Baltimore’s new Roman Catholic archbishop removed a priest who was pastor of three South Baltimore parishes for offenses that include officiating at a funeral Mass with an Episcopal priest, which violates canon law.
Archbishop Edwin F. O’Brien personally ordered the Rev. Ray Martin, who has led the Catholic Community of South Baltimore for five years, to resign from the three churches and sign a statement yesterday apologizing for “bringing scandal to the church.”
Martin led the funeral Mass on Oct. 15 for Locust Point activist Ann Shirley Doda at Our Lady of Good Counsel with several clergy, including the Rev. Annette Chappell, the pastor of the Episcopal Church of the Redemption in Locust Point, Martin said.
Doda’s son, Victor, who had invited Chappell to participate in the service, was stunned and outraged by the action taken against Martin.
“I am sickened that they would treat our pastor this way,” he said. “It doesn’t sound possible that the church would take such a petty thing and ruin a man’s career.”
[blockquote]”I am sickened that they would treat our pastor this way,” he said. “It doesn’t sound possible that the church would take such a petty thing and ruin a man’s career.”[/blockquote]
It’s the “broken window theory” of church governance, Mr. Doda. Take care of the little things and the big things take care of themselves. TEC ignored that and look what it’s gotten them.
[b][i]”His major offense was not complying with hiring and screening policies . . .”[/b][/i]
. . . but I guess this headline wouldn’t make the Catholic Church look nearly as evil. Bad, bad, Church! Naughty, naughty Pope!
He wasn’t fired. He was reassigned. Priests are not fired.
🙂
All Fr. Martin had to to was ask the protestant lady pastor to read a lesson rather than the Gospel. Not a regular or recommended course, but everyone would have been happy, and canon law would not have been broken. He knew exactly what he was doing in having her read the Gospel, and what point he was trying to make–that Episcopal orders are valid, and that women may be ordained to the ministerial priesthood. Communicating her compounds the infraction. As a wise archbishop has said, one cannot expect to embark on “prophetic”, paradigm-breaking action without incurring risk or censure. Fr. Martin has no grounds for surprise (except perhaps that he was turned in) or complaint.
austin,
A wonderfully incisive analysis of the situation, and phrased in a detached, low-key, and irenic way. I commend you! And I thank you! 🙂
Yes, thank you Austin. We Catholics have our crazies too but so far they haven’t been put in charge of our asylum. Of course, then, there’s Los Angeles.
In faith, Dave
Viva Texas <><
Good point, austin.
This is near the working part of the Baltimore Harbor. (As opposed to the tourist trap known as the Inner Harbor!) Tough neighborhood for those still living there, with a history of activism on a variety of urban planning issues.
Redemption’s website is here: http://redemption.ang-md.org/
re 4: Well they are, so what’s the point? 🙂
#9, if you are referring to the validity of WO, then in this case, i.e. serving/concelbrating/participating sacerdotally in an RC Mass, they are not valid.
This is the point:
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/11/07/america/NA-REL-US-Women-Priests.php
if only Episcopalian bishops had done the same thing 35 years ago — but then, Mr. Wingate, they aren’t real bishops.
“Hwoever, a majority of Catholic respondents to an Associated Press-Ipsos poll taken just after the death of Pope John Paul II in 2005 said they favored ordination of women.”
What does *God* say about it through his Body the Church that he left behind to steer us toward salvation? That’s the only “poll” worth making, but those who want to put themselves first over God, just like Eve and Adam did, don’t want to ask him. Instead, they want to call the Church’s pronouncement on women’s ordination “…a typically hierarchical form of intimidation, and we will not be intimidated…”.
“Should you refuse to comply … in order to protect the faithful from grave spiritual deception … you will incur automatically … the censure of excommunication,” wrote Burke (bolding added). This is a man who believes in holiness and refuses to allow unholy compromise knowing it’s just the camel’s nose sliding under the tent’s edge. He takes seriously his duty to protect his flock from Satan.
Many Protestants don’t understand about excommunication. The article itself contains a pretty good explanation: “It means you are no longer a Catholic in good standing, that by your very own decision you have chosen to separate yourself from the church,” Meehan said. But THEY are right and the Church is wrong: “But we are disobeying an unjust law that discriminates against women”.
Bless ++Burke.
In faith, Dave
Viva Texas <><
But Dr. Tighe: as you are not a real Anglican, I can hardly be obligated (by hierarchical fealty, at any rate) to accept your authority in the matter! Yes, we are all aware of Rome’s views on the matter, and many of us have read Saepius Officio as well.
Obviously Martin took his ordination in his hands, as it were, in having Rev. Chappell to read the gospel. In context, it would appear in some respects to be the least of his clerical sins. And as far as Roman discipline is concerned, to some degree my attitude must be que sera, sera; or perhaps “you knew the job was dangerous when you took it.” But surely an Anglican may note Romish error when he sees it– or at least pass the occaisional WASP-ish remark?
Having someone other than a Catholic priest or deacon proclaim the Gospel is a well-known no-no – about as absolute a rule as there is in the Mass. Either he believes that the lady minister is a priest and had her say the Gospel to make a point or he has no problem whimsically dispensing with the constant liturgical tradition of the Church for reasons of mere sentiment. Either way, he is manifestly unfit to celebrate the sacraments. Kudos for Archbishop O’Brien stripping him of his pastorate and packing him off to St. Vincent’s Archabbey as penance. If more bishops had the courage to do this, we would have far fewer liturgical abuses today.
#13, It’s not only Rome’s views on WO that is being batted around here, for that is up to them to decide for themselves.
The point here is, that Fr. Martin tried to get away with putting facts on the Roman Catholic ground, for which there was/is no consensus or authority and so, he well and truly shot himself in his foot. In an RC church, at an RC mass, there can be NO sacerdotal activity carried out by a priestess.
Your opinion re WO is perfectly valid, but ONLY within an Episcopal or Anglican church that allows WO. It simply falls apart when trying to be imposed on an RC or Orthodox church, in contravention of their canon law.
You can of course argue your opinion … have at it.
Um, exactly why can only an RC priest or deacon read the Gospel? It’s not as if reading = preaching on it.
Fr. Martin must not have been much of a fund-raiser. As a former RC, I was routinely astonished by how often the most pastorally inept (and sometimes corrupt) but excellent fund-raising priests were elevated to the title of monsignor, rather than given the boot they deserved.
The church we previously attended was led by a wealthy-in-his-own-right priest from Spain who was a fund-raising genius. He didn’t miss a baptism, as this Fr. Martin is accused of doing — he totally skipped my son’s First Communion class’ First Penance! The children were already nervous and all 100 of them sat waiting and waiting. Someone went to the rectory to find Father and he wasn’t there; they reached him by phone and he said he had no plans to attend but had arranged for ONE priest to do it. ONE priest for 120 first confessions, scheduled to be heard in two hours.
Obviously, it didn’t happen. The children were kneeling and weeping, being led in the Rosary over and over to keep them settled. The leaders had to find priests to come over the course of the next few days to get all of the confessions heard. And when the First Communion Sunday came a week later, the priest didn’t show up AGAIN! Fifteen minutes after the Mass was supposed to start, an acolyte went to the rectory to find him. The priest was there and told the acolyte to “get the F out of my house; I’ll be there soon.”
Parishioners reported these, and a myriad of other abuses, to the bishop. A bishop’s staff member attended a Sunday liturgy at which the priest announced during his sermon that he finds women distracting and can’t help staring at their breasts when he’s giving Communion. He also said at one point that his greatest goal before he dies is to lose his virginity.
Everyone breathed a sigh of relief when it was announced he was leaving. Outrage followed when his new assignment was revealed — he was given the title of Monsignor and transferred to a bigger, high profile church! (one that was beginning a capital campaign, dontcha know!)
I’ve lived in four different RC dioceses and the story was always the same. The fund-raising priests were rewarded and could do no wrong; those who might bend a minor rule to respond to the needs of parishioners were censured. Bernard Law’s “punishment” is a good example.
I should clarify — there were 100 First Penances and another 20 young adults who also attended because their confirmations were the week after the First Communions.
Teatime: In a Catholic Mass the Gospel is always read by a deacon or priest. Lay people may read the other lessons. That’s the canon and that priest should certainly have known it.
Re the rest of your post, well, there are always injustices no matter where you go. Catholic priests have feet of clay same as anyone else. It’s sad this had to happen to you, but it’s also sad that you let resentments drive you away from your Church. Regardless of some bad apples, the whole Catholic barrel is good and faithful.
In faith, Dave
Viva Texas <><
Dave,
This incident in itself didn’t drive me away. There were far more serious problems that emerged in subsequent years. Suffice it to say that the RCC wasn’t a safe place for me or my son.
Sorry, I wasn’t clear — I was asking WHY the Gospel thing is the rule, i.e. the reasoning for the canon. I don’t understand why it takes ordination to read out parts of the Gospels. There’s no commentary or interpretation involved.
teatime, I’m not expert on RC rites, but in the TEC and Anglican Spheres, it is the special place of the Deacon to read the Gospel (and also dismiss the people at the end). Since many TEC/Anglican churches lack a deacon, the Priest generally reads it.
As a visiting (non-TEC) Anglican Deacon, I have been invited to read the Gospel at two TEC churches lately, by Priests who knew that their bishops would not be pleased. But neither of the priests expected, even if someone were to complain to the bishop, anything more than a slap on the wrist.
Sorry, to continue… By allowing a deacon from another denomination to do these actions, the priest is giving an implied recognition that his ordination is valid, and definitely making a statement that the priest is in communion with the person who is reading.
This must be what ticked off the Bishop in this case. His Holiness has recently (re-)issued a statement that the RCC is the only true church. The priest in this case, by implication, contravanes the Pope.
contravenes
Many Catholics, both laity and clergy, favor the ordination of women. Do you think that decade by decade their number will increase until such a time that …….
… Rome will have to excommunicate the lot of them, and furthermore confirm by an ex cathedra definition that the Church has not the capacity to ordain women, nor women to be ordained?
Yes, rob k, I do — although I regret that some Anglicans seem to have an ineradicable fantasy that “Rome will catch up with us, somehow, some way, some day.”
The priest in Baltimore made two mistakes. 1) Allowing someone other than a RC deacon or priest (or bishop) to read the Holy Gospel. Allowing a Male Episcopal Priest or Deacon would be just as bad.
2) Since the “ordination” of woman is not recognized in the RCC, he actually allowed a layperson to read the Holy Gospel. That would get one in trouble in Anglican Circles as well. Lay People (male or female) may be allowed to read the Old Testament and Epistle (and the Psalm) in the Holy Communion Service and licenced layreaders may read the entire MP or EP services.
There is a serious barrier between Rome and the ordination of women. They’ve stated as a matter of doctrine that women cannot be ordained; and Rome does not change its mind about doctrine… it merely clarifies what it has always taught.
If — I say “if” — it ever were to happen that Rome decided ordaining women was OK, then they would have to issue one heck of a clarification!
[blockquote] In a Catholic Mass the Gospel is always read by a deacon or priest. Lay people may read the other lessons. That’s the canon and that priest should certainly have known it. [/blockquote]
A curious rule, for it presumes that some parts of Scripture are more important than others. A dangerous and unfounded assumption, that. The four Gospels are not more authoritative than either the Book of Romans, or the book of Esther.
carl
It’s possibly a curious rule, but one shared by the Episcopal Church also, as several have pointed out above. The other Books of the Bible aren’t less authoritative so far as I know but there is a special precedence given to the four Gospels. That’s true also in the Episcopal Church as I remember. Perhaps it’s a matter of respect as the Gospels deal directly with the teachings of Jesus.
And yet, there are situations where a layman does read the Gospel lesson. I’m an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion assigned to deliver the Host to several residents of a nursing home in town. I (almost) always read at least the Gospel lesson from that Sunday and, if they wish, some or all of the other lessons or psalm too. They are elderly and weaker, sometimes infirm or sick, so we are instructed to go by their wishes even to omitting the lessons altogether and abbreviating the service if necessary. But I wouldn’t be allowed to read the Gospel in a Mass.
In faith, Dave
Viva Texas <><
Here’s a key sentence from the news story:
“Sean Caine, a spokesman for the Archdiocese of Baltimore, said this was one example of repeated administrative and liturgical offenses Martin had committed in more than a year.”
Wm Tighe – Please don’t assume (if you did) that I am in favor of women’s ordination. My views on it could be called “mixed” at best. Those parts of the Anglican Communion that have authorized it should have waited on the mind of the whole church (meaning RC and Orthodox) as well as all of Anglicanism. And yes, as Ross says in no.26, that would be one heck of a clarification. But it does reflect my view, a gut feeling if you wish to call it so, that it may, certainly not in our lifetime, happen, as the critical mass of opinion in the church continues to grow in favor of it. I certainly don’t think that it is a matter of the RC Church catching up with us Anglicans who have “seen the light”.
Charley, it sounds as if Martin was already in the bullseye.
[#28] dpierce
[blockquote] Perhaps it’s a matter of respect as the Gospels deal directly with the teachings of Jesus. [/blockquote]
It seems intended to communicate a distinction between Priest and laity – in that only the former is worthy of reading the Gospel. But all Scripture is God-breathed, and no part is more sacred than any other. Nor is any man more worthy than another. So it seems a legalism to me.
But I have learned something I didn’t know. And that is good.
carl
I feel absolutely terrible. Not for the wayward Priest, who is more than deserving of his fate, but for those under his care. Because catechesis has been.. broadly lacking.. (to be polite) many laypeople would have little or no idea that what this man was teaching them was error, and followed him down that path.
Another article in this morning’s Sun:
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/baltimore_city/bal-md.ci.priest10nov10,0,2132000.story
One need not go into the matters of Anglican orders (making gratuitous nasty remarks on an Anglican board isn’t on – we know what Rome teaches) or women’s ordination: Fr Martin is not being victimised. He was wrong to disobey his church, his bishop, and got what he deserved.
He was abusing the Mass to make personal statements; that they went against his church’s teaching worsens that.
Five years ago I acolyted at a friend’s wedding in a Catholic church not my own and the priest offered me Communion – had to decline; I knew full well it was the Sacrament but his bishop and mine weren’t in communion so receiving would have meant changing churches on the spot or lying, saying there was a relationship when there really wasn’t.
Offer up the pain as a prayer for Christian reunion.
Normally Roman priests aren’t fired unless as we saw in the news about five years ago there’s crime such as that involving moral turpitude. At least some of the RC priests convicted and jailed for messing around with underage boys (and less often girls) were laicised, which means functionally they’re laymen again, and can’t hold leadership jobs in church, but may still act as priests in a real emergency.
[url=http://sergesblog.blogspot.com]A conservative blog for peace[/url]
P.S. One might think Fr Martin is prophetic; interestingly his and his generation’s views on those issues are not shared by younger practising RCs. Anyway, I think the soldiers refusing to go back to Iraq are heroic but at the same time hold that the military has the right and duty to discipline its people so these soldiers have to take the punishments given them. All part of the heroism of taking their stand.
From the latest Sun article, nothing to do with Controversial Issuesâ„¢:
[blockquote] A few blocks away is the Christ United Church of Christ, better known as the German Lutheran church. [/blockquote]
The UCC is a merger of the Congregationalists (as in the Pilgrims in Massachusetts) and some other old Calvinist churches such as German Reformed ones. If that church was Lutheran to begin with it must have changed hands before going to the UCC!
BTW I just read that Baltimore has many Lutheran churches; must have been much German immigration there in the 1700s-early 1800s.
[blockquote] For more than 100 years, congregants from these three churches have gone to one another’s dinners and carnivals, attended funerals and weddings together, and collaborated on bake sales and bingo nights. [/blockquote]
Some Slav churches in Pennsylvania are like that as are Arab churches. (Most Arabs in America are Christians and most of those are Roman Catholics – understandable, getting away from Muslim countries.)
There is an unusual pattern that one will fine here: “Evangelical Lutheran” UCC congregations. Christ is not the only one-there is another a few blocks from my school. Its full name is Zion Evangelical Lutheran UCC. As I recall the old sign on the front has “Reformed” on it somewhere.
B’more had a lot of German immigration. I can point out old RC parishes that were built by German immigrants; we have a large LCMS contingent, and one of the ELCA congregations-Zion, across from city hall, still has a German language service. (They use the OLD red book for their English services!)
But I digress,
Randall
Such “union churches” can be found all over this part of Pennsylvania. Most German immigrants to this part of the world in the 17th and 18th Century were Germans, but there was also an influx of Reformed (Calvinists) Germans from the Palatinate at the same time. As Lutherans tended to grow wobbly on those basic beliefs that set them apart from the Reformed (liturgical worship and the “bodily presence” of Christ’s flesh and blood in the Eucharist) they often built one church to serve both groups and in some instances came close to uniting informally. However, with the revival of dogmatic Lutheranism in the second half of the 19th century and well into the 20th, the Lutherans became much more insistent that what these chuirches were were the congregations of two separate denominations thta simply shared the same building, but held separate services on Sunday mornings. (In 1962 various denominations, including the German “Evangelical and Reformed Church” — itself a product of the merger of some Lutherans with some Reformed — united to form the UCC.) Just down the road from my house, for example, is the “Cedar Church” which has a Lutheran service at 9 am on Sundays and a UCC service at 11 am. Each congregation is served by a different minister, but since the ELCA and the UCC entered into communion with one another in 1999, increasingly one finds a single minister serving both of them.
Some people seem to infer that the Gospel is “more important” than the other Scripture due to the fact that only the Priest or Deacon reads it. That “restriction” is only during a Celebration of Holy Communion. We also stand during the Gospel reading, usually sing a “Sequence hymn” before it and say special words (The Gospel of the Lord, Praise to you Lord Christ-1979 or Praise to thee O Lord and Praise to thee O Christ-1928). That only occurs during Holy Communion. When the Gospel is the appointed Second Lesson in Morning or Evening Prayer, anybody can read it, and the congregation stays seated. The Gospel is only “set apart” during the Service of Holy Communion. Having said all that, it was very inappropriate for the RC priest to allow anyone other than an ordained (according to the RC church) deacon or priest to read the Gospel during a funeral mass.
#40 recchip wrote:
[blockquote] [I]t was very inappropriate for the RC priest to allow anyone other than an ordained (according to the RC church) deacon or priest to read the Gospel during a funeral mass. [/blockquote]
But why is it inappropriate? Truth does not become less truthful depending upon who reads it. What is the purpose behind this restriction? Not trying to be provocative. I am just trying to understand. 🙂
carl
Carl [#41], I haven’t delved deeply into the history, but I suspect it has a lot to do with maintaining the church’s artificial class system, and with reminding people that ordained people are supposedly ‘different,’ read: ‘superior.’ Ditto with requiring Holy Communion to be celebrated only by a priest or bishop, and requiring baptism to be performed only by someone ordained except in emergencies.
In early apostolic times it probably made sense for the Twelve to delegate some of the drudge work to others, so that they could more productively spend their time preaching (Acts 6.1-6). That seems like a good, practical division of labor.
I’m sure I’m not the first to wonder, however, whether subsequent status-seekers in the church (possibly motivated by the need to match secular authorities in status) might have distorted the apostles’ get-things-done expedient into a divine right of a self-perpetuating elect.
Dr. Tighe:
Thanks for the explainer.
Randall
Carl- As a new convert to the Catholic church I also was curious as to the reasons for restricting the reading of the Gospel to the priest (actually deacons are also allowed to read it, and in fact that is one of their duties if they are present). Looking over the current instructions for the celebration of the Mass and the Canons it appears that the reasons include the following:
– the limitation is based on tradition
– the reading of Scripture at the Mass is considered to be a ministerial function. Therefore, even the other readings must be done by a trained, approved lector (which should still be the case in TEC — I was a licenced lector when I was an Episcopalian).
– while all Scripture is considered to be the Word of God, the Gospel holds a special place of honor because it considered to be the direct words of God himself (i.e., the words of Jesus, as recorded), while the OT points to the Gospel and the NT Epistles explain it. Thus the reading of the Gospel is given “high honors” including the standing of the congregation. Finally, bishops and priests are considered special in the Catholic Church (which, unlike DC, I accept) and so having the priest read it is a form of according honor to Christ.
-although the sources did not state it, the limit may also be part of the theology that the priest acts as the “alter Christus,” although I’m not sure where the fact that a deacon (who is ordained, but cannot consecrate the Eurcharist), fits in.
Hope this helps.
[#42] DC
I suspect that your answer wouldn’t be quite word for word in agreement with the answer I would receive from a Roman Catholic apologist. 🙂
carl
btw I wandered over to your website and this line in your bio caught my attention.
[blockquote] I served as a U.S. Navy nuclear engineering officer. [/blockquote]
Always good to meet others who wore the Uniform. But then you had to go and become a lawyer. Oh, the tragedy of it all. 🙂
D C and others,
The reason that only a Priest or deacon can read the Gospel DURING THE COMMUNION SERVICE (anyone can read the Gospel when it is the second lesson during the Daily Offices of Morning or Evening Prayer) is that: THEM’S THE RULES!! Different groups have different rules. Some churches allow just about anyone who is “called” to become a pastor and to preach. The Churches of the “Church Catholic” (and in this I include Roman-including their Eastern Rites-Catholic, Orthodox Catholic and Anglican) all have rules which set apart those who are ordained into Holy Orders and reserve some actions for them. When I used to be Presbyterian, I was an “ordained” Deacon but I remained a Layperson. I am now Anglican and thus no longer a Presbyterian Deacon. If I want to become a Deacon in the Anglican Church, I would need to go through the process required. An Anglican (or RC for that matter) Deacon is NOT a layperson.
The rules are the rules. Either follow them or don’t but if you don’t follow the rules, don’t expect those who do to be happy with you!
Recchip [#46], no one is arguing that those aren’t the rules, and that this isn’t the way the RCC, TEC, etc., do things. The current discussion seems to be: Why do we/they do things that way? “Why, because we’ve always done it that way” usually isn’t a satisfactory response in itself.
DC,
In a structure (Anglicanism) which is based on Scripture, Tradition and Canon (or Reason for some), the answer “That’s the way we do it because we have always done it” is a good answer. Many of the problems in the Anglican Communion over the last 40 years or so have been caused by people trying to ask “Why” and then finding some way out way of saying that “The way we do it is not good enough.” First, they asked “Why don’t we ordain women?” Then they asked “Why do we use a Prayer Book with Thee and Thou?” Finally they asked, “Why not allow Gays to be Priests and Bishops?” A very good answer which could have prevented a lot of problems would have been “Because we don’t”, “Because we do” and “Because we shouldn’t” When people tried to “answer why” it opened up the can of worms which has now pretty much destroyed “The Church”.
[#48] recchip wrote:
[blockquote]Why don’t we ordain women?[/blockquote]
Because Scripture forbids it.
[blockquote]Why do we use a Prayer Book with Thee and Thou?[/blockquote]
The “Thee’s” and “Thou’s” don’t matter. What matters is whether the doctrine in the Prayer Book is founded upon Scripture.
[blockquote]Why not allow Gays to be Priests and Bishops?[/blockquote]
Because Scripture forbids it.
Many of the problems in the Catholic Church over the 1500 years or so of its existence have been caused by people trying to ask “Why†and being told “Because we say so, and that’s the way it is, and just shut up about it.” And no they don’t want to hear “But the Scripture says…” because (conveniently enough) only the RCC can interpret Scripture. They know this because they say so, and that’s just the way it is, and we are all just supposed to shut up about it. And, no, they don’t want to explain how (say) the two-swords doctrine of Unam Sanctum can be infallible in AD 1302 but obsolete now. We are just supposed to shut up about that as well.
I am seeing a trend here. File this under “Why I am not Roman Catholic.”
carl
#48 recchip says:
But the tradition did not fall out of the sky wrapped up in a red bow; the church evolved the tradition over time. Unless you want to drive a stake into the timeline and say, “It was lawful for tradition to change up to date X, but it must remain fixed and immutable forever after that,” then you have to allow for the possibility that the tradtion might need to change as circumstances around the church change.
Once upon a time, the tradition was for bishops to consecrate the Eucharistic elements. Then the church got too big to have a bishop at every celebration, so they started distributing portions of the bishop’s consecrated elements to all the other churches in the city. Then that got impractical, so priests began to preside at Eucharists and to consecrate the elements. The tradition changed because the needs changed.
That’s why the question, “Why do we do X?” needs a better answer than, “Because we’ve always done X.” Perhaps the reasons for doing X back in the fourth century are still good reasons today. Perhaps X is a matter of indifference, but we stick to it from sentimental attachment. Or, perhaps, we used to do X for specific reasons that just don’t apply any more. You can’t judge that unless you know why the tradition started doing X in the first place.
Hmmnnn…. Does scripture say to ordain women, or homosexuals?
Perhaps it’s that some people just don’t want to hear what scripture says??? Kind of like Eve? And she convinced Adam and, through Adam, all the rest of us are contaminated.
No, the Roman Catholic Church doesn’t change its scriptures based on contemporary cultural philosophies and desires… and it draws criticism for that. But it’s why I’m not Episcopalian any more.
In faith, Dave
Viva Texas <><
Carl,
Sometimes, your comments make me smile– because I can see so much of my own thinking behind what you write. But, I must say, there are times I am more than a bit uneasy with your your staunchly anti-Roman Catholic sentiments.
Surely, you cannot disagree with B. B. Warfield when he said that it was more than sinful for any true Christian, of any Protestant sort, to waste their time and energy arguing against the teachings and practices of the Roman Catholic Church.
Form Warfield’s point of view, the Roman Catholic Church posed no threat to the salvation of men’s souls and, in fact, frequently acted as the agent to bring souls to Christ. He expressed these thoughts, of course, after a long academic career– and lots of time spent on the front lines of the Presbyterian “church wars” of his own day– in which he gained a reputation as one of the true “giants” of Protestant theology in America, as well as a reputation as a ferocious opponent of many of the doctrines and practices of the Roman Catholic Church.
As he got older, however, he experienced an immense change of heart of on the subject of Roman Catholicism. He loudly and clearly and publicly REPENTED for all the effort he put into undermining the Roman Catholic Church.
He saw such strident and aggressive opposition to Roman Catholicism as playing into the hand of the common Enemy of ALL true Christianity…
Towards the end of his life, Warfield made a fairly careful distinction between clarifying what his kind of Protestantism held to– and why they held to it– as opposed to attacking the position of other branches of the church.
I am fairly new to this blog and I have only been reading your comments for a fairly short time. But I generally like them a lot. And I frequently get a LOT out of your comments… But, having said this, I must also say that there are times that I wish you could strike a more irenic note in your comments, at least as far as the Roman Catholic Church goes.
Carl,
Your point is well taken in that Scripture forbids WO and Gay Ordination and that the theology of the prayer book is more important than the Thees and Thous. I still maintain, however, that the question “Why” can often open a can of worms when someone will not accept Scripture as authoritative. I would certainly suggest that the answer “Because Scripture says so!” is the best answer to any question of “Why?” However, sometimes Scripture is not explicit and the only reason is “That’s the way we do things here.” For example: (and this is a safe example since it was used by a Bishop in our church) We baptize babies and Baptists don’t. Their ways are not “wrong” in and of themselves but they are “wrong” for us in our church. Same thing with Church Government. We do government by Bishop, Presbyterians use elders and Baptists do congregational. None are “right” but government by Bishops is what we do in our church. Each group has their own rules. It may be OK for a woman layperson to read the gospel or even do communion in some churches. In (many) Anglican Churches it is not allowed. Sometimes, the rules are just the rules. In this case, it would have been OK for the lady to read the Epistle, Psalm or even offer a prayer.
bluenarrative
Thank you for your kind words. You have complimented me a few times, and I appreciate the recognition of my simple efforts. I am an amateur at this being only an Engineer. 🙂
I guess most RCs would consider me an anti-Catholic. It’s just that I don’t think the Reformation was nothing but a big misunderstanding. I believe it was about the definition of the Gospel. And that of necessity implies the two churches (Protestant & Catholic) have different Gospels. It’s a painful thing to say. I have good friends who are Catholic. Beyond theology we disagree on virtually nothing. We are cultural allies in a war with a dying culture. How much easier it would be if I could treat them like Methodists. I want to treat them like Methodists.
But I can’t. Their doctrine is just too far afield. I can’t get by the Mass. I can’t get by Faith plus Works. I can’t get by Purgatory, and the Papacy, and the Magisterium, and Sola Ecclesia, and Trent. I can’t get by this amorphous undefined cloud called Sacred Tradition. And I will never get past the Marian doctrines which virtually deify a creature. I wish it could be otherwise. But the Truth is unyielding.
carl
Carl: I’m no expert on this stuff (I’m not even an engineer ^_^), but I *have* been kicked around a little bit. I was Episcopal for 51 years and now Catholic for 4 years and have been on both sides (as have you). So, a bit of advice: If you can’t get around those doctrines held in the Catholic Church, then don’t try; dismiss them. It’s obvious to me that you take the differences personally to at least some degree; let them go. You won’t convince us and you won’t do yourself any good thinking about it.
If you do that, then the doctrines will no longer serve as a division between you and your friends. That hopefully would be Goog Thing.
Me, when I converted from the Eoiscopal Church to the Catholic Church, I had serious problems with some of those doctrines. Yet, if I were to become Catholic without lying to my new compatriots, I had to accept the doctrines. My approach was two-fold:
First, I looked for reasons to accept the doctrines rather than looking for reasons to reject them; that made a tremendous difference in my attitude.
Second, I noticed that none of the doctrines *contradicted* scripture as did the Episcopal doctrines on, for example, homosexuality. The doctrines weren’t explicitly contained in scripture, but they weren’t contrary either and could, with a sympathetic rather than a confrontational view, be logically derived from scripture. Looked at sympathetically, the Catholic arguments for the doctrines made logical and scriptural sense.
That made the difference for me. The basic question was, did I *trust* the Church I was trying to join? If I answered no, then I better not join; my answer was yes. So, if I trust the Church, I accept what she has to teach me. What I don’t understand now I will understand later.
I’ve learned a great deal about submission and obedience from the Catholic Church.
In faith, Dave
Viva Texas <><
Goo(D) thing!
Dear Carl,
Your position is very well stated, as usual. And, as usual, I find myself overwhelmingly in agreement with the spirit of your words, if not with their actual denotations, or your specific problems with the Roman Catholic Church.
I am NOT a Roman Catholic. I consider myself to be a very low-church evangelical Anglican, and a five-point calvinist, to boot.
But for me, personally, the Roman Catholic understanding of the Mass is no more far-fetched than the events that unfolded upon Calvary, when Jesus died “once for all” of us.
As far as the idea of transubstantiation goes, I think that the difficulties that most Protestants have with it are primarily a matter of linguistics and the hazy connotations that inevitably cling to the phraseology. More than anything else, I see the doctrine of transubstantiation as simply being a vehicle for the ancient Catholic Church to state emphatically that, “THIS is IMPORTANT; something very PROFOUND is going on here.”
Which is quite true, as far as it goes.
Even Zwinglians affirm that there is more going on in a celebration of Communion than is seen on the surface of things. Exactly what this “more” consists of is a matter of debate, even among Protestants. The least we can do is cut Rome some slack when they go about trying to explicate their particular ideas about what this “more” entails…
Purgatory is a concept that has never been doctrinally defined by Rome. It is a doctrine that is specifically refuted by the eastern Orthodox churches and many of the churches that are in communion with Rome, such as the Byzantine Catholic Church. Having said this, I should also point out that the notorious Protestant C. S. Lewis rather LIKED the idea of Purgatory. It seemed to him that when we meet the Lord of Glory face to face we might well wish to excuse ourselves from His Presence, so as to “purge” (wash away) some of the filth of our sins. In much the same way, somebody who has been, say, working in their garden and who is suddenly confronted with an unexpected visitor, might beg leave to clean himself up a bit before formally receiving the unexpected visitor… Certainly, it is a remarkably un-Biblical idea. But the underlying spirit of the idea of Purgatory can be, in the right hands, a very Christian notion, nonetheless…
The idea that Roman Catholics believe in “Faith PLUS Works” as the correct path to salvation is, at best, a simplistic caricature of Roman Catholic doctrine on this subject. I will not take the time to discuss it here in depth, except to refer you to some of the writings of the late John Paul II and the current Pope. I think you might be surprised by their take on this matter, as well as by their understanding of the Magisterium and the idea of Sola Ecclesia.
I agree with you that the Reformation was a LOT more than just a “misunderstanding.” And I truly believe that the reformers made salvation accessible to people in a way that the Roman Catholic Church had failed to do for centuries.
But, please, let’s recognize that, at the very least, members of the Roman Catholic Church are “our brothers in Christ” and that we shall encounter a LOT of them in the New jerusalem.
🙂
bluenarrative
I am familiar with RC doctrine, and have been told by RCs that I know their doctrine better then most RCs. In my post, I was not intending to do more than outline my over-arching objections. If my post looked simple, it was only because I did not feel the need to develop the points to a knowledgeable Protestant.
However, most of the arguments you raised to mitigate the errors of RC doctrine do not address my principle objections. For example, my objection to the Mass is that it is a re-establishment of Old Testament Temple worship dressed up in New Testament clothes. It “re-presents” over and over and over a sacrifice which can never finally and completely cleanse from sin. This in direct contradiction to the Book of Hebrews. I could address the other doctrines as well, but this serves as illustration.
You are correct in this however. I actually do expect to see Catholics in heaven – but only despite the RC gospel, and not because of it. This is the basis of our disagreement. I can call a RC a brother in Christ, but only if he believes the Gospel, and not the RC gospel.
carl
If you want to understand better where I am coming from, then please visit here: http://www.aomin.org. It is the website of Dr James White. He is the one of the foremost Protestant apologists in the US. I am in the IRC chat channel associated with his website almost every night. We welcome visitors. 🙂
Carl: Your explanation of the Mass doesn’t agree with what I was taught or what we teach in RCIA, The Mass is a re-clelbration of the only sacrifice which was made *one* time and is sufficient to cleanse the sins of the whole world. It’s nothing like the constant sacrifices necessary in Temple times.
The Mass might have *derived* from Temple worship; God’s message seems to be a continuum developing from the earliest revelations after Creation to the final revelation in Jesus Christ. But it isn’t the same Temple sacrifice as I understand it. It is the one and final sacrifice which leads to eternal life. See [url=http://www.biblestudytools.net/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?new=1&word=hebrews+9:6-15§ion=2&version=nlt&language=en]Heb 9:6-15[/url].
In faith, Dave
Viva Texas <><
dpeirce
The RCC teaches that the Mass is propitiatory in that it effects the remission of temporal punishment for sin. But a Catholic can go to Mass every day of his life, and still end up in Purgatory – there to undergo suffering of atonement. He must atone himself for the temporal punishment of his sins. He may even have Masses said for him after he is in purgatory. Indeed, the Catholic Church teaches that a man can go to Mass every day of his life, and by virtue of one mortal sin at the hour of his death, still be lost for eternity. How does this represent the “once for all” sacrifice?
If there is still an offering to be made, forgiveness remains incomplete. But once the offerings cease, then forgiveness is a reality. The High Priest has sat down, having already made the one offering by which he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified. Heb 10:10-14 Which priest still stands day after day performing his religious duties?
carl
Well, you’ve caused me to read all the way thru the sections of the Catechism of the Catholic Church on the Eucharist and Purgatory. I did learn some new things, though, so thanks.
I’m confused by your question, but you seem to be asking if Jesus’ “once for all” sacrifice dispenses with temporal punishment and for sins where we are dying and don’t have time to repent?
First, purgatory applies only to people who die in God’s grace and friendship, but who are as yet imperfectly purified from the residue of the sins they’ve committed during their lifetimes and have repented, even though those sins have been forgiven or will be forgiven. See 1 Cor 3:15 and Mt 12:32. It does not apply to unrepented sins. The existence of purgatory doesn’t imply that further sacrifice from Jesus is necessary.
Second, re a sin committed at the moment of death which the person doesn’t have time to repent: This question gets asked at some time during every RCIA class. But it’s hard for me to understand how some one might commit a mortal sin at the moment of death. It would require a willful and knowing decision to rebel and turn away from God; how could that be? If I try to commit adultry with the nurse, I must not yet be at the door of death. If I’m afraid and curse God at that moment, did I sin or did I just lose it for a brief time? And, how long does it take to repent and receive forgivness from him who wants nothing more than your salvation?
But even if it were possible, it still wouldn’t take away from the “once for all” nature of Jesus’ sacrifice on the Cross. Jesus has purchased our salvations; we have only to accept them and live them. If we do not accept them, then the sacrifice was still made and is still effective.
In the verse from Heb 10:10-14 (starting back at verse 1 for context), Paul is contrasting the old covenant of continual sacrifices under the Law with the new covenant of one sacrifice and salvation by obedient faith. The priest in v11 represents the old covenant.
I’m wondering… do you believe that because of Jesus’ sacrifice every person is perfect and can’t sin? Or that a person’s subsequent sin means that Christ must sacrifice again?
In faith, Dave
Viva Texas <><
Re #46 and #47: the reason only a priest or deacon reads Gospel is not simply because ‘that’s the way it is’. Catholics believe that Christ himself proclaims the Gospel (General Instruction of the Roman Missal, # 29). For that reason only an ordained minister – ie a priest or deacon – can read the Gospel – and no-one else.
re 62: Well, that isn’t true in the larger context. In office services anyone may read the gospel.
The priest in question should surely have gotten permission from his bishop to take such liberties with the rubrics. One need not go into rationalizations for those rubrics to insist upon that.
Re #63 ‘Well that isn’t true in the larger context…’
I’m afraid – with respect – I don’t understand the necessity of the rebuttal.
The question wasn’t asked about the larger context: it was asked about Mass, and my response referred to the Gospel as proclaimed during Mass – hence ‘General Instruction of the Roman [i] Missal [/i]’
Quite apart from the question of whether there can be, for Catholics, a ‘larger context’ than the Mass!