Priest denies communion to lesbian at mother's funeral

[Lively Stone]

Neither is god a homophobe.

The term is a made-up term by homosexuals and has no meaning regarding bible-believing Christians. We beleive what God believes, and we hate what He hates---sin.


Romans 12:9 (AMP)

[sup]9[/sup][Let your] love be sincere (a real thing); hate what is evil [loathe all ungodliness, turn in horror from wickedness], but hold fast to that which is good.

Leviticus is OT, it doesn't apply to us. And Paul's warnings are against pederasty, not homosexuality per se.

The word of God, both testaments, apply to us. Sin is sin. Paul warned against homosexuality...there is no mincing his words, either.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10
[sup]9 [/sup]Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, [sup]10 [/sup]nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.

 

[prism]

[sup]You are right Brightmorningstar but bear in mind that our friend Elysian is new to Christianity and may never have read Leviticus. In fact he unlike us does not ahve direct access to scripture.[/sup]

New to Christianity?
He pontificates as if
1. He has been saved skiddy-8 years
or
2. Is new but refuses to leave behind his old ways.

 

[brightmorningstar]

elysian,
I shouldnt try to be dishonest on purpose. Being a Christian is believing, not denying.
Your claim was that there was no Biblical evidence that homosexuality is a sin. the OT is still the Bible.! Think about it, if Leviticus were no longer to apply then why would Christ's NT teaching say 'love your neighbour as yourself'' Matthew 19:19, which is Leviticus 19:18?
As Christians we follow Christ's fulfillment of the OT law and prophets. This is why He said He didnt abolish the law but fulfilled it.
So Christ's NT teaching says 'Love your neighbor as yourself' (Matthew 19:19, Romans 13:9) which is a basic creation priniciple, and that God's creation purpose is man and woman. (Matthew 19, Mark 10, Eph 5, from Genesis 2) and that men with men instead of women is sin and error (1 Corinthians 6-7, Romans 1) We are no longer under the covenant of the OT law but under a new covenant which is through the Spirit of God and His grace.

Now a word of advice. If you dont have access to the Bible dont start adding words you imagine just because some non-believer has suggested it. Paul describes men who abandon the natural use of women and commit indecent acts with men. There is no mention of pederasty. Pederasty was not the only form of same sex acts. Pederasty is still men with men instead of women. Infact pederasty is man with boy or youth, all the passages that condemn same sex sex say men/men, man/man, or women/women.

By the way Jesus didnt write any of the New Testament, so you need to ditch the liberal error of saying Jesus or Paul. Paul preached what he received, not from man, but direct from from the risen Lord (Galatians 1).

Do you struggle with same sex desires? Dont worry we all struggle with wrong desires, and they are easy to avoid when we focus on Jesus and doing what He teaches, worshipping God and looking to help others. Dont get influenced by counterfit christianity like LGCM

So the woman has come to something she doesnt understand or has been lied to about by non beleivers, and has got upset and offended. That is not the problem, the problem is she now doesnt believe the truth she has heard and is out to attack it.
The world sees the refusal as hateful, because the truth is foolishness to those who are perishing. Lets pray she sees the truth, the faith fo the priest and his humility.

 

[Templar81]

Prism, I've been a Christian for 31 years, So you obviously don't know anything.

Apologies Prism. I guess I got thwe wrong end of the stick on that last post.

 

[elysian]

According to OT law, you must stone children who disobey their parents. Do you follow that too? Or do you pick and choose from the OT and if so, to what end?

 

[Lively Stone]

According to OT law, you must stone children who disobey their parents. Do you follow that too? Or do you pick and choose from the OT and if so, to what end?

In the OT, those who would be stoned would be adult sons who dishonoured their fathers. It was extremely important for the Hebrew families to maintain unity in the bloodline. God was building up a nation!

We don't follow the OT Mosaic law like that today, as Gentiles, and Israel is already founded, and she is not walking according to God's law.

Rather than argue about the OT laws and ordinances, try reading the new Testament and understanding what the Lord speaks to you there for now. Get to know Him, then you can tackle the OT.

 

[brightmorningstar]

According to OT law, you must stone children who disobey their parents. Do you follow that too? Or do you pick and choose from the OT and if so, to what end?

elysian, If you arent interested in responding to the points put to you, you must be trolling.
The answer to your last question was in my previous post.

But as an addition I might ask you had you considered why the OT law is summed up love your neighbor as yourself when its says stone people? Its an easy answer for anyone who believes the word of God, its because the sin they do is detestable to God and unable to exist with righeousness. The human ideas are not the same as God's. Thats why some humans dont think its wrong to steal, lie, even murder. For humanism and human minds its just one group of people's ideas against another group's.

According to OT law, you must stone children who disobey their parents. Do you follow that too? Or do you pick and choose from the OT and if so, to what end?

According to OT law homosexuals should be stoned right? Why did the priest not stone the woman who calls herself a lesbian? It seems you are literally playing devil's advocate here. What about love your neighbor as yourself, that OT law as well (Leviticus 19:18) In short, if you understood enough you could ask some questions, as you dont know what you are asking it is very difficult to respond with anything you would understand.

 

[mjrhealth]

If a priest should deny the oportunuty for God to work in oneslife should God then not deny him a place in HEaven. The euccrist is a catholic thing and really means nothing, but this " priest", has denied a sinner salvation, to his demise for he has misrepresented Jesus and denied a sinner from coming to Jesus, that makes him worse then her, but then the church in this world is of this world and not of God.

 

[Foreigner]

There is no biblical evidence that homosexuality is a sin.

-- Excepts for God's multiple warnings against it and concrete examples of how He punished those who practiced it......

Leviticus is OT, it doesn't apply to us. And Paul's warnings are against pederasty, not homosexuality per se.

-- The OT doesn't apply to us....at all? Amazing.
Why is it that those with the weakest foundation try to build the biggest structures?

Also, you need to reread what Paul said and try again. You are wrong there, as well.




The priest was in the right about denying her Communion.
But he was a cold and insensitive about how he handled the whole situation.

He should have approached her beforehand about it. If she chose to make a scene after that, then it would be obvious that she was more concerned about an agenda than receiving Communion.

 

[mjrhealth]

No man has the right to deny one entry into Gods kingdom, no man has the right to judge another for we are all sinners, an such as it is all those who partake should have being denied, even the prest himself is a sinner so what right does he have to deny the person this euchrist. If Jesus found it fitting to be amongst the sinners and the gamblers, the tax collectors and the harlots, then should not the priest be the same, A servant is not above his master.

In His love

 

[Foreigner]

No man has the right to deny one entry into Gods kingdom,

-- Strawman. No one is claiming they can or that they are. Your statement implies a human has the ability to do that.
And even if someone did claim they were doing that, we all know only God decides whether someone will enter His kingdom or not.

no man has the right to judge another for we are all sinners,

-- If a person says they openly and freely are participating in a practice or lifestyle that God Himself has said is an abomination, then pointing out to them that that practice is condemned by God and God wants them to repent is not 'standing in judgement' over them.

And society judges people every day. Jails are filled with people who were judged by a single man or a group of men. The majority of them doing the judging are themselves sinners.

an such as it is all those who partake should have being denied, even the prest himself is a sinner so what right does he have to deny the person this euchrist.

-- Once again you are incorrect. Denominations have the right to set their own rules.
The priest was acting within those rules. People in that denomination are there voluntarily.
Don't like it, leave the denomination.
Don't belong to the denomination and you don't like it?............tough.

If Jesus found it fitting to be amongst the sinners and the gamblers, the tax collectors and the harlots, then should not the priest be the same,

-- Jesus told those "sinners, gamblers, tax collectors, and harlots" that they were loved but that they needed to turn away from their sin.
He told them that if they did not turn away from their sin, they would not see the kingdom of heaven.

You imply that Jesus loved them and thus there was nothing they needed to do or change. That is of course completely incorrect.





Turns out the woman who was denied Communion wasn't even Catholic in the first place.

By her own admission she was a practicing Buddhist so she shouldn't have come forward for Communion in the first place, regardless of sexual orientation.

Taking Communion runs completely counter to what her actual stated beliefs are.

It appears her goal was 'activism' more than anything else.

http://www.catholicvote.org/discuss/index.php?p=27899

 

[prism]

If a priest should deny the oportunuty for God to work in oneslife should God then not deny him a place in HEaven. The euccrist is a catholic thing and really means nothing, but this " priest", has denied a sinner salvation, to his demise for he has misrepresented Jesus and denied a sinner from coming to Jesus, that makes him worse then her, but then the church in this world is of this world and not of God.

First you say it is a catholic thing...no, it is a biblical thing. Then you say it means nothing but turn around and say it's refusal is a denial into heaven. Please don't spout things you have no knowledge of. BTW the Eucharist is not for unbelievers .

 

[veteran]

I've got to support what that priest did based on his conscience, simply because man's law is not to intrude over religion, (as long as practice does not violate the law, and refusing someone Communion is not against any of man's laws that I know of.)

By the way, we as believers on Christ Jesus DO NOT have to go to a Church building to partake in The Lord's Supper. The Levitical priesthood ritual requirements of going through a priest are gone per The New Covenant. Thus a Church that tries to make that a requirement of only going through a denominational priest for Communion with Christ Jesus, opens up these kind of potential conditions.

 

[THE Gypsy]

Turns out the woman who was denied Communion wasn't even Catholic in the first place.

By her own admission she was a practicing Buddhist so she shouldn't have come forward for Communion in the first place, regardless of sexual orientation.

Taking Communion runs completely counter to what her actual stated beliefs are.

It appears her goal was 'activism' more than anything else.

http://www.catholicv...dex.php?p=27899

It would seem your assessment is correct.

I went to a Catholic funeral years ago, and when it was time for communion, the priest announced that those that were not Catholic could not participate however, they were welcome to get in line with their arms crossed over their chest and the priest would bless them. Whether or not I agree with it is irrelevant. It is church policy.

 

[mjrhealth]

(Mat 18:32) Then his lord, after that he had called him, said unto him, O thou wicked servant, I forgave thee all that debt, because thou desiredst me:

(Mat 18:33) Shouldest not thou also have had compassion on thy fellowservant, even as I had pity on thee?

(Mat 18:34) And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him.

(Mat 18:35) So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses.

church laws and rules cannot replace what Christ asked us to do, and the greatest of these is Love, but that was forgooten in this instance. Funny how people cite the Lords Prayer but fail to keep the important part,

Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive them who trespass against us.

There is no fear of God , it God replaced with religious rules and regulations.

in His Love

 

[Foreigner]

mrheath, nothing you said negates the fact that Catholics have the right to deny Communion to non Catholics.
Catholics believe that it is the ACTUAL body and blood of Christ they are receiving.

One could argue that those coming up to get it who aren't Catholic are acknowledging that they believe it is the actual body and blood, as well.

We can do this all day but it comes down to this and this alone:

The woman that came up to get Communion was not Catholic.
Not only that, by her own admission she wan't Christian. She is Buddhist.
Homosexual or heterosexual, the priest had no obligation to allow her to participate in (what he considers) a sacred event that she herself, by her very beliefs doesn't believe is true.

To demand that which she does not believe in is desrespectful. If you know anything about the Buddhist faith you know A true Buddhist would never have done anything like this.

She needs to get her own house in order before she whines further about the priest.

 

[elysian]

I repeat: Paul's views were concerning pederasty, not homosexuality per se. Why would god the almighty care about what ppl do in bed when the world is full of sins like genocide, war etc.? Face it, people want someone to scapegoat - it was the jews and blacks in the past, now it's the gay people.

 

[prism]

I repeat: Paul's views were concerning pederasty, not homosexuality per se. Why would god the almighty care about what ppl do in bed when the world is full of sins like genocide, war etc.? Face it, people want someone to scapegoat - it was the jews and blacks in the past, now it's the gay people.

God cares about the soul and each soul is dear to Him. Being black,white,Jew or Gentile does not affect the soul adversely whereas sexual impurity including homosexuality corrupts the soul of man. Christ Jesus shed His Blood to cleanse the soul of even one in bondage to homosexuality.

 

[MIRACLESRMYHOBBY]

Are most present day Christians quoting the new testament because it can be used to justify -Evil- such as Homosexuality etc.. -God- and the old testament always was against these abominations but Liberal Christians seem to be -OK- with this type of -Evil-. Liberal Christians seem to be -OK- with abortions and many other -Evils- that -God- and the old testament condemned and should be destroyed.
This Catholic Priest was a -Hero- or warrior for -God- and had every right to throw this -Evil- out of the funeral Mass and the Real Christians should back him up, instead these pansy Chtistians bowed to -Evil-, no wonder Christianity has lost it's way...God Bless...

 

[Comm.Arnold]

God cares about the soul and each soul is dear to Him. Being black,white,Jew or Gentile does not affect the soul adversely whereas sexual impurity including homosexuality corrupts the soul of man. Christ Jesus shed His Blood to cleanse the soul of even one in bondage to homosexuality.

Nice