This website is a member of Liberty Alliance, which has been named as an company.

Where Christianity intersects with politics, culture, and entertainment.


communion

Lesbian denied Communion at mother's funeral

The Catholic Church teaches against homosexual behavior and gay marriage. But when a lesbian woman was denied Communion at her mother's funeral Mass and the priest walked out on the burial service, the Archdiocese of Washington D.C., was officially appalled.

Michelle Boorstein has the details at the Washington Post. Barbara Johnson, married to her partner in Washington, D.C., was stunned when the Rev. Marcel Guarnizo of St. John Neumann Catholic Church in Gaithersburg, Md., blocked the Communion cup with his hand and called her a sinner in front of the church.

Johnson recalled to Boorstein on Tuesday, and again to MSNBC today, that he refused the sacrament and called her a sinner as she came to mourn her devoutly Catholic mother.

The Archdiocese of Washington, which includes Gaithersburg in southern Maryland, has apologized in a letter to Johnson.

Continue reading at content.usatoday.com
 
Posting Policy
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read more.
  • Eileen

    That is part of our catholic teaching. You are not allowed to receive the body and blood of out Lord Jesus Christ if you are not in the state of grace, which means confessing your sins and repenting. The Apostal Paul told the churches not to allow people to particpate at the church if they were living in sin and would not repent. And if this woman was raised as a Catholic she should not have gone up to receive communion. We take communion very seriously and it is not something that should be desacrated.

    • Godisalive

      I agree with his stance but not the way he did it. He should have told her ahead of time.

      • Dntmkmecmoverther

        Sin is sin; the Rev called it as he saw fit. You are entitled to your opinion; but he was there are we were not. He knows this 'lesbian' and we do not. Let's trust his judgement. Besides, the mother must have talked with her daughter about such a time as this; it should not have been any surprise to the lesbian daughter at all. It would appear that the lesbian is using her mother's funeral as a bully pulpit…how nice. Now just who is the bad person here? It appears to be the lesbian daughter.

      • http://conservativebyte.com Michael G.

        How do you know that the priest didn't tell her ahead of time, and she defied him anyway?

    • John J Flanagan

      Yes, the priest did the right thing. With no sign of repentance, this lesbian was seeking affirmation for her lifestyle, and the priest did not cave in.

      • daves

        In a thousand years, humans will look back on these days as the dark ages.

        It is sad that the persecution of homosexuals goes all the way back to when the Bible was written.

        • http://youtu.be/ltW-AKROlXQ Despeville

          I know yesterday was a very special day for all of us. A day that happens only once in four years but you seem to be able to travel in time and know things a thousand years ahead? What is your secret for that?

        • Linda F.

          Yes. I believe human beings will look upon these days as the dark ages, but not for the reason you think.

          I believe they will be appalled by the very idea that people would advocate the murder of children, inside and outside the womb.

          I believe they will be appalled by the corruption of governments all around the world.

          And I also believe they will be appalled by the fact that so many people, yourself included, would support sexual deviancy in any shape or form.

          Yes, daves. I believe these days will be viewed as the dark ages.

          • keyboardshark

            Yes Linda, your rationale makes much more sense than daves'.

    • Devasahayam

      Crore-percent agreement with Rev/Fr Guarnizo from this Protestant!

    • bighoss

      Tell us, then–when all those Catholic priests were routinely sodomizing young boys, were they going to confession after each episode of perverted sexual satisfaction and BEFORE they conducted masses for their flocks, so that they could be in a "state of grace" for a little while before soon reverting to their perversions? Were they indeed coming and going to and from states of grace with each such successive cycle of sodomy and eucharistic service? I am curious as to how that works. Perhaps as a knowledgeable Catholic you can advise me.

      • Dntmkmecmoverther

        @bighoss: You sure paint with a wide brush hoss; that ALL priests act like the scum whom we heard of in the news. Obviously that action by the few must apply to all in your reference manual. That would be like saying all people named 'hoss' are as$holz; but that would not be accurate either.

        • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

          That was a nice attempt at deflection, but the question remains. When the Catholic priests who actually did routinely sodomize young boys, were they going to confession after each episode of perverted sexual satisfaction and BEFORE they conducted masses for their flocks, so that they could be in a "state of grace" for a little while before soon reverting to their perversions?

          • bighoss

            Don't expect an honest answer to that question. Clearly, I did not characterize ALL priests as pedophiles, so Dntmkmecmoverther's criticism is all straw man and red herring stuff, giving powerful testimony to his/her dishonesty, and leaving the central question unanswered. It will remain unanswered by Dntmkmecmoverther, since the honest answer would be an indictment of the basic theology of the Catholic Church concerning both the priesthood and the eucharist.

        • bighoss

          My brush is a finely-tuned one that paints with a bright and clear line. Your non-answer to my question is, by contrast, the smear of a mishandled crayon in the hands of a fumbling incompetent!

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Andrew-Patton/592034163 Andrew Patton

        God alone knows that, but it is quite likely they weren't, but instead committing sacrileges against both sacraments with their unworthy Communions and impenitent Confessions. Even so, however, the guilt they incur from that does not affect the validity of the Communions they gave. One can receive Communion validly and licitly from a priest who himself is in a state of mortal sin, and it is still profitable for the person who receives It in a state of grace.

  • Anna

    Amen!! Praise GOD for your Courage, I'm confident that All true Christians will stand up against this sin.

    • http://www.vintagepostcardsecrets.com/ James Hanratty

      I agree! Catholics should too.

  • Jim

    Does not the Bible teach that for you to take communion that you must search your heart and repent of all sin before taking communion? You will be held accountable for any sin that you harbor and do not confess if you take communion. My Pastor announces this before we take communion everytime. Someone who is in sin and has no intention of renouncing that sin is liable for it. The Pope or anyone else should let the people know the consequences of their actions and their responsibility to GOD for it. Sad that it was at the funeral mass, but what does the woman gain by denying the truth? Just the same as telling someone that there are other ways to be saved besides Jesus. The Church cannot go along with the world and GOD too, it will not work.

    • http://conservativebyte.com Michael G.

      You're right. You are eating and drinking judgement on yourself if you take the body and blood of Christ in an unworthy manner, and are putting Jesus up to ridicule.

  • Myrtlelinder

    This is what GOD'S WORD says about taking communion unworthily. We also, know that homosexuality is an abomination to HIM, which will make them unworthy, without a doubt.

    I Cor. 11:23-
    - 23. For I have received of the LORD that which also I delivered unto you, That the LORD JESUS the same night in which HE was betrayed took bread:
    24. And when HE had given thanks, HE brake it, and said, "Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me."
    25. After the same manner, also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying "This cup is the new a testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
    26: For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show 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.

    • Jeffrey Hardin

      Wonderful Job Myrtlelinder!
      27-31 most definitely should clear up any doubt. Look, When Ham looked upon his father "Noah's" nakedness, I do believe he may had homosexual tendencies about his fathers naked flesh, which resulted in Canaan receiving a curse from Noah. Noah couldn't curse Ham, YHWH had blessed Ham, his brothers and Noah, what YHWH has blessed no man can take away. But what ever the root cause of Hams sin, you can bet it was perverted, the thought is as sinful as the act…
      Great Job and a wonderful post…

    • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

      Do not forget Deuteronomy 23:1:

      "If a man's testicles are crushed or his penis is cut off, he may not be admitted to the assembly of the LORD.

      • keyboardshark

        Yikes, if that happened he would be hurting so much he wouldn't WANT to go to the assembly of the LORD or anywhere else!

    • bighoss

      Verse 28 ("But let a man examine himself…") reveals what is basically wrong with the priestly decision to withhold communion from this woman. While it seems true that she is in a state of sin, it is not some priest's role to decide for her whether she may take communion. It is HER role to examine herself before God and make that decision. To assign this role to a priest is just one more un-scriptural aspect of the un-scriptural and corrupt sacerdotal system adopted by the Catholic Church.

      • Myrtlelinder

        It should have been the right of the woman to commit this sin and she would have have rewarded damnation to her sou as the verse 30 of scripture states. l. I believe GOD does give us the right to chose and if she chose this evil she would get the punishment, just as she chose..

  • Ithamar

    The action of this priest is what is essential in the world today, just as rebuking sin and church discipline is what is missing. It does not surprise me that the RC hierarchy is now appologizing destroying what is accomplished by the rebuke given. Christian ministers have become 'dumb dogs which cannot bark', worthless for any good advancing the Kingdom of Christ. Like salt which has lost its savor, throw them out on the pile if manure to be rid of them.

    • Anne Gelinas

      It is in the heart of the sinner and it is the sinner who can condem their sins. Of course we all have sinned since birth and so when Jesus said "he who cast the first stone must be without sin" or words similar to that, what was He saying?
      That if you have never broken God's laws, ie "the Ten Commandments" then you would be perfect like Jesus and yes you could throw that first stone. You can pray 24 hours a day, still hate your neighbor, cheat on your spouse, beat your kids, steal from someone, treat others by bullying, being rude, mean, cruel, and or murder or do some crime, you can swear in God's name, you can love money more than God, you can curse God when you lose a child, and I could go on. Does that make you not a sinner? So God says that he does not want people to sin in any manner. I cannot imagine Our Creator ever hurting one of His own. So why do we, mankind/womankind do it all the time? We have lost our way in America and around the world. Jesus needs to bring in His sheep-US before together we destroy the entire world.

      • Ithamar

        Have you actually ever read the Bible? You don't seem to have a clue as to what you are saying.

  • Cliff

    OK. Scriptures say this lady was a sinner. What, exactly, is the church supposed to do with a sinner? Turn them away? Help them? Love them? What did Jesus say? I guess that priest was without sin, for he cast the first stone. As for me, I'd find another church…QUICK! No, I'm not a homosexual. Just an imperfect man doing his best.

    • Bill

      Sorry, we are all imperfect. I don't care what church it is, quite making excuses for sin. Sin is sin, it is time to stand up for what Scripture says. We are not to enable any sinner, especially one that claims to be Christian. WE will be held accountable if we are aware of sin and do not speak up. " I am just as guilty because I keep silent "

    • Bobseeks

      You missed the point completely – she was welcome in the church, she was not welcome to take the sacrament. She certainly knew that she would be refused the sacrament and I suspect that the priest was set up to be made to look like the bad guy so the gays could have a hissy fit about how the church "hates" them. Homosexuality is a sin against GOD and her rebellion against GOD makes her unfit to receive communion in any church. It probably means nothing to her anyway, this is all a show.

      • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

        What difference would it make if they allowed her to take communion, bobbiesocks? According to your point of view, the Catholics are a false religion anyway.

        • http://youtu.be/ltW-AKROlXQ Despeville

          None but Roman Communion is in fact the biggest blasphemy constantly perpetuated on this earth in multiple locations. Something that you will not grasp as you are in rebellion yourself.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            No, I am actually at peace with myself. Which is odd given my German and English heritage. I should be fighting with myself all the time.

            Blasphemy is another nonsensical religious concept. The problem is that the religious keep fighting over mythical deities. Let Allah and YHWH fight it out amongst themselves.

          • http://youtu.be/ltW-AKROlXQ Despeville

            What you are in your internal subjective reality or perception has absolutely no meaning, no bearing and no use for what is objective external reality.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            Of course my view of myself is relevant. It also shows a sense of humor, which you are sadly lacking.

            Your internal reference point comes from a book of fables from goat herders. Now, I know we are never going to agree on this issue, but comments from a man that accepts delusional fables as the truth ranks right at the bottom of relevance.

          • http://youtu.be/ltW-AKROlXQ Despeville

            "Your internal reference point comes from a book of fables from goat herders"

            Hmmm…. That is an oxymoron denying any laws of logic and reason. If you would even begin to register that then your would have a factual understanding that that "book of fables" as you describe it in your raving ignorance was not generated internally in me and in fact comes from outside another time and place. Furthermore as far as I know I was never a "goat herder" either yet you chose that description and slapped it on "my internal reference point". You are a raving and delirious schizophrenic and you constantly prove how you are devoid of reason even though that is a very thing you claim for yourself and your lunatic worldview.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            Your comprehension skills are also severely lacking. I did not claim you were a goat herder, I said the book of fables was from goat herders.

          • http://youtu.be/ltW-AKROlXQ Despeville

            " I did not claim you were a goat herder. I said the book of fables was from goat herders."

            Numb Nuts this is actually what you have said:

            "Your internal reference point comes from a book of fables from goat herders"

            In English when you use "your internal…" with whatever else you have slapped after that indicates that you have qualified that as intrinsic to me. I know you are sloppy with your words as you are sloppy with your toughs as you are sloppy with the ideas but that does not mean you will have a pass with your sloppiness.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            Your refers to you. The book of fables refers to the bible. You are obviously not a book, therefore, what comes after your refers to what you use as a reference point. English is really not a strong suit for you, Humpty. I am really not sure what is your strong suit, but it is amusing how you like to double down when you have been shown to be wrong and continue to argue the point.

          • http://youtu.be/ltW-AKROlXQ Despeville

            Numb Schizoid,

            Neither the book nor goat herders have anything to do with anything internal to me in terms of reference yet that is what you have asserted in your illogical, insane, sloppy lunacy occupying your enslaved and sloppy mind.

            "Your internal reference point comes from a book of fables from goat herders"

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            English butcher, you need to put down your bible and pick up both a science book and an English book. One will help you understand how the universe works and the other will help you understand how to properly read and communicate.

          • http://youtu.be/ltW-AKROlXQ Despeville

            So you want me to "thing" it? :)

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            If you feel like it. I really could not care less what you do in your life. (Again, note the proper use of the expression)

          • http://youtu.be/ltW-AKROlXQ Despeville

            Schizoid, catching spelling errors was the only ability you have received in your sub standard education… Unfortunately that combined with your psychotic schizophrenia created a nauseatingly boring and ignorant troll who is stalking this site 14 hours per day 7 days a week.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            Back to the lies again. You really disregard what your god says much of the time.

          • Penny

            How were you able to determine that Jeff meets DSM-IV-TR criteria for schizoid personality disorder? Please share your methods as I would love to replicate such a study.

            Jeff, I'd love to have an atheist-lieberal-socialist-communist-utopian-herpaderp agenda meeting.

          • Despeville

            Penny,

            Most of the traits are clearly visible over time.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            In other words, you cannot provide actual evidence. A standard inability.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            What is really amusing is how no one other than someone from your same delusion ever agrees with you.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            Sure, let us set up up.

          • Robert De Leon

            Jeff:
            I a m seeing that you still don't have a second thought and yet I still am praying for you.
            Have you read NASA's report about Guadalupe's mantle as I told you some time ago? No, I guess not. Miracles exist, believe it or not.
            Robert.

          • http://youtu.be/ltW-AKROlXQ Despeville

            Are those miracles from your "god" Allah that you wroship and adore along with your Muslim brothers DeMelon?

            " The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."

            Chapter 841
            Catechism of Roman Catholic Church
            Official Vatican Site: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P29.HTM

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            http://www.marianmessenger.ph/index.php/message/4…

            Our Lady of Guadalupe: Unproven and Spurious “Findings” on the Tilma of Aztec Juan Diego

          • http://youtu.be/ltW-AKROlXQ Despeville

            Gee, what a discovery…

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            Yes, it is.

          • http://youtu.be/ltW-AKROlXQ Despeville

            For a numb job like you only.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            I guess you do agree with Robert after all then.

          • http://youtu.be/ltW-AKROlXQ Despeville

            Hahahhahaa you are truly delirious.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            My post was a response to his delusion about the NASA's report about Guadalupe's mantle. It showed how absurd his comment was. Since you attacked my response to him, you were defending his position.

            It is really amazing how little you grasp.

          • Robert De Leon

            Desperville:
            As I've told to several "deformers", you have to read VERY CAREFUL what the Bible says about what we know as "Communion". I'll send to you just a few Bible's passages about it (again READ CAREFUL)::
            St. John, 6:47-66
            St. Luke, 22:19-20
            St. Paul, 1 Corinthians, 11:23-30
            Robert

          • http://youtu.be/ltW-AKROlXQ Despeville

            DeMelon,

            You have no understanding of what those text truly say apart of Roman Catholic indoctrination injected in you by your corrupt and illegal usurpers and impostors called"priests" in your religion. To say anything about Reformers beyond your cheap slapstick and simpleton designed mockery you would actually have to read something by them and that is what you have never done and will not do as it exceeds your abilities.
            Perhaps you would rather tells us how you worship and adore THE SAME "god" as Muslims do per official teaching of your Roman religion… Somehow you are always silent and evading about that and so many other wicked and nefarious denials of the Gospel taught by your man made religion of works…

            " The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."

            Chapter 841
            Catechism of Roman Catholic Church
            Official Vatican Site: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P29.HTM

            How is your "god" Allah DeMelon and your Muslim brothers today?

          • http://youtu.be/ltW-AKROlXQ Despeville

            DeMelon,

            Will you have any answer to Roman Catholic Catechism satanic teaching in Point 841 or you need to consult this with Allah and your Muslim brothers?

          • http://youtu.be/ltW-AKROlXQ Despeville

            DeMelon,

            I am still waiting… What is Allah saying about Chapter 841 of your Catechism of Roman Catholic Church?

          • http://youtu.be/ltW-AKROlXQ Despeville

            DeMelon,

            Since your Allah is not giving you any clues perhaps you can Google something like Jeff does or perhaps you can tap into the treasure of shared ignorance at Catholic Answers… http://www.catholic.com ?

        • Bobseeks

          I am not supporting the roman church, I am pointing out the hypocrisy of the woman just as I frequently point out your hypocrisy (and lies, ignorance, and stupidity). Besides, the same kind of thing could be done to real churches.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            Of course you are supporting the RCC. You are defending their actions. However, since the priests are also guilty of hypocrisy, since they are a false church, what actual difference would it make, bobbiesocks?

          • http://youtu.be/ltW-AKROlXQ Despeville

            Bob, do not follow Numb Nuts Dixon on this… He is trying to play you against Romaniists while then he turns around and try to play Romanists against Christians all to smuggle his delirious schizophrenia as quasi valid view… Sad parrot indeed that needs to get better with this amateurish machiavellianism.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            Not even close. I merely was pointing out that since he believes that the RCC is a false belief system, it would make no difference if they allowed gays or anyone that is "sinning" to take communion. It would have the same effect as if a Scientologist was using their Electropsychometer or E-Meter incorrectly.

            But keep trying, Humpty. The law of averages indicate you have to be right about something at some point.

          • http://youtu.be/ltW-AKROlXQ Despeville

            Schizoid law of averages depends on the sample size but you are oblivious to that as well.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            That is true, but even a sample of one has to be right eventually, which is what I said. So, you missed this one, but keep trying, Humpty.

        • Jeffrey Hardin

          Jeff
          Believe as you may, and let others deal with what goes on within their Churches and their faith, that you do not share of, nor know nothing of, your criticism is lacking in substance and purely one of bias . Show me proof that YHWH does not exist, show me the Scientific proof that they must regularly change as they keep proving themselves wrong. This woman by the Churches own practices within their faith, followed apparently by a woman who either is mocking the church or who is lacking as you say, in knowledge of church functions. Either way, was put in her place. If by Church function she repents from her Lesbian life style, and renews her faith in YHWH and the truth, then she will be forgiven and the Church must let her take part in communion, and the Southern Baptist Churches I attend follow those very same guidelines. You are here to antagonize, your disrespectful and as troubles as they come, spiritually speaking that is, that;s discernment…

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            It is impossible to prove a negative. Therefore, it is impossible to prove that god does not exist. However, we can show that each of the known belief systems are incapable of confirming that their god does exist. So, we have to address each religious belief individually to show why they are wrong.

            But we also have a shortcut here. The Christians also believe that all the other religions are wrong as well. Therefore, instead of having to go Thur hundreds of belief systems, we only have to address one, the Christian belief system. If we were talking to a Muslim group, we would only have to their belief system.

            So, when we show the Christian belief system is flawed, does that prove there is no god? No, as I already pointed out, that is impossible to prove. But we can show that that the Christian god cannot be real.

            There are contradictions in the bible. That is simply a fact. Regardless of the mental gymnastics that Christians go through to try and pretend otherwise, the bible is not the flawless book it is proclaimed to be. Science has shown us that many stories in the bible did not occur or could not occur. While the bible does get some history correct, it is wrong in many places. It is also humorous when Christians try and use the argument that the bible mentions real places and real people as proof that Jesus was a real person. Spiderman and Superman comics mention real people and real places. That hardly makes the characters in these comics real people as well.

            If you want proof that the biblical god cannot exist consider the following.

            The Christian god is considered to be all powerful and all knowing. That is not possible. If god is all powerful, then he can make any change that he wants. However, if he is all knowing, then he already knows how everything will turn out. If he makes a change, then something new occurred that he was not previously aware of. He, therefore, would not be all knowing. However, if he does not know everything, then he can’t be all powerful, as there is something he does not have complete control over. The two concepts are mutually exclusive. Just as a cubic circle cannot exist, the biblical god cannot exist either.

          • keyboardshark

            LETS PLAY 'SPOT THE STRAW MAN': "The Christian god is considered to be all powerful and all knowing. That is not possible. If god is all powerful, then he can make any change that he wants. However, if he is all knowing, then he already knows how everything will turn out. If he makes a change, then something new occurred that he was not previously aware of. He, therefore, would not be all knowing. However, if he does not know everything, then he can’t be all powerful, as there is something he does not have complete control over. The two concepts are mutually exclusive. Just as a cubic circle cannot exist, the biblical god cannot exist either." (J.D.)

            Give up? "If he makes a change". God never "makes a change" because He knows perfectly all things in advance. Some event that occurs might appear to be a change from our perspective, but God never needs nor wants to make a change because His plan has already been pre-determined from eternity and is perfect. Nothing that is "new" to Him could possibly occur because He IS all-knowing and hence it would not be 'new' to Him.

            Just because He is all powerful and could make a change doesn't mean He must or should or would. In fact, He wouldn't for the reasons just mentioned. Now, there are some things that God cannot do, such as lie or engage in any other sin. He also cannot die. He also cannot choose to not fulfill what He has promised in His Word. But these are all limitations that God has imposed upon Himself rather than from circumstances or events outside His control. So the better question is, does God have any EXTERNAL limitations outside His own self-imposed limitations? The answer, of course, is no.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            According to you, God never "makes a change".

            However, according to Jeremiah 18, god does not know what he will do in the future. "At one moment I may declare concerning a nation or a kingdom, that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it, but if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will change my mind about the disaster that I intended to bring on it. And at another moment I may declare concerning a nation or a kingdom that I will build and plant it, but if it does evil in my sight, not listening to my voice, then I will change my mind about the good that I had intended to do to it" (Jer. 18:7-10).

          • http://youtu.be/ltW-AKROlXQ Despeville

            You got light years to approach Mark 1:15 Schizoid not to mention what you spatter about here…

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            The time will never come. Myths do not actually return.

          • keyboardshark

            First, Jeremiah does not say God will "change His mind", it says He will "repent": "If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them." (verse 8) But even if we assume that repent means a change, it is only a change from our perspective. God already knows ahead of time if the nation He speaks of will "turn from their evil".

            He isn't sitting around waiting to see if it will happen. He already knows whether they will turn or not, so He also already knows whether He will turn away from the evil He has already pronounced on those who break His Laws. Nothing new is occurring that God did not already know about.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            It cannot be a change from our perspective, for the verse is not describing how we view the change, but that god actually made a change.

            I realize you can try and rationalize every contradiction, but that does not change the reality that contradictions actually occur.

          • keyboardshark

            The reason you believe it is a contradiction is because you have a pre-conceived idea that the Bible is false and contradictory. I, on the other hand, have a pre-conceived idea that the Bible is absolutely true and trustworthy, and that if you read a passage carefully and within the context of other Scriptures, the apparent contradictions are just that–apparent.

            I begin with the fact that God is all-knowing, perfect, and all powerful, and that we can trust His Word 100%. You begin with the notion that God is either non-existent, or if He does exist, He contradicts Himself, and therefore, the Bible is untrustworthy. That is how we arrive at different conclusions from the same set of verses–I look for explanations behind the apparent contradictions, you assume the apparent contradictions are actual contradictions.

            If I assume God is all powerful, all knowing and perfect (which I do), then when I read the verses that seem to indicate He is changing His mind, I know that this cannot be and that there must be a reasonable explanation that will harmonize with not only the verses in question, but also with what the rest of the Bible teaches on the subject.

            But if you assume that both God and the Bible are both flawed, which I presume is the case, you will conclude that any verses that, on the surface, present an apparent contradiction, are proof that the Bible contains errors and that God is not all He says He is. You will not look for a way to explain the verses in light of what else the Bible teaches on the subject because you are looking at the Bible with a skeptical eye in order to find some evidence that your pre-determined conclusions about God and the Bible are correct.

            If you want to call that rationalization on my part, that is your privilege. Just remember that the same charge could be leveled against you as well.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            I do not assume that god is flawed, for I do not believe that any gods exist. The contradictions that occur are all from people, for people wrote the bible.

            But let us consider your view that "If I assume God is all powerful, all knowing and perfect (which I do), then when I read the verses that seem to indicate He is changing His mind, I know that this cannot be and that there must be a reasonable explanation that will harmonize with not only the verses in question, but also with what the rest of the Bible teaches on the subject."

            It is amazing that you can say with a straight face that you believe that you can read a verse that indicates he is changing his mind and also believing that the bible is without error, decide that the verse cannot possibly mean what it said.

          • keyboardshark

            Let's look at those verses again in context:
            "The word which came to Jeremiah from the LORD, saying,

            2Arise, and go down to the potter's house, and there I will cause thee to hear my words.

            3Then I went down to the potter's house, and, behold, he wrought a work on the wheels.

            4And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter: so he made it again another vessel, as seemed good to the potter to make it.

            5Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying,

            6O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter? saith the LORD. Behold, as the clay is in the potter's hand, so are ye in mine hand, O house of Israel.

            7At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it;

            8If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them.

            9And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it;

            10If it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them.

            11Now therefore go to, speak to the men of Judah, and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, saying, Thus saith the LORD; Behold, I frame evil against you, and devise a device against you: return ye now every one from his evil way, and make your ways and your doings good." (Jeremiah 18:1-11)

            The key verse is verse 6: "O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter? saith the LORD. Behold, as the clay is in the potter's hand, so are ye in mine hand, O house of Israel." In verses 1-4, God has instructed Jeremiah to observe a potter, who mars a vessel, then re-makes it into another vessel as it seemed good to him.

            Verse 6 then uses this actual observation as a simile, in that God has the power to do with the house of Israel as it seems good to Him, just as the potter did with the vessel. The vessel did not have any say as to how it would be formed by the potter, and likewise, Israel has no say in what God chooses to do with them. In other words, God has absolute power over Israel as the potter had absolute power over the vessel.

            Then verses 7-10, immediately following the potter analogy, say: "At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it;

            8If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them.

            9And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it;

            10If it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them."

            So God has just finished declaring that He has absolute power over the house of Israel, and now is speaking of His power over any nation. It appears that it is conditional, based upon what that nation, obviously referring to Israel, is doing "At what instant I shall speak".

            But God, through the prophet Isaiah had already prophesied 100 years before that they would not turn from their wickedness – that they would, indeed, fall into Babylonian captivity:
            "Behold, the days come, that all that is in thine house, and that which thy fathers have laid up in store until this day, shall be carried to Babylon: nothing shall be left, saith the LORD.

            7And of thy sons that shall issue from thee, which thou shalt beget, shall they take away; and they shall be eunuchs in the palace of the king of Babylon. (Isaiah 39:6-7). So it was already predetermined that Israel would NOT turn from their wickedness and would be carried to Babylon. What appeared conditional was already predetermined.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            I am not arguing that the bible says that god is not all powerful and all knowing, because it does. I am saying the two attributes cannot co-exist.

          • keyboardshark

            Well, if you include limitations that God places on Himself, I would agree. But I don't see how you can include them because if God did not place those limits on Himself, and He could tell a lie, for example, then we could not trust Him, and He would then no longer be perfect. If you want to box Him in with that kind of reasoning, then we are simply arguing semantics. Those types of arguments may convince someone that they are justified in dismissing God's existence, but clever linguistic gymnastics, if I can coin a phrase, do not change the factual basis of His existence.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            In 2 Thess. 2 Paul was speaking of a future generation of Christians who would be deceived and led away into a great falling away from New Testament Christianity. He predicts that they would get involved in an unrighteous deception, “because they did not receive the love of the truth that they might be saved, and for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie, that they all might be condemned who do not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.”( 2 Thess. 2:10,11)

            First off, this verse shows that your god accepts lying as a means of accomplishing his goals. Therefore, your comment that you could not trust him if he lies becomes simply that you cannot trust him.

            On a different note, this verse also shows another interesting bit of information. We have been arguing whether Catholics are Christians or not,and your argument is that they cannot be Christians because they believe a false doctrine. However, according to Paul, there are Christians who believe d a lie. However, the point is he still called them Christians. Therefore, Paul agrees with my view, not yours.

          • keyboardshark

            The phrase "they did not receive the love of the truth that they might be saved " indicates they were unsaved and that God had never intended to save them. In other words, they were not Christians, though they may have thought of themselves as such. Nowhere does the Bible teach that God plans to save every person.

            Jesus Himself spoke in parables so that the truth would be hidden from those he did not plan to save:
            "And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?

            11He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.

            12For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.

            13Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.

            14And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:" (Matthew 13:10-14)

            The next phrase, "God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie" does not say God is sending the lie, only that He is sending them a delusion that they should believe a lie. Again, it's obvious from the context that He is speaking of the unsaved and not Christians ("that they all might be condemned who do not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness")

            The verses do not show that God accepts lying, as He is not sending the lie, but the delusion (whatever it may be). The delusion could be a person, for example, that God sends, but the lies that person told would be that person's responsibility, not God's. God never deceives His elect, but He can use the wickedness of man to further deceive the unregenerate.

            Also, the fact that God is warning us of this delusion in His own Word shows that we CAN trust Him. He is telling us ahead of time, since it spoke of a future generation that would fall away, so that we can be on our guard and spot the delusion when it comes. So God is actually showing us His trustworthiness and His mercy by warning us in advance.

            Your final statement was "However, according to Paul, there are Christians who believe d a lie. However, the point is he still called them Christians." However, you are not reading carefully enough. Paul did not call them Christians. Here are the two verses again:
            '10And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.

            11And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:" (my emphasis)

            The 'them' that I have highlighted in verse 11 refers back to verse 10 where I've highlighted the phrase "in them that perish". Christians are not referred to as those who perish, but rather those who have eternal life:

            "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16)

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            None of which is an actual argument against what I said.,

          • keyboardshark

            Here are your claims: "Paul was speaking of a future generation of Christians who would be deceived " and "However, according to Paul, there are Christians who believe d a lie. However, the point is he still called them Christians."

            Where does it say he was speaking of Christians? As I pointed out, in the verse where he says "God shall send them a strong delusion, that they should believe a lie" the "them' he is referring to those who are described in the previous verse: " in them that perish". Christians (believers) are never referred to as perishing. "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16)

            Your next claim is "this verse shows that your god accepts lying as a means of accomplishing his goals." It doesn't say that. It says God will send a strong delusion so that they would believe a lie. He is not sending the lie nor condoning it. He is sending a delusion, which could be a person, to delude the non-elect into believing a lie. Mankind is responsible for his own lies, not God.

            The fact that He is warning us of this delusion is proof that we CAN trust God, not the opposite. Since the "lie" is apparently a false gospel or other false philosophy, because it says "That they all might be damned who believed not the truth" (verse 12), He is warning us not to believe a salvation plan other than what the Bible teaches, thereby showing us His compassion and mercy.

    • Jeffrey Hardin

      Oh Cliff
      You seem to miss the whole function of the Church. The priest rebuked the sin, and because she is committed to living in that sin and not repent, then we are instructed "charged" by YHWH to turn away from that sin lest we fall unto it. Love the sinner, hate the sin…The priest did exactly what YHWH has charged the Church to do. The stone throwing, in it's truth describes our rush to judgment, and that we are to live without sin, we are to discern from good and evil and are told to judge it wisely. Those who brought the woman before Yeshua were instructed by Moses and the 10 commandments "Law" to stone the woman, but they came to tempt Yeshua, not once but twice, that's when he said those who without sin cast the first stone, he then told her he would not condemn he, but to sin no more, that he came there to be the light of the world, and for them to walk in that light…They were right to stone her, but erred in their tempting Christ, it was a lesson they would not forget either…

    • http://www.sargee5.blogspot.com The Watchman

      Cliff, the church is not turning this woman away, the priest had every right, and obligation to rebuke her "chosen" lifestyle in public, or in private. God never turns His back on His people. It is the people who turn away from God. If she repents and asks God's forgiveness and turns from her wicked ways, God will hear her and heal her and welcome her back into the fold. The choice is hers to make.

    • DEFEATOBAMAIN2012

      Don't let the door hit you on your way out………….

    • William R Nicholson

      Cliff ; Your Point Being What ? This woman did something that all christians know is wrong. She has not repented of her sin and the church is not supposed to reinforce her sinful behavior by giving her The Holy Sacrament , which is The Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ ! She needs to give up her sinful ways and repent. She must not be living with her partner in sin and she must do whatever legal steps are necessary to repeal the immoral marriage whether it was only in a civil ceremony or with blessings of one of the so-called progressive churches endorsement. We all hope and pray that this woman restore her soul to the benefit of her relationship to The Lord God ! We will help her in any way we can ; however we cannot stand by and endorse her behavior by not standing with Our Lord and God ! We Stand with Him ! Do You ?

    • LCD

      I agree, I thought the point of going to Church was to improve yourself not to be judged and shamed publicly and therefore run off from the Body of Christ.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Andrew-Patton/592034163 Andrew Patton

      It is not love to give a person poison, which is exactly what the Eucharist is to someone in a state of mortal sin. Some of your medications say, "Do not use with alcohol." Why is this warning label on there? Because the medicine will interact with alcohol and cause a dangerous or even fatal reaction. So it is with the Eucharist: the Eucharist is medicine, but to consume It in a state of mortal sin is like consuming that medicine with the warning against mixing it with alcohol while you're drunk. Instead of bringing healing and life, it brings a dangerous interaction.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Andrew-Patton/592034163 Andrew Patton

      For the record: what the Church is supposed to do with a sinner is tell him or here to repent, and when the sinner is ready, baptize the sinner if he or she has not been baptized, or if he or she has been baptized, the priest is to hear the sinner's confession and absolve the sinner of his or her sins. The priest is then obliged never to divulge any of the information obtained during a confession, nor to otherwise use that information to the penitent's detriment. Once absolved or baptized, the penitent is then able to receive Communion unto life.

  • kodster

    Cliff, the priest was following the Word, which clearly states, as Myrtlelinder posted the scriptures relative… The RCC, in apologizing for the priest's actions, is now stating that the sin of homosexuality, which IS an abomination in the Lord's eyes (and sin cannot be in His presence), is good, rather than evil, all in the name of political correctness. Let's continue to soothe ruffled feathers, rather than stand for the Word which is what Father Guarnizo was doing. NOT! I will stand with the priest in his actions, rather than go against the Word. Eternity is at stake. This lesbian will never be accepted into heaven, and the priest knows it, because she continues to sin even knowing that it's wrong, because she was raised devoutly Catholic. I wouldn't be surprised if the mother, in her final requests before dying, ordered the priest to deny the communion to her daughter. But we will never know the truth, until we arrive in heaven ourselves.

    • aldotoo

      What makes you think you go to heaven? When you die you go to the grave and stay until the resurrection!

  • aldotoo

    Well I guess there are so many homo priests and peds in the Church they feel embarrassed. Why are there so many deviants in the Roman Catholic church?
    The Bible speaks tells us: "1Ti 4:3* Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth." So they are false even if they have the bit right about Lesbians.

    • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

      That is a good question. Here is another. Why are there so many deviants in the Protestant churchs? Here are links listing multiple accounts of Protestant church leaders molesting children.
      http://www.saisathyasai.com/baba/Ex-Baba.com/A-Pi…
      http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/918042/p…
      http://www.abpnews.com/index.php?option=com_conte…

      • http://youtu.be/ltW-AKROlXQ Despeville

        Most those who assert label "Protestant" are not Protestant as all and never were to begin with. Not that you would be able to understand why in historical and theological sense. Secondly, goats can push in between the sheep anywhere but that will not make them into the sheep nor it will change sheep into the goats.

        • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

          Yes, of course, the no true Scotsman defense. And that Atheists are incapable of understanding Christianity. Very good, Humpty, two nonsensical arguments in the same posting. Give yourself a cookie.

          • http://youtu.be/ltW-AKROlXQ Despeville

            Numb Nuts, I do not need to defend anything to you or any other schizophrenic atheist.
            You are no more threat to the Gospel than a slab of concrete in the middle of desert is…

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            One cannot defend the indefensible, Humpty. I agree with you on that point.

          • http://youtu.be/ltW-AKROlXQ Despeville

            Nope Numb Schizoid. You are agreeing with a false mirror image you have projected for yourself that has absolutely nothing to do with what I just said.

    • Jeffrey Hardin

      I bet, that if you looked into the shallows of those Churches, and even on the surface of them, you'll find that in every case that they are Liberal churches, that have rationalized scripture to fit their sinful commitments. Meaning, they have no desire to turn away from sin, but to blatantly lie to their congregations, who are in turn are lying to themselves about YHWHs living word. You need to read that whole text buddy and following text, no where does YHWH command us to be vegetarians, even Christ ate meats, and Christ was without sin…

    • Anne Gelinase

      I will always wonder how pedophile priests were allowed to take and to give communion. The heads of many churches of all religions, I say all, know exactly what is happening. If the heads of all religions and ideologies turn and look the other way, then how are the soldiers of God supposed to help? Real men and women have an opportunity to take in a flock of people and if done properly, prepare them as God's servants to do good not evil. Each person goes to a religous leader to pour out their sins to hope they will be saved from themselves and their inability to persuade themselves to stop doing what is wrong and do what is right. Some folks do not have any personal inner strength. I firmly believe that when each of God's children, US, looks ourself straight on and admits what we have done wrong, then we begin the transformation of seeking a higher level in our lives and want to do only what is right. It takes POWER within. If we all love God more than ourselves, then it can happen and will. If we love ourselves more than God we can never correct what is wrong with us.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Andrew-Patton/592034163 Andrew Patton

        They're not allowed to take Communion, if they are unrepentant pedophiles. They are permitted to give Communion, and to absolve those who confess their sins to them, except for a willing paramour. A priest is forbidden under pain of instant excommunication to absolve an accomplice in his own sexual sin, but otherwise, the moral status of the priest has no impact on his ability to give sacraments. How terrible would it be if it were? It is God who empowers the priest to administer sacraments, but the priest is still liable if he desecrates the Eucharist by administering Communion to himself while he has unconfessed grave sin. No priest can absolve himself; he must confess to another priest to be absolved.

  • Billy F.

    Good. She should have been denied the communion. In Fact, she was supposed to turn down the offer of communion on her own. Why? Because, she was not right with GOD, Almighty in her lesbianism. If she would have turned her life over to Jesus Christ, Turning her back on lesbianism the night before, then she could accept the communion; and would have a leg to stand on when the priest denied her the communion. Since, she was still claiming lesbianism, she was not right with GOD, and was supposed to turn down the communion on her own. The D.C. Catholic croud is so very wrong for offering the apology to that lesbian; and will be chastised for that mistake on their judgement day in Heaven's court.

    • aldotoo

      Judgement day is not in heaven. Christ will rule on David's throne after he judges those responsible on earth.

  • Debbie

    We are all sinners, and although I agree that we should examine ourselves before taking communion, and ask for forgiveness,
    we must also remember that at the Last Supper when Jesus gave communion to His disciples He gave it to Judas. Jesus announced to the group that one of them would betray Him, so Jesus knew, yet He still offered communion to everyone. How dare any mere mortal refuse to give communion to anyone.

    • msjallen

      Jesus had the right to make an offer to anyone even though He knew what Judas was going to do. Judas did not take the bread or drink just as this Lesbian should not have taken communion. As believers, we are to follow the teachings for the Church Age from the writings of the Apostles. It is made very clear that if we are living in sin or have not confessed our sins when we take communion then we will be disciplined by God. I am not Catholic but the priest was right when refusing to offer her their sacrament. We are warned by our pastor regarding sins confessed before communion and how we are to concentrate on Jesus Christ during the entire service. Not only is it a Memorial to Jesus Christ of the work He did on the cross for our salvation but a test to see how much we can remember the doctrines regarding His life and what He taught. it is not mindless time but one of focusing on our Lord.
      See I Cor 11:23-30

  • http://twitter.com/lambsev11 @lambsev11

    1 Corinthians 5:9 I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— 10 not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. 11 But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one. 12 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? 13 God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.”

  • http://twitter.com/lambsev11 @lambsev11

    The Lord's Supper ~ 1 Corinthians 11
    17 But in the following instructions I do not commend you, because when you come together it is not for the better but for the worse. 18 For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you. And I believe it in part, 19 for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized. 20 When you come together, it is not the Lord's supper that you eat. 21 For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal. One goes hungry, another gets drunk. 22 What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I commend you in this? No, I will not.

  • http://twitter.com/lambsev11 @lambsev11

    23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.

  • http://twitter.com/lambsev11 @lambsev11

    27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. 30 That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. 31 But if we judged ourselves truly, we would not be judged. 32 But when we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world.

    33 So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for one another— 34 if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home—so that when you come together it will not be for judgment. About the other things I will give directions when I come.

  • Grant

    Hallelujah (" Boldness in he light. What's in the dark will come into the light ….. tada

  • Herr Capitan Fick

    She's still Gods Child…

    • Guest

      So was Hitler, Stalin, Obama…. et al, so what's your point, other than that you must believe that ANY perpetual sinner can break God's commands and instruction and get away with it? Why would unbelievers benefit from taking Holy Communion?

    • Larry

      Not according to the bible.If you're born again you are a child of God, if not you are a child of the devil. Read the word and it will set you free. If you do what it says.

  • Nancy Sternberg

    The Catholic Church did the right thing here. This woman is in open sin and the church followed the Scriptures here

    • Warthog

      It's more like the priest did the right thing and the Archdiocese apologized for his doing the right thing!

  • Devasahayam

    Having lived formerly in the DC area (I now live in Pontiac, MI), this Protestant agrees crore-percent with Rev. Guarnizo!

  • Steve03

    The priest at the altar is the image of Christ. "What man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone?
    Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent?"

    • http://youtu.be/ltW-AKROlXQ Despeville

      An image? You mean like fata morgana?
      We do not need that. We do not need fake "Christs"
      One and true is all we need.

  • Thunderbob

    What is wrong with this? Nothing! The Priest following the teaching of the Catholic Church. The woman knows that, and is now trying to get around it. This is all because of Obama's administration stomping out religion in the Country. Just like Lenin, Marx, so we stay quiet on issue like this and the administration goes farther!

  • Winston

    Sin precedes repentence, then after sincere repentence comes forgiveness.

  • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

    Do you suppose there were others in line who are also sinners according to RCC doctine? After all, divorced folks not remarried in the church are not supposed to get in line for the Eucharist either. How much do you want to bet this priest has knowingly allowed a remarried sinner to take Communion from him.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Andrew-Patton/592034163 Andrew Patton

      If they are publicly known to be unrepentant sinners, they too should be denied Communion. If their sin is secret, then their sacrilege is on their own heads, and the priest is blameless because he is ignorant of the guilt they bear and compound by their sacrilege.

  • kirk

    - wrong entity apologizing –

  • JPW

    WHY? .. would a heathen go to communion?.?? " .. 'cept ye repent ye likewise will perish."