The first is not a new development. "Simultankirchen" have existed since the 16th century in parts of Germany and can still be found there and elsewhere. They are actually shared churches, not just Catholic churches rented out to Lutherans or vice versa. The rite itself, rather than the church in which it is celebrated, is either Catholic or not. The question remains whether Catholics can actively take part in non-Catholic worship without 1) breaking the first commandment of God, or 2) compromising their Catholic identity.

The second example you have given of a Catholic funeral for a non-Catholic is a Catholic rite authorized by legitimate authority, so I don't see what the problem would be.

I've already stated that I believe as much as well - however - in the interest of intellectual honesty - here's the problem with quoting Cardinal Arinze: All that he has is an opinon, just like me and everyone else.

People love to quote him as though he speaks with infalliablity. He doesn't.

everything can be reduced to opinions

That's what's called "indifferentism," and that happens to be condemned by the Church.

What is true will always be true, of course, but the enemies of Truth would be very pleased to label Truth as "opinion."

One more thing: it IS wrong to judge the state of someone's soul, but it is NOT wrong to judge their actions. In matters of sexual practice, "actions" are rarely carried out openly, so judgment should be reserved, in prudence. Flaunting is not sexual activity, any more than wearing obscenely low-cut dresses. Yes, those are signals--but they are not 'sexual activity.'

He [Cardinal Arinze] articulates the opinion that it is lawful for a Catholic musician to play for a Protestant congregation only for a special occasion, not as a regular, ongoing engagement, and when it is clearly understood as a musical performance and not active participation in worship. That's pretty restrictive.

So, did the Cardinal Bishop say something that contradicts the documents, laws, or teachings? If so, I'd like to see a citation please. My point is that you can always use the argument "it's just your opinion." That's how the 2% club gets rid of Gregorian Chant and Latin. You want to do Gregorian Chant because a church document says that's what She wants? That's just your opinion.

Calm yourself down.

He gave an opinion, which is just that. His opinion doesn't contradict anything, but neither does it have the force of law. It's his opinion.

There's nothing in the law or magisterial teaching that says that a Catholic musician can't work in a protestant church. Cardinal Arinze and I share the same opinion that, for various reasons, it should be avoided.

Were someone to ask me, as was asked here, if it's OK or not for a Catholic to do so, I would point them to the official documentation, and then I would give me opinion, at which time I would be careful to label my (and Cardinal Arinze's) opinions as just that - OPINIONS.

Now - your comparing this to the arguments to get rid of Gregorian chant is a strawman and a fallacy, since documents DO explicitly call for the inclusion of Gregorian Chant in the liturgy. There's no getting around that. That's not my or anyone else's OPINION, but FACT.

CharlesW wrote:

There you go with that medieval Latin hairsplitting again.

If distinctions between venial sins and mortal sins are only a Western concept, then why does the on-line catechism of the Moscow Patriarchate say:

Every sin, depending on its gravity, is for the soul either a small injury, a deep wound, sometimes a serious disease, or perhaps even a fatal illness.

And why does the on-line catechesis of the Orthodox Church in America say:

Not every sin requires the necessity of formal penance through sacramental ritual. This is obvious because Christians are never completely without sin. Certain grave sins or the prolonged separation from Holy Communion, however, do call for the act of sacramental penance.

These statements of Eastern Orthodox doctrine, from authoritative sources, make me question how well informed is the scoffing about "Latin hairsplitting".

Well, you say that "tolerance" is synonomous with "promotion," and I'm not sure that it always is. Certainly there are probably people who use the word in that manner in a sort of "code."

Indeed! The word doesn't need to mean promotion, but it commonly is anymore, in much the same way as "they" is a singular pronoun (as in, "everyone has a right to their own opinion"). Your use of the term in our earlier exchange clearly indicated to me that promotion is what you meant by tolerance. The fact that you accused someone of hate speech solidified that impression. If I misunderstood, I'm sorry that I jumped un-necessarily. In my defense, it was a reasonable misunderstanding.

Have we got to the point where we can discuss children trick or treating as vampires and how that is inappropriate....or did I miss that boat already?

As long as they don't sparkle, I don't have a problem with children dressing up as vampires. Or witches, trolls, goblins, etc...Frankenstein was what the tall kids all used to go as. It beats dressing up like Beyonce or Miley Cyrus.

Could applying for a Protestant position be a form of evangelization?

As someone else already mentioned, only on behalf of the employer. I'm having some issues with this currently, as I am one of those disgustingly sinful people who took a job at a Protestant church. Hey what can I say, I needed grocery money and my kids needed clothes and supplies and tuition to continue attending their private Catholic school. But yes, this can be an issue. Some people seem a little too eager to invite me and my family to attend their church functions, and I politely decline or say I have other plans. Does it make me uncomfortable? Yes. Am I so weak in my own Catholic faith that these people have a chance of pulling me in? Hell no. I've been on their side before and have no plans to return.

With regards to this thread I've mostly been



But it's gotten me to thinking about my own imperfections and the many, many others who share them. As a convert to Catholicism, I'm probably considered imperfect by all of the "cradle Catholics". I know I'm never gonna live up to those standards and I'm not interested in trying. Oh yeah, I also married a non-Catholic, go get your torches and a big stake. Hey, he wasn't all that far away, geez-o-Pete his father is a retired Episcopal priest. So he married me, a Catholic, and wants to become one now because our children are being raised in the Church. He goes to our church more often than most of its long-standing members, and also volunteers at the school and in the music ministry. Oh and we can't forget the extra fun stuff he gets to do along the way thanks to his CRAZY KNIFE-AND-CHEMICAL-THROWING-EX-WIFE! Yeah, my husband was married briefly to a woman who tried to kill him, couple of times actually. Our case is being reviewed and thanks to our priest, who informed us that an annulment for this sham of a "marriage" would not be necessary because my husband is converting, we don't have to go through the horror of contacting Crazy Psycho and all of the rest of it. It's still a long process, but we are committed to "getting right with God", or at least securing the necessary paperwork.

I also vote Republican.

Life isn't perfect, y'all...I get up every day and do the best I can do with whatever God gives me, and I just try to trust Him and keep the faith, even if things seem positively impossible.

I personally don't like the term "cradle Catholic," especially because in my area it is a term of self-deprecation or is applied in a derogatory manner, indicating that one was born to the faith, but doesn't know anything about it, and also implies a state of not really living one's faith as well. We have a lot of Protestant converts that go through RCIA, and then start spouting off that they know more than those "cradle Catholics" and how they are "more Catholic than most Catholics" because of it. It makes me wonder where they get that notion from. I prefer to state that someone was "born into the faith" instead. For converts, I prefer "returned to the faith." Nobody knows everything about the faith, and comparing oneself to others in terms of knowledge of the faith is not something Catholics do anyway. I've never had a Catholic tell me they are a "better Catholic" than I am because of some ignorance I had or some perceived superior insight they believed they had. I have, however, had Protestants tell me that they are "better Christians" than I am because of the aforementioned reasons. Long story short: we can't compare ourselves to each other by way of our faith, our knowledge of faith, or the depth of our relationship with Christ. It is a personal journey, but it is also our duty to help each other get there.

If all this time spent discussing was spent practicing... ;-)

If all this time spent discussing was spent practicing... ;-)

We don't need no stinkin' practice (PURPLE BOLD). Don't I wish...

It still makes more better reading than another thread

OHHHHH THE IRONY/HUMANITY

OHHHHH THE IRONY/HUMANITY

HA! I will grant you this one. Sometimes I type too fast for my own good!

Change the words "practice" to "rehearsal" and "game" to "mass" and this perfectly sums up the attitude of some of my paid choristers over the years.

I now approve of this thread, seeing as this page has experienced both a double negative AND an AI video!

He's talking about practice, not a game.

Since Tiller, its been downhill.

What about here?

my preferred lunch

We have a lot of Protestant converts that go through RCIA, and then start spouting off that they know more than those "cradle Catholics" and how they are "more Catholic than most Catholics" because of it. It makes me wonder where they get that notion from. I prefer to state that someone was "born into the faith" instead. For converts, I prefer "returned to the faith."

Maybe it's my naturally introverted personality, but eleven years into this I still feel as self conscious as I did the first day of RCIA sometimes. Ridiculous but true. I never thought of conversion as "returning to the faith", but in many ways that makes sense. My grandmother was Romanian Orthodox, but she stopped attending when she got married and instead went to my Methodist grandfather's church. She was very pleased when I converted and always enjoyed coming to church with us. So, I guess in some way I did return, just two generations late!

I am honestly surprised that I didn't get flamed to death for my comment here, which says a lot about the wonderful people that participate on this forum.

Seems to me that Pp Francis has it right: the Church is a hospital for sinners.

I thank God for this every day. *getting all teary and sentimental now*

The Forum Etiquette Guidelines (peace be upon them)
remind us to criticiz[sic]e errors, not people.

Since it seems difficult to distinguish the errors from the people, let's return to the original theme of this conversation: Catholics playing in Protestant churches (though it may be equally difficult to distinguish error from person).

There is absolutely no harm in playing for Protestant churches providing one is strong in one's faith, and (difficult for me) doesn't mind spending one's talent in less than the real thing, namely, Catholic liturgy. (I may even be pilloried for this last bit of spiritual bias [grant that I may be preserved from spiritual pride, or religious snobbery!].) To elaborate:

I spent 15 wonderful years (1969-1984) as choirmaster and organist at a large, historic, downtown Lutheran parish in Houston, graced with a nice 50 rank Holtkamp and a devoted choir of between 30 and 50 people at any given time. I never played, taught, or directed a piece of junk, I taught them greater respect for their liturgical heritage and music than some of their own would have, and every step of the way tried to make them more conscious of the Catholic aspects of their heritage than the evangelical Protestant influences which attracted some of them. Every step of the way I became more convinced in my own Anglo-Catholic faith and in the Anglican journey to full communion in the Catholic Church. So, the Lutherans and I were a mutual blessing to each other in that we both contributed positively to the other's 'faith journey'. And, I had one of the finest liturgical relationships with my superior, the pastor of that parish, that I have ever had anywhere. Certainly more rewarding was it than that with any Catholic priest under whom I have served (which is not at all to suggest that all the Catholic priests were awful or indifferent, just some of them), and will always remember him as one of the most loving and Christian men with whom I have ever had a working relationship. The choir did everything from plainchant to polyphony, to Vaughan Williams and Howells, as well as, of course, of all the great German composers, from Schutz, to Bach, to Brahms, Mendelssohn, and Distler, et al. The church had a 24 bell carillon which I taught eager schoolboys how to play. On great feasts our choirs were supplemented with brass quartets and kettle drums from the Houston symphony. (And, between services I would send them high up into the tower to play Gabrieli and such for the whole neighbourhood!) We never did awful hymnody, and the people sang gloriously whatever was put before them. I continue to have no doubt that our Lord God heard their (our) praises and was pleased with them. Once in a while I was disappointed when we had to do a 'made-up' service instead of The Liturgy, but even then, it was tasteful. One cannot say this much about many Catholic parishes, nor, of course, would this be universal in the Protestant world, Lutheran or otherwise. The over-riding point in all this is that this was a positive faith experience both for me and my Lutheran friends. Only for a very brief period at the very beginning did I think twice about becoming one of them. But, never, really, for an instant, did I think that I would ever be anything, ultimately, other than a Roman Catholic with an Anglican heritage. And, somehow through it all, I truly believed that, somehow, an Anglican entity of some description would come to pass in the Catholic Church. I am grateful for those years, which were richly rewarding musically, liturgically, spiritually, and developmentally.

And so may it be for some others who find themselves in Protestant relationships. We can all be so very, very, thankful that the XVIth and XVIIth centuries with all their mutual hatreds and slaughterings are behind us. We can be human to one another, share our faith, and even enrich one another without compromising our own spiritual realities. The most difficult aspect that I could envision for some would be the pain, the angst, of preparing all that wonderful music and not gracing the mass with it. That can hurt. And, that is a very sad statement about liturgy in our own very imperfect Church! So, think of your Protestant services not as a stand-in for the mass, but, say, as a form of matins or vespers - maybe high-morning prayer or a form of evensong. (And! You never know: they just might be more appreciative of Latin and incense than many Catholics.)

Where you are located is relevant to where you can work. A large city will have many churches, of course, so your choices are greater than in a small place. I can remember when there were three Catholic churches in my city. To work in one of them required waiting for someone to retire or pass on. There were and are plenty of Protestant churches. If you want or need to work in music, a Catholic parish may not be available.

I haven't worked in a Protestant church for more than 15 years. But I don't worry so much about any of that anymore. I figure if popes and cardinals can make a career of kissing Protestant butt, who am I to judge? Take the money, if you need it. There are many worse things you could do for a living. YMMV.

I figure if popes and cardinals can make a career of kissing Protestant butt, who am I to judge? Take the money, if you need it. There are many worse things you could do for a living.

It's been announced that the current occupant of St. Peter's chair will be leading non-Catholic worship next year to mark the 500th anniversary of the so-called Reformation. As an atheist friend of mine commented, "I often get the feeling with this pope that he's playing for the other team." Sure, the historical circumstances are different today than they were under Nero, Diocletian, or Elizabeth I, but is the lack of open persecution and martyrdom enough to justify common worship with non-Catholics? I daresay most Catholic musicians who are willing to perform for Protestant services would do similarly for Unitarians, Mormons, or Jews. If mosques or the temples of the various eastern religions had need of professional organists or choirs, perhaps they would also consider this work unobjectionable. If not, they should ask themselves whether the sacrilegious and invalid administration of sacraments might not be objectively more offensive to the Holy Trinity than prayers to a false deity. I consider this a serious matter meriting serious discussion, not flippant dismissal.