"We can't take this anymore", Holy Redeemer Parishoners want Rome to clean up the Church

  • Thread starter Thread starter buffalo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Just wondering, what is the rule of thumb for a priest, bishop, etc offering communion when it comes to a recipient who “shouldn’t receive”, either because of mortal sin or otherwise. Is it the priest’s discretion or must he give to all who line up? How is the distinction made? Thank you. 🙂
 
Angels_Watchin said:
Did the parish welcome these homosexual drag queens?

The video clearly shows an older man at the reception putting his arm around the one with the flower hat, saying, “Thank you for being here.” And here’s the event they hosted last year in the parish hall for 3 months, before the outrage caused AB Neiderauer to tell Fr. Steve to cancel the events.
travelistic.com/video/show/1820/The-Bingo-Revival
and this is what the hall was used for the evening of Sept 29, 2007
Click to expand...
The Church in this country is worse than I ever imagined. I can’t fathom any priest, bishop, or sincere Catholic (I know - therein lies the problem) allowing such an event to take place on church grounds.

Part of me wants to pray "God have mercy", but another part of me wants to pray *“God, do whatever you have to do to stop the infidelity and sacrilege that is rampant in your Holy Church”.
*
 
Here is a thread that talks about such a topic. Although this doesn’t answer your question in full it’s a start. Hope this helps.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=189511&highlight=denied+communion
darthsmozers said:
Just wondering, what is the rule of thumb for a priest, bishop, etc offering communion when it comes to a recipient who “shouldn’t receive”, either because of mortal sin or otherwise. Is it the priest’s discretion or must he give to all who line up? How is the distinction made? Thank you. 🙂
Click to expand...
 
By Hilary White and John-Henry Westen SAN FRANCISCO, October 16, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Three days after the Archbishop of San Francisco apologized for having given Holy Communion to members of the notorious anti-Catholic homosexual activist group the "Sisters of Perpetual…

Full article…
 
I just came back to the faith. I thought I was joining " One Holy , Catholic, and Apostolic Faith".

It seems to me that people who believe as fellow poster Iwess believes are running the church. I was under the impression that priests answered to Bishops, Bishops to Cardinals, and so on up the line. How many Catholic churches are there? Is there a line of authority people must follow?

How can you have a certain faith, without having faith that the teachings of that faith are true? We should just have 30,000 different catholic churches like protestants do so everyone can follow the church that fits thier beliefs, instead of having faith and adjusting thier behaviors to what the real church teaches.

The Archbishop would have us believe he didn’t know what was going on. If this is true the man is not qualified to hold his position.
Either he is an idiot, which he certainly is not, or this is his philosophy of how the church should be run. Does he know better than the Vatican? Why does The Church , as seated in Rome, tolerate this behavior? If you’re are a Spanish teacher and you teach french, are you really a Spanish teacher? Do you say “I believe this is the way Spanish should be so I’ll teach it this way.”

Maybe I’ll go out and rob a bank because I believe I’d feel better if I had more money. Orwell must be rolling in his grave at seeing what newspeak has wrought us.
 
Iwesshome said:
… I believe that a person can devote themselves to a religious following and have free will in their own beliefs. The tricky part is how to correctly balance the two when one disagrees with the other.
Click to expand...
I could not disagree with you more. The only “free will” that must be exercised, at least in this respect, is whether to be truly Catholic or not. Electing freely to become (or remain) a Catholic means accepting not only Sacred Scripture but also Sacred Tradition, which means accepting accepting the teaching authority of the Magisterium when the Magisterium has spoken authoritatively. Period. I have no privilege of picking and choosing the paragraphs of the Catechism I will choose to believe.

This entire episode with the sisters at MHR Church is an absolute travesty and a scandal of the highest order. As someone who only recently returned to the Church from a 20+ year absence, I only thank God that this did not happen three years ago, when I myself was still lost in a homosexual lifestyle. My return to the Church would almost certainly have been hindered or prevented entirely.

I pray that there is nobody “on the brink,” as I was not too long ago, who looks at these events and decides to stay away from the Church.

For the sake of His sorrowful passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world…
 
Dee_Dee_King said:
the problem is that he has a bad track record of catering to the homosexual agenda. link
Click to expand...
Therein lies the problem. OK it happened once, it was apologized for, nothing anyone can do about it at this point, BUT, it should never happen again! This parish has a terrible track record for buckling under to the political pressures of the radical homosexual groups. If Neiderauer is not removed, it will continue. Somehow I really doubt that The Vatican will do anything at all.
 
Teelynn said:
Therein lies the problem. OK it happened once, it was apologized for, nothing anyone can do about it at this point, BUT, it should never happen again! This parish has a terrible track record for buckling under to the political pressures of the radical homosexual groups. If Neiderauer is not removed, it will continue. Somehow I really doubt that The Vatican will do anything at all.
Click to expand...
Why won;t the Vatican do anything?
 
Teelynn said:
Therein lies the problem. OK it happened once, it was apologized for, nothing anyone can do about it at this point, BUT, it should never happen again! This parish has a terrible track record for buckling under to the political pressures of the radical homosexual groups. If Neiderauer is not removed, it will continue. Somehow I really doubt that The Vatican will do anything at all.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily.

Back in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s, then-Archbishop Raymond Hunthausen of the Archdiocese of Seattle had allowed various and sundry abuses to persist in his Archdiocese. Among the abuses was, as then-Cardinal Ratzinger himself characterized it, the “ill-advised welcome of a pro-homosexual group to your cathedral.” The Vatican actually sent investigators to the Archdiocese, and Cardinal Ratzinger admonished Archbishop Hunthausen to clean up his act. See this link: seattlecatholic.com/misc_20040105.html (As an aside, I grew up in the Archdiocese of Seattle in the 1980’s, and can attest to its rampant liberalism. My catechesis was terrible. But that’s another story for another post.)

Ultimately, things did not improve, and an auxiliary bishop was appointed who assumed most of Hunthausen’s duties. Hunthausen retired shortly thereafter.

So there is some precedent for the Vatican stepping in, investigating, and taking action that is deemed necessary. What is happening now in San Francisco appears to me to be a bit more serious than what was happening in Seattle though.
 
Can’t his superiors do something about it?

Maybe they would have to promote a lesser qualified priest, as to education and experience. Just promote one who will not back down and will protect the sanctity of our Lord’s body.

This was obviously very well planned, not necessarily by the clergy, as seen through the view of the camera. Is this particular church such a three ring circus that all this could not be noticed ahead of time.
 
ChristianVet said:
Apparently its “okay” in SF to “tolerate” these blaphemous misfits. Well, Catholics everywhere else find this situation extremely lacking in courage, holiness. . . Truth.
They should never have been allowed in the Church (with their garb and ostentatious makeup)* in the first place!*

WHAT is it that Catholics and clergy fear in San Francisco for defending and reverencing the Body of Christ?

In the Upper Room (on the feast of Pentecost) the apostles first huddled, hiding in fear for what the Romans might do to them. THEN THEY PRAYED. Next, they received Courage and Boldness – Both gifts from the Holy Spirit. CLEARLY, the Battle belongs to Christ.

San Francisco apparently lacks that clarity.

You mention, “beating a dead horse”; I can tell you that this issue will not go away.

Catholics everywhere are so irrate they are seeing purple and green streeks.

This event, as it has been played out – has started a firestorm, whether or not this thread, or even this forum closes. ***It has touched a very deep chord in devout Catholics. ***
End of story.
Click to expand...
I agree that this incident has rightly started a firestrom and has touched a very deep chord in devout Catholics. 😉

I do not purport to understand the Archbishop nor his role in this scandalous event. I can not assertain intent. And that is not the opurpose of this note.

However, I would like to ask why has this event caused such a firestorm when others who mock the Church and its teachings are allowed to recieve Christ in the Eucharist and do so without causing a similar reaction?

Specifically, when “Catholic” politicians leave the floor of Congress after supporting abortion and embryonic stem cell research by their votes or even by their leadership in obtaining votes and then march down the aisle of the Washington Cathedral to receive Communion from Cardinals, Bishops and priests in D.C. when they are anything but in communion with the Magisterium, why no similar reaction?

Is not the act of supporting or even estabilishing the “legal right” to kill another human being at least as dispicable as the act of supporting homosexual behaviour? 😦 Isn’t the reception of Communion by both groups both scandalous? :confused:

At least the San Francisco Archbishop apologized for his actions.

This is more than other leaders have done with regard to pro death supporters who cause scandal by their reception of the Eucharist.
 
mpb74 said:
It seems to me that people who believe as fellow poster Iwess believes are running the church.
Click to expand...
Before you go any further know this. I am not Catholic. I am currently learning about the Catholic religion before I choose to take that next step. So before you label my opinion with that of everyone else understand the whole story.
How can you have a certain faith, without having faith that the teachings of that faith are true?
Click to expand...
Faith? Whose faith? Yours or theirs or how about mine? What is correct and what is not? Should I believe Traditional or Vatican II? Should I believe this church over that church or this diocese or that one the next city over? You are given a mind and with that common sense and reason. I don’t believe blindly but I do have faith.

Reread my original posts. I don’t condone the action at all. I just look at it from a different mindset. I do agree that if one chooses to follow a particular faith you should do so to the best of your ability but there will always come a time in which one questions themselves. Maybe breaks or questions to ones beliefs makes us better followers in the end.
brittrossiter said:
I could not disagree with you more. The only “free will” that must be exercised, at least in this respect, is whether to be truly Catholic or not. Electing freely to become (or remain) a Catholic means accepting not only Sacred Scripture but also Sacred Tradition, which means accepting accepting the teaching authority of the Magisterium when the Magisterium has spoken authoritatively. Period. I have no privilege of picking and choosing the paragraphs of the Catechism I will choose to believe.
Click to expand...
I don’t disagree but I do take structure religion with caution. There are always different mindsets and with that beliefs. As I stated above a person who chooses to walk a particular religion should do so as well as humanly possible.
This entire episode with the sisters at MHR Church is an absolute travesty and a scandal of the highest order. As someone who only recently returned to the Church from a 20+ year absence, I only thank God that this did not happen three years ago, when I myself was still lost in a homosexual lifestyle. My return to the Church would almost certainly have been hindered or prevented entirely.
Click to expand...
Are you not juggling a double-edge sword here? Your above statement lectures about “free will” and whether one chooses to be a Catholic or not but for one who just posted that you yourself chose to basically abandon your faith for 20 years and engaged in a homosexual lifestyle, you might have re-found God but you are not a Saint. I am glad that you have returned to where you started and found peace in the church once more as I hope that with study, lecture and support I too can find my peace within the Catholic church.

Please understand I do not dare lecture the Catholic faith with any of you I just will question actions and comments till I become better informed.
 
brittrossiter said:
As someone who only recently returned to the Church from a 20+ year absence, I only thank God that this did not happen three years ago, when I myself was still lost in a homosexual lifestyle.
Click to expand...
Welcome home!

In Christ,
Irenaeus
 
Iwesshome said:
Faith? Whose faith? Yours or theirs or how about mine? What is correct and what is not? Should I believe Traditional or Vatican II?
Click to expand...
Traditional or Vatican II are the same teaching. Only some of the language and method of presentation are different. Remember, to interpret Vatican II as a break with tradition is to misinterpret Vatican II. I’ll pray for you while continuing on your faith journey.

In Christ,
Irenaeus
 
Iwesshome said:
…you might have re-found God but you are not a Saint.
Click to expand...
Perhaps not a canonized saint, but certainly he is a saint (or at least a saint in the making) in the sense of being a holy one of God set apart for His purpose.

In Christ,
Irenaeus
 
Dee_Dee_King said:
the problem is that he has a bad track record of catering to the homosexual agenda. link
Click to expand...
You absolutely got it. Why was he appointed in SF of all places? Why won’t the Pope remove him? Forget this he is old stuff. Truth is truth and he isn’t that old.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top