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, 03:34 PM)Stubborn Wrote: [ -> ]
(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.

Right, but that's because God doesn't separate the two.  We are called to love the sinner, and God does indeed do just that, it's merely that we know, as trads, that it is impossible to divorce love of neighbor from love of God and vice versa.

The NO crowd separates the two.  They care ONLY about loving man and not about loving God.  When one divorces "love" from its foundation in the Holy Trinity and the life of Christ, the "love" becomes bastardized and twisted, so that even though they try to help man by "loving" him, their "love" really hurts and is not true love at all.

However, the axiom we mentioned isn't affected by this.  It remains true, despite the perversions of the definitions used in the axiom by the Modernists.
(03-01-2012, 12:42 AM)Revixit Wrote: [ -> ]if she then made a good confession, she should have been given absolution and allowed to receive Communion at her mother's funeral Mass.  If he doesn't believe people can change their behavior, can he be an effective priest when working with sinners?

The important word is "if."

(03-01-2012, 03:43 PM)Warrenton Wrote: [ -> ][quote='Revixit' pid='983533' dateline='1330576972']if she then made a good confession, she should have been given absolution and allowed to receive Communion at her mother's funeral Mass.  If he doesn't believe people can change their behavior, can he be an effective priest when working with sinners?

But we know for a fact that she hadn't changed her behavior, and that's why Fr. denied her the Eucharist.  You are correct in saying that she may have confessed any homosexual actions, but she was still in a romantic relationship with another woman and was cohabiting with her.

Both of these are still grave sins, irregardless of whether they were chaste or whether she had confessed homosexual acts.
(03-01-2012, 03:49 PM)Walty Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-01-2012, 03:43 PM)Warrenton Wrote: [ -> ][quote='Revixit' pid='983533' dateline='1330576972']if she then made a good confession, she should have been given absolution and allowed to receive Communion at her mother's funeral Mass.  If he doesn't believe people can change their behavior, can he be an effective priest when working with sinners?

But we know for a fact that she hadn't changed her behavior, and that's why Fr. denied her the Eucharist.  You are correct in saying that she may have confessed any homosexual actions, but she was still in a romantic relationship with another woman and was cohabiting with her.

Both of these are still grave sins, irregardless of whether they were chaste or whether she had confessed homosexual acts.

Correct.  I see this incident as indicative of another problem, one that lies not with homosexual conduct, but with the failure of Catholics to understand what the eucharist is.  The failure stems from the idea of frequent communion, one might say habitual communion, by the laity, inadequate spiritual preparation and discipline, and inadequate teaching about the nature of the sacrament, in large part through the N.O. itself.  Alls these things create the idea that communion is given in order to display what amounts to an attenuated form of "community" or "solidarity" not the receipt of saving grace.  That is why the lady was so angry about the denial.  She felt excluded from the herd. 
(03-01-2012, 03:42 PM)Walty Wrote: [ -> ]Right, but that's because God doesn't separate the two.  We are called to love the sinner, and God does indeed do just that, it's merely that we know, as trads, that it is impossible to divorce love of neighbor from love of God and vice versa.

The NO crowd separates the two.  They care ONLY about loving man and not about loving God.  When one divorces "love" from its foundation in the Holy Trinity and the life of Christ, the "love" becomes bastardized and twisted, so that even though they try to help man by "loving" him, their "love" really hurts and is not true love at all.

However, the axiom we mentioned isn't affected by this.  It remains true, despite the perversions of the definitions used in the axiom by the Modernists.

What axiom? Where does this "axiom" come from? It sounds like it comes from the homosexuals or others who want to be loved and accepted while they remain publicly living in their sin.

"Neither shall the wicked dwell near thee: nor shall the unjust abide before thy eyes. Thou hatest all the workers of iniquity: thou wilt destroy all that speak a lie" (Ps. 5:6-7).

"For there is no good for him that is always occupied in evil and giveth no alms: for the Highest hateth sinners, and hath mercy on the penitent" (Ecclesiasticus 12:3).

There are plenty of other Scripture that directly apply, but it boils down to is that for sinners who are obviously unrepentant, we are never called to love what God hates.





The axiom is way older than the past few decades of Modernism.  Newyorkcatholic probably knows more about it, but I'm pretty sure that it goes back centuries, if not further.

Your rejection of this is dangerous and not in-keeping with traditional theology.
A couple of years ago my mother-in-law died and I told one of my sons that he should not receive Communion at her funeral.  He was not in a state of Grace.  My son did not argue about this.  He knew it is Church teaching.  It would be pretty silly to say that I don't love my son or that God does not love my son because of this.
(03-01-2012, 04:12 PM)Walty Wrote: [ -> ]The axiom is way older than the past few decades of Modernism.  Newyorkcatholic probably knows more about it, but I'm pretty sure that it goes back centuries, if not further.

Your rejection of this is dangerous and not in-keeping with traditional theology.

Looks like Scripture, as I posted, rejects it and is dangerous as well? - how can you claim it dangerous I don't know Walty.

This surprises me coming from you.
(03-01-2012, 04:16 PM)Stubborn Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-01-2012, 04:12 PM)Walty Wrote: [ -> ]The axiom is way older than the past few decades of Modernism.  Newyorkcatholic probably knows more about it, but I'm pretty sure that it goes back centuries, if not further.

Your rejection of this is dangerous and not in-keeping with traditional theology.

Looks like Scripture, as I posted, rejects it and is dangerous as well? - how can you claim it dangerous I don't know Walty.

This surprises me coming from you.

Hah.  Well that goes both ways, I suppose.  You're confusing love with the modernist version of love.  If you follow your rejection of this phrase or axiom to its logical theological conclusion, you have undercut the entire basic premise of Christianity that God is the source of Love itself (the traditional and orthodox sense of love).

You are doing what the Modernists do by divorcing the love of neighbor and the love of God, except that you take the side of God while they take the side of man.  It's the same error, however.  You need to see that they are inseparable otherwise your theology will fall under the warning of St. Paul.

"IF I speak with the tongues of men, and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal."
(03-01-2012, 04:15 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]A couple of years ago my mother-in-law died and I told one of my sons that he should not receive Communion at her funeral.  He was not in a state of Grace.  My son did not argue about this.  He knew it is Church teaching.  It would be pretty silly to say that I don't love my son or that God does not love my son because of this.

This is right.

This displays that your son is not unrepentant  - unlike the lesbian who could care less and displayed her intention to remain obstinate in her sin - publicly.

We are all sinners and God loves us all regardless - but to claim that we are to hate the sin and love the sinner  unconditionally is scandalous.

I still say it is no axiom of the Church - and look forward to being corrected.


 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11