No communion for Obama supporters

[irishpipes]

Originally Posted by christiangirl

"You sound frustrated" does not equal "Nobody in the entire thread sounds frustrated but you." That's not what I said.

Perhaps not, but I am the only one you singled out. Not that it matters.

Originally Posted by christiangirl

To an extent, the bolded is true. I did not say I was an expert on the RCC, I was stating that I'm not as ignorant of the basic facets of the faith (including the "Catholic definition" of grace) as Irish assumed I was.

Your posts showed a lack of any insight into Catholicism. You were obviously interjecting your own religious views, which a Catholic priest cannot be expected to follow.

Originally Posted by christiangirl

I am angry at this priest's actions. To see a person in the position to draw others to the faith instead choose to push them away by imposing such limitations is both wrong and unfair.

A priest's role is not necessarily to "draw others to the faith." Faith is not measured in numbers. If this priest filled the pews by misrepresenting Catholic views - by adopting an "anything goes" attitude, what would that accomplish? A big group of people WHO ARE NOT CATHOLICS. It would be WRONG and UNFAIR to lead them to believe that the Church does not have doctrine. The Catholic Church is an incredibly pro-choice institution. Its faithful are allowed to choose whatever they want to the point of jeopardizing their immortal souls. If a Catholic rejects the teachings of the Church, why would he or she care if Holy Communion is not permissable for them?

Originally Posted by christiangirl

As far as the grace issue: I am of the opinion that grace, actual grace, is a gift from God extended to everyone. It has some limitations, but voting for a pro-life candidate is not one of them. That is a man-made imposition. So, if the term in question is something that one may only acquire via certain requirements that were set forth by religious authorities (and I admit that it is within a Church's right to do it even if I don't agree), then that should not be called "grace" because it's not. Using that particular word in any other context is to misuse it and I don't like the purposes for which it is being misused. That is ALL I said and I have already stated that this is my opinion on the matter and not an infallible fact to which the entire religion must be held. By no stretch of the imagination is that "attacking Roman Catholicism with vehemence." (Nor is it being "unchristian" IMO but I'll leave that one up to Jesus.)

Again, as you yourself state, this is your opinion, your definition. This priest was articulating the CATHOLIC position on this, as should be expected. You, and everyone else on earth, are entitled to your own opinion. Perhaps instead of demanding that this priest "gets off his high horse", you should consider dismounting yourself. You are insinuating, no matter what you now backpeddle and say, that he apply elements of your faith in speaking with his own congregation. For example, in a previous post you reference a biblical definition of grace. An understanding of Catholicism would include the doctrine of sola scriptura.

Perhaps the priest at issue was reacting to the post-election data that about 50% of people who consider themselves Catholic voted for Obama. There was certainly a time when Catholics voted in a much more predictable fashion.

Perhaps you can redirect your anger toward this priest to gratitude that your candidate won.

[christiangirl]

Originally Posted by irishpipes

Perhaps not, but I am the only one you singled out. Not that it matters.

That's just the way I post--I noticed that others were way more amped, but they weren't speaking to me, you were. I only comment on what is relevant (i.e., who is talking to me). No big deal.

Your posts showed a lack of any insight into Catholicism. You were obviously interjecting your own religious views, which a Catholic priest cannot be expected to follow. I already said that a Church is perfectly within its right to make up their own doctrine. No, I don't agree, but so what? I don't have to and they don't have to care that I don't either.



A priest's role is not necessarily to "draw others to the faith." Aside from the fact that I only agree with this to an extent, ONCE AGAIN. I never said it was. I said that he is in a position where he could, which is NOT the same thing. Faith is not measured in numbers. If this priest filled the pews by misrepresenting Catholic views - by adopting an "anything goes" attitude, what would that accomplish? A big group of people WHO ARE NOT CATHOLICS. Yes, it would. It would be WRONG and UNFAIR to lead them to believe that the Church does not have doctrine. The Catholic Church is an incredibly pro-choice institution. Its faithful are allowed to choose whatever they want to the point of jeopardizing their immortal souls. If a Catholic rejects the teachings of the Church, why would he or she care if Holy Communion is not permissable for them? <---This sentence is a fair point.



Again, as you yourself state, this is your opinion, your definition. This priest was articulating the CATHOLIC position on this, as should be expected. You, and everyone else on earth, are entitled to your own opinion. Perhaps instead of demanding that this priest "gets off his high horse", you should consider dismounting yourself. I expressed what I felt he should do, but certainly did not "demand" him to do anything and ended the statement with JUST MY OPINION. You are twisting my words again. You are insinuating, no matter what you now backpeddle and say, that he apply elements of your faith in speaking with his own congregation. For example, in a previous post you reference a biblical definition of grace. An understanding of Catholicism would include the doctrine of sola scriptura. I understand that, which is why I said that it is my opinion (read: preference) as opposed to something the entire faith must follow. Didn't think I'd have to spell it out for you.

...