Woman gets ejected from National Cathedral

For preaching Christ prior to Muslim prayers.  Inside the Episcopalian National Cathedral in  Washington, D.C.

Go to the link and you can watch her disruptive behavior.   Splendidly rude.

Robert Spencer writes: “Still, the spectacle of a woman being forcibly ejected from what is ostensibly a Christian cathedral for proclaiming that Jesus Christ is Lord just before Muslim prayers are about to begin is at very least evidence that we live in strange times.”

 

 

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

22 Responses to Woman gets ejected from National Cathedral

  1. Rev22:17 says:

    Deborah,

    You wrote: For preaching Christ prior to Muslim prayers. Inside the Episcopalian National Cathedral in Washington, D.C.

    This story has completely the wrong headline and story line.

    The headline should say: “Episcopal Cathedral Hosts Moslem Prayers, Abandoning Christianity” — and it should be heralded loud and clear. I’m afraid that the presiding “bishop” and her minions are showing their true colors.

    Norm.

    • William Tighe says:

      I believe that it is an Islamic belief (or longstanding custom) that once Muslim prayers are said in a house of worship belonging to another religion, that building has been “claimed” for Islam, and that Muslim authorities are thereby “entitled” to take possession of it and turn it into a mosque whenever they are pleased (or able) to do so.

      • William Tighe says:

        I forgot to add: if such a thing were to come to pass (not that I hope it does!), I couldn’t imagine a better edifice (save, perhaps, for its sister anticathedral in New York City) for it to happen to.

      • Rev22:17 says:

        Professor Tighe,

        You wrote: I believe that it is an Islamic belief (or longstanding custom) that once Muslim prayers are said in a house of worship belonging to another religion, that building has been “claimed” for Islam, and that Muslim authorities are thereby “entitled” to take possession of it and turn it into a mosque whenever they are pleased (or able) to do so.

        Perhaps, but that belief won’t transfer legal title to the property under the present laws of the United States or its capital district. Also, if radical Moslems gain a majority and change the law to allow what you describe, the imams will simply conduct prayers surreptitiously in whatever church or other building they wish to seize.

        But the fact remains that the act constitutes sacrilege, for which the Episcopal clergy who permitted it are culpable.

        Norm.

      • John Walter S. says:

        Those silent “Moderate Muslims” may think that this is just a pleasant gesture from their Christian neighbors. But those Jihadis, you know, those Muslims who actually go out and conquer real estate for Allah, will remember this act of episcopalian charity and will find themselves entitled to it, even legally, for they have no law but Sharia.

        We shall see if this anti-Cathedral will become what, I think, the majority of churches in Europe will become in the near future, that is, a mosque.

    • John Walter S. says:

      This is the reason why when Christians invited the Caliph Umar in the year 637 after the Siege of Jerusalem, to pray in the Holy Sepulchre, Umar declined because the church may lose its status as a Christian temple.

      These episcopalians are nothing more than spiritual prostitutes who lay with strange faiths for honor of men, abandoning Jesus Christ to who we are all bound, believing Him to not be a jealous God, but a permissive one who delights in promiscuity and ignorance.

  2. John Walter S. says:

    Episcopalians are spiritual prostitutes.

    • EPMS says:

      I have attended mass at airport and military chapels that were shared by many faiths. Arriving and departing groups and clergy treated one another with courtesy and respect, and it is absurd to suggest that the Moslem groups regarded the facility as “theirs” pending the re-establishment of the Caliphate or whatever. Extending hospitality to other faiths in a Christian church is another issue, but surely it is a question to be decided by members of the denomination involved.

      • Rev22:17 says:

        EPMS,

        You wrote: I have attended mass at airport and military chapels that were shared by many faiths. Arriving and departing groups and clergy treated one another with courtesy and respect, and it is absurd to suggest that the Moslem groups regarded the facility as “theirs” pending the re-establishment of the Caliphate or whatever. Extending hospitality to other faiths in a Christian church is another issue, but surely it is a question to be decided by members of the denomination involved.

        There is a fundamental difference between a religiously neutral space such as a chapel in a prison, hospital, naval ship, or military or naval base, or on a university campus where Christian liturgy is sometimes celebrated and a consecrated sacred space that is dedicated for Christian worship.

        That said, the Moslem community on the campus of my alma mater does not use the chapel for their worship because the requirements of the Moslem faith do not permit it. Instead, they have established a separate “prayer room” in the adjacent building that also houses all of the chaplains’ offices and rooms for religious programming.

        Norm.

      • John Walter S. says:

        EPMS, I do beg my pardon if calling Episcopalians “spiritual prostitutes” seems harsh, but it is what it is; in no way will you find a reciprocal gesture from the Muslims, yea, for even in places like kneeling and crossing oneself in a museum like Hagia Sophia would be considered a faux pas, maybe not because the venerable Cathedral has been desacralized by the Muslims who once turned it into a Mosque, but because Turkey is a majority Muslim nation, thus offending them with treating the church as what it is; a church.

        In Europe, we see evidence that these Christians and their Christianity are becoming a thing of the past, and people like the Episcopalians, especially in the German-speaking world, allow it if not actively promote this decline because they have been corrupted by some secular leftist ideology. But one thing is for certain, the Muslims still hold to a vigorous faith, and their ideal world is a Muslim world, for that is what the Koran teaches, and if one more church can be turned into a mosque, then all the better, according to them.

        This is all most frustrating considering what Muslims have done to Christians in the Middle East. Yes, ISIS did violence, not all Muslims are like ISIS, but you cannot deny that the rest of the Muslim world, with Kurdish Muslims possibly being the sole exception (But see, they fight for their nation, their tribe, not their religion.) just sat and watched, if not implicit in their support of the expulsion of Christians, talking about what an outrage it was, all the while looking on as young Muslim men from all over the world depart and fight, decapitate, rape, loot, and pillage Syria and Iraq.

        And then we see this stupid Episcopalian pro-Muslim exercise and call it being charitable and compassionate and loving without any shred of respect for truth. The reason why I’d be offended even if I am not Episcopalian, is that these people claim to be Christians, but they certainly don’t treat Jesus Christ as King, even over these people who deny His Divinity, his death on the Cross, and his Resurrection, or else the Muslims would be in their church to hear why Muhammad was wrong, and that they should convert to Christianity immediately.

    • Rev22:17 says:

      John,

      You wrote: Episcopalians are spiritual prostitutes.

      Realistically, this comment is an overgeneralization. It’s certainly a fair to say this of those who enabled a Moslem prayer service to take place in their cathedral, but there are also many members, and probably even clergy, of The Episcopal Church (TEC) find this action to be intolerable and are now in the process of discerning their departure therefrom.

      Norm.

  3. EPMS says:

    JWS, I simply ask Is this your problem? A quick Google search shows that many Christian churches have made worship space available to Moslems. If one of these is yours, by all means weigh in. Otherwise, why bother? Trust me, they are not taking your input to heart. If one is trying to reach out from an evangelical perspective, insults are, IMHO, counter-productive. “You are an Episcopalian. You must be a complete moron.” Think about it.

    • Rev22:17 says:

      EPMS,

      You wrote: A quick Google search shows that many Christian churches have made worship space available to Moslems.

      How is this even remotely relevant?

      Many Christian pastors have fallen into adultery, too, but that does not give an Episcopal bishop or rector license to do so.

      I would not object to allowing a non-Christian congregation to hold services at a Christian congregation’s facilities in a location other than the Christian congregation’s worship space, such as a parish or school hall. What is not appropriate is the sanction of organized non-Christian worship in a place dedicated to Christian worship.

      Norm.

      • John Walter S. says:

        Truly, even in a Catholic campus, It seems permissible to allow Muslims to use grounds other than the church itself to use for their own purposes. Of course, I’d rather they pay for the time they use.

        If Episcopalians aren’t going to listen, what does it matter if one states the truth that they engage in spiritual promiscuity? Isn’t that akin to the whole fallacy of everyone’s opinions being all equally valid, so long as no one gets hurt, when some opinions are correct, and others are wrong? So Episcopalians are either spiritually prostituting themselves, or they are on the path to Christ, that is, to Catholicism. So far, I’ve met Episcopalians who are happy where they are in their “faith journey.” If they become Catholic, then they are neither spiritual prostitutes nor Episcopalians. Unfortunately, there are those within the Church who go the reverse, people for whom Episcopalians/Evangelicals/Lutherans ought to establish Ordinariates.

      • Rev22:17 says:

        John,

        You wrote: If Episcopalians aren’t going to listen, what does it matter if one states the truth that they engage in spiritual promiscuity? Isn’t that akin to the whole fallacy of everyone’s opinions being all equally valid, so long as no one gets hurt, when some opinions are correct, and others are wrong? So Episcopalians are either spiritually prostituting themselves, or they are on the path to Christ, that is, to Catholicism.

        First, you would do well to strike the word “Catholicism” from your vocabulary. The suffix “-ism” means “system of beliefs” — and if that system of beliefs is Christian, you should call it “Christianity” because that is what it is. The use of another word implies something different, and it leaves the rest of us wondering to what system of non-Christian belief you refer.

        Second, the decree Unitiatis redintegratio on ecumenism promulgated by the Second Vatican Council makes it very clear that the preferred approach is to heal schisms rather than to proselytize individuals who already believe in Christ and who seek the path of holiness, and thus do not lack the essential means of salvation, as this is the greater good.

        Third, what you said is a gross oversimplification of the reality. The Episcopal Church (TEC) undoubtedly has many members, including bishops and clergy, who played no role whatsoever in the decision to allow a Moslem service to take place in an Episcopal cathedral and thus bear no culpability for that act — some of whom probably are not even aware of the incident in spite of the news reports thereof. Those who are aware of it have three legitimate responses.

        >> 1. Some undoubtedly will attempt to pursue disciplinary action against those responsible within the internal structures of TEC.

        >> 2. Some undoubtedly will discern that they cannot pursue disciplinary action, but will choose to wait and see what disciplinary action, if any, comes about before making a further decision.

        >> 3. And some undoubtedly will discern that they can no longer remain in TEC and thus will begin the process of exploring other options. This discernment may happen individually, as families, as larger groups that split from a TEC parish, or as substantially intact parish communities.

        Finally, a discernment that one must leave TEC does not automatically imply that one can, or should, come into the full communion of the Catholic Church. To come into the Catholic Church, one must accept the Catechism of the Catholic Church completely and without reservation. Many members of TEC do not, and some still harbor historical prejudices — in some cases, very vehemently — against the Catholic Church. For such individuals, reception into the Catholic Church is not yet an option.

        Norm.

      • EPMS says:

        Norm, the sentence you quote IS relevant in its context. I was not arguing that this is a common solecism so who cares. Read what I said again. And, JWS, I did not say that Episcopalians are not going to listen, period. How could the Ordinariates exist if that were the case? I said that people rarely listen when you begin the conversation by insulting them. As for “reverse Ordinariates”, don’t forget that of the 50% of baptised Catholics who eventually leave the Church, half join another Christian denomination. Put another way, on average 10% of any given Christian congregation is composed of former Catholics.

      • Rev22:17 says:

        EPMS,

        You wrote: Norm, the sentence you quote IS relevant in its context. I was not arguing that this is a common solecism so who cares. Read what I said again.

        You did not answer my question. I asked HOW it is relevant, for the reason that I stated: the fact that another congregation has acted wrongly does not make it right to do so. Your comments, in both the earlier post and the most recent post, fail to explain what you perceive to be the relevance of what other congregations have done.

        You wrote: And, JWS, I did not say that Episcopalians are not going to listen, period. How could the Ordinariates exist if that were the case?

        In case you forgot, those who came into the Catholic Church to form the ordinariates asked to come into the Catholic Church of their own accord and their own free will. I have no doubt that positive relations with members of the Catholic Church probably were instrumental in this decision, but it most probably was not overt proselytizing.

        You wrote: I said that people rarely listen when you begin the conversation by insulting them.

        Yes, absolutely!

        You wrote:
        As for “reverse Ordinariates”, don’t forget that of the 50% of baptised Catholics who eventually leave the Church, half join another Christian denomination. Put another way, on average 10% of any given Christian congregation is composed of former Catholics.

        Parishes of the Anglican Communion seem to be, at least de facto, personal rather than territorial: an “Anglo-Catholic” Anglican goes to an “Anglo-Catholic” parish, an “evangelical” Anglican goes to an “evangelical” parish, etc., even if that parish is two or three towns away and there’s a closer parish of a different strain of Anglican Christianity. The majority of those who leave the Catholic Church for the Anglican Communion are most likely to land in a “high church” parish that worships in a substantially Catholic manner, and perhaps even uses the Roman Catholic liturgical books instead of the Book of Common Prayer — and this is regarded as acceptable practice within the Anglican Communion. Thus, they probably don’t perceive a need for a separate ecclesial entity to preserve Catholic tradition within the Anglican Communion.

        The other reality here, however, is that most who leave the Catholic Church to join the Anglican Communion were never really Catholic in the first place. Rather, they hold liberal views on contraception and even abortion, favor ordination of women, etc., that the Catholic Church does not tolerate.

        Norm.

      • John Walter S. says:

        EPMS, from my experience, even if they listen, they don’t like what they hear, so they destroy any charitable attempt at conversing with them. I really can’t pretend that they’re not, say, insulting the perpetual virginity of Our Lady, or that they’re denying the divine inspiration of Scriptures. I am frankly getting tired of acting the apologist to people who call themselves “Christian” only because they have a distorted view of Christ and Christianity, and then accuse me of wrongdoing.

        So, I see their wymynbishop talking about God knows what, and their national “cathedral” being occupied by Muslims, I can’t really start any statements about Episcopalians saying “Oh, what a lovely, holy group of Christians!”

        And, Rev, if a document states that some group is Christian, it doesn’t make them so, even if the Pope says they are, because it’s contrary to the reality that exists outside the presumptions of the people who wrote that document. Okay, they were baptized as Christians, I’ll give them that, but will they have lived Christian lives, and die Christians? We can’t judge what we can’t judge, like the interior of their souls, but we can see and judge the external things they say and do especially if it’s harmful to any Christian witness that says “Yes, we’re one Church.” Let’s not live in a separate reality based on intellectualism and documents. It’s a lack of practical wisdom to do so. How can any Epsicopalian correct their erroneous beliefs if no one says “You are wrong.”? It’s a whole different thing to convince them to listen after- we can be nice later- but they need some sort of catalyst, most likely a violent one, for them to have a Road to Damascus moment.

      • Rev22:17 says:

        John,

        You wrote:
        And, Rev, if a document states that some group is Christian, it doesn’t make them so, even if the Pope says they are, because it’s contrary to the reality that exists outside the presumptions of the people who wrote that document. Okay, they were baptized as Christians, I’ll give them that, but will they have lived Christian lives, and die Christians? We can’t judge what we can’t judge, like the interior of their souls, but we can see and judge the external things they say and do especially if it’s harmful to any Christian witness that says “Yes, we’re one Church.” Let’s not live in a separate reality based on intellectualism and documents. It’s a lack of practical wisdom to do so. How can any Epsicopalian correct their erroneous beliefs if no one says “You are wrong.”? It’s a whole different thing to convince them to listen after- we can be nice later- but they need some sort of catalyst, most likely a violent one, for them to have a Road to Damascus moment.

        The problem here is that Anglican dioceses and provinces are not homogenous, but rather are fairly loose federations of diverse communities united by a spirit of “live and let live” in which each congregation functions in virtual isolation from the others and the proverbial right hand seldom really knows what the left hand is actually doing, especially when the denomination’s governing bodies have not sanctioned or otherwise approved of it. And even when they do learn of irregularities in another congregation, there are pastoral assurances that they have nothing to fear because neither their pastor nor their congregation will tolerate it. There’s also a hope that the bishop, or some higher authority, will deal with the abuse in an appropriate manner, though that hope seems to be less and less well-founded.

        In this regard, it’s also instructive to look at what happens in the Catholic Church. Yes, flagrant abuses DO get corrected — but only if the bishop finds out about them. How many Catholic parishes here in the States tacitly had “altar girls” in the 1970’s, before Pope John Paul II officially authorized the practice, and simply did not schedule them to serve when the bishop came around? How many babies were “baptized” by a liberal priest saying “in the name of the Creator and the Redeemer and the Sanctifier” instead of “in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit” before — or even after — the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith published its determination that the illicit formula to be invalid? Have you left the Catholic Church over this? And if not, why do you suppose that similar abuses should give Episcopalians cause to leave their church?

        It takes time for those affected to gather information about problems such as this and to discern what their response should be. Leaving one’s denomination is not automatic. Trying to work within one’s denomination to correct the abuse is just as valid.

        Norm.

  4. EPMS says:

    In his interview with OSV, Msgr Steenson is quoted as saying “The thing we want to avoid above all else is the Ordinariate becoming a safe harbor of refuge for people who are disgruntled with their previous church experience.” The implication seems to be that evangelisation should focus on what you would be coming TO, not what you would be escaping FROM.

    • Rev22:17 says:

      EPMS,

      You wrote: In his interview with OSV, Msgr Steenson is quoted as saying “The thing we want to avoid above all else is the Ordinariate becoming a safe harbor of refuge for people who are disgruntled with their previous church experience.” The implication seems to be that evangelisation should focus on what you would be coming TO, not what you would be escaping FROM.

      Yes, but that is nothing new. It has been so from the inception of the ordinariates.

      That said, evangelization does not refer to bringing believers from one Christian denomination to another, which is properly called proselytizing. Rather, evangelization means bringing the gospel to those who do not yet believe. Here, “those who do not yet believe” may include individuals who were baptized as infants, even in the Catholic Church, but nevertheless never catechized in addition to those who are completely unchurched.

      Norm.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s