Corpus Christi High Mass At Saint Clement's Phila. CH 2

[Belldavid1000]

Am I missing something? The comments posted haven't anything to do with the beautiful hymn being sung. Like the human voice the Pipe Organ is the Voice of the Holy Spirit. The organ is a translator of soundless air. And so together we are all One voice both inhaling the sweet smell of incense. Whoever we are, what ever we lable ourselves, we all can live an holy life in and to and for the Glory of God. Where two are gathered in MY NAME, I AM with you.

[chitoblim]

Well, that's nice. But does that mean they will have to give up the Book of Common Prayer, the King James bible and those wonderful hymns of the English Church? Will becoming "Roman" make them less "English"?

[chitoblim]

This is Episcopalian? Have they forgotten the Reformation?

[TenderTrap86]

@chitoblim Yes. That's why a lot of them are becoming Catholics.

[clarkbailey1973]

@chitoblim What was the reformation about? Is everything associated with Rome vain popery? One can look to the churches of the East ( here I'm speaking of early schism, not the great one of 1054) and see the Nestporian Church ( though hetro orthdoxox) and much of the same customs and liturgical innovations, and they seperated in the 5th century, a full1,000 years before the reformation. The Reformation wasn't completely right in my understanding, we were to remain one.

[clarkbailey1973]

@chitoblim abuses such as indulgences were bad, the liturgy of the Mass has it's roots in the Synagouge where our faith has its roots...

[dsindc]

Finally, the role of the church. You write "To compare Galileo and homosexuality is a bit of a stretch. " As expected, you missed the point. You speak of the 'Testimony of the Tradition". The point you missed is that the church has been horribly wrong in the past, and it will be in the present and future. Are we to wait on Galileo to be proven 'wrong'? But I see you're a fan of Paul Weyrich. He was a fascist. It's your obsession with the issue at hand that fascinates me. I suggest therapy.

[johnross12]

Lastly, gay "theology" is pure eisegesis that ignores the testimony of Tradition and the sacred author's understandings. I'm sure the same sort of "scholarship" could be used to show how outdated the Bible is on murder, incest, bestiality, etc.

To say that "theologians" in the 21st century have a better understanding of the Bible than the Church Fathers is shear gnosticism.

[dsindc]

We will assume you meant exegesis not eisegesis. In any case the statement is dysfunctional. I'm an M.D. , a trained scientist and I'm not going to waste time arguing a scientific matter you have no grasp of. To ignore modern scholarship will render the church even more anachronistic than it is. Would you prefer the Church's theology of the 13th century? Do you think it has not evolved? I would suggest you do the same. Global warming debunked? By whom? Sarah Palin? I see no hope for you.

[dsindc]

Johnross12 WRITES ----------------------

"Tell me logically how homosexuality is not disordered without using the terms love, compassion, etc, which are red herrings aimed at driving the discussion away from the biological fact the human body is designed heterosexually."

----

What a medieval concept of human sexualtiy. So what are we to make of heterosexual relationships that for physiological reason don't involve sex. Are they less valid, or do you wish to throw stones at them too?

[clarkbailey1973]

@dsindc love and compassion can be given without embracing the heresy that there is sexual activity approved outside of marriage, and that marriage can be more than just one man to one woman...Love is the prime comandment but that doesn't mean embracing heresy either.

[dsindc]

@clarkbailey1973 I assume this is your understanding of Roman Catholic theology. If that is the case, let's face it, that institution has lost nearly all credibility and has become irrelevant. Now we find out per the BBC "Jan 19, 2011 ... Abuse victims in Ireland and the US said the letter, ... In that year, Pope John Paul II asked the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith ... to them involved a concerted cover-up that went all the way to the top."

[clarkbailey1973]

@dsindc The abuse was wrong, the cover up was hienous and that still doesn't make other deviancy okay, because people who were supposed to protect victims from wrong doing did not live up to the posistion they occupy...So, if you're wanting me to defend perverts, and or the people who covered up, then not going to get it, and that still means that sexual activity outside of marriage is wrong and marriage is between one man and one woman...

[dsindc]

@clarkbailey1973 I find it interesting that this subject (homosexuality) appears to have so much of your attention. I initially posted about responses from a British Roman Catholic gentleman (who was as it turned out, gay, about theological issues). My point was and still is that the institution of the church has lost its moral authority... period. It (the church) is sadly just another human organization more interested in self preservation than anything else. (cont)

[dsindc]

@clarkbailey1973 The church has historically tried to resist truth from any source other than itself. This is a losing formula. I didn't work during the Enlightenment and it's not working now. Truth is always being revealed and refined. Biblical scholarship even in the R.C. Church has new things to say about homosexuality. I suppose if any institution should know about that subject, it's the R.C Church. I'd recommend you read Alberto Cutie's book. The clergy of the church is dominated by gays.

[clarkbailey1973]

@dsindc So heterosexuality is a medieval concept? How would you explain millions of years of biological evolution?

[dsindc]

@clarkbailey- If you have read my posts from last year, you would note that I'm a physician. I'm not sure I understand your question re "medieval concept". As for evolution, I would first say researchers are finding common biological traits among gay men, feeding a growing consensus that sexual orientation is an inborn combination of genetic and environmental factors that largely decide a person's sexual attractions before they are born. As for evolution, .. (cont).

[dsindc]

@clarkbailey1973 You've taken an argument about theology off on another path. Homosexuality has been observed in many many species by now. If the etiology of homosexuality is biological as is becoming more accepted in scientific circles, then its morality has to be reviewed. It is not a choice. Now we're faced with a new question- is it moral to deny gay people the right to enter loving, mutually supportive relationships? In regards the church (for what that's worth) it has a choice. (cont)

[dsindc]

@clarkbailey1973 If the church sees its tradition as static & unable to adapt to new truths, it will ultimately die for lack of credibility. This appears to be happening in Europe. The RC church sees itself as inherently sacred, so it can't be in error. If however, the church sees itself as the vehicle through which truth comes, then it CAN be in error, or misunderstand. That approach is much more intellectually honest, & describes the E.C. fairly well. It's why I remain in the Church. (cont)

[dsindc]

@clarkbailey1973 Sorry to carry on- I live on the East Coast and am snowed in. But I suspect much like the first person I responded to, that there is something else going on here. As for the "evolution" of homosexuality, there is much to be learned. If there is in fact a biological component, then the obvious question is why would this be a selected trait? There may be many reasons. If you are having personal concerns, I would recommend you seek therapy. Good luck to you.

[clarkbailey1973]

@johnross12 Gnosticism is making a huge comeback...

[johnross12]

All evidence showing that homosexuality is normal, natural, etc. is dependent on subjectivity for one. Just as global warming is being debunked today due to fraudulent partisan research, so will it be with homosexuality in the future.

Those who favor homosexuality rely on pure fraud to deceive people into thinking it is normal.

[Winaska]

Prayers at the Foot of the Altar? this is clearly Catholic, but Anglican Traditional, or Roman? its beautiful either way

[Winaska]

also, was this originally an Episcoplain Church? It seems like it was an old, old RC building, i guess i just never associated High Altars and statuary, and all that stuff with Epsicoplains(after all, catholic lite...)

[dsindc]

No, this is an Episcopal Church, and was built as one. This is 'high church', or formally Anglo-Catholic. Google Anglo-Catholic. St. Mary the Virgin in Manhattan is a good example of this tradition. I've taken several Roman Catholics to a local Anglo Catholic Episcopal parish - St. Paul's K Street in D.C., and they had a difficult time understanding what was going on. The Anglo Catholic tradition has been around for some time. It is not to be confused with parishes joining the Roman Cath Ch.

[johnross12]

Being gay is a political term invented by militant homosexuals to demand acceptance of their sins. If a militant unrepentant homosexual continues sinning, the Church has every right to deny them communion. The Church teaches the same about cohabiting heterosexual couples and insists they stop receiving communion unless they cease cohabiting.

Thought patterns carried out over the years change how your brain is structured, which is why all bad habits are so hard to break.

.

[kensingtonpalace]

how often do anglicans have a mass like this...and what is their position on transubstantiation? just wondering.

[kensingtonpalace]

The hymn is so lovely! I've never heard it before...what's the name? The bell at the beginning was a little weak tho, should use the zimbelstern on the organ instead.

[christianvs1]

Cont... I do hope and pray that you learn to be more civilised towards 'difference' of thought and beliefs! What YOU think is not ubiquitously true for all peoples. However, as a Roman Catholic, I must say that the Church is NOT represented by your Cathedral in the ways you described. Do look beyond the little city of yours towards the bigger picture - the Roman Church international. It is indeed grevious that your Cathedral is like that; BUT it is NOT indicative of the whole! Take care mate.

[dsindc]

By the way, the comments about our Cathedral in our "little city" are childish. There are more roman catholics in the U.S. than the entire population of the U.K. I would suspect that the Archdiocese of Washington serves more roman catholics that London, but who cares? Washington has a combined population of 8 million. Regardless of size, it is not Canberra. It is arguably the most important city in the world, and certainly more liberal than Vatican City. I feel sorry for you.

[christianvs1]

Gosh, who is talking about size? I am saying that you are lamentably confined to your own experience without the competence to make the judgements you do. This is the contemptable, arrogant stance of which I speak. But, dear man, it is I who feel sorry for you: what your loved ones must go through with your irrational, reactionary passions-must be ghastly indeed. All you have done is to argue upon emotional instinct, like an animal; rather like my USA students here at Oxford - wow! Do take care.

[dsindc]

(Laughing) . Ah yes, one was alluding to the "little" experience I have had in life, my "little" understanding of the roman church. "Do look beyond the little city of yours towards the bigger picture" you say. Per your personal information, your hands are occupied on an organ. Pipe that is. Mine are in a thoracic cavity. But of course my world view is irrational and limited. The British consider Harvard the finest college on the globe. Perhaps you're not attracting the best and brightest .

[dsindc]

I find it odd that while you consider your argument entirely rational, you have deleted some items from your personal information page. One I recall addressed to "honey" about an episode of 'Queer as Folk'. But of course one is to take you at your word. Your homosexual feelings never leave your amygdala. Please, you're not fooling anyone. If I appear "emotional" it's because I'm surrounded by life. I find opinions that are lacking in authenticity abhorent.

[dsindc]

I find intellectual bullying disgusting, and that is exactly what you have attempted to do here. Then your cover was "blown" and even more hypocrisy revealed. I have seen the damage done by organized religion and it is heartbreaking. It is sad enough for you to deny such an important part of your personality, but it is infuriating to see someone celebrating any tradition that encourages this tendency in others.

[christianvs1]

What on earth are you nattering on about dsinsc!? I return to the original parametres of our discussion, viz. Anglican orders. You still haven't convinced me of there validity- even with all your childish emotional outbursts. I therefore set aside all the needless personal banter (which is really quite pointless). I state yet again that I believe that Anglican Orders are invalid. This means, as I see it, that St Clement's in Phili are just having theatre here. There is no sacrament. Good day.

[christianvs1]

It has nothing whatever to do with which ritual, eg 'non-Edwardine' or 'old Catholic' ordinal, is used. It has everything to do with: The authority, and therefore the power of the Keys of Peter, does not reside in Anglican Orders (in any form or fashion outside the Sees of Peter and Paul) - ex hypothesi. You utterly miss the Johannine instructional point in my banter with 'dsindc'. Now, it is quite uncivilised, i think, to resort to childish name-calling, dont you? Do take care.

[christianvs1]

Cont...

The same is true for murder. If you think of killing your mother-in-law, but you don't, are you a murder? Of course not! Should you be jailed for it? Of course not! I am surprised at you; for a scientist, you seem to settle for third-party information rather alot! GO! Glean information at the source! Do learn to separate the goodness of the human person from their actions. If this werent so, psychotherapy would be a joke! Now, I still find your argument aggressively personal..why???

[dsindc]

It may be personal because as I have said ad nauseum your argument strikes me as a projection of internal strife more than an argument of the superficial issues. I don't mind repeating myself, but to ignore the many statements the pope has made indicating that the mere 'inclination' toward homosexuality is evil, is intellectually dishonest. I suspect there is in fact a fair amount of transference here. The church is calling your value into question. On some level you find this outrageous.

[dsindc]

I sense that your outrage is directed elsewhere and expressed for instance, by arguing in a most hostile way "you're shooting blanks". It was to this comment that I found great offense and suspected something else was going on. The rest is history. We could continue this forever. You position makes no sense to me. I live one block from St. Matthew's RC Cathedral and know gay people are routinely denied communion. For a gay person to identify with this institution is simply not normal.

[dsindc]

Look, let's try this. I do not find any pathology in homosexuality as a clinician. Nor do I find any sin either in the experience or act of homosexuality if it is expressed as a life affirming loving act. If you are acting on your inclinations but continuing to make your argument then the possibility of a normal life is minimal. Further, your argument becomes disingenuous. In any case, I wish you the best in your journey.

[christianvs1]

It is difficult, but NO. I do not act on any inclinations in this regard. Why would you assume this? Anyway, returning to the initial debate: I believe that Anglican orders are null and void. Hence the comment they are "shooting blanks". YOu are not a clinical psychologist and therefore it is arrogant and professionally contemptable of you to analyse me. Because I refuse to join the band-wagon of "lets all think like society" you seem to be quite disturbed.

[dsindc]

One hardly needs to be a psychologist. I'm sorry, but this is frankly a sad commentary. Why anyone wonders why the clergy of the roman catholic church is presenting with so many, and I emphasize so many indications of neurosis should come as no surprise to anyone. This is simply not normal. I wish you good health.

[johnross12]

Love is irrelevant. Jesus condemned fornication, period. "Gay pride" is contrary to the gospel, which says that God rebukes the proud and gives grace to the humble.

Gay pride=gay arrogance.

I might remind you that extramarital sex between two consenting heterosexuals is still sinful even if genuine heartfelt love is present.

You don't need sex to have love.

[christianvs1]

You utterly miss the point. The human being is always good. What he/she does may or may not be moraly laudable. The Pontif actually said [from Vatican News] that "many suffer from disordered desires"..." a good example of of these is homosexuality...which is inherently evil". Yet again, separating the human person from the act. It is the ACT that is inherently evil.

[chrisguy210]

What wonderful music! I wish my church could have music such as this!

[christianvs1]

dinsc: one canot resort of personal attacks in an argument when you cannot 'make' someone do or think what you think. This is in rather poor taste. Do go to the sources of the RC teachings as opposed to third-party information. Take care, and I hope and pray your emotions are indeed informed correctly when you embark upon more authentic reseach of RC teaching. God Bless mate!

[christianvs1]

the first sentence should read "one canot resort to" NOT "one canot resort of". :)

[dsindc]

I thought this issue had been put to rest, but apparently you continue attempting to convince someone of your position. By the way, it's "campaign, not campain (sic). No, I am not gay, but believe what you wish. What infuriated me in the beginning, was your smugness. Anglicans are firing "blanks". Sigh.... I can't help but think this comment represents the sort of religious fascism that is spreading across much of the world.

[dsindc]

It would have been better to have presented your argument as the position of the roman catholic church, as you understand it. As for your argument in reference to the ontology of homosexuality, once again I find your argument dysfunctional. You imply that one is not sinning until a homosexual act has been committed. Can you admit on the record that you do not, nor ever have committed such an act, and that further you intend never to do so?

[dsindc]

Finally, the quote of the current pope confirms what many suspected; that he finds not the act, but the experience of being homosexual inherently evil. So much for the argument regarding ontology.

What you are doing is trying to have it both ways. In your tradition, this is impossible. So is your argument.

[johnross12]

He says homosexuality is disordered, but that doesn't make persons who have homosexual feelings necessarily evil. It is the act that is evil, and the desires are only evil inasmuch as the result in the full consent of the will according to the scholastics.

If you serve the gay pride movement, you serve mammon rather than God.

[dsindc]

johnross12, review some of my prior comments. I'm an M.D. in D.C. My speciality is not psychiatry, but I did a rotation in psychiatry as part of my training (though I don't think that was necessary to respond to your comments). The Church attempted to ignore truth from sources outside Rome for centuries. It never seems to work. Just as it could not ignore Galileo, it cannot ignore current scientic truth either. When it does, it loses credibility. As a result it's almost dead in Europe.

[johnross12]

You have to know most of the research is fraudulent and tainted with researcher bias. Dean Hamer and Simon LeVay come to mind. Genetics play a minor role compared with environmental factors and free-will. Every study seeking to vindicate homosexuality going back to Evelyn Hooker has been tainted with politically motivated fraud. Scientific studies can be made to say whatever you want them to.

To compare Galileo and homosexuality is a bit of a stretch.

[dsindc]

The notion that homosexuality is disordered is based on weak theology, and almost no scientific scholarship. The current consensus holds the etiology of homosexuality is largely genetic. I find it ironic that those who attempt to repress these 'desires' end up acting out in destructive ways. The evidence in the Church is massive, e.g. the Irish Church paying $280 million !! recently for the abuse cause by repressed clergy and a complicit hierarchy. "Ye shall know them by their fruits."

[johnross12]

Tell me logically how homosexuality is not disordered without using the terms love, compassion, etc, which are red herrings aimed at driving the discussion away from the biological fact the human body is designed heterosexually.

To say that homosexual behavior and heterosexual behavior are equivalent is irrational.

When the science is carried out by biased individuals who engage in subjective word games and semantic games trying to prove homosexuality is "normal", you get what you get.

[christianvs1]

As for me being human: The human being is a multi-faceted, corporial and spiritual organism. A fully human person is one who has accepted and sucessfully integrated into his/her person ALL the facets of his/her exsistence- sexuality included! If sexuality is the only thing that describes humanity, then we have a problem. As for me, I have gone with the multi-faceted, definition.

[christianvs1]

Therefore, I cannot agree with a stance that sexuality has ontological power, ie it describes who or what one is, e.g. one is good, bad, attractive or intelligent. If you set aside your rage for a moment, you'll see that it is the end results of homosexuality that are condemned, just like those of heterosexual promiscuity. NOT the human person. Mate, educate your emotions- read Humanae Vitae or Verbum Domini - see what the RC Church really says! Do take care, and I wish you all the best.

[christianvs1]

No one's hungers and apitites do not describe who one is or is not. If I love to watch the ballet, EVERY saturday evening, does this make me a stalker? NO! However, sexuality is indeed a large part of human life, and it is good (just like eating or watching ballet [the arts]). When it becomes an ontological force in one's life, it is at this point that it becomes an obsession; one is controled be it instead of one controling it!

[christianvs1]

I suggest you would do well to learn from our Ancient forefather. If you can not continue with due respect and human decency, I suggest that you take your own advice. The sign of true mature academic debate is that of impartiality - being able to set aside one's emotions for the greater purpose of academic inquiry as Euripides suggests. Cheap personal shots of insults just go to highlight your lack of academic prowess; that you should resort to these is pitiful indeed.

[christianvs1]

This is in response to 'dsindc' personal mssg to me which is just insulting and uncalled for between educated men!

[dsindc]

Oh please, no need to get your panties in a bunch. You're taking this personally. I simply find your attitudes patronizing and ill informed. My, you English are so emotional. Does one need a xanax?

[christianvs1]

Mate! We take academic discourse seriously - regardless of the topic. I would therefore interpret your last remarks as comming from an American and with grace. On the other hand, we seem to have different meanings for the words 'patronizing' [sic] and ill 'informed'. Dear friend, our metholodiolgies for debate seems to be rather VERY different over the pond! :) Debate here at Christchurch College Ox, is rather more disciplined us Profs..... Tell me, is it informal in the USA?

[dsindc]

First of all, we are perfectly aware that standard American English is different. I am certainly aware that in the states we have dropped much of the Norman influence, e.g "favour in the U.S. becomes "favor". I'm disapointed you were not aware of that. Patronising is spelled in the U.S. as "patronizing". There are no exceptions. Please do some research. I have seen a publication of an Oxford/Cambridge journal ranking the universities of the world. Of the top 20, 18 were American. (cont)

[dsindc]

Harvard was ranked #1. I find your assertion that metholodiogies (sic) for debate are different a bit amusing. We are provided with much news from the U.K. e.g. the Prime Minister's weekly conversation with Parliament. If this is an example of British erudition, then I understand why your journals are so vulgar. All of that having been said, I must make certain things clear. I am the grandson of British grandparents, and am English, Scottish and Welsh. My family has always been Anglican.

[dsindc]

I was born on Churchill Lane, in an Episcopal (Anglican) hospital. Like most Americans, I am enormously proud of our British roots, and see the last century as a combination of Pax Britannica and Pax Americana. I still have family in the U.K. and would defend the Crown quite easily. I will admit this has nothing to do with the argument at hand, but wish to erase any notion that my argument is based on nationalistic sentiments despite my sentiments for the British people.

[dsindc]

While completing a residency in cardiology / thoracic surgery I met a number of British doctors completing their training. We were quite shocked at the poor quality of their education. I would have no problem placing our finest students in any field in competition with anyone in Europe. What I find offensive is your assertion that the R.C. Church is the only valid expression of Christianity, or is somehow superior. An objective analysis of Christianity in the world indicates something else.

[dsindc]

It may take a bit of humility to admit the obvious, but Roman Catholicism and Anglicism are BOTH on the retreat. Europe is one thing, but now Latin America is turning away from the R.C. church. Arguments about the "validity of the sacraments" seem quaint, charming, and irrelevant. I suppose the Holy Spirit speaks in mysterious ways, but the message appears clear, the old ways no longer work. By the way, while I certainly bow to your erudition, I believe "comming" is properly spelled "coming".

[christianvs1]

I can only speak as a Roman Catholic Patristic Theologian. This is my feild. You seem always to read into my arguments, that which is NOT there, e.g.you say that I assert "that the R.C. Church is the only valid expression of Christianity". Show me in my written arguments where this is said. Christianity is that movement which traces it's patrimony back to "The Way". No one is saying that the RC is superior to the EC. What one IS saying is that the EC's break with Rome nulifies thier sacraments.

[dsindc]

christianvs1 writes "No one is saying that the RC is superior to the EC. What one IS saying is that the EC's break with Rome nulifies (sic) thier (sic) sacraments".

That's an intellectually dishonest response. There are a number of ways of "saying" things, one being through implication. How in your Christology can a church be anything BUT inferior if her sacraments are "null"? I agree that I read into arguments. I find it the only way to find the real meaning in what's being communicated.

[dsindc]

I am engaged in research, specifically the area of chronic myocardial ischemia and continue my clinical duties. Perhaps my training moves me to search more deeply for facts and meaning. Any other approach would be superficial. I do hope you don't take these exchanges personally. I have simply reached the conclusion that what I identify as a sort of religious fascism, whether it finds itself expressed by fundamental Protestants, Roman Catholics, or the Taliban, to be enormously destructive.

[dsindc]

It is just this sort of posturing that has all but killed Christianity in Europe, and is moving the U.S. in the same direction. An absolutist approach in ANY religious tradition, with the exception of those places where it has become codified, is being rejected. Traditions that cling to increasingly anachronistic positions ultimately find themselves either irrelevant, or extinct. That is not my wish in regards Christianity, but it appears inevitable. So we will agree to disagree. Cheers.

[christianvs1]

Your position is clear. Thank you. However, you cant turn away from the debate just yet! You have my position on the matter at hand AND my reasoning. However, you still havent provided a constuctive and coherent argument from first principles for you position on the matter at hand. You cant say 'X' (e.g. your last comment) without any supporting arguments. Do try and supply something towards this so that we know WHY you think this way.

[dsindc]

After watching the developments in Iran, I feel particularly angry with religious fascism. We have communicated "off the boards" so to speak. I challenge you to reveal certain aspect of your personality that are anything but irrelevant to this argument. You argued that while certain acts are sin, the condition you have spoken of is morally neutral. Oh really? I challenge you to attempt taking communion at the R.C. cathedral here with a T shirt stating your "condition". It would not happen.

[dsindc]

If you assume that is anecdotal, I can point you to many writings of the current pope that describe your "condition" as inherently evil. Is this how you see yourself? You wrote that the church on a personal level has shown nothing but acceptance. Have you made these issues known? I can guarantee if you did in the American church, you would be simply thrown out. If you pay 'lip service' to the teachings of the church & continue to act on your feelings, how can we take your argument seriously?

[dsindc]

I strongly urge you to either seek therapy or begin down a more intellectually honest path. If any "blank shots" have been fired, they came in the form of your argument. I have great respect for martyrs of many causes. They all have had one thing in common: authenticity.

This began with my challenge to what I felt was an arrogant, self serving, ill informed and flawed argument. I am not surprised that upon minimal scrutiny a clearer picture emerges.

[christianvs1]

Dearest 'dsindc': You seem so very angry and full of acrimony. Probably a result of an unfortunate experience in your life in the ecclesial forum - this is regretable. However, you say that you can point to 'many writings of the current pope' that point the finger at gay men and women. What writings? Where? The official Catechism of the RC Church does not say this... I will not be bullied by you or anyone in this fashion. Do get back on track with being civilised or let's cease this discussion!

[dsindc]

I find your comments astonishing. As for "unfortunate experience" in my life, yes indeed !! I have seen the effects of those people who sadly accepted Roman Catholic teaching and died a miserable death as a result. Much of my time is in a clinical setting where I can see the result of the teachings of the Roman Catholic church. I am amazed and disappointed at the cavalier attitude you have taken.

[dsindc]

In my clinical training I have seen the debilitating symptoms of the final stages of AIDS, pain, gastrointestinal discomfort, and depression are almost universal. Palliative care must be aggressive, but this is essentially all that is left. These people are truly suffering. Do I understand you correctly? This does not make you angry? No acrimony? Then you are not truly Christian. As for the Pope's writing, alright, it's not difficult to find plenty.

[dsindc]

This from the Times:

The Pope declared that saving humanity from homosexuality was just as important as saving the rainforest from destruction.

"The tropical forests do deserve our protection. But man, as a creature, does not deserve any less," needed is something like a human ecology, understood in the right sense. Its not simply an outdated metaphysics if the Church speaks of the nature of the human person as man and woman, and asks that this order of creation be respected."

[dsindc]

So, we will assume you have accepted a role as something other then fully human. Your comments to another blogger about a "Queer as Folk" episode certainly point to a lack of desire to disavow the gay lifestyle. How sad that must be.

I agree, there is no reason to continue this discussion.

[christianvs1]

This discussion began on an intellectual level- theological explications for RC teachings; it was between two people without bias or malice - just arguing different points of view. However, YOU have brought it down to a personal campain against the RC Church - I suspect you are gay! Hey, being gay is NOT an ontological reality - it does not define who you are, tis only ONE part of life. Why ascribe ontological value to one's sexuality? If I liked beef steak, does this hunger describe who I am?

[dsindc]

I thought this issue had been put to rest but I see that is not the case. By the way, the word is "campaign" not campain. No, I am not gay. Think what you will. What enraged me was the sort of religious smugness that you displayed. It is one thing to state "the roman catholic church states that...", it is quite another to personally inform Anglicans that their theology is wrong, their sacraments and experiences invalid. (cont)

[christianvs1]

Well. Let us agree to disagree. The great Greek poet/philosopher Euripides once wrote: "Blessed is he who learns how to engage in inquiry, with no impulse to harm his countryman or to pursue wrongful actions, but perceives the order of immortal and ageless nature, how it is structured." (Euripides, fragment from an unnamed play, 5th C. BC)

[christianvs1]

Now turning to the 'firing blanks' comment of mine. If Obama were not President and he still continued to operate in that capacity (positing laws, etc), what authority would his actions have? What change can he effect? He has no power and therefore cant effect the same things that he can do as President. His actions could be described as 'firing blanks', i.e. impotent actions. The same is true, in my considered opinion of the Church of England who hasnt the authority of which we spoke...

[dsindc]

With an education in Patristic Philosophy and Theology you must know something about William James. He identified what he called "the great sin of religion". It involves a tendency of some to equate their beliefs exclusively with the divine. On a practical level we see the results of this all around us. I will repeat myself and say that on a personal level it is indicative of deep spiritual insecurity. As for your analogy of Obama, I find your reasoning specious.

[dsindc]

Obama's authority is gained by being democratically elected. Are you implying the Roman Church was "elected", and gained authority accordingly. I know, you will return to the Petrine Theory. There is a reason it is referred to as "theory". I would point again to Kenneth Clark. I don't recognize this as anything close to the basis for "authority". You ask if I'm a psychologist. No, I'm a thoracic surgeon. Nice polemic. We will agree to disagree.

[christianvs1]

the mind of men cant apprehend the Divine unless the Divine reaches down to be apprehended. The two must meet, i.e. to say that religion is ALL a result of pscho-intellectual processes, as a Xtian, is quite flawed.

[christianvs1]

Not to worry dsind. It was 5am in the UK when we began our discussion. Let me make a guess: you are a Psychologist (or some related profession).... Mine is in Patristic Philosophy and Theology (both pagan and xtian). Indeed, psychology has an integral part to play in religion (xtian or pagan). Euripides in the Vc said 'the mind of the gods find their expression in men'. I think this is true in so far as the mind of men are lifted into the divine by the Divine. In other words..

[Jackk84]

Is Tridentine Mass ?

[christianvs1]

Decidedly NOT! This is the High Church of England attempting to look like Roman Catholics: they are worshiping bread here - they havnt the power to consecrate! False worship clad in splendid apparel.

[yeeck]

Why was the Gloria Patri of the Introit not sung with the "sicut erat in principio....?"

[jesusthroughmary]

Cut them some slack.  They are Protestants, after all.

[langohio]

In the Sarum Use (pre-Tridentine, widely used in south England, Scotland and Ireland), the Introit was called the "Officium" and it was sung without "sicut erat...." Similar origin as responsories in the Roman Liturgy of the Hours in which only the "Gloria Patri" is sung. So there.

[jesusthroughmary]

That too.... :o)

Good to know. Thanks.

[TrainmasterCurt]

If this is Protestant, than what is Catholic? They do have relics on the Altar my friend

[dsindc]

Well that's a good question. Do you assume the Orthodox are not 'Catholic' if they're not Roman? When the Anglican Church in the U.S. established itself, it took the name "Protestant" to distinguish itself from Rome, and "Episcopal" to distinguish itself from reform churches - or what you likely consider 'Protestant'. In any case, with all of the horrific events in the world today, I'm not sure we Christians can afford to play the sectarian card. Our differences are not that great.

[christianvs1]

While I do see your need to offer this impartial view as a means to balance the arguments 'Protestant' vs 'Catholic', there is a vital point that you have missed. The Patriarchiate of both Rome and those of the East in communion with Rome are in direct sucession to the Petrine Authority and so the consecration of the Eucharistic species is real and therefore valid. The Anglicans are not and therefore do NOT have this power! This Anglican Service is 'firing blanks' - they are worshiping bread!

[dsindc]

As Kenneth Clark said regarding the Petrine Theory , 'it seems a rather weak basis for the claims of the Roman Catholic Church." The historic not to mention linguistic obstacles to what I understand to be your interpretation of the P.T. are not only weak, but theologically problematic. The priest becomes magician, and the sacrament itself little more than a magical act. The sign and the effect become one in the same.

[christianvs1]

Hum... well, it rather depends on ones definition of authority. Newman says that the Patristic Church is quite clear (not to mention the later pre-reformation councils, e.g. FlorenceI-VI) that the scriptural basis for the P.T. is sound and literal: whoever 'Peter' binds on earth is bound in heaven, etc... Therefore, it stands to reason that if one is not in communion with 'Peter' and therefore outside of the unbroken line of Petrine Authority, it is here that the 'magic' occurs, in the C of E

[dsindc]

Well yes of course the Church would arrive at this conclusion. Can you not see how self serving it is? The Church alone can dispense the Sacred, so the Church becomes the sole distributor of grace. This is dangerous theology. The Church itself becomes holy as opposed to becoming a vehicle 'through' which the Sacred comes. The theological problem arises when the Church assumes the role of the Sacred yet finds itself in error. It has painted itself into a corner and loses credibility.

[christianvs1]

Now, the Roman Catholic Church (see Lumen Gentium I:1-10) sees herself as the vessel through which grace is conducted as well as the 'custodian' of the faith (Depositum Fedei). The source of this grace is Jesus Christ Himself - without whom she has nothing to offer. This doesnt preclude the direct intervention of grace. However, the Sacraments remain a part of the 'Depositum Fedei' as so remains under the sole authority of Peter. Do diferentiate between "Sacer" and "Sanctus".

[dsindc]

(cont from below) If it's psychologically necessary for you to turn the sacrament into a sort of security blanket that's fine, but I don't think it's spiritually healthy. I can't help but assume that anyone reading your last line would find it anything other than childish. It also strikes me as smug and pointing to deep spiritual insecurity. How sad.

[christianvs1]

Now, let us remain civilsed here. I am unclear as to what you mean by your first sentence; we arent talking psychology here. Where in what I have written, can you infer this? Do keep to the intellectual parameters of the discussion! Deal with what I have written.... provide your arguments to support your claims. I trust you are an MA in Roman Catholic Theology.... Lets debate this properly.

[dsindc]

No, I have a graduate degree in something else. This hardly requires theological training. In any case, religion cannot be understood without at least a basic understanding of psychology. I'd suggest you read William James. Religion is like a rorschach. One tends to project ones psychological makeup on the screen of religion. It strikes me as ironic that Jesus, the ultimate iconoclast is worshipped in a "piece of bread" like a sort of idol. I find that very misguided.

[christianvs1]

Gosh... I cant follow your argument. It has rather little to do with the matter at hand, i.e. the Petrine Authority as it relates to the Sacraments (as per the discussion below). Would you like to change the parameters of the discussion to the Psychology of Religion?

[dsindc]

Sorry, had to sign off last night as I had patients to see early in the morning. As to the subject at hand, it does appear that you're having a tough time following my argument. I addressed what little theology is involved here- the Petrine Theory. Since I am convinced that religion cannot be divorced from psychology, I don't see how the parameters have moved. What concerns me is the need individuals need for what the religious would identify as "justification".

[dsindc]

I see little difference between fundamental Protestants and Roman Catholics. In either tradtion, what appears to be important is the ability to exclude. This is precisely what the Roman Catholic tradition has done with its sacramental "theology", and what fundamental Protestant sects do through an overly emotional "conversion" experience. The end reward is the same: one is able to say "I am saved, you are not". "My sacraments are valid, yours are 'firing blanks'".

[dsindc]

Any theology that requires the creation of "the other" is no theology. I strongly doubt God has nothing to do with that. It reflects a need based on some sort of existential alienation to justify oneself. It mirrors a neurotic parent child relationship in which the child is hopelessly insecure and constantly trying to please the parent in spite of parental love flowing freely. The child needs to demonstrate his worth. What better way to do so than point to the inadequacies of others?

[dsindc]

If this strikes you as psychology, fine. I think what you may have meant - at least more properly, is the Phenomenology of Religion. In any case, with the current condition of the R.C. Church, e.g. the horrific crimes committed by Catholic clergy in Ireland, here in the U.S., and the complicity of the hierarchy, this discussion seems rather irrelevant. Nonetheless, a response was needed to sophomoric comments like the one about "firing blanks". How very childish.

[quhoun]

excellent

[pianoenthusiast11]

this is what going to church _should_ be like!

it would be worth going to america just to go to church here!