Posted on 10/14/2009 10:26:11 AM PDT by jacknhoo
Controversy Erupts as Catholic Bishop Asks Pro-Gay Bishop Not to Enter His Diocese
By Peter J. Smith
MARQUETTE, Michigan, October 13, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A public controversy has erupted between two bishops of the Catholic Church in the United States, with one of the youngest bishops in the country publicly taking on one of his own colleagues in an effort to defend the Church's teachings on homosexuality and other issues.
Marquette Bishop Alexander K. Sample, 49-years-old and one of the youngest US Catholic bishops, recently banned Bishop Thomas Gumbleton, 79, a retired auxiliary bishop of the Archdiocese of Detroit and notorious promoter of homosexuality, contraception, and homosexual and women's ordination, from entering and speaking in his diocese, citing his pastoral duty to defend the "faith and morals" of the Catholic Church. The controversial bishop was set to address the group Marquette Citizens for Peace and Justice.
"As the Bishop of the Diocese of Marquette, I am the chief shepherd and teacher of the Catholic faithful of the Upper Peninsula entrusted to my pastoral care," said Bishop Sample in a public statement. "As such I am charged with the grave responsibility to keep clearly before my people the teachings of the Catholic Church on matters of faith and morals."
"Given Bishop Gumbleton's very public position on certain important matters of Catholic teaching, specifically with regard to homosexuality and the ordination of women to the priesthood, it was my judgment that his presence in Marquette would not be helpful to me in fulfilling my responsibility."
The elder prelate, who once held the title of Vicar General of Detroit, counts himself as a member of radical heterodox groups such as New Ways Ministry and Call to Action, both of which have been censured by the Vatican for moral and doctrinal reasons, especially over the promotion of homosexual behavior as a valid normative lifestyle. Members of Call to Action are also excommunicated in one US diocese and the group agitates for contraception, abortion, divorce and remarriage, and change in the governmental structure of the Church.
Gumbleton's career as an active and well-known "liberal" prelate came to an abrupt end in 2006, when the Vatican denied his request to continue on as Auxiliary Bishop to Detroit Cardinal Adam Maida upon reaching the mandatory retirement age of 75.
For his part, Sample made clear that banning Gumbleton had nothing to do with either Marquette Citizens for Peace and Justice or the topic of Gumbleton's speech, which concerned the matter of peace and justice.
Instead, the deciding factor, said Sample, was the potential for Gumbleton to mislead members of his diocese on Church teachings through discussions and interactions either tangential or unrelated to the topic of Gumbleton's speech.
"I was concerned about his well-known and public stature and position on these issues and my inability to keep these matters from coming up in discussion," added Sample. "In order that no one becomes confused, everyone under my pastoral care must receive clear teaching on these important doctrines."
Sample stated that he regretted the public controversy, but made clear that Gumbleton had put him in that position by neglecting "common courtesy" between bishops, which requires them to ask permission before entering the diocese of another bishop. Instead, Gumbleton had informed Sample of his intention to speak at the event organized by Marquette Citizens for Peace and Justice on October 9, after the upcoming event was made public.
However, this is not the first time that Gumbleton has been banned from a diocese in which informing the local ordinary of his presence was an afterthought.
In 2007, bishop Gerald F. Kicanas banned Gumbleton from entering his jurisdiction after he discovered that Call to Action had arranged for him to speak at Catholic churches and schools in the diocese.
For pro-life and pro-family leaders - both inside and outside the Catholic Church - Sample's stand against Gumbleton is being interpreted as a sign of hope and a reminder of a generational changing of the guard within the Catholic Church.
Gumbleton is almost 39 years senior to Sample, and represents an aging and shrinking demographic of US bishops whose heterodox opinions were formed in seminaries during the 1950s and who were active in ministry during the cultural upheaval of the 1960s and 70s.
Sample, on the other hand, represents a younger class of bishops formed during the papacy of John Paul II that have trended toward taking up the challenge of defending orthodox teachings on morals, doctrine, and liturgy.
"The bishops aren't sworn to each other, they are sworn to obey the gospels," veteran pro-life leader Joe Scheidler of the Chicago-based Pro-Life Action League told LifeSiteNews.com. Scheidler added that bishops nevertheless often do act like members of a "unique club" generally protecting each other and not talking about each other in public.
"But if a bishop is so bad" like Gumbleton, said Scheidler, "If they are doing something that is causing something that is causing scandal, it takes a strong bishop to call them on the carpet."
Read Bishop Alexander Sample's statement here.
See related coverage by LifeSiteNews.com:
No Catholic Venue in Tucson for Gay Activist Bishop Gumbleton http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/jan/07013106.html
URL: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/oct/09101402.html
“Me too. The Protestants claim they “know” they are “saved” (guaranteed) but they can’t tell you how they know that except that they really believe it! Well, the idea that just because someone believes in something doesn’t make it true somehow escapes them.”
Our claim is based on the promises in Scripture. If, as kosta50 has indicated, scripture is not trustworthy, then our ‘knowing’ may prove false. If scripture is what it claims to be, then we’ll be proven correct.
“Is your salvation fact or faith?” - kosta50
Both. Faith now, to be revealed as fact at Judgment. Perhaps faith that it is fact.
“Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.” - Hebrews 11
“If it is a fact, then I wonder what form of command that God received to let Him know of that fact.” - MarkBsnr
God keeps his promises. He also HAS SAVED (past tense) us.
“But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive [past tense] together with Christ— by grace you have been saved [past tense] — and raised us up [past tense] with him and seated us [past tense] with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages he might show [future tense] the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved [past tense] through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God [not man], not a result of works, so that no one may boast.” - Ephesians 2
“Now to him who is able to keep you from stumbling and to present you blameless before the presence of his glory with great joy, to the only God, our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion, and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen.” - Jude
And, might I add, after some of the recent threads, it feels GOOD to discuss something with someone who won’t command the earth to swallow me & my dogs!
Yes, and then Joe starts a new "First" Baptist Church...down the street.
That is also a result of the Reformation - that God must accept us on our own human terms. The original Church belief is that God will accept us only on His terms
Amen to that, Mark! This is the same mindset that created "fellowship" with the Almighty. God is, after all, just our "senior fellow" in this club. LOL!
My premise is base don the lack of evidence who wriote what and when in the scirpture, and therefore not being able to tell which was inspired and which wasn't. Assuming that all of it si inspired is simply not tenable for objective reasons.
The scriptures are, then, accepted a priori on faith alone and that is a fallible human decision. Objective physical evidence indicates that the scriptures have been changed all along. The fact that our versions today largely agree with early 3rd century codices is a deliberate act and not some providential miracle.
But it can't be a fact since it didn't happen (yet). So, it can only be hope, belief, hunch.
God keeps his promises
So, the Bible says...and you "authenticated" that through your faith only to use the Bible to authenticate your faith!
It's as if I were to proclaim myself to be a general and then promote myself to the next higher rank!
made us alive [past tense] together with Christ— by grace you have been saved [past tense] — and raised us up [past tense] with him and seated us [past tense] with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages he might show [future tense] the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus
That's just Paul making a "sales pitch." He doesn't show the end product; he is peddling future with sweet sounding words. Yet he uses past tense (probably aorist which is not the same), as if something actually happened and nothing to show.
to the only God, our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion, and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen.” - Jude
Jude was one of the last books to be accepted, somewhere in the very late 3rd, going into the 4th century. Jude also exists in several mutually exclusive variants (v. 22-23), some being fiorigivng of doubters, others not at all...but verse 25 specifically is of interest because some manuscripts omit Jesus Christ and simply read "To the only wise God our Saviour, [be] glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen." [this, by the way, is the official Greek Orthodox version and represents Byzantine majority texts]
The difference can be appreciated when looked at side-by-side.
| μονω σοφω θεω σωτηρι ημων δοξα και μεγαλωσυνη κρατος και εξουσια και νυν και εις παντας τους αιωνας αμην |
| μονω θεω σωτηρι ημων δια ιησου χριστου του κυριου ημων δοξα μεγαλωσυνη κρατος και εξουσια προ παντος του αιωνος και νυν και εις παντας τους αιωνας αμην |
Sorry. I have the faith BECAUSE the bible is authentic.
We all come to the point where we have to accept something as true. I choose to believe the bible.
How do Catholics know they are going to heaven? Do they? Or are they just hoping.
I am glad, but what makes you the universal standard? Just because it works for you doesn't mean it's universally true.
The bible says it. That makes it universally true. Doesn't matter whether I believe it or not.
John O->Please see this link Does Salvation result from Works or from Faith?
kosta50->That's not what Jesus teaches in the Synoptic Gospels. That's Paulianity, not Christianity.
So Paul's writings in the bible are not the word of God? Then why did the fathers of the faith (whom you appear to place your faith in) include them in canon scripture?
The bible is perfectly internally consistent. If you are seeing differences between what Jesus taught and what Paul taught then you are misinterpreting one or the other. I see no difference between the two teachings. They are in perfect agreement. (Of course my understanding is not perfect as I am not perfect. I will only understand perfectly when I get to heaven)
The magic words are "I accept Jesus as my Lord and savior...and then you must be baptized...all rituals coming form a book which you, by your choice, consider sacred.
The exact words don't matter (hence there are no magic words) Salvation is a matter of the heart not the lips.
It's all a belief. I don't share your belief and you have nothing to offer that would prove that your belief is true—except your own belief!
OH! so you're an atheist! That explains everything. I didn't think the Catholics let atheists be members though.
(Everything is a belief and I never said otherwise.)
Well, the Bible also says that whatever you ask for in belief will be grated to you...cherry-picking is easy. It doesn't prove anything however.
Yep. Whatever we ask for in accordance with God's will, doubting not, and unwavering, God will give us. The trick is to be in accordance with His will and to doubt not.
What do you mean "receive" him? That is such an oxymoron. Who is man to "receive" God? It seem meet that the Lord should receive us, rather than the other way around. Either we are acceptable to God or we are not, and even that would have to be according to his will and not ours.
Let me handle these in reverse order.
We are not acceptable to God. We are totally incapable of being acceptable to God as we are imperfect. That is why salvation is necessary. If we could be acceptable on our own there would have been no reason for Jesus to die on the cross. Jesus died so that we eternally unacceptable humans could be made acceptable to God through His blood. Why? Because God loved us so much that He gave His Son for us. It is a totally free gift that we cannot earn.
Why do we need to receive Him? Because God is a gentleman. He will not force us to accept Him.
Revelation 3:20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.
Notice that He doesn't just barge in. He doesn't break down the door. He waits for us to receive Him and invite Him in.
John O->C. Confess that Jesus is your Lord. "If you confess with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord,' and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." Romans 10:9 (See verse 10.)
Magical words...more rituals.
If God says to do something then it's not just ritual.
(And note that I have not mocked the Catholics although you have done your best to mock the Protestants)
(in interests of full disclosure, I’m not Catholic)
“Marquette Bishop Alexander K. Sample, 49-years-old and one of the
youngest US Catholic bishops, recently banned Bishop Thomas Gumbleton, 79,
a retired auxiliary bishop of the Archdiocese of Detroit and
notorious promoter of homosexuality, contraception, and homosexual and
women’s ordination...”
Wow, I’m impressed.
Sounds like there are some “young Turks” in the Catholic ranks ready
to speak up against the hyper-liberal Catholic seminary grads from
a few decades back.
Way to go Bishop Sample, even though I am an unqualified non-Catholic
observer of these events.
kosta50, we’ve argued on past threads. You’ve told me the writings of Paul are a guy creating a new religion after the Jews rejected the teachings of Jesus. You’ve told me John - the entire Gospel - was written to appease Gentiles. Passages in the other Gospels may be ok, unless they disagree with your beliefs, in which case they are later additions added by some scribe working for the Catholic Church.
In short, like some liberal scholars, you reject what you disagree with and cite what you do...a mode of argument I find unconvincing.
There are a variety of arguments in favor of scripture being scripture, but in my experience, if someone reads the Bible and rejects it as God’s words, then nothing I say will convince them otherwise. That is in line with Calvin’s argument that scripture is self-authenticating, if at all.
I will say that when I follow what scripture teaches, my life goes well. When I do not, my life does not. As I’ve said before, I’m not interested in PROVING anything, since I don’t believe (contrary to Calvin) that God FORCES us to believe. It is like a horse facing a jump. The rider can train him and prepare him, and bring him TO the jump, but it is the horse that either jumps or turns!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ll-ogOg1yI&feature=related
BTW - my horse would look at ANY of those jumps, laugh, turn around and head for home...and at 51, I would thank her for her good judgment!
“What do you mean “receive” him? That is such an oxymoron. Who is man to “receive” God? It seem meet that the Lord should receive us, rather than the other way around...”
John Calvin, is that you?!
“Scripture, when it treats of justification by faith, leads us in a very different direction. Turning away our view from our own works, it bids us look only to the mercy of God and the perfection of Christ. The order of justification which it sets before us is this: first, God of his mere gratuitous goodness is pleased to embrace the sinner, in whom he sees nothing that can move him to mercy but wretchedness, because he sees him altogether naked and destitute of good works. He, therefore, seeks the cause of kindness in himself, that thus he may affect the sinner by a sense of his goodness, and induce him, in distrust of his own works, to cast himself entirely upon his mercy for salvation. This is the meaning of faith by which the sinner comes into the possession of salvation, when, according to the doctrine of the Gospel, he perceives that he is reconciled by God; when, by the intercession of Christ, he obtains the pardon of his sins, and is justified; and, though renewed by the Spirit of God, considers that, instead of leaning on his own works, he must look solely to the righteousness which is treasured up for him in Christ.”
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.v.xii.html
Hopefully, most of us accept the real world around us as true, but then many mix in their fantasies as well. I do not need faith to accept gravity. But it is a choice to believe in make-believe. I have no issues with the admission of choice. I do object when such choices are presented as absolute truth without any evidence to support it other than one's own belief.
How do Catholics know they are going to heaven? Do they? Or are they just hoping.
I don't know, I am not Catholic (never was), but hope is certainly a big part of their faith. They don't assume they are saved.
Kosta: Just because it works for you doesn't mean it's universally true.
John O: The bible says it. That makes it universally true. Doesn't matter whether I believe it or not.
LOL! That's the same argument you hear from Muslims about the Koran! There is no seal of authenticity in either of those books.
So Paul's writings in the bible are not the word of God?
Just because he says it is? No. Why are his words any different than Mohammad's? Just because you believe they are?
The bible is perfectly internally consistent. If you are seeing differences between what Jesus taught and what Paul taught then you are misinterpreting one or the other
If there is any internal consistency it is by design. Many verses were changed to fit the developing doctrine or to prevent "heresy" in the first four centuries of the Christian era. Then, after a period of over a millennium, a major "synchronization" of the NT text was deliberately undertaken in the 18th century.
This was to "harmonize" as much as possible a revised NT, as compared to Textus Receptus, with the earliest extant 4th century codices since it became obvious that the "word of God" got too corrupted along the way.
I see no difference between the two teachings. They are in perfect agreement.
That's why they call it "blind faith." :)
The exact words don't matter (hence there are no magic words) Salvation is a matter of the heart not the lips.
Sure they do, at least as to the context, if not word order. I mean you have to say more or less the same thing. You can't be reciting "I'm dreaming of a white Christmas" for example...Why do you have to say anything? Why can't you just give thanks and be done with it?
Kosta: It's all a belief. I don't share your belief and you have nothing to offer that would prove that your belief is true—except your own belief!
John O: OH! so you're an atheist! That explains everything. I didn't think the Catholics let atheists be members though.
Your logic scares me. An atheist is someone who absolutely denies the existence of God. I don't think I ever said anything like that. I suppose "blind faith" makes it easier to jump to conclusions.
Kosta:Well, the Bible also says that whatever you ask for in belief will be granted to you...cherry-picking is easy. It doesn't prove anything however.
John O: Yep. Whatever we ask for in accordance with God's will, doubting not, and unwavering, God will give us. The trick is to be in accordance with His will and to doubt not.
So, when Jesus asked God to take away the cup if possible, he was showing wavering faith? And when he asked why have you forsaken me (according to some who were not there to witness it!) he was showing lack of faith? Jesus did not have perfect faith? is that what you are saying?
Let me handle these in reverse order. We are not acceptable to God.
Why not? Are we not where we are because he willed it? Or did we "slip" under his feet? So, if we are indeed unacceptable to God it must be by design; I hope it's not by accident. :)
We are totally incapable of being acceptable to God as we are imperfect.
Maybe because he created us that way?
That is why salvation is necessary.
God is not driven by necessity, or else he is not God. If salvation is necessary (as you say), it is because God created (willed) such a necessity. But he could have just made things perfect, don't you think, and not have to go through the trouble of fixing things. :)
If we could be acceptable on our own there would have been no reason for Jesus to die on the cross
That's not what the God of the Old testament is saying. I doubt that God changed his mind later on.
Jesus died so that we eternally unacceptable humans could be made acceptable to God through His blood.
The OT God issued 613 mitzvot by which to live (to do or not to do) in order to be acceptable to him. He also demanded the blood of animals for that purpose.
Why? Because God loved us so much that He gave His Son for us. It is a totally free gift that we cannot earn.
He could have loved us without all that too. It's not as if he was "forced" to do anything. :)
Why do we need to receive Him? Because God is a gentleman. He will not force us to accept Him.
If wee need to receive him to be saved, then it's not free, but conditional on our acceptance. You need to make up your mind which is it. I don't think God is sitting there, tapping his fingers, not knowing what to do until we accept him; only when we say "yes!" then he can save us! LOL!
Revelation 3:20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if [sic] any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.
IF? God knocks on our door not knowing IF we are going to hear his voice (or is it knocking?!?) and open the door? God is knocking not knowing who will let him in and who won't, just in case...LOL! You mean to tell me God is wasting time knocking on the doors of those who, he should know, will never open them? But he is doing it just in case IF they change their minds. very hopeful God. LOOOOL!
This also reminds me of the Exodus where God's spirit (I thought God is a spirit, at least the Bible says so), needed house markers to "know" which households were Jewish, so as to avoid killing all the firstborn in them. Or the part where God has to "come down" [sic] to "see" for himself what's going on so he would "know." I mean, unbelievable! And you treat this as God's own words? I think God would do better than that, honestly.
If God says to do something then it's not just ritual
How many turtle doves have you sacrificed lately? :)
LOL!!! :)
That's what the NT says in black and white. I even gave you the verses. Not bad for a rusted Easterner, huh? :)
You’ve told me John - the entire Gospel - was written to appease Gentiles
I don't think I would have said it that way, but John's Gospel says what was needed to be said at the time it appeared.
Passages in the other Gospels may be ok, unless they disagree with your beliefs, in which case they are later additions added by some scribe working for the Catholic Church.
I don't think I would have said that either. It's not that I accept some parts and reject others. I do recognize different themes in different parts of the Bible, and they represent the mindset and the realities of the times in which they were written. These themes do to always express the same thing.
In short, like some liberal scholars, you reject what you disagree with and cite what you do...a mode of argument I find unconvincing.
In short I don't make extraordinary claims (i.e. the Bible is the word of God) and reject such claims until someone produces credible evidence to the contrary. Remember, doubt is justified. The party making claims is under obligation to produce proof, which they don't. When asked for it, they say "it's our faith; we don't need proof." That's fine, but you are still presenting your faith as if it were a proven fact and not a mere belief.
In fact, I even asked that someone please start by telling me what is God and I have yet (not surprisingly) to get an answer.
There are a variety of arguments in favor of scripture being scripture, but in my experience, if someone reads the Bible and rejects it as God’s words, then nothing I say will convince them otherwise
Because the the precondition is to a priori accept the Bible as the inerrant word of God. Of course, once you do that then talking donkeys are accepted as something "normal" and everyday...no questions asked. Sorry, the real world doesn't work that way.
I will say that when I follow what scripture teaches, my life goes well.
First, bad things happen to believers and non-believers. Second, many an individual who doesn't follow what scripture teaches would say his life is going very well too. You are using anecdotal experience as "proof' of authenticity of the Bible. That is inherently weak and unreliable.
When I do not, my life does not
One can make a case for or against such argument by selective memory, or preference. Again, your argument is highly anecdotal.
As I said, I pretty much believe scripture needs to be self-affirming...if you read it and reject it, nothing I say is likely to sway you.
“Of course, once you do that then talking donkeys are accepted as something “normal” and everyday...no questions asked. Sorry, the real world doesn’t work that way.”
I dunno...I’ve had an ass speak to me more than once. Even some that were my commanding officers!
Sorry - couldn’t resist. I can’t turn on the news without seeing some donkey braying about health care. ;>)
“That’s fine, but you are still presenting your faith as if it were a proven fact and not a mere belief.”
Actually, I’m presenting it as something I believe true now, and believe will be proven as fact for all to see and know in the next life. I don’t believe the Gospel is ‘proven’, and I don’t believe God would force us to believe against our will by giving us absolute proof.
And I could say that no matter how much evidence one presents to the contrary will not sway you. It's just that I don;t believe in extraordinary claims and you choose to believe them. That's your choice and that's okay, as long as we know it's a choice and not something carved in stone.
I dunno...I’ve had an ass speak to me more than once. Even some that were my commanding officers!
Come to think of it, I have to agree. Talking donkeys are real. They just don't look like donkeys, but rather disguised as humans.
I can’t turn on the news without seeing some donkey braying about health care
Yup, they will provide more coverage and it won't cost a dime more...talk about vain beliefs.
Actually, I’m presenting it as something I believe true now, and believe will be proven as fact for all to see and know in the next life.
I know you are, and that's fair.
I don’t believe the Gospel is ‘proven’, and I don’t believe God would force us to believe against our will by giving us absolute proof.
Why? Because he likes suspense? :) Would you want to be a mystery to your children, yet have a personal "fellowship" with them?
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.