If they can change the meaning of marriage on a whim they can do anything they want.
In any case when the homosexual law reform bill was passed people bought up the specter of "gay marriage" and were scoffed at - how ridiculous we were told - gays just want to get on with their lives in peace.
Then we were told that civil unions would address the needs of the gay community leaving marriage intact - like I believed that then, I did not and I was right - no?
And I know all to well somebody in the not too distant future is going to force the issue through the press and courts and that those who stand firm will loose the right to celebrate marriages.
The cultural nihilists have got the destruction of human decency down to a fine art
we are not a 'State Church'. This means, surely, that no priest or minister could be forced to marry anyone they did not want to.
In the present situation, Anglican clergy are not forced to marry anyone they do not consider to have been baptised. Or at least, I haven't heard of anyone that has.
Nor have Roman Catholic clergy been jailed for not marrying anyone outside of their faith community.
A lot of scary tactics going on here, I'm afraid! The moral police at work again.
Andrei, the scariest thing of all was to read that this ex-Catholic, Buddhist lesbian grievance monger teaches art in a Catholic high school. A good reason not to allow funeral masses, in my opinion - just making trouble for oneself. Yes, the hate crime of angry gays making scenes in Catholic churches is pretty common now. Strangely, you never see this kind of thing in a mosque - can't imagine why .... I think the Russians had th right idea in dealing with 'Pussy Riot', even if the sentence was a tad severe. The RCs in Australia had to clamp down on 'lay eulogies' as well, as these were becoming sacriligeous. Martin
I've just watched the video you have here presented Andrei, and i must say, I was appalled at the priest's attitude towards a person coming to the altar to receive the Sacrament of Christ. This mounts to blasphemy, in my opinion. The priest is not God, and must never presume to act on god's behalf in such a situation. he deserves to be disciplined,
(1) You can take it as read that there is a much bigger back story to this. And a back story that neither CNN, from whom this clip was taken nor ABC or CBS all of whom this woman told her tale in high dudgeon, had the slightest interest in digging into.
She is the victim of an oppressive Catholic priest has to be treated with kid gloves of course.
(2)The Priest concerned is a man with strong religious conviction. It matters not a whit whether you, or anybody else holds the same conviction as he does. The point is that this was an attempt to get him to violate his strongly held convictions and to punish him when he held firm.
This was a deliberate confrontation of somebody unprepared and ill equipped to deal with it.
There have been multiple examples of this in recent times in the USA, in Canada, in England, in Scandinavia and so forth.
There is absolutely no excuse for any priest refusing anyone who presents themselves, conscientiously, at the altar rail to receive the Body of Christ. The primary burden of conscience lies on the recipient, not the priest. The priest, being God's servant, must not play God. God is quite capable of looking after God's self. The ultimate responsibility is on the recipient. (Read St.Paul).
[This comment from "Anonymous" (please leave your name next time) which I inadvertently and irreversibly deleted]:
Yes the priest could have spoken before the funeral and greater pastoral sensitivity could have been offered. However, he was acting in accord with his conscience and the teaching of the church.
I note with interest what he woman thinks should happen. "WE believe it importent that Fr Marcell be removed from pastoral ministry".
It is perfectly normal practice to withold communion in some situations. Ron's claim is not based on traditional church practice, but on liberal and unBiblical notions of universal inclusiveness.
The priest in question acted rightly. Shame that liberals do not share his reverence for the sacrament.
With all DUE respect, Shawn, what would you, a layperson, know about what a priest may or may not do? You have no experience of priestly lore. It might be best to leave this subject to people directly involved.
Hi Ron I am not sure what you mean by 'priestly lore' but the important thing about Christianity is that there are no secrets. Nothing we do as priests belongs to our own ranks; all is open to comment and questions from all others in the church. Shawn and any layperson may claim to know as much about priestly lore as I or you know.
What they may not know is what it means to be caught in the agony of knowing what to do, e.g. whether to give or withhold communion at the rail. Yes, generally, if in doubt, do not withhold, but sometimes one wonders what to do. (Mostly, in my experience, over whether to give or not give communion to the unbaptised).
With all due respect Fr Ron the canons of the Roman Catholic Church do give the Priest the right to withhold communion and whether or not those canons were correctly applied in this case is a diversion from the topic in hand.
That of course being the way human "rights" legislation can be deployed to inflict a subtle persecution upon the Church and her people.
I put it to you they can and are being used in this manner and that the more successful this approach is in advancing the cause of "progress" the more we will see of this sort of thing occurring
Aside: the word verification thingy is getting harder and harder to negotiate
Nothing Liberals say on this issue can be trusted. We were told that civil unions would be enough and that marriage would not be touched.
We were lied to. Louisa Wall is attacking marriage despite the assurance from the gay rights mafia and her own party that civil unions were enough.
Ron trots out the Liberal party line that the Church will not be forced to conform.
I don't believe that for a second.
In Denmark all church ministers are required to perform homosexual "marriages" by law, regardless of their conscience.
In Sweden a Lutheran minister received a prison sentence for publicly opposing gay marriage.
In Britain a Christian husband and wife who were foster parents were banned from fostering by a homosexual judge because they refused to teach pre-teen children about sodomy.
Also in Britain a Christian street preacher was hauled into jail by a homosexual police officer for preaching against homosexuality.
And again in Britain an elderly couple was hauled to a police station and interrogated for being "homophobic". Their crime? They made a complaint to their local public library about explicit gay porn being placed next to the children's section!
Europe is rapidly becoming a homosexual police state. How long before liberal Fascists decide NZ should follow? Just a matter of time.
Ron claims that Peter is scaremongering in highlighting these concerns. But given the examples above that claim is laughable and little more than an attempt to hide the truth and keep people ignorant of what is really going on.
Progressive Liberalism, being a firm of Cultural Marxism, is totalitarian in nature, and thus cannot abide any other truth claims in society. Sooner or later the Church will he forced to conform.
I fear that what Shawn recounts are indeed signs of a precipitating, post-Christian culture in Europe, where events are moving rapidly. The pace is faster in traditionally Protestant areas more so than Catholic, and is aided by the recent invention of 'hate speech', which is being followed by 'thought crime', including an attack on what is taught in Catholic schools. The US is still different because there are more Christians there and freedom of speech is constitutionally defended. Such things don't exist in Europe. 'Liberal fascism' does describe it - and it was brokered in by faux catholics like Tony Blair, a man deeply influenced by Peter Mandelson.
Andrei is right about the word verification thing. Can this be replaced?
FYou urge us to read St. Paul. That would be the same Paul who clearly states that homosexuality is ccontrary to nature and God's law?
Then: "Picking and choosing what parts of Scripture suit you and ignoring those that don't is not a valid approach to Biblical hermeneuticsirst (sic): "
- Shawn -
How can you bring homosexuality into an argument about Eucharistic Hospitality without "picking and choosing what parts of scripture suit" - what you persistently want to say that is not relevant to the subject being discussed"?
If you want me to discuss something with you, Shawn, please try and keep consistent with the argument being discussed at the time.
"Progressive Liberalism, being a firm of Cultural Marxism, is totalitarian in nature, and thus cannot abide any other truth claims in society. Sooner or later the Church will he forced to conform." - Shawn -
Now this really is 'scaremongering'. You could get a job with 'Cassandra'.
What is any assurance from our masters worth?
ReplyDeleteIf they can change the meaning of marriage on a whim they can do anything they want.
In any case when the homosexual law reform bill was passed people bought up the specter of "gay marriage" and were scoffed at - how ridiculous we were told - gays just want to get on with their lives in peace.
Then we were told that civil unions would address the needs of the gay community leaving marriage intact - like I believed that then, I did not and I was right - no?
And I know all to well somebody in the not too distant future is going to force the issue through the press and courts and that those who stand firm will loose the right to celebrate marriages.
The cultural nihilists have got the destruction of human decency down to a fine art
we are not a 'State Church'. This means, surely, that no priest or minister could be forced to marry anyone they did not want to.
ReplyDeleteIn the present situation, Anglican clergy are not forced to marry anyone they do not consider to have been baptised. Or at least, I haven't heard of anyone that has.
Nor have Roman Catholic clergy been jailed for not marrying anyone outside of their faith community.
A lot of scary tactics going on here, I'm afraid! The moral police at work again.
Hah Fr Ron
ReplyDeleteThis is how these people operate, this is how a Buddhist lesbian took out a traditionalist Catholic Priest.
Coming to an Evangelical Anglican near you soon
Andrei, the scariest thing of all was to read that this ex-Catholic, Buddhist lesbian grievance monger teaches art in a Catholic high school.
ReplyDeleteA good reason not to allow funeral masses, in my opinion - just making trouble for oneself. Yes, the hate crime of angry gays making scenes in Catholic churches is pretty common now. Strangely, you never see this kind of thing in a mosque - can't imagine why .... I think the Russians had th right idea in dealing with 'Pussy Riot', even if the sentence was a tad severe. The RCs in Australia had to clamp down on 'lay eulogies' as well, as these were becoming sacriligeous.
Martin
I've just watched the video you have here presented Andrei, and i must say, I was appalled at the priest's attitude towards a person coming to the altar to receive the Sacrament of Christ. This mounts to blasphemy, in my opinion. The priest is not God, and must never presume to act on god's behalf in such a situation. he deserves to be disciplined,
ReplyDeleteIn the Episcopal Church, no priest is forced to marry ANYONE, straight or gay.
ReplyDeleteKurt Hill
In rainy Brooklyn, NY
Fr Ron;
ReplyDeleteYou missed the point entirely.
(1) You can take it as read that there is a much bigger back story to this. And a back story that neither CNN, from whom this clip was taken nor ABC or CBS all of whom this woman told her tale in high dudgeon, had the slightest interest in digging into.
She is the victim of an oppressive Catholic priest has to be treated with kid gloves of course.
(2)The Priest concerned is a man with strong religious conviction. It matters not a whit whether you, or anybody else holds the same conviction as he does. The point is that this was an attempt to get him to violate his strongly held convictions and to punish him when he held firm.
This was a deliberate confrontation of somebody unprepared and ill equipped to deal with it.
There have been multiple examples of this in recent times in the USA, in Canada, in England, in Scandinavia and so forth.
Saul Alinsky 101 at work
There is absolutely no excuse for any priest refusing anyone who presents themselves, conscientiously, at the altar rail to receive the Body of Christ. The primary burden of conscience lies on the recipient, not the priest. The priest, being God's servant, must not play God. God is quite capable of looking after God's self. The ultimate responsibility is on the recipient. (Read St.Paul).
ReplyDelete[This comment from "Anonymous" (please leave your name next time) which I inadvertently and irreversibly deleted]:
ReplyDeleteYes the priest could have spoken before the funeral and greater pastoral sensitivity could have been offered. However, he was acting in accord with his conscience and the teaching of the church.
I note with interest what he woman thinks should happen. "WE believe it importent that Fr Marcell be removed from pastoral ministry".
we?
It is perfectly normal practice to withold communion in some situations. Ron's claim is not based on traditional church practice, but on liberal and unBiblical notions of universal inclusiveness.
ReplyDeleteThe priest in question acted rightly. Shame that liberals do not share his reverence for the sacrament.
With all DUE respect, Shawn, what would you, a layperson, know about what a priest may or may not do? You have no experience of priestly lore.
ReplyDeleteIt might be best to leave this subject to people directly involved.
Hi Ron
ReplyDeleteI am not sure what you mean by 'priestly lore' but the important thing about Christianity is that there are no secrets. Nothing we do as priests belongs to our own ranks; all is open to comment and questions from all others in the church. Shawn and any layperson may claim to know as much about priestly lore as I or you know.
What they may not know is what it means to be caught in the agony of knowing what to do, e.g. whether to give or withhold communion at the rail. Yes, generally, if in doubt, do not withhold, but sometimes one wonders what to do. (Mostly, in my experience, over whether to give or not give communion to the unbaptised).
With all due respect Fr Ron the canons of the Roman Catholic Church do give the Priest the right to withhold communion and whether or not those canons were correctly applied in this case is a diversion from the topic in hand.
ReplyDeleteThat of course being the way human "rights" legislation can be deployed to inflict a subtle persecution upon the Church and her people.
I put it to you they can and are being used in this manner and that the more successful this approach is in advancing the cause of "progress" the more we will see of this sort of thing occurring
Aside: the word verification thingy is getting harder and harder to negotiate
Ron,
ReplyDeleteChristian ministers are not Druid priests who are privy to some secret lore that us lesser laypeople may not know or discuss.
Your elitism, while consistent with the arrogant "we know best" attitude of Liberalism, is contrary to the Godpel.
Most churches allow ministers to withold communion under certain circumstances, the Anglican Church included.
You urge us to read St. Paul. That would be the same Paul who clearly states that homosexuality is ccontrary to nature and God's law?
Picking and choosing what parts of Scripture suit you and ignoring those that don't is not a valid approach to Biblical hermeneutics.
Nothing Liberals say on this issue can be trusted. We were told that civil unions would be enough and that marriage would not be touched.
ReplyDeleteWe were lied to. Louisa Wall is attacking marriage despite the assurance from the gay rights mafia and her own party that civil unions were enough.
Ron trots out the Liberal party line that the Church will not be forced to conform.
I don't believe that for a second.
In Denmark all church ministers are required to perform homosexual "marriages" by law, regardless of their conscience.
In Sweden a Lutheran minister received a prison sentence for publicly opposing gay marriage.
In Britain a Christian husband and wife who were foster parents were banned from fostering by a homosexual judge because they refused to teach pre-teen children about sodomy.
Also in Britain a Christian street preacher was hauled into jail by a homosexual police officer for preaching against homosexuality.
And again in Britain an elderly couple was hauled to a police station and interrogated for being "homophobic". Their crime? They made a complaint to their local public library about explicit gay porn being placed next to the children's section!
Europe is rapidly becoming a homosexual police state. How long before liberal Fascists decide NZ should follow? Just a matter of time.
Ron claims that Peter is scaremongering in highlighting these concerns. But given the examples above that claim is laughable and little more than an attempt to hide the truth and keep people ignorant of what is really going on.
Progressive Liberalism, being a firm of Cultural Marxism, is totalitarian in nature, and thus cannot abide any other truth claims in society. Sooner or later the Church will he forced to conform.
I fear that what Shawn recounts are indeed signs of a precipitating, post-Christian culture in Europe, where events are moving rapidly. The pace is faster in traditionally Protestant areas more so than Catholic, and is aided by the recent invention of 'hate speech', which is being followed by 'thought crime', including an attack on what is taught in Catholic schools.
ReplyDeleteThe US is still different because there are more Christians there and freedom of speech is constitutionally defended. Such things don't exist in Europe. 'Liberal fascism' does describe it - and it was brokered in by faux catholics like Tony Blair, a man deeply influenced by Peter Mandelson.
Andrei is right about the word verification thing. Can this be replaced?
Martin
FYou urge us to read St. Paul. That would be the same Paul who clearly states that homosexuality is ccontrary to nature and God's law?
ReplyDeleteThen: "Picking and choosing what parts of Scripture suit you and ignoring those that don't is not a valid approach to Biblical hermeneuticsirst (sic): "
- Shawn -
How can you bring homosexuality into an argument about Eucharistic Hospitality without "picking and choosing what parts of scripture suit" - what you persistently want to say that is not relevant to the subject being discussed"?
If you want me to discuss something with you, Shawn, please try and keep consistent with the argument being discussed at the time.
"Progressive Liberalism, being a firm of Cultural Marxism, is totalitarian in nature, and thus cannot abide any other truth claims in society. Sooner or later the Church will he forced to conform." - Shawn -
ReplyDeleteNow this really is 'scaremongering'.
You could get a job with 'Cassandra'.
No Ron, not scaremongering, just the truth, as the examples I gave in my earlier post prove.
ReplyDeleteI'm afraid, Shawn, that your personal 'proof texts' may not have the reliability of Scripture - much as you might like that to be the case.
ReplyDeleteRon. All the examples I gave are true and can be checked.
ReplyDeleteBut "Christian" promoters of homosexuality are not interested in the truth. Not God's. And not any truth that contradicts liberal ideology.