Posted on 07/09/2006 4:41:38 AM PDT by Oshkalaboomboom
The accelerating fragmentation of the strife-torn Episcopal Church USA, in which several parishes and even a few dioceses are opting out of the church, isn't simply about gay bishops, the blessing of same-sex unions or the election of a woman as presiding bishop. It also is about the meltdown of liberal Christianity.
Embraced by the leadership of all the mainline Protestant denominations, as well as large segments of American Catholicism, liberal Christianity has been hailed by its boosters for 40 years as the future of the Christian church.
Instead, as all but a few die-hards now admit, all the mainline churches and movements within churches that have blurred doctrine and softened moral precepts are demographically declining and, in the case of the Episcopal Church, disintegrating.
It is not entirely coincidental that at about the same time that Episcopalians, at their general convention in Columbus, Ohio, were thumbing their noses at a directive from the worldwide Anglican Communion that they "repent" of confirming the openly gay Bishop V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire three years ago, the Presbyterian Church USA, at its general assembly in Birmingham, Ala., was turning itself into the laughingstock of the blogosphere by tacitly approving alternative designations for the supposedly sexist Christian Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Among the suggested names were "Mother, Child and Womb" and "Rock, Redeemer and Friend." Moved by the spirit of the Presbyterian revisionists, Beliefnet blogger Rod Dreher held a "Name That Trinity" contest. Entries included "Rock, Scissors and Paper" and "Larry, Curly and Moe."
Following the Episcopalian lead, the Presbyterians also voted to give local congregations the freedom to ordain openly cohabiting gay and lesbian ministers and endorsed the legalization of medical marijuana.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
from www.Catholic.com
purgatory is not heresy.
it is in scripture. Its just not called that.
Correction: It was Elizabeth who in the gospel calls Mary and Jesus "blessed" - and she also considers it a special favor that the mother of her Lord (Jesus) would pay her a visit. (Luke 1:42 and following)
Do you consider Mary to blessed, the same word that the gospel ascribed to both Mary and Jesus in the same sentence? (Luke 1:42)
As part of "all generations", do you consider Mary to be blessed, as the gospel says all generations will? (Luke 1:48)
(This Gospel narrative uses the word blessed to describe both Jesus and Mary in same sentence and then uses the word again to decribe Mary a few verses later in the same story.)
Why do you think he had died?
"It shows you how LITTLE they think of "new converts" that they have to resort to such ridiculous language. After awhile it won't matter ... they're not preaching about what's in the Bible. They're making it up as they go along."
Leaves one to wonder what they're supposedly converting them to.
While the early church generally championed the Septuagint against the Masoretic text, it must be remembered that Jerome used the Hebrew Masoretic text to translate much of the Old Testament (Psalms and the Wisdom books excepted) into Latin.
I don't see how. Basically, the Gospels and the letters of the Apostles were around early on. Yes, there may have been a lot of oral teaching. And, of course, error had crept into it by at least the time of Paul. With a largely illiterate population, how could it have been any other way? Still, by having a written Bible, at least it was set in stone, so to speak. Of course, it could still be misinterpreted, and has been, but so too can tradition be corrupted. At bottom, God gave me a brain and a Bible. As long as I can get accurate translation into a language I can read, I don't need someone else to tell me what it says.
Here is a classic example of a passage that the Catholic Church teaches the actual truth of the scripture (we are nourished by the actual body and blood of Jesus during sacramental commmunion), yet protestants pretend the meaning of the actual words of scripture is somehow less than clear in context:
47 I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life.
48 Iam the bread of life.
49 Your forefathers ate the manna in the desert, yet they died.
50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die.
51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."
52 Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"
53 Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.
54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.
56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him.
57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.
58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever."
59 He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.
60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said, "This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?"
61 Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, "Does this offend you?
62 What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before!
63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit[e] and they are life.
64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him.
65 He went on to say, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him."
66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.
Even today, many would be disciples refuse to follow Jesus.
Where?
John 6:47 and following
The problem with "every man his own interpreter in the light of the Holy Spirit" is, who wins when two individuals disagree? They do, all the time - that's why there are so many protestant denominations. The Episcopal Church is a shining example of a new denomination or denominations being created as we watch (in horror). The moonbats claim to be interpreting Scripture in the light of the Holy Spirit. And there is nobody who has the authority to say, "NO. You're wrong. Sit down." All the Archbishop of Canterbury can do is whine and watch as the hooligans wreck his house.
Thanks for the info. I need to look into St. Jerome more.
1st Corinthians 3:15.
I find it hard to believe what is going on with many contemporary churches. Many are taking the word Christian out of their names, if it was there in the first place. Ending up with something like Eastpointe which always reminds me of a rather pretentious doctor's office. And the music! Rock concert, earplugs needed. And the message, what message? Just a list of the social happenings for the next week and a few vague references to the souls saved in Mexico or somewhere (somewhere far away and unverifiable). Oh and let's not forget the Mission Statement, which reads like a environmentalist dream. Sickening!
The boomer's kids are not fooled by their liberal parents. Divorce and the yuppie lifestyle did not help kids. So,they are rejecting their parents if it feels good do it mantra.
I agree! I see it so much with my peers.
``... It is probable that Onesiphorus was now absent from home, and in company with Paul; Paul therefore prays that his house might be kept during his absence. Though the papists will have it that he was now dead; and, from Paul's praying for him that he might find mercy, they conclude the warrantableness of praying for the dead; but who told them that Onesiphorus was dead? And can it be safe to ground a doctrine and practice of such importance on a mere supposition and very great uncertainty?'' —Matthew Henry, Commentary on the Whole Bible
Allot of this stuff remind some of Lot in Sodom and Gomorrah. He thought he'd convert them too! By accepting some of their ways of life - HE wound up being converted. I see shades of the same thing going on here.
Sorry, don't see it. To us Protestants, that simply means that he may get to heaven but will have little treasure there.
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.