Rorate Caeli

Houston, We Have a Protestant



The good news is there was a large ordination ceremony in the Roman Catholic Co-Cathedral of the Sacred Heart in Houston, Texas. The bad news is it was conducted by the United Methodist Church.

On 28 May 2013, this occured:
Service of Commissioning & Ordination @ 7pm at the Co-Cathedral of the Sacred Heart, Bishop Janice R. Huie preaching

Here are some other photos:







The Co-Cathedral of the Sacred Heart is the cathedral (with episcopal chair) in the city of Houston, co-equal to the basilica cathedral in the city of Galveston in what is now the Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston.  (The basilica cathedral in Galveston has been closed for repairs since 2009.)  The Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston is the 11th largest diocese in the United States.

On 1 June 2013, the Co-Cathedral hosted the ordination of one Catholic to the priesthood.

The archbishop of Galveston-Houston is Daniel Cardinal DiNardo. The rector of the Co-Cathedral of the Sacred Heart is the Reverend Father Lawrence Jozwiak.

Here is a response from our friends at the Canon Law Centre:

... the legal prescription of canon 755, further specified by the 1993 Directory promulgated by the Holy See, leaves open the possibility of the diocesan bishop granting permission to a non-Catholic group to use a Catholic building in his territory for a non-Catholic religious ceremony. In the absence of any clearly defined criteria as to what ceremonies to allow and which not to allow, the diocesan bishop is afforded a rather wide ranging discretion as to what he will or will not permit in his diocese.  In this regard there is a great disparity existing among individual bishops as to the implementation of this norm.  This is evidenced, inter alia, by the current example of a situation which obviously has given rise to scandal among the faithful, and the recent prohibition of the Bishop of Fribourg in which he refused to grant access to the Priestly Society of St. Pius X to use a parish church within the territory of his diocese.  Interestingly enough, Bishop Morerod also cited no. 137 of the 1993 Directory as supporting his decision.  I leave it to the readership to draw their own conclusions.


Contrast the 1983 Code of Canon Law and 1993 Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism with Pope Pius XI's 1928 encyclical on religious unity:

So, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics: for the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it, for in the past they have unhappily left it.

H/T Ronald L. Conte Jr. for spotting the Houston event.

49 comments:

New Catholic said...

This is Texas: can't they hold their "ordinations" in one of those huge "megachurches" that are everywhere?

Mountain Man said...

New Catholic says: "This is Texas: can't they hold their "ordinations" in one of those huge "megachurches" that are everywhere?"

Finishing the Joke: It seems this is the only church that was available!

Crouchback said...

Aye......

I give my diocesan bishop a wide berth as well.......

My covenant money has been going to the SSPX for a few years now....and won't be going anywhere else in the near future.

Long-Skirts said...

Isn't that special!

backtothefuture said...

By the look of the church, they should be quite at home.

Pétrus said...

As a faithful Catholic who is loyal to Rome things like this make it harder for me to criticise the SSPX

Samuel J. Howard said...

Even if we conceded arguendo that it was acceptable to share our sacred Churches with protestants under certain circumstances, to do so for the "ordination" of a woman in a liturgical denomination seems particularly ill advised given the continued dissent about the ordination of women in the Catholic Church.

Hayfarmer said...

As a native Texan and a Traditional Roman Catholic I offer my heartfelt apologies for the Archdiocese to all of you with Catholic sensibility.

Dan Hunter said...

"As a faithful Catholic who is loyal to Rome things like this make it harder for me to criticise the SSPX"

Petrus,

I agree.
One has to think and pray seriously about this.

This is more than horrible.

It is really, truly, alarming.

Matthew said...

Mr. Howard, I think it goes a bit further than that. The perfectly logical implication would be that Cardinal DiNardo holds heretical views about protestants, protestantism, grace, the nature and members of the Church, and the (im)possibility of the ordination of women.

David Werling said...

Well... the building was obviously designed for this kind of thing, so...

Dr. Timothy J. Williams said...

I say let the Methodists have the building as well. From the photos, it would appear to be too expensive to convert to an authentically Catholic structure. And as long as we are in a generous mood, let's offer them the permanent services of Danny DiNardo, He and Janice would hit it off just great. (And Danny is from Steubenville, I understand... just delicious!)

Edward P. Walton said...

The cathedral of Sts. Peter and Paul in Phila was used for an episcopal consecration of a new bishop of the Episcopal diocese
A women bishop was sitting as close to the cathedra as possible, other bishops with their clergy filled the sanctuary.

What a message this event sent to the Catholic laity of the archdiocese.

Robbie said...

In my opinion, if Catholic Churches still looked like Catholic Churches, Protestants would want nothing to do with them. Unfortunately, most of our Catholic Churches have been stripped of their traditional look.

Joshua Donescoss said...

And then people still wonder why I am an SSPXer!

Long-Skirts said...

Wow, oh wow! Read what Cardinal Kasper says

http://youtu.be/JFJEUcJ3TOA

Edward said...

Cardinal DiNardo is a disgrace allowing not only heretics to use his Cathedral but woman trying to be ordained

Mari Kate said...

okay, let me get this straight. We, the Holy Roman Catholic Church do not permit women to be ordained to the Priesthood according to Canon Law and hopefully never will but we can loan out, excuse me, rent out our Church to those that do ordain women, along with allowing same sex marriages? Hmmm...is that the Priest's chair I see right behind the altar, I mean in the center where the Tabernacle holding the Blessed Sacrament of Our Lord Jesus Christ is supposed to be? And all of this "mumbo-jumbo pretend Catholic ceremony" takes place before the altar, where the Holy Sacrifice of Mass is celebrated? You know the very spot where Christ becomes truly present through the hands of the male Priest according to the words of Christ Himself? Perhaps someone should send this off to Pope Francis?

Long-Skirts said...

"Houston, We Have a Protestant"

BTW...that was a brilliant title!!

Sancte Alphonsus said...

Guys, please don't blame this on the Bishop - he is only being obedient to the Vatican directives on ecumenical activities entitled, Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism.

Anyone can take a gander here:
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/general-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_19930325_directory_en.html

Specifically he is abiding by DAPNE #137: 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.


Don't shoot the faithful Bishop.

Angelo said...

Since the election of Pope Francis. Modernists mistakenly believe this to be a stamp of approval of all their errors. I hope Pope Francis makes clarifications quickly. Modernists are reviving their errors full speed ahead believing Pope Francis is their number one ally. And Pope Francis has in fact given them this perception. Pope Benedict XVl had stated that many feel that God has abandoned us, and he said "Rightly so, it seems that Christ has been asleep at times in the Bark of His Church". In the OT God abandoned his people while still watching over them whenever they strayed. Could Jesus now have abandoned but yet watches over his Church? After all, we men have become evil and ungrateful to him. A public Penance should be called for, to atone for our attitude's toward God. And it should be called for by traditionalists, as liberals would only call for a paltry penance.

Matercula said...

All the parishioners of the Co-Cathedral of the Sacred Heart had to do was contact by telephone the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith or send info to cdf@cfaith.va
This abuse could have been stopped just as the faithful of Sandhurst diocese Australia stopped a similar 'ordination' in 2009.

http://www.theage.com.au/national/vatican-ban-on-offer-to-anglicans-20091127-jx1p.html

Gregory said...

They tried this in Liverpool (UK) Metropolitan Cathedral last year. Thankfully it was blocked. But it seems the germ of the idea hasn't gone away. This is becoming a pattern.

ArchbishopKellyCallsOffMethodistOrdinations

A Canberra Observer said...

What a travesty.

A nonsense of this type was proposed in an Australian diocese a few years ago. From memory it didn't happen but probably was a near run thing.

Matthew said...

Sancte Alphonsus, give us a break. No Bishop can justify heresy and scandal because Rome said so. If they said so, they are wrong, Pope, Curial official, or otherwise. Obedience does not trump the Faith!

Debbie Edwards said...

Blame the one who had the authority to make such an offensive choice. To blame Vatican II is only a distraction from placing the blame where it belongs ...the one who authorized it.

Robert said...

And to think if the SSPX wanted to use the Cathedral. The Archbishop and Bishops as well as the "professional" Catholics who govern the Archdiocese would have a tissy fit. When I see things like this and think about how traditional Catholics are treated, I have very little sympathy when we hear about parish closings. They deserve it!!.

Sancte Alphonsus said...

Matthew said...

Sancte Alphonsus, give us a break. No Bishop can justify heresy and scandal because Rome said so. If they said so, they are wrong, Pope, Curial official, or otherwise. Obedience does not trump the Faith!


Matthew, I was being facetious since many of the posts say tell the CDF, tell the Pope, while not realizing this Bishop is being 'faithful' to the Vatican's own directives on ecumenical activity.

dominic1962 said...

The main problem is that "directory" allowance. If you read the text, it also sounds like they could be loaned the chalice and ciboria to perform their (objectively) sacrilegious rites with. Its the height of scandalous, really for those reasons. How could any thinking Catholic allow non-Catholics to perform their erroneous rites on consecrated altars? Or to use consecrated sacred vessels?

Its to make Protestants feel good. If you look at it logically, their own theology does not demand any sort of actual specific sacred space, or Greek corporal equivalent so any social hall or large lecture room would be just as good to them as one of our churches. Yet, everyone knows that to offer this would be "intolerant" or lacking in "hospitality". From the Protestant end, they either feel slighted because they want to have their thing in the pretty churchy looking building with more room than theirs and thus no more sacred than any other building/place or they know very well the symbolism entailed in getting to do your thing in a Catholic church-that Rome, in a way, "approves". Either comes from a place of ignorance, error or malice-none of which we would do well to encourage among the lost sheep.

I've only seen building-sharing done responsibly twice, both in my home town for funerals. The church building was lent, but the sanctuary was fenced off with the flowers and decorations and Blessed Sacrament moved. This made some sense because they were funerals in which most of the town would attend and the non-Catholic buildings were not near as large yet nothing specifically sacred was uses for any sort of worship or feigned worship.

douglassbartley said...

New Catholic wrote: “The good news is there was a large ordination ceremony in the Roman Catholic Co-Cathedral of the Sacred Heart in Houston, Texas. The bad news is it was conducted by the United Methodist Church.” http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2013/06/houston-we-have-protestant.html

Commentators then followed with a great deal of understandable anxiety over the news.

Later Sancte Alphonsus said...
“Guys, please don't blame this on the Bishop - he is only being obedient to the Vatican directives on ecumenical activities entitled, Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism. [citing http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/general-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_19930325_directory_en.html]

“Specifically he is abiding by DAPNE #137: ‘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.

Don't shoot the faithful Bishop.”

Sancte Alphonsus is right in stating what he presents as the current “law” of the Church.

But is it really valid law?
Consider the 1928 Encyclical of Pope Pius XI in which, condemning eccleticism and ecumenism (also called Syncretism or Pan-Christianity), he states in part:

“[T]here can be no true religion other than that which is founded on the revealed word of God * * *
[T]he Apostolic See cannot on any terms take part in [Protestant] assemblies, nor is it anyway lawful for Catholics either to support or to work for such enterprises; for if they do so they will be giving countenance to a false Christianity, quite alien to the one Church of Christ. * * *

Who then can conceive a Christian Federation, the members of which retain each his own opinions and private judgment, even in matters which concern the object of faith, even though they be repugnant to the opinions of the rest? * * * ” http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_pi11ma.htm

The Anglican Clement Walker (d. 1651) described Syncretism of the day as a “Sink and Common Sewer of all Errours.” Oxford English Dictionary.

Therefore the legal question presented by the Houston Methodist ceremonies conducted in the Catholic cathedral is this: “Does the 1928 Papal Bull still stand or was it repealed by the newer ecumenical norms?

I don’t know, but perhaps there are those out there who can answer.

A Cruce Salus

Judge Bartley

P.S. Pius XI also wrote in the same encyclical on Atheism: “in distorting the idea of true religion [eclectics] reject it, and little by little, turn aside to naturalism and atheism, as it is called; from which it clearly follows that one who supports those who hold these theories and attempt to realize them, is altogether abandoning the divinely revealed religion.

Mary Kay said...

Wish I'd said that. ;-)

douglassbartley said...

Further research reveals the following Canon Law on the question I posed:

"Can. 20 A later law abrogates, or derogates from, an earlier law if it states so expressly, is directly contrary to it, or completely reorders the entire matter of the earlier law.

A universal law, however, in no way derogates from a particular or special law unless the law expressly provides otherwise.

Can. 21 In a case of doubt, the revocation of a pre-existing law is not presumed, but later laws must be related to the earlier ones and, insofar as possible, must be harmonized with them."

Mary Kay said...

Wish I'd said that. ;-)

susan said...

DiNardo? Seriously???

I thought he was one of the good guys. Have these men with red hats never read Matt 24:45-51?

God Almighty have mercy on your poor abused flock.

douglassbartley said...

Continuation of my two most recent posts above:

Further research on the subject of the 1928 Encyclical, papal infallibility, and the principle of ex cathedra (from the chair of Peter) strongly endorses the conclusion that it was ex cathedra and therefore infallible and unchangeable.

Prayerfully,

Judge Bartley

From one source (I haven’t searched everywhere) we read:

“It should be noted, though, that Church documents may contain infallible teaching even though they make no "ex cathedra" pronouncements. In addition to the extraordinary magisterium, specifically expressed "ex cathedra" by popes and ecumenical councils, the Church also speaks infallibly through her ordinary magisterium, the teaching authority of popes and bishops who teach the unchanging Catholic Faith. Such pronouncements are more difficult to authenticate, in that they must be compared to, and found to agree with, the body of the Church's traditional teaching. Obviously, they must not contradict the ex cathedra teachings of popes and councils, or any of the teachings of immemorial tradition.

Two contrary examples by way of illustration:

1) In Mortalium animos, even though he made no ex cathedra pronouncement, Pope Pius XI exercised the Church's Ordinary Magisterium in reaffirming the single and non-negotiable nature of God's truth. Pope Pius' teaching can be seen to be consistent with the authentic teachings of the Church about this subject, going all the way back to God's direct revelations in the Old Testament.4

(2) On the contrary, the recent encyclical Ut unum sint of Pope John Paul II gives out previously defined articles of dogma as though they were up for discussion.5 Obviously, this is not the Church's Magisterium contradicting itself, but represents the current Pope's own personal opinions and errors.

In summary,[the authors say] while a papal document may contain infallible truths, the entire document is not infallible. Infallible truths are discerned by their conformity to the unchanging teachings of the Church; unless, of course, they are clearly contained in an "ex cathedra" pronouncement, in which case such discernment becomes unnecessary.” http://www.rosarychurch.net/answers/qa011996b.html

And from the 1928 enccyclical itself Pope Pius XI wrote:

“For the teaching authority of the Church, which in the divine wisdom was constituted on earth in order that revealed doctrines might remain intact for ever, and that they might be brought with ease and security to the knowledge of men, and which is daily exercised through the Roman Pontiff and the Bishops who are in communion with him, has also the office of defining, when it sees fit, any truth with solemn rites and decrees, whenever this is necessary either to oppose the errors or the attacks of heretics, or more clearly and in greater detail to stamp the minds of the faithful with the articles of sacred doctrine which have been explained. But in the use of this extraordinary teaching authority no newly invented matter is brought in, nor is anything new added to the number of those truths which are at least implicitly contained in the deposit of Revelation, divinely handed down to the Church: only those which are made clear which perhaps may still seem obscure to some, or that which some have previously called into question is declared to be of faith.” http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_pi11ma.htm

I therefore conclude that “Mortalium Animos” remains Law and will remain Law forever; and it is contradicted by Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism 137 cited above. Consequently that part of the Directory (and perhaps others) is null and void.

Unknown said...

Wait...doesn't that desecrate the cathedral?

rjh

Matthew said...

Saint Alphonsus,

Apologies! Hard to understand subtleties across the cyberworld sometimes.

ANNE said...

Things are out of control.
With all the MORTAL Sins of SCANDAL supported by or not corrected by many US Bishops (or Priests), how can the Pope or anyone expect us to evangelize?
Recent Clerical behavior makes it appear, that one Church is just as good as another - and that there are no significant differences.

Since many US Bishops do not enforce Canon 915 and Canon 1399, it appears that many of them do not believe in Transubstantiation or Sacrilege against Our Lord either.

Does anyone wonder why RELATIVISM, HERESY, and SCHISM abound within the Church?
This is why when a Faith that supports abortion, contraception, euthanasia, (or same-sex marriage) -INTRINSIC EVILS - has every right to use a Catholic Church if the Diocese Bishop says its OK.
What next a "black Mass"?

If US Bishops don't care about Scandal, why should anyone care about anything they say?
Or why should we support them financially?
Is the only way we can get their attention by withholding funds? (And yes, I know it is a Precept of the Church to provide for the needs of the Church.)
But actively supporting those who promote intrinsic evils is surely wrong.

douglassbartley said...

Mary Kay: I won't be happy unless you say "Wish I'd said that. ;-)"

Anne: You have struck at the roots of the problem.

Mike said...

Anne says what I've said for forty years. When a parish church is in the grip of modernist clergy who either themselves teach and practice heterodoxy, or pastors who fail to correct priests under them who do, and you're stuck with a bishop who either agrees with their programme or is too disinterested, lazy, or afraid to clean it up - Stop Putting Your Money In The Collection Plate.

I stopped years ago back when I still frequented NO parishes - I witnessed accordian masses, priests playing banjos, clowns, balloons, half-naked dancing, loaves of WARM black bread baked by women in the parish- I saw it all. I refused to give money to the parish, and told the priests why I would not contribute. I tried to encourage others to do the same. Unfortunately most of the Catholics in the pews simply shrugged their shoulders nervously, and Sunday after Sunday pull their wallets out and contribute.

It's been my experience that Modernism imbibed week after week, year after year, creates a kind of blind foolishness in people. I can't explain it, but I categorically refuse to finance it! My money goes to SSPX, ICRSS, and three Carmelite monasteries.

objectiv1 said...

Oh, yes, we must be tolerant, inclusive and open our arms to diversity! In fact, let's all embrace all religious beliefs in the spirit of ecumenism..............................
with one exception, of course. Don't dare try to celebrate a TLM on the premises!


(We love all except our Catholic brothers and sisters.)

Sancte Alphonsus said...

Matthew said...

Saint Alphonsus,

Apologies! Hard to understand subtleties across the cyberworld sometimes.


Not necessary, friend! I thought maybe my remarks were a little on the dry side and they were.

I look forward to the day when Rome will publicly burn the DAPNE instructions.

john said...

SSPX have left the Church too by denying the Pope his role as supreme legislator of the Church as defined in Vatican I. (Not II)

Adfero said...

John, we're not getting into the SSPX's specific situation here, but please don't spread the falsehood that they "left the Church." It just shows your ignorance.

You're either in the Church or out, there's no gray area. The SSPX faithful and priests have always been in the Church, and the bishops were out, when excommunicated. The excommunications have been lifted, therefore, they're back in the Church.

You can't be out of the boat when Peter brings you back in. And it's surely not for you to say they're not when the Church has said they're in.

This has NOTHING to do with whether their sacraments are licit or not. It's the basic fact that they're in the Church.

Presbyter said...

While something MAY happen it does not mean it MUST happen. There would have been all the difference in the world between opening the Cathedral, to let us say, the Orthodox and this travesty.
Well said, can you just imagine this "openness" to the SSPX?

Sixupman said...

A few years ago the English & Welsh Bishops' Conference issued a document stating that one could fulfil one's Sunday Duty by attendance at your local Anglican, Methodist, Free Church chapel! Life was better when Catholics were ostracised.

ANNE said...

Those who bad mouth either Form of the Mass (Ordinary or Extraordinary/aka Latin) are schismatics. Both Forms are holy.
Our Popes have spoken. End of subject.

When there are abuses of the Mass -
we must report those abuses to the appropriate Diocese Bishop, or if necessary to the US Papal Nuncio in Washington DC and the Vatican.
If we don't report abuses we become part of the problem.

No Bishop or Priest can change the Form of the Mass as stated in GIRM (General Instruction of the Roman Missal) for the Ordinary Form, or the 1962 Missal for the Extraordinary Form.
(GIRM can be found on the Vatican and USCCB web sites.)

In addition,
1) any Priest may say the Extraordinary Form of the Mass without the permission of his Bishop, it is up to the individual Priest;
2) no Bishop or Priest can discourage or prohibit anyone from receiving Holy Communion while kneeling or on the tongue at an Ordinary Form of the Mass - this is up to the individual only.

Ramadan said...

What a story. Down with this kind of thing.

Bwangi Kilonzo said...

Clearly this Church is desecrated according to church teaching