ACTION ITEM! An idea for the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity!

Today we begin the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity.

Admit it.  You forgot this, right?

I must confess that, in the past, I have been a little… what to say… lukewarm?… about this Week for Christian Unity.  But we really need to get behind it, no?

Let’s work together with out Protestant sisters and brothers in a common cause!

Let us be one!

In this light, I note with interest an article at Newsmax.

Oregon: Cake Refusal Violates Gay Couple’s Rights

A bakery in suburban Portland, Ore., violated the civil rights of a same-sex couple by refusing to bake a cake for the women’s wedding, the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries said Friday.

Investigators found substantial evidence that Sweet Cakes by Melissa unlawfully discriminated against the couple based on their sexual orientation, agency spokesman Charlie Burr said.

[...]

Rachel Cryer and Laurel Bowman of Portland say they were denied a wedding cake last January by the bakery’s owners, Aaron and Melissa Klein. The women filed a complaint with the state.

[...]

Klein responded that he and his wife didn’t serve same-sex weddings and “cited a religious belief for (the) refusal to make cakes for same-sex couples planning to marry,” the complaint said.  [Religious belief... get that?]

Herbert Grey, the Kleins’ lawyer, said his clients will participate in the conciliation process but maintain their original stance. The Kleins have said they weren’t discriminating against the couple, who were customers in the past. Instead, they said they were practicing their constitutional right to religious freedom. They have said baking a cake for a same-sex wedding would violate their Christian beliefs.

[...]

Who knew that bakeries would be the battle ground for our religious freedom?

Let us unite across confessional lines!

These bakers are Christians, right?  They are separated brethren, right?

What better week to show our resolve and zeal for our Week of Christian Unity than for the bishops of these USA to line up behind the bakery in support of and defense of their religious freedom?

We welcome the support of Protestants in our own struggle for religious freedom, don’t we?

This is a time for robust ecumenism!

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Our Catholic Identity, Religious Liberty and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

55 Responses to ACTION ITEM! An idea for the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity!

  1. StWinefride says:

    Here’s Cardinal Newman on the subject:

    “O may we be wiser than to be satisfied with an untrue profession and a mere shadow of the Gospel! May God raise our hearts on high to seek first His kingdom and His righteousness, that all other things may he added to us! My brethren, let what is inward be chief with you, and what is outward be subordinate! Think nothing preferable to a knowledge of yourselves, true repentance, a resolve to live to God, to die to the world, deep humility, hatred of sin, and of yourselves as you are sinners, a clear and habitual view of the coming judgment. Let this be first; and secondly, labour for the unity of the Church; let the peace of Jerusalem and the edification of the body of Christ be an object of prayer, close upon that of your own personal salvation. Pray that a Divine Influence may touch the hearts of men, and that in spite of themselves, while they wonder at themselves, not to say while others wonder at them, they may confess and preach those Catholic truths which at present they scorn or revile; that so at length the language of the prophecy from which the text is taken, and which has been read in the course of the Service, may be fulfilled to us; “I am returned unto Zion, and will dwell in the midst of Jerusalem,” and “the seed shall be prosperous, the vine shall give her fruit, and the ground shall give her increase, and the heavens shall give their dew;” and “many people and strong nations shall come to seek the Lord of Hosts in Jerusalem, and to pray before the Lord.”

    http://www.newmanreader.org/works/subjects/sermon25.html

  2. SKAY says:

    I agree, Father Z. Thank you for pointing this out.

  3. amenamen says:

    Also, remember that, every year, the biggest and most successful ecumenical gathering during the Week of Christian Unity is the annual March for Life in Washington, D.C.

    Something on which all Christians can agree.

  4. yatzer says:

    A great idea, but not holding my breath.

  5. Gretchen says:

    Kumbaya my Lord, Kumbaya….oh Lord, Kumbaya!

  6. Fern says:

    If Christian unity includes a Cardinal having a “woman, clergy person” of a protestant denomination give him a blessing, in public yet, count me out. When will our Roman Catholic clergy stop scandalizing the faithful! There can be no explanation for this type of so called unity. We are shunned for following the rules and a Cardinal can do anything he wants. God help us all!
    Fern

  7. Lisa Freeman says:

    We could go buy a cake from the bakery! Oh, wait . . . they went out of business a few months ago because customers couldn’t get through the protestors in front their business. Perhaps we need a new law that gives a 30-foot protest-free zone in front of Christian businesses (and homes).

  8. Legisperitus says:

    Lisa Freeman: The Freedom of Access to Bakery Entrances Act?

    Life, liberty, and the pursuit of cake!

  9. RafqasRoad says:

    Fr. Z.,

    This suggestion has a great deal of merit.

    I would like to remind readers that once, not too long ago, I was a Protestant of Good Will as an Evangelical Anglican (as a Sydney Anglican; see http://www.sydneyanglicans.org )

    Not all Protestants; nay, not all Anglicans even are ‘do as one likes’ re matters of Biblical morals, ethics and decency. Many, many Protestants deeply lament the taking of pre-born life, adhere to the Biblical tennets of marriage, strive for the protection of the vulnerable elderly, persons with a disability etc. and even, shock horror, have a devout prayer-life and church life with Christ as the centre and rason d’etre of everything they do (e.g. not just ‘Sunday’ or ‘Cultural Christians). it is these, deaer readers that our the allies of Catholic Christians to be cultivated re matters of life, faith and freedom to publically believe/practice said faith. and it is that faith in and relationship with Christ, intimate knowledge of Scripture that when such meets Catholic Christianity that brings the latter to life in brilliant colour that only a convert can appreciate. When folk call said Protestant brethren of good will ‘coombayah Christians’ they are implying that such as I was prior to reception into Catholic Christianity fall into this classification.

    Might I draw attention to the likes of Tim Staples (former Baptist then AOG youth pastor who became Catholic who is one of the greatest evangelists the Church has in our time), similarly gifted former pentacostal pastor Alex Jones who gave up all to convert, Shane Shetzel, former Evangelical pastor in training with a similar story, and the list goes on. There ar as many back within said former denominations who cleave to scripture as the inerrant word of God along with its call to a Christ-following, all pervasive, moral, ethical life and who are definitely not ‘anything goes’ Christians. Similar can be said of the writers of http://www.ladiesagainstfeminism.com and this amazing Baptist blogger who sees with crystal clear clarity what has gone wrong in Church and society these past decades to get us where we are now, presenting such in an accessible yet on-target manner.
    http://www.albertmohler.com/2014/01/10/downton-abbey-and-the-modern-age-what-are-we-really-watching/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=downton-abbey-and-the-modern-age-what-are-we-really-watching
    Do I agree with everything that LAF promotes? Not always. Are they sincere in standing up for life, family and marriage? Yes! then there are organisations such as http://www.torchtrust.org who serve Christians with a vision impairment and blindness all over the world, cleaving to Christ’s word, His truths and a mission that would put many conferences of bishops to shame. This is my background and this is where I was just over two years ago. THESE are your brethren. These hurt under the same tyranny as do you and I. These are deeply aggrieved and indignant at the decay of Church and broader society, and are doing something about it. and this is the heritage I bring into my Catholic Christian walk. Remember John 10: 16, dear readers and remember well. Do not spurn your sincere protestant brethren of good will for we are all equaly crushed under the tyranny of relativism and trials of this post-Christian age.

    Blessings,

    South Coast Catholic.
    PS: Please do not forget the abovementioned individuals and ministries in your prayers and rosary/Mass intentions.

  10. TKS says:

    Florist in my small town also refused to do flowers for a homosexual ‘ceremony’ and has been sued by the state. And the guys have been customers of hers for years.

  11. Venerator Sti Lot says:

    In 1946, C.S. Lewis provided a preface for B.G. Sandhurst’s book, How Heathen is Britain?. It includes, “It is unlikely that in the next forty years England will have a government which will encourage or even tolerate any radically Christian elements in its State system of education. Where the tide flows towards increasing State control, Christianity, with its claims in one way personal and in the other way ecumenical and both ways antithetical to omnicompetent government, must always in fact (though not for a long time yet in words) be treated as an enemy. Like learning, like the family, like any ancient and liberal profession, like the common law, it gives the individual a standing ground against the State. Hence Rousseau, the father of the totalitarians, said wisely enough, from his own point of view, of Christianity, Je ne connais rien le plus contraire à l’esprit social [which Walter Hooper translates "I know nothing more opposed to the social spirit"].”

    The following year, the Blessed Don Giovanni Calabria began a hearty and interesting Latin correspondence with Lewis, telling him how “ita ‘Octavam precum pro unitate Ecclesiae’ diebus 18-15 Januarii habendam propagare coepi” [which its editor, Martin Moynihan translates, "so I have begun to propagate the holding of..."].”

    The “ecumenical” claims of Christianity affirmed “antithetical to omnicompetent government” and Christianity consequently “treated as an enemy”. Surely Lewis would agree with the matter of Fr. Z’s proposal. And have we any reason to suppose the Blessed Don Gionvanni would think otherwise?

    Here is a ecumenical ‘ressourcement’ to champion!

  12. frjim4321 says:

    “Also, remember that, every year, the biggest and most successful ecumenical gathering during the Week of Christian Unity is the annual March for Life in Washington, D.C.” – amenamen

    I’ve heard that comment before. It seems accurate in many ways.

    There was a post here several month ago about the bakers who discriminated against a same-sex couple. I posted my reflections on that at the time and don’t feel the need to repeat them. [You are using "discriminate" in a negative way. We, therefore, do not accept your premise.]

    Having attended the March for Life in the past I noticed that the vast majority of participants were extremely appropriate and well-behaved in every respect. With the exception of pandering on the part of politicians it seemed to be a quite honorable affair. It is a much better example of an interfaith effort than would be rewarding homophobia.

  13. Suburbanbanshee says:

    Wedding cakes are art in the service of religion. I support artistic and religious freedom.

    I also support the right of bakeries and other commercial artists to refuse orders which are offensive to them. For example, no bakery can be forced to create cakes shaped like naked people for bridal or baby showers (although some bakeries offer this), or to sell cakes with obscene or profane messages written on them (though some do), or to sell cakes with offensive slogans or offensive holidays or offensive honorees (for example, nobody can be forced to sell KKK cakes, or happy Kristallnacht commemorative swastika cakes).

    But apparently some people are more equal than others.

  14. Suburbanbanshee says:

    Frankly, if companies and individual artists which accept commissions and customizations are to be deprived of their right to choose not to serve those who offend them personally, or who offend good business practice, that will be the end of personal customization and commissions.

    You’ll have to go to the computer kiosk wedding cake maker, choose a template, press the start key, and wait until the oven spits it out into the automatic froster, and the froster spits it out into the cake box. Good luck getting it to the wedding reception. Maybe Amazon’s automatic cake maker will ship it to the reception hall with same day service.

  15. Venerator Sti Lot says:

    frjim4321, “rewarding homophobia”? That looks like a petitio to me…

  16. Geoffrey says:

    “When will our Roman Catholic clergy stop scandalizing the faithful!”

    I wasn’t “scandalized”. I just raised an eyebrow and moved on.

  17. frjim4321 says:

    “When will our Roman Catholic clergy stop scandalizing the faithful!”

    I wasn’t “scandalized”. I just raised an eyebrow and moved on. – Geoffrey

    It was a reaffirmation of baptism ceremony.

    Last time I checked Protestant baptism was consider valid.

  18. RafqasRoad says:

    Fr. Z.,

    This suggestion has a great deal of merit.

    I would like to remind readers that once, not too long ago, I was a Protestant of Good Will as an Evangelical Anglican (as a Sydney Anglican; see http://www.sydneyanglicans.org )

    Not all Protestants; nay, not all Anglicans even are ‘do as one likes’ re matters of Biblical morals, ethics and decency. Many, many Protestants deeply lament the taking of pre-born life, adhere to the Biblical tennets of marriage, strive for the protection of the vulnerable elderly, persons with a disability etc. and even, shock horror, have a devout prayer-life and church life with Christ as the centre and rason d’etre of everything they do (e.g. not just ‘Sunday’ or ‘Cultural Christians). it is these, deaer readers that our the allies of Catholic Christians to be cultivated re matters of life, faith and freedom to publically believe/practice said faith. and it is that faith in and relationship with Christ, intimate knowledge of Scripture that when such meets Catholic Christianity that brings the latter to life in brilliant colour that only a convert can appreciate. When folk call said Protestant brethren of good will ‘coombayah Christians’ they are implying that such as I was prior to reception into Catholic Christianity fall into this classification.

    Might I draw attention to the likes of Tim Staples (former Baptist then AOG youth pastor who became Catholic who is one of the greatest evangelists the Church has in our time), similarly gifted former pentacostal pastor Alex Jones who gave up all to convert, Shane Shetzel, former Evangelical pastor in training with a similar story, and the list goes on. There ar many back within said former denominations who cleave to scripture as the inerrant word of God along with its call to a Christ-following, all pervasive, moral, ethical life and who are definitely not ‘anything goes’ Christians. Similar can be said of the writers of ‘Ladies Against Feminism’ et Al.and this amazing Baptist blogger who sees with crystal clear clarity what has gone wrong in Church and society these past decades to get us where we are now, presenting such in an accessible yet on-target manner.
    http://www.albertmohler.com/2014/01/10/downton-abbey-and-the-modern-age-what-are-we-really-watching/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=downton-abbey-and-the-modern-age-what-are-we-really-watching
    Do I agree with everything that LAF promotes? Not always. Are they sincere in standing up for life, family and marriage? Yes! then there are organisations such as http://www.torchtrust.org who serve Christians with a vision impairment and blindness all over the world, cleaving to Christ’s word, His truths and a mission that would put many conferences of bishops to shame. This is my background and this is where I was just over two years ago. THESE are your brethren. These hurt under the same tyranny as do you and I. These are deeply aggrieved and indignant at the decay of Church and broader society, and are doing something about it. and this is the heritage I bring into my Catholic Christian walk. Remember John 10: 16, dear readers and remember well. Do not spurn your sincere protestant brethren of good will for we are all equaly crushed under the tyranny of relativism and trials of this post-Christian age.

    Blessings,

    South Coast Catholic.
    PS: Please do not forget the abovementioned individuals and ministries in your prayers and rosary/Mass intentions.

  19. jhayes says:

    Fern, here’s how Cardinal O’Malley describes the service in his blog:

    Sunday, I was invited to preach at an ecumenical service that was held at the Sudbury United Methodist Church.

    The communities of Our Lady of Fatima parish in Sudbury and the Methodist church came together to commemorate the visit of Cardinal Cushing 50 years ago, during the time of the Second Vatican Council. I was touched that a Protestant congregation would cherish that memory of the visit of a Catholic bishop, so I was very happy to be part of the celebration….

    The celebration was essentially a Bible service with hymns and Scripture readings, followed by a renewal of baptismal vows, because the service was held on the Feast of the Baptism of the Lord. The people came up and [Methodist] Bishop Devadhar and I put a cross of water on their forehead as a reminder of their baptism. Of course, baptism is one of the elements of our faith that we share in common with the Methodists and other Protestant denominations.

    HERE

    Cardinal Sèan put a cross of water on the forehead of the Rev. Anne Robertson and asked her to do the same to him.

  20. jhayes says:

    Cardinal Séan’s blog also included a link to this video on St. Paul’s Boys Choir School in Cambridge, which is the only Catholic Boys Choir School in the US. The video ends with the boys singing for Pope Francis, in Rome.

    http://youtu.be/-037Bvg4o1o

  21. Eric says:

    A house divided…

  22. Robert of Rome says:

    Surely, frjim4321, you don’t argue that refusing to provide a wedding cake for a same-sex marriage constitutes “homophobia”, do you? Can’t it just be the case that although this couple wouldn’t object to selling goods to homosexuals, they cannot in conscience accept the concept of “same-sex marriage”, marriage being biblically and theologically considered as a union between one man and one woman?

  23. Martlet says:

    frjim4321

    Interestingly, a gay couple we have known for years – good friends of ours – also oppose gay “marriage” since they see marriage as being between a man and a woman. Would you call them homophobic?

  24. Palladio says:

    Re the Methodist moment, I was, with utmost respect to the Cardinal, scandalized. Possibly for the first time, truly so. For I do not for the life of my understand the thing. Prima facie, it was a blow, and now it is confusing. After confession yesterday, I feel like a new man. However, the thing–whatever it was–cries out for explanation, and, apparently, what the Diocese has said sheds not enough light on it. The Sacraments are ravaged in the Church of Christ: Mass and mass confusion. Then that thing. What gives? What’s up?

  25. Palladio says:

    First, God forgive me if I cause the least harm to Cardinal O’Malley or to his reputation. I was speaking from the heart, and intended no ill of any sort whatsoever. Judging people out of my sight is a sin, and all I hoped to do was get an answer, somewhere, to natural enough questions: I know my pastor has no time for such questions.

    I feel oddly consoled by a picture on the Cardinal’s blog, which appears to show he is doing his fair share of anointing: http://www.cardinalseansblog.org/2014/01/17/celebrating-ecumenism/#comments

    Perhaps that’s the answer I was looking for, and honestly I hope I have witnessed radical humility in the Cardinal .

  26. Kerry says:

    As with the ‘Deceiver in Chief’, with whom any disagreement is presumed illegitimate, suspect, and therefore rooted in skin color, and not rotten ideas, ( though,when the Emperor wears no clothes, who notices skin color), here, there are also presumed to be no reasonable, or logical objections, and ipso facto, it must be discrimination! “How do you knoooow she is a witch?”

  27. Palladio says:

    Thanks, Frank. I read it, but I am still scratching my head.

  28. OrthodoxChick says:

    The bishops as one, united body, aren’t going to line up behind this couple that owns the bakery, though I wish they would. But they won’t because they’re so divided.

    My own extremely untrained and uneducated observation is that VII did not bridge any distance between the conservative bishops who wanted to retain the traditions and Mass of the Church (pre VII) and the progressive bishops who wanted to protestantize it in a spirit of ecumenism. I think that Pope John XXIII was hoping that it would. And now, 50 years after VII, the same struggle continues to rage on, only now, the laity are more engaged in the struggle, and now, it isn’t solely a great divide along Catholic and ecumenical (ie. Protestant) lines, now we’ve gone and dragged conservative vs. progressive politics into it. Whole cultures have been degraded and entire continents lost. The battle continues because our Church leaders don’t know how to “do” ecumenism without surrendering our traditional Catholic identity. And they don’t know how to do ecumenism because what may have begun over a century ago as a sincere desire for the Church to become accepted among Protestants (so that Protestants might be open to listening to the Magisterium) has now become nothing more than a very ugly, destructive power struggle. When one “camp” pulls strings behind the scenes to take control of things like seminary formation, bishop and cardinal elevation, and Mass rubrics, the result, predictably, is war. It’s not the war we should be fighting as a united Church Militant, mind you. No, it’s a war for control amongst ourselves. It’s a battle fueled by Pride. No pope since John XXIII has yet been able to bring both sides together, because there are extreme elements on each side whose whole identity is wrapped up in being their own embodiment of champion of the battle. It’s a mess, but the divide and conquer strategy is age-old and the Enemy is adept at employing it to his advantage. The battle will rage on until the Church raises up a pope who is strong enough to take on the curia by limiting their power and control.

    The observation that Pope Francis appears to lean left doesn’t concern me nearly as much as the observation that he was supposedly elected to take on the curia but hasn’t yet brought himself to do it. Something much bolder than another personnel swap is required at this point. The bishops conferences can’t be reined in until the curia is. The Church is a hierarchy. It is top-down by Divine design.

    Read Matthew 5: 17-26. I submit that if this applies to individual souls, then how much moreso must it surely apply to the souls invested with protecting and serving the only Church established by Christ; to the Church Herself as one Body?

  29. OrthodoxChick says:

    The bishops as one, united body, aren’t going to line up behind this couple that owns the bakery, though I wish they would. But they won’t because they’re so divided.

    My own extremely untrained and uneducated observation is that VII did not bridge any distance between the conservative bishops who wanted to retain the traditions and Mass of the Church (pre VII) and the progressive bishops who wanted to protestantize it in a spirit of ecumenism. I think that Pope John XXIII was hoping that it would. And now, 50 years after VII, the same struggle continues to rage on, only now, the laity are more engaged in the struggle, and now, it isn’t solely a great divide along Catholic and ecumenical (ie. Protestant) lines, now we’ve gone and dragged conservative vs. progressive politics into it. Whole cultures have been degraded and entire continents lost. The battle continues because our Church leaders don’t know how to “do” ecumenism without surrendering our traditional Catholic identity. And they don’t know how to do ecumenism because what may have begun over a century ago as a sincere desire for the Church to become accepted among Protestants (so that Protestants might be open to listening to the Magisterium) has now become nothing more than a very ugly, destructive power struggle. When one “camp” pulls strings behind the scenes to take control of things like seminary formation, bishop and cardinal elevation, and Mass rubrics, the result, predictably, is war. It’s not the war we should be fighting as a united Church Militant, mind you. No, it’s a war for control amongst ourselves. It’s a battle fueled by Pride. No pope since John XXIII has yet been able to bring both sides together, because there are extreme elements on each side whose whole identity is wrapped up in being their own embodiment of champion of the battle. It’s a mess, but the divide and conquer strategy is age-old and the Enemy is adept at employing it to his advantage. The battle will rage on until the Church raises up a pope who is strong enough to take on the curia by limiting their power and control.

    The observation that Pope Francis appears to lean left doesn’t concern me nearly as much as the observation that he was supposedly elected to take on the curia but hasn’t yet brought himself to do it. Something much bolder than another personnel swap is required at this point. The bishops conferences can’t be reined in until the curia is. The Church is a hierarchy. It is top-down by Divine design.

    Read Matthew 5: 17-26. I submit that if this applies to individual souls, then how much moreso must it surely apply to the souls invested with protecting and serving the only Church established by Christ; to the Church Herself as one Body?

  30. robtbrown says:

    OrthodoxChick says:

    My own extremely untrained and uneducated observation is that VII did not bridge any distance between the conservative bishops who wanted to retain the traditions and Mass of the Church (pre VII) and the progressive bishops who wanted to protestantize it in a spirit of ecumenism. I think that Pope John XXIII was hoping that it would. And now, 50 years after VII, the same struggle continues to rage on, only now, the laity are more engaged in the struggle, and now, it isn’t solely a great divide along Catholic and ecumenical (ie. Protestant) lines, now we’ve gone and dragged conservative vs. progressive politics into it.

    IMHO, your reflections seem generally correct, but I’m not how much JXXIII understood how great the threat was from progressivism. He well understood that the By the Numbers church of the Counter Reformation had run out of steam, but didn’t there doesn’t seem much evidence that he had an idea what he wanted in its place–other than the end of hard line discipline. Cardinal Montini, later Paul VI, seems to have understood, thus his remark that JXXIII didn’t understand that he was stirring up a hornet’s nest.

    Perhaps the best explanation of what happened comes from a priest friend, who said: You have to understand that for at least 150 years, despite the secular opposition, whatever the Church did worked. Seminaries and religious houses were full, and conversions were plentiful, in missionaries areas and in the US. There was a huge system of discipline (incl Latin liturgy) that those in charge took for granted. One day they looked up and saw that it was gone–and they didn’t know what to do about it.

  31. Palladio says:

    “You have to understand that for at least 150 years, despite the secular opposition, whatever the Church did worked. Seminaries and religious houses were full, and conversions were plentiful, in missionaries areas and in the US. There was a huge system of discipline (incl Latin liturgy) that those in charge took for granted. One day they looked up and saw that it was gone–and they didn’t know what to do about it.”

    Well said, and true.

  32. OrthodoxChick says:

    robtbrown,

    I second Palladio. Well said and true.

  33. robtbrown says:

    IMHO, reforming the Church would be a fairly simple process. The problem is that very few want to do it. Witness the opposition to Summorum Pontificum, much of which was found in letters sent to from bishops or chanceries whose authors assumed would not be made public. And I have known young priests who in their first assignment were told not to wear their cassock.

    It’s no coincidence that the FSSP is flourishing in vocations, both in numbers and quality.

  34. Palladio says:

    Yes, and all of Fr. Z’s readers should belong to FSSP’s Confraternity (I do): http://www.fssp.org/en/confraternite.htm

  35. Suburbanbanshee says:

    Re: O’Malley and the Methodists, it sounds like everybody was supposed to mutually remember their Baptisms.

    1. But the classic, traditional, ancient way of doing this is to touch holy water and use it to put a cross on your own forehead, and that would be too weird, Catholic, and/or icky for some of the Protestants present.

    However, Ash Wednesday crosses are cool and not so Catholic that they freak out Protestants, and Protestants are getting into doing more anointings and gestural blessings. So they combined the gestures. Which means that Catholics end up reading a very different message than was intended, but the Protestants don’t have to feel like they should run out the door shrieking.

    Shrug. I think it’s the photos that make it misleading, although I don’t see why it’s always Catholics who have to pull back and do weird things in these sorts of ecumenical gatherings. Probably a chastisement for all the times liturgists make Catholics do weird things.

  36. Suburbanbanshee says:

    The thing is, I don’t see why you have to have clergy up there at all, if they’re just symbols of valid ministers of Baptism. Pagans and atheists can be valid ministers of Baptism, if they have the class to stick to the right words and water, and they intend what the Church intends by Baptism.

  37. rcg says:

    Suburbanbanshee beat me to the point. It would seem equally valid for the baker to refuse to make any cake he felt would construe against his faith. I suppose people would applauds if he refused to make a Nazi cake. I would understand if he refused to make a cake for me if I had some overtly Vatholic theme that offended his Protestantism. As important as Christian unity is, this issue Is the people complaining about the bakery were using it simply to build a body of common law to emsure gays the right to demand anything they want based on their sexual practices. Eventually someone will demand a marriage in a Catholic Church that will be forced by the Government.

  38. Uxixu says:

    The more I reflect on reading the canons of VII, the Novus Ordo, and the TLM, the more I think VII has been ignored by the… reformers as much as by trads.

    Where is the preeminent place for Chant and the Latin Ordinary of the Mass as described by Sancrosanctum Concilium? The Mass as envisioned by Vatican II is not being celebrated in (m)any parishes that only do the ordinary form. The hermeneutic continuity is currently maintained by those aged bishops and cardinals who bridge the Council themselves and passed it on in teaching that wasn’t universal (especially by those bishops consecrated since) and that continuity should be institutionalized into the structure.

  39. Uxixu says:

    I always thought the cake and photography thing was fairly easy. Disregarding the absurdity of forcing compulsory service from someone who doesn’t want to do it and the natural passive-aggressive response possible (who wants a poorly baked cake or out of focus pictures?), both could simply make a no exceptions policy of including certain choice Bible verses on from Matthew, Corinthians, Leviticus, Deuteronomy on the frosting and picture borders/backing.

  40. wmeyer says:

    Uxixu, I have been convinced for some years that those who are the loudest proponents of Vatican II cannot have read the documents. As you note, the changes made to the Mass, and for that matter, to the churches, after V-II are completely at odds with the dictates of Sacrosanctum Concilium.

    Fr. Z has expounded on the misunderstanding of participatio actuosa, which if properly understood encompasses our silent prayer during Mass.

    In particular, reverence has been largely lost in the NO as it is commonly celebrated.

  41. dominic1955 says:

    I love the original Chair of Unity Octave as proposed by Fr. Paul Graymoor and approved by Benedict XV. This is how we pray it in our FSSP church.

    What it has become is a whole other ball of wax.

    http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/weeks-prayer-doc/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20130528_week-prayer-2014_en.html

    Seriously? Read some of this sappy nonsense. If our Church cannot proclaim itself as what it truly is, the One True Church outside of which there is no salvation, how far we have fallen! How disloyal we are to Christ, trading our birthright for a mess of self-affirming, fuzzy garbage that makes it seem that other “churches” are equal to the Church!

  42. Robertus Pittsburghensis says:

    I’m all for supporting the bakers.

    Furthermore there is some interesting action concerning the octave of Christian unity over at Fr Hunwicke’s blog, which you can find in Father Z’s sidebar.

  43. jhayes says:

    wmeyer, both Sacrosanctum Concilium, drafted by The Second Vatican Council, and the Novus Ordo Missae, drafted by the Consilium ad exequendam Constitutionem de Sacra Liturgia, were promulgated by Pope Paul VI.

    Before Paul approved the Novus Ordo Missae, he received a written plea from Cardinal Ottaviani not to approve it, accompanied by a lengthy report which ended:

    “To abandon a liturgical tradition which for four centuries was both the sign and the pledge of unity of worship (and to replace it with another which cannot but be a sign of division by virtue of the countless liberties implicitly authorized, and which teems with insinuations or manifest errors against the integrity of the Catholic religion) is, we feel in conscience bound to proclaim, an incalculable error.”

    http://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/reformof.htm.

    After considering Cardinal Ottaviani’s plea and report, Pope Paul VI issued his Apostolic Constitution “Missale Romanum” implementing the Novus Ordo.

    Since Paul VI promulgated both Constitutions (Sacrosantum Concilium and Missale Romanum), I don’t think it is tenable to argue that they conflict with each other. [? What sort of reasoning is that?] In his view, they did not. He was the Pope and it was his to decide.

  44. RoyceReed says:

    If the bakery owners were Catholic would they be morally obligated to refuse to serve these people? Would it be cooperating with evil?

  45. Johnno says:

    According to Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, Vatican II was begun because the clergy lost confidence in the Church and began to dialogue with modernism to avoid ‘embarrassments’ like the Galileo affair. In other words it was doubt in themselves that led the Council of Vatican II by the nose. Instead of clear concise teaching and confidence in itself as the true religion, the Council instead adopted vague language and ecumenical outreach and dialogue so as to not ‘err’ again like the Church supposedly did in the past according to the tales of the modernists. Here is what Pope emeritus Benedict XVI had to say:

    —–
    “So we went to the Council not only with joy, but with enthusiasm. There was an incredible anticipation. We hoped that everything would be renewed, that a new Pentecost would truly come, a new era of the Church – because at that time, the Church was still strong enough: Sunday practice still good, the vocations to the priesthood and to religious life were already a bit reduced but still sufficient. Nonetheless, we felt that the Church was not advancing, it was diminishing, and it seemed rather a reality of the past and not the bringer of the future. And in that moment, we hoped that this relationship would be renewed, that it would change; that the Church would once again be a force of tomorrow and a force of today. And we knew that the relationship between the Church and the modern period was a bit in conflict, beginning with the error of the Church in the case of Galileo Galilei; we thought we could correct this wrong beginning and find the union between the Church and the best forces in the world in order to open up the future of humanity, to open true progress. So we were full of hope, of enthusiasm, and of the will to do our part for this thing.” – Pope Benedict’s farewell address to priests at the Vatican, as reported by L’Osservatore Romano, February 14, 2013, page 4, paragraph #5 in the article “Al concilio pieno di entusiasmo e speranza.”
    —–

    Ironically had they held off a little longer instead of jumping the gun, the medieval Church, Scripture and the Fathers would be proven right, and it is modern science that should be embarrassed, but in any case they never had a shred of proof in Heliocentrism. They just covered up their inability to detect the Earth’s motion behind the nonexistent mathematics of Relativity, which still made it possible to accept Geocentrism according to relativity’s own terms.

    Benedict even knew this when years later in 1990, he wrote as Cardinal Ratzinger:
    —–
    “In the last decade, creation’s resistance to allowing itself to be manipulated by humanity has emerged as a new element in the overall cultural situation. The question of the limits of science, and the criteria which it must observe, has become unavoidable.

    Particularly emblematic of this change of intellectual climate, it seems to me, is the different way in which the Galileo case is seen. This episode, which was little considered in the 18th century, was elevated to a myth of the Enlightenment in the century that followed.

    Today, things have changed. According to [Ernst] Bloch, the heliocentric system – just like the geocentric – is based upon presuppositions that can’t be empirically demonstrated. Among these, an important role is played by the affirmation of the existence of an absolute space; that’s an opinion that, in any event, has been cancelled by the Theory of Relativity. Bloch writes, in his own words: ‘From the moment that, with the abolition of the presupposition of an empty and immobile space, movement is no longer produced towards something, but there’s only a relative movement of bodies among themselves, and therefore the measurement of that [movement] depends to a great extent on the choice of a body to serve as a point of reference, in this case is it not merely the complexity of calculations that renders the [geocentric] hypothesis impractical? Then as now, one can suppose the earth to be fixed and the sun as mobile.”

    … the synthetic judgment of the agnostic-skeptic philosopher P. Feyerabend appears much more drastic. He writes: “The church at the time of Galileo was much more faithful to reason than Galileo himself, and also took into consideration the ethical and social consequences of Galileo’s doctrine. Its verdict against Gaileo was rational and just, and revisionism can be legitimized solely for motives of political opportunism.”

    To my great surprise, in a recent interview on the Galileo case, I was not asked a question like, ‘Why did the Church try to get in the way of the development of modern science?’, but rather exactly the opposite, that is: ‘Why didn’t the church take a more clear position against the disasters that would inevitably follow, once Galileo had opened Pandora’s box?’ – Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, “The Crisis of Faith in Science,” March 15, 1990, Parma, Italy. Extract taken from “A Turning Point for Europe? The Church and Modernity in the Europe of Upheavals,” Paoline Editions, 1992, pp. 76- 79.
    —–

    In the end, not even Vatican II changed the Church’s ruling against Galileo, and no mention of Galileo was even made. Instead, adopting vague language, Vatican II only stated that the Church would not interfere with science except when it crossed the line to declare God didn’t exist or imposed on the Church to change its faith or morals.

    Vatican II was manufactured due to a crisis of faith, not of the laypeople, but rather amongst the clergy itself who were scared of continuing to confidently challenge the secular modernist establishment, mixed with a false sense of optimism about the enemy’s reception of this ‘new/improved’ Church. That and the decision to censor of the 3rd Secret of Fatima that continues to haunt the proceedings to this day.

  46. It is amazing how few of you actually got the point. Amazing.

  47. jhayes says:

    [? What sort of reasoning is that?]

    Differences are not necessarily conflicts. The Ottaviani letter and report identified differences, which he felt were conflicts, but the final decision was up to Paul.

    He closed Missale Romanum by saying:

    “We wish that these Our decrees and prescriptions may be firm and effective now and in the future, notwithstanding, to the extent necessary, the apostolic constitutions and ordinances issued by Our predecessors, and other prescriptions, even those deserving particular mention and derogation.

    Given at Rome, at Saint Peter’s, Holy Thursday, April 3 1969, the sixth year of Our pontificate.”

    In other words, if anyone believes there is a conflict between Sacrosanctum Concilium of any other documents already in existence and Missale Romanum, MR takes precedence. [That simply doesn't follow. Fail.]

  48. Jack007 says:

    “It is amazing how few of you actually got the point. Amazing.”

    Funny, I saw Fr.’s quote in a sidebar tag line and was curious. I hadn’t seen the post. So, I decided to read the comments.
    Sadly I see an endemic problem. Tradition minded faithful Catholics can get so far off track arguing about everything. It was all over the board.
    If *I* read Father right, I think he was trying to use the March etc… as a bit of common ground so that we might fight the Enemy, that Prince of Darkness, together. We could then hash out the “details” later. Was I right?
    I’m sorry Fr. Jim. I normally cut you a lot of slack as I suspect Fr. Z sees you as a fellow priest and gives you that respect. But sometimes you really do come off as trollish. Almost as though you’re just another lib on like minded sites, but you can elicit emotions and reaction here. Just a thought…when I see your handle, I can almost always predict what I’m about to read. That’s not particularly challenging to the intellectual level of this site. Again, just a thought. I mean no offense. I will pray for you.

    Jack in KC

  49. OrthodoxChick says:

    Video of Gov. Huckabee also making the “we’re all Catholics now” comment at CPAC in 2012.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6DLrTby4c4

  50. jhayes says:

    After considering Cardinal Ottaviani’s plea and report, Pope Paul VI issued his Apostolic Constitution “Missale Romanum” implementing the Novus Ordo

    That’s in the wrong order. Paul issued Missale Romanum on April 3, 1969. Ottaviani’s letter was dated September 25, 1969

    After getting the CDF’s evaluation of the report submitted by Cardinal Ottaviani, Paul spoke about the Novus Ordo in two General Addresses on November 19 and 26, 1969

    http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P6601119.HTM

    http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P6691126.HTM

  51. JonPatrick says:

    Wow, how did we get from same -sex “wedding ” cakes to Vatican 2 and Galileo?

    I agree this is something all Christians can unite on. What makes it hard is the lack of distinction between discriminating against a person or group and opposing certain acts which are contrary to religious beliefs and to nature. People don’t get this or choose to ignore it.

  52. OrthodoxChick says:

    JonPatrick,

    “Wow, how did we get from same-sex “wedding” cakes to Vatican 2 and Galileo?”

    I have to own the VII sidetrack. I usually do a better job of not allowing myself to become overwhelmed by the state of our culture, our political landscape, and our Church, but unfortunately, I didn’t turn on my own impulse filter yesterday and neglected to censor myself.

  53. Pingback: A dreadful thought: will there be no persecution? | Throne and Altar