Gay Masses Continue in Archdiocese of Westminster

[aussie_melkite]

oh so homosexual is clumped into the saem catogaory as pre-marital sex is it…well the church could solve the problem and let gays marry…that then would elimante that factor.

I have sex with my parther all the time and recieve communion…according to the hrebrew bible having gay sex carrys the excate same penality as eatign shellfish (i know this for a fact caus there was a period where i couldnt stand catholic bigotry anymore and considered converting to Judaism…for the six months I was with them I learn to speak and read hebrew moderatly well (rolls eyes abit) and the one thing i learnt from studying with the jews was that eating prohibbted seafood is the excate same abomination as male to male sex.

unless all u biggots stop eating prohibbed forms of seafood, women covering your hair when u pray etc then I dont have to listen to the rules regurding homosexuality.

btw for the record…I hope no woman covers her hair with a bloody vail…its not the 1st centery anymore a woman holliness isnt dependant on being submissive to her husband…there are things in the bible that just dont apply to our day and age! homosexuality being one of them!

 

[aussie_melkite]

btw sorry all for my spelling…been awake for 48 hours here.

 

[RobbyS]

oh so homosexual is clumped into the saem catogaory as pre-marital sex is it…well the church could solve the problem and let gays marry…that then would elimante that factor.

I have sex with my parther all the time and recieve communion…according to the hrebrew bible having gay sex carrys the excate same penality as eatign shellfish (i know this for a fact caus there was a period where i couldnt stand catholic bigotry anymore and considered converting to Judaism…for the six months I was with them I learn to speak and read hebrew moderatly well (rolls eyes abit) and the one thing i learnt from studying with the jews was that eating prohibbted seafood is the excate same abomination as male to male sex.

unless all u biggots stop eating prohibbed forms of seafood, women covering your hair when u pray etc then I dont have to listen to the rules regurding homosexuality.

btw for the record…I hope no woman covers her hair with a bloody vail…its not the 1st centery anymore a woman holliness isnt dependant on being submissive to her husband…there are things in the bible that just dont apply to our day and age! homosexuality being one of them!

Why then discriminate against shellfish? Maybe the same reason why the Israelites discriminated against homosexuals, because it promoted idolatry. The cults of Baal and Astarte only did not discriminate but celebrated such practices.

 

[aussie_melkite]

Why then discriminate against shellfish? Maybe the same reason why the Israelites discriminated against homosexuals, because it promoted idolatry. The cults of Baal and Astarte only did not discriminate but celebrated such practices.

true…but im not and I assume all other gay catholics arnt involved in idolatry or pagan worship…and the other factor…alot of jews do belive the only reason why the hebrew bible is agaisnt man-to-man sexual relations is due to its association with pagan worship…

well gay catholic and gay jews (and ive meet alot of them btw) arnt practising cultic pagan homosexual acts…were practising intamicy with the person we’ve fallen in love with…so the bibles prohibation of man-2-man sex acts means nothing…
its also intresting to note that the Torah says nothing about woman-2-woman sex acts…if ones going to read it the bible literaly it would seem God gives a big thumbs up 2 lesbianism…typical str8 man lol

 

[Elizabeth502]

I have sex with my parther all the time and recieve communion

In which case you might want to investigate as to whether you are engaging in sacrilege by doing so. My understanding is that the Eastern church with which you identify corresponds in moral teachings to the Latin church. And those moral teachings do not correspond to ancient or modern Jewish dietary laws. Nor is that the way sexual morality is categorized, even scripturally (by punishment). You’re drawing an artificial equation that is not meant to be drawn by a surface reading of Leviticus. Nor is God “a straight man.”

if ones going to read it the bible literaly it would seem God gives a big thumbs up 2 lesbianism…typical str8 man

Romans 1:26-27:

“For this cause [their unbelief], God gave them [the Gentiles] up to dishonorable passions: for not only did the women exchange natural intercourse for that which is against nature, and likewise males, forsaking natural intercourse with women…

But again, this is slightly off-topic because the actual discussion is on a specific style of Mass with a “gay” theme. The subject of sacrilegious reception is an important and grave matter that you might want to discuss with your church or examine your conscience about. Just a thought.

 

[Elizabeth502]

are you kidding…the mass is the perfect place to stand up for gay rights.

You can’t be for real.

a Greek orthodox priest once told me. that its in the Holy Communion that were all equal. before the body and Blood of our Lord it doesnt matter if were men or women, black or white, rich or poor, king or slave…we all stand in line awaiting to recieve our Lord in the Eucharist,."

And this particular Greek Orthodox priest also said that it doesn’t matter if you’re violating chastity laws but still taking communion? I doubt that. Unless he was a complete phony.

when the church singles out a paticular group of people who its bans from recieveing holy communion and simply cause of their sexual orientation (an orientation we didnt choose by the way…nobody chooses to be a member of a hated minority) the church is acting agaisnt christ by discriminating.

The Church (the representative of Christ on earth) also “singles out” everybody else who violates chastity – which means anyone engaging in any kind of sexual act outside of a validly Catholic heterosexual marriage. So anyone who is single and heterosexual is being equally “discriminated against” because he or she is also forbidden to engage in any kind of sexual activity. Like gay men, I’m not allowed to engage in sex with a male lover and still receive communion. Doesn’t matter that my orientation is heterosexual.

Catholics with nonvalidated marriages are also sinning by engaging in heterosexual sex.

It is not any orientation which bars anyone, but the act. In any case, let’s move on; this subject has been exhausted in dozens of threads about gay sex and gay marriage. This is not the thread for that. In sum, the Catholic view of sexuality is yes, restricted. Join the very large club.

Your posts are an attempt to derail the thread.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I said I wouldn’t post on this thread again but I just wanted to say thank you to Elizabeth for your excellent posts on this thread. I believe, Elizabeth, that we are, sadly, banging our heads against the proverbial brick wall.:sad_yes:

Sorry, Matthew, I just noticed this post while doing battle. Thank you so much; that’s very kind.

 

[aussie_melkite]

You can’t be for real.

And this particular Greek Orthodox priest also said that it doesn’t matter if you’re violating chastity laws but still taking communion? I doubt that. Unless he was a complete phony.

The Church (the representative of Christ on earth) also “singles out” everybody else who violates chastity – which means anyone engaging in any kind of sexual act outside of a validly Catholic heterosexual marriage. So anyone who is single and heterosexual is being equally “discriminated against” because he or she is also forbidden to engage in any kind of sexual activity. Like gay men, I’m not allowed to engage in sex with a male lover and still receive communion. Doesn’t matter that my orientation is heterosexual.

Catholics with nonvalidated marriages are also sinning by engaging in heterosexual sex.

It is not any orientation which bars anyone, but the act. In any case, let’s move on; this subject has been exhausted in dozens of threads about gay sex and gay marriage. This is not the thread for that. In sum, the Catholic view of sexuality is yes, restricted. Join the very large club.

Your posts are an attempt to derail the thread.

actually the Orthodox priest in question does know about my sexuality…and thinks the bible is being perverted by biggots who are using it justify there own bias.

he also said this to me. 150- 200 years you could pick up the bible and if u owned slaves u could find verses to in the bible to justify why God thinks its ok…now that soiety has moved foward we read the bible in awhole new light.

nobody now belives that the bible thinks slavery is ok…but to someone living 200 years ago the bible seemed to confrim their way of life.

its the same with homosexuality.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I said I wouldn’t post on this thread again but I just wanted to say thank you to Elizabeth for your excellent posts on this thread. I believe, Elizabeth, that we are, sadly, banging our heads against the proverbial brick wall.:sad_yes:

I just noticed this late last night. Thank you, Matthew. You’re very kind.

 

[diggerdomer]

I have no intention of responding to either this or any other of your argumentative posts. Objective discussion and worthy debate are not possible with you. You may draw whatever subjective conclusions you wish from this but please be assured I shall refrain from answering any future posts you make.

Wow, sorry if I offended you. I was sincerely wondering and inquiring. I didn’t understand your posts and was looking for clarification. Sorry, again.

Peace.

 

[diggerdomer]

There is a church in the Archdiocese of Westminster, England, UK. On two Sundays every month a Mass is celebrated in this church. As with any public Mass anyone is free to attend. However, the Masses are celebrated predominantly for homosexual males. The premiss is that they are celebrated in response to a request to the Archdiocese from homosexuals to provide pastoral care to homosexuals. That is merely the false premiss on what really happens. Homosexual males who have entered into a civil partnership (so-called “gay marriage”) have the event celebrated at these Masses. Homosexual males who attend these Masses cohabit and not as brothers unless they are practising incest. They opnely and freely admit to participating in sexual acts with each other. A considerable number of them are utterly convinced that these Masses are a demonstration that the Church has granted its approval to their sinful lifestyle.

Any Catholic should know that homosexual sex is contrary to Divine Law; that the Church (should) teach that it is sinful.

Therefore, these male homosexuals are in a state of mortal sin. They should not receive Holy Communion. By receiving Holy Communion they commit a further mortal sin.

Allowing this to happen causes public scandal in the Church and places the souls of these homosexual males in jeopardy.

The liberal hierarchy we have in England clearly has no intention of putting a stop to these Masses. Even the Holy See has made no intervention despite requests from many faithful Catholics for them to do so.

This thread has been full of posts making excuses for the hierarchy or questioning what is wrong with these Masses and most of those are from posters describing themselves as Catholic.

This thread clearly demonstrates how poorly the Catholic Faith is taught these days and demonstrates how liberal the Church has become.

I am sorry that I participated in this thread and will take no further participation in it.

One day a lot of people are going to be asked by God why did you not follow my laws?

I don’t see that the Masses you refer to are directed toward those engaged in sinful sexual behavior. Are they? As I read what you shared, there is an outreach to homosexuals (not to those engaged in homosexual acts). Is this accurate?

Also, have you raised this question with the priest(s) at this parish? What do they say? I think their (name removed by moderator)ut would be very important.

Of course, you’re not responding to me, so pretend someone else posted this question asking for more insight to your local circumstance. Thanks!

 

[diggerdomer]

Already cited and elaborated upon.

DD, you also challenged clerics on the L&S forum regarding explicit pronouncements in the GIRM about the Orans position, as to why the laity is not to use this posture which belongs exclusively to the presiding priest(s). The Church teaching was already cited in that thread, as well. So I agree with Matthew that your focus is on being argumentative, even with the citations clearly in front of you.

You can be argumentative if you want to, but I’m sticking to the topic of this Thread and will not respond to your extraneous remarks about other threads (which are argumentative).

The subject of the thread is gay Masses,

Yes.of course. Where did I ever post anything not related to that? As you just did.

The issue is whether homosexuals confirmed in their homosexual behavior and publicly declaring that to be so, in the presence of the priest, should receive, publicly, Church approval by having Masses “celebrated” for any and all homosexuals – both those openly defiant and those sincerely in compliance with church teaching.

Wait, I just thought you said the subject of this thread is gay Masses.

Which is it? Is the subject of the thread Gay Masses of the “issue” you noted?

 

[diggerdomer]

An additional issue is that of “themes” of Masses. It is not approprriate to “have a Mass” for adulterers or fornicators either.

WOW!

Where did this thread have anything to do with having a Mass for adulterers or fornicators?

Is this really relevant, or maybe start a new thread? Thanks.

 

[diggerdomer]

Nobody said sinners wern’t allowed at Mass. Everybody in the world is a sinner. If you read the article in one of the first posts you would knowthat this “mass” is promoting homosexuality. It said that those who obtained civil “unions” were congratulted by the priest from the pulpet. Gay pride events were advertized in the Church bulliten. There is a difference between driving out sinners and trying to maintain Catholic moral standards.

I have read all the posts, and I nowhere got the impression that the Mass referred to “promoted” homosexuality.

The article referred to in the OP noted that such Masses were approved by the diocese.

The approval of civil unions was not approved by the diocese. Of course, this begs the questions of what exactly a civil union is (as I am in the U.S., I don’t know British law in this area).

I saw nowhere in that link that the diocese (Church) approved civil unions nor advertising Gay pride events.

Let’s keep in mind the distinction between what a local community (parish) might do and what the Church (Vatican, diocese) does and teaches.

 

[diggerdomer]

I said I wouldn’t post on this thread again but I just wanted to say thank you to Elizabeth for your excellent posts on this thread. I believe, Elizabeth, that we are, sadly, banging our heads against the proverbial brick wall.:sad_yes:

Maybe banging your head against a brick wall, but also not engaging in dialogue. Too bad.

You say you won’t respond further, then you do. But only to the posts you agree with.

 

[diggerdomer]

Nobody said sinners wern’t allowed at Mass.

I was referring to posts 152 and 156 (which have still not responded to me). As I read those, it sure seems as though some on this thread were suggesting such. But again, those people have unfortunately not responded. I may have misunderstood their points, but so far they have not responded to my questions.

Everybody in the world is a sinner.

Of course! One of my points.

 

[diggerdomer]

Nobody said sinners wern’t allowed at Mass. Everybody in the world is a sinner. If you read the article in one of the first posts you would knowthat this “mass” is promoting homosexuality. It said that those who obtained civil “unions” were congratulted by the priest from the pulpet. Gay pride events were advertized in the Church bulliten. There is a difference between driving out sinners and trying to maintain Catholic moral standards.

I admit I don’t know the specifics about “civil unions” that are referred to in that link.

Are such reserved only to homosexuals? I doubt it. If they are not, how would that affect our interpretation of them? Meaning, men and women can be married inside or outside the Church in secular society. What does the reference to “civil union” in this link mean? Is it essential to this thread or not? I don’t know.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I was referring to posts 152 and 156 (which have still not responded to me). As I read those, it sure seems as though some on this thread were suggesting such. But again, those people have unfortunately not responded. I may have misunderstood their points, but so far they have not responded to my questions.

Wow. Eight non-responsive “replies,” showing that you still haven’t followed the key points in the entire debate, so, like Matthew, I refuse to debate with someone who merely wants to be argumentative and refuses to read that his questions have been answered. You do this on other threads and sub-forums, too, so this is your standard modus operandi. When you exasperate others, you might want to return to what they were discussing. So I’ll say this one more time, and then, liike Matthew, I refuse to respond to you if you’re going to argue what is not being argued, or if you are going to suggest that the Roman Catholic Church should not stick to its published documents but rather engage in the same speculative thinking that you do.

Let’s keep in mind the distinction between what a local community (parish) might do and what the Church (Vatican, diocese) does and teaches.

The entire reason for the thread.

Just like local parishes are not free to dispense with written guidelines and decide that lay people are supposedly not explicitly forbidden from using the Orans position when documents declare that such postures are reserved to the presider, so too, when the Roman Church lays forth the theological grounding for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass (why we celebrate it, and Who is our center of celebration) she expects the local parishes to comply with that sacramental theology and liturgies which reflect that. She does not expect, nor should local parishioners expect, that an individual parish is free to shift the focus and center of the Mass to be an interest group with a disordered attraction, transforming the event into one centered around themselves vs. centered around Jesus Christ, Lord of the Universe.

The Roman Church also expects that the very same sacramental disposition be just as explicitly conveyed locally as they are in the Vatican. Matthew was very clear that the embrace of active homosexuality by Catholic churchgoers in the diocese of Westminster has been true for some time, that openly, actively gay Catholics are participating in the sacraments uncorrected. (Not merely ‘people with SSA.’) To compound the scandal by affirming that practice of sacrilege via a ‘gay Mass’ is the issue here. If you don’t get that, there’s no purpose in continuing the discussion, because you simply don’t want to understand it.

Like Matthew, I’m done with you if you continue to refuse to address the issues that the rest of us have addressed on this thread, so you’ll be talking to yourself.

Catholics are not free to speculate that their brothers might be in sin when approaching the communion table. But it is nonsensical to speculate that people who publicly declare themselves to be in grave sin might not really be. The Church teaches that the sinner himself or herself is the knower of the sin. So when a person declares himself to be out of moral compliance with official moral teachings, that declaration is accepted on face value. Even if he personally chooses to declare his sins to be moral and good because after all, he loves his gay lover, whom he has publicly acknowledged cavorting with. (cavorting = present participle = ongoing = now. Not past. Not, "now I’m reformed.’)

Over. Out.

 

[TurboVW]

I’m trying to picture a gay Mass? I bet the flower arrangements and the music are first rate! I bet everything is overly neat and “It’s Raining Men” is played in the parish hall afterward!

Wow. It sounds like you’ve been living under a rock since 1977. Or, you’re just in high school.

While my Archdiocese has a LGBQT Mass, I neither condone it nor condemn it. It’s a Mass; anyone can attend it. I can see the Church reaching out to those homosexuals who need a helping hand in returning to the Catholic faith. However, the Mass should have its focus on being a Mass and nothing else. This is true for many other issues with our Mass today in the U.S.

 

[Crusading_Canuk]

I have read all the posts, and I nowhere got the impression that the Mass referred to “promoted” homosexuality.

The article referred to in the OP noted that such Masses were approved by the diocese.

The approval of civil unions was not approved by the diocese. Of course, this begs the questions of what exactly a civil union is (as I am in the U.S., I don’t know British law in this area).

I saw nowhere in that link that the diocese (Church) approved civil unions nor advertising Gay pride events.

Let’s keep in mind the distinction between what a local community (parish) might do and what the Church (Vatican, diocese) does and teaches.

This is a quote from the article:

"McLeod wrote that she was “dismayed” one Sunday when same-sex couples at Assumption were congratulated in the course of the Mass for having recently contracted civil unions. The SMPC website includes a section of “bidding prayers”, or general intercessions for use at Mass that include one asking God for blessings “for all who have entered into civil partnerships during this past month, and for all who are keeping their first anniversaries around this time: that God will preserve them in love and faithfulness.”

The priest DURING the Mass congratulated those in such “unions” and there was something about “anniversaries”. In my opinion this is promoting sodomy from the pulpit.