at the Ecumenical Prayer Gathering in New York at St. Joseph's parish. I think the Bishop of Rome has some valuable words that are well worth pondering. At this service, Bishop Benke, President of the Atlantic District of the LCMS brought greetings. Key insight: "Dear friends, the Kerygma has lost none of its internal dynamism" and the brilliant phrase "diachronic koinonia" (most imperiled in the LCMS today) Amen! Here you go:
Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,
My heart abounds with gratitude to Almighty God - “the Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all” (Eph 4:6) - for this blessed opportunity to gather with you this evening in prayer. I thank Bishop Dennis Sullivan for his cordial welcome, and I warmly greet all those in attendance representing Christian communities throughout the United States. May the peace of our Lord and Savior be with you all!
Through you, I express my sincere appreciation for the invaluable work of all those engaged in ecumenism: the National Council of Churches, Christian Churches Together, the Catholic Bishops’ Secretariat for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs, and many others. The contribution of Christians in the United States to the ecumenical movement is felt throughout the world. I encourage all of you to persevere, always relying on the grace of the risen Christ whom we strive to serve by bringing about “the obedience of faith for the sake of his name” (Rom 1:5).
We have just listened to the scriptural passage in which Paul - a “prisoner for the Lord” - delivers his ardent appeal to the members of the Christian community at Ephesus. “I beg you,” he writes, “to lead a life worthy of the calling to which you have been called … eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Eph 4:1-3). Then, after his impassioned litany of unity, Paul reminds his hearers that Jesus, having ascended into heaven, has bestowed upon men and women all the gifts necessary for building up the Body of Christ (cf. Eph 4:11-13).
Paul’s exhortation resounds with no less vigor today. His words instill in us the confidence that the Lord will never abandon us in our quest for unity. They also call us to live in a way that bears witness to the “one heart and mind” (Acts 4:32), which has always been the distinguishing trait of Christian koinonia (cf. Acts 2:42), and the force drawing others to join the community of believers so that they too might come to share in the “unsearchable riches of Christ” (Eph 3:8; cf. Acts 2:47; 5:14).
Globalization has humanity poised between two poles. On the one hand, there is a growing sense of interconnectedness and interdependency between peoples even when - geographically and culturally speaking - they are far apart. This new situation offers the potential for enhancing a sense of global solidarity and shared responsibility for the well-being of mankind. On the other hand, we cannot deny that the rapid changes occurring in our world also present some disturbing signs of fragmentation and a retreat into individualism. The expanding use of electronic communications has in some cases paradoxically resulted in greater isolation. Many people - including the young - are seeking therefore more authentic forms of community. Also of grave concern is the spread of a secularist ideology that undermines or even rejects transcendent truth. The very possibility of divine revelation, and therefore of Christian faith, is often placed into question by cultural trends widely present in academia, the mass media and public debate. For these reasons, a faithful witness to the Gospel is as urgent as ever. Christians are challenged to give a clear account of the hope that they hold (cf. 1 Pet 3:15).
Too often those who are not Christians, as they observe the splintering of Christian communities, are understandably confused about the Gospel message itself. Fundamental Christian beliefs and practices are sometimes changed within communities by so-called “prophetic actions” that are based on a hermeneutic not always consonant with the datum of Scripture and Tradition. Communities consequently give up the attempt to act as a unified body, choosing instead to function according to the idea of “local options”. Somewhere in this process the need for diachronic koinonia - communion with the Church in every age - is lost, just at the time when the world is losing its bearings and needs a persuasive common witness to the saving power of the Gospel (cf. Rom 1:18-23).
Faced with these difficulties, we must first recall that the unity of the Church flows from the perfect oneness of the Trinitarian God. In John’s Gospel, we are told that Jesus prayed to his Father that his disciples might be one, “just as you are in me and I am in you” (Jn 17:21). This passage reflects the unwavering conviction of the early Christian community that its unity was both caused by, and is reflective of, the unity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This, in turn, suggests that the internal cohesion of believers was based on the sound integrity of their doctrinal confession (cf. 1 Tim 1:3-11). Throughout the New Testament, we find that the Apostles were repeatedly called to give an account for their faith to both Gentiles (cf. Acts 17:16-34) and Jews (cf. Acts 4:5-22; 5:27-42). The core of their argument was always the historical fact of Jesus’s bodily resurrection from the tomb (Acts 2:24, 32; 3:15; 4:10; 5:30; 10:40; 13:30). The ultimate effectiveness of their preaching did not depend on “lofty words” or “human wisdom” (1 Cor 2:13), but rather on the work of the Spirit (Eph 3:5) who confirmed the authoritative witness of the Apostles (cf. 1 Cor 15:1-11). The nucleus of Paul’s preaching and that of the early Church was none other than Jesus Christ, and “him crucified” (1 Cor 2:2). But this proclamation had to be guaranteed by the purity of normative doctrine expressed in creedal formulae - symbola - which articulated the essence of the Christian faith and constituted the foundation for the unity of the baptized (cf. 1 Cor 15:3-5; Gal 1:6-9; Unitatis Redintegratio, 2).
My dear friends, the power of the kerygma has lost none of its internal dynamism. Yet we must ask ourselves whether its full force has not been attenuated by a relativistic approach to Christian doctrine similar to that found in secular ideologies, which, in alleging that science alone is “objective”, relegate religion entirely to the subjective sphere of individual feeling. Scientific discoveries, and their application through human ingenuity, undoubtedly offer new possibilities for the betterment of humankind. This does not mean, however, that the “knowable” is limited to the empirically verifiable, nor religion restricted to the shifting realm of “personal experience”.
For Christians to accept this faulty line of reasoning would lead to the notion that there is little need to emphasize objective truth in the presentation of the Christian faith, for one need but follow his or her own conscience and choose a community that best suits his or her individual tastes. The result is seen in the continual proliferation of communities which often eschew institutional structures and minimize the importance of doctrinal content for Christian living.
Even within the ecumenical movement, Christians may be reluctant to assert the role of doctrine for fear that it would only exacerbate rather than heal the wounds of division. Yet a clear, convincing testimony to the salvation wrought for us in Christ Jesus has to be based upon the notion of normative apostolic teaching: a teaching which indeed underlies the inspired word of God and sustains the sacramental life of Christians today.
Only by “holding fast” to sound teaching (2 Thess 2:15; cf. Rev 2:12-29) will we be able to respond to the challenges that confront us in an evolving world. Only in this way will we give unambiguous testimony to the truth of the Gospel and its moral teaching. This is the message which the world is waiting to hear from us. Like the early Christians, we have a responsibility to give transparent witness to the “reasons for our hope”, so that the eyes of all men and women of goodwill may be opened to see that God has shown us his face (cf. 2 Cor 3:12-18) and granted us access to his divine life through Jesus Christ. He alone is our hope! God has revealed his love for all peoples through the mystery of his Son’s passion and death, and has called us to proclaim that he is indeed risen, has taken his place at the right hand of the Father, and “will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead” (Nicene Creed).
May the word of God we have heard this evening inflame our hearts with hope on the path to unity (cf. Lk 24:32). May this prayer service exemplify the centrality of prayer in the ecumenical movement (cf. Unitatis Redintegratio, 8); for without it, ecumenical structures, institutions and programs would be deprived of their heart and soul. Let us give thanks to Almighty God for the progress that has been made through the work of his Spirit, as we acknowledge with gratitude the personal sacrifices made by so many present and by those who have gone before us.
By following in their footsteps, and by placing our trust in God alone, I am confident that - to borrow the words of Father Paul Wattson - we will achieve the “oneness of hope, oneness of faith, and oneness of love” that alone will convince the world that Jesus Christ is the one sent by the Father for the salvation of all.
I thank you all.
27 comments:
Forget not, though, Master Philip's subscription to the same articles - which subscription is also part of our Symbols:
"But regarding the pope, I hold that, if he would allow the Gospel, we could agree to his superiority over other bishops, which he has otherwise by human right. This would be for the sake of peace and the general unity of those Christians who are also under him or may be under him hereafter." And forget not also the words with which the SA introduces the topic: "The pope is only the bishop and pastor of the Church at Rome and of those who have attached themselves to him voluntarily or through human agency. *Christians are not under him as a lord. They are with him as brethren, colleagues, and companions, as the ancient councils and the age of Cyprian show.*"
Does he now "allow the Gospel"?
The pope has much that can be commended here, but he concludes with this: By following in their footsteps, and by placing our trust in God alone, I am confident that - to borrow the words of Father Paul Wattson - we will achieve the “oneness of hope, oneness of faith, and oneness of love” that alone will convince the world that Jesus Christ is the one sent by the Father for the salvation of all.
While it is true that "By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another” (John 13:35), it is not true that our achievement of unity in faith, hope, and love "alone will convince the world that Jesus Christ is the one sent by the Father for the salvation of all." Faith comes by hearing, hearing through the Word of Christ.
Scott,
Where on earth do you get the notion of "Luther's Gospel"? Luther's approach to the Gospel is hardly his own, but of a solid piece with what had come before him. Roman and Orthodox apologists at times speak in this way, but it simply historically untenable. Or said another way, if Luther got it wrong, so did all the fathers and even later days saints such as St. Thérèse de Lisieux.
BSJ,
I think his final words sought to be reflective of John 17:23.
DRB,
Well, I wouldn't hesitate to say that he gets at the Gospel better and more consistently than his immediate predecessor.
I don't wish to spar, either, but I do hope you take to heart the words of Ste. Thérèse of Lisieux
Months before her death, this saint of the post-Trent Roman Church wrote:
I am very happy that I am going to heaven. But when I think of this word of the Lord, “I shall come soon and bring with me my recompense to give to each according to his works,” I tell myself that this will be very embarrassing for me, because I have no works. … Very well! He will render to me according to His works for His own sake.
And she prays thus to Jesus:
In the evening of this life I shall appear before Thee with empty hands because I do not ask Thee, Lord, to count my works. All our just acts have blemishes in Thine eyes. Therefore I want to wrap myself up again in Thy justice, and to receive from Thy love the eternal possession of Thee Thyself.
Can you honestly hear a difference here from the Gospel as Luther proclaimed it?
Does he not subscribe to the Canons of the Council of Trent? Maybe we should wait for him to lift the anathema against sola fide before we "agree to his superiority over other bishops."
Yes, Benedict points to a phenomenon across many denominations where continuity with the historic faith and church is replaced with something else.
In this way, I sympathise with Episcopalians, Methodists, Presbyterians, etc, and even Lutherans, who strive to adhere to their historic faith while their church body pursues something else.
But, even the Prince of Darkness can disguise himself as an angel of light.
It is not because of "Christian" disunity that people do not come to Christ. It is because they are sinners who do not want to repent, or, are not told they need to by their preachers.
Benedict would dare speak of continuity when he is one of the standard bearers for the wholesale discontinuity brought about by Vatican II in its own context, and now as pope allows it as a museum piece as long as one grants the validity of the New Order? What an utter charlatan. It makes no difference whether this discontinuity employs liturgies or praise services, mitres and crosiers or business suits, looks to post conciliar Rome or Willow Creek and Saddleback.
Yes it's a fact that "Luther's" doctrine of Justification is not Catholic. Hence the fact that the RCC is an heretical body in discontinuity with the catholic church, since the doctrine is Christ's, not Luther's. Come home? Been there. Weasel Code for become Catholic. What a joke. A remodelled parlour in the chief brothel of the Whore of Babylon, presided over by an office bearing the marks of Anti-Christ, looking to bring those brothelial unions, to paraphrase, into the stable.
We should have nothing to do with it except call upon those Christians in it to come out and call their leaders to repent. Certainly we should not abandon our confession of the historic faith and practice of the church to their current revisionism any more than to suburban "evangelical" Protestantism.
Perhaps Benedict as an old man will show the courage he did as a young man, and flee the spiritual monsters he now heads as he fled the secular monsters who conscripted him.
Pastor Elder (etc, etc...)said: In this way, I sympathise with Episcopalians, Methodists, Presbyterians, etc, and even Lutherans, who strive to adhere to their historic faith while their church body pursues something else.
Pope Benedict represents the Catholics who strive to maintain the true historic faith and liturgies while many staunch Vatican II Catholics are out doing, well...something else.
Vatican II (or rather the rampant abuses and middle finger towards Rome, especially in the USA)stands as the wound in the Church which someone such as Pope Benedict is capable to begin the healing.
repentance..yes, indeed!
Nonsense. And it is precisely this nonsense cultivated by RCC leadership that keeps people in the dark.
The only thing that is more of a rejection of the historic faith and liturgy of the RCC (we'll leave aside the question of whether that in turn is in continuity with the catholic church) than the "spirit" of Vatican II is Vatican II itself in its documents and ordos.
Benedict represents one revisionism seeking control over another, which it was my sorry lot to see both emerge in my lifetime, and the historic faith and liturgy is "middle fingered" by either and both sides. There is no healing regardless of which apostate side wins.
Pastor Elder said: The only thing that is more of a rejection of the historic faith and liturgy of the RCC (we'll leave aside the question of whether that in turn is in continuity with the catholic church) than the "spirit" of Vatican II is Vatican II itself in its documents and ordos.
Then you agree, VII is/was a complete sham and overt attempt at destroying the historic faith and its proper liturgies...yes?
Scott,
If you have placed yourself under the Bishop of Rome's authority, I pray that you not become the sort who constantly seeks to belittle the Lutheran heritage from which he came. I'd encourage you rather to take the high road with the likes of Fr. John Neuhaus and others who speak well of their former jurisdiction and who do not attempt to mock or disparage it. Certainly the Bishop of Rome himself speaks with great respect and kindness toward Lutherans.
Scott,
Why do you insist on speaking out of both sides of your mouth. You cannot in early comments distinguish between "Luther's Gospel" and "the Gospel" and then later say that you have love for the church of the UAC.
If, as you assert, our Gospel is not Catholic and is not "the Gospel" then you had best go with Paul in Galatians 1:8.
Your comments are inconsistent and disingenious. You can't speak in both the ways you are speaking. It just doesn't work.
The church to which Chesterton converted, and in which I was raised, simply no longer exists.
Chesterton was fabulous. In particular I admire his book on Aquinas -- find the passage about Luther's "postage stamp of a mind" if you need ammunition.
You would not see such a conversion now. The conversions one does see now -- Neuhaus being an excellent example -- clearly depend on the RCC being in its post conciliar incarnation, which at key points rejects, usually in the form of a reinvention claiming continuity, the church and faith of Chesterton and, once, myself.
The only possible basis for a claim of continuity is institutional -- it is the same because the institution did it. Which is to say, the faith of the Roman church is above all else a faith in itself.
I would not in the least disparage what I was taught in the RCC when it still existed. It hemmed and hawed and mixed with other things the same Gospel clearly and cleanly proclaimed in the "Lutheran" church and I am grateful to it, finding myself in no different church at all as the BOC states but simply in a parish of it where the Gospel is rightly proclaimed and sacraments properly administered.
However, there will be no lack of disparagement for the sham that is the RCC now, and that comes not on the basis of my Lutheran belief now but the very faith taught to me by the RCC itself.
If that is a little more raw for me right now, I had one of my rare visits to an RCC church Friday. A child's funeral. Amid all the media coverage of the staged spectacles of Benedict's visit, it was revealing to see actual RCC life. Considering the circumstances, the utter lack of even what was once an RC funeral, let alone the lack of the clear proclamation of Gospel hope that marks every Lutheran funeral to which I have been, including my wife's, compounded the human grief at a child's loss with seeing how lost and unshepherded one indeed is by this false church.
I heard clearer words about Christ, resurrection and eternal life from my 10 year old Lutheran son on the way to the van than I did in the whole miserable service.
I wouldn't be surprised, if Chesterton were still alive and still believed what he believed, to find him next to me in the pew at my Lutheran parish.
Mr. Larkin,
The condescension has no end. You make a personal attack against Past Elder rather than argue your case... lovely.
At least now you're showing your true colors. You're just oozing with love for the UAC. I can taste it.
I made a serious point, and you mocked it. Past Elder made a reasoned argument, and you mocked it.
I ask you again: How do you reconcile claiming to have love for the church of the UAC and at the same time deny that we have the Gospel?
Nah, he was only a major influence on my treatment of a contemporary Boethian musica humana in my dissertation, that's all.
The comment is typical of those who find the RCC of Benedict et al the same RCC as the church to which Chesterton converted.
If that's your illusion, it's beyond questions of what one has or hasn't read.
Actually I wrote that dissertation when I was still trying to maintain that illusion myself.
PE, plenty of people were born & raised in the Church you were and believe that it didn't disappear in 1965, 1969, or any other post-conciliar date. Our present and previous pontiffs come to mind. While you are certainly not alone in your view, and while truth is not determined by counting noses, I've yet to see here or at Schutz's blog little more than bald assertions that the RCC no longer exists. Perhaps you may have posted something at your blog on this, but I haven't seen it there, either. Rather than asking you to reproduce what you may have already done, can you point me to a place where you make such a demonstration?
Thanks!
Hi Chris -- you are quite right, I myself have made no such demonstration, not on my blog, not on Schuetz', and certainly Pastor's blog here is not a forum for intramural Catholicism.
I have said repeatedly on Schuetz' blog that such demonstrations have been made far more capably than I have either the time or inclination to do, and on my own blog have supplied links to some, in the sidebar "The Tiber, for Swimmers et al."
I would not say these are the absolute best, most compelling or most exhaustive, just that they do adequately demonstrate the disconnect within a reasonable reading time. And too, I have drawn a completely different conclusion about what to do about the disconnect than their authors.
Which fits. I did not reject "Catholicism" because I came to believe Lutheranism. At the time I was more than twenty years away from seeing Lutheranism as anything more than a well intended but misguided effort to be Catholic without being Catholic. I rejected "Catholicism" on the basis of the faith taught to me by the Roman Catholic Church.
Of course now as a Lutheran I understand how either Catholicism departs from the catholic faith and church. But, if I were to renounce Lutheranism this night, the rejection of post-conciliar "Catholicism" would stand. Your present and immediately previous "pontiffs" do not at all come to my mind as indicators of some continuity. Quite the opposite, they simply uphold one new post-conciliar Catholicism against another generally referred to as the "spirit" of Vatican II, either and both of which are false to the Catholic Church (not to mention the catholic church).
Richard John Neuhaus, he would say in all honesty that Protestants are EX-COMMUNICATED Christians. This is the meaning of "separated brethren" no?, the EXPRESSION OF unity being grounded in DISCIPLINE and not just doctrine.
To be ex-communicated as was Luther is precisely that ... CUT OFF FROM COMMUNION. Period. Som no amount of sweet talking (pastoral approach) is ever going to negate the fact of excommunication.
No, Protestants are not excommunicated Christians per se. And THAT is why they are separated brethren.
Luther was an RC priest, which is not the situation of very many Protestants to-day. He was subject to excommunication as a member of the RC church, which is also not the situation of very many Protestants to-day. The RC church does not excommunicate those who do not "communicate" in the first place. Neither do we.
Neuhaus would say no such thing.
Actually, if anyone is excommunicated around here it's probably I -- I'm not a canon lawyer so I'm not sure if the charge would be apostacy, heresy, or both, but either are excommunication latae sententiae, meaning automatic from the moment of the act, as opposed to ferendae sententiae, declared by an ecclesiastical court.
In Luther's day excommunications were either toleratus or vitandus, meaning whether Catholics could continue to otherwise associate with the person or not. You can look up bell, book and candle for yourself.
Finally, excommunication is not damnation: it does not over-rule Baptism, which imparts an indelible character as a Christian/Catholic.
So relax, you're separated brethren. I'm the excommunicant.
Rome teaches enough error without ascribing to it error it does not teach.
Actually, if anyone is excommunicated around here it's probably I -- I'm not a canon lawyer so I'm not sure if the charge would be apostacy, heresy, or both, but either are excommunication latae sententiae, meaning automatic from the moment of the act, as opposed to ferendae sententiae, declared by an ecclesiastical court.M
Hi Past Elder! Actually, I'm not so sure about that. It is my understanding that now, if a Catholic Christian notifies his/her diocesan bishop that he/she no long considers himself/herself a Catholic and has formally joined another Christian body that will suffice. Anyone out there who is better informed that I am on this, please advise and I will cheerfully retract!
PE, plenty of people were born & raised in the Church you were and believe that it didn't disappear in 1965, 1969, or any other post-conciliar date.
Gotta agree with Chris Burgwald on that one! I will nevertheless always cherish the baptismal bonds I share with my Lutheran brothers and sisters in Christ.
on my own blog have supplied links to some, in the sidebar "The Tiber, for Swimmers et al."
I, too, do not wish to presume on Pastor Weedon's graciousness but since Past Elder has linked the SSPX as a form of orthodox Catholicism I feel compelled to relate an interesting conversation I had with a lady who rides with bus with me to and from work every day. I did not initiate the conversation but she sat next to me. Perhaps she saw the crucifix I wear or noticed the material I was reading (public transportation is a great way to get in one's early morning spiritual reading!) but as our conversation progressed she related that she is a member of an SSPX chapel. Without making this too lengthy, the gist of her remarks centered around the Fatima apparitions, how few people are going to heaven, I should only read the Douay Rheims version of the Bible and only the SSPX has the correct teaching of the Church (of course, the sedevacantist SSPV chapel in the neighboring suburb would say the same – the SSPX isn't orthodox enough for them). I'm sorry to be uncharitable, but her comments bordered on the cultish.
I pointed out to her that all private revelations are just that and no Catholic is obliged to believe them nor could I square her comments with the Christ of the New Testament. To no avail.
Not my idea of catholicity.
I must admit that I have indulged in a bit of ethnic pride with Papa Benny's visit, along with the rest of the German Catholic community in the Cleveland area. This Pope has much wisdom to offer the world, both as the Holy Father and the Bishop of Rome.
Scott Larkin,
As Pastor Weedon well knows, one of my most presumptious and glaring sins is pointing out the spelling mishaps of others --
its "mea culpa"
and for having given in to this wicked impulse yet again I am now sending twenty cyberhugs to Lucy the beagle.
Please note my new blogger pic.
Scott:
Delightful -- simply delightful !! Thanks for giving me a good chuckle!
Die Christine! Gluecklich zu sehen!
OK first things first. It's "it's", not "its", the former being the contraction for "it is" and the latter the possessive (or genetive if you will) of "it". Drives me as nuts as plurals formed with "'s". Twenty more cyberhugs to Lucy, and twenty more from our Schnauzer Tyco.
Gott hilf mir, conciliar Catholics go nuts in the face of actual Catholicism rather than phenomenology-light. If I shared or endorsed the faith of the woman on the bus I'd go to an SSPX chapel myself rather than an LCMS church. What I endorse is not the SSPX, but the critique of conciliar documents and worship they offer. They would indeed consider me an apostate and heretic. As to my canonical status, I could not care less what the RCC church thinks about it, but the rules would indicate automatic excommunication.
The woman is right though about the Douay Bible, at least against the NAB.
I indulged in a little ethnic pride too borrowed from those who taught me -- had a couple of brats over the week-end, more filling than anything proceeding from a Roman Imperial-minus-the-Empire pontifex maximus. A good antidote to my doubly unfortunate experience of actual Catholic life apart from staged papal spectacles at a child's funeral at the RC parish that would be mine if I "came home".
And Chris -- thanks for your conciliatory comment! The pain though is no longer there, since no longer trying to find the "Catholicism" of EWTN, JPII et al the real deal rather than the sham it equally is with the "spirit" of Vatican II. Been gone for going on twelve years now, since really "coming home" to the catholic church where the Gospel is rightly preached and the sacraments rightly administered.
Older son's home crashed with strep -- more time to blog!
Die Christine! Gluecklich zu sehen!
Danke, Danke!!
OK first things first. It's "it's", not "its", the former being the contraction for "it is" and the latter the possessive (or genetive if you will) of "it".
Right, right you are but I plead the malfeasance of my keyboard which deliberately left out the apostrophe! I would never intentionally do such a thing (wink, wink). And yes, I certainly send many cyberhugs to Tyco as well. When it comes to the pooches I am utterly ecumenical -- I luv' em all!
I endorse is not the SSPX, but the critique of conciliar documents and worship they offer.
Okey dokey, I can respect that! I disagree with it, but I can respect it!
I could not care less what the RCC church thinks about it, but the rules would indicate automatic excommunication.
Understood, understood but I still think you are wrong -- technically speaking.
The woman is right though about the Douay Bible, at least against the NAB.
I've stated many times that I have no love for the NAB but the Douay Rheims is too dated for me.
A good antidote to my doubly unfortunate experience of actual Catholic life apart from staged papal spectacles at a child's funeral at the RC parish that would be mine if I "came home".
Wish you could have attended my sister-in-law's funeral. She died at the age of 56 from complications arising out of her multiple sclerosis. The funeral was at a parish rich in traditional Catholic appointments and architecture, the Paschal Candle stood prominently by the casket and the priest's homily offered us the beauty and comfort of the Resurrection.
I can't help but hear in my heart all the prayers of thanksgiving of those in attendance that rose to the Lord in clouds of incense.
Your posts keep reminding me of the many great parishes we are fortunate to have here in NE Ohio.
Blessings upon your son, may he recup quickly!
Yikes, I meant "recoup" not "recup" lest Past Elder rightfully takes me to task!
Well Judas H Priest --
I got married by an LCMS minister, have professed belief in the faith taught in Scripture and accurately stated in the BOC especially the Little Catechism and promised support for the "evangelical Lutheran church" -- twice, actually, once in WELS and then in LCMS -- had both my kids baptised by Lutheran ministers, sent them both to Lutheran classes for religious education, taken them and myself to Lutheran services including communion and served as an elder, I mean what's a guy gotta do to get automatically excommunicated these days???
On the other hand, joining a group where traditional Catholicism is taught and practised does it I think.
You may be right, though. Even Herr Schuetz opined he thought I was still canonically Catholic. I guess making a good confession and knocking off all this Lutheran stuff ought to do it, huh.
I posted about the experience of going to my younger son's friend's funeral on my blog so I won't rehearse it here.
There's no SSPXers here, but there is a parish that is Thuc-line I think. We do have TWO parishes of Western Rite Orthodox in Fenton's "synod" if you will. And, the RC bishop down the road in Lincoln issued an excommunication for anyone in Call To Action a few years ago.
Gotta hit the pharmacy (or chemist, as my ancestors would say back in Mother England) for some antibiotics for my strep-son (like that one?). Schnauzer-girl sends her best.
Post a Comment