you are not welcome here...

[dang71]

There is an objective part to this issue and a subjective part. The analogies you offer seem misplaced here. The priest in the OP is addressing pro abortion supporters. Nothing in what has been related seems contrary to what the Church teaches.

Why bring up all the other stuff?

please see post #37

 

[fix]

please see post #37

How may one be welcome to the communion when one is in serious sin and when the Church says one is to be denied communion?

 

[fix]

It’s all about how the message is sent. Do it in a harsh and/or antagonistic manner and the priest is doing a huge disservice to his flock.

The content can remain the same…

No, it is not only about how it is sent. It is partly about how it is sent and partly about how it is received. One may say anything and have some complain it is harsh.

The truth will only be received to the degree one is willing to receive it.

 

[PraRFLEsEkHm]

There are some people who need to hear messages like that, and Christ, reader of hearts, knew who they were. We, on the other hand, are commanded to do everything with great love and kindness. We are not Christ.
Which is why the delivery of the message is just as important as its content. There is no point in delivering a message in such a way that it cannot be heard or properly understood. I will tell you what every elementary school teacher in the world already knows - nobody can learn, who is not first loved. Love is absolutely essential to the learning process. By the way, it is perfectly possible to dress up the Church and the Mass in an attractive way, without doing any of the ridiculous things that you propose - we’ve been famously doing so in the Catholic Church for nearly two thousand years, with the world’s greatest music, art, and oratory.

Ok - first of all, I will take responsibility for not saying things as clearly as I should have.

What I was getting at - is sometimes it IS necessary to speak Blunt and Harsh.

We do not know what that Priest knew - who he was speaking to, and why.

We also do not know the general condition of the Parishioners, (no slant on the OP at all here)

There are a lot of things we don’t know about from the OP.

My point is simply this - sometimes leaving people out in the cold is the best thing for them.

Mat 18:15 But if thy brother shall offend against thee, go, and rebuke him between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou shalt gain thy brother.
Mat 18:16 And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand.
Mat 18:17 And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.

and again (although this is a severe thing, sexual relations with the mother-in-law - so is the Eucharist)

1Co 5:4 In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, you being gathered together and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus:
1Co 5:5 To deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.
1Co 5:6 Your glorying is not good. Know you not that a little leaven corrupteth the whole lump?
1Co 5:7 Purge out the old leaven, that you may be a new paste, as you are unleavened. For Christ our pasch is sacrificed.

(Both quotes are from the DRB)

The rest of my post stands as I wrote it - intentionally overboard

Peace

John

 

[fix]

We have a retired monsignor who often preaches on the need for going to confession. He is very blunt and very direct. He is also extremely loving, tactful and informative. He notes that most pastors would have trouble being as blunt/direct as he is.

On the other hand he is NEVER deliberately antagonistic, harsh or judgmental.

I think something else comes into play here. Some priests are just poor preachers and they really don’t know that they are offending/turning-off their flocks…

And you could have any number of listeners to that good priest and have some complain he is harsh. We have to consider the state of those hearing as well as the one speaking.

 

[jam070406]

i think it speaks volumes that a group of people from the parish submitted a petition to the bishop complaining about this priest (which i stated in the OP).

Soooooo, a group has already taken action at your Church.

You just wanted to post a post in the Traditional Catholicism (which you don’t care for) section to bait Traditionalists into arguing??? Or to just bash Traditionalists?

 

[snhs]

everyone is invited to the wedding feast, it is up to us to accept that invitation. for a priest to say we are “not welcome” is absolutely incorrect. it is correct to say that those not in a state of grace need to correct their situation before they can attend the banquet, but to say someone is not welcome or is not invited is incorrect.

Correct me if I’m wrong but your initial post said that the Priest said they “were not welcome at this communion rail”. Now that is rather different to saying they are not welcome to the Mass. The Priest seems to have been acting in the interest of the congregation, both for those who may see/hear about pro abortion politicians going up to receive Communion and those politicians who persist in supporting abortion and continue receiving Communion despite the harm it causes them in the long run.

i think it speaks volumes that a group of people from the parish submitted a petition to the bishop complaining about this priest (which i stated in the OP).

I think it speaks volumes that you are here, moaning about a Priest behind his back when he is unable to defend himself and seems to have done no more than his job. Many, probably most, of the people on this board would be delighted to have such a Priest at their Parish.

 

[jmcrae]

Ok - first of all, I will take responsibility for not saying things as clearly as I should have.

What I was getting at - is sometimes it IS necessary to speak Blunt and Harsh.

We do not know what that Priest knew - who he was speaking to, and why.

Yes we do: it was indicated in the OP that he was speaking in a series of homilies to families with children.

My point is simply this - sometimes leaving people out in the cold is the best thing for them.

One can even do that, in a way that is agreeable and makes the person like the cold.

 

[PraRFLEsEkHm]

Yes we do: it was indicated in the OP that he was speaking in a series of homilies to families with children.

Yes, and he was also speaking to those who had a problem with the Churches stance on Abortion, telling them they were not welcome at the Communion rail. We don’t know what he knew, apparently, about THOSE people - is my point. Perhaps he wanted to let them know - authoritatively, in front of the whole Church and or the benefit of the whole Church - after talking with them privately - communion with that mindset was not acceptable.

One can even do that, in a way that is agreeable and makes the person like the cold.

Politely but firmly shutting the door on someone has it’s place. So does slamming it shut after fruitless discussions and a “I’ll do what I want, believe what I want, and there’s nothing you can do to stop me” attitude. In that instance, a public proclamation to that person/group of people, in the harshest tones, is perfectly acceptable.

After all - they weren’t shut out of the Church - just Communion.

Again - In My Opinion

Peace

John

 

[GailMac]

Praise the Lord! I wish there were a small army of men just like the OP’s Pastor. The casualty count in the war on the family is over 46,000,000! That’s Million with an “M”! in our country alone! Not to mention the walking wounded who live the aftermath of abortion. If it were made illegal tomorrow we’d be healing from it’s death blows for generations!!!

No one who supports abortion in any form, whether the suction devices, or the morning after pills or contraception is able to receive the Blessed Sacrament and if they do they commit Sacrilege on top of their other mortal sins.

I would also like to point out that this Pastor hears the Confessions of his flock and knows what they need to hear preached from the pulpit!

If some folks get up and walk out because they are told **the Truth **then tough! They’ll come back when they are ready to live it!

Peace,

Gail

 

[LRThunder]

For those who complained about the pastor’s “harshness”, attitude, keep in mind that Jesus had a similar attitude when he drove out the moneychangers from the temple. I guess he was antagonizing the merchants and not being “loving.”

 

[MrS]

If the worst example you can come up with is that he admonished pro-abortion politicians to not receive communion in a state of mortal sin, it’s probably not him.

It’s probably those of us who are used to be tiptoed around.

I hope that it shakes some people up.

It will shake some people up… even some poster(s) here who wood rather argue attitude than substance.

God Bless this priest and his ability to tell it like it is… and I hope he did have an attitude to emphasis the seriousness of the sin.

,

 

[dang71]

ok, lets all step back from the emotions and look at the facts in this case:

1. this has been a conservative parish for many years.
2. all the previous (N.O.) pastors have taught authentic Catholic morals.
3. a traditionalist pastor is transferred in.
4. a group of people from the parish complain to the bishop about the traditionalist pastor.
5. the traditionalist pastor criticizes them in a homily and concludes with “shame on you!”
6. the traditionalist pastor claims in a homily that those in a state of sin (in this particular case it was the sin of abortion) are “not welcome at the communion rail”.

my position is this:

1. he is incorrect. all are welcome, but those who are in a state of sin need to correct that first. saying you are not welcome is just the same as saying you are not wanted, and this is completely wrong.
2. his attitude is unnecessarily abrasive. his abrasive attitude is causing people to leave the parish (I’m considering it, too).
3. his attitude and tone during homilies (and elsewhere) is important, as he is a representative of the Church. if his tone and attitude causes long-time members to leave the parish, then he is in grave error.
4. he is in grave error for not even attempting a reconciliation, but instead criticizing people publicly in a homily.

i am posting in a traditionalist forum because he is a traditionalist priest. i am also posting here because i think his attitude mirrors that of many traditionalists (one example is the responses in this thread), and i wanted to show how this attitude doesn’t help anyone, but causes only division and conflict. “a house divided cannot stand”, and having the “you’re not wanted” attitude only increases the division. the fruits of his labors are people leaving the parish and complaining about him when they have not complained about any other priest that has come before him (even though the previous priests were good, orthodox priests). a good tree bears good fruit, and division and conflict are not good fruit.

 

[MrS]

Just out of curiosity, dang71…

If you were a priest, and a certain pro-abortion politician came up for communion…

and other parishioners were looking at you for direction, instruction, and guidance… and TRUTH… would you support the Truth of the Catholic Church, or would you “avoid” the confrontation and put it off?

Your priest may not be liked by some. But you have made it clear that he is not liked by those who seem to be out of tune with the teaching of the Church. \

They are not welcome at the communion rail.

That is a fact we must all, ALL, support.

.

 

[LilyM]

For those who complained about the pastor’s “harshness”, attitude, keep in mind that Jesus had a similar attitude when he drove out the moneychangers from the temple. I guess he was antagonizing the merchants and not being “loving.”

Exactly! He called people vipers, hypocrites, whited sepulchres, He called Peter SATAN no less, he called Herod out by name (and called him a ‘fox’) - he called the poor woman at the well a dog, which was pretty darn rude as it would be today. No lack of love in all this - more an example of ‘tough love’, which is not always inconsistent with godly charity.

 

[PraRFLEsEkHm]

1. the traditionalist pastor claims in a homily that those in a state of sin (in this particular case it was the sin of abortion) are “not welcome at the communion rail”

What do you mean by “Claims”?

1. he is incorrect. all are welcome, but those who are in a state of sin need to correct that first. saying you are not welcome is just the same as saying you are not wanted, and this is completely wrong

You have contradicted yourself here - No you are NOT welcome to Communion in a state of sin, as you stated yourself after that by saying you need to correct it first.

Second - I guess I don’t see anything wrong in saying you are not wanted at the Communion rail with that mindset. It is TRUE. Yes we would like you to correct that grave error in your thinking…BUT - while you continue to stubbornly hold it - you are not welcome. Doesn’t mean you are out of the Church!

1. a group of people from the parish complain to the bishop about the traditionalist pastor.

1. the traditionalist pastor criticizes them in a homily and concludes with “shame on you!”

I guess any discussion about that would have to be pure conjecture…did they go to the Priest FIRST with their complaints? Or go behind his back? What did the Bishop have to say? What is going on now? Was the topic of their complaint Abortion?

1. his attitude and tone during homilies (and elsewhere) is important, as he is a representative of the Church. if his tone and attitude causes long-time members to leave the parish, then he is in grave error.

1. he is in grave error for not even attempting a reconciliation, but instead criticizing people publicly in a homily.

How long has he been the Priest there? You mention his attitude elsewhere - Where? How? When? Under what circumstances? Is he just a generally ‘gruff’ kinda guy?

There is a lot there we don’t know about - and so there is a lot that can’t be commented on. But the Principle we all DO seem to agree on, and can comment on - is that you don’t take Communion in a state of Mortal Sin. Period.

For Him to allow that would be unthinkable. Consequently - if he had to take an ad out in the paper to say so and get through to some people -so be it.

I feel that overall - Myself included - THAT is what was being commented on.

Peace

John

 

[HappyRevert]

I’m not sure if it is the same thing that caused your priest to come down so strongly on the abortion issue, but last weekend our normally mild-mannered priest also came down strongly using words like “removing an infection” you can’t be a “cafeteria Catholic” etc… It took me a minute or two to figure it out, but after he said other parts of his homily, I believe he was forced into that position because of Nancy Pelosi’s remarks last week or so about the Catholic church not being clear about abortion.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=263207&highlight=nancy+pelosi

I think our poor priests are responding to her errant words and forced to be fully, bluntly, and explicitly clear about the Church’s position which of course is quite clear - that it is murder, and if you condone it you are assisting in murder.

I’m sorry that some people are offended by that, and I have had friends emotionally disabled from the trauma of abortion, and had they understood what they were “choosing” would not have done so. We are all terrible sinners and none of us worthy of Christ’s sacrifice for us, but we must face our sins head on and not try to pretend they don’t exist.

Our humble priests need to speak the truth and for those who have sinned be asked to meet them in the confessional and seek absolution. Your priest should be praised and pitied that he be forced use such strong words to make clear an issue that is completely supported by our Church.

 

[davidcoit]

100% you bet, I am so tired of political correctness. The priest told it as he should, pro choice- no communion- no way- no how. Lets ask him to move to San Francisco.

 

[SFD]

for the past few years, we have had a “traditionalist” pastor (we have had an NO mass followed by a TLM every Sunday for decades). our parish is very conservative, but he has made some changes that have driven away some members of the church, and when they complained to the bishop, our traditionalist priest got up in a homily and said “shame on you” and totally railed against the people who complained. this past Sunday he was speaking about pro-abortion politicians and those that support them, and while i agree that they are in a serious state of sin, he said they “were not welcome at this communion rail”. i am conservative, but i am not a fan of the EF or traditionalism in general, and i find his attitude very disturbing. Christ came to reconcile the world to Himself, and this traditionalist priest follows the same attitude i see from almost all traditionalists i have ever met, the “holier/better than thou”, “we don’t want your kind around here” attitude which only acts to separate people. how can he stand up there and say that some people are not welcome? these people who support abortion should refrain from communion, sure, but how can he say they are not welcome? why not invite them to confession, invite them to informational meetings, invite them back to Christ and a state of grace? invite them to anything, but don’t shut the door on them! this kind of attitude only drives people AWAY from Christ. shame on him, and i pray that Christ doesn’t say to him “you are not welcome here” when his time comes.

I think it is a duty of the priest to refuse communion to someone who is a public sinner. Catholics have a right to the Sacrament but with every right there is a corresponding duty. That duty is to be absolved of any mortal sins before approaching the rail. Since a priest cannot read hearts but can only know the externals he must refuse a public sinner to avoid a sacrilege and to avoid scandal.

The knowing denial of even a theologically certain teaching of the Church is a mortal sin.

SFD

 

[jmcrae]

For those who complained about the pastor’s “harshness”, attitude, keep in mind that Jesus had a similar attitude when he drove out the moneychangers from the temple. I guess he was antagonizing the merchants and not being “loving.”

He was not expecting them to convert or to continue in their practice of the faith, no. He was writing them off, and sending them straight to Hell. But He already knew that they were going there, anyway - He could read their hearts.

There was no need for kindness, because there was no possibility of conversion, in their case.

Most of us are not such accurate readers of people’s hearts as Jesus was - that’s why we need to proceed on the assumption that people can convert - that is to say, with love and gentleness, as much as possible.