Catholic priest denies communion to lesbian and the church throws him under the bus

[YeuEmMaiMai]

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headline...thers-funeral/


That's right, the preist stood up for Biblical principas and the church threw him under the bus.

Rev. Marcel Guarnizo coverd up the sacraments and said that since she is living in sin, she cannot have communion (rightfully so imho)

He also left the altar when she came up to give the euligy and did not return until she finished giving the euligy.

Good for him! Standing up for Godly principals is always the right thing to do

"The Archdiocese of Washington had no public comment about the priest’s behavior, but issued a statement that indicated Guarnizo should have taken up the matter of whether Johnson could receive communion in private."

[dave-o]

Because the RCC has so many heretical problems of its own I find it hard to be supportive of any thing they do. This story kind of sends the message that one must be sin-free before coming to Christ. Not surprising in that RCC doctrine teaches that sanctification precedes salvation.

This issue of homosexuality has, I think, become the weapon of choice for the enemy to divide and conquer. I also think that this is a sign of the times.

Ezekiel 16:49
Look, this was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: She and her daughter had pride, fullness of food, and abundance of idleness;

But in the Genesis 19 account of the destruction of Sodom we also see that rampant, willful, sexual perversion was (perhaps) the defining symptom that they had gone beyond the point of no return and that judgment was imminent.

But think about this too; homosexuality is probably the least common example of people willfully indulging in sexual perversion. Pornography has gone mainstream and become a multi-billion dollar industry and much of it is (at least partially) bi-sexual in nature and who-knows how many millions in western societies are addicted to it to one extent or another, especially young men.

[arapahoepark]

It's the RCC, they are seeker friendly in ways...doesn't surprise me. Afterall, they have pedophile priests...
hope that wasn't too below the belt....

[Yehoshua]

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headline...thers-funeral/


That's right, the preist stood up for Biblical principas and the church threw him under the bus.

Rev. Marcel Guarnizo coverd up the sacraments and said that since she is living in sin, she cannot have communion (rightfully so imho)

He also left the altar when she came up to give the euligy and did not return until she finished giving the euligy.

Good for him! Standing up for Godly principals is always the right thing to do

"The Archdiocese of Washington had no public comment about the priest’s behavior, but issued a statement that indicated Guarnizo should have taken up the matter of whether Johnson could receive communion in private."

So it means, that one oughtta be completely free of sin before he can partake in the Lord's supper? How is that biblical?...we come as we are to eat at the table of mercy, thats the place to think about Him, not us...what HE did, not what I did...the RCC is a joke, but so is 90% of the so called "church"...and the agape waxing colder and colder... Help us Father God..we need to love like you do Lord...less segregation, less separation, more unity in the Spirit...help us Lord..

[mattfivefour]

God very clearly through Paul states that the one who is guilty of the body and blood of Jesus is one who partakes of the ordinance in an unworthy manner—that is to say, from the clear context of the passage in 1 Corinthians 11, taking the cup and the bread without focusing on Christ and what He did for us in His sacrifice. It does not mean partaking when one is unworthy. None of us is worthy; Christ alone IS.

My point would be if the woman is living in a lesbian relationship, then she should not be accepted as part of the church assembly. (Yes, I know we are talking RCC here, not real Christianity; but I wanted to broaden the discussion to the reality of true Christian local assemblies.) Paul made this clear in 1 Corinthians 5: she should be put out of the Body so that Satan may have free reign with her to destroy her flesh so that in the Day of the Lord she may live in Christ. If she truly loves Jesus, then she will return to the Body chastened and accepting of God's will in her life. If she refuses and insists on her sin, then she was not Christ's at all. He never knew her.

[Bobbi]

So it means, that one oughtta be completely free of sin before he can partake in the Lord's supper? How is that biblical?...we come as we are to eat at the table of mercy, thats the place to think about Him, not us...what HE did, not what I did...the RCC is a joke, but so is 90% of the so called "church"...and the agape waxing colder and colder... Help us Father God..we need to love like you do Lord...less segregation, less separation, more unity in the Spirit...help us Lord..

I don't think that we are to come to the Lords supper for mercy, but because of God's mercy for us. You see salvation should procede taking of the Lords supper. If you are not truly saved (repented of your sins and asked for forgiveness) then you are taking the cup and bread in a unworthy manner.

[WKUHilltopper]

Maybe this "priest" will now understand the difference of serving the Master of the Universe and some man-made church acting as if it were some sort of god.

[Yehoshua]

I don't think that we are to come to the Lords supper for mercy, but because of God's mercy for us. You see salvation should procede taking of the Lords supper. If you are not truly saved (repented of your sins and asked for forgiveness) then you are taking the cup and bread in a unworthy manner.

I dont mean we come for mercy, we come to think of what the Lord has done for us...in that sense youre right, BECAUSE of His mercy...but I dont think you need to be sinless to come and take the Lord's supper...as a matter of fact, I love inviting unsaved people to come and at least see the ceremony and if God moves them to ask repentance right there and accept Him, what better time to take the Lord's supper? ... if youre in church it is because you know you need Him, why would one turn a person away from sitting with them at the Lord's table because of his/her sin...did Jesus not eat with the sinners? are not the sick in need of a doctor instead of the healthy?...thats my view...

shalom! :)

[Bobbi]

I dont mean we come for mercy, we come to think of what the Lord has done for us...in that sense youre right, BECAUSE of His mercy...but I dont think you need to be sinless to come and take the Lord's supper...as a matter of fact, I love inviting unsaved people to come and at least see the ceremony and if God moves them to ask repentance right there and accept Him, what better time to take the Lord's supper? ... if youre in church it is because you know you need Him, why would one turn a person away from sitting with them at the Lord's table because of his/her sin...did Jesus not eat with the sinners? are not the sick in need of a doctor instead of the healthy?...thats my view...

shalom! :)

Yehoshua, you do realize that if a Christian person is LIVING in sin his relationship with God and the Lord Jesus Christ is strained? (You are correct in saying we cannot be sinless.) You cannot come to the communion table with known, practicing sin in your life. If you do, you are taking of the communion unworthily. The Apostle Paul warned about this in 1 Corinthians 11:27-31 Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup. For he wo eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgement to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this reason many are weak and sick among you, and many sleep. For is we would judge ourselves, we would not be judged. Of course each one who wants to take the Lord's supper needs to examine themselves, we cannot do it for someone.

The Church isn't forbidding people from repenting of their sins and then taking communion, they are making sure people know if they take this and are not worthy they are eating and drinking judgement on themselves.

[YeuEmMaiMai]

whoa there fellas,

In this case the preist is right, you cannot be living in open sin and receive the sacramants..... "I cannot give you communion because you live with a woman and that is a sin in the eyes of the church"

How many of your churches would allow 2 people living together to get married in the church without repenting of their sin and seperating first?

[mattfivefour]

Yehoshua, you do realize that if a Christian person is LIVING in sin his relationship with God and the Lord Jesus Christ is strained? (You are correct in saying we cannot be sinless.) You cannot come to the communion table with known, practicing sin in your life. If you do, you are taking of the communion unworthily. The Apostle Paul warned about this in 1 Corinthians 11:27-31 Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup. For he wo eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgement to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this reason many are weak and sick among you, and many sleep. For is we would judge ourselves, we would not be judged. Of course each one who wants to take the Lord's supper needs to examine themselves, we cannot do it for someone.

The Church isn't forbidding people from repenting of their sins and then taking communion, they are making sure people know if they take this and are not worthy they are eating and drinking judgement on themselves.

Bobbi, I agree with everything you have said, up to the last sentence. Respectfully, I disagree because none of us is worthy. Christ alone is. In the original, the adverb translated "unworthily" must modify the verbs "eats" and "drinks". Therefore the "in an unworthy manner" (the adverb anaxios: unworthily ) relates to the eating and drinking, not to the spiritual condition of the individual. Thus I cannot agree that if we are not worthy because of open sin then we cannot take communion without judgment. We are covered by the blood! However, I can agree with you if the import of your words is that we are eating and drinking judgment if we partake of communion while either denying our sin or not caring about it. THAT would be eating and drinking unworthily because we would be failing to discern that the elements represent Christ and that He died that we might be forgiven of sin and freed from sin so we might flee from sin. But not to partake because there may be besetting sin in our life is error. This is a matter for each individual to decide as he or she examines themselves; and under similar circumstances different people may come up with different decisions as to whether to partake or not, depending on their consciences. I just would not want somebody not to take communion because they have a sin or sins in their life they have not yet overcome. That would not be scriptural. As John says, "If we confess our sin He is faithful and just to forgive our sin."

[Bobbi]

Bobbi, I agree with everything you have said, up to the last sentence. Respectfully, I disagree because none of us is worthy. Christ alone is. In the original, the adverb translated "unworthily" must modify the verbs "eats" and "drinks". Therefore the "in an unworthy manner" (the adverb anaxios: unworthily ) relates to the eating and drinking, not to the spiritual condition of the individual. Thus I cannot agree that if we are not worthy because of open sin then we cannot take communion without judgment. We are covered by the blood! However, I can agree with you if the import of your words is that we are eating and drinking judgment if we partake of communion while either denying our sin or not caring about it. THAT would be eating and drinking unworthily because we would be failing to discern that the elements represent Christ and that He died that we might be forgiven of sin and freed from sin so we might flee from sin. But not to partake because there may be besetting sin in our life is error. This is a matter for each individual to decide as he or she examines themselves; and under similar circumstances different people may come up with different decisions as to whether to partake or not, depending on their consciences. I just would not want somebody not to take communion because they have a sin or sins in their life they have not yet overcome. That would not be scriptural. As John says, "If we confess our sin He is faithful and just to forgive our sin."

Sorry I didn't make it clear, I was talking about someone who is living in sin and not caring. By the way what exactly would you call a besetting sin, maybe porn, adultry, lying, murder in our hearts, lust. Or maybe unforgivness, anger, gossip, disobedience. Where do we drawn the line on sins that are serious or besetting?

[dave-o]

Did this event make the news because a person was denied communion or because it involves the church and homosexuality?
If it were instead say a drunk alcoholic that was denied would anyone in the press care? Would there be any public outrage?

[mattfivefour]

Sorry I didn't make it clear, I was talking about someone who is living in sin and not caring. By the way what exactly would you call a besetting sin, maybe porn, adultry, lying, murder in our hearts, lust. Or maybe unforgivness, anger, gossip, disobedience. Where do we drawn the line on sins that are serious or besetting?

A serious sin can be besetting ... or not. A besetting sin, to me, is one where the person struggles with it for some period of time: it besets them. Alcohol is like that for some (many?) people, so are drugs, porn too and anger, and all of the things you mention. Some are more serious than others in terms of our witness or our communion with our God. But Christ's blood covers them all if we are indeed His. And many who get the victory in terms of no longer surrendering to the flesh, nonetheless may have to resist that one sin for their entire lives; while others are delivered completely and what was once a weakness in the flesh is a strength in Christ. All I know is that Jesus Christ understands and is thus perfectly fitted to be our High Priest, interceding and representing us to the Father.

[mikhen7]

I read this thread last night and decided to wait to reply. I think everyone is nearly on the same sheet of music. There are sins in our lives that beset us all. Any sin can be besetting or a thorn in our sides if we constantly struggle with it. Sometimes it is there to keep us humble as Paul stated in 2Cor 12:7, "And lest I should be exalted above measure by the abundance of the revelations, a thorn in the flesh was given to me, a messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I be exalted above measure." Paul was privy to more than we have been because the bulk of the burden of bringing forth truth to both Jews and Gentiles was placed squarely upon his shoulders. He was a first century Moses. God allowed him to be buffeted by Satan in order to keep him on our level. Praise God, that despite our cries for help when we struggle, He is still there. Sometimes the struggle is meant to bring Him more glory. In the case of open lgt lifestyles, this is open sin, public sin, and affects others around us. Even though we are weak in the flesh, most things we struggle with are private. Entertaining wicked thoughts, not having them, but entertaining them--making them welcome, unforgiveness we harbor, internal hatred we allow to exist, etc... these things we also must come to terms with. So at the Lord's table, we are told to examine ourselves-confessing to Him our struggles and hatred of them is implied. We cannot hide anything from the Lord. Open and "fist in the face of God" sin is out right rebellion. It is what Satan did.

If I understand the issue correctly this Lesbian is living in open sin without a desire to turn from it. If she had a desire to turn from it she would depart the relationship and live as a single. That is the first step. This does not mean she will not struggle with the sins of the flesh--it doesn't even mean she will be perfect in her resistance of it, but it does mean she is making an effort to not be a stumbling block for others. Open sin is very bad for our witness. By living in it openly we are sending a message to the world and the church that it is an "OK" with God lifestyle. In doing so we cause others to stumble. So to the church, she feels she should partake of the Lord's table. This message is "Hey church its ok with God to live this way." A compliant church then will begin to allow open sin to be overlooked and they will become enablers of others. The message of repentance then becomes meaningless.

I am in complete agreement with the priest here because in reality he is taking a stand and sending a message to his assembly that sin is an abomination to God and open sin is not tolerated because of love for the saints, a little leaven leavens the whole lump. The Lesbian has a Bible, if she reads it she must take her defense of her lifestyle before the Lord. He will speak to her if she is sincere in wanting to be a Christian. But in any case, all sin not withstanding, we are called to bring forth the fruit of the Spirit and to allow pure water to stream from our lives and into the world. James asks, (Jas 3:11 [NKJV]) "Does a spring send forth fresh [water] and bitter from the same opening?"

The crux of the matter is most importantly the message we send to the onlookers when we want to be an active part of the assembly of God. If I were to allow two people living openly in sin whether heterosexual or homosexual to become active members of the body and enjoy full right of membership - even being a living stone making up the Bride of Christ, I would do the body a great harm, and in turn sin against Christ. We may not be able to fully overcome all of our struggles but we can avoid broadcasting them as ok for others to participate in.

(Rom 14:19-23 [NKJV])
Therefore let us pursue the things [which make] for peace and the things by which one may edify another.
Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All things indeed [are] pure, but [it is] evil for the man who eats with offense.
[It is] good neither to eat meat nor drink wine nor [do anything] by which your brother stumbles or is offended or is made weak.
Do you have faith? Have [it] to yourself before God. Happy [is] he who does not condemn himself in what he approves.
But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because [he does] not [eat] from faith; for whatever [is] not from faith is sin.

And another,

(1Cor 8:4-13 [ESV])
Therefore, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that “an idol has no real existence,” and that “there is no God but one.”
For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth-as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”-
yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.
However, not all possess this knowledge. But some, through former association with idols, eat food as really offered to an idol, and their conscience, being weak, is defiled.
Food will not commend us to God. We are no worse off if we do not eat, and no better off if we do.
But take care that this right of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak.
For if anyone sees you who have knowledge eating in an idol's temple, will he not be encouraged, if his conscience is weak, to eat food offered to idols?
And so by your knowledge this weak person is destroyed, the brother for whom Christ died.
Thus, sinning against your brothers and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ.
Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble.

In closing, I will not allow open sin to infect the body of Christ. It will be confronted for Loves Sake.

God Bless!!

[mattfivefour]

Thanks for summing up good doctrine, Mike. I stated it imperfectly in post 4. You stated it perfectly here.

[Any Minute]

Thanks for the good teaching mattfivefour and mikhen7!


I agree with the priest also, if this was an actual biblical Communion.
If not, I wonder who will stop the priest if it was a RCC Eucharistic communion, literally eating the flesh of Jesus and literally drinking his blood. Jesus isn't in their monstrance.
Of course, much of the world thinks that what blood bought, born again Christians do and what the RCC does is the same thing, not always true though.

[mikhen7]

Thanks for summing up good doctrine, Mike. I stated it imperfectly in post 4. You stated it perfectly here.

Adrian, do not sell yourself short. You did a great job! Praise God!!

In Christ

[SonSeeker]

Being brought up catholic(an experience I am still recovering from), I remember having to go to confession on Saturday, supposedly to remove our sins so that we could partake of Holy Communion on Sunday morning. For some reason, I can't find any justification for that in any of the Gospels.

In Luke 22:19 NLT He took some bread and gave thanks to God for it. Then he broke it in pieces and gave it to the disciples, saying, "This is my body, which is given for you. Do this to remember me." emphasis mine.

I believe we are missing something here. Jesus commanded us to do this to remember Him. The Last Supper has nothing to do with our sinful condition, but it has everything to do with His sinless condition. He was showing His disciples (and us) that His body was being given for us, and we are to do this simply as a way to remember Him. and what He did for us. At the Last Supper, He didn't go around the room making sure everyone was worthy. In fact, in verse 21 NLT He states, "But here at this table, sitting among us as a friend, is the man who will betray me".

Back to the subject at hand, I'm sure there's more to this story. The priest obviously knew this woman was living in a lesbian lifestyle, and he would certainly have had discussions with her prior to this service. For all we know, he may have told her that she should not partake of Holy Communion, and if she tried to, he would not serve her. Maybe she was testing the priest to see if he would follow through. Was he right in not serving her? I don't know. But I do know what the Master would do, as we have the knowledge of what He did.

[Everlasting Life]

mikhen7

I am in complete agreement with the priest here because in reality he is taking a stand and sending a message to his assembly that sin is an abomination to God and open sin is not tolerated because of love for the saints, a little leaven leavens the whole lump.

I agree. I think this is exactly what the priest is doing. We are told to call out that which is sin, to put out from among us those who persist in living in open sin stubbornly....that was the gist of the books of Corinthians. At the same time, if this woman repents the church is to take her back in love.

Really, the priest made a loving gesture....he gave her great opportunity to consider her ways and the seriousness of what she is involved in, to change course so that she may be given mercy from God.

All sins are wrong before God, it's the society's open acceptance/legalization of particular sins that cause the followers of God to rise up and say something just as the church should do so if murder, lying, stealing, etc. were legalized.