Tuesday, November 1, 2016

THE TYPE OF ECUMENICAL DIALOGUE AND TOGETHERNESS OF THE 1970'S IS DATED! WE NEED POPE BENEDICT'S METHOD, NEW AND IMPROVED!

Pope Francis was asked about women priests in the Catholic Church because in his ecumenical Lutheran gathering, he met and prayed with a female Lutheran archbishop. He said that women would never, ever be ordained priests in the Catholic Church and that is forever, case closed!

There is talk that one day we will have inter communion with Lutherans.  But how can this be?

Let me make a codicil statement first. I accept the Church's current discipline that Eastern Orthodox are allowed to receive Holy Communion at a Catholic Mass and if the Orthodox invited Catholics to receive in their service we would be allowed by the Church to do so. This applies to extraordinary situations such as visiting an Orthodox Church for a particularity Divine Liturgy and an Orthodox lay person visiting a Catholic Church for a particular Mass.

The Eastern Orthodox have valid sacraments, all seven to include Holy Orders which is necessary for the valid celebration of the Mass or Divine Liturgy.

Protestants may recieve Holy Communion in a Catholic Church if they fulfill the following three criteria:

1. They believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, that the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ.

2. They cannot go to their own church for Holy Communion, maybe there isn't one in their locality.

3. The bishop gives permission.

This is rare, but it can and does happen and I had it happen regularly with the bishop's approval for an Episcopal nun who eventually become Catholic.

But how can Catholics ever have inter communion with any Protestant denomination that rejects Holy Orders, meaning the priesthood which is required for the valid celebration of the Mass? Just because their liturgical services approximate our own in looks and theology does not make it valid and it doesn't matter who is celebrating it, male or female, their Holy Orders are null and void by their own volition and our teachings.

So the only solution to bring any liturgical communion into the full communion of the Catholic Church where what is compatible in their liturgical spirituality and tradition with Catholicism is present is what Pope Benedict did for the Anglicans, an Anglican Ordinariate situation where all the t's are crossed and i's are dotted. That is what full communion with the Catholic Church looks like even while keeping some post-reformation practices or liturgical traditions.

POPE BENEDICT IS THE POPE OF CHRISTIAN UNITY!

14 comments:

Julian Barkin said...

Right on Father!

Dialogue said...

I'm curious what you mean when you say "Pope Benedict is the pope of Christian unity". This statement does not seem related to the rest of the post.

Anonymous said...

"Just because their liturgical services approximate our own in looks and theology does not make it valid and it doesn't matter who is celebrating it, male or female, their Holy Orders are null and void by their own volition and our teachings."

SHEESH!

PLEASE get help . . . in writing standard English sentences

John Nolan said...

Anonymous @ 5:59

Although 'approximate' is normally used adjectivally, it can be used as a transitive verb, as here. Of course 'it' in both cases should be 'them', since the antecedent noun is plural ('services'), but when typing quickly it is an easy mistake to make; indeed, I have done it myself and only realized the error after submitting the text.

By the way, 'SHEESH!' is hardly standard English, nor is writing 'please' in upper-case characters, nor is the use of an ellipsis rather than a dash. You could, of course, have saved the ellipsis to the end of your sentence, to cover the absence of the full stop.

People in glass houses ...

Anonymous said...

YIKES and GADZOOKS! Yes, "sheesh" is standard English. Maybe not in YOUR (see next sentence) usage, but it is standard.

And writing in all caps is standard usage online for making a strong point.

Dialogue said...

Anonymous,

This is a blog, not the New York Times. Do you dress according to standards set in some fashion guide? Do you shop according to a lifestyle handbook? Do you arrange the furnishings in your house only after consulting a feng shui guidebook? If you wish to live your private life according to rule books, then take a trip to lovely North Korea.

John Nolan said...

So, Anonymous, what precisely did you object to in Fr Allan's sentence apart from the obvious oversight I alluded to?

You certainly make a strong point, viz. that you are a petty-minded and mean-spirited individual who, rather than advance ideas and arguments of his own, gleefully pounces on the perceived syntactical inconsistency of another's writing (which did not alter the sense nor render it in the least ambiguous) in order to make impertinent and patronizing remarks in a style of English which scarcely rises above the level of street slang.

No surprises there.

Anonymous said...

If syntactical inconsistency is trivial, viz. that it does not alter the sense or render it in the least ambiguous, then one is left to wonder why you found it necessary to comment on what you perceived to be a lack of standard English usage, the use of an ellipsis rather than a dash, and the absence of a full stop, known in The Colonies as a period.

Could it be because you are petty-minded and mean-spirited...?

Sloppy writing, in my experience, usually reflects sloppy thinking.

Dialogue said...

Anonymous,

I can vouch for John Nolan being neither petty-minded nor mean-spirited, so you needn't worry further about that.

What sort of experiences have you endured that led to your "sloppy writing-sloppy thinking" theory? Can you direct us to any professional studies supporting your conclusion, or is this theory only of your own making?

I suppose the ultimate question is, were you truly confused by an ambiguity in the post, or did it just upset you when you found absent from application the rules you've embraced for yourself?

Granted, Father does have a unique writing style at times, but we understand him well enough. After all, one really shouldn't go through life pointing out the peculiarities of others. Our own quirks should keep us too busy for that.

John Nolan said...

Anonymous

Instead of trying (and failing) to be clever, why not answer the question I put to you? If someone makes his point clearly and unambiguously, as Fr Allan did, then it is pertinent to address the issue. It is not pertinent to hold him to ridicule for a single solecism.

If you had been making an intelligent contribution to the debate, I would not have quibbled over a missing punctuation mark, or the use of slang, or even the internet shouting.

Perhaps you might try this once in a while, so that we can see how the precision of your intellect is mirrored in non-sloppy and syntactically impeccable prose.

Anonymous said...

Sorry, Johnny, I didn't fail.

Fr Allan rarely makes points clearly and unambiguously. He is famous for syntactical mash-ups, for misplaced punctuation, for misspellings, his sentence fragments, his run-on sentences, and a host of other grammatical, syntactical, and spelling errors.

Sloppy writing usually flows from sloppy thinking. Calling it a "unique" writing style is like calling slavery a "unique" way of reducing labor expenses.

rcg said...

Anon 8:42, that last paragraph eats itself.

Gene said...

I'll bet if Fr. MacDonald was black and writing in the usual "minority" fashion Anonymous would not say a word. ...and dat be de troof.

Anonymous said...

"...and dat be de troof."

What further need have we of witnesses?