Hindu “Mass” Sparks Violent Altercation in Toronto Churchyard

Catholic Family News ^ | Cornelia R. Ferreira

[FJ290]

What was celebrated in St. Ann's in Toronto is a blasphemy and should be reported to Cardinal Arinze, immediately. Those involved in its preparation and celebration, should be brought to repentance or excommunicated.

You are so right!

[Aquinasfan]

I'll take David's example as sufficient for the purpose of proving that dancing is acceptable in the eyes of God.

I'll take David's example as sufficient for the purpose of proving that dancing is acceptable in the eyes of God, except in the Temple, since there is no biblical record of dancing in the Temple.

And since, according to you, there is no earthly authority besides Scripture, we're at an impasse.

Or maybe we should look to the Church to settle our disagreement, as Scripture instructs us.

[technochick99]

Taking pleasure in another's misfortune is anything but Christian.

My thoughts exactly. I question the fact that so many of our 'non-Catholic Christian' brothers and sisters continually attack the Catholic Church and do seem to take pleasure in our problems. I doubt Jesus is smiling at their behavior and thoughts.

I put single quotes around the above phrase so that it would stand out as a complete phrase and not be parsed apart. It would be easier to say 'protestants', but I would hate to offend anyone...

[muawiyah]

Hmmm ~ no doubt that could be an interesting discussion ~ get a couple of religious hermits out of the Jordanian desert first, then build the group from there adding a Patriarch here and a Pope there, and so forth.

However, none of that has to do anything with what God might satisfy Himself with concerning dancing.

But first, a question, are you trying to shift the discussion over to "holy ground" perhaps?

If so I don't go there. Too many people ready to make war over the concept, and places they think to be especially "sacred". Lot of bad ju-ju in that discussion.

[Aquinasfan]

I assume you are providing some of the admonitions in that regard, right? The other day we had a Freeper post what looked to be a dozen such admonitions.

I'm trying to follow the principle of "Scripture Alone." You're free to interpret them as you please, as far as I know.

Anyway, does the following seem to you like a recommendation for the private interpretation of Scripture?

2 Peter 3:16

His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

And does the Scriptural description of Christ's Church as "the pillar and foundation of truth" (or Christ's command to take our disputes "to the church") strike you as a recommendation of Luther's principle of "the Bible alone"?

Remember, there are no right or wrong answers. Just your personal interpretation.

[Antoninus]

And your point is?

What AquinasFan said. No one ever danced in the Temple. Or Or at the Last Supper. Or on Calvary.

And please, correct me if I'm wrong, but nowhere is it indicated that David did well by dancing before the Ark. Indeed, it is related that his act caused enmity between him and his first wife, to the result that he had no children with her.

2 Samuel 6:21-23--"21 And David said to Michol: Before the Lord, who chose me rather than thy father, and than all his house, and commanded me to be ruler over the people of the Lord in Israel, 22 I will both play and make myself meaner than I have done: and I will be little in my own eyes: and with the handmaid of whom thou speakest, I shall appear more glorious. 23 Therefore Michol the daughter of Saul had no child to the day of her death."

This also seems to presage the more despicable acts that David would commit later in his reign. Nowhere does it seem to be lauding his dancing before the Ark.

[technochick99]

Sounds like some of the laity are not happy with that idea. Of course that's never stopped Rome has it?!

And once the Magesterium acts, the laity will follow. The issue is that individual parishes are not allowed to go and do their own thing. That would be protestant-like.

[muawiyah]

Here's the trick, if you want to discuss Reform "issues" go talk to someone in a Reform church, e.g. Lutheran, Presbyterian, Dutch.

I don't talk for them; they don't talk for me.

[netmilsmom]

>>I question the fact that so many of our 'non-Catholic Christian' brothers and sisters continually attack the Catholic Church and do seem to take pleasure in our problems.<<

What's even more amazing is that an article about an "innovative" (in my mind, abusive) mass, is taken as the opportunity to bash the Catholic Church.

I still don't understand why this is allowed, but the mods rule.

[Aquinasfan]

But first, a question, are you trying to shift the discussion over to "holy ground" perhaps?

No, I was attempting to shift the discussion to the fundamental error of Protestantism.

If so I don't go there. Too many people ready to make war over the concept, and places they think to be especially "sacred". Lot of bad ju-ju in that discussion.

So we should shrink from battles that are worth fighting?

Regardless, the tabernacle that contains Christ's Body and Blood in the Eucharist is more hallowed ground than even the Holy of Holies.

[muawiyah]

Doesn't seem to have anything at all to do with his dancing either ~

But, back to the point, David danced. Whether he danced in a tabernacle or not that would be a relevant question and I didn't find out if he did so. On the other hand, he danced before/around, etc. the Ark.

There was no Temple at the time so it would have been quite impossible for him to dance in the Temple.

I think what we have are two different situations to discuss. One is this business of dancing in an RC church. Another is whether or not dancing is reported in the Bible to have ever occurred in a religious context.

Obviously dancing got a bad rep in the early days of Christianity when Herod was led astray by a dancing girl into chopping off John the Baptist's head. At the same time we can't know if dancing of any kind ever occurred in the earliest churches because those structures were either in India or Wales (with folks in the Mediterranean heartland continuing to use synagogues ~ according to many sources). I do not recall reading any early Christian literature that said anything one way or the other about India or Wales for that matter, but, that's where some of the first churches were as best anyone can tell.

Odds are good the folks in Inda danced while those in Wales sang in the choir.

[muawiyah]

From the onesidedness of the article we are working with it's difficult to tell if Rome cares about the situation surrounding St. Thomas' churches in India.

[muawiyah]

I'm sure it's a very meaningful discussion for you, but the only reason it even came into this thread is I asked about the RC definition of "altar" ~ how big, how high, how far around, who is allowed to do what ~ and I found remarkably little on the matter (in lay language) that was understandable.

The only reason to ask the question was because some seemed disturbed that there was what some might describe as dancing taking place in the vicinity of the altar.

[Antoninus]

Doesn't seem to have anything at all to do with his dancing either ~

Uh, yes it does. Forgive me, but I assumed you had some knowledge of the passage in question. Go here to read the whole thing:

http://www.drbo.org/chapter/10006.htm

But, back to the point, David danced.

Yes. And my point was that by dancing before the Ark, he did poorly. It was an indication of how haughty, arrogant, and sexually profligate he was already becoming.

I think what we have are two different situations to discuss. One is this business of dancing in an RC church. Another is whether or not dancing is reported in the Bible to have ever occurred in a religious context.

That it occurred is not in dispute. The point is, it was not a good thing. Similarly, there is no tradition of dance within the early Christian Church. If you can produce concrete evidence that the Syro-Malabar rite of the 1st through 4th centuries AD included dance, then by all means, do so. Otherwise, you're just operating from assumptions.

[muawiyah]

It's really difficult to imagine Indian people of any kind NOT dancing in a religious context.

[Alex Murphy]

What's even more amazing is that an article about an "innovative" (in my mind, abusive) mass, is taken as the opportunity to bash the Catholic Church. Protestants and "sola scriptura".

There - fixed it. I happen to agree with FJ290's dual assessments of this story:

- This has nothing whatsoever to do with dance.
- Sorry, but this kind of CRAP needs to be knocked off and knocked off FAST! All this does is bring scandal to the faith and causes disruption.

God forbid that a Protestant should call your attention to the obvious first. I'd have hoped more FR Catholics would have stepped up and agreed with FJ290. Apparently some of you see no need to get your own house in order.

When any of you see a "sola scriptura" church (especially ones that hold to the Westminster Confession - none of these wishy-washy liberal ones, now) allowing it's ordained ministers and staff to combine pagan Hindu rituals with their worship services, be sure to let us know about it.

[Antoninus]

It's really difficult to imagine Indian people of any kind NOT dancing in a religious context.

Sorry, but that kind of speculation doesn't hold any water with me. I need to see some primary source evidence. It's like saying: "I can't see the French of 2,000 years ago not drinking champaign and smoking cigarettes."

[Mrs. Don-o]

I think one must be very careful -- I mean very careful --- in trying to distinguish legitimate inculturation from dangerous syncretism. One can go too far in either direction.

The Church has had long experience with both, and in the long run has been protected (as Christ promised) from doctrinal error; but in the short run, priests, bishops, and even popes have made serious mistakes in terms of how to transmit the fullness of the Faith to the whole world ---to people of every language and culture --- in an effective and faithful way.

Let me digress a little to give this a wider context. Two examples: the Guadalupe experience, and the Chinese Rites controversy.

For many years the Church looked with doubt or even hostility at Mexican devotion to Our Lady of Guadalupe. The Bishop of Mexico at that time, Fray Juan Zumarraga, never mentioned the 1531 apparitions in his writings --- not even in his "Regla Christiana" of 1547. Even the scholarly Franciscan Bernardino de Sahagun, responsible for recovering the ancient Aztec codices, was reluctant to encourage devotion to Guadalupe. He feared idolatry: Tepeyac was the site where the earth goddess Tonantzin, mother of the Aztec deities, once had her temple. It was suspected (especially by the Franciscans) that Aztecs dancing, playing their flutes and drums, and bringing flower-offerings were in fact honoring Tonantzin and not Mary, the mother of Jesus Christ.

Opinions were deeply divided, and it wasn't until 135 years after the visions of Cuauhtlatoatzin (Juan Diego) that the Mexican hierarchy formally acknowledged that this was a Christian, not pagan, religious devotion.

How many failed to encounter Christ because of the Mexican hierarchy's long resistance to indigenous cultural forms?? Maybe millions. Maybe tens of millions.

Then there's the "Chinese Rites Controversy," the most disastrous setback in the history of Christian missions. Matteo Ricci, a brilliant and devout Jesuit in China in the late 1500's, built a very successful mission relating Catholicism (the Faith) with Confucism (the philosophy). It did not involve the invoking of false gods; but it did acknowledge that much of Confucian philosophy and practice --- such as the honoring of ancestors ---was based on Natural Law, and thus was compatible with Christianity and conducive to a good society and a virtuous life.

The opposition to Ricci's policies emerged from a faction of Franciscans, Dominicans, and a few Jesuits, who were deeply scandalized by the burning of incense at ancestor-shrines. They interpreted this as the worship of ancestors, but thousands of Chinese now understood it in a thoroughly Catholic way as praying for the souls of the dead. This culminated in Pope Clement XI, in 1704, issuing a Bull against Christian adherence to Confucian principles and practices.

The result? The Emperor was outraged, Christianity was banned, Westerners expelled, and China was cut off from all things Western, Catholicism and science and technology and everything, for generations.

The Roman curia finally recognized their error, and Papal Bull was lifted --- in the 1940s.

I'm not saying "accept eveything in other cultures," but equally, you can't "reject everything in other cultures." It's a careful sorting, adapting, rejecting, accepting process. As St. Paul teaches:

1 Thessalonians 5:19-22

19Quench not the Spirit.
20Despise not prophesyings.
21Examine everything;
hold fast that which is good.
22Abstain from all appearance of evil.

[netmilsmom]

When the article is about a Protestant service and the Catholic points the errors out first, you have a right to complain.

Check out how many posts came from the Usual Suspects at the top of this thread.

Like I said, I have no clue why this is allowed, but it is. The Mods rule and they allow Catholic bashing on threads that are about Catholic issues. Their turf, their rules.

[armydoc]

That's because there is only one Church. All Christians are Catholic, whether they accept that fact or not. Those Christians who are members of schismatic sects (denominations, whatever) are still part of the Body of Christ; they are, sadly, its separated members.

But non-Catholic Christians cannot have eternal life, having not eaten the Body and drank the Blood of Jesus, correct?