In my previous post about ecumenism gone wild and Catholics being cooked like frogs in a crockpot, I posted an image of an invitation of a woman being consecrated a “bishop” in the Episcopal Church at a Catholic Church, St. Bede, in Williamsburg, VA.
The pastor there wrote a letter to complaining parishioners that the previous pastor had agreed to the ordination taking place in the parish as the church building is the biggest in the area, seating 1,200 and there were are facilities on the campus the Episcopal Church could use.
In addition, the pastor, who is also the diocesan head of ecumenism, says the local bishop gave permission and the only thing that needed to be done is for the Blessed Sacrament to be removed. (Wouldn’t that be an insult to our Episcopal brothers and sisters?)
I mentioned our diocese allowed the Episcopal Church to ordain a male bishop at our Cathedral in Savannah in the late 1990’s. My own parish church was used by a local Episcopal Church in the 1980’s which at the time had a female priest. She used the consecrated altar of our now chapel for the celebration of their “Eucharist.”
Anglican orders are null and void, meaning invalid according to papal dogmatic teaching. Thus, apart from baptism and Holy Matrimony (if it is the first marriage for both the male and female) their sacraments are a “simulation” of the true Church’s sacraments and thus in our eyes a sacrilege and or blasphemy.
Would this same parish allow the Episcopal Church to celebrate a same sex nuptial liturgy of the Episcopal Church because it’s facility is large enough for all who would attend?
St. Anne’s new church seats 1,200 people. Let’s say that Bishop Felay with the SSPX comes to me and asks if he can ordain a bishop in my parish church because it is the only one in town large enough to accommodate everyone. And yes, we are the largest in town and in our Savannah deanery if not in the diocese.
The SSPX has valid sacraments and is more in full communion with the true Church than any Protestant denomination.
Hypocrisy, how do you spell your name?
How about allowing a Polish National Catholic Church to have a bishop’s ordination in our Cathedral or my parish?
How about the Liberal Catholic Church? I think they ordain females, so it might be allowed. Who knows?
23 comments:
"(Wouldn’t that be an insult to our Episcopal brothers and sisters?)"
No. Our ecumenical partners recognize that our actions, taken for ourselves and based on our beliefs and practices, are not intended to be, nor are they, insults to them, their beliefs, or their practices and/or policies.
"Thus, apart from baptism and Holy Matrimony (if it is the first marriage for both the male and female) their sacraments are a “simulation” of the true Church’s sacraments and thus in our eyes a sacrilege and or blasphemy."
This is not correct. The Catholic Church does not view the liturgical practices of other Christian denominations, even those carried out under extraordinary circumstances in our sacred spaces, as either sacrilege or blasphemy.
If such were the case, the permission for the use of our facilities approved in section number 137 of the Ecumenical Directory, which I cited in another thread on this topic, would not be granted.
Let's say that Bishop Fellay DOES come to you and ask for permission to use your church. You didn't tell us what your answer would be. I hope it would be yes. Can you tell us?
One of the idiosyncrasies of our current pope is his tolerance and generosity towards the SSPX when he was a bishop in Argentina. Given his (at least public) intolerance of traditionalist and "integralist" Catholics, that's quite a twist.
The Anglican Communion when King Henry the VIII made himself its head, rather than the pope and then dabbled with the Protestant reformation under his headship, has a unique relationship to the Catholic Church as do the Orthodox. However the Orthodox Schism never adopted Protestantism's heiresses as did the Anglican Communion thus losing Apostolic Succession and valid sacraments except and presumable for Baptism and marriage.
You skip the part about hypocrisy quite conveniently. If the document you quote, the Ecumenical Directory, which is far from doctrine or dogma, in fact limbo carries more weight, allows for Anglicans and others to celebrate their liturgies for good cause in a Catholic Church, what about the SSPX and others more closely aligned to us and in fact almost in Full Communion.
There's a horrible, hypocritical disconnect based on a progressive ideology open to the Anglicans who have invalid sacrament but not the SSPX which are us as we were prior to the SEcond Vatican Council.
a @ 8:30 AM,
I would seek permission of my bishop and go from there. I did promise obedience to my bishop and his successors both in 1979 at my deacon ordination and in 1980 at my priestly ordination. Now if you are giving me a pass on that promise, please also graciously give me a pass on my promise of celibacy, which in fact I made only once, at my diaconate, not priestly ordination.
Allan, first, you propose a set of circumstances (SSPX ordination in your church) that does not exist. It's a straw man - you're trying to disagree with the church's policy based on a set of imaginary circumstances. I'm not going to address a straw man argument.
If the SSPX makes a request to use your church, which I doubt they would, then you would consult with your bishop and your diocesan ecumenical office to make a determination on how to proceed. I the very unlikely possibility that they would make such a request, they would, I bet, open communication with the Diocesan Ordinary, not you.
Your second straw man argument is to propose that the Ecumenical Directory is not "doctrine or dogma," therefore, in your reasoning, it can be ignored.
You are right about it not being doctrine - no one ever said or suggested that it is.
You are wrong in suggesting that, because it is not doctrine or dogma, it can be ignored. The General Instruction of the Roman Missal is also not doctrine or dogma. Am I free, therefore, to ignore it? Certainly not.
I will reiterate what I said in my first post. First, the Episcopalians are not insulted by the removal of the Blessed Sacrament from St. Bede Church. Second, you are wrong when you state that it is the Church's position that Protestant liturgies constitute blasphemy and/or sacrilege. This is absolutely not the Church's position.
Finally, you state, "If the document you quote, the Ecumenical Directory, which is far from doctrine or dogma, in fact limbo carries more weight, allows for Anglicans and others to celebrate their liturgies for good cause in a Catholic Church..."
Allan, there is no "if" about it. The Directory explicitly states that this can happen.
You set up the straw man concerning the SSPX. There could be good ecumenical relations with them, especially now that we recognize marriages in these chapels as well as confessions.
No, no one from the SSPX would contact me in our diocese, but where they are prevalent, perhaps a Catholic Cathedral and its bishop should give permission for an ordination to take place in the Cathedral of a bishop of the SSPX or in a larger parish in any given diocese. This is much better than allowing Episcopalian ordinations in Catholic parishes or cathedrals.
Ecumenism begins at home, btw!
"You set up the straw man concerning the SSPX.
No, Allan, you brought up the SSPX in your original post, not I.
"There could be good ecumenical relations with them (SSPX),..."
There are. Try reading the motu proprio APOSTOLIC LETTER "ECCLESIA DEI" OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF JOHN PAUL II (2 July 1988) and all the subsequent reports of dialogues and discussions that have gone on under the jurisdiction of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei.
You say Henry the 8th dabbled with the Protestant reformation. Well, actually he kept probably 90 percent of Catholic practices even with the break from Rome. More accurate would be that the Church of England later dabbled more into Protestantism, such as under Elizabeth the first. The 39 Articles of Anglicanism clearly showed the effects of Protestantism, such as the rejection of the 7 sacraments (technically the Episcopal Church has just two while the five others are "sacramental rites"), transubstantiation, and veneration of saints.
Father K. is better suited than I to comment on this, but back to the 1970s there have been pretty good relationships between Savannah's Episcopal bishop and its Catholic one, such as Bishop Lessard's ties to the late Paul Reeves (the Anglo-Catholic Episcopal bishop from 1972-1985) and his successor the late Harry Shipps (1985-1995). I don't know from 250 miles northwest (of Savannah) the depth of the ties between the current Episcopal bishop down there, Scott Benhase, and Bishop Hartmayer. Perhaps Rev. K could comment?
Anon 4:51 - Despite the strides we made in the early years, there's been less enthusiasm in the last 20 years or so for ecumenical outreach or for inter-congregational or inter-diocesan rapprochement for a variety of reasons.
First, the folks who were part of the first flowering of the possibilities of ecumenism, such as our former Bishop Raymond Lessard, are no longer on the scene. So the original enthusiasm has diminished. Now we are into second and third generation judicatory heads who just don't have the passion.
Second, the movement of many mainline denominations toward highly problematic areas in matters of sexual morality has become a stumbling block. These issues were barely present 50 or so years ago, but have become the "biggies" for many denominations. As you are aware, they have resulted in internal divisions as we are currently seeing with the United Methodists.
Third, something that ecumenical officers from various denominations have noted is that our bosses - bishops or "bishop equivalents" - have had so much added to their plates over the last 50 years that making time for ecumenical dialogue and even just getting to know each other doesn't happen often.
On a personal level, Lessard and Reeves and Shipps were simpatico. All three had a deep sense of the weakening of the Church that has been caused by our divisions. As time has passed, though, the kind of individuation and polarization that has taken place across society has taken place within denominations. Denominations tend to see themselves as having no need to be reconciled one to another. Or, we - I include Catholics - find our divisions quite comfortable, and that is a tragedy. As St. Pope John Paul II said regarding the Orthodox, the body of the Church needs both lungs to be healthy. Extending the analogy, we need all the parts of the body, different as we may be, to be the evangelizing force we were created to be.
So Father K, how are relations between the two bishops in Savannah, Rt. Rev. Benhase and Most Rev. Hartmayer?
Bishop Reeves certainly was disheartened by the move to ordain women priests in the mid 1970s---and you can look up past bishops' addresses on the Diocese of Georgia website to confirm such---while his successor, Harry Woolston Shipps, reluctantly accepted such ordinations, even ordaining the first woman priest for the diocese sometime back in 1990s.
Yes, certainly aware of the Methodist split or proposed split---just weakens Christianity even more!
Benhase is on his way out. I don't know that he and Bishop Hartmayer had much contact.
Canon to the Ordinary Frank Logue was elected and will be ordained the 11th Bishop of the Diocese of Georgia on 30 May at the Johnny Mercer Theater, and will celebrate the Eucharist in Forsyth Park the next day, Pentecost Sunday. (An outdoor event - they are braver than I.)
At the Pentecost event, Presiding Bishop Michael Curry will be preaching. I heard him in person two years ago at the National Workshop on Christian Unity, and many will recall that he preached at the wedding of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex. It might be worth going to hear him "en plein air."
Ah, 'Bishop' Michael Curry. His performance at Harry and Meghan's wedding was the most cringeworthy event of 2018. He greatly exceeded his time allocation, suggesting that he does not understand protocol or thinks it subservient to his overarching ego.
The Queen had to sit through his rant with a straight face, but the Duchess of Cornwall (among others) had difficulty in restraining her giggles. The rest of us had to endure it on TV with growing embarrassment.
Meghan Markle (aka the Duchess of Woke) has squandered in a little over a year the goodwill of the British public. She is probably the most reviled American woman after Anne Sacoolas (yes, that's the woman who killed a teenage motorcyclist when driving on the wrong side of the road and then fled back to the USA claiming a diplomatic immunity to which she was not entitled).
Meghan is Wallis Simpson on steroids. But then, as a close friend of hers admitted, with Meghan it's always been 'my way or the highway'. Harry's brother did warn him, but to no avail.
Curry's sermon the "most cringeworthy event" of 2018?
The ongoing "cringeworthy" event at #10 Downing Street - the Prime Minister installing his "girlfriend/mistress" in the PM's official residence. Surely mortal sin and a thumbing of his nose at appropriate morality, let alone common discretion, rates higher than a lengthy sermon.
Oh, and add to that that Johnson's current infatuation began while he was still married to his, ahem, second wife. So, surely, infidelity in marriage is far, far more cringeworthy than a lengthy sermon.
but, no, I suppose in the Oh-So British way, a badly formed and/or delivered sermon tops the "cringeworthy" list.
Tut-tut, all. Cheers!
Sorry, Anonymous, you fail to understand what 'cringeworthy' means. It does not apply to the sexual morality of politicians. JFK was a serial adulterer, as was David Lloyd George. No-one cringed. When Palmerston was cited as co-respondent in a divorce case when in his eightieth year, his popularity soared. The lady was a Mrs Kane, which prompted the joke: 'She may have been Cain, but was Palmerston Abel?'
The Establishment at the time of the Profumo affair (1963) could be sanctimonious and hypocritical as regards the sexual conduct of politicians. No doubt you shook your head over Bill Clinton. Most people joked about his generosity towards Monica Lewinsky (he splashed out on a new dress) and it didn't seem to affect his popularity.
You, on the other hand, combine sanctimoniousness of the most nauseating kind with crude attempts at sarcasm. Public opinion is refreshingly free of this lamentable trait. After the debacle of their South African visit, Harry and Meghan were already being dubbed 'Ginge and Cringe'.
By all means have a go at Boris Johnson, but it's got nothing to do with the point I was making.
Oh, how silly of me.
John Nolan is the ONLY one here who REALLY, REALLY knows what words mean.
You see, I was using the STANDARD definition of "cringeworthy," to wit, "causing feelings of embarrassment or awkwardness."
Now I know that the JOHN NOLAN definition means that no Prime Minister who moves his mistress into the official PM residence is a cause of embarrassment. And CERTAINLY, this behavior will cause NO awkwardness, especially in the educated upper-classes of which JOHN NOLAN is unassailably a member, of not in fact then in his own inimitable estimation.
HE, not the rest of us, find nothing embarrassing or awkward about his Prime Minister's, um, shall we say, "circumstances." HE may find it perfectly acceptable.
BUT when compared to the PM's public immorality, the lengthy sermon by an Anglican bishop at a royal wedding is THE MOST CRINGEWORTHY EVENT of 2018.
Yeah, John, we got it now. There will always be an England, Land of Hope and Glory, a green and pleasant land.
Anonymous, resorting to internet shouting (using capitals) and ponderous sarcasm is not an intelligent way to conduct an argument. Were it not for the fact that you have the skin of a rhinoceros, you would be embarrassed for yourself.
On a point of imformation:
1. I have never claimed to be upper-class; I am actually middle-class, not that it means much these days.
2. Boris Johnson did not become PM in 2018; he assumed office in July 2019.
If you have any more cretinous comments, I suggest you spare yourself further embarrassment by declining to post them.
Spare yourself, John. EMPHASIS is another way of understanding ALL CAPS. Why you choose to think it has to. be shouting is anyone's guess.
What we needn't guess at is why you choose to steer the discussion away from your typically arrogant claim to know the one and only definition of cringeworthy. Fact is, you don't.
Sleep well. Pip pip, cheerio.
"Were it not for the fact that you have the skin of a rhinoceros,..."
I have never claimed to have the skin of a rhinoceros. I actually have the skin of most typical human beings. Why you would offer such a ponderous, blatant falsehood, adding to your suggestion that it is a "fact," is beyond me.
Of course, as you see it, it is perfectly acceptable for you to make such absurd statements. Everyone knows that you are the source of all that is good and holy and true when it comes to language, definitions, syntax, etc. And you, alone, can make assumptions about people based on what they say here. Yes, we should all bow to your superior intellect and world view.
Go back to your Oh-So-Typically British Meghan Markle bashing. You could go into the trade as a writer for the Daily Mail.
Anonymous
Look up 'metaphor'.
Then stop deluding yourself that you can take me on in argument and win. Why? Because you are as thick as two short planks.
That's a simile, by the way. I don't really think you are made of wood.
'Why you think it has to be shouting is anyone's guess.' It's not what I think. Posting in capitals has been known as 'internet shouting' ever since the internet started.
On most blogs it would get you deleted. As would posting as 'anonymous'. Fr McDonald (who knows who you are) is prepared to tolerate you, as is his privilege. Perhaps he, like me, enjoys the spectacle of your making a fool of yourself.
So....was the late Bishop Lessard "wrong" to allow the 1995 ordination of Episcopal Bishop Henry Louttit Jr. at the cathedral? Is the issue today whether the bishop is male or female, or rather is it that the Episcopal Church has gotten so liberal since then? (Not that it was particularly conservative 25 years ago.)
As for Meagan Markle, I agree with John Nolan of all people---she has squandered a lot of good will. And Elizabeth, going on 94, probably doesn't need stress at that age!
It's not something that would arise in England, since the Anglicans have no shortage of buildings (mostly Catholic ones they appropriated at the Reformation). They are quite generous in allowing Catholics to use them. It has for some time been normal for Catholic bishops to attend, in choir dress, the episcopal consecrations of their Anglican brethren, and vice-versa.
When the first woman bishop was consecrated five years ago there was no official Catholic representation, although invitations were apparently issued. It was assumed at the time that it might be seen as tacit acceptance of the principle of women bishops.
Post a Comment