N
Nordar
Guest
headin home;4179252:
Ditto!
- Status
N
Nordar
Guest
That is what I was taught also, I never heard it was about holier than thou types!
J
jmcrae
Guest
They were in the Court of the Gentiles, which is the space that was reserved for sinners. Their booths were in the way of sinners being able to come and pray at the Temple.
D
DAPDN
Guest
Iâd say that in these particular times weâre living in, with the world upside down, with our very own brethren in Jesus Christ and in Mary giving support to political causes which are completely against their self-proclamed faith, itâs pretty normal that that priest felt undertaken by the wrath of the Catholic soldier, and said those words. Heâs totally right, in my opinion, although I think he should have invited, simultaneously, that people to the reconciliation, through a good confession and a propper reeducation on the Churchâs doctrine and teachings.
But, as far as Iâm concerned, Iâd prefer a priest who told that people they are not welcome to the communion rail, rather than a priest who gladly invited them to receive Our Lord in the Eucharist, knowing they are in deep mortal sin. At least, the first is absolutely right according to the Churchâs doctrines and the Catholic morality. The second, as you all know, is absolutely wrong.
P
Paul_Folbrecht
Guest
Itâs a convenient hypothesis for those who want all the âbaadâ people to be âholier than thouâ types (in other words, people who dare to claim anything is a sin), isnât it?
Well, convenient except for the total lack of evidenceâŚ
N
Nordar
Guest
Exactly`!
C
CradleCath
Guest
I would really like to verify this interpretation. Can you give me a link?
P
palmas85
Guest
The revisionist version. Wonderful:thumbsup:
The Court of the Gentiles was actually the only place at the Temple where non Jews could be at all. They were prohibited from entering the rest of the Temple on the pain of death. Not because they were sinners, because they were not Jews. Ritually unclean Jews couldnât enter either except in vary rare circumstances. Lepers had their area and if I am not mistaken cleaning people could come in as well who had not been ritually cleansed in order to do their jobsâŚ
The non Jews sold the necessary sacrificial animals in the Court of the Gentiles as well as outside of the temple confines, to the pilgrims. Those inside apparently overcharged by a great deal and may possibly have been in cahoots with either the Priests or the local officials in order to do so. The moneychangers apparently had very bad exchange rates on imperial coinage and other currency in exchange for temple currency and basically ripped everyone off that they couldâŚCorruption abounded and the whole Temple had become to a great extent a tourist trap, along the lines of the French Quarter in New Orleans but with an explicit religious obligation that made it all the more profitableâŚ
Jesus being a very devout Jew, would of course have become enraged at the sight of commercial activity which took advantage of the people trying to make their ritual sacrifice, especially inside the physical confines of the Temple itself.
Are you in catechist training by chance? Thats where I first heard your version. They also presented another version as I guess they figured all of us wouldnât fall for that one. The second version was that Jesus overturned the tables in order to demonstrate in a symbolic way the destruction of the Temple that would come later.
C
CradleCath
Guest
N
Nordar
Guest
headin home;4179252:
You and me both
C
CradleCath
Guest
The problem being, I havenât had this perfectly sinless, âholier than thou or anyone elseâ day yet & Iâm 66 yrs. old. SoâŚdonât sit around too long waiting for my halo to show through in my messages.You and me both
C
CradleCath
Guest
Thank You.
M
Mariah_Anne
Guest
I am also a member of that parish. I am very familiar with this priest who is a good priest. He is canonically correct in all his teachings and is an excellent bible scholar. He is an excellent speaker and when he conducts bible study his classes are full.
However and there is a big âhoweverâ, unfortunately his attitude has gone sour and that has been conveyed within the last year in his homilies and in his interaction with the parishioners. He is a "Pastorâ because he holds a position through his appointment made by the Arch Bishop. And this is where the âhoweverâ comes to play. He is NOT a pastor in the true sense of the word. He is not pastoral to the needs of his parishioners, at least not to the current majority of his parishioners. But eventually he will be as the current majority is NO parishioners. This dynamic is changing by his attitude and lack of compassion for the NO parishioners. They are leaving our parish in large numbers and eventually the majority may become the TLM. If this is the wish of the archdiocese then so be it, but that then should be conveyed to the parishioners to avoid undercurrents of discontent to parishioners who favor the ordinary rite of the liturgy (NO) versus the extra-ordinary rite of the liturgy (TLM).
But this is another area of discourse. Let us stick strictly with the recent homily and the presentation of that homily.
The issue is not just Pro-Life or Pro Choice with this Pastor, the real issue with this Pastor is his attitude and in his lack of compassion. He is correct in his statements of whether communion is or should be given to those people who support abortion. He is wrong in his presentation and lack of compassion for anyone outside the fullness of the church. That is the attitude of a Pharisee who put law above the person.
Did Our Lord say, âGet out of my way sinner, begone from my sightâ. No. He said, âCome follow me, pray with me, talk with me, and sin no moreâ.
Those who are troubled in any area of true Catholic teaching may shy away from desired and needed counseling with a priest who has shown a lack of compassion. That is very unfortunate.
I encourage all of you to pray for this Pastor, this priest, to remain faithful to the true teachings of the church as he has been, but to also become compassionate and pastoral in his ministry to his flock. Lack of compassion can drive a wedge between a shepherd and his flock.
However and there is a big âhoweverâ, unfortunately his attitude has gone sour and that has been conveyed within the last year in his homilies and in his interaction with the parishioners. He is a "Pastorâ because he holds a position through his appointment made by the Arch Bishop. And this is where the âhoweverâ comes to play. He is NOT a pastor in the true sense of the word. He is not pastoral to the needs of his parishioners, at least not to the current majority of his parishioners. But eventually he will be as the current majority is NO parishioners. This dynamic is changing by his attitude and lack of compassion for the NO parishioners. They are leaving our parish in large numbers and eventually the majority may become the TLM. If this is the wish of the archdiocese then so be it, but that then should be conveyed to the parishioners to avoid undercurrents of discontent to parishioners who favor the ordinary rite of the liturgy (NO) versus the extra-ordinary rite of the liturgy (TLM).
But this is another area of discourse. Let us stick strictly with the recent homily and the presentation of that homily.
The issue is not just Pro-Life or Pro Choice with this Pastor, the real issue with this Pastor is his attitude and in his lack of compassion. He is correct in his statements of whether communion is or should be given to those people who support abortion. He is wrong in his presentation and lack of compassion for anyone outside the fullness of the church. That is the attitude of a Pharisee who put law above the person.
Did Our Lord say, âGet out of my way sinner, begone from my sightâ. No. He said, âCome follow me, pray with me, talk with me, and sin no moreâ.
Those who are troubled in any area of true Catholic teaching may shy away from desired and needed counseling with a priest who has shown a lack of compassion. That is very unfortunate.
I encourage all of you to pray for this Pastor, this priest, to remain faithful to the true teachings of the church as he has been, but to also become compassionate and pastoral in his ministry to his flock. Lack of compassion can drive a wedge between a shepherd and his flock.
S
snhs
Guest
I find it quite interesting that dang has been relatively quiet of late and all of a sudden someone from the same Parish coincidentally rides in to back her up. But however unlikely it is theoretically possible, I supposeâŚ
He expresses traditional views? The vast majority of Parishes have Priests who adopt fairly Liberal views on at least some issues. Many people are quick enough to tell others wanting traditional practices to go to one of the few Churches with a more traditional Priest, and theyâre rather more difficult to get to and distant than a Church with what you might consider a more âpastoralâ Priest.
But yes, now that youâve finished your little critique of the Priest lets focus on the Homily. Does the Priest offer Confession fairly regularly? I ask because that is what a compassionate Priest does when people are/are likely to be in mortal sin. The Priest can not bodily force people to come into the Confessional and confess, so a compassionate Priest would use his Homilies to encourage people to go to Confession regularly. If a compassionate Priest continues to see people week after week coming up for Communion and receiving, while in public disagreement with a vital teaching of the Church, and thereby committing another very serious sin what is he meant to do? Does he just let them continue? That certainly wouldnât be very pastoral now would it. Does he take each one of them aside individually and have a word with them? Well I suppose if he had enough time he could, but what about those who might support abortion but not be public figures? There could be quite a few of them in a Parish after all, it would hardly be pastoral or compassionate of him to ignore a part of his flock. So he gets up and gives a Homily explaining the severity of it and tells them what the Churchâs position in and then backs that position up through action. Thereby any politicians/public figures who are pro abortion get the message loud and clear, and anyone sitting in the pews and maybe wavering on/supporting abortion sees just how important the Church views obedience to her on this issue to be.
Obviously from your post the Priest has his work cut out for him, and Iâm sure many people will be praying for him and that he continues to have the strength and will power to carry on with the work God has given him. And indeed that many more Priests like him will be graduating from Seminary and being ordained soon.
Iâd also like to refer you to a quote, which I believe was in the Gospel reading a few weeks ago:
âMatthew 16:21: From that time, Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders, chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and the third day be raised up. 22 Peter took him aside, and began to rebuke him, saying, âFar be it from you, Lord! This will never be done to you.â 23 But he turned, and said to Peter, âGet behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling-block to me, for you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of men.â WEBâ (Bold added)
What does Our Lord say there? Well he tells Peter, calling him Satan indeed, to get behind him, therefore out of his sight. What was your take on what Our Lord would say again? And you still seem to be peddling this illusion that the Priest ordered them out of the Church never to darken the door again, he told them not to come to the Communion Rail to receive while in a state of mortal sin, that is what the Church teaches.
P
palmas85
Guest
Better be careful. Theyâll start calling you mean spirited:bigyikes: or even worse, uncharitable:bigyikes: :bigyikes: :bigyikes: with posts like these.
By the way you stole my thunder with this one. Good job:thumbsup:
E
elts1956
Guest
Whether the OP loves/likes the strictor âTraditionalistsâ or not isnât the point. Believe it or not, even a person familiar with only the NO and other changes of attitudes after Vatican II has the wherewithal to know, understand and believe the teachings of the Catholic Church regarding the crime of abortion, that it is the murder/killing of a human being and is morally wrong.
F
Fran65
Guest
I am one of those people.
R
rosetman
Guest
STAND FOR SOMETHING OR FALL FOR ANYTHING
Part of the spiritual sence of loss today is the unwillingness of believers to stand up for their beliefs. It is uncomfortable to challenge another when your beliefs are not PC. Jesus did not waffle. You are either with me or against me. The church has proclaimed abortion a sin. Medically, it is murder. That priest is a defender of the faith. Be glad you have such a leader. It is cold out here among the displaced pre Vatican II catholics. I wish there were a place in the church for us.
Part of the spiritual sence of loss today is the unwillingness of believers to stand up for their beliefs. It is uncomfortable to challenge another when your beliefs are not PC. Jesus did not waffle. You are either with me or against me. The church has proclaimed abortion a sin. Medically, it is murder. That priest is a defender of the faith. Be glad you have such a leader. It is cold out here among the displaced pre Vatican II catholics. I wish there were a place in the church for us.
G
GailMac
Guest
NcJohn brings up the example of the moneychangers in this thread. I am glad that use of this particular Scripture passage is included here. I would like to flesh this passage out some. Letâs use this example to perhaps shed a little light on the âattitudeâ of the priest the OP has a âproblemâ with keeping in mind this priest hears the Confessions of his flock, sometimes even right before the Mass he serves!
The moneychangers were there in the Temple exchanging the Roman coins the Jews were forced to use for shekels. Why were they doing this? Because the Roman coins had an image of Ceasar on it and to the Romans, he was venerated as a god. It was a serious sin to give these profane coins to the Levites and priests to use in the Temple. You couldnât bring an image of another god into Godâs House! Nor can a person harbor in his heart a fondness for Ceasar, the sin of abortion in this case, but put it off for an hour every Sunday because you have to. This was an insult in the least, at its worse a total hypocrisy on the part of the Temple goer who either did or didnât exchange his money for a âkosherâ form of coinage.
Now, the folks come to the Temple wanting to worship God, have their prayers answered and to keep their obligations under the Law, they want their neighbors to know they are âkosherâ by being there. Same as today. Folks want to come to Mass, to worship God, get their prayers answered, and because they have to each Sunday and stroll up in the Communion line so everyone will âseeâ they arenât in Mortal sin and can receive Communion! But they know they arenât worthy. Their âcoinsâ need to constantly exchanged for the right kind before they can receive Communion, or if you will allow me, their sins, that of holding onto justifications that favor the crime of abortion, etc. So, what do they do? They go to Confession and argue with the priest and justify their sins over and over again. They try to exchange their âcoinageâ but want it right back after Mass! They abuse the Sacrament of Confession and expect to be admitted to the Sacrament of Eucharist just because they show up! They want their ârightâ to the Eucharist honored while they deny Godâs right to a purified soul in the Sacrament of Confession. They fail to see the âcoinâ or sin for what it truely is - an abomination to God for in His house He will have no other! They want it both ways. They return to using Ceasarâs money, the PC excuses we have too well grooved to justify abortion, right after they leave the Temple of the Eucharist!
Yes, they hold onto their personal opinions, their profane coins, but they still expect to be admitted to the Temple of the Eucharist! And if they bother to show up at the moneychangers table, or in my analogy, the Confessional to exchange their sullied souls for clean ones, to exchange their âcoinsâ for the right kind, theyâll be right back to get their profane coins as soon as they are ready to leave the TempleâŚhow many such exchanges do you think the moneychangers should give before they refuse the exchange?
I know this is a stretch. Most folks look at the example of the moneychangers as a symbol of greed on the part of the moneychangers, but Iâd like to take it a few steps further and point out the Jews went right back to using the profane coins as soon as they left the Temple precinct! They didnât make a complete exchange of their coins. They come to the Temple to get, not give. They have no repentance and are only sorry there at the Temple when it is important. In the example Jesus shows up and trashes the whole place! He doesnât just make it impossible for the moneychangers, He also makes it impossible for those who expect to exchange their profane coins for the right kind over and over and over again, but only for Temple worship.
The Truth that they shouldnât even have Ceasarâs money on them is ignored. They go back to using Ceasarâs money as soon as they leave! Just like today. Folks come to Mass a little sorry for their personal opinions about abortion as in sure it should be wrong, but donât ask me to fight city hall and go right back to their profane coins as soon as they leave. Their repentance is only partial. They pick up their profane coins even before the keys to their cars hit the ignition switch on the steering column!
In the example given Jesus by doing what He did stopped the whole sacrilege. So did the OPâs Pastor! (leastways I hope so) He is sick and tired of the people constantly asking for good coins to only use at the temple. Heâs asking them to completely repent and exchange their profane coins for the right kind to use everyday all day and in all walks of life. Take a stand, get Ceasarâs dirty money out of your hands everywhere!
Imagine yourself a priest who has to constantly hear half-hearted repentance over the abomination of abortion followed by the question, âWell Father, can I still receive Communion?..â in the Confessional before you will refuse the exchange of the coins once again so a person can then profane Godâs Temple each and everytime they come to Mass? Those in Mortal sin cannot receive Communion. Those would be those who totally refuse to exchange their coins at all, and those who demand their coins right back after they pay their mandatory visit to the Temple on Sundays! They are in the same boat as those who refuse to exchange their coins altogether!
And there is plenty more wrong with those coins in peopleâs pockets besides abortion. Thanks for your patience with my stilting analogy of the example of the money changers.
Peace,
Gail
The moneychangers were there in the Temple exchanging the Roman coins the Jews were forced to use for shekels. Why were they doing this? Because the Roman coins had an image of Ceasar on it and to the Romans, he was venerated as a god. It was a serious sin to give these profane coins to the Levites and priests to use in the Temple. You couldnât bring an image of another god into Godâs House! Nor can a person harbor in his heart a fondness for Ceasar, the sin of abortion in this case, but put it off for an hour every Sunday because you have to. This was an insult in the least, at its worse a total hypocrisy on the part of the Temple goer who either did or didnât exchange his money for a âkosherâ form of coinage.
Now, the folks come to the Temple wanting to worship God, have their prayers answered and to keep their obligations under the Law, they want their neighbors to know they are âkosherâ by being there. Same as today. Folks want to come to Mass, to worship God, get their prayers answered, and because they have to each Sunday and stroll up in the Communion line so everyone will âseeâ they arenât in Mortal sin and can receive Communion! But they know they arenât worthy. Their âcoinsâ need to constantly exchanged for the right kind before they can receive Communion, or if you will allow me, their sins, that of holding onto justifications that favor the crime of abortion, etc. So, what do they do? They go to Confession and argue with the priest and justify their sins over and over again. They try to exchange their âcoinageâ but want it right back after Mass! They abuse the Sacrament of Confession and expect to be admitted to the Sacrament of Eucharist just because they show up! They want their ârightâ to the Eucharist honored while they deny Godâs right to a purified soul in the Sacrament of Confession. They fail to see the âcoinâ or sin for what it truely is - an abomination to God for in His house He will have no other! They want it both ways. They return to using Ceasarâs money, the PC excuses we have too well grooved to justify abortion, right after they leave the Temple of the Eucharist!
Yes, they hold onto their personal opinions, their profane coins, but they still expect to be admitted to the Temple of the Eucharist! And if they bother to show up at the moneychangers table, or in my analogy, the Confessional to exchange their sullied souls for clean ones, to exchange their âcoinsâ for the right kind, theyâll be right back to get their profane coins as soon as they are ready to leave the TempleâŚhow many such exchanges do you think the moneychangers should give before they refuse the exchange?
I know this is a stretch. Most folks look at the example of the moneychangers as a symbol of greed on the part of the moneychangers, but Iâd like to take it a few steps further and point out the Jews went right back to using the profane coins as soon as they left the Temple precinct! They didnât make a complete exchange of their coins. They come to the Temple to get, not give. They have no repentance and are only sorry there at the Temple when it is important. In the example Jesus shows up and trashes the whole place! He doesnât just make it impossible for the moneychangers, He also makes it impossible for those who expect to exchange their profane coins for the right kind over and over and over again, but only for Temple worship.
The Truth that they shouldnât even have Ceasarâs money on them is ignored. They go back to using Ceasarâs money as soon as they leave! Just like today. Folks come to Mass a little sorry for their personal opinions about abortion as in sure it should be wrong, but donât ask me to fight city hall and go right back to their profane coins as soon as they leave. Their repentance is only partial. They pick up their profane coins even before the keys to their cars hit the ignition switch on the steering column!
In the example given Jesus by doing what He did stopped the whole sacrilege. So did the OPâs Pastor! (leastways I hope so) He is sick and tired of the people constantly asking for good coins to only use at the temple. Heâs asking them to completely repent and exchange their profane coins for the right kind to use everyday all day and in all walks of life. Take a stand, get Ceasarâs dirty money out of your hands everywhere!
Imagine yourself a priest who has to constantly hear half-hearted repentance over the abomination of abortion followed by the question, âWell Father, can I still receive Communion?..â in the Confessional before you will refuse the exchange of the coins once again so a person can then profane Godâs Temple each and everytime they come to Mass? Those in Mortal sin cannot receive Communion. Those would be those who totally refuse to exchange their coins at all, and those who demand their coins right back after they pay their mandatory visit to the Temple on Sundays! They are in the same boat as those who refuse to exchange their coins altogether!
And there is plenty more wrong with those coins in peopleâs pockets besides abortion. Thanks for your patience with my stilting analogy of the example of the money changers.
Peace,
Gail
S
Sailor_Kenshin
Guest
Or elsewhere as well.
- Status