you are not welcome here...

[wynnejj]

Here’s a question to ponder. Have you, or anyone you’ve ever known, been converted based on the overtly harsh speaking of a Catholic? In other words, have you ever witnessed the “tough love” strategy actually work? I myself have never seen it, so I’d be very interested to hear feedback. As a matter of fact, don’t answer here. I’ll start another thread on it.

If you start this thread, don’t forget to ask the question whether anyone has ever witnessed the “tough love” strategy save the rest of the family.

“Tough Love” is generally used for the incorrigible. In the Old Testament, it was taking them to the gates of the city. In the Catholic Church, it is excommunication when publicly professing against the doctrines of the church on serious matters. People who are known to support abortion openly and go to the communion rails regularly are making a public profession. Abortion is a very serious crime involving murder in the millions, that many Catholics publicly profess their support and go to the communion rails. The Pope in his visit to the U.S. on at least one occasion called it the “scandal” of Catholics who openly support abortion. It is not just politicians, it is grass roots in the pews at Sunday Mass.

 

[Lee_M]

saying “you are not welcome here” shows a bad attitude, and is incorrect. as i have written before, all are welcome, but some must get back into a state of grace before receiving the Eucharist. being in a state of sin does not mean someone is “uninvited” or unwelcome, it does mean, however, that there is a serious situation that needs to be corrected.

if instead the priest had said “if you support abortion (or are in a state of sin), please come see me BEFORE you decide to receive the Eucharist”, then there would not be any issue here. the priest would not be compromising any church doctrine, but would be much more charitable, and therefore much more likely to win over those who are in a state of sin.

i think many people are confusing the issue. the priest is correct in saying those in a state of sin should not receive communion. he is incorrect in saying they are not welcome, and he is incorrect in taking the strong-arm attitude.

People who are supporting the murder of over a million babies each year are the ones with the bad attitude. If this priest offends them, too bad. They deserve more than to just be offended. I have relatives who support a certain politician who has made it clear that he supports abortion and even letting the survivors of abortion be left to die. I feel more offended by them voting for a politican like this than I ever could by the words of some priest.

 

[wynnejj]

love, in Christ’s terms, is doing anything possible to get someone to Heaven and save them from Hell.

The ends justify the means?

Reminds me of a certain boy who had an alcoholic as a father. The father stated something to effect that “all men have a purpose in God’s plan”. The son said, “Well… What about you?”. And the father said, “If only to serve as a bad example”. The father never was able to correct his drinking problem.

 

[fix]

He said they’re not welcome at the communion rail. That seems be totally in line with what you’re saying

right

 

[fix]

I find it very interesting the way some will find certain quotes, taken out of context, to support things that are totally contrary to the message Jesus spoke. Whe our Protestant brothers and sisters do such thing we call it “prooftexting”, but when we do it…

By his very actions of “dining with sinners and tax collectors”, Jesus showed how he felt sinners need to be treated. “Only the sick need a physician.” Unfortunately we seem to have a whole bunch of people who don’t see themselves as sick–*a la *the Pharisee and Tax Collector parable–but are more than willing to judge sickness on others and decide who is “worthy enough” to come to the table. The pure and simple fact is that there is not a single one of us who is worthy beyond God calling us worthy.

Then there is the whole overturning the tables of the moneychangers story, which is being used here to justify “tough love.” Balderdash! It is quite clear that people just don’t get why Jesus did this. It was purely and simply because there was a group of the “righteous” putting obstacles in the way of people who desired to seek God. Essentially “charging” people for access like a tollbooth. THAT is what Jesus would not tolerate.

Quite likely it would be these priests who think they can send people away from God until the pass the worthiness test whom Jesus would be chasing out of the temple. The righteous ones thinking they get to decide which of God’s people get to come to Him. I have no doubt they would be among those criticizing Jesus for eating with the sinners.

“He loved us while we were yet in sin.” We need to get past this idea that God thinks like we do. God loves us until we are capable of loving Him back, because we don’t know how to love Him. Only the Spirit in each of us knows how to love God and thus prays for us with “inexpressable groanings” because we can’t begin to know how.

Yes, I am one of those who was driven away for decades by people like this. I can only give eternal thanks to God that I finally encountered some who DID mirror His face in a way that I could come in gratitude and repentance. Had this crowd been around when I started to come back there is no question I would have bolted for good.

Should one receive communion in a state of mortal sin? Of course not. But mortal sin requires full consent and full knowledge. Many have not come to that point for whatever reason, though their actions may indeed be grave. MAN cannot judge mortal sin as he cannot know the heart of another. That is between each individual and God.

Peace,

John, you know that the Church through Her canon law has said manifest public sinners should be denied communion. That is the authority of the Church, not ours. She speaks as Christ and we obey. The priest who says as much is speaking with the mind of the Church. Who are we to say otherwise?

 

[Lee_M]

John, you know that the Church through Her canon law has said manifest public sinners should be denied communion. That is the authority of the Church, not ours. She speaks as Christ and we obey. The priest who says as much is speaking with the mind of the Church. Who are we to say otherwise?

But he was mean. He wasn’t being a very nice man to those people who are supporting abortion activists.

 

[maggiemay2u]

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 can assure you, this cuts both ways. For years in my previous parish, we had a conservative, by the book, life trumps all, “I am the least among you” humble pastor. Now we have the “yeah, life’s important, but what about the war…” pastor who is in lock step with the loony liberal, university town mentality. He demonstrates the same arrogance that is inherent in far left activists. He has corrected the official Church translation of scripture, making no bones about the fact he is smarter than the translators. Embrace of the homosexual life style, the war, illegal immigration, and other social issues, are now tied to the sermons. He is as silent on pro aborts receiving communion as Wuerl, Mahony and Neiderhauer.

Yes, there were petitions…they went to the LA diocese office

The die hards that remain there because they hope his replacement will be better, and they want to be buried out of a church “where people know my name.” Others are parishioners because the kids attend the school and it’s just easier, Once the kids are finished, so are they.

What’s wrong with a little “shame on you”? My mom said that to me more than once, and she loved the daylights out of me. Equating “gentleness” with love is a product of flawed thinking. Some of Christ’s harshest words were directed at those He loved the most.

If it hasn’t been drummed into the heads of the faithful that those in serious sin are not welcome at the communion rail, then it should be. The Eucharist is the single most precious gift Christ gives us as members of His family. To undermine it or cavalierly brush off our responsibility to be in our most ready state is shameful.

Bravo to your brave pastor.

 

[Nordar]

1 Corinthians 13:1:

If I speak with the languages of men and of angels, but don’t have love, I have become sounding brass or clanging cymbal.

This man lacks love.

Many of these types believe their supposed zeal covers their behavior, but they are blinded by spiritual pride. It is an interesting dynamic. Someone should do a study on it.

I’ve noticed many of the same people have all kinds of food phobias, and immunization conspiracy theories, and other similar complexes. Anyone who doesn’t completely agree with every thought is an enemy of the True Faith. It must be some form of scrupulosity, maybe even paranoia.

Wow that is some charactization when you have never met this Priest!

 

[Nordar]

First off, you don’t know for a fact that he was being deliberatley antagonizing or deliberately harsh. People are going from what was posted in the original post. I was basing my answer on the fact this priest was standing for truth.

The fact is… we weren’t there and you should refrain from publically judging or possibly scandalizing this priest.

to that, amazing the way this Priest is being attacked when the attackers have never even met him!

 

[Nordar]

It sure sounds as if he is based on the OP. In any event you certainly do not know that he is not acting this way.

The fact is we weren’t there and we should refrain from lionizing any priest who is turning people away from his parish. That much HAS been established.

I SERIOUSLY doubt people are actually leaving due to the contents of the message. I would strongly suspect they are leaving due to its delivery and tone.

Your post is just downright absurd!

 

[Nordar]

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…

Do you know this Priest? have you heard him speak?

 

[OnlyAmbrose]

Sounds like your priest is trying to save souls (that’s his job) as opposed to worrying whether or not he’s hurting people’s feelings. If a priest told me I couldn’t recieve it would seriously make me rethink how I was living my life. It’s sound more like a call to repentance than a “holier than thou” attitude. Hats off to him.

Amen.

The priest is well within his grounds to say that pro-abortion politicians are not welcome to receive communion. They are in grave sin and as such should not receive the Blessed Sacrament.

That’s not “holier than thou.” Heck, that’s not even “traditional.” It’s just “Catholic.”

I envy you, you are blessed with a great priest.

 

[estesbob]

I find it very interesting the way some will find certain quotes, taken out of context, to support things that are totally contrary to the message Jesus spoke. Whe our Protestant brothers and sisters do such thing we call it “prooftexting”, but when we do it…

By his very actions of “dining with sinners and tax collectors”, Jesus showed how he felt sinners need to be treated. “Only the sick need a physician.” Unfortunately we seem to have a whole bunch of people who don’t see themselves as sick–*a la *the Pharisee and Tax Collector parable–but are more than willing to judge sickness on others and decide who is “worthy enough” to come to the table. The pure and simple fact is that there is not a single one of us who is worthy beyond God calling us worthy.

Then there is the whole overturning the tables of the moneychangers story, which is being used here to justify “tough love.” Balderdash! It is quite clear that people just don’t get why Jesus did this. It was purely and simply because there was a group of the “righteous” putting obstacles in the way of people who desired to seek God. Essentially “charging” people for access like a tollbooth. THAT is what Jesus would not tolerate.

Quite likely it would be these priests who think they can send people away from God until the pass the worthiness test whom Jesus would be chasing out of the temple. The righteous ones thinking they get to decide which of God’s people get to come to Him. I have no doubt they would be among those criticizing Jesus for eating with the sinners.

“He loved us while we were yet in sin.” We need to get past this idea that God thinks like we do. God loves us until we are capable of loving Him back, because we don’t know how to love Him. Only the Spirit in each of us knows how to love God and thus prays for us with “inexpressable groanings” because we can’t begin to know how.

Yes, I am one of those who was driven away for decades by people like this. I can only give eternal thanks to God that I finally encountered some who DID mirror His face in a way that I could come in gratitude and repentance. Had this crowd been around when I started to come back there is no question I would have bolted for good.

Should one receive communion in a state of mortal sin? Of course not. But mortal sin requires full consent and full knowledge. Many have not come to that point for whatever reason, though their actions may indeed be grave. MAN cannot judge mortal sin as he cannot know the heart of another. That is between each individual and God.

Peace,

John nobody is sending anybody away. The priest is merely affirming the church teaching that one who is guilty of unrepentant mortal sin cannot receive communion. Since a politician who supports abortion has publicly sinned for the priest to give them communion can be seen by the public as an affirmation that the politicians stand is in accordance with church teaching.

 

[Nordar]

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.

If you think this Priest is so out of line then tell the Bishop, character assinating him on this thread is pretty sad!

 

[Nordar]

If there were, He would have treated them with love and kindness.

Would you? Think about it - God Himself is screaming at you like a maniac, throwing things at you. Would you convert to that?

Who is screaming like a maniac and throwing things?

 

[Nordar]

i never cease to be amazed at the lack of charity and love among traditionalists.

i will stand by my statements. this priest’s “your not welcome here” attitude only serves to push people away. violence begets violence, and bad attitudes will beget bad attitudes. the fruits of this priests labors are division and conflict within the parish, which could easily have been avoided if he had acted with CHARITY. i am not saying he should give communion to pro-abortion politicians, but to shut the door on someone is contrary to the will of God. We are accepted back to grace EVERY time we go to confession, and we are continually encouraged by God to grow in our faith. for a priest to shut the door on someone is unacceptable and inappropriate.

He was NOT shutting the door on anyone, he said people who believe in abortion should not come to the communion rail. Where do you get that he was closing the door on anyone?

He was hoping by saying this people would wake up and go to confession and change their opinion about abortion.

 

[BSHoop96]

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.

Sounds to me like they were not welcome to receive communion which would be correct. It seems you have attributed the rest of his thoughts to him without knowing if he feels that way. Perhaps he could have worded it a little differently but…oh well.

 

[BSHoop96]

I think that one person’s opinion of “attitude” is another person’s opinion of standing up for the Faith. Without actually hearing him speak I have no way to form an opinion one way or the other.

I agree.

 

[BSHoop96]

1 Corinthians 13:1:

If I speak with the languages of men and of angels, but don’t have love, I have become sounding brass or clanging cymbal.

This man lacks love.

Many of these types believe their supposed zeal covers their behavior, but they are blinded by spiritual pride. It is an interesting dynamic. **Someone should do a study on it. **
I’ve noticed many of the same people have all kinds of food phobias, and immunization conspiracy theories, and other similar complexes. Anyone who doesn’t completely agree with every thought is an enemy of the True Faith. It must be some form of scrupulosity, maybe even paranoia.

OH MY GOSH…you have this kind of knowledge of someone you have never met…never heard speak…never had interaction with but read ONE post about from ONE poster who is also someone I am presuming you have never met.

Maybe someone should do a study on how people on a forum come to these conclusions with nothing more than this.

 

[maggiemay2u]

OH MY GOSH…you have this kind of knowledge of someone you have never met…never heard speak…never had interaction with but read ONE post about from ONE poster who is also someone I am presuming you have never met.

Maybe someone should do a study on how people on a forum come to these conclusions with nothing more than this.

:clapping: