today involve “worship of false Gods,” then that would mean that the foundation stones of the Church were involved in false worship. This, obviously, can not be true.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

Where in Canon Law does it legislate for the staging of ecumenical services in a church building?

I would be interested in reading any links which you can provide which legislates for the use of the church to stage ecumenical services.

I have, albeit quickly, reviewed Canon Law documentation, and I cannot see where Canon Law authorises or prohibits, ecumenical services.

It is my own point of view that the sanctity of a church building should be maintained to celebrate Catholic sacraments exclusively.

Will this suffice?

Can. 383 §1. In exercising the function of a pastor, a diocesan bishop is to show himself concerned for all the Christian faithful entrusted to his care, of whatever age, condition, or nationality they are, whether living in the territory or staying there temporarily; he is also to extend an apostolic spirit to those who are not able to make sufficient use of ordinary pastoral care because of the condition of their life and to those who no longer practice their religion.

§2. If he has faithful of a different rite in his diocese, he is to provide for their spiritual needs either through priests or parishes of the same rite or through an episcopal vicar.

§3. He is to act with humanity and charity toward the brothers and sisters who are not in full communion with the Catholic Church and is to foster ecumenism as it is understood by the Church.

§4. He is to consider the non-baptized as committed to him in the Lord, so that there shines on them the charity of Christ whose witness a bishop must be before all people.

The Bishop is the person who decides how this canon will be interpreted, and if he sees fit to hold a prayer service, in his Cathedral, no one but the Pope can tell him otherwise. You and I are free to think what we want, but we cannot say that the Church is wrong.

 

[willie_duggan]

Will this suffice?

The Bishop is the person who decides how this canon will be interpreted, and if he sees fit to hold a prayer service, in his Cathedral, no one but the Pope can tell him otherwise. You and I are free to think what we want, but we cannot say that the Church is wrong.

Thanks for this link.

Interpreted is an interesting phrase to use.

 

[simple_soul]

Where in Canon Law does it legislate for the staging of ecumenical services in a church building?

I would be interested in reading any links which you can provide which legislates for the use of the church to stage ecumenical services.

I have, albeit quickly, reviewed Canon Law documentation, and I cannot see where Canon Law authorises or prohibits, ecumenical services.

It is my own point of view that the sanctity of a church building should be maintained to celebrate Catholic sacraments exclusively.

ok,… sinse I like to go to Church to pray to God when there is no Sacramental celebrations going on at all to just spend time with God in your point of view that would be wrong?

I also know I and many, many others went to Church to join Pope Francis in praying for peace and there were no Sacramental services goin on then either. In your point of view this is wrong also?

 

[willie_duggan]

ok,… sinse I like to go to Church to pray to God when there is no Sacramental celebrations going on at all to just spend time with God in your point of view that would be wrong?

Of course that is not wrong, in my opinion.

I also know I and many, many others went to Church to join Pope Francis in praying for peace and there were no Sacramental services goin on then either. In your point of view this is wrong also?

No, it is not wrong either, in my opinion.

Nowhere have I stated that it is wrong to attend a church outside of Catholic sacramental services and Masses.

 

[simple_soul]

Of course that is not wrong, in my opinion.

No, it is not wrong either, in my opinion.

Nowhere have I stated that it is wrong to attend a church outside of Catholic sacramental services and Masses.

Ok I’m am sorry that I did not understand your post then. I am reposting it here:

Where in Canon Law does it legislate for the staging of ecumenical services in a church building?

I would be interested in reading any links which you can provide which legislates for the use of the church to stage ecumenical services.

I have, albeit quickly, reviewed Canon Law documentation, and I cannot see where Canon Law authorises or prohibits, ecumenical services.

It is my own point of view that the sanctity of a church building should be maintained to celebrate Catholic sacraments exclusively.

In the part that I emphasized I took it to mean exactly that. This is your post # 71. If the Church in your opinion should only be used to celebrate Catholic Sacraments exclusively then how can it be used for a place by me and others to pray to God when no celebration of the sacraments is happening? I so hope and pray you can see what I am confused or not getting in what exactly is not wrong in me using the Church for praying and quite time with God if your point of view is that I should only be using the Church to celebrate Catholic Sacraments. Does that make sense?

 

[willie_duggan]

Ok I’m am sorry that I did not understand your post then. I am reposting it here:

In the part that I emphasized I took it to mean exactly that. This is your post # 71. If the Church in your opinion should only be used to celebrate Catholic Sacraments exclusively then how can it be used for a place by me and others to pray to God when no celebration of the sacraments is happening? I so hope and pray you can see what I am confused or not getting in what exactly is not wrong in me using the Church for praying and quite time with God if your point of view is that I should only be using the Church to celebrate Catholic Sacraments. Does that make sense?

To clear up any ambiguity or possible further misunderstanding.

When I said that it is my opinion that a Catholic church should be used for Catholic ceremonies exclusively, this was meant to convey my opinion that only Catholic ceremonies should be practiced in a church building.

You alluded to the fact that you attend church outside of times when Catholic ceremonies are performed, and you asked if me whether I agreed with such attendance or not.
Of course I agree with such attendance.

The absence of a Catholic ceremony being performed in a Catholic church is not a bar on one choosing to attend a Catholic church to pray.

I trust that this answer clarifies any misunderstanding on your part.

 

[TimothyH]

I’ve no difficulty with any non-Catholic - protestant, jew, muslim, atheist - attending a Catholic church where a Catholic sacrament is being concelebrated.
I’ve no difficulty with their attendance whatsoever.

I’d rejoice at the fact that non-Catholics come to our churches to celebrate the Mass and to hear the Good news.

What I do not agree with is non-Catholic services being staged in a Catholic church.
That is my own personal view.

A Christian prayer service in a Catholic Church is not non-Catholic by virtue of the fact that the pastor/bishop invited those participating and and the bishop/pastor hosted it.

It wasn’t pagans using the Church without oversight. They didn’t give the keys to the Church to satanists and tell them to make sure they swept up after themselves. It was run and hosted by the Bishop.

And the whole thing is really a non issue because our opinion simply does not matter. It is not our call. It is the call of the Bishop who’s Church the Cathedral is. It is like us telling our neighbor who they can have in their home - it is none of our business and even if we did have an opinion, we can’t do anything about it.

-Tim-

 

[simple_soul]

To clear up any ambiguity or possible further misunderstanding.

When I said that it is my opinion that a Catholic church should be used for Catholic ceremonies exclusively, this was meant to convey my opinion that only Catholic ceremonies should be practiced in a church building.
.

This explains it better for me what I was missing from what you were saying.

Thank you for clarifying.

To take this a bit further I know a Catholic Church was used for me and others when we made our Consecration to Mary. It was not during Liturgy or Mass. Would this have been considered a ceremony and if it was would it have been considered a Catholic Sacramental ceremony?

Just editing because I noticed in your last post to me you changed it from Catholic Sacramental ceremonies to just Catholic ceremonies.

If you are ok with Catholic ceremonies then why would you have a problem with a Catholic ceremony that celebrates the recognition of the persecution and injustices done to other people and asking other people of other faiths to join so that other will hopefully come to understand how wrong it was?

Or did I miss understand something and some how this ceremony is not a Catholic ceremony?

 

[willie_duggan]

To take this a bit further I know a Catholic Church was used for me and others when we made our Consecration to Mary. It was not during Liturgy or Mass. Would this have been considered a ceremony and if it was would it have been considered a Catholic Sacramental ceremony?

Just editing because I noticed in your last post to me you changed it from Catholic Sacramental ceremonies to just Catholic ceremonies.

Or did I miss understand something and some how this ceremony is not a Catholic ceremony?

Catholic sacramental ceremonies and/or Catholic ceremonies.

As I understand it, the ceremony staged in the Catholic church in Argentina was an ecumenical ceremony.
An ecumenical ceremony which by its very definition cannot be a Catholic sacramental cermony / Catholic ceremony.

If you are ok with Catholic ceremonies then why would you have a problem with a Catholic ceremony that celebrates the recognition of the persecution and injustices done to other people and asking other people of other faiths to join so that other will hopefully come to understand how wrong it was?

I fail to see how an ecumenical ceremony can be defined by you as a Catholic ceremony.
Can you explain to me the basis for an ecumenical service being a Catholic ceremony?

With regard to the recognition of the persecution of people and injustices done, my own view is that a Mass concelebrated in a Catholic church is a more appropriate form of remembrance given that it is held in a Catholic church.

 

[simple_soul]

Catholic sacramental ceremonies and/or Catholic ceremonies.

As I understand it, the ceremony staged in the Catholic church in Argentina was an ecumenical ceremony.
An ecumenical ceremony which by its very definition cannot be a Catholic sacramental cermony / Catholic ceremony.

I fail to see how an ecumenical ceremony can be defined by you as a Catholic ceremony.
Can you explain to me the basis for an ecumenical service being a Catholic ceremony?

With regard to the recognition of the persecution of people and injustices done, my own view is that a Mass concelebrated in a Catholic church is a more appropriate form of remembrance given that it is held in a Catholic church.

Are you saying that it is not Catholic teaching that we are to be ecumenical and to practice ecumenism?

 

[Rich_C]

Originally Posted by willie duggan
Only those who choose to believe in Jesus Christ should be made welcome to a Catholic church.

A church should not be used to stage an “ecumenical” event.

Only Catholic sacraments ought to be celebrated within a Catholic church building.

This has never been the mind or the practice of the Church, not even during those times we were at our worse relations with non-Catholics. Ask the Franciscan Friars of the Atonement.

With all due respect, brother, it’s common knowledge that in ancient times even catechumens who had already decided to enter the Church were not allowed to be present for all of Mass.

What the Church chooses to allow today is her rightful decision and I don’t quarrel with holy mother church, but she’s clearly changed her mind on this issue.