St. Columba's overly political sermons...

[Anonymous]

Tax cuts are sucking the life out of programs for the poor. That's like abortion, too.

[Anonymous]

LeesburgResident wrote:

Anonymous wrote:pelosi and obama consider themselves christian yet they advocate aborting the planet

I dunno, the oil wells the GOP advocates putting everywhere are sucking up the guts of the earth. That's kind of like abortion isn't it?

I take it you don't drive a car, then, or rely in petroleum in any way...

[LeesburgResident]

Anonymous wrote:

LeesburgResident wrote:

Anonymous wrote:pelosi and obama consider themselves christian yet they advocate aborting the planet

I dunno, the oil wells the GOP advocates putting everywhere are sucking up the guts of the earth. That's kind of like abortion isn't it?

I take it you don't drive a car, then, or rely in petroleum in any way...

Why yes, I do. So is your point that I need to support strip mining for oil shale, drilling in ANWR, etc., etc.?

[Anonymous]

Leesburg Resident, I think the point may be that you should stop supporting new technologies that could eat into Big Oil's profits!

[Anonymous]

LeesburgResident wrote:

Anonymous wrote:pelosi and obama consider themselves christian yet they advocate aborting the planet

I dunno, the oil wells the GOP advocates putting everywhere are sucking up the guts of the earth. That's kind of like abortion isn't it?

no, you are misinformed strip mining for oil shale is the future

[Anonymous]

LeesburgResident wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

LeesburgResident wrote:

Anonymous wrote:pelosi and obama consider themselves christian yet they advocate aborting the planet

I dunno, the oil wells the GOP advocates putting everywhere are sucking up the guts of the earth. That's kind of like abortion isn't it?

I take it you don't drive a car, then, or rely in petroleum in any way...

Why yes, I do. So is your point that I need to support strip mining for oil shale, drilling in ANWR, etc., etc.?

I'm no GOP lover, but if you are a consumer of petroleum derivatives, then you are inadvertantly contributing to the momentum behind obtaining fuel in environmentally unsound ways.

[LeesburgResident]

So, drill, baby, drill?

[Anonymous]

I hesitate to open up this can of worms, but for those of you who are offended by closed communion, you need to understand that the tenants of Protestant vs. Roman Catholic view of the Eucharist is very different. Protestants view the Eucharist as a symbol. However, (in a nutshell) Roman Catholics (among others) believe in transubstantiation which means the change of the substance of bread and wine into the substance of the Body and Blood of Jesus. Believing that Christ is risen from the dead and is alive, the Catholic Church holds that when the bread is changed into his body and the wine to his blood, not only his body and blood is present, but Christ as a whole is present (i.e. body and blood, soul and divinity.) Thus, a priest cannot knowingly give the Eucharist to non-Catholics (who do not believe that Christ is wholly present), and those who are not in a state of grace. For example, politicians who support abortion are not adhering to Canon law in that they "obstinately persist to grave sin." A Catholic must be free of mortal sin to receive the Eucharist or they commit the sin of sacrilege as does the priest who knowingly allows the sacrilege to occur. In fact, the sin is worse for the priest because they are presumed to have a greater understanding and therefor held to a higher standard. Catholics can take communion if in a state of venial sin but not grave or mortal sin. In addition, due to the presence of Christ in the Eucharist, Catholics must refrain from food or drink for a specified period time before communion.

Close communion is a way of protecting the sanctity of the Eucharist as viewed by the Catholics. For Catholic, receiving the Eucharist is not symbolic. It isn not something that we do once a month or quarterly as many Protestant faiths do. The purpose of Mass is to receive the Eucharist and receive the Lord.

Very simplistic analysis (it is more complicated than this), but there are real and valid reasons for a closed communion based upon fundamental difference in beliefs.

[Anonymous]

i'm the op-typing with one arm rt now--to get back on track--i was raised episcopal at my neighborhood church. st c's has gone off on its own tangent with the political rants in the sermons. this is not an episcopal church of america thing. the lead pastor is the most boring, uninspired speaker i have ever heard. there is a large woman with a buzz cut who lead the mass. it has just become awful, just awful.

[Anonymous]

Op The Church is bigger than any one church. It may be time to abandon St. Columbia for an Episcopal church that better suits your needs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I hesitate to open up this can of worms, but for those of you who are offended by closed communion, you need to understand that the tenants of Protestant vs. Roman Catholic view of the Eucharist is very different. Protestants view the Eucharist as a symbol. However, (in a nutshell) Roman Catholics (among others) believe in transubstantiation which means the change of the substance of bread and wine into the substance of the Body and Blood of Jesus. Believing that Christ is risen from the dead and is alive, the Catholic Church holds that when the bread is changed into his body and the wine to his blood, not only his body and blood is present, but Christ as a whole is present (i.e. body and blood, soul and divinity.) Thus, a priest cannot knowingly give the Eucharist to non-Catholics (who do not believe that Christ is wholly present), and those who are not in a state of grace. For example, politicians who support abortion are not adhering to Canon law in that they "obstinately persist to grave sin." A Catholic must be free of mortal sin to receive the Eucharist or they commit the sin of sacrilege as does the priest who knowingly allows the sacrilege to occur. In fact, the sin is worse for the priest because they are presumed to have a greater understanding and therefor held to a higher standard. Catholics can take communion if in a state of venial sin but not grave or mortal sin. In addition, due to the presence of Christ in the Eucharist, Catholics must refrain from food or drink for a specified period time before communion.

Close communion is a way of protecting the sanctity of the Eucharist as viewed by the Catholics. For Catholic, receiving the Eucharist is not symbolic. It isn not something that we do once a month or quarterly as many Protestant faiths do. The purpose of Mass is to receive the Eucharist and receive the Lord.

Very simplistic analysis (it is more complicated than this), but there are real and valid reasons for a closed communion based upon fundamental difference in beliefs.

+1

[Anonymous]

BACK TO THE OP

[Anonymous]

Approach the minister with your concerns.

[Anonymous]

Thanks for the explanation, 17:05. I'm the protestant who has the issues with religious that exclude others, so the theological explanation is interesting. We might differ about what a "state of grace" should look like, but I see what you're saying.

So at least one poster has actually read your post, even if nobody else bothers to read before spewing.

[Anonymous]

I attended this church briefly a few years ago and liked parts of it. Then we started getting letters in the mail about disagreements people within the parish were having with one another...maybe a pastor was fired or something? I didn't really pay attention to the details because I didn't know any of the people involved, but it turned me off of the place.

Anyway I am very liberal but I see where the OP is coming from. I attend a United Methodist church and really appreciate the lack of this type of political talk in the sermons. I am a huge supporter of gay rights and gay marriage though. And I also wanted to mention that I don't think a gay pastor just saying, "my partner and I were talking...." makes a political statement unless it is followed by , "that gay marriage should be legal," or something. You wouldn't consider a pastor telling an anecdote and saying something like, "my wife and I were talking," to be political.