I think that converting a deconsecrated church into a mosque in some ways makes more sense than converting it into a condo or restaurant, insofar as it will still remain devoted to the worship of God and thus retain some of its sacred character. I don't mean to be relativist here, but if we acknowledge Islam as an Abrahamic religion and agree with Nostra Aetate that we worship the same one, true, merciful God, then this almost seems more consistent with its past as a church than a secular use. Of course, this is all dependent on Canon law, pastoral considerations, and the behavior of the buyer, which the bishop and his staff are surely more informed about than I, loudmouth internet commenter.
“The Church has also a high regard for the Muslims. They worship God, who is one, living and subsistent, merciful and almighty, the Creator of heaven and earth."
Your subjective rebuttal - attributing ignorance to- can be debated more rigorously with Kurt or perhaps an academic like Very Rev. Ronald Witherup PSS STD PhD, who writes in his spiritual-pastoral reading of Galatians (p.67 on Abraham): “Abraham is one of the most important figures from the OT. Considered today the father of THREE monotheistic faiths (Judaism, Christianity, ISLAM), Abraham was already a model of upright religious belief in OT times.”
Paulist Press; ISBN 978-0-8091-5403-6
Copyright 2020 by Ronald D. Witherup
Galatians: Life in the New Creation - A Spiritual-Pastoral Reading
I agree that there are worse uses for a deconsecrated Church than becoming a Mosque, but it’s still sad. And an indictment on us and our rubbish ability to evangelise, God has no grandchildren.
A good general point, but at the risk of being Chauvinistic about my forebearers, it was downtown German Catholic church. The German immigrants built solid, well designed churches. And that same industriousness led them to financial security and the opportunity to move to better neighborhoods than those of when they first arrived. The result is a lot of well build churches in downtown areas whose congregation relocated.
I hope I posted this with appropriate humility. :)
“The Church has also a high regard for the Muslims. They worship God, who is one, living and subsistent, merciful and almighty, the Creator of heaven and earth."
Nice. If one reads Nostra Aetate in its fullness, one sees that the sections regarding other religions are encyclopedic, simply making statements on what they believe, not theological endorsements (see: Hindus, Buddhists, etc. all listed as well).
The sentence you pulled out would be more accurately presented like “To the Muslims, they worship Allah, who they claim is One…” and so on.
We do not worship the same God, because Jesus is the God of Abraham, and the Muslims do not believe Jesus is God. The muslims believe god is One-in-One, when Christians understand that God is Triune. Unless, of course, you also believe Jesus is not God, the Holy Spirit doesn’t exist, and that the Trinity isn’t real.
And just think for two seconds: if we actually do worship the same God, why would Islam violently set itself against “infidel” Christianity from its conception?
But yes, your one “gotcha” quote from one document (which is not in context and presented contrary to what the Council Fathers intended) somehow invalidates 2,000 years of Christian and Islamic theological thought.
A mosque can become a Cathedral. The most famous example is probably the magnificent structure in Cordoba. It is very obviously a mosque with a Catholic bit in the centre and it would take very little time to recovert it.
All manner of buildings can be converted to churches. My favourite is the Catholic Church in Tewkesbury, about 110 miles west of London, which used to be the telephone exchange. The original Tewkesbury Abbey is stunning, but Henry VIII arranged a transfer of ownership.
Yes, there are scores of buildings that are nearly two millennia in age that are now churches in Europe. They have to undergo rites to be consecrated as churches.
What are you smoking? The only reason Hagia Sophia became a mosque is because Constantinople fell to an army of Muslim invaders who then sacked the city, killed the Christians and impressed the remainder into second-class servitude, and forcibly tore down all Christian symbolism within it.
There was no Christian leader who was like “oh hey, let’s just give Hagia Sophia to the Muslims for their false worship!”
No, Hagia Sophia cannot become a mosque. The “circumstances” were conquest and a forcible suppression of the Christian Faith.
@Matthew K Michels, I think @Matthew and I both made the point that Hagia Sophia was converted to a mosque by conquest, he by implication and I explicitly. But note that neither of us did it by being rude to @Bridget.
You probably need to upgrade your reading skills and definitely your manners.
I am so completely tired and disgusted by the ongoing degradation of our faith by those consecrated to lead us. The muslim world taking our previously consecrated churches (Hagia Sophia sp?) etc brings my own militant alarm to rise. My participation in the NEC has exhibited to those in attendance the POWER of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist. Many good Bishops were in attendance, wolves also. WE are a mighty army in obedience to our sovereign Lord, Jesus Christ. We are not yet prepared for a new crusade; the time draws near.
Yeah, it stinks to lose a beautiful Church, and it's a questionable (at best) decision to sell it to an Islamic group. But frankly, if Catholics from all states of life cared as much about practicing and handing on the Faith as they do about preserving "historical buildings", this would be a non-issue.
I say that, having had multiple assignments of 4-6 parishes, with every attempt to consolidate buildings, ministries, etc. being met with all manner of vitriol. So, I'm not particularly sympathetic to the cause here.
"if Catholics from all states of life cared as much about practicing and handing on the Faith as they do about preserving "historical buildings", this would be a non-issue."
This is a good point. I think we can care about both. It pains me to think of how previous generations sacrificed to erect these beautiful buildings out of love and respect for their Catholic faith. It may not be feasible to maintain them, but we can do better.
Especially when it's these beautiful old churches, because we all know (for whatever reasons one wants to pin it on) the church has been all but incapable of building to that standard of beauty for going on 60 years with few (not none, but few) signs for hope.
I’ve always found that the most vocal opponents to closing a church, and the most ardent defenders of a “we can raise funds and save our church” effort, are also the ones who were least involved in the parish and the least financially supportive. All the people who actually give significantly of their money/time/efforts/resources all tend to see the writing on the wall. It’s the ones who never did anything that think one fundraising campaign can change a perpetually-running-a-deficit parish, or that standing in front of bulldozers on the last day is going to reverse several levels of decision-making.
When the diocese is falling apart with massive abandoned property liabilities, endless lawsuits, and looming bankruptcy…getting $250k for a disused property in a depopulated neighborhood probably looks a lot like Providence.
Doesn't the pillar have a network of canon lawyers they can just send up the bat signal for? For questions like this. Just text the "group of 12" or whatever you get, send them a simple quetion like "is this a "sordid use"?" then you can tell us--9 out of 12 canonists agree, this is not sordid. should be quick and I'm sure you have a dozen canon lawyer friends who would text back in 10 minutes. maybe send them a pillar t-shirt if they reply 10 times =)
Handing over/selling a church for a secular use is bad enough. Doing so to a false religion for false worship is an abomination against God. There is no way whatsoever to square this with Apostolic Tradition. Unacceptable. Full stop.
Even selling a church property for a “secular use” like conversion to a microbrew hall is terrible, because it’s a sacrilege against the physical edifice, the sacramentalized remnants of which become abused in the new context. Like the former monastery in France that was turned into a boutique hotel… a French spokeswoman was giving a tour to a documentary crew, and when she approached a small clerestory window (part of a converted guest room), with the Mariam “AM” cipher, she told the production crew “in this window are the letters A and M, which we think might be the initials of the person who designed or built this building, but we’ll never be able to know for sure.”
Hindu or Muslim false worship in a Catholic Church? That is an abomination, and offense to the One True Godhead. Inshallah brother, I would rather place the dynamite myself in St. Patrick’s Cathedral and blow the place to smithereens than let statues of the false god Vishnu receive incense within it, I would personally burn down Notre Dame again than let the Islamic Adhan called out from the belfry.
To ensure that 'sordid use' never apply, I think the diocese should demolish the structure prior to selling the property. For longtime residents of that area or former parish, the building will always be "St. XXXX", regardless of who the current owner or occupant is.
I think that converting a deconsecrated church into a mosque in some ways makes more sense than converting it into a condo or restaurant, insofar as it will still remain devoted to the worship of God and thus retain some of its sacred character. I don't mean to be relativist here, but if we acknowledge Islam as an Abrahamic religion and agree with Nostra Aetate that we worship the same one, true, merciful God, then this almost seems more consistent with its past as a church than a secular use. Of course, this is all dependent on Canon law, pastoral considerations, and the behavior of the buyer, which the bishop and his staff are surely more informed about than I, loudmouth internet commenter.
Great point! In faith we are both sons/children of Abraham.
That simply isn't true friend. Muhhamadism requires a rejection of God as He is in favor of a false god loosely based on the true God.
“The Church has also a high regard for the Muslims. They worship God, who is one, living and subsistent, merciful and almighty, the Creator of heaven and earth."
--- Nostra Aetate
Premised upon their ignorance, that is indeed possible. What their religion actually teaches about god is incompatible with the true God however.
I'm sticking with Catholic teaching over your opinion.
Is the being that commands rape and murder God or a demon?
Your subjective rebuttal - attributing ignorance to- can be debated more rigorously with Kurt or perhaps an academic like Very Rev. Ronald Witherup PSS STD PhD, who writes in his spiritual-pastoral reading of Galatians (p.67 on Abraham): “Abraham is one of the most important figures from the OT. Considered today the father of THREE monotheistic faiths (Judaism, Christianity, ISLAM), Abraham was already a model of upright religious belief in OT times.”
Paulist Press; ISBN 978-0-8091-5403-6
Copyright 2020 by Ronald D. Witherup
Galatians: Life in the New Creation - A Spiritual-Pastoral Reading
Yet muhhamamad's faith is quite different from that of Abraham.
I agree that there are worse uses for a deconsecrated Church than becoming a Mosque, but it’s still sad. And an indictment on us and our rubbish ability to evangelise, God has no grandchildren.
A good general point, but at the risk of being Chauvinistic about my forebearers, it was downtown German Catholic church. The German immigrants built solid, well designed churches. And that same industriousness led them to financial security and the opportunity to move to better neighborhoods than those of when they first arrived. The result is a lot of well build churches in downtown areas whose congregation relocated.
I hope I posted this with appropriate humility. :)
Have we truly lost all sense of the transcendent? Have we really become so blinded by the material? Have we become total universalists?
No, handing off a church (“deconsecrated” or not) to false worship of false gods of a false religion is the WORST possible option.
If Notre Dame were up for sale to Muslims, brother I would personally set fire to it myself.
According to the teachings of the Catholic Church, Muslims worship the same God as we do, the God of Abraham.
that is not correct.
“The Church has also a high regard for the Muslims. They worship God, who is one, living and subsistent, merciful and almighty, the Creator of heaven and earth."
--- Nostra Aetate
Nice. If one reads Nostra Aetate in its fullness, one sees that the sections regarding other religions are encyclopedic, simply making statements on what they believe, not theological endorsements (see: Hindus, Buddhists, etc. all listed as well).
The sentence you pulled out would be more accurately presented like “To the Muslims, they worship Allah, who they claim is One…” and so on.
We do not worship the same God, because Jesus is the God of Abraham, and the Muslims do not believe Jesus is God. The muslims believe god is One-in-One, when Christians understand that God is Triune. Unless, of course, you also believe Jesus is not God, the Holy Spirit doesn’t exist, and that the Trinity isn’t real.
And just think for two seconds: if we actually do worship the same God, why would Islam violently set itself against “infidel” Christianity from its conception?
But yes, your one “gotcha” quote from one document (which is not in context and presented contrary to what the Council Fathers intended) somehow invalidates 2,000 years of Christian and Islamic theological thought.
Nice of you to edit the Church's official statements for her. Might you start next on correcting the Bible?
Amen
Can a Roman temple (Pantheon) become a church?
A mosque can become a Cathedral. The most famous example is probably the magnificent structure in Cordoba. It is very obviously a mosque with a Catholic bit in the centre and it would take very little time to recovert it.
All manner of buildings can be converted to churches. My favourite is the Catholic Church in Tewkesbury, about 110 miles west of London, which used to be the telephone exchange. The original Tewkesbury Abbey is stunning, but Henry VIII arranged a transfer of ownership.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosque%E2%80%93Cathedral_of_C%C3%B3rdoba
Yes, there are scores of buildings that are nearly two millennia in age that are now churches in Europe. They have to undergo rites to be consecrated as churches.
Ha! Nice one. That joke flew over a few heads
Actually, the Parthenon was also used as a church for many centuries, and Hagia Sofia became a mosque. People are out of control!!!!!
"I tell you, on the day of judgment people will render an account for every careless word they speak." Mt 12:36
Clearly, you are foreshadowing judgment for someone. Do you think you have an infallible read on what Christ will find reprehensible?
No, reason is the first casualty of your comments.
Everyone who sits on the judgment throne of God in the place of God will in fact be miserable there.
I think I’ve been there… lotta statues.
> Can a church become a mosque?
My first thought is the Hagia Sophia, which seems like the prototypical example of the circumstances in which a church can become a mosque.
Hagia Sophia is a situation that makes me sad. Lord have mercy.
Except Hagia Sophia was the cathedral of Constantinople until it was conquered by the Turks. The cases aren't equivalent.
This was the voluntary sale of a former church to the Muslims. Not a good look, in my opinion.
For context, I think that Islam, not wokeism, political correctness, Russia, the United States, or the EU is the principal adversary in this world
What are you smoking? The only reason Hagia Sophia became a mosque is because Constantinople fell to an army of Muslim invaders who then sacked the city, killed the Christians and impressed the remainder into second-class servitude, and forcibly tore down all Christian symbolism within it.
There was no Christian leader who was like “oh hey, let’s just give Hagia Sophia to the Muslims for their false worship!”
No, Hagia Sophia cannot become a mosque. The “circumstances” were conquest and a forcible suppression of the Christian Faith.
@Matthew K Michels, I think @Matthew and I both made the point that Hagia Sophia was converted to a mosque by conquest, he by implication and I explicitly. But note that neither of us did it by being rude to @Bridget.
You probably need to upgrade your reading skills and definitely your manners.
> because Constantinople fell to an army of Muslim invaders
That is my point but perhaps I was being too subtle.
No your point was clear and well phrased.
I am so completely tired and disgusted by the ongoing degradation of our faith by those consecrated to lead us. The muslim world taking our previously consecrated churches (Hagia Sophia sp?) etc brings my own militant alarm to rise. My participation in the NEC has exhibited to those in attendance the POWER of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist. Many good Bishops were in attendance, wolves also. WE are a mighty army in obedience to our sovereign Lord, Jesus Christ. We are not yet prepared for a new crusade; the time draws near.
Praise be Jesus Christ!
NOW AND FOREVER.
Yeah, it stinks to lose a beautiful Church, and it's a questionable (at best) decision to sell it to an Islamic group. But frankly, if Catholics from all states of life cared as much about practicing and handing on the Faith as they do about preserving "historical buildings", this would be a non-issue.
I say that, having had multiple assignments of 4-6 parishes, with every attempt to consolidate buildings, ministries, etc. being met with all manner of vitriol. So, I'm not particularly sympathetic to the cause here.
"if Catholics from all states of life cared as much about practicing and handing on the Faith as they do about preserving "historical buildings", this would be a non-issue."
This is a good point. I think we can care about both. It pains me to think of how previous generations sacrificed to erect these beautiful buildings out of love and respect for their Catholic faith. It may not be feasible to maintain them, but we can do better.
Especially when it's these beautiful old churches, because we all know (for whatever reasons one wants to pin it on) the church has been all but incapable of building to that standard of beauty for going on 60 years with few (not none, but few) signs for hope.
I’ve always found that the most vocal opponents to closing a church, and the most ardent defenders of a “we can raise funds and save our church” effort, are also the ones who were least involved in the parish and the least financially supportive. All the people who actually give significantly of their money/time/efforts/resources all tend to see the writing on the wall. It’s the ones who never did anything that think one fundraising campaign can change a perpetually-running-a-deficit parish, or that standing in front of bulldozers on the last day is going to reverse several levels of decision-making.
> every attempt to consolidate
The early stages of consolidation of my parish and its neighboring parish looked like something St Paul should have written a letter about.
I'd heard about what the Cathedral of Our Lady of Lourdes looked like prior to Bishop Daily, but I didn't realize it was because of Cupich!
When the diocese is falling apart with massive abandoned property liabilities, endless lawsuits, and looming bankruptcy…getting $250k for a disused property in a depopulated neighborhood probably looks a lot like Providence.
The problem is that this mindset just translates to “I care about finances and money more than avoiding sacrileges.”
Doesn't the pillar have a network of canon lawyers they can just send up the bat signal for? For questions like this. Just text the "group of 12" or whatever you get, send them a simple quetion like "is this a "sordid use"?" then you can tell us--9 out of 12 canonists agree, this is not sordid. should be quick and I'm sure you have a dozen canon lawyer friends who would text back in 10 minutes. maybe send them a pillar t-shirt if they reply 10 times =)
That sounds more like a Canon Lawyer fight club than a push poll…
Handing over/selling a church for a secular use is bad enough. Doing so to a false religion for false worship is an abomination against God. There is no way whatsoever to square this with Apostolic Tradition. Unacceptable. Full stop.
Even selling a church property for a “secular use” like conversion to a microbrew hall is terrible, because it’s a sacrilege against the physical edifice, the sacramentalized remnants of which become abused in the new context. Like the former monastery in France that was turned into a boutique hotel… a French spokeswoman was giving a tour to a documentary crew, and when she approached a small clerestory window (part of a converted guest room), with the Mariam “AM” cipher, she told the production crew “in this window are the letters A and M, which we think might be the initials of the person who designed or built this building, but we’ll never be able to know for sure.”
Hindu or Muslim false worship in a Catholic Church? That is an abomination, and offense to the One True Godhead. Inshallah brother, I would rather place the dynamite myself in St. Patrick’s Cathedral and blow the place to smithereens than let statues of the false god Vishnu receive incense within it, I would personally burn down Notre Dame again than let the Islamic Adhan called out from the belfry.
To ensure that 'sordid use' never apply, I think the diocese should demolish the structure prior to selling the property. For longtime residents of that area or former parish, the building will always be "St. XXXX", regardless of who the current owner or occupant is.
You can’t have a TLM in this parish, but you can have a Muslim religious ceremony. What a sick Church we have right now.
“Preferable to “sordid use,” the congregation emphasized, would be “demolition of the edifice.””
Exactly. A controlled burn would be ideal, rather than the profane use these buildings have been put to.
Our Lord can’t come too soon.
Kýrie, eléison
Christe, eléison
Kýrie, eléison.