Tuesday, March 02, 2010



Criag said...

While I agree with the sentiment of the post, I believe the best course of action is NOT to disallow anyone from the taking of communion (I personally, do not agree with the doctrine of the eucharist). Rather, I think it best to quote the Apostle Paul beforehand:

...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. 28A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. 29For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. 30That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. 31But if we judged ourselves, we would not come under judgment. 32When we are judged by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be condemned with the world. [1 Corinthians 11:27-32 NIV]

Craig said...

OK, that's funny... ...I didn't spell my own name correctly. lol :-)

Lisa said...

To Craig:

Just curious how you can quote 1 Corinthians 11:27-32, yet "not agree with the doctrine of the Eucharist"?

As your bible states, eating the bread or drinking the cup unworthily results in being guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. To be guilty of sinning against someone’s body and blood is to commit a crime against his body and blood, not just against symbols of them.

Profaning the Eucharist was so serious that the stakes could be life and death. In the next two verses (29–30), Paul states, "For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died."

When Paul uses the term "bread", in verse 28, he’s using the language of appearances, what scholars call "phenomenological language." In this form of speech, something is described according to how it appears, rather than according to its fundamental nature. "The sun rose," is an example of phenomenological language. From our perspective, it appears that the sun rises, though we know that what we see is actually caused by the earth’s rotation.

Scripture uses phenomenological language regularly—as, for example, when it describes angels appearing in human guise as "men" (Gen. 19:1-11; Luke 24:4–7, 23; Acts 1:10–11). Since the Eucharist still appears as bread and wine, Catholics from Paul’s time on have referred to the consecrated elements using phenomenological language, while recognizing that this is only description according to appearances and that it is actually Jesus who is present.

We are not merely symbolically commemorating Jesus in the Eucharist, but actually participating in his body and blood, as Paul states, "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?" (1 Cor. 10:16).

If you are interested, an excellent link for further study:


Anonymous said...

Well how about some good news for a change?

I just received my March issue of Israel News Digest. Here's the lead story:

“Protocols of Elders of Zion Is a Myth” Says Saudi Writer

Recently a Saudi writer and journalist named Hani Al-Naqshbandi, writing on the liberal website Elaph, voiced the opinion that the whole idea of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is sheer nonsense. Several years ago this same writer wrote a book called, The Jews under the Microscope, in which he discussed the “destruction brought on the world by the Jews,” based on the infamous document which first appeared in Russia around 1905. The writer said he recently reviewed his own book and realized how wrong he had been. “I have become convinced that the Protocols are nothing but a work of fiction, and that the myth of the Jews bringing destruction upon the world requires a meticulous [re-examination].”

"These Protocols, which ostensibly [expose] the Jewish plans for taking over the world,” the writer continues, “are pure nonsense, and [the fact that many] accept them as authentic means... that people are like passive sheep with no will [of their own]. [Those who] believe in the Protocols [think that] every disaster that occurs in the world is caused by the Jews, so there is no choice but to blame them [even] for volcano eruptions and earthquakes. To believe this is self-demeaning; it is an insult to one's own intelligence. It also means attributing to a small group of people much more power than it [actually] has. I have known some Jews, and they are in no way different from [people of] other religions or ethnicities. [The only thing] I discovered is that they have more self-discipline.”

This writer suggests that the Protocols have been used by the Arabs to cover up for their own failures. He concludes by saying that he is not suggesting that special “tears” be shed for [the Jews], but “neither do I find any reason to curse them, as is done today in our mosques and schools.” After all, he says, they belong to the People of the Book. He distinguishes between Israel and the Jews in general, and does not suggest the same sympathy for Israel. “But if we are talking about people whose only sin is that they belong to a different religion than ours, then the invective against them only arouses unjustified hostility.”

Again, though this writer has no special love for the State of Israel, his positive attitude toward the Jews as a people is something refreshing in the world today. It shows that there is no intrinsic necessity among the Arabs for their traditional hostility to the Jewish people. The Protocols have done much to feed Arab hatred toward Israel. But if one influential person recognizes that the Protocols are nonsense, then perhaps it is not too much to hope that the good word might spread among the Arabs in general. [Excerpts from Al-Naqshbandi’s article may be found on the website MEMRI (Middle East Media Research Institute), Feb. 16, 2010.]

Regardless of what motivation may lay beneath the surface, I was encouraged by this Saudi man's change of heart. At least it appears to be a step in the right direction. It shows that deception is fragile, and can be destroyed by the truth.


Jaclyn said...

Craig, completely disagree...the minister is also accountable and would be sinning to serve the Lord's Supper to anyone he knows to be a homosexual. This would be blasphemous.

Anonymous said...

More Teeth for Brussels

Plans for European Economic Government Gain Steam

With Greek finances dragging down the euro, calls for coordinated fiscal policy within the common currency zone have become more frequent. Now, Germany and France have presented a paper outlining what such a regime might look like. Increased monitoring is at the top of the priority list.
Up until just a few months ago, it wasn't easy to find people on the Continent who were seriously skeptical about the euro. The European common currency had performed well during the financial crisis and had steadily strengthened against the dollar. Indeed, the only concern was that the dollar would become too weak, thus making euro zone exports unaffordable.
With Greek finances a shambles, however, the weaknesses of the common currency regime have been exposed for all to see this winter. First among them: there is no policy tool to mandate fiscal responsibility in the 16 countries that use the euro -- a significant Achilles' heel for the currency's stability.
With Greece dragging the euro down, however, the concept of an economic government for the euro zone is gaining momentum. Indeed, the German and French Finance Ministries have developed a draft plan that would significantly strengthen financial policy cooperation in the EU.
The plan, which has been seen by SPIEGEL, calls for increased monitoring of individual member states' competitiveness so that action can be taken early on should problems emerge. States which have pegged their currencies to the euro -- like Denmark or the Baltic countries -- will likewise be monitored.
'Candid and Serious'
The plan also calls for the European Commission to ensure that the euro group spends more time addressing the finances of its member states. In particular, the paper demands that euro group finance ministers "take more time for candid and serious discussions on the goal of a functioning currency union." German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble and French Finance Minister Christine Lagarde have sent their plan to Luxembourg Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker, who chairs the euro group. The idea is to be discussed at the next meeting of euro zone finance ministers in mid-March.
In a Monday interview with the German business daily Handelsblatt, Juncker voiced support for the idea of greater economic oversight of euro zone members. "We need a European economic government in the sense of strengthened coordination of economic policy within the euro zone," he said. "The Greece case makes it clear."
Juncker said that the euro group will examine divergences in the competitiveness of euro zone countries in March. Recommendations for reform will then be transmitted to each country with the expectation that national governments will formulate proposals to eliminate those divergences. The euro zone, Juncker said, will closely monitor the process.
Many have pointed to a lack of common financial policy among countries belonging to the European common currency as a significant weakness for the euro. Indeed, Greece's current problems, which include a budget deficit of 12.7 percent of gross domestic product and €300 billion in sovereign debt, have led to a significant weakening of the euro against the dollar. Furthermore, after years of at times painful social reforms in countries like Germany, the willingness in Europe to come to Greece's aid is tepid at best.

Anonymous said...

Assert Control

An early idea for a common European economic policy, voiced by European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso in early February, called for forcing countries to institute structural reforms under pain of financial sanctions. Greece currently finds itself in a comparable position, with the EU closely monitoring Greek reforms and demanding deep spending cuts. Greece aims to cut its budget deficit by four percentage points this year with the eventual goal of dropping below the euro zone ceiling of 3 percent by 2012.
In a syndicated column, former German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer also threw his support behind a European economic government. "The euro, which turned out to be the critical tool for defending European interests in this crisis, will now be subjected to an endurance test directed at the soft political heart of its construction," Fischer wrote. He urges that the French and German governments establish a financial oversight body with the teeth to assert control over the finances of member states.
"What is necessary now," he writes, "is statesman-like leadership -- and even more so stateswoman-like leadership. Angela Merkel and French President Nicolas Sarkozy are facing the defining challenge of their respective terms in office."


Anonymous said...

My 8:35 PM post (above) is in 2 parts.

Craig said...


I totally disagree with the doctrine of transubstantiation. This literalizes a metaphor.

Craig said...

Jaclyn, you wrote:

the minister is also accountable and would be sinning to serve the Lord's Supper to anyone he knows to be a homosexual.

Could you show me in Scripture where this is true?

Anonymous said...


The issue is not what one believes about communion. The issue is religious freedom. These gay activists can't go to a church with a particular stance on an issue and then sue them for keeping it. I can't go to a vegetarian restaurant and force them to feed me meat, and sue them if they refuse to do so.

I think it's okay to eat pork, but should I force an Orthodox Jew or a Muslim to do so, based on my right to eat pork?


Anonymous said...

Unless the priest KNOWS the status of the person seeking communion, he should give him/her communion. If he knows the gay person is living in unrepented sin, then he should not give him communion. How many times does a priest actually know the status of the person who comes before him for communion? Rarely. Many gays are celibate; does the priest know one way or another (unless the person involved makes a big issue of NOT being celibate. Which some of them do, insisting that they are married to a partner.

It is a lot easier for a priest to know which politician advocated a certain unscriptureal position than it is for the priest to know which homosexually oriented person is celibate, repentent, or otherwise.

Lots of people go to communion with unconfessed sin; the priest cannot be responsible for all of their decisions. Poor priest, heavy burden.


Anonymous said...

To Lisa,

BRAVO and well said!

Keep the faith -- you have!

Another believer

Anonymous said...

Whoops, I didn't read the article first, because it was small print, but then I enlarged it.

The priest KNEW the man was an unrepentant homosexual living in blatant sin, so he should have refused communion.

Glad I'm not in their shoes. Something to be thankfull for!

Come soon, Lord.


Anonymous said...


In this case the Carnival Prince is known to promote the homosexual lifestyle. It was a different thing if the priest did not know this. And since when does someone have the right to file a police complaint over being denied communion.


Craig said...


I understand the issue is religious freedom; and, I understand the agenda of the Carnival Prince. Let him drink judgment upon himself.

I would really like to see scripture which tells a priest/pastor/etc he must disallow anyone from partaking of communion.

If the priest/pastor/etc. warns those in advance of the consequences by the reading of the Corinthian passage then why would he be guilty of any sin let alone blasphemy?

Jaclyn said...

Craig, I don't know your background, but if you read Scripture, open sin is not tolerated in the church.

I Corinthians 5:11, (speaking of the context of the church), "But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler--not even to eat with such a one.

Paul was TENACIOUS about guarding the church body...it's completely safe to say that he would FORBID a Pastor/Minister from serving communion to a known homosexual!

Craig said...


I'm not Catholic; so, I guess you'd say I'm Protestant [although I'm not entirely comfortable with that tag]. The churches I've been to offer communion to all those in attendance with the understanding that it's only for Christians -- some go as far as saying it's only for "members." Really, it would be impossible for the pastor/minister to police just who could or could not take communion.

Now as far as JOINING the congregation -- obviously an unrepentant homosexual, adulterer, etc. could not join. If a "member" is found to be one of these then yes they should be put out.

But, then, the question is how do you do that? Do you katy bar the door? Allowing them to "drink judgment" on themselves is like "handing this man over to Satan" is it not?

Craig said...


Not trying to be contentious here; but, the preceding verses...

9I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— 10not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world.

...show that we cannot avoid those of the world. In fact, that's our mission field. But, I've heard some who say that the "church" -- the church dwelling -- is for believers only and not unbelievers. However, the Apostle Paul, later in his 1st letter to the Corinthian church says:

23So if the whole church comes together and everyone speaks in tongues, and some who do not understand or some unbelievers come in, will they not say that you are out of your mind? 24But if an unbeliever or someone who does not understand comes in while everybody is prophesying, he will be convinced by all that he is a sinner and will be judged by all, 25and the secrets of his heart will be laid bare. So he will fall down and worship God, exclaiming, "God is really among you!" [1 Cor 14:23-25 NIV]

The Word convicts!

Anonymous said...

Why are you talking about Sodom and Gomorrah and linking to an adulterer. Don't understand this?
Bjorn Frieberg is leaving his wife for a young woman, his student and everyone in Hungary knows this. We Hungarians are not deceived by Bjorn Freiberg. Why are you giving him credit on your blog.

If he puts a few Bible verses on his blog, this doesn't mean he has repented. Don't be deceived.

Nobody here respects Bjorn Freiberg. We all know what he is doing.

Disgusted in Hungary.

JD said...

Disgusted in Hungary,

First let me start by saying, I make no claim to speak for Constance. However your rush to judgement of her reposting Bjorn's link is wrong. First, she did so, giving clear warning that her reasoning was simply for informational purposes. She has went on record stating her disgust for his actions. Now maybe she should have a disclaimer below his link. However if this is neccesary, she has to do the same for Fulfilled Prophecy, as they have reinstated Bjorn as a publisher on their discussion board. She has to do the same for Old Thinker, as they often post material from Alex Jones, a man who has unrepentantly promoted New Age beliefs through his site. If your view was applied to all of her links, every one of them would either have a disclaimer or be removed. Because at some point we all have been lead astray.

What do I know though? Maybe your right, maybe she should apply the same rules to posters here. Then when someone comes along failing to love their enemy, or failing to love their neighbor as they love themselves, or failing to properly forgive they can be cut off as well. Or maybe she assumes we are all adults who can manage to discern for ourselves what is of value, and what should be left by the wayside.

Constance Cumbey said...

Disgusted in Hungary:

I fully CONCUR. Until I know that Bjorn has repented which I have not so far heard, I am posting, with strong words of caution, his NEWS REPORTING. He seems to have access to European news sources ahead of the rest of us and the information is critical.

I do pray that he will come to realize for himself what time it is and be restored to his wife and family.

As I said: Take the wheat, leave the chaff!


Anonymous said...

Demonology 101- Seducing Spirits

“Yet in all these affairs there is the principle of misleading and deceiving and leading the foolish and wasteful people astray by tricks that becloud the truth. They are impure and vagrant spirits, which, after they have been immersed in earthly vices and have receded from heavenly vigor because of earthly contagion, themselves ruined do not cease to ruin others, and themselves depraved to infuse the error of depravity in others.”

Cyprian - “That Idols are not Gods”, Chapter 6

Yes, all earthly sources are imperfect, and even the best of us see through a glass darkly. But, that said, as a master of the occult prior to his conversion, Cyprian understood the dangers of even a small amount of leaven.

Following his conversion, Cyprian lived a life honoring to God and died a martyr. There appears to have been no compromise in the man.


Anonymous said...


The person already told the church's stance in his sermon before communion. He asked those in serious sin not to receive communion. They still went up to receive communion and it was not given to them. We usually give people not receiving communion a blessing instead. This is when the protests ensued.


Anonymous said...


I agree with you that the priest is not guilty of sin, since he clarified the church's stance before he gave out communion. He was doing the right thing, according to his conscience. At the last supper, all the apostles ate and drank, but it says that when Judas ate the bread, Satan entered him. The priest was doing these people a favour by denying them communion.


Pete Mc said...

House of Lords vote to allow Civil Partnerships to take place in Church

Last night (2nd March 2010) the House of Lords voted to change the law on Civil Partnerships, allowing them to be performed in Churches and/or with religious language.

The amendment, which was introduced by Lord Alli, an openly homosexual Peer, and backed by a number of liberal Bishops, effectively removes one of the final distinctions between Marriage and Civil Partnerships—introduced just five years ago as being purely secular in nature.

The amendment was voted through at 11pm, by 95 votes to 21—an extraordinarily low number for such an important matter—and was hailed as a breakthrough by homosexual activists.

In January 2010, the Government had resisted Lord Alli’s amendment, reassuring the public that it was ‘not a workable solution to this issue’. However, in an unexpected move, the government suddenly allowed its Peers a free vote on the issue. The Conservative Party and Liberal Democrats also gave its Peers a free vote.

Ironically, the amendment was advanced as an issue of religious freedom, with some religious organisations voicing their desire to hold Civil Partnership ceremonies.

However, homosexual activists have previously made it clear that any change in the law would only be a step towards forcing churches to perform civil partnerships. For example, Ben Summerskill, Head of Stonewall, recently said: “Right now, faiths shouldn’t be forced to hold civil partnerships, although in ten or 20 years, that may change.”

Andrea Williams, Director of CCFON, said:

“What took place last night is nothing short of outrageous and all who care about democracy should be alarmed at the proceedings. At the end of January, Baroness Royall for the Government stated that: ‘Any change can therefore be brought only after proper and careful consideration of these issues.’

“Was this statement deliberately deceitful, or do the Government believe that last night’s debate constituted the ‘proper and careful consideration’ of the issues? The amendment was debated for less than an hour and was voted through literally at the eleventh hour, taking everybody by surprise. To have such a significant change in the law—a change to another piece of legislation no less—take place at the end of the Equality Bill’s passing, without any real debate or consultation, and at such an hour that most Peers were not even in the House, is a disgrace and a clear manipulation of the system.

“We will be calling on the Government to resist these changes, for the good of our democracy as well as for the protection of marriage.”

It is not the first time that constitutional irregularities have been used to force through law that significantly favours homosexual activists. In 2006 Lord Alli introduced amendments to the Equality Bill 2005/6 at the very last moment, which led to the creation of the Sexual Orientation Regulations 2007. These highly controversial regulations were passed through on a take it or leave it basis, with no debate at all in the House of Commons and amongst other things have led to the closing of Catholic adoption agencies.


Anonymous said...


Thanks for the article. The gay lobby is not going to stop at anything in order to force their rights on everyone else. Can these people be anymore selfish. They are not happy with state marriages, now churches have also being forced to comply.


Anonymous said...


Thanks for posting this article.


Unknown said...

While I do not personally condone the practice of homosexuality, I also do not hold with a priest or pastor alone individually administering the elements of the Lord's supper. The reason that is not done in many Protestant churches is that we believe the Lord and the individual must decide between themselves, as I Corinthians 11:28-29 dictates.

So I think it is a denominational practice that is a question here as well. If this man had been in a church where the elements had been passed around to all to freely pick and choose, probably nothing would have come of it, other than a few complaints from those who knew who he was.

After all, Judas was allowed by Christ Himself to partake of the Last Supper as someone already pointed out. In doing so wrongly, he received his judgment from the Lord, thus proving the validity of the Corinthians I discourse on the seriousness of the way we are all to approach communion with the Lord.

Looking the church's side of it however, In the Catholic church, the Eucharist is also denied to the divorced and non-Catholics in attendance, is it not? While I don't agree with that either, I also think that the priest should not be punished if it is already the rule of the church to deny others routinely.