Monday, November 30, 2009

Want to know how Romanists dance?

I've got a perfect example - Romanist apologist Scott Windsor. Watch him scurry around and make excuses for the Roman Church's refusal to excommunicate, among others, Nancy Pelosi. Instead, she gets served the Eucharist by the Pope himself. Voting in favor of murdering babies every single time apparently earns you a pat on the back from the Roman Church, not punishment.

Over at his blog.
Over at Beggars All.

20 comments:

CathApol said...

I make no excuses for Speaker Pelosi, I say that she hunts for loopholes - and she hides behind what she THINKS are loopholes. I believe, as you do, that she is in error. I believe the Church's teaching on this matter is crystal clear - and if Abp. Niederhauer has not excommunicated her yet then your beef is with him, not me.

Scott<<<

John said...

When the Pope met with Nancy Pelosi, he spent the entire meeting giving her an ear bashing about about the dignity of human life from conception, so you've certainly overstepped the mark in saying she is getting a pat on the back from the Roman Church.

Rhology said...

Oh noes!!!!11 Not a papal ear-bashing! Next you'll tell me he forced her to eat bonbons in a comfy chair.

bossmanham said...

She really should be excommunicated. If her bishop won't do it, why can't the pope? I also think the Baptists should excommunicate the Clintons, and Obamuhh should be excommunicated by wherever he's going.

Rhology said...

0bama fled his 'church' when the political fallout became too much.

And interestingly, my pastor attempted to get the pastor of Emmanuel Baptist in Little Rock to excomm Slick Willy Clinton back in the governor days, for this exact thing. My pastor was at the time the Pres of the Arkansas Baptist Convention of the SBC, but you know how it goes - woulda been too hot a potato and the pastor of Emmanuel wouldn't do it b/c he was a coward like the Pope and Magisterium are.

Darlene said...

Rhology,

Speaking of the SBC, did you know that there is a substantial percentage of Freemasons in that organization? Quite a few are pastors and deacons.

What is your opinion on this? Do you think the Freemasons are a harmless group of fellas who meet together in a lodge to merely pal around, as well as doing good works in the community? Or do you think the oaths they take, the prayers they pray with other non-Christians, and the sworn secrecy on pain of death is incompatible, even in opposition to the Christian faith? IOW, do you think they should be excommunicated?

The subject of FM is very controversial in some Christian circles, and in others, it's no big deal. A FM was not permitted membership in any Protestant church I ever attended. From all that I understand about them, their practices and beliefs are highly questionable. But then there are those Baptists who insist that there is nothing inconsistent with being a FM and a Christian at the same time.

What say you?

CathApol said...

I will add, this controversy popped up in 2008 when Speaker Pelosi received Eucharist at a Papal Mass (not necessarily from the Pope himself - no evidence of that has been forthcoming). AFTER that she "defended" herself on Meet the Press which is where there real stir began - THEN in February of 2009 she had a meeting with Pope Benedict XVI which apparently she THOUGHT was to be some sort of photo op - but it turned into a private meeting between her and the Pope - no photographers or press allowed. Papal officials explain that the Pope took the opportunity to explain to her the unchanged teaching of the Church and her responsibilities as a lawmaker for the USA. Pelosi's explanation was only allegedly what she told the Pope - and nothing about what he told her! SINCE THEN we've heard relatively little. I've searched for any related news stories and found none. So, objectively speaking, we don't know that she's defying the Pope and continuing to approach the Communion rail. About all we've seen is anti-Catholic posturing and speculation on what SHOULD happen or SHOULD HAVE happened.

Alan is quick to label my responses as "dancing" - but frankly, there's little to comment and commit to here. I've asked him for some valid and verifiable evidence - and absolutely nothing has been forthcoming outside of his libel supported only by news from nearly a year ago. I would be happy to consider some REAL evidence, but so far - nada.

Scott<<<

Rhology said...

Darlene,

I know some things about FM, not a ton, but enough to know about their creeds and professed allegiances they make in their FM rituals. Such things are unacceptable for a follower of Christ. If I learned my pastor were a FM, I'd attempt to have him church disciplined in the biblical way, cf 1 Cor 5, Matt 18, 1 Tim 5, etc. Ditto for a member of my church, but you have to take it on a slightly diff course. A pastor should know better, and at the same time the NT says to have more than one witness. A member has less preexisting responsibility to know better, so you educate him and help him learn why he should repent and turn away from FM toward Christ and the sanctity and exclusivity of Christ's Gospel. Our mutual friend DavidW could stand to learn a thing or two about the exclusivity of Christ's Gospel.

And no, I didn't know that about SBC, but I can't say it surprises me. There is also a substantial % of gluttons, legalists, nominalists, hidden liberals, money-mongers, and Gospel-lite preachers. May the Lord be pleased to have mercy.


CathApol,

But her repentance or excommunication, Mr Windsor. Where is it?
Continuing along on the same pro-baby-murder and pro-gay course is not the definition of repentance.

CathApol said...

But her repentance or excommunication, Mr Windsor. Where is it?
Continuing along on the same pro-baby-murder and pro-gay course is not the definition of repentance.


Alan,
As myself and others have been trying to tell you all along, the excommunication for abortion is automatic - no decree is necessary. If indeed her bishop and/or the Pope has communicated this to her - then the onus is upon herself to exclude herself from the Eucharist. If she defiantly receives then she may well be guilty of the words of St. Paul. We have no "Eucharist Police" who go around stopping people they suspect of receiving unworthily. It is not up to the Eucharistic Minister, be he a layperson, priest or bishop, to judge whether or not a person approaching the Communion rail has gone to Confession before doing so. If Speaker Pelosi is as guilty as you believe she is, then it is up to her to stop receiving the Eucharist until she can worthily do so - that's St. Paul's teaching, you should be supporting that.

In JMJ,
Scott<<<
CathApol Blog

Rhology said...

Yeah, the excommunication that has no actual or visible effect is automatic.

Do you take us for idiots? (Wait, don't answer that.)


If Speaker Pelosi is as guilty as you believe she is, then it is up to her to stop receiving the Eucharist until she can worthily do so - that's St. Paul's teaching, you should be supporting that.


Actually, if you were to trouble yourself to read 1 Cor 5, you'd know precisely what Paul's teaching was. It involved putting ppl out of the church. Try again.

CathApol said...

So which part of 1 Corinthians 5 are you referring to? Verse 5? Does your community put people to death to purge their flesh in order that God may save their spirit?

Or do you refer to the part about not associating with such people? Now the onus is not upon Speaker Pelosi, but with those who associate with her.

Now I'm relatively sure you're pointing to verse 13 but in context, does that mean kill Pelosi? Does it mean just don't associate with her? Or, as St. Paul teaches in the same book, chapter 11, verse 29 - that the onus is upon Pelosi to do the right thing?

In JMJ,
Scott<<<

Rhology said...

SATAN puts them to death. Read it again.

Yes, the onus is on the church not to associate with the excomm'd person. It's a command. Follow it.
The onus is ALSO on the excomm'd person to repent. If they don't repent it doesn't release you from your obligation to stop associating with them.

CathApol said...

So, since I don't associate with Speaker Pelosi - I'm OK. Thanks! Whew, I was getting all worried about that one! ;-)

Darlene said...

CathApol,

The problem specifically with Nancy Pelosi is that she is a very public person, and thus her behavior is scandalous, and it scandalizes the Catholic faith. Her behavior in publicly partaking of the Eucharist while holding to teachings condemned by the Catholic Church, is one of flippancy and little concern for her actions as a Catholic and the effect it will have on other Catholics. She is all the more emboldened to act recalcitrantly when church leaders implicitly (and in the case of those who actually serve her Communion) explicitly permit such behavior.

Because of who she is and the public nature of her sin, she should be told publicly by her bishop that she cannot receive the Eucharist. And warned that if she approaches to receive, she will be refused. Afterall, there is the example of a well-known Kennedy son of Edward recently being told by his bishop that he cannot be served Communion and that by his actions, he is not a genuine Catholic.

It comes down to Pelosi's bishop being unwilling, for whatever reason, to publicly rebuke this woman.

CathApol said...

Darlene,
Thank you for your input. I'm really not in denial of anything you said. My only "defense" for Pelosi, if you want to call it that - because I really do not defend her religiously or politically - is that we don't know all the details. We have an incident from 2008 where she received the Eucharist at a papal Mass, not necessarily from the pope but at a Mass he celebrated. After that incident she publicly stated things on "Meet the Press" which stirred the scandal. In early 2009 (Feb) Pope Benedict gave her what for and since that time the news reports have been quite silent. Can you say, with certainty, that she continues to receive the the Eucharist and has not repented? I can't. That's my only point in this matter. I/we don't have any current facts - and yet some around here are proceeding with a witch-hunt mentality.

In JMJ,
Scott<<<

Rhology said...

My point has been since the beginning
1) that 2008 is far, far too long for any discipline, and
2) that excommunication of a public big-time politician and supporter of baby murder should be PUBLIC.

CathApol said...

Alan,
Do you know what was said to Speaker Pelosi in that meeting with the Pope? I thought not.

Alan, do you have evidence that she has not gone to confession?

Alan, do you have evidence that she is still participating in Eucharist?

God will judge her - let Him.

Rhology said...

Biblically, she must be disciplined. Present evidence she has been or just give it up, seriously. Your dancing is pitiful.

Dozie said...

"Biblically, she must be disciplined. Present evidence she has been or just give it up, seriously. Your dancing is pitiful".

Exactly what is this fool laboring for? If she is disciplined, you join the Catholic Church?

Rhology said...

Consistency must not be high on your priority list, Dozie. Certainly not as high as racism.