Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!
An 'urgency': Sensing threats to institutions of society, church leaders make declaration 
Click to Print
Include Comments
A sacrament too far?
A South Carolina Catholic priest has warned Obama voters in his parish that their support of the president-elect constitutes “material cooperation with intrinsic evil,” and that their very souls might be in peril. The Associated Press reports:
The Rev. Jay Scott Newman said in a letter distributed Sunday to parishioners at St. Mary’s Catholic Church in Greenville that they are putting their souls at risk if they take Holy Communion before doing penance for their vote.
“Our nation has chosen for its chief executive the most radical pro-abortion politician ever to serve in the United States Senate or to run for president,” Newman wrote, referring to Obama by his full name, including his middle name of Hussein.
“Voting for a pro-abortion politician when a plausible pro-life alternative exits constitutes material cooperation with intrinsic evil, and those Catholics who do so place themselves outside of the full communion of Christ’s Church and under the judgment of divine law. Persons in this condition should not receive Holy Communion until and unless they are reconciled to God in the Sacrament of Penance, lest they eat and drink their own condemnation.”
What say ye, friends?
back to top71 Comments to “A sacrament too far?”
I say this smells to high heaven like a Catho-fatwa. And it should be rejected outright. What happened to praying for those in positions of authority? I wish Barack only success but I hope he eventually “sees the light” on the big Hot Button Issues. You know, the HBI’s which tend to rile up us fundagelicals like kicking a fire ants mound
Report comment to moderator
What say ye, friends?
The more I hear accounts like this and World reportage of interactions between religion and society, the more religion appears to be primarily a force for evil in the world and not just a benign personal choice before which we should all smile acceptingly.
Report comment to moderator
I cant recall Catholic local leaders ever being so anti- any other proAbort Democrat candidate you care to cite. Why so vocal all of a sudden?? I guess better late than never, no??
Report comment to moderator
I think it’s great that he’s taking such a firm stance. He’s absolutely right.
Report comment to moderator
What happened to praying for those in positions of authority?
What about this precludes praying for Obama?
Report comment to moderator
Not being Catholic, I don’t know just what is the extent to which the church has authority over decisions made by individuals. But as a Protestant, the priest’s approach seems wrong to me. It’s one thing to vote for Obama because he supports legal abotion, which would seem to clearly be sinful in the eyes of the Catholic church. But I’m sure a lot of Catholics voted for Obama in spite of his views on abortion, because they felt that in other ways his views and policies would be “pro-life” – helping the poor, getting out of Iraq, etc. Whether I agree with their reasoning or not, I can see their vote as having been cast in good conscience, and thus a requirement to do penance for it is wrong.
Report comment to moderator
I think that, without all the Catholic trappings, he’s exactly right. The spiritual movements required for an individual to justify support for a secular leader like Obama necessarily involve moving farther away from the Spirit of Christ and not closer to Him. His warnings will fall on deaf ears, though. The visible church is made up of people who have exchanged what they can’t see for what they can, and have done so happily.
Report comment to moderator
Hey Sawgunner,
I like your acronym, HBI. May I use it?
Report comment to moderator
The more I hear accounts like this and World reportage of interactions between religion and society, the more religion appears to be primarily a force for evil in the world and not just a benign personal choice before which we should all smile acceptingly.
The gospel has certainly always been a force in opposition to the idolatries of whatever culture it reaches. If you consider it a “force for evil,” though, I’m curious to know the source of the standard by which you would define good and evil.
The recently published book, Is Christianity Good for the World, which is a debate between Pastor Douglas Wilson and atheist apologist Christopher Hitchens, might interest you.
Report comment to moderator
The parishoner’s vote remains a private matter. Rev. Newman has no way of verifying their vote, or their repentance, or if they regard repentance as necessary and appropriate, or if they are truthful about any of this when they accept the Eucharist.
The priest is simply warning them that actions have spiritual consequences and leaves it up to them to decide what they want to do about it. He is performing his pastoral duty.
Report comment to moderator
Spinoza (#2):
You have things turned upside down. Who is murdering millions of unborn and even born alive children? It is certainly not the catholic priest who is here speaking out against this evil practice. The murderers are those who do the killing and those who support them. That includes Barack Hussein Obama.
In your view, the priest is the force of evil for merely speaking out, while you “smile acceptingly” at those wielding the knives. There is absolutely no comparison between opening one’s mouth in protest and the actual slaughter of millions upon millions. You call that which is unimaginably evil good, and that which is good, evil.
You present a travesty of satanic proportions!
Report comment to moderator
#9 Of course you may Lynn. Today I’m giving them away in triples:
FUGNOD (fat ugly girl no one dates) found at lotsa Christian singles events.
GGIEP (the infamous “G-jeep”): Geeky Guy In Every Picture, even though few folks really truly know him its just that telling him to get out of the shot aint gonna happen
The lexicon of the internet continues to turn’em out. I wish WMB would ban forever ROFLMAO and its various derivatives.
Report comment to moderator
This strikes me more like one of the skandalizo’s (stumbling blocks) Jesus warned about. I think we need to be plenty cautious when it comes to the Gospel. Any time you say, “the Gospel is for you if only…” you are subtly inserting something of Man where God alone should be.
Report comment to moderator
The Priory of Sion is not going to be happy about this.
Report comment to moderator
I agree with Newman – since he is in charge of that Church, he has a responsibility to speak and make directives according to Scripture.
By serving Communion to those who are in direct conflict to the Word of GOD, is taking part in their sin. IF Newman wasn’t aware of their sin it would be different, but it appears that he does KNOW, and that puts this man in the position of making a statement regarding their receiving the LORD’s Supper. I would never want to knowingly give someone Communion who was unrepentant about their sin, and that would most certainly include abortion.
A pastor leads the Church, he as a responsibility before GOD Almighty as he leads his flock – I am not a Roman Catholic, but I do support this man, he’s very strong and wise as he has made this important choice to serve GOD rather than man.
26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come.
27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.
30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.
31 For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.
32 But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world. 1 Corinthians 11
I don’t believe for a moment that Paul would have served anyone Communion knowing full well that they were unrepentant, that they were killing unborn children as their profession, or that they were obtaining abortions – It is one thing to sin and be sorry for it, turn from sin and repent, it’s another to knowingly sin and continue in defiance of the LORD.
Report comment to moderator
While I agree that Obama voters should repent (sarcasm, in part), it is none of the priest’s business. There is good reason why we have a secret ballot in this country. This practice would lead to a pacifist priest/minister refusing to serve a McCain voter, since he supports wars. Follow this to its logical conclusion and the pews will be empty at most churches.
Report comment to moderator
Peter – 16
We do have a “secret ballot” – however if anyone makes known their beliefs, and supports them openly, as in the case of slaughtering unborn children, then a Pastor, Priest, would have every right to disallow that individual being served Communion.
If the person hadn’t made known their views, then they could take Communion, but clearly they would suffer the consequences as the Word of God states.
Report comment to moderator
Good points, Victoria. I was going to bring up those very verses.
SUPPORT THE CONSTITUTION PARTY!!!
Report comment to moderator
Oh come now, my friends.
This fanatic priest has obviously OVER-REACHED and, as Spinoza says, provides an excellent example of how religion is ACTUALLY evil.
After all, if a minister or priest in Nazi Germany had arrogantly dared to tell his congregation that, if they were actively and purposely supporting the Holocaust and the Death Camps, they should not take communion in the Church of Jesus Christ, then that would have been PROOF that the priest was a fanatic and his religion was evil.
Of course (and I am sure Spinoza would agree), the Nazi’s had THEIR act together (just like the Left is getting its act together in this benighted country – and will shortly bring this priest and anyone else who dares to speak to account).
So any sorry individual or religioco who DARED to question the various legal genocides of the State in that happy time got HIS – as in a bullet in the head – or worse. Ah, that admirable efficiency!
And of course I am certain that Spinoza would agree then that those ‘Happy Days are Almost Here Again’; new actors dressed in new clothes singing of ‘change’, new victims young and old and in-between, of course, but really the same old bloody play and the same old bestial plot.
And in this play, of course, the Chorus always sings that Good is really Evil and Evil is really Good; if the Chorus sings loud enough, the gurgling of blood and the whine of the saws in the abortion clinics across the land cannot be heard, you know, which suits the Spinozas quite well.
The ancient Cannanites knew this trick, or a primitive version of it, anyway – they cleverly beat the drums hard to drown out the screams of the children thrown into the blazing fire in the maw of their god.
Report comment to moderator
Uh, remind me will you? Who was it that was molesting millions of little boys over the past several centuries ? The horror…the horror. I’ll take secularism any day of the week.
Report comment to moderator
It has been a long time since I was a Catholic so I am an expert on church laws and bylaws. However, the Bible has a lot to say about taking the Lord’s supper in an unworthy manner.
1Co 11:27 Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord.
1Co 11:28 But a man must examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup.
1Co 11:29 For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly.
1Co 11:30 For this reason many among you are weak and sick, and a number sleep.
1Co 11:31 But if we judged ourselves rightly, we would not be judged.
1Co 11:32 But when we are judged, we are disciplined by the Lord so that we will not be condemned along with the world.
The Greek word used for examine is ?????????
The word was used by metal workers in the ancient world to test the worth of metal to see if it was worthy of use.
The same word is used in 2 Corinthians 13:5
Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith; examine yourselves! Or do you not recognize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you–unless indeed you fail the test?
If a person has unrepentant sin in their lives and they partake of this love feast, they do indeed bring judgment upon themselves
Report comment to moderator
Daivie – 20
This thread is about Communion and the RCC Priest. It has not one thing to do with children being molested. Your nasty implication has no credibility and is out of context to what’s being discussed.
Report comment to moderator
Millions?
Report comment to moderator
Victoria, I beg to differ. If abortion is a main thread here, than so should be molestation. At least Obama has not done a criminal act. The same can not be said about the clergy…the thousands of them…that have molested children.
Report comment to moderator
Daivie,
You are OFF TOPIC, the thread is about Communion, offering it to those who have made it public they support abortion.
If you would like to discuss your TOPIC go over the Whirled Views, you can bring up any topic you wish.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria, you have a right not to read my posts, but you do not have the right to tell me what to say. So now, I’ll switch over to Palin. She is the most repulsive, grotesque reactionary ever to enter American politics. She is also a laughing stock that 66 million Americans slammed the door on. Her platforms, which seem to be what you stand for Victoria, are out of date, out of touch and not saleable to the American people. Even conservatives cringe when she opens her mouth. Because of her, the Republicans won’t win until 2024, after Hillary’s second term. McCain had the Hillary women in the palm of his hand. Then nitwit Palin spoke and they all switched to Obama.
Report comment to moderator
Voting for Obama is not the same thing as voting for abortion. And with all due respect, Rev. Newman is just one more reason to be glad I’m not Catholic. No offense intended to Catholics.
Report comment to moderator
DJ
The RCC priests are not the only ones who would deny Communion to those who are supporting abortion and sinful practices. Many strong Evangelical Churches would not participate, knowingly offer Communion to anyone who advocates the slaughter of the unborn -
Report comment to moderator
Voting for Obama is not the same thing as voting for abortion.
Yeah, actually it pretty much is. With a McCain presidency, there was a reasonable likelihood that we might end up with a Supreme Court that would end Roe v. Wade. With an Obama presidency, it’s almost a certainty that this won’t happen.
Report comment to moderator
Daivie,
At least Obama has not done a criminal act.
No, instead he votes to keep murder of the unborn legal.
The same can not be said about the clergy…the thousands of them…that have molested children.
Which is irrelevant since no one in the church is condoning these actions. Of course, now that the homosexual agenda has been such a smashing success, NAMBLA can be next in line to normalize their behavior. Then those child-molesting priests can be celebrated as persecuted heroes for the cause.
Report comment to moderator
I hate to get too Reformed here, but I think Joe B and Victoria need to be reminded that we’re talking about a Roman Catholic priest. His position and his comments reflect a works-salvation totally at odds with what the Bible actually teaches. As such, what the Scriptures teach about the Lord’s Supper are irrelevant, because it isn’t really the Lord’s supper they’re taking.
For instance, note this comment: …those Catholics who do so place themselves outside of the full communion of Christ’s Church and under the judgment of divine law. Personally, I’d be reluctant to receive communion from someone who could make such a statement.
Report comment to moderator
Stubob,
Personally, I’d be reluctant to receive communion from someone who could make such a statement.
That’s okay, because they’d be reluctant to serve it to you. They consider us Protestants to be outside the full communion of Christ’s Church.
But Roman Catholic soteriology and ecclesiology aside, at least this priest has the courage to be faithful to his church’s teaching. This is an uncommon stance in the RCC today.
Report comment to moderator
Ree, seems to me Roe V Wade is the law of the land. I haven’t heard Obama say anything different than McShame before he flip flopped. Obama is merely upholding the law.
Report comment to moderator
Daivie said, “Victoria, I beg to differ. If abortion is a main thread here, than so should be molestation.”
Not once have I ever, ever heard a person argue that child molestation is a right to be preserved. Not one politician has ever said it should be made or kept legal. If you are trying to posit some kind of moral equivalence between these two things, you should admit that it’s absolutely repugnant for either one of them to be made legal and supported by voters & politicians.
Some Roman Catholic priests have been guilty of sexual sin but they have never argued that therefore it is right and proper to continue to do it.
Report comment to moderator
27 DJ said, “Voting for Obama is not the same thing as voting for abortion.”
Yes it is.
Report comment to moderator
You are correct REE and STUBOB. In fact, Rome still adheres to the council of Trent where we are declared Anathama.
Report comment to moderator
Stubob – 31
The RCC does involve itself in “works” – however that has nothing to do with Communion.
The Bible clearly teaches about the LORD’s Supper – it has not one thing to do with “works” it has everything to do with obedience, which would include examining ones heart before partaking of the bread and wine. If a pastor or elder KNOWINGLY offered Communion to someone unrepentant of sin, they would be supporting that activity.
Report comment to moderator
Obama wasn’t upholding the law of the land by voting to kill babies who are born alive as the result of botched abortions. And abortion on demand is only the law of the land because a few Supreme Court justices played fast and loose with the Constitution. Obama intends to see to it that new justices be appointed who will continue on the same course.
Report comment to moderator
33 Daivie says, “seems to me Roe V Wade is the law of the land.”
It gets terribly repetitive refuting this illogical comment. So what if it’s the law of the land? By your logic the abolitionists were wrong after Dred Scott. By your logic the Nuremburg Laws should not have been opposed.
Obama is upholding a very immoral law. Those who voted for him did so knowing this full well and need to examine their consciences about why they did so.
Report comment to moderator
David L. – 34 and 35
Thanks, I agree with both posts.
Report comment to moderator
31 Stubob,
I agree with you, but Protestant preachers and elders should be saying the same thing to their congregations. Voting for Obama is an indication of some very serious spiritual issues. I only wish that as many Protestant pastors in this country were half as faithful as the Catholics in proclaiming the evil of abortion to their flocks. As it is, Protestants are proving themselves both unfaithful and unmanly in their fear of taking this stand.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria (37): My point is, when you’re taking wafers and wine from a Roman Catholic priest, you aren’t taking the Lord’s Supper. This gets to the very heart of what it means to be a Protestant. If RC’s are giving legitimate Communion, then the Reformation was for nothing.
David (41): I agree in principle. However, it takes uncommon wisdom to tackle such things. And, with so many issues intruding on a pastor trying to herd the Evangelical cats, focusing on a particular Tom’s voting habits may be ascribing too much importance to politics.
Report comment to moderator
Stubob
Many people make very public (either social situations, etc.) statements about their choices, and that means abortion – they also vote for people who would oppose abortion, and then there are those who make it plain they advocate it – while still others keep their beliefs to themselves. It is this third group which can do whatever they like, no one will know, not even the Church, but GOD knows. The other two groups have been public, those who advocate the killing of children should never be KNOWINGLY given Communion, who in their right mind (Born Again Christian) would participate in such an act?
Those who are verbal regarding their pro-choice stand are in direct disobedience to the Word of GOD, therefore serving them Communion would be sinful, knowing full well that they had no repentance for either their slaughter of children, OR participating in the act of serving the LORD’s Supper.
No Church can know the activities of every single member, its the members who make it publicly known as to their beliefs and actions, which then make it the Churches obligation to view and then act upon.
Report comment to moderator
I’m no Catholic and I disagree with them on a whole litany of things but I sure would be interested in where Daivies gets his information ‘millions of little boys being molested’ by the Catholic church. I note, however, he went down to ‘thousands’ within a couple of posts.
The Catholic church certainly has a problem with child molestation – most of it stemming from homosexuals within its clergy. That has, as Victoria points out, absolutely NOTHING to do with killing a child via abortion as Obama and company are big fans of.
Interesting, however, how someone can trash an institution in its entirety like that – especially on its pro-life record, in support of ’secularism’ (Daivie’s stated fave-rave and preference) which gives us abortion and partial birth abortion and genocide of every flavor.
I have worked for years in the past with orphanages in Haiti and in the third-world run by Catholic charities and missions and they have an absolutely incredible record of service and discipleship and love – including to children with AIDS, etc.
I never once saw a single leftist or atheist in these places, except for left-wing Socialist third-world banana republic-style autocrats trying to extort money or goods from the orphanages, at the expense of the children, as usual.
Catholics like this priest who actually believe in right and wrong and dare to stand up for that are not the problem. It is the people who excuse the evil that they are fighting who are the problem.
Report comment to moderator
I so agree with David L. I have not heard of an evangelical pastor who did anything other than pretend the election was not even happening. I don’t expect a pastor to go to the pulpit with a McCain pin on, but I do expect him to highlight and explain the moral issues at stake and what a Christian worldview says about them. Then I think it’s up to the parishioners to make their choices responsibly. I applaud the Catholic priest who discussed these matters.
Report comment to moderator
Gluecowboy
YOU WRITE: “I have not heard of an evangelical pastor who did anything other than pretend the election was not even happening.”
Our pastor was/is strongly against abortion, ’same sex marriage’ – It is a very large Evangelical Church. There are many, many others as well. No one was pretending where I go to church. The moral issues were spoken plainly and often, no one could have missed it. There were no pins, no signs -
Report comment to moderator
Yeah. Gay pedophile priests have no problem picking on lefties if they are not Catholics. If Obama was a Catholic, he would probably be suing the church, most likely for billions being the Messiah and all, and they wouldn’t dare say a thing about him for fear of a larger payout
Stone will probably do a movie about aMessiah of color assaulted sexually by a Priest for his next election blockbuster.
Report comment to moderator
Llama – 47
Your post above certainly doesn’t speak for me, or the vast Evangelical community – your post is a disgrace -
Report comment to moderator
Victoria- The Roman Catholics believe the bread and wine are actually, not symbolically, the body and blood of Christ, thus sacrificing the Lord again. It is one of many works a Catholic must (by moral obligation) do to maintain good standing and avoid damnation. As a former Catholic, I could never participate in communion in the mass, as it is unscriptural, since the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ was once for all. The RC “church” says he is sacrificed every time the mass is celebrated. Stop acting like this priest is a man of God; he is nothing more than a blind follower of an apostate system.
Report comment to moderator
Peter L – 49
YOU WRITE:
“Stop acting like this priest is a man of God; he is nothing more than a blind follower of an apostate system.”
I’m not acting Peter, I’m giving you my views, based on Scripture. I am not a Roman Catholic, you must already know this – however, I agree with the priest.
Peter I understand what you are sayiny – but that is not what I’m advocating, however I agree with the RCC on this stance.
YOU WRITE:
“Stop acting like this priest is a man of God; he is nothing more than a blind follower of an apostate system.”
You can call this priest whatever you like, but he is in fact standing against anyone taking Communion who is living in sin. This after all is what this discussion is about. Too many people in Evangelical circles turn a ‘blind eye’ to sin, not wanting to address what they know is before their eyes in their own churches. I DO NOT ATTEND such a church nor would I have respect for any pastor or elder who would serve ANYONE who was supporting a sinful life, a sinful slaughter of infants Communion
Report comment to moderator
Peter,
I felt compelled to give you my views using your comment twice. I should have made that clear in my post.
Report comment to moderator
What’s more damaging? A priest of a few hundred in a church somewhere in South Carolina warning his paritioners that supporting Obama could affect their souls or msm reaching out to millions each day slamming McCain/Palin for 2 months warning us of how dangerous they would be as leaders to our bodies and souls?
The hypocricy continues.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria- ..Oh, never mind. I don’t want to get into a tit-for-tat with you, as I perceive you to have a closed mind, and a condescending attitude, no matter how much you try to convince us otherwise. And to think I agree with much of what you say.
Report comment to moderator
Peter L – 53
Peter I have opinions and views just like you do, when I disagree with you, would you think it appropriate for me to accuse YOU of having a “closed mind” ? I think not, disagreeing with you is just that – can you not accept disagreement? – or does it have to come down to a “CLOSED MIND” ? —- or accuse you of being condescending? – If you don’t like what I write that’s one thing, but posting this sort of snarky, and yes SNARKY, comment is nothing more than childish – “tit-for-tat” LOL soooo silly!
Report comment to moderator
V #54- By “closed minded” I mean that you go off on some comment by someone that you misunderstand. The other person explains what he/she means. You come back still misunderstanding, and tear into the person or the comment. The person tries to explain again. You still misunderstand and refuse to listen to the reason for the original comment. Then you come along with your “silly person” comment, or accuse the other of being snarky. Sometimes you refuse to follow a link to the proof you asked for, making excuses like “that’s a blog” or “I don’t follow tinyurl links”. You have lost credibility when you do that. A case in point is yesterday (I think it was) when Jon Rowe said he saw your myspace page. you said you didn’t have one. I could tell from the start that he knew you didn’t and was just teasing you, but you could not figure it out.
Some of us, myself and Jon Rowe, for example, have a different sense of humor than others, and use sarcasm/satire for fun. I cannot for the life of me even figure out why I am responding to you now, or why others continue to.
Report comment to moderator
It’s all about grace, isn’t it?
This is a virtue a Christian should grow into, but weirdly doesn’t always.
Report comment to moderator
Peter L.
You’re wrong.- not agreeing does not mean I misunderstand, it means I don’t agree – this is a problem for some people. If someone doesn’t agree with them, it’s automatic, they misunderstand – IF ONLY they understood, they would agree – I understand fully what you post, YOU are unwilling to accept the fact that I DON’T AGREE – that is an unlearned way of approaching and showing respect for someone else’s opinion. You can explain your point of view on some subjects till the end of time, I still might disagree, —- that Peter does not mean I don’t understand it means WE don’t agree.
Your opinions are not always right, no matter how many times, how many ways, you try to explain your point of view – to constantly fall back on the excuse that if the person “understood” what you meant they would agree is unlearned –
I have made it crystal clear I don’t visit blogs, and that is for a VERY GOOD REASON, it makes little difference whether you can understand it or not, it is MY CHOICE. It’s not a matter of credibility Peter it’s a matter of choice and good reasons, which I don’t have to explain to you or anyone else.
What Jon did yesterday was very apparent, I nor anyone else was fooled, far from it. I doubt there was anyone on this blog who didn’t see through how silly his game was. That’s one of your problems Peter, you try and second guess what I’m thinking, and you come up short and wrong. You over estimate your abilities Peter and under-estimate others, that’s not a good place to be. Jon doesn’t fool anyone, the games are silly, many just won’t play – I’m one of them.
You aren’t able to take NO for an answer, you believe that if you explain something enough ways you can have YOUR WAY, and the individual will cave in and accept whatever you believe and teach – it doesn’t work that way. You lose credibility the minute you start ‘if you didn’t misunderstand, you would agree’ – its probably one of the most arrogant, self important comments anyone can make.
Report comment to moderator
This priest reminds me of a man I know who will not pay his taxes because he says the government is corrupt, contrary to what Jesus taught.
If voting for a corrupt politician is sin, then we would be precluded from voting for anyone at all. Not having the Christian vote would have made Obama very happy. The Bible on the other hand, teaches us to obey our leaders and pray for them (Rom 13).
What would this priest say about sitting in the congregation of a corrupt pastor? Since all men are sinners, then we would be precluded from going to church at all or even being in our own presence for that matter. What he should say is, “I rebuke myself!”
Report comment to moderator
Xion
Would any Born Again Christian vote for Hitler, knowing he would/was sending people to ‘death camps’ extinguishing their lives? Would standing against such slaughter in the 40’s have been a Godly thing to do, or should NO ONE have lifted one finger to save the lives of millions? – not only Jews but others as YOU have noted above
“The Bible on the other hand, teaches us to obey our leaders and pray for them (Rom 13).” What part of Romans 13 tells us to follow the leading of such a leader?
You compare the killing of unborn children to someone who doesn’t pay their taxes? What type of reasoning is that Xion, does the man who doesn’t pay his taxes ADVERTISE that fact? If he did he would be prosecuted.
No it is not against the law to slaughter children, but that is no reason to respect anyone who does these acts, or those who advocated the killing of the unborn. There is nothing in the Bible which tells us to support such a person in any way.
We are to pray for our leaders, but we aren’t to follow their evil ways.
Report comment to moderator
#59 Victoria. I understand your point, but things become complicated when we mix the kingdom of God with the kingdoms of this world.
Coming at this from a spiritual perspective, if we compare candidates based on the ruler of God’s righteousness then no candidate would ever be acceptable.
But in terms of the kingdoms of this world, I believe that the Bible teaches that we be good citizens. A good citizen votes his conscience based on whom he deems the better candidate for the national good.
I voted against Obama in this election, not based on a single issue. It is true that he voted to drown born alive children from botched abortions in bags of chemicals. That is despicable beyond comprehension. He will answer to God for it.
But is it my place to judge people who chose him because they think he will be kind to the poor? He won’t of course, because wealth redistribution won’t actually help the poor. It will simply reward them for behavior that keeps them poor, thereby strengthening their hold on poverty.
Each person will answer to God. Paul asks those who take communion to examine themselves. Where this priest errs is in thinking that America is the kingdom of God. Jesus and Paul served and obeyed the most despicable rulers in the history of the world. Obama, who included Marxists on his staff, will be my president. As horrible as that is, I’ll pray for him and serve him just as Jesus obeyed Herod and Pilate.
“Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.” Rom 14:4
Report comment to moderator
Xion
Those who are not Believers are not what we are talking about. Those who SAY THEY are, and wish to take Communion are another subject. If anyone professes to be a Believer in Christ Jesus, and at the same time advocates the brutal slaughter of babies should not be allowed to take Communion. The Scripture has something to say about ‘judging’ not of those who are un-Believers, but those WHO SAY THEY ARE.
Who Xion has said they are a Christian, but yet advocates the slaughter of the unborn? Those who profess to be Believers in Jesus Christ would support such things, or vote for those who did? Yes the Scriptures tell us we are to judge within our midst (Church) those who are sinning, and that would most assuredly mean ANYONE who supports, abortion. Not only would we NOT serve them Communion we wouldn’t even eat with them. Too often those within the Church are timid when it comes to judging those within, when they make known their sin and willfully defy GOD Almighty. Just because sin is the law of the land does not mean we allow it to permeate our Churches KNOWINGLY.
God judges those who are outside the Church, but we as the Church judge those within -
Report comment to moderator
#61 I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people.
I don’t associate with any presidential candidates. Voting is not the same as associating. What do you say to people who voted for McCain the adulterer? Or what do we say to people who attend this priests congregation who is himself a sinner. He even teaches false doctrine such as the Pope as the Vicar of Christ, not to mention various superstitions?
Jesus clearly delineated between church and state when he said, “My kingdom is not of this world.” He is a King, but his kingdom is not here yet. Likewise we are citizens of another country, a heavenly one.
As a temporary citizen of America for now, I participate and do my civic duty. We are free to take up political causes, but it has nothing to do with the church. This priest is wrong for injecting politics into his sermon. The church should have nothing to do with politics. Churches that involve themselves in politics are acting completely on their own, without the authority of scripture.
Report comment to moderator
Xion
Has McCain asked GOD’s forgiveness? – he most certainly has admitted his wrong doing in sexual matters during his marriage. Those who continue to harass a man who has admitted his mistakes in public are out of line –
As far as the priest who is advocating giving NO COMMUNION to those who vote for Obama? – of course the priest is a sinner, however he does understand that slaughtering children is a grave sin – the priests ‘other’ sins are not the question here Xion, the matter in question is Communion for those who advocate, abortion, PUBLICLY –
The priest in question is doing what many pastors would and are doing, they are following the Scripture as to those who are willfully sinning. We are to be boldly preaching the Gospel.
Politics would not be an ISSUE if it did not meddle in sin, or engage in laws that make sin in our country a lawful issue. When the government does this, it is OUR BUSINESS and that of our Church, which would most assuredly include our Pastor’s. A pastor has every right to watch over his flock, to judge what is right before GOD Almighty – if you want to call this politics that’s fine, but when it’s blatant sin a Pastor has every right to CALL IT OUT, and make it known to the flock — what it is and how it will be dealt with in the Church – which I previously posted about in #61.
The authority of Scripture is outlined in 1 Corinthians 5 – if this falls within the bounds of sinful laws and politics, so be it, the church has every right to speak out. It would only be cowards who hide behind the pews, not wanting to stand against sinful practices made into laws, and then agree with those laws, honor those who agreed with those laws and believe they are doing what’s right. Sounds very much like the historical screams from WW 2 and the concentration camps. THANK GOD for Corrie ten Boom – this dear saint of GOD protected the innocent, even though the political regime in power dictated otherwise. Her sister, father, nephew and other relatives lost their lives here on earth, but they gained Eternal lives through Jesus Christ – these were everyday people in Holland, they stood for what was right, they taught the Gospel, then honored the LORD.
Report comment to moderator
You are mixing two issues Victoria. Of course pastors should speak about sin. They should speak against abortion. But what scripture says that the churches mission is to meddle in the political systems of this world? See the distinction?
Christians need to be more like Christ. Jesus never marched on the statehouse. He never organized political rallies. He mostly ignored Rome other than to pay his taxes and obey the laws.
This does not mean you can’t be politically active, but it has nothing to do with the mission of the church and the gospel of Jesus Christ.
If the state actively persecutes the church, then we have an obligation to stand boldly as did Corrie Ten Boom and Bonhoeffer and others around the world. But it isn’t your business to go around screaming at unbelievers to follow a gospel of works and sin a little less. Rather, preach the gospel of Jesus Christ, which is about Christ and his Kingdom.
A church that involves itself with politics has taken the focus off of Christ and has put the spotlight on themselves. They’ve lost track of the church’s mission to teach, edify and make new citizens of the kingdom of heaven. They are trying to make a kingdom here on earth using their own strength thinking that pleases God. In the end, citizens of the worldly kingdom are no better off and God is just going to wipe it all away.
Report comment to moderator
Xion
No Jesus never marched on the “statehouse” nor did he organize a “political rally” – Jesus never owned a home, nor did he marry or have children.
As Believers we are to speak out, there is no reason not to. My church has never marched on a statehouse or organized political rallies, I don’t know why you mentioned it. That had nothing to do with what I wrote in my post. You ignored what I posted, and went off as if the pulpit had been placed on the statehouse steps and a rally had been planned, by the church. Your comment has nothing to do with what I posted.
You have missed 1 Corinthians 5 – instead you have gone off now on two posts as if the subject of those in the church who are willfully sinning, making known their sin – Pastor’s and elders taking action to not allow them to take Communion, and further, not associating with those who call themselves Christian Believers who are unrepentant in their sin – you ignore the entire context of what I posted.
Xion, your comment in bold is nonsense – at no time have I advocated “screaming at unbelievers” to do anything, that’s very dramatic on your part, totally untrue and out of place. Speaking boldly against sin and in this case (TOPIC POST) abortion, the act of giving Communion to those who are unrepentant — advocating abortion is certainly within the realm of speaking out. Again you completely avoid the Scripture I posted in 1 Corinthians 5.
A Church which takes the “spotlight” away from sin is not living up to what Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 5 – INSTEAD that Church is compromising their position, by AVOIDANCE of any sort of Church discipline which causes many in some Churches to feel mighty uncomfortable, it’s a bur in their saddle which the unbelieving world views, and realizes there is no discipline, its all ‘whatever works for you’ – it fits right in with the ‘blind eye’ approach.
No Xion – a church which speaks out against ABORTION and THOSE WHO ADVOCATE IT are NOT taking the focus off Christ, but instead pointing to direct sinful practices, – which if, they are practiced openly, spoken of by member/members of Church need to be dealt with. It’s not a political issue Xion, it’s a SIN ISSUE, and again, read 1 Corinthians 5.
What you have done consistently is avoid the way a church deals with members who bring sin (ABORTION) into the church, even voting for those who believe abortion is right – Yes I know its lawful to obtain an abortion, but its not OK to allow members of a Bible believing Church to partake of Communion, knowing full well they advocate the slaughter of the unborn. ———— that is what this thread is about.
I fear the REAL problem here for many so called Believers is: they are timid and afraid of confronting members who are in obvious sin – compromising their (Pastors and Elders) own beliefs, because it’s easier to turn a ‘blind eye’ than to confront someone who has willfully chosen to support abortion. Anyone can believe as they wish, but when they make their view known within the Church, and they violate and support killing a child, —– 1 Corinthians 5 is in order, it might not be comfortable, but we as the Church are not to avoid these problems we are to confront them. Those who are OUTSIDE the Church GOD will judge, but we inside are to judge sinful practice.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria, I addressed 1 Cor 5 in #62. Voting for a candidate is not the same as associating with a brother. 1 Cor 5 does not apply.
You say, “No Xion – a church which speaks out against ABORTION and THOSE WHO ADVOCATE IT are NOT taking the focus off Christ, but instead pointing to direct sinful practices,” I said the same thing in my 1st paragraph in #64.
And I wasn’t speaking of your church marching on the statehouse. How could I? I have no idea what church you go to. I was speaking about my own.
We aren’t getting anywhere. I’m too tired to argue. Please try to find a verse for me that explains what the political mission of the church is and then we can try to have a discussion.
Thanks. Peace.
Report comment to moderator
Xion,
Anyone who calls themselves a Christian brother and votes for a man who advocates abortion, and makes it known to all the Believers and those in his church is most certainly immoral – If such a person was my friend, I would try to talk and reason with them as to what that means to vote for someone who advocated slaughtering children – if my friend refused to change their mind, I would break fellowship with my friend, no matter how painful that might be for me. People know right from wrong, that is unless they have been given over to a REPROBATE MIND, in which case they would be lost –
Verse 29 sums it very well.
This all started because a Priest did not want anyone to receive Communion who had voted for Obama, because he advocates abortion. My point has been, the Priest made a good decision, based on Scripture which is 1 Corinthians 5
Those who advocate the slaughter of the unborn are certainly not moral.
Those would be men and women who were NOT BELIEVERS, they are of THIS WORLD.
Now Paul makes it VERY PLAIN “any so-called brother if he is an immoral person (vs. 11) – there is a vast distinction between a Believing brother AND “immoral people of this world” (vs. 10)
Those who are say they are Believers are IN the Church – those who are unbelievers are outside the Church.
God will judge those outside, it is those of us who are Believers to judge the inside (Church) –
As I stated in my last post – the Church is timid and cowardly not to discipline Believers who advocate sinful practices. The Church is to confront those who are disorderly such as the TOPIC POST – the Priest who has spoken out against abortion, and those who come to Church believing they can partake of Communion. We aren’t even to eat with these people.
The world watches the Church, they often times observe the same effects as they watch the child who disobeys and the parents stand by and do nothing. The Church who can’t confront its members who are out in the pig pen, are a laughing stock in the world. Maybe its not popular to stand for what’s right – clearly the Bible isn’t trying to make anyone popular. The world sees us as hypocrites who say one thing, and turn a blind eye to the very sin advocated by many in the Church – When the Church wakes up, when Believers start taking a strong stand against sin within their own congregations -
Report comment to moderator
I know this is somewhat off topic, but I noticed that someone claiming to be an ex-Catholic was trying to explain ‘the body and the blood’ from a Catholic perspective. I won’t speculate as to why so many ex-Catholics were so poorly cathechised, but suffice it to say, he is wrong. Our Lord is certainly not being sacrified over again at every Mass, or for that matter ever. We believe He was sacrificed only once. You have to go back to the original Jewish meaning of the word ‘memorial’. Passover was a ‘memorial’. The Jewish belief was that, during their Passover feast, they were literally brought together through time with the original Passover Feast. The original Feast was actually relived, not just remembered. During our Catholic Passover Feast at each Mass, we believe the same thing – that we are united in time with Jesus’ one time sacrifice. We are reliving the one sacrifice, not recreating it.
Why do we believe that He literally meant that the Communion was really, not figuratively, His Body and Blood? Because He says it, quite straight forwardly. In John, He says it over and over and over again. He even said “The bread that I will give you is my flesh, which I give so that the world may live” (John 6:51) and later “I am telling you the truth: if you do not eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you will not have life in yourselves. Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them to life on the last day. For my flesh is the real food; my blood is the real drink. Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood live in me, and I live in them.” (John 6:53-56) Many of His disciples left Him at this point (John 6:66) because they were repulsed at the idea of actually eating and drinking His flesh and blood. If it were just a misinterpretation of what He had said, don’t you think He would have clarified it then, instead of letting them turn away from Him for no reason? The truth is that they did not misinterpret what He said. They couldn’t possibly misinterpret it – it was so clear and straight forward a child could understand it. They had it exactly right and just couldn’t bring themselves to accept it – it sounded so outlandish, so outrageous. You can tell that even Peter is taken aback. When asked whether or not he would like to leave, he doesn’t start giving a bold statement of his support like he usually does – he says “Lord, to whom would we go? You have the words that give eternal life.” (John 6:68) His belief is strong enough to take him past his feelings of repulsion, but he’s not exactly overjoyed at the prospect. I don’t wish to be disrespectful to any of you, but I think you are making the same mistake those original disciples made. At any rate, this is my understanding (which I know is not perfect, but is better than what was posted above) of the Catholic belief on the Eucharist, and it explains why we take Communion so seriously.
Report comment to moderator
#67 Victoria
I saw no scripture in your post that explains the political mission of the church. Can you cite any?
If both candidates supported abortion would you advocate that Christians stay home on election day?
And lastly, if you pay taxes then you support abortion. Money from Victoria’s wallet was used to kill children. Should we stop associating with you?
Report comment to moderator
Xion
You didn’t see any because I didn’t cite any, you know that as well as I do - I never said there was a political mission of the church.
I wouldn’t vote for a candidate who was PRO-CHOICE –
I pay taxes because Christ said we should pay taxes, HE has the last word regarding taxes. Your statement that I support abortion is to your sham Xion – try telling GOD that one-
Why would that be Xion, because I pay taxes as the LORD Jesus told us to? Jesus didn’t tell us to stop paying taxes, but HE certainly didn’t tell us to kill the unborn, did HE? This is where you lose credibility, you play with words, and mix them in as you have with taxes – you can’t discuss 1 Corinthians or the discipline that we are to use in the Church so you play games with taxes – When you come to the point where you can deal with 1 Corinthians 5, read it over, and over, with tears, as it is a very hard passage of Scripture you will realize you can’t side step it it will always be there -
Report comment to moderator
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!