Wednesday, January 23, 2008

Pope Leo Was Wrong, Bishop McGrath Is Right
More Roman Protestantism at it's best (worst)

Pope Leo XIII was quite clear in his encyclical Apostolicae Curae (On the Nullity of Anglican Orders) back in 1896... Anglicans simply don't have valid Orders, period. And that's been the official teaching of The Church for over a hundred years.

Ahhh.... but don't let a small thing like official teaching get in the way of anything at the alleged Catholic Diocese of San Jose, California.

From The California Catholic Daily; (Emphasis mine)

Was it just an ecumenical gesture?
San Jose's Catholic bishop participates in the "seating" of California's first Episcopal woman bishop

Bishop Patrick McGrath of San Jose was among those present for the official welcoming and seating on Saturday, Jan. 11 of Mary Gray-Reeves, the first woman Episcopal bishop in California. During the event, held at Trinity Episcopal Cathedral in San Jose, Bishop McGrath, dressed in red robes, was seated prominently behind the altar.

When California Catholic Daily asked the diocese about the appropriateness of Bishop McGrath's participation in a non-Catholic ceremony, diocesan spokeswoman Roberta Ward downplayed McGrath's role. He was not a participant, and this wasn't an ordination," said Ward. "This was an ecumenical gesture, much like when the pope does something with the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Anthony Gonzales, president of the Bay Area-based St. Joseph Men's Society disagrees. The mayor and other officials were there, but they were just there, Gonzales, a Rome-trained lay theologian, said. They were not up at the altar, in the sanctuary, participating. [McGrath] processed in before the so-called priests of the Anglican rite. And every other priest was a woman.

Gonzales said that it has always been a teaching of the Catholic Church that we are not supposed to participate in the religious activities of other religious denominations. Now, because of ecumenism, that changes. However, the idea of a bishop of the Catholic Church intimately participating in the ceremony of the installation of an Anglican bishop -- the level of participation is wrong.

Unitatis Redintegratio, Vatican II's document on ecumenism, says, In certain special circumstances it is allowable, indeed desirable, that Catholics should join in prayer with their separated brethren. Yet worship in common (communicatio in sacris) is not to be considered as a means to be used indiscriminately for the restoration of Christian unity.

9 Comments:

Blogger Joseph John said...

Hmmm

Your arguments against Communicatio in Sacris seem sound, but maybe you are ignorant of the facts that VATICAN II supported Communicatio in Sacris with non-Catholics? And also John Paul "The GREAT" and now Benedict XVI.

I read this controversial book by a Doctor-Theologian Wilhem de Tucci (I think from the University of Bologna) - who documentates both the Roman Catholic Church's doctrine on this subject from a consensus of Scripture, Fathers, Doctors, Popes, and Councils; and also the present Crisis of Ecumenism from the Vatican II Council into the the Traditionalist Movements. You can browse this monumental book "Communicatio in Sacris" on Lulu Bookstore:

http://www.lulu.com/content/1753466

I highly praise this book (even from my High Anglican Background); so maybe instead of picking on bishops - you should review the book to see who are the bigger fries to dip in the hot oil?

True?

+Dr. Joseph John Violet of St. Vitus

4:20 PM  
Blogger Vir Speluncae Catholicus said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

6:20 PM  
Blogger Vir Speluncae Catholicus said...

JJ,
I may not have my doctorate, but I'm bright enough to understand exactly what Yet worship in common (communicatio in sacris) is not to be considered as a means to be used indiscriminately for the restoration of Christian unity.

Is one really in need of a doctorate to understand these painfully simple words?

Also, please know that I'm not "picking on" certain bishops. You see, I have the nasty habit of exposing error/scandal/heresy whenever any of the aforementioned rear their collectivly ugly heads. If Bp McGrath falls into theat category, Tango Sierra.

Lastly, BTW, Who is this John Paul The Great you speak of? Could he possibly be Pope John Paul II?

I'd like to point out that prior to JPII, there were 264 legitimate pontiffs and only 2 of them had the title "The Great" bestowed upon them. The obvious question from here is; what made JPII "greater" than the other 262? Other than watching the near destruction of Catholicism happen about him.

6:25 PM  
Blogger Bruce said...

Bishop McGrath was ordained as a priest in 1970. That says a lot. I'm sure he was taught that everything is changed and what's important is that we are all Christians...blah blah blah.
Well, I'll bet he didn't know they were going to seat him there. Most likely he felt embarrased to check beforehand and felt it would be tactless to do so at the time. And, that's the problem. There no longer seems to be any prudence in choosing what events to attend and which to avoid; or even in stating what we expect from the other. Dialogue is fine to some degree, but why do bishops have to attend non-Catholic ceremonies? Even if he did not join the prayers but was just present, how does that foster true unity and not just the fictitious appearance of unity? Presence without explanation and affirmation of doctrine only creates greater confusion for all. It makes people feel, "I don't have to change. Look, the bishop recognizes me." This in now way helps dialogue. And finally, if the SSPX or even a sede vacantist organization had invited the bishop as an ecumenical gesture would he attend?

8:02 PM  
Blogger Former Altar Boy said...

Bruce hit the nail on the head: "Even if he did not join the prayers but was just present..."

Back before the Vatican2 nonsense began, we Catholics learned there was a sin called "Giving Bad Example" (Rom. 14:13 - never be the cause of your brother tripping or falling.) I'm not judging the bishop's heart but I can judge his action and it sure looks wrong to me.

1:45 AM  
Blogger ignorant redneck said...

This just might get deleted, but with the pattern of SoCal activity, he probably wishes he were episcopalian, so he could keep his nice "dress" and marry his boyfriend.

9:11 PM  
Blogger PreVat2 said...

John Paul "the Great?" My butt!!

Please, anyone, tell me again why Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was excommunicated? Just wondering.

9:11 AM  
Blogger Alvin Cura said...

Just saw this thread.

Archbishop Lefebvre was excommunicated for the Econe consecrations. He consecrated four bishops without permission from the Holy See; which incurs latae sententiae excommunication.

4:32 PM  
Blogger Vir Speluncae Catholicus said...

Alvin,
Did you notice the "excommunications" were lifted?

4:55 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home