FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: "Who is the priest who denied a lesbian woman Communion?"
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
(03-01-2012, 01:51 PM)Stubborn Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-01-2012, 01:39 PM)Walty Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-01-2012, 01:02 PM)Stubborn Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-01-2012, 07:45 AM)Revixit Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-01-2012, 01:14 AM)wsxyz Wrote: [ -> ][size=12pt]Revexit: no doubt you support Archbishop Niederauer in this matter as well

Your postings on this topic make me sick.

WRONG.  I don't support those clowns at all.

A fellow Catholic talking about loving our neighbor, as Jesus taught us we must, makes you sick?  That says a lot more about you than it does about me, my friend.

You are wrapped up in the whole NO "hate the sin but love the sinner" bs.

That's not bs.  It's actually a great axiom.  However, I would argue that Revixit is neither truly loving the sinner nor properly hating the sin.

The Lord loves us all - the sinners and the just. The NO theology *completely* denies the Justice if God that WILL befall those who remain sinners of their own free will - as this lesbian. 

Our Lord condemns the unrepentant sinner - regardless of His love for that sinner because the sinner brings on their own condemnation.

Do not be fooled by this stupid NO "axiom" which is designed to confuse.

God hates the unrepentant sinner - never forget that.............God loves the sinner who also hates the sin!

Don't be fooled into minimizing God's love by your zeal against liberal Catholicism.

God hates the sinner in his sin, but loves the sinner in his potential repentance. Scripture says the Lord does not want the death of sinners, but their conversion. There is more rejoicing in heaven over one repentant sinner than 99 who persevered.

The axiom you criticize is good Catholicism. Abusus non tollit usum -- the misapplication of the axiom by those who do not understand love does not nullify the axiom.
I hate when my post is at the bottom of the page!  But you hit the nail on the head, newyorkcatholic.  Well said.
There were martyrs murdered for as simple a thing as refusing to step on a Crucifix but nowadays profaning the Body of Christ can be called "loving" or "pastoral" ???

The thing about how she might have run to confession between the time before Mass and introducing her lesbian lover and communion time does not hold water. A public sinner be it a homosexual or political pro-abort must also make a public repentance, not a secret hidden confession and all is well now.

The priest did the right thing.  For this he will be made an example of.  We see this happening with Fr. MIchael Rodriguez and other faithful priests....and the vicious attack may come from seculars but also from within the Church.

Countless saints were exiled, persecuted and ostracized for doing the right thing.  Political correctness is not going to get anyone into heaven.  We have long had a crisis of saints but it appears that opportunities for suffering for Christ may be  on the horizon.

Gay couples demanding "marriage" are not going to go to the "inclusive" or "pastoral" churches....no, they will go where they know the priest will not go against his conscience so as to bring wrath upon him.  They will show him who has the power in this evil world!

Almost all the English bishops went along to get along with that aduilterous murderer who started his own church, Henry 8th.  One did not.  And he gave his life as a witness to the sanctity of marriage and the primacy of the Pope and we know him as Saint John Fisher.

Pray for our faithful clergy for they are coming into the target zone. And do not think that IF you are a true faithful Catholic that you will escape persecution.  You can compromise with the world or stand up for the truth.  No excuses.
(03-01-2012, 02:57 PM)Magdalene Wrote: [ -> ]Gay couples demanding "marriage" are not going to go to the "inclusive" or "pastoral" churches....no, they will go where they know the priest will not go against his conscience so as to bring wrath upon him.  They will show him who has the power in this evil world!

That's because homosexuals aren't content to get their "rights" and live in peace.  They constantly have to flaunt their homosexuality in an attempt to scandalize everyone not ok with it and desecrate everything that is holy to them.
(03-01-2012, 02:48 PM)Walty Wrote: [ -> ]Well, I think you are oversimplifying things and coming to an erroneous view in the process.  So long as one is careful to use the real definition of love, this axiom is spot on.  I don't think it can be said that God totally hates the sinner until the sinner has made their final choice and God places them in hell at their personal judgment.

I agree, So long as one is careful to use the real definition of love, this axiom is spot on - the real definition of love is a two way street. If the sinner rejects God, God rejects the sinner. All that is required of the sinner is to try. Try to amend their life for the love of God.

(03-01-2012, 02:48 PM)Walty Wrote: [ -> ]When you argue against this axiom, you're actually hurting the argument that we're making.  True love demands that the priest withhold the Eucharist from this woman, and not just true love for Christ, but true love for the woman as well.  And we cannot deny that what is best for Christ is always best for humanity in general and every individual in particular.

This axiom is only a half truth - which is worse than an outright lie. Were it otherwise, then the priest had no right to refuse communion due to God's love for the sinner.


(03-01-2012, 02:48 PM)Walty Wrote: [ -> ]So, I say again, "Love the sinner; hate the sin," but keep in mind that love does not necessarily mean being kind or unoffensive.  In this case, the loving thing to do was "offensive" and "exclusive", but loving nonetheless.

The axiom is actually a modern saying, not an axiom of Holy Mother the Church.........please correct me if I'm wrong.

God condemns the sin - right? Therefore, God condemns the sinner - right?
Therefore - - - - - the "axiom" should say - God hates the sin and condemns the sinner.

In His infinite justice, God still hates the sin, -----and only loves the sinner WHO ALSO HATES THE SIN as God hates it - - - - - -the thing the "axiom" fails to promote is God loves the sinner who falls into sin from weakness and is sorrowful and strives to repent.

God hates the proud sinner - like this lesbian - who not only LOVES her sin but also proclaims the same proudly. This type of sinner rejects both God's love and mercy - as such, this sinner will suffer the judgement of God's justice. Make no mistake about it, God hates both the sin and the sinner who offends Him - because He is the Lord thy God, mighty, jealous, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me


(03-01-2012, 02:53 PM)newyorkcatholic Wrote: [ -> ]Don't be fooled into minimizing God's love by your zeal against liberal Catholicism.

God hates the sinner in his sin, but loves the sinner in his potential repentance. Scripture says the Lord does not want the death of sinners, but their conversion. There is more rejoicing in heaven over one repentant sinner than 99 who persevered.

The axiom you criticize is good Catholicism. Abusus non tollit usum -- the misapplication of the axiom by those who do not understand love does not nullify the axiom.

Show me where this lesbian displays any sign of repentance.

Thanks.
(03-01-2012, 03:09 PM)Stubborn Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-01-2012, 02:53 PM)newyorkcatholic Wrote: [ -> ]Don't be fooled into minimizing God's love by your zeal against liberal Catholicism.

God hates the sinner in his sin, but loves the sinner in his potential repentance. Scripture says the Lord does not want the death of sinners, but their conversion. There is more rejoicing in heaven over one repentant sinner than 99 who persevered.

The axiom you criticize is good Catholicism. Abusus non tollit usum -- the misapplication of the axiom by those who do not understand love does not nullify the axiom.

Show me where this lesbian displays any sign of repentance.

Thanks.

Doesn't matter.  God's love is not conditional and neither is ours.  We shall love our enemies, and the enemies of the Lord, just as He did.
(03-01-2012, 03:12 PM)Walty Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-01-2012, 03:09 PM)Stubborn Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-01-2012, 02:53 PM)newyorkcatholic Wrote: [ -> ]Don't be fooled into minimizing God's love by your zeal against liberal Catholicism.

God hates the sinner in his sin, but loves the sinner in his potential repentance. Scripture says the Lord does not want the death of sinners, but their conversion. There is more rejoicing in heaven over one repentant sinner than 99 who persevered.

The axiom you criticize is good Catholicism. Abusus non tollit usum -- the misapplication of the axiom by those who do not understand love does not nullify the axiom.

Show me where this lesbian displays any sign of repentance.

Thanks.

Doesn't matter.  God's love is not conditional and neither is ours.  We shall love our enemies, and the enemies of the Lord, just as He did.

But it does matter.

Jesus says: "Thou shall love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole mind." (Matt. 22:37.)
Before He passes to the second commandment, Jesus tells us about the first: "This is the greatest and the first commandment." Do not touch one single phrase of the next commandment until you have fully comprehended and understood this first one!

Our Lord then goes on: "And the second is like to this: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself."
Christ also says later on that both of these commandments are essentially the same, and that one cannot stand without the other, which is what I have been saying.  By your argument, it was wrong for Christ to have prayed for (thus loving) those who crucified Him.  He knew that the majority of them (of us, really) would end up in hell, unrepentant.

And yet He loved.
(03-01-2012, 03:24 PM)Walty Wrote: [ -> ]Christ also says later on that both of these commandments are essentially the same, and that one cannot stand without the other, which is what I have been saying.  By your argument, it was wrong for Christ to have prayed for (thus loving) those who crucified Him.  He knew that the majority of them (of us, really) would end up in hell, unrepentant.

And yet He loved.

But the thing people neglect, the thing the NO and modernism promotes is to place love of neighbor first, without regard to love of God.

To love the sinner without first loving God is to love the sin.

God loved the sinner who repented i.e. Mary Magdelin but Judas, whom He also loved, went to hell.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11