Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Detroit archbishop: supporters of same-sex ‘marriage’ should not receive Communion
life site ^ | Kirsten Andersen

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 Vigneron’s remarks: “The archbishop's focal point here is not ‘gay marriage’; it is a Catholic’s reception of Holy Communion,” he explained. “If a Catholic publicly opposes the church on a serious matter of the church’s 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 Vigneron’s 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 didn’t 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.


TOPICS: Catholic; Moral Issues
KEYWORDS: catholic; communion; detroit; homosexualagenda; ssm
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-70 last
To: ScubieNuc

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....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGCLcK_umJk

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.


51 posted on 04/11/2013 7:31:23 PM PDT by savagesusie (Right Reason According to Nature = Just Law)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: savagesusie

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.


52 posted on 04/11/2013 7:59:00 PM PDT by ScubieNuc (When there is no justice in the laws, justice is left to the outlaws.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: ScubieNuc

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?


53 posted on 04/11/2013 8:17:23 PM PDT by savagesusie (Right Reason According to Nature = Just Law)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: ScubieNuc

catholics believe it is a sacrilege - a form of blasphemy - to receive communion while rejecting basic teachings/truths.


54 posted on 04/11/2013 8:22:23 PM PDT by Scotswife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: savagesusie

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).


55 posted on 04/12/2013 7:43:46 AM PDT by ScubieNuc (When there is no justice in the laws, justice is left to the outlaws.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Scotswife

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.


56 posted on 04/12/2013 7:58:35 AM PDT by ScubieNuc (When there is no justice in the laws, justice is left to the outlaws.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: ScubieNuc

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.


57 posted on 04/12/2013 9:59:18 AM PDT by savagesusie (Right Reason According to Nature = Just Law)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: savagesusie

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.


58 posted on 04/12/2013 10:16:43 AM PDT by ScubieNuc (When there is no justice in the laws, justice is left to the outlaws.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: ScubieNuc
What if no one heard of Jesus before? Are they hell bound? That is the point of the thread (Thus denial of Communion). Your attempt at the thread derailment is not what I am referring to. By cutting off the unrepentant Christian, (Catholic Eucharist, stay with the topic please) what does that unrepentant Christian have?


59 posted on 04/12/2013 1:25:36 PM PDT by rollo tomasi (Working hard to pay for deadbeats and corrupt politicians.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: rollo tomasi
What if no one heard of Jesus before?

Odd question since we know that many have heard of Jesus. If you are asking the hypothetical question about someone, somewhere who grew up without any understanding of who Jesus is, then my answer is that is still up to Jesus to decide if they go on to the Father or not. I would say that we still need to witness the saving knowledge of Jesus because 1) its a command from Jesus and 2) I believe it gives people a better chance of going to Heaven.

Now, I understand that you and others may not agree with some or all of what I stated but I can assure you that my beliefs are based on what the Bible tells us.

That is the point of the thread (Thus denial of Communion). Your attempt at the thread derailment is not what I am referring to.

I'm not derailing this thread, but there are certainly some who are trying to avoid my points about Catholicism having illogical points like the Catholic Church and the Eucharist are "necessary" for salvation.

By cutting off the unrepentant Christian, (Catholic Eucharist, stay with the topic please) what does that unrepentant Christian have?

I have already stated that any church has the authority to execute discipline on any of it's members who are not repentant. I'm all for the Catholic Church disciplining any of their members who support unGodly things like homosexuality or abortion or whatever. My original points (if you bother to go back and read) was that while the Catholic Church may believe they are disrupting these persons salvation, but the Bible clearly does not support that idea. An individuals salvation is between that individual and God alone. No Church, or no practice performed by that church (including communion) can deny a person their access to Jesus.

The unrepentant Christian always has the opportunity to repent and seek God. If they die in their unrepentant state then they will still be saved, but they will not only have missed blessings on this Earth but they will miss rewards in Heaven. (1 Corinthians 3:11-15)
60 posted on 04/12/2013 2:02:28 PM PDT by ScubieNuc (When there is no justice in the laws, justice is left to the outlaws.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: ScubieNuc
"Odd question since we know that many have heard of Jesus."

Nope, BILLIONS have not.

"I'm not derailing this thread, but there are certainly some who are trying to avoid my points about Catholicism having illogical points like the Catholic Church and the Eucharist are "necessary" for salvation."

Staring us right in the face, lol.

"An individuals salvation is between that individual and God alone. No Church, or no practice performed by that church (including communion) can deny a person their access to Jesus."

Read and understand the Roman Catholic Catechism then please make a separate thread on why you disagree.
61 posted on 04/12/2013 2:13:56 PM PDT by rollo tomasi (Working hard to pay for deadbeats and corrupt politicians.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: rollo tomasi
"Odd question since we know that many have heard of Jesus." Nope, BILLIONS have not.

Of course there are many who haven't heard, but your question was "what if NO ONE had heard of Jesus?" Big difference.

Your attempt to distract others from my point of what the Catholic church calls "necessary" (and then says isn't) may work for you, but you haven't done anything to show me where I'm wrong about the catechism.
62 posted on 04/12/2013 2:20:21 PM PDT by ScubieNuc (When there is no justice in the laws, justice is left to the outlaws.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: ScubieNuc
"what if NO ONE had heard of Jesus?"

Sorry you got me, "ouch" I am hurt, but implications/short hand is necessary on devices that have a small electronic touch screen keyboards. "No one" was implied to include all that who never heard of Christ. Only those who are not smart asses would get the implied point.
63 posted on 04/12/2013 3:03:54 PM PDT by rollo tomasi (Working hard to pay for deadbeats and corrupt politicians.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: rollo tomasi

I truely wasn’t trying to be a smart ass. If you reread my post at #60 I was simply trying to honestly address your question. However I don’t really know how asking about how many people haven’t heard about Jesus relates to the topic of refusing communion.


64 posted on 04/12/2013 3:09:55 PM PDT by ScubieNuc (When there is no justice in the laws, justice is left to the outlaws.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: ScubieNuc
"If you reread my post at #60 I was simply trying to honestly address your question."

Had no problem with the point (Which you caught my implication) except the last. This topic was about cutting people off of communion not about the nature of the Eucharist (Which you make some good points). However, those points should be relegated to another thread. There is a serious schism in the Church (About this subject and public scandal) and to make matters worse, a retired Bishop countered the Archbishop saying same sex supporters can receive Communion.

To a Catholic, being cut out of Communion is a grave concern. Although this was not a caucus thread, derailment seems tacky. My POV was about the Catholic laity being cut off and the implications.
65 posted on 04/12/2013 5:27:27 PM PDT by rollo tomasi (Working hard to pay for deadbeats and corrupt politicians.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: ScubieNuc

(Hidden—or revealed).

Like all good Germans know-—he who controls the language, controls the perceptions. I’ve studied Wittgenstein and the irrational, godless Postmodernists who were out to kill God (Christianity).

Your “logic” is inconsistent-—your premise is “faulty”——I can’t “argue” with a Sophist-—as Socrates knew.

Yes, I read your post.....it is irrational. Study St. Thomas-—so you understand logic and reason and can put out a coherent thought.

BTW, “....and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.”

Like I say-—the Catholic Church REASONED from the very WORDS of Jesus Christ——all of what he said-—not just a few verses YOU (the theologian, I am sure—ha ha) picked out.


66 posted on 04/12/2013 6:13:11 PM PDT by savagesusie (Right Reason According to Nature = Just Law)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: savagesusie

Do you know anything about the Passover meal of the Jews (seder)? This meal was done “in rememberance” of God saving Israel from the slavery of Egypt. Each part of the meal had a significant meaning which helped remind the people of the event.

Jesus’s last supper with the Disciples was a seder meal (being that it was the right time of year for that...Passover).

In the seder meal there was a male lamb without defect. The lamb was killed but it’s bones were not to be broken. Before Jesus this was a rememberance of the lamb that was slaughtered and it’s blood put on the door posts which the angel of Death would see and passover.

Palm Sunday is 5 days before the death of Jesus. The lamb which was to be sacrificed in the Temple was selected 5 days before it was sacrificed in the Temple.

The festival of unleavened bread began Friday evening (at sunset). As part of the festival, the Jews would take some of the grain - the “first fruits” of their harvest - to the Temple to offer as a sacrifice. In so doing, they were offering God all they had and trusting Him to proved the rest of the harvest. It was at this point that Jesus was buried - planted in the ground - as He said right before His death. Paul refers to Jesus as the first fruits of those raised from the dead in 1 Corinthians.

Christian symbolism in the Passover occurs early in the Seder (the Passover dinner). Three matzahs are put together (representing the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). The middle matzah is broken, wrapped in a white cloth, and hidden, representing the death and burial of Jesus. The matzah itself is designed to represent Jesus, since it is striped and pierced, which was prophesized by Isaiah, David, and Zechariah. Following the Seder meal, the “buried” matzah is “resurrected,” which was foretold in the prophecies of David.

It was during a Passover seder that Jesus proclaimed that the meal represented Himself and that He was instituting the New Covenant, which was foretold by Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Isaiah. The celebration of this covenant has become the ordinance of communion in the Christian Church. At the end of the meal, Jesus took the unleavened bread, broke it, and said that it represented His body. Then He took the cup of wine, which would have been the third cup of the Seder - the cup of redemption. He said that it was the new covenant in His blood “poured out for you.”

(borrowed from http://www.sonserver.com/passover-seder.htm)

So as you can see when Jesus was saying “this is my body” he wasn’t talking about a physical eating of his flesh but a ceremony of REMEMBERANCE of his sacrifice for our freedom from sin and death.

If you go to John 6 and read the whole chapter you can also see where Jesus explains that he wasn’t talking about a physical eating (like their ancestors did with manna and died) but he was talking about a spiritual “eating” (faith) where we can live forever. (John 6:47-51,58 specifically)

It is not me who takes a few verses out of context and builds whole doctrines that contradict the whole of Scripture. That is the Catholic Church which has done that.


67 posted on 04/12/2013 7:51:46 PM PDT by ScubieNuc (When there is no justice in the laws, justice is left to the outlaws.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: ScubieNuc

oh I’m too busy and cranky right now to get into a debate - not my intention.

I was just showing how there is more than one way to view the request to refrain from communion than the desire to deny salvation to anyone.

It is more from a desire to refrain from sacrilege.

Whether you agree disagree with that is up to you - it’s just the position the Church takes.


68 posted on 04/13/2013 2:12:25 PM PDT by Scotswife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: ScubieNuc
Looks to me that Christ totally affirms the real presence when you read farther down in the chapter. Just as all of the early church fathers believed. Protestant innovation comes about 1400 years later in rebellion against Christ's church. Rebellion does not come from Christ, it has another source.

51 I myself am the living bread that has come down from heaven. 52 If anyone eats of this bread, he shall live for ever. And now, what is this bread which I am to give? It is my flesh, given for the life of the world.

54 Whereupon Jesus said to them, Believe me when I tell you this; you can have no life in yourselves, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood. 55 The man who eats my flesh and drinks my blood enjoys eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 56 My flesh is real food, my blood is real drink. 57 He who eats my flesh, and drinks my blood, lives continually in me, and I in him. 58 As I live because of the Father, the living Father who has sent me, so he who eats me will live, in his turn, because of me.

69 posted on 04/14/2013 12:47:54 PM PDT by TradicalRC (Conservatism is primarily a Christian movement.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: TradicalRC

You need to read the whole chapter to get the whole context of what Jesus is talking about. Yes, that little section does look like Jesus is talking about a physical “eating” of his flesh, but you only get that by ignoring earlier verses, later verses and the fact that Jesus was foreshadowing communion, which is patterned after the Passover/Seder meal (which is also a REMEMBERANCE).
As a side note, this event is taking place around the Passover, so those following him understood more of what he was proclaiming because the bread in the Passover meal symbolized God.

Earlier in John 6, you read where Jesus references a number of times that those who BELIEVE on Him will have everlasting life. (29,35,40,47) However those who were questioning Jesus were seeking more physical miracles (like what he had done earlier in the chapter) so that their bellies could be filled. He keeps telling them that a physical bread, like manna that their ancestors had eaten, was a miracle like they were seeking, but that physical bread doesn’t save. He points that out that their ancestors ate manna and are dead (6:49).

Jesus wraps up the discussion with those who kept wanting a physical meal, by telling them that he was speaking of something spiritual.

John 6:63 “It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life.”

So, you see, when you look at the WHOLE chapter and the context and what the seder meal was (a rememberance of God saving Israel from the slavery of Egypt) you can see that what Jesus wants is for us to believe in Him (which requires faith and is “spirit”). He most certainly wasn’t telling these people that they needed to physically eat Jesus’s flesh and physically drink his blood.

Like I responded to someone else, the Catholic church builds doctrines off of a few verses taken out of context with the whole of scripture. This is wrong and it misleads millions of people.


70 posted on 04/14/2013 1:47:50 PM PDT by ScubieNuc (When there is no justice in the laws, justice is left to the outlaws.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-70 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson