Posted on 04/29/2011 7:04:35 AM PDT by Alex Murphy
TUCSON (KGUN9-TV) - With heads bowed in prayer, and a giant white cross extending into the bright blue sky, it seemed like the perfect Easter sunrise service.
Pastor Rick Barnes preached, "He has risen…And, (Jesus said) 'I'm going to die for your sins."
On this holy day, the message was as clear as the sky.
"Is there anything in life you look to change this Easter?" KGUN9 asked an attendee.
"Yeah, to be a better person, to do better in my life. To get closer to Christ," answered Jose Galaz.
"Easter means Jesus. That's what it's all about, Jesus," said Barbara Vasquez.
But, some told us, this year, that was not all this Easter service was about.
"We had the Catholics pull out support from our event. We absolutely did not pull out at all. They pulled out from us," said organizer Gina Herrera.
For the last forty-plus years, the Catholic Church was strongly involved in this sunrise service. In recent years, even Bishop Kicanas of the Diocese of Tucson participated. However, that all changed last year when organizers said they had to find a priest last minute. And this year, organizers say, this was the first service on A Mountain with a pastor, from Mesa, and not a Tucson Catholic priest.
"I think it all started with the Eucharist; who to receive it. And, I think if you're just a believer in God and Christ you can receive it," said Manny Jacques, who pointed out the controversy to KGUN9.
Gina Herrera's dad started the first service ever held on A Mountain. But, she told us the bishop turned a blind eye to her 90-year-old father when he asked for religious compromise. Instead, Herrera said church politics took over.
"They had announced to everybody that communion was for Catholics only and my dad wondered if there's any way he could not say that it's for Catholics only. Maybe believers of Christ could receive the communion," Herrera explained.
"On such a holy day as Easter Sunday, how upsetting is it that the bishop only wants Catholics to receive communion, you're upset by that?" KGUN9 asked. "It is upsetting. You're segregating. You know, in these days and times you shouldn't segregate," said Jacques.
KGUN9 spoke to Bishop Kicanas by phone. He told us it was the service organizers who did not want a Mass. Instead, the bishop told KGUN9 those organizers simply wanted an ecumenical service. And, the bishop went on to say that "we're still not all one at the Lord's table"; that there is still not unity among all Christians.
The Diocese of Tucson issued a statement about the controversy pointing out that when event organizer David Herreras asked for both an ecumenical event and also the ability for everyone to receive communion, the bishop told him that would not be possible. "Bishop Kicanas explained that as reception of the Sacrament of the Eucharist is reserved for persons who profess and practice the Roman Catholic faith that it would not be possible for a Mass to be celebrated at which persons who are not Roman Catholic would be able to receive the Sacrament of the Eucharist."
The full statement issued by the Diocese is presented below.
"A few weeks before Good Friday of last year, David Herreras, the founder of Los Dorados, met with Bishop Kicanas and communicated his wish that the Good Friday procession on A Mountain and the Easter sunrise Mass on A Mountain become ecumenical faith events for the community. David specifically communicated his wish that all persons attending the sunrise Mass could receive the Sacrament of the Eucharist. Bishop Kicanas explained that as reception of the Sacrament of the Eucharist is reserved for persons who profess and practice the Roman Catholic faith that it would not be possible for a Mass to be celebrated at which persons who are not Roman Catholic would be able to receive the Sacrament of the Eucharist. David subsequently communicated his intentions to make the Good Friday and Easter sunrise activities of Los Dorados ecumenical events. Bishop Kicanas recognizes the tremendous contributions to the faith life of the Tucson community that David and Los Dorados have made for more than four decades and wishes them the very best as they continue the traditions of Good Friday and Easter morning as ecumenical services."
....KGUN9 spoke to Bishop Kicanas by phone. He told us it was the service organizers who did not want a Mass. Instead, the bishop told KGUN9 those organizers simply wanted an ecumenical service. And, the bishop went on to say that "we're still not all one at the Lord's table"; that there is still not unity among all Christians....
....The Diocese of Tucson issued a statement about the controversy pointing out that when event organizer David Herreras asked for both an ecumenical event and also the ability for everyone to receive communion, the bishop told him that would not be possible. "Bishop Kicanas explained that as reception of the Sacrament of the Eucharist is reserved for persons who profess and practice the Roman Catholic faith that it would not be possible for a Mass to be celebrated at which persons who are not Roman Catholic would be able to receive the Sacrament of the Eucharist."
Its all pretty simple. When the other denominations accept the teachings of the Church they will be “in Communion” with her. Until then they are not in communion.
don’t feed the troll. This article was posted just to get Christians to fight each other — that’s all that the left aims for.
I think this is exactly right. If the organizers want to have communion for non-Catholics, they needed a second priest to perform that rite.
It is absurd to expect a Catholic Priest to go against their own vows and beliefs on a fundamental aspect of faith. The Catholic church makes it clear that their communion is not for all Christians, but just for those who believe in the Catholic faith.
When I attend Catholic services, I stay seated during communion, because I respect their right to their beliefs. I even explained to my son why we couldn’t take communion, and why the priest was being so careful with the wafers, and watching the communicants so carefully (this was at a boy scout summer camp).
You wouldn’t expect a Baptist to baptise infants at an easter service, if they chose to allow Easter baptisms.
The only problem here is trying to run an ecumenical service with a Catholic Priest, and then trying to include denomination-specific sacraments.
What an idiotic article. It has always been Catholic doctrine that non Catholics or Catholics who are in a state of grave sin may not receive Holy Communion. It is also Catholic teaching that Catholics may not receive Holy Communion at other sects. We may receive Eucharist in an Orthodox Church if permitted to do so by the Orthodox Priest. (Usually they allow this only in emergencies.)
The ignorance of the people and their whiny self centered protests is not reason enough to change teaching or to make an exception. The solution would have been to have Holy Communion distributed by a Priest for the Catholics and a Protestant Pastor for those Protestants who don’t have closed Communion.
Why this was even a story is beyond me unless it was to show how mean and unfeeling the Catholic Church is.
Where is the article showing how mean it is that unbaptized persons can not receive Holy Communion in many Protestant churches (I agree with this policy)? Where is the article claiming Christianity is exclusive for claiming salvation is from Christ alone?
We Catholics are not called to allow a lie in order to sooth the egos of overgrown children. Non Catholics may not receive the sacrament of the Eucharist. End of story.
Did you read the article? The controversy wasn’t caused by the article being posted at FR; the article is ABOUT a controversy.
It isn’t a freeper’s fault what happened. Do you think Catholic priests should be put in charge of ecumenical services, or does the Church’s desire to stay pure preclude such activities?
The article didn’t state it clearly, but it sounds like in the past they have had a Catholic Priest, and that priest has done the eucharist.
I can’t say that for certain, but the article certainly implies that there was something different this year.
Maybe someone with a better knowledge of the incident could fill in the details. If I were arranging this service, and wanted to include communion, I would never have put a Catholic priest in charge, because I know they are strict on this point, and frankly I know we’d need a protestant of some sort to do the non-Catholic communion.
Our church “guards the table” as well, although not specifically to members of our church — we ask that people be communicant members of SOME christian church, so that we know they are under discipline and teaching. We obviously can’t question each person to see that they have a correct saving faith.
OK, I re-read the article a couple of times.
It could well be that last year was the first time the organizers had asked for eucharist, and that this request made the priest pull out at the last minute (I’m guessing that was last year, because the article mentions having to find a pastor at the last minute).
This year, the Catholics simply didn’t participate, because the organizer didn’t want a Mass, he wanted an ecumenical service with communion.
So while it is clear from the article that a Catholic priest ran the service in prior years (and it had gone for 40 years), there is no indication they did communion before last year, I’m only guessing they did it last year.
This year clearly they got a “pastor” to run the service, and the Catholic church did not participate.
Thank you for your wise and charitable responses. I agree with your take on what happened.
This is a non issue only printed to stir up controversy.
It's not politics, Herrera ... it's about beliefs.
This article is kind of pre-controversy. It references the service as a Mass, which apparently it had been for years. The comments give most of the details, although being comments who knows if they are accurate.
From the comments, it sounds like the organizers asked for communion for everybody, and the Catholic diocese said obviously no, and then the organizers decided they really wanted an ecumenical service anyway, so the diocese said that was OK but they couldn't do it, so the organizers had to scramble to get a pastor.
Then Catholics showed up, found out it wasn't a mass, and were upset. Some were apparently stuck because the parking was set up in a way that blocked cars, not sure why or if that is truly the case, and there were some commenters attacking the organizers for "making" it a non-Catholic event without telling people, and others blaming the Catholics for pulling out.
This apparently is why there was a follow-up story that we are reading in this thread.
It is a shame that all faiths can't get together and worship once in a while and have communion together as Jesus called us to do, in remembrance of Him. But that is the fact of life as it exists now.
So long as one Church believes in the literal transfiguration, and requires communicants to be members of their Church, and forbits their members from taking any other communion, it will be impossible for us to all celebrate communion together as one Body.
I disagree with the doctrine of the Catholic Church that requires this -- but I agree they have every right to hold a doctrine, and to limit participation, and nobody should be surprised by that.
It seems to me that the ecumenical folks want to change the Church teachings by insisting that they distribute the wafer, and that they and not the priest would decide.
This is problematic. If you invite a priest to celebrate a mass, then you have to play by the rules of the Catholic church.
Why didn’t they just invite a Priest to administer communion to the Catholics and an Pastor for the Protestants? Everybody’s happy that way.
Nope. Only if he believes that what he's receiving is truly the Body and Blood of Jesus, can he receive it. Otherwise, it's just a 'nice gesture', and what folks in his Church might do, but not what Catholics do.
My b-i-l started doing this when he realized that a lot of the kids in his Life Teen Masses were bringing their non-Catholic friends along, and those guests wanted to be a real part of the Mass. He always explains, before Communion, the Catholic teaching on who can receive, but invites non-Catholics, or Catholics who can't receive at that time, to come forward to receive a Blessing.
It’s nice to think so, but SOMEONE will always be there to complain.
I don’t feel that I need a pastor or priest to give me a blessing, and I don’t feel uncomfortable sitting while others are going up for communion.
I may be wrong in my understanding (and I have no doubt that I will be enthusiastically corrected if I am), but rather than its just being a "nice gesture," it is regarded by Catholics as a sacrilege that endangers the soul of the person receiving it, based on St Paul's warning that those who partake without "discerning" (recognizing) the Body and Blood of Christ are eating and drinking condemnation to themselves. It's not just a "Catholics only" restriction for a religiously snooty private club--it's to prevent the would-be communicant from spiritually endangering himself by profaning a Mystery that he is not aware he is profaning. You may disagree with the Catholic teaching about the Real Presence--but unless you're just an "I-want- it-my-way" sort of religious jerk, you can't reasonably argue with the Catholic impulse to preserve your soul from condemnation. (And I mean the indefinite "you", as in "one," not you specifically, SuzieQ!)
This is so sad. You have Christian brothers fighting over the silliest of issues. Satan surely must be amused.
For I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice, the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings. - Hosea 6:6 Quoted, referenced or paraphrased by Jesus at Matthew 9:13, 12:7 & 33.
Would Jesus invite everyone to his table, or reject them? Did he come just for the righteous or to call sinners to repentence? A careful reading of the Gospels would easily answer both questions.
And if you really want to get your religious feathers ruffled, read Matthew 26:17-30; Mark 14:12-26; John 22:7-30 - Judas who would betray Jesus (and Jesus knew what was in his heart) sat at the Lord’s table and participated in the Last Supper. Jesus even washed his feet John 13:1-17 before sending him off to do what he had planned in his heart.
Jesus gave us one simple command - love God with all our heart and love others as ourselves. There was no command to break off into sects and denominations and squabble over a bunch of rites and ceremonies.
Read Matthew 23 very carefully. Jesus gives one of the strongest condemnations of religious hypocrisy that still applies today.
The CHURCH (community of believers) needs to get its focus on the spiritual and less so on the temporal. That was the lesson from Pentecost through the end of the New Testament - a spiritual revelation of what Jesus has DONE for YOU. When this finally happens, you will see the unity of faith that Paul talked about in Ephesians and a spiritual revival and expansion of the Kingdom of God only seen a few times since Pentecost.
1324 The Eucharist is "the source and summit of the Christian life." "The other sacraments, and indeed all ecclesiastical ministries and works of the apostolate, are bound up with the Eucharist and are oriented toward it. For in the blessed Eucharist is contained the whole spiritual good of the Church, namely Christ himself, our Pasch." --Catechism of the Catholic Church#1324 defines the core difference between Catholics and Protestants; the Eucharist, "namely Christ himself." Most non-Catholics do not understand who it is (if anyone) that resides in the Host, because if they did, they'd surely become a Catholic!
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.