Filed under: Uncategorized
My area hits the news again! This time Bishop Martino is reminding preists not to give communion to the unworthy. Unworthy in this case directed at politicians that do not follow the Catholic Pro Life stance, Specificaly Sen.Casey [d] Pa. who voted to fund abortions overseas.
http://www.timesleader.com/news/20090227_27senatorumartino_mg_ART.html
Also the Bishop is in the news for criticizing a Catholic university for hosting a diversity [read homosexual] speaker. http://catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=15138
The big news is he may close St. Patrick’s Cathedral in Scranton if some pro choice politicians are invited to speak to some Catholic organizations around St. Patrick’s Day.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/feb/09021906.html
This is tragic, as going to St. Pat’s on St. Pat’s day is almost as big a tradition as getting wasted on green beer. [ pray you avoid, all your life the horror of seeing someone violently ill with green beer poisoning, it is an awful sight. It is better to be the one sick, chances are you will have a loss of memory, mercifully] Scranton has a huge Irish population, and that just is not going to go over.
My alma mater Wilkes U, [it was just a college when I attended] wrote a scathing [ they thought so] editorial about this that proves they do not get it.
http://www.wilkesbeacon.com/opinion/an_open_letter_to_the_bishop_joseph_francis_martino-1.1527074
Here is an exerpt from the Beacon, at Wilkes U
“We first started to pay attention to your actions when you said that some politicians may be refused communion if they support a woman’s right to choose whether or not to have an abortion. We recognize that abortion goes against the teachings of the Catholic church, but so do many things that your parishioners do, and refusing them communion is, in many ways, akin to closing your doors to those seeking a relationship with God and the Church.”
“Following your line of argument, your priests should refuse communion to anyone who strayed from the path. Surely there are enough rumors swirling around your churches to provide the celebrant with enough fodder to deny communion many people: the single mother, the homosexual, the divorcee, someone who terminated a pregnancy in their youth – just to name a few.”
20 Comments so far
Leave a comment
Willohroots 
Wow, you live in an active news zone. And I can’t say I am surprised the newspaper “didn’t get it.” What a novel outrage. They can’t believe that Catholics would exclude someone from communion because they are unrepentant sinners. It’s enough to take your breath away.
Comment by jeofurry February 28, 2009 @ 18:08What do they think we do Jeff, put up a sign saying, “No repentance needed, confess nothing!” Do you think they know the word, commune?
Comment by willohroots February 28, 2009 @ 19:50After a couple of the discussions I have been in the last couple of days, there might be someone that thinks that about me. The only thing they can come up with when the hear the word commune is communism I would guess.
Comment by jeofurry February 28, 2009 @ 23:11It’s become out of fashion to have standards. Don’t you keep up?
That’s the way the world wants it today. “Christian, I’m going to beat the daylights out of all you hold dear and believe in, but don’t you dare stand for or against anything, or you will be labeled intolerant.”
Lord, make me worthy of the label.
Comment by Shawn W March 1, 2009 @ 00:20By the way, I touched on this story as an illustration while I was preaching yesterday in 1 Cor. 5. Imagine the gall of not allowing unrepentant and rebellious people to be in fellowship with us. It sounds too much like Paul.
Comment by jeofurry March 2, 2009 @ 15:42did jesus take communion with judas?
Comment by graceshaker March 3, 2009 @ 18:59Jesus did not take communion, He gave it,
Comment by willohroots March 3, 2009 @ 22:58Luke 22:But, behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me [is] with me on the table.
so he gave it to judas then.
whats the fuss?
Comment by graceshaker March 4, 2009 @ 03:03Sorry to put a crimp in your argument, but if we put John’s account together with the synoptics, it would seem that Judas left sometime before Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper. See John 13:30 and place it within the context of Matthew 26:25-26; Mark 14:20-22. Luke is the only one who makes it seem that Judas was there after the Lord’s Supper was instituted, but he is also the only one of the four accounts not written as an eyewitness (Mark is generally considered to be Peter’s version of the story).
Comment by jeofurry March 4, 2009 @ 03:15If Graceshaker is trying to say, “Judas took communion, so that means anybody can” I must disagree. Judas took the bread dipped in sop from the hand of the Savior, and then figuratively, bit the hand that fed him, while entered by Satan. This is not a model to which I would aspire. A repentant heart is required for true Communion with God.
Comment by willohroots March 4, 2009 @ 08:35im willing to leave the hearts up to god.
Comment by graceshaker March 4, 2009 @ 13:22I am not talking about people’s hearts. We are talking about people who openly proclaim that they think God is wrong and they are right. Jesus said that kind of talk comes from the heart of a man.
Comment by jeofurry March 4, 2009 @ 15:16jeofurry in all polity i wasnt talking to you. my response was to willoh who said:
“A repentant heart is required for true Communion with God.”
to address your statements – the clarity of luke and john on the matter outweighs the ambiguity of matt and mark. john 13:26 is very clear that jesus “dipped the morsel and gave it to judas” who then ate it before being entered by satan.
i would not exclude where jesus did not exclude. even if in giving communion they are eating and drinking to their own condemnation. thats between them and god.
and im puzzled by your willingness to favor any gospels ambiguity over anothers clarity.
Comment by graceshaker March 4, 2009 @ 15:56I thought I might join in the discussion because it interested me, and I happened to also agree with Will’s statement. Is that wrong on my part?
Comment by jeofurry March 4, 2009 @ 16:38Luke is the one who invites the ambiguity. He only hints that Judas might have been present at the time that Christ gave them the bread and wine of the Last Supper. He also says that Satan entered Judas days before where John says it happened that night when he took the other bread before the Lord’s Supper would have been given.
I stated my reason for preferring John over Luke. John was in the room when the events took place. Luke is recounting testimony from others.
Again we are not talking about the heart here, that we cannot see or judge. This story was about people’s actions and stated beliefs. Paul told the Corinthian church to kick demonstrably unrepentant sinners to the curb until they repented.
P.S. Do you know what polity actually means? I suspect you meant politeness, which is a very different concept.
13 And they went and found it just as he had told them, and they prepared the Passover. 14 And when the hour came, he reclined at table, and the apostles with him. 15 And he said to them, I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. 16 For I tell you I will not eat ituntil it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God. 17 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves. 18 For I tell you that from now on I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes. 19
And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me. 20 And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.21 But behold, the hand of him who betrays me is with me on the table.
ok. thats better.
Comment by graceshaker March 4, 2009 @ 17:33John 13:26-27:
26Jesus answered, “It is the one to whom I will give this piece of bread when I have dipped it in the dish.” Then, dipping the piece of bread, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, son of Simon. 27As soon as Judas took the bread, Satan entered into him.
Matthew 26:23-29:
23Jesus replied, “The one who has dipped his hand into the bowl with me will betray me. 24The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born.”
25Then Judas, the one who would betray him, said, “Surely not I, Rabbi?”
Jesus answered, “Yes, it is you.”
26While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.”
27Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. 28This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 29I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father’s kingdom.”
Either John is mistaken, or Matthew and Mark left out something, or Luke is mistaken. But Matthew and Mark’s sequence is identical and Luke’s is different. And I decided to look a little deeper at the language and it looks like Luke’s verses don’t have to mean that Judas hand was present at the moment it was said as the verb “is” is an implied verb without tense. So you can base your argument on one piece of ambiguous (can be taken more than one way) Scripture or work with the whole council of the Word that advises repentance is necessary for fellowship.
Comment by jeofurry March 4, 2009 @ 18:11willoh – im curious if you agree with jeofurry?
Comment by graceshaker March 4, 2009 @ 18:41graceshaker,
Comment by jeofurry March 4, 2009 @ 18:58I apologize if you think my tone is harsh. Tone is usually hard to discern in this format, but I don’t think I have said anything hostile or rude. I certainly haven’t intended to insult or demean. I am simply trying to clarify the difference between the condition of the heart that is unknowable and the condition of the heart that is demonstrated.
You implied that I wish to cross a verse out of the Bible, so I was trying to explain myself further. Part of the reason that I got involved in the discussion is that I thought your initial comment was initiated by mine. I apologize again if I was wrong about that.
Today, dealing with a head cold larger than Kentucky, I really do not care where Judas was or when. It is a nice subject of conversation among the saved, but I do not have a dog in the race. I do not pull doctrine from a single verse, nor do I see what difference it makes. Jesus was capable of fencing his table. Bishop Martino can fence the sacraments at his church.
I do not have the wisdom of Jesus nor the authority of a bishop. I quote this every time we break bread I COR.. 11:26-28
.” 26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. 27 Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28 A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup.
Let us all repent to be made worthy by Christ, not by what we could do. You can not love sin and Love Christ forever. something will give.
Comment by willohroots March 4, 2009 @ 21:39[…] 1Bishop offends Catholics by Being One « Willohroots SUBMIT […]
Pingback by Resources for Matthew 26:25 - 26 March 6, 2012 @ 14:08