you are not welcome here...

  • Thread starter Thread starter dang71
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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:eek:

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.👍
I couldn’t agree more. This PC Catholic religion that we’ve had for the past 40 yrs., is not working.
Don’t know if statistics are available CC, but I personally don’t lump all non-catholics in the same abortion basket. Quite likely there are many non-catholics who disapporve of abortion.😉
 
He said those who believe the act of abortion should be left up to individual choice ie. pro-abortionist, pro-choice, were not welcome at the COMMUNION RAIL. He did not say, never darken the doorway of this church again, but left the door open for them to repent if they so choose to save their souls. If I were him, I wouldn’t say “please” either. They are adults, can read and should know the teachings of the Catholic Church. If they don’t, then they should learn them. Receiving an admonishment from the pulpit regarding a major teaching of the Catholic Church is not an every Sunday happening. This should give them a CLUE that somewhere, something just doesn’t quite add up. According to Church teaching, believing abortion is only a secular issue results in one being in the state of Mortal sin because it is also a MORAL issue AND against the teachings of the Church. Those in “any” mortal sin may not receive Communion. Your pastor is right on. If I knew his address, or parish, I would personally send him a congratulatory letter and thank him for having the backbone for doing what should be done in each and every Catholic Church until everyone understands this is not a teaching that can be misunderstood. Evil cannot be fought with soft words.
**After Mass on Sunday morning our priest always reads out certain important items in the Bulletin (in case some people can’t read:yawn: :ouch: 😉 :doh2: ) and then he made an announcement:

“I notice that some children in the Catechism Class have only been to 3 classes this year! Now, I have to inform you that if a child misses 20% of classes then we cannot allow that child to make his/her first Holy Communion. He will have to enrol again next year. Some parents have been complaining to the Catechism teachers and giving them a hard time. I suggest that such Parents come and fight with me because these are **my ****instructions!”

I think he was right:thumbsup:
 
**After Mass on Sunday morning our priest always reads out certain important items in the Bulletin (in case some people can’t read:yawn: :ouch: 😉 :doh2: ) and then he made an announcement:

“I notice that some children in the Catechism Class have only been to 3 classes this year! Now, I have to inform you that if a child misses 20% of classes then we cannot allow that child to make his/her first Holy Communion. He will have to enrol again next year. Some parents have been complaining to the Catechism teachers and giving them a hard time. I suggest that such Parents come and fight with me because these are **my ****instructions!”

I think he was right:thumbsup:
I love it. Good for him.👍
 
Originally Posted by ncjohn
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
.

Very true, except for the fact that your statement infers that we are all equally unworthy & that just isn’t true. Someone who prays daily for help in avoiding sin, who goes to confession often,.after a REAL examiniation of conscience, someone who gives credence to the teachings of the Church & obeys them is more worthy than someone who has had an abortion & is unrepentant, someone who speaks out in favor of abortion, someone whose vote makes abortion more available to more people, is LESS worthy. To say otherwise, is to claim that Padre Pio & Teddy Kennedy have an equality in their unworthiness. They do not.
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.
(And here I’ve always thought that these “righteous” tax collectors were looked down upon by everyone…that Christ drove them from the temple because they were defiling the house of God?)

If people really desire to seek God, this “compassion equals tolerance” that you seem to support, won’t help anyone find Him. Jesus’ words to the adulterous woman, “Neither do I condemn you” (Jn. 8:11), are filled with forgiveness, not tolerance. No where in Scripture does Christ call a sin trivial, nor does He call it “a point of view”, etc., etc. t. The woman caught in adultery knew her own sin, and He knew that she did, whereas the would-be stone-throwers weren’t reflecting upon theirs. So Jesus had to deal with them first. But after He forgave the woman, notice that Jesus did not say, “Go, follow your feelings, celebrate diversity, and try not to hurt anyone.” **He said, “Go, and sin no more.” To the paralytic, He added a further warning: “Sin no more, lest something worse befall you”**Compassion does not equal tolerance, especially where sin is concerned. If compassion, like genuine love, is not rooted in truth, it is at best misguided emotion, and at worst a refusal to enlighten a soul in danger of damnation.
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.
Hmmmm, I could say something unkind about you choosing which of the sins needs to be condemned & punished, for this is what you are doing in the paragraph above. It seems you feel contempt for those who commit the sin (& it is a sin) of “holier that thousism” & feel what is called compassion for those who commit the sin of abortion. This attitude is strange to say the least.

And btw… compassion does not equal tolerance. Christ NEVER tolerated sin. “Be compassionate as my Father is compassionate” is all too often twisted into something that is tantamount to offering people a license to sin. “Compassion,” in modern parlance, means something like universal tolerance with a dose of sentimentality, which turns a blind eye to evil.
There are different ways to express compassion, based on the need of those to whom we show mercy. To show compassion to the hungry is to give them food; to show compassion to the homeless and unemployed is to help them find housing and work. If you wish to be compassionate to the sick or elderly, comfort and assist them. But if you want to be like Jesus in showing compassion to sinners, invite them to repent.
 
Love and tact regarding abortion doesn’t mean fudge. Make up your mind what you believe and stand up for it. This priest did the right thing. He got people’s attention. I hope he continues.
Elts,

A personal thank-you from me regarding the good work you’re doing in this thread.

Whomever posted analogy earlier totally hit the nail on the head: If the priest had announced that blatant racists, or unrepentant wife-beaters should not accept communion (before repentance & absolution), not only would there have been no objection, but there would have been confused looks on everyone’s face as people tried to understand why he’d state something so BLATANTLY OBVIOUS.

No, it’s only on this particular issue that certain people get so wishy-washy - because they’re wishy-washy. It’s very simple.

Tough love most certainly does work, and God uses it all the time - the Scriptures demonstrate that most abundantly!

False ‘love’, on the other hand, is one of the preferred tools of the Enemy.
 
CradleCath;4142420:
Don’t know if statistics are available CC, but I personally don’t lump all non-catholics in the same abortion basket. Quite likely there are many non-catholics who disapporve of abortion.😉
There is even at least one prominent atheist pro-life org. How can this be? Because it is a simple scientific fact that life begins at conception. At this level it has nothing to do with faith or religion.
 
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.
WHERE did you get this ridiculous interpretation? I have never read such an interpretation, and it most certainly does not follow from the text. References?
 
That’s so good I may use it as a tag-line.
Anytime. I’m so sick of the “lukewarmness” that’s a direct result of “tolerance”. True compassion dictates that one perform the distasteful task of correcting the sinner. The priest was 100% correct in his actions & his words.
 
I’m getting tired of “traditionalists” being considered to have “holier than thou” attitudes. Just what is it pro-abortion supporters are afraid of? Being told that they’re wrong by reason of the laws of the Catholic Church?

Ever park illegally? And when you get a parking ticket, do you think the police officer is trying to be better than you by reason of enforcing the law you just broke? By reason of the law, you had no business parking in an illegal spot. The ticket tells you how unwelcome you were there.

Consider the Church like a club. Clubs have rules. They follow certain standards. You like it or leave it (hopefully, you don’t leave in the case of the Church). If you don’t follow the rules - you’re not a member in good standing. Pro-abortionists / pro-choicers want the rules to suit their way even though the Catholic Church tells them otherwise.
That’s not how it works!
Thank you and I agree.Very well put.
 
40.png
ConservativeOne:
Consider the Church like a club. Clubs have rules. They follow certain standards. You like it or leave it (hopefully, you don’t leave in the case of the Church). If you don’t follow the rules - you’re not a member in good standing.
Yes, this is correct…except the last sentence. If one rejects any of the essentials, he is NO LONGER A MEMBER AT ALL. This is all explained here in the Catholic Encyclopedia:
Catholic Encyclopedia:
Vindication of their (Church Fathers) teaching

The first law of life, be it the life of plant or animal, of man or of a society of men, is self-preservation. Neglect of self-preservation leads to ruin and destruction. But the life of a religious society, the tissue that binds its members into one body and animates them with one soul, is the symbol of faith, the creed or confession adhered to as a condition sine qua non of membership. To undo the creed is to undo the Church. The integrity of the rule of faith is more essential to the cohesion of a religious society than the strict practice of its moral precepts. For faith supplies the means of mending moral delinquencies as one of its ordinary functions, whereas the loss of faith, cutting at the root of spiritual life, is usually fatal to the soul. In fact the long list of heresiarchs contains the name of only one who came to resipiscence: Berengarius. The jealousy with which the Church guards and defends her deposit of faith is therefore identical with the instinctive duty of self-preservation and the desire to live. This instinct is by no means peculiar to the Catholic Church; being natural it is universal. All sects, denominations, confessions, schools of thought, and associations of any kind have a more or less comprehensive set of tenets on the acceptance of which membership depends. In the Catholic Church this natural law has received the sanction of Divine promulgation, as appears from the teaching of Christ and the Apostles quoted above. Freedom of thought extending to the essential beliefs of a Church is in itself a contradiction; for, by accepting membership, the members accept the essential beliefs and renounce their freedom of thought so far as these are concerned.

But what authority is to lay down the law as to what is or is not essential? It is certainly not the authority of individuals. By entering a society, whichever it be, the individual gives up part of his individuality to be merged into the community. And that part is precisely his private judgment on the essentials: if he resumes his liberty he ipso facto separates himself from his church. The decision, therefore, rests with the constitutional authority of the society–in the Church with the hierarchy acting as teacher and guardian of the faith. Nor can it be said that this principle unduly curtails the play of human reason. That it does curtail its play is a fact, but a fact grounded in natural and Divine law, as shown above. That it does not curtail reason unduly is evidenced by this other fact: that the deposit of faith (1) is itself an inexhaustible object of intellectual effort of the noblest kind, lifting human reason above its natural sphere, enlarging and deepening its outlook, soliciting its finest faculties; (2) that, side by side with the deposit, but logically connected with it, there is a multitude of doubtful points of which discussion is free within the wide bounds of charity–“in necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus charitas.” The substitution of private judgment for the teaching magisterium has been the dissolvent of all sects who have adopted it. Only those sects exhibit a certain consistency in which private judgment is a dead letter and the teaching is carried on according to confessions and catechisms by a trained clergy.
SFD
 
.

Very true, except for the fact that your statement infers that we are all equally unworthy & that just isn’t true. Someone who prays daily for help in avoiding sin, who goes to confession often,.after a REAL examiniation of conscience, someone who gives credence to the teachings of the Church & obeys them is more worthy than someone who has had an abortion & is unrepentant, someone who speaks out in favor of abortion, someone whose vote makes abortion more available to more people, is LESS worthy. To say otherwise, is to claim that Padre Pio & Teddy Kennedy have an equality in their unworthiness. They do not.

(And here I’ve always thought that these “righteous” tax collectors were looked down upon by everyone…that Christ drove them from the temple because they were defiling the house of God?)
Those weren’t tax collectors. (These people were there to keep the tax collectors out, actually - along with any other “impure souls.”)

What was happening was that the space that was meant for the sinners and unbelievers to come to, in the Temple, had been taken over by people who believed that those folks had no business being in the Temple.

They turned it into a space where the True Believers ™ could come and exchange their Roman money (impure) to Jewish coins so that they could then go to the tax collectors (who were outside the city wall, because of their status in the community) and pay the Temple tax.

It was precisely Jesus’ love for sinners that caused Him to drive these "holier than thou"s out of there, so that the sinners could return (if they so chose) and become reconciled to God.
 
Elts,

A personal thank-you from me regarding the good work you’re doing in this thread.

Whomever posted analogy earlier totally hit the nail on the head: If the priest had announced that blatant racists, or unrepentant wife-beaters should not accept communion (before repentance & absolution), not only would there have been no objection, but there would have been confused looks on everyone’s face as people tried to understand why he’d state something so BLATANTLY OBVIOUS.

No, it’s only on this particular issue that certain people get so wishy-washy - because they’re wishy-washy. It’s very simple.

Tough love most certainly does work, and God uses it all the time - the Scriptures demonstrate that most abundantly!

False ‘love’, on the other hand, is one of the preferred tools of the Enemy.
Thanks for the compliment Paul… When I get my dander up, it is usually up to stay, especially on so important an issue as abortion. Some folks just can’t seem to be able to get their priorities and values in order.:eek:
 
Those weren’t tax collectors. (These people were there to keep the tax collectors out, actually - along with any other “impure souls.”)

What was happening was that the space that was meant for the sinners and unbelievers to come to, in the Temple, had been taken over by people who believed that those folks had no business being in the Temple.

They turned it into a space where the True Believers ™ could come and exchange their Roman money (impure) to Jewish coins so that they could then go to the tax collectors (who were outside the city wall, because of their status in the community) and pay the Temple tax.

It was precisely Jesus’ love for sinners that caused Him to drive these "holier than thou"s out of there, so that the sinners could return (if they so chose) and become reconciled to God.
Okay, this is my understanding of it. Folks were selling animals to be sacrificed by the priests of the temple. The petitioners had to buy these animals from the stalls as the animals were said to be “unblemished”. BUT, the problem was, these sacrifices couldn’t be purchased with Roman coin so had to be exchanged for Temple shekels, or whatever. When they were exchanged, the exchange rate was poor, the Roman coin being worth more than the Temple coinage. A good way to earn a good “honest” day’s wage. Now this is how I understand it. Don’t know where I read it, but it sure makes sense to me.😉
 
I’m getting tired of “traditionalists” being considered to have “holier than thou” attitudes. Just what is it pro-abortion supporters are afraid of? Being told that they’re wrong by reason of the laws of the Catholic Church?

Ever park illegally? And when you get a parking ticket, do you think the police officer is trying to be better than you by reason of enforcing the law you just broke? By reason of the law, you had no business parking in an illegal spot. The ticket tells you how unwelcome you were there.

Consider the Church like a club. Clubs have rules. They follow certain standards. You like it or leave it (hopefully, you don’t leave in the case of the Church). If you don’t follow the rules - you’re not a member in good standing. Pro-abortionists / pro-choicers want the rules to suit their way even though the Catholic Church tells them otherwise.
That’s not how it works!
A big amen to that—apart from the fact that, every time anyone uses the word ‘choice’ to describe abortion, we lose that battle of words and ideas.

CHOICE means I get to decide what color car I drive, or what to eat for dinner, or any number of lawful things. It does not equate with the murder of an innocent.

Apart from that you get it exactly right.
 
Those weren’t tax collectors

.

Your’re right. My terminology was wrong. The men that he chased from the temple were money changers. I don’t know why, but I’ve called them tax collectors once beforel. Mental block I guess? Anyway, I apologize for calling then tax collectors.

From Matthew 21:

10 11 Jesus entered the temple area and drove out all those engaged in selling and buying there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who were selling doves.
13
**And he said to them, “It is written: ‘My house shall be a house of prayer,’ 12 but you are making it a den of thieves.”
14 **
The blind and the lame 13 approached him in the temple area, and he cured them.
15
(These people were there to keep the tax collectors out
 
Those weren’t tax collectors. (These people were there to keep the tax collectors out, actually - along with any other “impure souls.”)

What was happening was that the space that was meant for the sinners and unbelievers to come to, in the Temple, had been taken over by people who believed that those folks had no business being in the Temple.

They turned it into a space where the True Believers ™ could come and exchange their Roman money (impure) to Jewish coins so that they could then go to the tax collectors (who were outside the city wall, because of their status in the community) and pay the Temple tax.

It was precisely Jesus’ love for sinners that caused Him to drive these "holier than thou"s out of there, so that the sinners could return (if they so chose) and become reconciled to God.
I was taught that the money changers were involved in the trading of imperial coinage for temple money which was then used to buy doves and lambs for sacrifice in the Temple if the pilgrims didn’t bring their own. Jesus anger was over the fact that this activity was taking place inside the Temple instead of outside. I don’t think it had anything to do with holier than thou types at all.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top