Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 10
Woman denied Communion because she's a lesbian
Topic Started: Mar 1 2012, 08:38 AM (4,041 Views)
George K
Member Avatar
Finally
My question has nothing to do with sexual orientation. Rather it has to do with someone introducing themselves as a (presumed) adulterer.
A guide to GKSR: Click

"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... "
- Mik, 6/14/08


Nothing is as effective as homeopathy.

I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles.
- Klaus, 4/29/18
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Luke's Dad
Member Avatar
Emperor Pengin
At our church, it's kind of left up to the individual to decide if everything is right with them and Christ. So this young lady would have been allowed to accept it if she wanted to.

Of course, it never would have reached that point, as she would have been stoned before entering the building.
The problem with having an open mind is that people keep trying to put things in it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
somebody else's sock
Middle Aged Carp
George K
Mar 19 2012, 11:34 AM
I haven't been following this thread all that closely, but let me hop in and ask a question of those who are more knowledgeable than I in these matters.

If a person came to a church to which he does not belong, and introduced him to the clergyman and then said, "And this is Susie, the woman (and not my wife) I'm sleeping with." Would the pastor/priest be obligated to administer communion?

In the Catholic Church I grew up in, fornication was considered a sin, a mortal sin, in fact, and one was not worthy of receiving communion.

Thanks.
The short answer (without getting into how the priest approaches the situation) is that the couple is not eligible to receive communion in a Catholic church.

If your scenario is modified slightly, and the couple is married but one is divorced, then answer is the same. No communion in a Catholic church.

If I understand Dewey's posts correctly, it seems that in a Presbyterian church they would not be refused in either case.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
Luke's Dad
Mar 19 2012, 02:53 PM
Of course, it never would have reached that point, as she would have been stoned before entering the building.
I get stoned before going to church, too. I'm pretty sure Jesus understands.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
somebody else's sock
Mar 19 2012, 03:02 PM
George K
Mar 19 2012, 11:34 AM
I haven't been following this thread all that closely, but let me hop in and ask a question of those who are more knowledgeable than I in these matters.

If a person came to a church to which he does not belong, and introduced him to the clergyman and then said, "And this is Susie, the woman (and not my wife) I'm sleeping with." Would the pastor/priest be obligated to administer communion?

In the Catholic Church I grew up in, fornication was considered a sin, a mortal sin, in fact, and one was not worthy of receiving communion.

Thanks.
The short answer (without getting into how the priest approaches the situation) is that the couple is not eligible to receive communion in a Catholic church.

If your scenario is modified slightly, and the couple is married but one is divorced, then answer is the same. No communion in a Catholic church.

If I understand Dewey's posts correctly, it seems that in a Presbyterian church they would not be refused in either case.
Actually, the individuals are under a personal obligation to not receive the sacrament without reconciliation and a willingness to order their lives to Christ. The Church understands that this does not necessarily happen all at once, and people often have to grow into better relationship, so the Church does not ever ask that people be perfect or sinless but rather that they desire the graces of the sacraments to help them grow into lives of virtue and charity. (this is called "gradualism"). The various sacraments are intended to help us achieve such integrity in our lives-- reconciliation is integrally connected to the sacrament of Holy Communion since Communion leads to Reconciliation and Reconciliation leads to Communion. A Christian is called to be in a constant state of personal renewal in Christ, which is the reason Christ gave us the Sacraments.

The standard for when a priest is obligated to not administer Communion is actually pretty high -- I'm not sure the scenario George posed would meet that, though it would still be incumbent on the individuals to not present themselves for Communion without reconciliation.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Renauda
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
John D'Oh
Mar 19 2012, 03:13 PM
Luke's Dad
Mar 19 2012, 02:53 PM
Of course, it never would have reached that point, as she would have been stoned before entering the building.


I get stoned before going to church, too. I'm pretty sure Jesus understands.
Well if Jesus doesn't, the Rev. Pat Robertson does.


Don't bogart that joint my friend.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kenny
HOLY CARP!!!
John D'Oh
Mar 19 2012, 03:13 PM
I get stoned before going to church, too.
I'm pretty sure Jesus understands.
Funny, I feel like I've been stoned BY the church.
I'm pretty sure Jesus understands.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Renauda
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Bob Dylan ~ Rainy Day Women #12 & 35
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
And some more stoning
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Renauda
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Stoned woman ~ Ten Years After
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Quote:
 
No Dewey, I withhold judgment because I was not there and do not have any objective knowledge of the case. You rush to judgment.


IT, I'm not rushing to anything. I'm reading the priest's own words regarding the incident, and responding accordingly.

Quote:
 
Once again you cannot help but frame it in language and imagery that are completely of your own limitation. This might be insurmountable.


Yes, if you've taken it as your task to convince me that closed-table theology is correct, your task is indeed insurmountable.

I'm not going to play silly semantic games over the definition of "worthy." One is welcome to the Table and to participate in the sacrament, or they are not. You can use whatever terminology you want, but the outcome is what matters, and what actually defines the situation. I do not believe that the church - any church - has the responsibility or the authority to act as arbiter, guard, or protector of the sacrament by deciding which baptized believers are allowed to participate in the sacrament. The sacrament is the Lord's, not the church's. Only the Lord may determine who may or may not participate, and has been pointed out earlier, as he himself even offered the sacrament to Judas Iscariot, I'd say his standard of who is allowed to participate is quite low.

Quote:
 
Then you really don't understand how the Catholic Church's doctrine works, or how it is encoded in Cans 915 and 916. I gave you a link to a very good explanation of that -- 915 governs under what objective conditions a person may not be admitted to the sacrament, 916 under what subjective conditions the faithful may not present themselves for Communion. This is nothing more than a codification of the teachings of the Bible (Matt 18:15-17 and 1 Cor 11:28, inter alia).


You're confusing the concepts of not understanding Catholic doctrine regarding this issue with simply thinking it's bullsh!t. I understand the doctrine perfectly well, and no amount or re-reading it is going to suddenly open my eyes to accept the bullsh!t as anything but the bullsh!t that it is. There is no reading comprehension problem here, there is just a profound theological difference. I understand that you think my tradition's theology is similarly bullsh!t, but I'm not telling you that you *obviously* haven't read our position; otherwise you'd see the error of your ways and admit that I'm right. I recognize that you see things differently. I'm not trying to tell you that you need to change your beliefs; I'm simply saying that I don't share them - and that isn't a result of not having read the doctrine.

Quote:
 
Are there no conditions in which a person might not be admitted to the sacrament for you? Even temporarily?


We've covered this ground already. Because I do not believe that the church has the authority or responsibility to disallow any baptized believer who presents himself or herself to participate, your question is meaningless to me.

There is nothing that a baptized believer can do that should enable *me* to disallow them from participating in the sacrament. Not forever. Not even temporarily. Not if I don't like him. Not if I hate him. Not if he is an adulter. Not if he is single and not celibate. Not if he is gay and not celibate. Not if he is a criminal. Not if he is a murderer. Not if he is Hitler. I would not do it, Auntie Mabel; I do not like a closed Lord's Table.

And I wouldn't do it specifically because of what we both believe is transpiring within the sacrament. Beyond the question of the nature of Christ's presence, we both believe that God's grace is being bestowed in a special way, and God is spiritually nourishing us, strengthening us, enabling us to become more sanctified, better followers of him. It therefore makes absolutely no sense to disallow any baptized believer from the sacrament - particularly those who are the most in need of such grace. If a believer has confessed and professed repentance of their sins - even if they have a different understanding of what is and isn't sin in their life than I would have - and they believe in their own heart and conscience that they should come to the Table, then they deserve to participate. Period.

Quote:
 
The Church does not refuse the Sacrament to any baptized person who asks for it looking to grow in Christ.


That isn't just bullsh!t, it's pure, strained, refined, concentrated bullsh!t. Your church would not allow me to participate in the sacrament. Do you honestly believe that I am not "looking to grow in Christ" ?

Quote:
 
You judge the Church without even understanding what the Church teaches and how the Church treats the penitent.


Reference my earlier comments. I understand their position; I just think it's nonsense.

Quote:
 
He did nothing objectively worthy of criticism, let alone demonization.


Apparently, the church hierarchy disagrees with you. And I certainly disagree with you. I do, in fact, know the role of a pastor, and this priest botched it. Further, the scandal of refusing the sacrament to the woman is not the fault of the priest; the scandal, in my opinion, is that the church teaches and upholds such a terrible doctrine at all.

Quote:
 
Which is incorrect on your part, but you ignore Matt 18.


Based on countless previous discussions, you know perfectly well that I do not ignore Matthew 18 at all; I simply interpret it differently than you do. I believe the chapter to actually be quite important in validating my church's beliefs, not yours. In any case, your accusing me of "ignoring" this text is apparently just an attempt at a personal insult, or to goad me into returning with similar personal insult. No thank you; I'm sticking to discussing my thoughts on the priest's version of what happened, and the church doctrine related to it. And since we're not really saying anything that I haven't already said earlier in this thread, I'll be done with it after this post. I only responded again because Aqua said he would be interested in hearing my comments. I've commented; that's enough.
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685.

"Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous

"Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011

I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bachophile
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
everbody must get stoned
"I don't know much about classical music. For years I thought the Goldberg Variations were something Mr. and Mrs. Goldberg did on their wedding night." Woody Allen
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Dewey
Mar 19 2012, 07:40 PM
Quote:
 
No Dewey, I withhold judgment because I was not there and do not have any objective knowledge of the case. You rush to judgment.


IT, I'm not rushing to anything. I'm reading the priest's own words regarding the incident, and responding accordingly.

Quote:
 
Once again you cannot help but frame it in language and imagery that are completely of your own limitation. This might be insurmountable.


Yes, if you've taken it as your task to convince me that closed-table theology is correct, your task is indeed insurmountable.

I'm not going to play silly semantic games over the definition of "worthy." One is welcome to the Table and to participate in the sacrament, or they are not. You can use whatever terminology you want, but the outcome is what matters, and what actually defines the situation. I do not believe that the church - any church - has the responsibility or the authority to act as arbiter, guard, or protector of the sacrament by deciding which baptized believers are allowed to participate in the sacrament. The sacrament is the Lord's, not the church's. Only the Lord may determine who may or may not participate, and has been pointed out earlier, as he himself even offered the sacrament to Judas Iscariot, I'd say his standard of who is allowed to participate is quite low.

Quote:
 
Then you really don't understand how the Catholic Church's doctrine works, or how it is encoded in Cans 915 and 916. I gave you a link to a very good explanation of that -- 915 governs under what objective conditions a person may not be admitted to the sacrament, 916 under what subjective conditions the faithful may not present themselves for Communion. This is nothing more than a codification of the teachings of the Bible (Matt 18:15-17 and 1 Cor 11:28, inter alia).


You're confusing the concepts of not understanding Catholic doctrine regarding this issue with simply thinking it's bullsh!t. I understand the doctrine perfectly well, and no amount or re-reading it is going to suddenly open my eyes to accept the bullsh!t as anything but the bullsh!t that it is. There is no reading comprehension problem here, there is just a profound theological difference. I understand that you think my tradition's theology is similarly bullsh!t, but I'm not telling you that you *obviously* haven't read our position; otherwise you'd see the error of your ways and admit that I'm right. I recognize that you see things differently. I'm not trying to tell you that you need to change your beliefs; I'm simply saying that I don't share them - and that isn't a result of not having read the doctrine.

Quote:
 
Are there no conditions in which a person might not be admitted to the sacrament for you? Even temporarily?


We've covered this ground already. Because I do not believe that the church has the authority or responsibility to disallow any baptized believer who presents himself or herself to participate, your question is meaningless to me.

There is nothing that a baptized believer can do that should enable *me* to disallow them from participating in the sacrament. Not forever. Not even temporarily. Not if I don't like him. Not if I hate him. Not if he is an adulter. Not if he is single and not celibate. Not if he is gay and not celibate. Not if he is a criminal. Not if he is a murderer. Not if he is Hitler. I would not do it, Auntie Mabel; I do not like a closed Lord's Table.

And I wouldn't do it specifically because of what we both believe is transpiring within the sacrament. Beyond the question of the nature of Christ's presence, we both believe that God's grace is being bestowed in a special way, and God is spiritually nourishing us, strengthening us, enabling us to become more sanctified, better followers of him. It therefore makes absolutely no sense to disallow any baptized believer from the sacrament - particularly those who are the most in need of such grace. If a believer has confessed and professed repentance of their sins - even if they have a different understanding of what is and isn't sin in their life than I would have - and they believe in their own heart and conscience that they should come to the Table, then they deserve to participate. Period.

Quote:
 
The Church does not refuse the Sacrament to any baptized person who asks for it looking to grow in Christ.


That isn't just bullsh!t, it's pure, strained, refined, concentrated bullsh!t. Your church would not allow me to participate in the sacrament. Do you honestly believe that I am not "looking to grow in Christ" ?

Quote:
 
You judge the Church without even understanding what the Church teaches and how the Church treats the penitent.


Reference my earlier comments. I understand their position; I just think it's nonsense.

Quote:
 
He did nothing objectively worthy of criticism, let alone demonization.


Apparently, the church hierarchy disagrees with you. And I certainly disagree with you. I do, in fact, know the role of a pastor, and this priest botched it. Further, the scandal of refusing the sacrament to the woman is not the fault of the priest; the scandal, in my opinion, is that the church teaches and upholds such a terrible doctrine at all.

Quote:
 
Which is incorrect on your part, but you ignore Matt 18.


Based on countless previous discussions, you know perfectly well that I do not ignore Matthew 18 at all; I simply interpret it differently than you do. I believe the chapter to actually be quite important in validating my church's beliefs, not yours. In any case, your accusing me of "ignoring" this text is apparently just an attempt at a personal insult, or to goad me into returning with similar personal insult. No thank you; I'm sticking to discussing my thoughts on the priest's version of what happened, and the church doctrine related to it. And since we're not really saying anything that I haven't already said earlier in this thread, I'll be done with it after this post. I only responded again because Aqua said he would be interested in hearing my comments. I've commented; that's enough.
I have no desire, and have never had any desire, to inflame you to more uncharitable behavior.

God bless you.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
AndyD
Member Avatar
Senior Carp
I haven't read much of this thread.

Church theology sucks (how I hate that Americanism), to the point where it mostly seems designed to:
firstly abstract, obfuscate, avoid, and generally get around what Jesus actually taught, and
secondly concentrate power and wealth in the church bureaucracy.

This from someone who witnesses to the next life and believes in God.
May our Father and His servants bless us all with patience, tolerance and peace.
Every morning the soul is once again as good as new, and again one offers it to one's brothers & sisters in life.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mikhailoh
Member Avatar
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
Renauda
Mar 19 2012, 06:02 PM
It has been SOOO long since I heard that. That Lee boy had fast little fingers.
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
I don't think Jesus Christ would walk through the doors of most churches, particularly the Roman Catholic Church, with all its pagan rituals.

That said, it's not the church's job to decide if I am worthy of taking communion. That's between me and God. It's the church's job to offer communion. Actually, I don't recall Jesus saying "Do this in remembrance of me, but only if you've been a good little boy or girl".

That's the problem with the Catholic church - it has set itself up to be between people and God, which is not what the church was ever intended to be. The church, nor a priest, have the right to pass judgment on someone's worthiness.
Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
kenny
Mar 19 2012, 04:30 PM
John D'Oh
Mar 19 2012, 03:13 PM
I get stoned before going to church, too.
I'm pretty sure Jesus understands.
Funny, I feel like I've been stoned BY the church.
I'm pretty sure Jesus understands.
He was a single man who lived with his mother and hung around with sailors. You might be right.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Renauda
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Larry
Mar 20 2012, 01:34 PM
I don't think Jesus Christ would walk through the doors of most churches, particularly the Roman Catholic Church, with all its pagan rituals.

So I guess pancake breakfast down at St. Alfonzo's church basement is out of the question for next Sunday.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aqua Letifer
Member Avatar
ZOOOOOM!
Renauda
Mar 20 2012, 03:17 PM
Larry
Mar 20 2012, 01:34 PM
I don't think Jesus Christ would walk through the doors of most churches, particularly the Roman Catholic Church, with all its pagan rituals.

So I guess pancake breakfast down at St. Alfonzo's church basement is out of the question for next Sunday.
:lol:

Also any and all winter ho-downs.

Pagan rituals: not always what they're cracked up to be.
I cite irreconcilable differences.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Renauda
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
A fella has to watch out for that "host on toast" they serve.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Where do the ho's go during the summer??
Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Renauda
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
To a more accomodating pancake breakfast a little further down the road.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aqua Letifer
Member Avatar
ZOOOOOM!
Renauda
Mar 20 2012, 03:32 PM
To a more accomodating pancake breakfast a little further down the road.
Read: the VFW.
I cite irreconcilable differences.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mikhailoh
Member Avatar
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
Larry
Mar 20 2012, 03:30 PM
Where do the ho's go during the summer??
Alberta. Those roughnecks got mad cheese.
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Renauda
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Quote:
 
Read: the VFW.


The local Legion?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 10