Skip to comments.Lutheran's funeral in Catholic cathedral unusual, but permitted [Rehnquist]
Posted on 09/07/2005 9:01:37 AM PDT by Salvation
**Gibbs said Rehnquist's funeral would in some ways resemble a Catholic Mass, with a liturgy of the word and a familiar-sounding creed, though without a eucharistic liturgy.**
We knew that, correct? (Educating the sheeple.)
Do you suppose the reason that Rehnquist did not resign was because he didn't want to hear the bickering over who would replace him?
This sounds highly abusive of what was intended by the law.
Welcome to the Cathedral, may he rest in peace.
The exception to the law (no non-Catholic service in Catholic houses of worship) was made in favor of other Christians who did not have access to facilities large enough for their services.
"Catholic churches are consecrated or blessed buildings which have an important theological and liturgical significance for the Catholic community. They are therefore generally reserved for Catholic worship. However, if priests, ministers or communities not in full communion with the Catholic Church do not have a place or the liturgical objects necessary for celebrating worthily their religious ceremonies, the diocesan Bishop may allow them the use of a church or a Catholic building and also lend them what may be necessary for their services. Under similar circumstances permission may be given to them for interment or for the celebration of services at Catholic cemeteries." (Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism, 137, 25 March 1993)
There is a facility available for this funeral that is much larger than the Washignton Cathedral. The only reason our Church is being loaned out to heretics is because the dates weren't convenient for the family to use a Protestant building. This sort of circumstance is certainly not what was envisioned in making this exception, since the exception made to the law is in favor of the ministers and community of the sects, not the faithful of the sects for private acts (a funeral), and is an exception revolving around a lack of place, not an inopportunity of time.
However, on a bigger question, I find the application of this exception is frequently at least gravely scandalous - i.e. lending our Cathedrals to Protestants to "ordain" Clericettes. The whole procedure is anti-traditional and would be better in my view if it was stopped.
Making an exception for Rhenquist here is simply opening up the exception to the law a little further in the continual effort of AmChurch to open wide the doors to heresy.
Dear Hermann the Cherusker,
Thanks for the explanation.
I wonder, though, whether it wasn't quite just a matter of inconveniencing the Rehnquist family.
Justice Rehnquist was one of the more important persons in the United States at the time of his death, and I suppose that there are a lot of folks who want to be at the funeral, including, I'm told, President Bush.
It may be that the later date created more than an ordinary inconvenience, and in a sense became closer to a lack of appropriate facility. I'm not sure that Cardinal McCarrick's actions are too far off from what is intended by the law.
As to your wider point, I find myself unqualified to offer an opinion, so, I won't.
Anyway, thanks again for the explanation.
Facilities aren't to be lent out because people are "important" in the eyes of the world. Otherwise, we'd have to lend out our most beautiful Church for every society wedding demanding it.
Dear Hermann the Cherusker,
I understand your point, but those in positions of high authority in our government derive their legitimate authority from God, and thus, fulfill their proper stations by executing their just duties.
The services under discussion serve not only the purposes of the family or the obligations of the religious sect involved, but legitimate civil purposes, as well. As a republic, our civil authorities also, in some sense, symbolize our nation. (That was perhaps the chief horror of the Clinton regime, that Mr. Clinton was the symbolic representation of our nation for eight awful years.)
It is good and right for the nation as a whole to have appropriate funerary rites for Justice Rehnquist, and it is good and right for certain civil authorities to be in attendance, including but not limited to the President of the United States, high leaders of Congress, other Justices, etc.
If other dates seriously conflicted with the performance of the important duties of certain of these persons, my perspective is that the Catholic Church makes a contribution to the civil weal by permitting this exception.
Of course, it's important that the Catholic Church never permit Herself to be co-opted by the state, but it doesn't seem inappropriate to me that She might sometimes assist the state in the performance of legitimate state functions.
I agree that it's a bit of a stretch of the rule, but I've seen Cardinal McCarrick make far stretchier stretches in the time that he's been the Ordinary of Washington.
Note: Pastor Jan is male. The Missouri Synod doesn't ordain women to the role of priest.
Lutherans deny the entire Sacramental system - the ministerial priesthood, the sacrifice of the mass, the efficacy of absolution. Lutherans deny the main Marian dogmas, they deny indulgences, relics, purgatory, and the intercession of the saints. They deny the canonicity of the deuterocanon. They deny the infallibility and primacy of the Pope. I'd say they are heretics.
Does anyone else have a hard time believing that National Cathedral nor any large Lutheran Church in DC could take an eraser to the schedule book to accomodate the funeral of the Chief Justice? Surely, there is more here.
1995 - Catholic Cathedral of the Diocese of Metuchen held "ordinations" for the Lutheran "Church" which included the "ordination" of two Clericettes. I personally witnessed this. I've seen it elsewhere too if you need more citations.
Use of buildings for other Christan faiths has gone on for a long time, before the 1993 document.
The 1983 CCL 1183: 3 Provided their own minister is not available, baptized persons belonging to a non-Catholic Church or ecclesial community may, in accordance with the prudent judgment of the local Ordinary, be allowed Church funeral rites, unless it is established that they did not wish this.
This isn't a matter of offering Rehnquist a Catholic funeral, but of having a Lutheran funeral in a Catholic building. Your point simply does not address what will occur. You are confusing the issue.
Can. 1211 Sacred places are desecrated by acts done in them which are gravely injurious and give scandal to the faithful when, in the judgement of the local Ordinary, these acts are so serious and so contrary to the sacred character of the place that worship may not be held there until the harm is repaired by means of the penitential rite which is prescribed in the liturgical books.
Was St. Patrick's desecrated when Amos and Andy held their infamous live radio broadcast of a couple having sex in the pew? I don't recall the Church being reconciled afterwards, but it sure seems like desecration to me.
Can. 1369 A person is to be punished with a just penalty, who, at a public event or assembly, or in a published writing, or by otherwise using the means of social communication, utters blasphemy, or gravely harms public morals, or rails at or excites hatred of or contempt for religion or the Church.
Its very humorous to think I am "uttering blasphemy", "gravely harming public morals", "railing at and exciting hatred or contempt for religion" or "railing at and exciting hatred or contempt for the Church" by saying I find it scandalous to loan out Catholic facilities to Protestants in contravention of the literal reading of Canon Law.
I understand Bishop Loverde of Arlington is looking for recruits to act as persecutors of Catholics. Maybe you could apply. You look like you have all the requisite characteristics.
Same with most parish CCD programmes nowadays.
Yep, and there are sound reasons for denying them all. Since this isn't an apologetics thread, I won't go into them here. But you can have divisions over beliefs without falling into heresy. The real heretics are those who deny the divinity of Christ, not whether the host is consubtantiated or transubtantiated. I would have preferred that the Synod bury its own from its own churches personally.
I don't disagree with you that the primary heresies are denilas of the Incarnation and Holy Trinity, which Lutherans do not share in. However, holidng those beliefs in common doesn't make us share the same faith, as you are obviously aware.
Based on your use of the fictional term, "Amchurch", I would call that railing contempt at the Catholic Church. I guess you didn't like CCL 1369?
I have no problem with Canon 1369. If you think it is "railing against the Church" to disagree with how a law is being abused based on the literal reading of the law, then you are making void Canon 212.3.
"Canon 212 §3 [Christ's Faithful] have the right, indeed at times the duty, in keeping with their knowledge, competence and position, to manifest to the sacred Pastors their views on matters which concern the good of the Church. They have the right also to make their views known to others of Christ's faithful, but in doing so they must always respect the integrity of faith and morals, show due reverence to the Pastors and take into account both the common good and the dignity of individuals."
If you think saying "AmChurch" voids this right, when using it as a collective term to describe those people who have spent the last 40 years ignoring clear directives from Rome and violating the sacred Canons in the name of "the Spirit of Vatican II" and "Ecumenism", then why is my diocese carrying the Wanderer in its Seminary for its Priests and people to read, seeing as nearly every issue uses that term?