Skip to comments.Detroit archbishop: supporters of same-sex ‘marriage’ should not receive Communion
Posted on 04/09/2013 8:03:56 PM PDT by Morgana
DETROIT, April 9, 2013 (LifeSiteNews) Archbishop Allen Vigneron on Sunday told the Detroit Free Press that Catholic supporters of same-sex marriage should not present themselves to receive Communion.
For a Catholic to receive holy Communion and still deny the revelation Christ entrusted to the church is to try to say two contradictory things at once: I believe the church offers the saving truth of Jesus, and I reject what the church teaches, said the archbishop. In effect, they would contradict themselves. This sort of behavior would result in publicly renouncing one's integrity and logically bring shame for a double-dealing that is not unlike perjury.
In an email to CNN, Archdiocese spokesman Joe Kohn elaborated on Vignerons remarks: The archbishop's focal point here is not gay marriage; it is a Catholics reception of Holy Communion, he explained. If a Catholic publicly opposes the church on a serious matter of the churchs teaching, any serious matter for example, whether it be a rejection of the divinity of Christ, racist beliefs, support for abortion or support for redefining marriage that would contradict the public affirmation they would make of the church's beliefs by receiving Communion.
Both the archbishop and his spokesman said the Church and its pastors stand ready to help Catholics understand and avoid this crisis of faith.
Archbishop Vignerons comments followed a blog post by Edward Peters, professor of canon law at Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit and adviser to the Vatican, who wrote March 27, Catholics who promote same-sex marriage act contrary to [church law] and should not approach for holy Communion they also risk having holy Communion withheld from them being rebuked and/or being sanctioned under [church law] for gravely injuring good morals.
The two church leaders comments show a remarkable shift toward orthodoxy for the Detroit Archdiocese, which hadhomosexual activist Thomas Gumbleton as its auxiliary bishop until he was forced by the Vatican to retire in 2006. Gumbleton, who has said he was sexually abused by a Catholic priest in his youth, once famously said of homosexuals, homosexual people are not disordered people. They are psychologically healthy people. ... Homosexuals are as healthy as anyone else.
Gumbleton was affiliated with numerous gay activist organizations such as the Triangle Foundation, the Rainbow Sash Movement, and New Ways Ministry, SHARE, and Call to Action. In 1995 he received the Call to Action leadership award.
In contrast, Archbishop Vigneron told a news conference last month that if Catholic leaders were to abandon their teaching against homosexuality, we would be like physicians who didnt tell their patients that certain forms of behavior are not really in their best interest.
It is unclear whether the archbishop intends to deny communion to public proponents of same-sex marriage, or whether he will rely on offenders to stay out of the Communion line of their own accord. Calls to the archdiocese seeking clarification were not immediately returned.
Catholic teaching says that those who receive Communion while in serious conflict with the Church are guilty of mortal sin.
In the early 90s, I made a number of complaints about liturgical abuses to appropriate authorities including the Archbishop. There was either no response or a very unsatisfactory response. I don’t know that I’ll be going down that road again.
I’m not sure whether the archbishop knows about this situation or not, though this man (the Communion minister) has been on CNN in regards to the Boy Scouts controversy. This situation with him acting as a communion minister has been okayed by the past two pastors, though like I said, I think it’s giving scandal. Many people at Mass struggle with many sins, but they’re not open about it like this guy.
The Biblical explanation to your verse (in the same chapter if you bother to keep reading)...
John 6:58 “This is that bread which came down from heaven: NOT as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.”
Jesus wasn’t talking about a physical eating of his “flesh” like their ancestors did with manna (like some of the people initially thought). This “eating” is belief through faith.
The key to your understanding is you are putting your faith in CATHOLIC theologians. There are plenty of other theologians who disagree with those, so the question becomes who is right?
Well the key to that is 1) being saved and having the Holy Spirit to guide you and 2) studying the Bible yourself.
Another simpler understanding of “to loose or bind” one relates to Jewish Priests who could “loose or bind” people brought before them for breaking any number of the minor laws constructed to uphold the greater laws. An example of this was sabbath laws. A person could be brought before a priest for say walking farther then a “sabbath mile” on the sabbath and the priest could hear the person out and decide if the reason the person gave was good enough to “loose” them from the consequences or “bind” them to it.
This authority to “loose” or “bind” was given to all of Jesus’s diciples who would lead the first Christian churches and it was about setting up minor church rules and the ability for the church leaders to flexibility in enforcing those rules.
So if I agree to my church’s rule of not playing cards, but someone finds me playing cards, the church can discipline me or not based on what they find out and Christ will honor that decision as being just in Heaven EVEN though there isn’t anything in the Bible against playing cards.
IF that verse meant that a mortal could interfere with someoneelses salvation then that would contradict so many scriptures which say things like: “WHOSOEVER calls upon the name of the Lord SHALL be saved.” Romans 10:13
Salvation doesn’t come through a physical consumption of communion, it comes through repentance and faith.
You are wrong on two counts.
One the Catholic catechism states in different places that the Catholic Church is “necessary for salvation” and that the sacrament of the Eucharist is “necessary for salvation.” It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that the Catholic Church believes that by preventing someone from taking THERE communion that they are denying that person something “NECESSARY” for salvation. These acts are done by mortal men.
Two, the Law is not necessary for salvation.
Gal. 2:21 “I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness [come] by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.”
Rom. 3:28 “Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.”
Christ frequently and naturally referenced Jewish traditions and metaphors. He is now the Living Bread in the Eucharist. The Eucharist (Holy Communion) is taken only after repentance and forgiveness by those to whom that authority was given. Christ told the lepers to first go show themselves to the High Priests. Leprosy was a metaphor for sins of the flesh.
Do you condemn all the tribes of Judaism to hell as well? Are you God?
The thing I found interesting in your post is you claim that Catholic theology is full of “common sense and reason.”
Common sense and reason wouldn’t on one hand say something like “the (Catholic) church is NECESSARY for salvation” and then spend paragraphs and books trying to explain how it wouldn’t be necessary. If something is NECESSARY then that’s the end of it. If there are other ways around it, then it obviously isn’t NECESSARY.
I have spent plenty of years trying to make sense of the Catholic web of doctrines and they are neither simple nor do they as a whole make sense, specifically if you believe the Bible to be the Word of God/final authority.
Also if it were clear then I could get a simple “yes” or “no” to a simple question, but instead I get retorts to things I didn’t say and paragraph quotes from non-biblical sources trying to get around what the Catholic catechism states as necessary.
I know that the Catholic church believes that through some kind of time warp/magic act by the priest that their Eucharist/communion becomes the actual flesh and blood of Christ. THAT belief is based on an idea that a person needs to physically eat Jesus. That’s the same misconception documented in John, that’s barbaric, and it contradicts many other parts of Scripture.
Now I agree that during the rememberance of communion should be taken seriously and repentance is good to do before partaking, but recall that Jesus is now our Chief Priest and we can go to him and confess our sins, we don’t need to go to a priest to do that.
Why do you think I think a person doesn’t need Jesus? I never said such a thing.
As to the question of what did Jesus fulfill, he fulfilled the law. Now do you think that Jesus fulfilling the law is what saves you or do you think that by you TRYING to fulfill the law will add anything to saving your soul?
All of the righteous where in a place in “Hell” referred to as “Paradise” and Abrahams bossom. You can see this referenced in the parable of Lazarus and the rich man. However after Christ died he went to “Hell” to witness to the lost and to take the righteous to Heaven. (Ephesians 4:8-10 and 1 Peter 3:18-20)
No, I’m obviously not God and I don’t condemn anyone. A persons sins will condemn them if they don’t repent and accept Christ as their savior.
It was not “my” claim-—it is G. K. Chesterton’s claim—and he is known for the man with the most “Common Sense” in the 20th Century-—noted by C.S. Lewis-—and other geniuses.
go to 5:20 Everyone should know about GK Chesterton and I know people who have never heard of him-—they are ignorant....
I agree-—I read his book on St. Thomas Åquinas and Chesterton claims the the Summa is the most Reasoned document ever written. You have to understand that EVERYONE uses “Faith”=—Everyone-—but Catholic Theology admits when they use “faith” and it is reasoned as far as reason can go.
The Summa is written in former logic-—in syllogism-—where later philosophy and theology threw out “reason” and logic (Ayn Rand on Marx, Hegel, etc.) with the “skeptics” (Kant, Descartes) (modernists) who couldn’t even state for sure, if they existed.
St. Thomas argued that (as GKC stated: “an egg is an egg-—and Hegel would state an “egg is a hen that is becoming” or some irrational statement-—which is the irrational element which pinnacled with Marx who states there is no God—with no scientific proof and TONS of faith in a utopianism—totally irrational.
St. Thomas would say-—if you can’t state that an “egg is an egg”—then you can’t Reason on anything.
Now-—I agree that the Catholic Church is in heresy in many parts of the USA...and other European countries...I am talking about Thomism—and Vatican II threw out that which made the Catholic Church “perfect” as anything could be on earth.
Faith is needed for every person. But St. Thomas reasoned “faith” to the extreme which has never been done before or after-—according to Chesterton.
It will never cease to amaze me how much Catholics and others put so much of their faith in other mortals and avoid the book and the person that tells us all we really need to know...the Bible and Jesus. Catholics in particular seem to respond to Biblical points with rebuttals from writings from “church fathers” (who lived hundreds of years after Christ and the New Testament was written) instead of using the Bible itself.
C.S. Lewis, G. K. Chesterton, Billy Graham, John Calvin, Martin Luther, any of the Popes, etc. all are or were smart and great men, but they weren’t Jesus and they weren’t perfect. It was instructed to the first Christians to study Scriptures and test every doctrine against Scripture and we should still do the same. It is lazy and dangerous to just blindly accept what some “great man” said, without checking the Bible. (1 John 4:1-6, 2 Timothy 2:15)
Besides, your response doesn’t negate the simple lack of logic in this current discussion of what the Catholic doctrine calls “necessary.” Again, if a person doesn’t need to the Catholic Church for salvation or taking the Eucharist for salvation then it wouldn’t be necessary. HOWEVER, the Catholic writings and Catholics themselves want to have it both ways. It doesn’t take a genius to see that doesn’t make sense.
But you ignore what Jesus states about the “Apostolic Church” and the need to go out and be “fishermen of men”.
There are many ex-Protestants who have become Catholic, because once you delve into the profound Theology of the Fathers of the Catholic Church-—you realize their genius.....which is the melding of Faith and Reason, so there is no conflict.
That is their greatness—and St. Thomas, with the Summa, aligned Natural Law Theory (Reason) with Faith. IT is why Christianity led to the “Age of Reason” and the Renaissance-—because science also originated with Natural Law which was melded with Logic—by Aristotle, certainly—but St. Thomas is known for “baptizing” Aristotle.
So, by your “logic”-—you thought 98 % of people—who could never afford a “book” much less read it-—would have been lost souls-—for thousands of years, if there were no shepherds of the Church.
Remember-—reading and books were extremely RARE for thousands of years.
Most people in the world couldn’t read—much less own the Bible.
See-—how irrational your “thinking” is?
catholics believe it is a sacrilege - a form of blasphemy - to receive communion while rejecting basic teachings/truths.
I’m not ignoring anything about what Jesus said. I have no idea where you got that from. Of course we Christians are supposed to go out and witness to others.
Yes there are ex-Protestants in the Catholic Church but there are also many ex-Catholics in many Protestant churches. One of the reasons Catholics have left the Catholic church is because of things like “the church/communion is necessary for salvation except when it’s not” kind of illogic.
I don’t know what you are talking about with the “98% couldn’t read” stuff. You do realize that the “Catholic” church wasn’t the first or only Church around. In fact Catholicism really takes off when Constintine makes the Roman Church the official State religion of Italy around 380 AD.
Read the New Testament, it is the record of the FIRST Christians and many of them could certainly read. Those that couldn’t committed large chunks of the New Testament to memory. What you are really referencing is the confusion created by the Roman Catholic Church in later centuries by maintaining the Bible restricted and printed in a dead Roman language (Latin). This restriction aided the Catholic Church in keeping the common person from accessing Scriptures themselves. But, again, the Catholic Church wasn’t the only church around, they were just the most powerful.
As for those who may have died before hearing the gospel of Jesus, they can still enter Heaven because Jesus (not Peter) stands at the perverbial golden gates judging who will be with The Father and who won’t. (John 14:6) What you also seem to forget is the day of Pentacost where thousands of people from all over the world recieved the Holy Spirit of God and they went back to their homes and elsewhere to preach the gospel. Those people weren’t the “Roman Catholic Church” they were simply Christians.
I see no irrationallity in my thinking, but I still see irrationallity in Catholicism, and you continue to demonstrate that by failing to recognize or address the one simple example I have given (”necessary” or not...Catholicism says it’s both).
Yes, you are correct that it is wrong to take communion “unworthily” (without knowing Christ or without serious self examination and repentance). This is talked about in 1 Corinthians 11:27-34.
However, neither that Scripture nor any other Scripture says anything like “communion through the Catholic Church or any other specific church is NECESSARY for SALVATION.”
When the Bible talks about Salvation it has few requirements. Basically a person needs to recognize their sin nature, accept that Jesus is their only source for salvation and eternal life, repent of their sins (which means to turn away from them and not stay in the path of continuing them) and call on Jesus to save them. These things can be done without the Catholic Church and certainly without communion.
Romans 10:13 “For WHOSOEVER shall call upon the name of the Lord SHALL be saved.”
Communion is a serious rememberance of who Jesus is, what he has done, and who we are supposed to be like.
You think in the feudal/serf societies of the Middle Ages before the printing press with the only “learned” people in monasteries (who taught the kings——that more than a few people could “read” and own a manuscript of the so-called “bible”.
You are irrational and insane.
Did you not read my whole post? I agree that most of Europe “in the later centuries” couldn’t read and that the Catholic Church was able to keep the Scriptures hidden from the masses.
However, when Christianity FIRST began (right after the resurrection of Christ), you can read in the New Testament that many of the FIRST Christians could read and write. IF they couldn’t they why would the Apostle Paul write so many letters to the early Churches.
All of your insults and subtrifuge (irrationality) does nothing to hide the illogical stance of the Catholic Church on things like it saying “the Catholic Church/Eucharist is NECESSARY for salvation” and it isn’t necessary.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.