Posted on 11/23/2011 11:11:08 AM PST by marshmallow
A notoriously 'gay-friendly' parish in San Francisco has invited an openly homosexual Episcopalian cleric to lead an Advent Vespers service.
Most Holy Redeemer parish asked Bishop Otis Charles, a retired Episcopalian prelate, to lead the November 30 service. After serving as the Bishop of Utah from 1971 to 1993, he publicly announced that he is homosexual. Divorced from the mother of his 5 children, he solemnized a same-sex union in 2004.
I find it quite telling that, while you loudly profess your faith out of one side of your mouth, your actions on here show your lack of respect and very un-Christian tendencies.
My friend..was Jerome a Heretic? He did not believe that the apocrypha was inspired text, he did not place it with the inspired texts of the Jewish OT ..nor did the Jews.. Those books were not added to the OT text until Trent
>>Where do you get your spurious information that the “apocryphya” was not added until Trent, considering they were ruled as part of the Bible by numerous local councils in antiquity? What Trent did was settle the question certain theologians had about whether they were on the same level as the proto-canonical OT.
Also how do you explain the fact that the separated Eastern Churches, who are not in union with Rome consider them scriptural?
The following link is to a Coptic Orthodox perspective. THEY DO NOT ACCEPT THE COUNCIL OF TRENT!!!
http://st-takla.org/pub_Deuterocanon/Deuterocanon-Apocrypha_El-Asfar_El-Kanoneya_El-Tanya__0-index.html
The canon had not been settled as of St. Jerome’s time.
Nontheless, St. Jerome cited from the Septuagint canon in other works.
I’ll add that Revelation, Hebrews, and Jude were questioned by numerous Church fathers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antilegomena#Reformation
The lectionary of the Byzantine Church evidences this because it is so old that it predates the settling of the debate over whether or not Revelation was inspired and lacks readings from Revelation.
Not to mention, the Syriac Peshitta excluded Revelation until the 5th century.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peshitta
Maybe you Evangelicals ought to discard Revelation from your Bibles.
You really don’t need to keep proving what a disgusting person you are.
You have graven images of your grandmother all over your home that you bow down in front of.
Anytime they put up Bible verses respond by posting patristic commentaries on those verses.
St. Jerome distinguished between canonical books and ecclesiastical books. The latter he judged were circulated by the Church as good spiritual reading but were not recognized as authoritative Scripture. The situation remained unclear in the ensuing centuries...For example, John of Damascus, Gregory the Great, Walafrid, Nicolas of Lyra and Tostado continued to doubt the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books. According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Chruch at the Council of Trent. The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent (The New Catholic Encyclopedia, The Canon).
St. Jerome distinguished between canonical books and ecclesiastical books. The latter he judged were circulated by the Church as good spiritual reading but were not recognized as authoritative Scripture. The situation remained unclear in the ensuing centuries...For example, John of Damascus, Gregory the Great, Walafrid, Nicolas of Lyra and Tostado continued to doubt the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books. According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Chruch at the Council of Trent. The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent (The New Catholic Encyclopedia, The Canon).
I’m just telling Quix where he belongs.
The books were still used as part of the Church’s liturgy. But the Church settled the question in response to the challenge from the “reformers.”
I might add there were just as many on the other side of the question.
What Trent did was not unlike what the Council of Chalcedon had done over a century earlier because St. Cyril of Alexandria taught that Jesus had One Nature.
But Chalcedon settled the debate with a definitive answer.
Certainly conviction can be a troublesome thing.
Going to God directly is a better response to it than false accusation, however.
WRONG ON BOTH COUNTS! LOL.
I’ve never bowed down to either Grandmother or to their pics.
And, it would take me some time to even find a photo.
However, the false accusations must be racheting up the totals on such scores for a number of RC’s hereon.
Evidently the IMPERIAL !!!!CONTROL!!!! phreaque supremely lofty arrogance of the
Vatican Ashteroth-Mary-Goddess cult strikes again.
Does anyone know . . . do their statues also rant wildly and froth at the mouth and fingers or just the individuals?
Buzz off you self-righteous hypocrite.
Who gave the Roman church the authority to add to the Jewish Scriptures?
here’s what Christians believe and we have for 2,000 years:
And behind these polemical statements is the fallacious premise that the Church uniquely subsists in Rome, and that the the Faith and Truth is whatever she says it is, which is no more true that it was for the Pharisees, who unlike Rome, were specifically said to sit in the seat of Moses, but as with Rome, it is manifest that they were not assuredly infallible, or that others from outside their formal decent could replace their function. And in reality, core transcendent salvific Scriptural truths disallow Rome from being the one true church (OTC).
1. Jesus gave HIS authority to TEACH and BAPTIZE to the Church in Matthew 28.
Indeed, but the requirements are repentance (Acts 2:38) and wholehearted personal faith, (Acts 8:36,37) and which baptism usually occurred on the same hour as they heard the gospel, (Acts 2:41; 8:12; 9:18; 10:47; 16:15; 18:8; 22:16) and could take place after regeneration. (Acts 10:43-47; cf. 15:7-9) All of which excludes infant baptism by proxy faith, for which there is no manifest evidence given, which is necessary to negate the specific requirements in some cases or to allow salvation by proxy faith (and the infirmity of the palsied man was not mental).
While whole households were baptized, even here where there is more description it teaches the subjects were taught the word. (Acts 16:32,33) In the light of the great salvific importance of this (as per Rome), to suppose the Holy Spirit would not provide at least one statement that infants were baptized is contrary to His example of providing such, as this lack is not what is evidenced in regard to other major teachings. Infants simply cannot fulfill the requirements the Holy Spirit does give for baptism, nor are infants culpable of the sins of their father and will be not actually punished for them, (Dt. 24:16; 2Ki 14:5,6; 2Ch 25:4; Jer 31:29,30; Eze 18:20) though in this life we realize effects of them, for good (Jn. 4:38) and for bad.
In addition, the preaching of the gospel which preceded baptism in Acts was not about fostering faith in the church and and one's own works which is what Rome effectually conveys, so that the Ted Kennedy's of the world are treated and die as members, but preaching which convicted souls of “of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment,” (Jn. 16:9) of their damned and utterly destitute condition, unable to escape Hell or gain Heaven, so that they cast all their faith in the mercy of God in Christ to save them, on His blood expense and righteousness, out of a poor and contrite heart. (Acts 2:14-38) And who thus show evidence of repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ, (Acts 20:21) in contrast to its institutionalized counterpart, of which Rome and much of Protestantism is.
2. The Apostles went all thru the known world preaching the Gospel and building THE CHURCH.
Indeed, and America among others was blessed by the evangelical gospel, but in contrast, Rome went all thru the known world preaching itself as the OTC with her caesario papacy, and in addition to other presumptions to power, for most of her history much of Rome's propagation relied upon unholy alliances and her use of the sword of men, directly or indirectly, against her theological opponents, and having lost that unScriptural power she must now rely upon a compromised, redefined Roman Catholicism, in which dying in the arms of Rome is what really matters, no matter how nominal you are (but if such are converted and become conservative evangelicals, then real concern is expressed), while the traditionalist schism that resulted would like to bring back the inquisitions with their unScriptural means.
3. The Apostles instructed that the men they ordained, also ordain others to continue this work. Read 2 Timothy 2:1-2.
Indeed, and so do we, but which requirements 1 Timothy 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9) not only is contrary to mandating that all (with exceptions for some converts) of her priests (which as a separate class would be another contention, versus bishops/elders) have the gift of celibacy, (1Cor. 7:7) notwithstanding its viability, but it also nukes the unbroken succession of popes (even if the chair could be empty for up to 3 years, etc), as many were manifestly not even worthy to be church members, let alone qualified to be a bishop/elder, and a successor to Peter, in which unlike under the Law, qualification is not by lineage, but manifest Abrahamic-type faith. (Rm. 2:28,29; Rm. 4:23-25) And those who believe are the stones in His church, 91Pt. 2:5) and pass it on, even if they be a remnant. They are known by whom they obey more than a title.
4. The Holy Spirit moves within THE CHURCH and protects THE CHURCH, he doesn’t work outside the Body of Christ.
That is correct, but the church in reality only consists of the regenerate, and He often works by raising up souls from outside those who presume too much ( — like alone being the church — to reprove them. Which is why He sent prophets, wise men and scribes, (Mt. 23:34) imperfect but of faith, to reprove Israel despite being them being the instruments and stewards of Divine revelation, (Rm. 3:2; 9:4), and whom they persecuted and killed, and replaced those who sat in the seat of Moses, but acted as if they were assuredly infallible, with men who had no right by formal transference of office but had Abrahamic-type faith. (Thus in response to the challenge of His authority, in addition to Scripture and works: Mt. 22:32-46; Jn. 5:36,39; 14:1; Lk. 24:44; the Lord invoked John the Baptist Mk. 11:28-33.)
And as God can raise up from stones children to Abraham, (Mt. 3:9) in order to continue to build His body, He raised up imperfect men of faith before and via the Reformation, believing that a living faith is imputed for righteousness, as with Abraham, (Rm. 4:2-12) being a manner of faith that effects obedience, to reprove the progressive presumption of Rome and its legalism and licentiousness, but whom they persecuted and killed.
5. any time there is a question of doctrine, the Holy Spirit leads THE CHURCH to truth.
Indeed, especially as regards salvation, though comprehensive unity is ever a goal yet to be realized, but which truth is not that Rome is The Church, but that He does lead believers to the truth, as He that seeketh findeth, and the promise is not simply to the apostles any more than the promise of persecution was, and thus raising up men to reprove Rome, and other who presume supreme authority over Scripture (i.e. Rome and notable cults), was and is necessary.
6. Christians look to the leaders of THE CHURCH, those men who have their office by “apostolic succession”, to decide doctrinal matters.
Rather, they give themselves first to the Lord, (2Cor. 8:5) and look to Him, (Heb. 12:2) and are to “prove all things” (1Thes. 5:21) not give implicit assent of faith, but if need be go to authentic (not politically elected) leaders to settle disputes (thus we affirm ecclesiastical magisterium), not as possessing assured infallibility, but for providing teaching whose veracity depends not upon fulfilling a subject an scope-based formula but upon the weight of Scripture and the manner of attestation it provides truth being given. And which is what the council in Jerusalem did, (Acts 15) and thus noble men examined the preaching of the very apostles by the Scriptures, (Acts 17:11) as the supreme authority, conflation with them being necessary for additional revelation in adding to Scripture.
In no place is the church promised perpetual assured formulaic infallibility, but Truth will be manifest as such in accordance with the Scriptural manner, and which is how the writings of Scripture became established as being from God, and which is why true believers follow Christ and deviate from the Jews.
As for apostolic succession, the only successor was that of Judas the tare, in order to maintain the number of original apostles, which Rome deviates from, and personal discipleship was required of such, which Rome's supposed successors deviate from from, and election was the Old Testament method of lots, (Acts 1:15-26; Rv. 22:14; 1Cor. 9:1) which worked to preclude the politics later seen in papal conclaves, and which method Rome has always deviated from. And as said, Rome's ecclesiastical papal progeny included souls who manifestly were not even part of the body of Christ, for by their fruit ye shall know them. And you also can fight it out with the EOS as to which side the successors are on.
When the apostle James was martyred no successor was named nor is any preparation manifest for any other, but only for ordaining qualified men as bishops/elders (one office: Titus 1:5-7), though some could have greater jurisdiction than others. And the faith is passed on as God continues to raise of men of faith, who like Peter, effectually confess Jesus is Lord.
While there are divisions among those who are believers, and such are necessary (1Cor. 11:19) yet centralized Scriptural leadership is not precluded in principle, but which now is only seen on a individual denominational level, and Catholicism has her own as well as divisions, despite Rome's specious supremacist claims of universal jurisdiction and power. But all those who are born again of the Spirit and walk therein have a essential unity of the Spirit based upon a common conversion, by faith in the one Lord, but which they are baptized into the one body of Christ, and which transcends organizational divisions.
7. Hebrews instructs Christians to obey these leaders in 13:17.
It does indeed, and Catholics show and are allowed great deviance from without any real discipline, but Scripturally obedience to men is never unconditional, but subject to Scripture. And thus Christianity is an example of that, and as conscience also is be obeyed over ecclesiastical authority (Aquinas, Ratzinger) for both reasons so we should not submit to Rome.
8. in the last days, men will become lovers of THEMSELVES, rejecting THE FAITH and following their own way and not God’s way. read 2 Timothy 3:1-9
And in reality, Rome's self-exaltation and the historical demigod status of her popes is a manifestation of love of self and of rejecting the faith of the New Testament church. And instead of preaching a gospel which abases man but exalts Christ and which often effects manifest regeneration in the same hour as it was given, resulting in turning away from idols and praying directly to the Lord in Heaven, and which preachers waged war by spiritual means, taking nothing from the lost, (3Jn. 1:7) again, the Christianity of Rome is one that much employed the Sword of men to discipline her own and punish theological opponents, and gains most of its converts by sprinkling infants and perfunctory professions, and preaches and exalts herself and promotes faith in the church and one's own merit to gain eternal life, and a flock that is largely liberal in morals and theology, and even relies on gambling to support itself. While we see much that is similar in Protestantism broadly defined, the difference is that you preach a particular church one must convert to, while it manifestly is in overall need of much conversion.
What Paul directed Timothy to was leadership which was subject to the Scriptures (Acts 17:2,11; 28:23) in word and in deed, and who trained and ordained others to be so, with Scripture being the only material transcendent material He affirmed was wholly inspired of God. Read 2 Timothy 3:10-17
9.Paul told us to reject anyone else who brings a different Gospel than THE FAITH we received from the Apostles in Galatians 1:6. so when someone teaches BAPTISM is not for the remission of sins, but rather is a test of obedience, LET THEM BE ACCURSED. when someone teaches the Eucharist is NOT THE BODY OF CHRIST, LET THEM BE ACCURSED.
By which wresting of Scripture Rome condemns Peter and Paul, as they showed that it is the faith behind baptism and good works that appropriates justification, and thus Peter also preached forgiveness by faith, and affirmed regeneration as taking place before baptism (Acts 10:43-47; cf. 15:7-9: although the latter is normally part of the conversion event, and can be the actual occasion of coming to faith), and Paul converted many by faith in the gospel he refers to in Gal. 1:6-9, but personally baptized few, "For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect." (1 Corinthians 1:17)
And which apostolic gospel included that repentance and wholehearted faith were necessary prerequisites for baptism, and thus evangelicals rebaptize converted souls who supposed they were saved by being sprinkled as infants via proxy faith and their own goodness and the power of Rome, which the accursed false gospel Rome conveys.
Moreover, nowhere was taking part in the Lord's supper necessary to have life in them, which Catholics wrest Jn. 6:53 to mean, but souls were born again by faith, and were taught that the Lord's supper applies to the body of Christ, which is His church, by commemorating the sacrificial death of the Lord for the church by examining whether we are acting in accordance with it, recognizing the members as part of the body, consistent with the context, see here, not souls eating Jesus body parts!
And to live by Jesus flesh and blood is to do as He did in living by the Father, as Jesus defines it to mean, "As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me." (John 6:57) And which is by believing His word with obedient faith, as the Holy Spirit shows, for Jesus “lived” by by every word which came from God, (Mt. 4:4) and thus to do His will was His meat, (Jn. 4:34) in accordance with the abundant use of food as a metaphor . See here
Thus each and every one of the asserted attributes of the New Testament church is an indictment of Rome. Nor do the shortcomings of those outside her (though evangelicals testify of more evidence of regeneration) validate her claims, as again she preaches herself, as defining the faith, and has tragically become as the gate of Hell for multitudes.
Your premise is that the Bereans were noble in verifying what hey heard by Scripture, while the premise behind the RC polemic is that Rome infallibly defines what is consistent with whatever is invoked to support it, as she has thus defined herself to be.
That has been tried by some b4, but which works against the other class of RCs which invoke them for support of the claims of Rome to be of God, as since the Bible says there will be a great falling away in the church, and Rome testifies it, then she must be it, or (paraphrasing) how else but God could keep such a mess together?
I can think of one who has an interest in perpetuating false religion, but who is from below, while the second argument would also apply to those outside Rome, as even she of late includes believers as part of the mystical body.
But as in Scripture, authenticity of church and individual is not based upon what you claim to belong to or call yourself, but upon who you manifestly obey, you being the only Bible some will read, but with the supernaturally established transcendent Scriptures being the objective standard.
ROTFLMAO !!!!
The Catholic Church adopted exactly what the Apostles preached from, the Septuagint, that's what the Latin Vulgate Bible is, a translation of the Septuagint into Latin!! The fact that Jews later changed it to keep people from being won to Christ by the powerful teaching and clear prophesies of Christ in the books they removed is meaningless. Or, are you going to throw out the New Testament because they're not part of the Jewish Scriptures?
ROTFL, yeah baby, hang in there and contradict yourself some more. You throw out books that were in the Scriptures the Bereans used and whine about the Catholic Church using the very same thing the Bereans used but next thing you know you'll be praising the Bereans again!!! Would you like some A1 sauce with your foot or do you like just keeping it in your mouth without garnish of any sort other than the polish and decals you used to put little pictures of Hello Kitty on your tootsies?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.