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, 04:22 PM)Walty Wrote: [ -> ]
(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."

Well, I look forward to being corrected - please show who in the Church taught this "axiom" as it explicitly contradicts the Scripture I posted.

I am not divorcing anything - I am saying before love of neighbor comes love of God - - - - - if God hates something (as the scripture I posted shows) then we had best hate the same thing - namely, the sinner who obstinately remains unrepentant.
(03-01-2012, 04:33 PM)Stubborn Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-01-2012, 04:22 PM)Walty Wrote: [ -> ]
(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."

Well, I look forward to being corrected - please show who in the Church taught this "axiom" as it explicitly contradicts the Scripture I posted.

I am not divorcing anything - I am saying before love of neighbor comes love of God - - - - - if God hates something (as the scripture I posted shows) then we had best hate the same thing - namely, the sinner who obstinately remains unrepentant.

But you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater.  The sin is the rot in the person that we ought to hate.  Until God has judged that person to be inherently rotten at their personal judgment, we must at least recognize their inherent dignity as creatures of God, whether they are rebellious or not.  We hate the demons because they have made their choice and, in many senses, ARE sin.  Living sinners are a different story.

And what I'm saying doesn't contradict Scripture.  What you're saying does, however.  1) You're creating a division between love of God and love of neighbor, so that one can love their neighbor while simultaneously hating God.  And that's not possible with the true definition of love.  It's only possible with the modern, flawed definition of love.  As I've been saying, you're confusing the two otherwise you would realize that it is NOT POSSIBLE to put true love of a human over the love of God.  They stem from and flow back toward the same source.  What you're saying is a logical absurdity, an impossibility.

2) Christ Himself prayed for and loved sinners during His life, even though He knew many of them would choose sin and not Himself.  But He did not teach us to hate these enemies, either in His words or deeds.  In fact, His words are that we ought to love our enemies, love those who persecute us, and love those who blaspheme, forgiving them always, until their point of no return, a point which none of us can judge.

Also, St. Augustine (in his letter 211 c. 424) says "Cum dilectione hominum et odio vitiorum", which means"With love for mankind and hatred of sins."

Furthermore, from the City of God:

Quote:For this reason, the man who lives by God's standards and not by man's, must needs be a lover of the good, and it follows that he must hate what is evil. Further, since no one is evil by nature, but anyone who is evil is evil because of a perversion of nature, the man who lives by God's standards has a duty of "perfect hatred" (Psalm 139:22) towards those who are evil; that is to say, he should not hate the person because of the fault, nor should he love the fault because of the person. He should hate the fault, but love the man. And when the fault has been cured there will remain only what he ought to love, nothing that he should hate. (14:6, Penguin ed., transl. Bettenson)

Emphasis is mine.
The priest was reprimanded by the bishop for denying communion to the sodomite couple, wasn't he?

Nothing surprises me anymore.

http://catholicism.org/priest-reprimande...sbian.html
(03-01-2012, 05:19 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]The priest was reprimanded by the bishop for denying communion to the sodomite couple, wasn't he?

Nothing surprises me anymore.

http://catholicism.org/priest-reprimande...sbian.html

Quote:After posting this almost two hours ago I have since been informed that Deacon Kandra has an update to this news posted on his blog. Someone from the parish sent him more information that puts Father Guarnizo in an even better light and negates my own commentary concerning the priest’s hesitancy in confronting the woman before the Mass. The fact is that he did not hesitate. The woman introduced her “lover” to him in his own sacristy and then and there he told her not to present herself for Communion. Here is the update.

Barbara Johnson and the cardinal owe Father Guarnizo and the entire Catholic community an apology.
(03-01-2012, 05:33 PM)mikemac Wrote: [ -> ]Barbara Johnson and the cardinal owe Father Guarnizo and the entire Catholic community an apology.

You wish.

Don't expect godliness from those who have the Devil for a father.
(03-01-2012, 04:59 PM)Walty Wrote: [ -> ]Furthermore, from the City of God:

Quote:For this reason, the man who lives by God's standards and not by man's, must needs be a lover of the good, and it follows that he must hate what is evil. Further, since no one is evil by nature, but anyone who is evil is evil because of a perversion of nature, the man who lives by God's standards has a duty of "perfect hatred" (Psalm 139:22) towards those who are evil; that is to say, he should not hate the person because of the fault, nor should he love the fault because of the person. He should hate the fault, but love the man. And when the fault has been cured there will remain only what he ought to love, nothing that he should hate. (14:6, Penguin ed., transl. Bettenson)

Emphasis is mine.

Thanks Walty! I was wrong and thank you for correcting me!

I guess I am coming across as though I "hate the sinner" - which is not really the case - I simply do not mean "love" with the same definition as the modern definition of "love" - which I generally take to mean "accept the sin along with the sinner" - when in reality any attempt at correcting or rebuking of the sinner for the sinner's own welfare is taken for hate by the obstinate sinner - and the modern world - generally speaking.

That being said, the priest was right, the lesbian was wrong and will end up in hell if she doesn't repent - love or no love.

Although I think it's already been mentioned, there's nothing loving about letting someone commit sacrilege.  Love the sinner hate the sin is correct.  And that's what happened in this case.  The priest showed proper love for the Real Presence but not having it desecrated, and proper love for this woman by not letting her recieve Him.

That's a great example of love.  It's the priests that don't care that are filled with hate and disrespect, for Christ in the Blessed Sacrament and for those who presume to partake unworthily. 

(03-01-2012, 05:42 PM)Stubborn Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-01-2012, 04:59 PM)Walty Wrote: [ -> ]Furthermore, from the City of God:

Quote:For this reason, the man who lives by God's standards and not by man's, must needs be a lover of the good, and it follows that he must hate what is evil. Further, since no one is evil by nature, but anyone who is evil is evil because of a perversion of nature, the man who lives by God's standards has a duty of "perfect hatred" (Psalm 139:22) towards those who are evil; that is to say, he should not hate the person because of the fault, nor should he love the fault because of the person. He should hate the fault, but love the man. And when the fault has been cured there will remain only what he ought to love, nothing that he should hate. (14:6, Penguin ed., transl. Bettenson)

Emphasis is mine.

Thanks Walty! I was wrong and thank you for correcting me!

I guess I am coming across as though I "hate the sinner" - which is not really the case - I simply do not mean "love" with the same definition as the modern definition of "love" - which I generally take to mean "accept the sin along with the sinner" - when in reality any attempt at correcting or rebuking of the sinner for the sinner's own welfare is taken for hate by the obstinate sinner - and the modern world - generally speaking.

That being said, the priest was right, the lesbian was wrong and will end up in hell if she doesn't repent - love or no love.

Agreed!  It's good that we're on the same page now.

Today we may have accomplished something unprecedented in FE history.  A disagreement, discussed civilly, followed by an eventual total agreement.  I hope the devil likes hockey.

:LOL:
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11