“Requiem Mass: A Queer Divine Rite” will have its San Francisco premiere on Nov. 16 & 17 at Grace Cathedral. The piece is an evening-length choral work by singer-composer Holcombe Waller, created to honor those who have suffered persecution due to their sexual orientation or gender expression. “Requiem Mass” is presented by Yerba Buena Center for the Arts in collaboration with Grace Cathedral’s Ghiberti Foundation.
“‘Requiem Mass: A Queer Divine Rite’ is a radical appropriation of a European, patriarchal tradition, the formal Latin Mass, which we reinterpret through the lens of the marginalized LGBTQ experience,” Holcombe Waller told the Bay Area Reporter. “In many ways, the result is like an alternate universe in which the millennia of queer leadership in communities of faith have been out all along, shining their example of loving equity across all people. This is what the piece seeks to dream into being.”
Waller said that it was the Mormon and Catholic Churches’ support for Proposition 8, the California ballot measure of a decade ago that sought to define marriage as between one man and one woman, that inspired him to create the work.
Read the rest here.
Yet again, I will ask the question. Why in His name do we still recognize the baptisms of these pagans?
The 4th Century Science of St Macrina (II)
7 hours ago
8 comments:
I think you're unfair to the pagans. Paganism would be an improvement.
Is this the same Episcopal Church that did that feminist Beyonce mass?
John, Are you suggesting that the efficacy of a Sacrament depends on the worthiness of the server?
"John, Are you suggesting that the efficacy of a Sacrament depends on the worthiness of the server?"
No, he appears to be suggesting that "the sacraments" of a body that is fundamentally non-Christian or apostate in its belief and practice should be treated as "invalid" (or "graceless") by "the Church." I further assume that he would regard The Episcopal Church as "apostate;" and I would go on to point out the (Roman) Catholic Church some years ago decided to treat Mormon baptism as "invalid" (previously a matter of debate among Catholic theologians, and not thitherto always treated by the Catholic Church as invalid) and so needing to be conferred unconditionally upon Mormon converts to Catholicism, despite the fact that the Mormons confer baptisms "in the name of the Father, in the name of the Son, and in the name of the Holy Spirit" - note the threefold use of the word "name" - because the Triadology underlying it is fundamentally (in its view) non-Christian.
At what point? I ask because I was baptized by the Episcopal Church some years ago - with water & in the name of the Father, in the name of the Son and in the name of the Holy Ghost. I have been taught that is sufficient to make it valid baptism.
Yes, I agree that the current version of the Episcopal Church is very probably apostate. It is certainly a bit loose about the lordship of Jesus Christ. I won't go near the place, but does that invalidate everything that it ever did?
I am familiar with the arguments surrounding Mormon baptism.
In general, the Orthodox Church teaches that there are no sacraments outside the Church. That said we have always noted that there are degrees of error and that often heterodox beliefs and practices are "close enough" that whatever defects their baptisms may have can be repaired through the mystery of Holy Chrismation, thus negating the need for an Orthodox baptism. In general this has been the attitude of most (though not all) of the local Orthodox churches with respect to Roman Catholics and confessional mainline Protestants.
And until the last couple of decades, I think that has been a fairly acceptable attitude. Unfortunately many of the so called "mainline Protestant" communities have gone completely off the rails theologically, to the point where we no longer know what, if anything they teach firmly that is still Christian. In the case of the Episcopal Church, they have reached the point where I don't believe they can be called Christian anymore. Exactly where the line should be drawn, before which their baptisms should be accepted as "close enough," and after which we should insist on baptizing converts is above my pay grade. But I do feel very strongly that current and very recent baptisms from them and a few other mainline denominations, should not be accorded the former presumption of being good enough.
With respect to what the Roman Catholic Church holds, its ecclessiology, especially relating to baptism, has evolved rather dramatically over the centuries and is far more inclusive that what the Orthodox Church teaches. The bottom line however is that if you were baptized more than twenty years ago, and your priest said it's good enough, then I don't think you need worry. The Episcopalians were not always nuts.
I may be be griping, but the final decision for these things rests with your bishop and spiritual father.
The Episcopal "Church" currently allows any number of formulae in their respective Baptismal services. And even if a priest baptizes, he or she may use whatever he or she feels like. Thus, there is no way to certainly know whether a would-be convert from the ECUSA was baptized according to the dictates of our Lord. Unless the convert can produce a witness or the priest who can attest that the baptism was done in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, I think it is best just to go ahead and rebaptize. It's definitely not an optimal solution but better to err on the side of caution. This same situation should also apply to converts from the Methodist and the ELCA both of whom also have some whacked-out priests who insist on using their own Trinitarian formulae and rites.
Post a Comment