Dems "Excommunicated" From Church

[Ronin]

Chandler suddenly resigns.

So, he and his supporters are saying he was right and that it had nothing to do with politics...so he resigns and leaves?

From the article ~

Speaking from the pulpit during a meeting at East Waynesville Baptist Church, the Rev. Chan Chandler told church members that it would "cause more hurt for me and my family" if he stayed.

He boots out several long standing members of the congregation and yet he and his family are hurt?!

What a twisted web we weave...etc.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by Ronin

He boots out several long standing members of the congregation and yet he and his family are hurt?!

Ah, the romance of persecution!

[Ronin]

Here's an interesting comment from Chandler supporter Misty Turner:

“The only thing I wanna say is that everything that’s been in the press is a lie,” said Misty Turner. “I have never bowed down to Chan. I’ve only bowed down to the Lord.”

Asked if she would remain a member of East Waynesville, she said, “I’m not going to serve with the ungodly.”

Who are "the ungodly" she is speaking of...and exactly what quality do "the ungodly" members possess that makes them so?

The original members who were booted have stated that they are anti-abortion as well, probably also against same-sex marriage...so it is interesting that Misty still thinks members are "ungodly".

[ChuckF]

Prediction: Chandler will do the talk shows and hit the fundy lecture circuit at $10k a pop. Then either a post at Bob Jones or a run for public office.

[TomJoe]

Originally Posted by Ronin

Asked if she would remain a member of East Waynesville, she said, “I’m not going to serve with the ungodly.”

For a sola-scripturist, she sure is ignorant of the Gospel (Luke 19:10).
For the Son of man came to seek and to save the lost.

[Clutch Munny]

Originally Posted by TomJoe

For a sola-scripturist, she sure is ignorant of the Gospel (Luke 19:10).

Well, I think that's a pretty fair critique of right-protestantism generally in the USA and Canada. Lots of quotes from Acts in particular that they'd think were written by Karl Marx...

[Ronin]

Originally Posted by Ronin

Asked if she would remain a member of East Waynesville, she said, “I’m not going to serve with the ungodly.”

Originally Posted by TomJoe

[For a sola-scripturist, she sure is ignorant of the Gospel (Luke 19:10).
For the Son of man came to seek and to save the lost.

It wasn't too long ago that sola magisteriumists covered similar territory.

from the article ~

In 2003, Cardinal Ratzinger's congregation issued an important document that said Catholic politicians must not ignore essential church teachings, particularly on human life. That set the stage for a long debate during the 2004 U.S. election campaign on whether Democratic Sen. John F. Kerry, a Catholic who supports legalized abortion, should be given Communion.

Is John Kerry excommunicated?

from the article ~

Cole wrote, "If a Catholic publicly and obstinately supports the civil right to abortion, knowing that the Church teaches officially against that legislation, he or she commits that heresy envisioned by Can. 751 of the Code [of Canon Law]. Provided that the presumptions of knowledge of the law and penalty and imputability are not rebutted in the external forum, one is automatically excommunicated.

What is your view on these political similarities TomJoe?

[TomJoe]

Originally Posted by Ronin

What is your view on these political similarities TomJoe?

I think there is a distinct difference. First of all, the Catholic Church has always stated that "excommunication" is a medicinal judgement, rather than a punitive judgement. An official excommunication states what has already happened ... a person has removed themselves, by their thoughts and actions, from the Church. The Church simply recognizes this fact. Excommunication is a "shock judgement" intended to point out the gravity of an offense to the person who has committed it, in an attempt to get them to reconsider their actions. As such, such individuals should not partake of the Sacraments* but they are still allowed to fellowship and attend Mass and other Church functions. Those are not denied to them, which was what was attempted in East Waynesville.

Also, AFAIK, John Kerry has not been excommunicated. Confirmation of such would have to come from his Archbishop, and his Archbishop has failed to make such a statement, and as a matter of fact has given Communion to Kerry, which means John Kerry is still a Catholic.

I think that is a far cry from throwing select sinners out of a parish. Or, are you going to accuse me of "back tracking" now?

* You do not believe this, but Catholics believe that the Eucharist is truly Jesus Christ. As such, anyone who has committed unrepentant mortal sin (which may lead to an excommunication) should not partake of the Eucharist because it would lead to further spiritual offense (the sin of blasphemy and desecration). Looked at from that perspective, denial of the Eucharist is meant as an attempt to protect the excommunicated from further spiritual harm. For instance, if you're helping detox an alcoholic, do you do so by giving them a fifth of vodka?

[Ronin]

Originally Posted by Ronin

What is your view on these political similarities TomJoe?

Originally Posted by TomJoe

[I think there is a distinct difference. First of all, the Catholic Church has always stated that "excommunication" is a medicinal judgement, rather than a punitive judgement. An official excommunication states what has already happened ... a person has removed themselves, by their thoughts and actions, from the Church. The Church simply recognizes this fact. Excommunication is a "shock judgement" intended to point out the gravity of an offense to the person who has committed it, in an attempt to get them to reconsider their actions. As such, such individuals should not partake of the Sacraments* but they are still allowed to fellowship and attend Mass and other Church functions. Those are not denied to them, which was what was attempted in East Waynesville.

"Chandler responded by saying if those who disagreed would repent, then they could get on with the Lord's work, Rash said. The pastor said if they weren't going to repent they should leave, Rash said."

The slight difference then is that the Catholic can still come to the church, they just miss out on the key element of the Eucharist based on sola magesterium instead of fellowship based on sola scriptura.

Do excommunicated Catholics often stick around in the same church?

Originally Posted by tomJoe

Also, AFAIK, John Kerry has not been excommunicated. Confirmation of such would have to come from his Archbishop, and his Archbishop has failed to make such a statement, and as a matter of fact has given Communion to Kerry, which means John Kerry is still a Catholic.

Yes, I realize that a particular procedure did not take place.

However, the article I linked to and quoted indicate that it seems that technically he is excommunicated based upon his political statements.

Originally Posted by TomJoe

I think that is a far cry from throwing select sinners out of a parish. Or, are you going to accuse me of "back tracking" now?

Well, I don't think it is too far a cry, but I can agree it is a bit different.

I've apologized for the prior comments in that other thread, TomJoe, and I really don't wish to get into another round of such exchanges.

I feel bad for how that other thread developed and I hope that you can accept my apology.

Originally Posted by TomJoe

* You do not believe this, but Catholics believe that the Eucharist is truly Jesus Christ. As such, anyone who has committed unrepentant mortal sin (which may lead to an excommunication) should not partake of the Eucharist because it would lead to further spiritual offense (the sin of blasphemy and desecration). Looked at from that perspective, denial of the Eucharist is meant as an attempt to protect the excommunicated from further spiritual harm. For instance, if you're helping detox an alcoholic, do you do so by giving them a fifth of vodka?

I think maybe the Rev. Chandler had something very similar in mind...only replace the importance of the Catholic "Eucharist" with the Baptist "Fellowship" and we can see how a Protestant may be similarly effected.

You may see it otherwise.

Thanks for the response, I do perceive the subtle nuance to your view that would make the circumstance ever so slightly different.

I may just disagree with whether such a subtlety really makes a significant difference as it relates to the CSS issue.

Church representatives using religious influence to persuade the politics of its members seems to occur in both instances.

[Ronin]

TomJoe:

Were these people "excommunicated"?

If not, on what grounds were they denied the Eucharist?

[TomJoe]

Originally Posted by Ronin

TomJoe:

Were these people "excommunicated"?

No, they were not.

Originally Posted by Ronin

If not, on what grounds were they denied the Eucharist?

From the article:

Archbishop Harry Flynn told the group earlier this month that they would not receive communion because the sashes had become a protest against church teaching.

The Archbishop flat out told them, wear the sash, I will not give you communion. They wore the sashes. Pretty cut and dry.

The Catholic Church is pretty clear on its stance about homosexual sex. The Rainbow Sash Alliance thinks the Catholic Church is wrong to call homosexual sex sinful, so they go to Catholic parishes to "make statements". The Mass is not the time, nor the place, to make such demonstrations. It's like telling someone, if you want to come over, don't wear muddy boots. So, then they go over wearing muddy boots, and throw a fit when they're not allowed to come in and walk on someone's new, clean carpets. Not a perfect analogy, but close enough if you ask me.

[Ronin]

Originally Posted by TomJoe

The Archbishop flat out told them, wear the sash, I will not give you communion. They wore the sashes. Pretty cut and dry.

The Catholic Church is pretty clear on its stance about homosexual sex. The Rainbow Sash Alliance thinks the Catholic Church is wrong to call homosexual sex sinful, so they go to Catholic parishes to "make statements". The Mass is not the time, nor the place, to make such demonstrations. It's like telling someone, if you want to come over, don't wear muddy boots. So, then they go over wearing muddy boots, and throw a fit when they're not allowed to come in and walk on someone's new, clean carpets. Not a perfect analogy, but close enough if you ask me.

And how does this differ substantively from Chandler saying that the Church thinks that self-described Democrats are wrong and if you want to come over, don't be a Democrat?

The positions regarding homosexuality and abortion seem to be parsed out to political party...and then the adherents to the political party are banned from their own important rituals.

Close enough if you ask me.

[TomJoe]

Originally Posted by Ronin

And how does this differ substantively from Chandler saying that the Church thinks that self-described Democrats are wrong and if you want to come over, don't be a Democrat?

The positions regarding homosexuality and abortion seem to be parsed out to political party...and then the adherents to the political party are banned from their own important rituals.

Close enough if you ask me.

It differs because, if any of these people had wanted to really receive communion, all they had to do was not wear the sash. It was they who, after being duly informed a month prior to the event, wore the sashes.

As I said earlier, the priest has an obligation to see to the spiritual well-being of individuals. These people were broadcasting, broadcasting, their belief in something which runs contrary to Catholic teaching. They were actively, obstinantly protesting the teaching of the Catholic Church, and then two-facedly came to Church to partake in the holiest of Catholic sacraments, a sacrament in which the Catholic Church states that you must make a consistent and serious effort to be in a state of grace before partaking. And the priest wasn't telling them not to show up, he told them they shouldn't receive communion.

For the record, I'm Catholic, I'm divorced. If I got remarried w/o an annulment, and went to receive Communion, I would be denied Communion too if the priest was aware of it, and it would have nothing to do with abortion or homosexuality. If I were not Catholic, and the priest knew it, I would be denied Communion, and it would have nothing to do with abortion or homosexuality.

As far as politicizing the issue ... I see far less politicizing by the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church aims to be consistent and steadfast in her decisions, which have annoyed both Democrats and Republicans. Also, given the fact that only about 6% of the worlds Catholics reside in America ... I doubt the Catholic Church gives two shits about whether Republicans or Democrats are pissed off about any particular issue*.

The archbishop stated that the rainbow sash is a clear indication that a consistent and serious effort to be in a state of grace was not taken, and as such Communion would be denied. If the Archbishop was wrong, I see no action on the part of the Rainbow Sash Alliance to clarify what they meant ... instead, they showed up at Mass and then threw a fit when they were re-told they could not receive Communion.

PS: Though I didn't say this at first, I will mention it here ... For the record, I never once, in my initial comments said anything about Chandler. My initial "sola scripturist" comment was aimed at a lady who made a particularly vitriolic comment.


*In the article you cited, I noticed that it said that the year before, to counter the obstinant refusal of the Rainbow Sash Alliance to drop the sashes and just behave like all other Catholics at Mass, conservative groups kneeled in the aisles to prevent the RSA members from receiving Communion. I assume this had the effect of preventing everyone from receiving Communion. To that, I send a "Fuck You" to both RSA and "conservative group" members. The Mass isn't a friggin political event, and it pissed me off to see people using it as such. So no, I feel no particular pity for these people and their being denied Communion... they knew full well what would happen, they did it anyways.

[Ronin]

Originally Posted by TomJoe

It differs because, if any of these people had wanted to really receive communion, all they had to do was not wear the sash. It was they who, after being duly informed a month prior to the event, wore the sashes.

Again:

"Chandler responded by saying if those who disagreed would repent, then they could get on with the Lord's work, Rash said. The pastor said if they weren't going to repent they should leave, Rash said."

Close enough if you ask me.

[TomJoe]

Originally Posted by Ronin

Again:

"Chandler responded by saying if those who disagreed would repent, then they could get on with the Lord's work, Rash said. The pastor said if they weren't going to repent they should leave, Rash said."

Close enough if you ask me.

Sure. Think what you wish. However, like I said earlier, the Catholic Church never tells anyone they "should leave". And once again, my initial comment had nothing whatsoever to do with Chandler.

[Ronin]

Telling someone that they are not welcome to share in the Eucharist is telling them that they are different sinners than other sinners and that they are outcast and not welcome...no matter where they actually are standing.

In short, they hunger and are not fed.

I think that the Bible might have a story about what Jesus thought of those who behaved in such a manner...somewhere in Matthew.

Originally Posted by TomJoe

And once again, my initial comment had nothing whatsoever to do with Chandler.

I never said that your initial comment had anything to do with Chandler.

I was, however, drawing attention to the similarities between your own position garnered from your statement regarding the "sola scripturists" and those of Chandler, his supporters/position.

The thread has continued to enhance the similarities.

[TomJoe]

Originally Posted by Ronin

Telling someone that they are not welcome to share in the Eucharist is telling them that they are different sinners than other sinners and that they are outcast and not welcome...no matter where they actually are standing.

But you see Ronin, there are different types of sin. The Catholic Church distinguishes between mortal sins and venial sins. There are also two types of sinners ... repentant and non-repentant. Non-repentant sinners, especially those who broadcast that non-repentant state, are denied Communion, lest they further worsen their state. That many people today adopt the "I'm ok, You're ok" state of mind, and fail to see a difference between medicinal actions and punitive actions is not the fault of the Catholic Church.

[Ronin]

Originally Posted by TomJoe

But you see Ronin, there are different types of sin. The Catholic Church distinguishes between mortal sins and venial sins. There are also two types of sinners ... repentant and non-repentant. Non-repentant sinners, especially those who broadcast that non-repentant state, are denied Communion, lest they further worsen their state. That many people today adopt the "I'm ok, You're ok" state of mind, and fail to see a difference between medicinal actions and punitive actions is not the fault of the Catholic Church.

Ok...so the non-repentant pro-war and pro-death penalty and gluttonous/wealthy sinners are approved for the Body and Blood of Christ according to the "Catholic Church" while it just happens that the pro-gay, pro-choice sinners are not?!

I don't remember in any of the biblical stories where Jesus taught that.

I just don't get it, TomJoe.

Explain how this cognitive dissonance is accomplished.

[John Carter]

Let me get this straight, TomJoe. Are you really saying that simply disagreeing with some Church position is a sin?