Posted on 09/10/2007 7:32:00 AM PDT by NYer
BALTIMORE — The Rev. Ann Gordon stood in front of her United Methodist congregation last fall and announced that she was now he.
Surgery and testosterone had transformed Ann into the Rev. Drew Phoenix -- still as liberal and laid-back as always, but now legally male. Most in the small congregation accepted their pastor's transition; they even threw him a renaming party, complete with birthday cake.
But when Phoenix, 48, was reappointed to another year of ministry this spring by his bishop, it sparked a protest in the United Methodist Church.
The denomination's highest authority, the Judicial Council, will take up the case next month, deciding whether the church should accept transgender pastors. The decision will determine Phoenix's future; it could also have political implications. Presiding over the Judicial Council is Dr. James W. Holsinger Jr., President Bush's nominee for surgeon general and a longtime lay leader of the United Methodist church. Democrats have objected to Holsinger in large part because of work he has done for his church over the years.
In 1991, Holsinger wrote a paper for the church describing gay sex as abnormal and unhealthy. On the Judicial Council last year, he supported a pastor who would not permit a gay man to join his congregation. Holsinger has also affirmed the church's stance against openly gay and lesbian clergy.
The Senate has not yet scheduled a vote on Holsinger, though his confirmation hearing was two months ago. He has been asked to answer further questions in writing. In the meantime, Holsinger will handle several Judicial Council cases dealing with sexuality. Most prominent is the question of Phoenix's right to remain in ministry.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Are you suggesting we classify people with AIS as men?? They were born appearing female, they feel female, have female brains, etc...
Unlike transgender mutilators, an entirely different thing.
I’m with you on this one. Did you take a look at those hands? I don’t think surgery or hormones affect them much. Poor Ann Gordon had a world class case of “man hands”.
You beat me to it. ;-)
Brother listen, this is a friendly head’s up...if you want to stay locked into the choice of believing [see not knowing] a manmade catholic faith, then you do not want engage me on the issue of the truth.
I’m not trying to be cocky but it is what it is...I’m just letting you know.
Simon or Peter or Shimon or Keipha or Cephas depending upon who you are...after being reinstated in the faith by Jesus himself, eventually travelled Joppa, Lydia, Ninevah [along with Thomas], Antioch [where we were first termed Christians-not Rome], Corinth, Tripolis and Caesarea [to name a few] and served as a witness for Jesus Christ in a great many places and established physical churches in doing so.
The notion that one of the later churches [that claims] Peter assisted in establishing them has somehow cornered the market on revelation and established a system of administration that runs contrary to the Bible itself, is laughable to the point of derision and is simply to be dismissed out of hand.
Outright rejection of the Word coupled with willful ignorance maintains the notion that a born in sin individual is somehow infallible in any aspect of his personal life or ministry.
It is a catholic doctrine [see man made] that is 180 degrees contrary to the Bible and in the end just plain comical.
As an aside, I find it amusing that the very individual that the catholic church claims as it’s head, was himself a married man...yet, the catholic church has long since instituted a moronic rule that prevents the very men charged with ministering the catholic doctrine from having the same.
You guys have gotten so far off the reservation that you are more like the scribes, sadducees [Tsdoki] and pharisees [prushim] that opposed Jesus than you are Jesus himself.
Sad but true.
I’d venture an educated guess that He [Jesus] could stroll right into The Basilica of St. John Lateran, begin ministering the Word and a great many of you would immediately begin gnashing your teeth, beating your chests, covering your ears and in a furious, self-righteous rage...
...accuse him of heresy.
From the link you posted, I am suggesting they can prove what they are...by a DNA test.
As would many protestants.
Try and stay focused.
I'll slap around a protestant when a protestant tries to give me some phooee...as for now it is a susbscriber to catholicism who I am discussing issues with.
If you want to defend catholicism's flawed doctrine then feel free, otherwise try and stay out of the way.
You got that right. I'm going to keep posting this list of National Council of Churches until every Freeper reading this wakes up to the danger they pose to this country and to peoples' salvation. They are not "churches" at all--they are a left wing political organization funded partly by George Soros. Need we say more. Keep feeding these "churces" and contribute to our demise.
• African Methodist Episcopal Church
• The African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church
• Alliance of Baptists
• American Baptist Churches in the USA
• Diocese of the Armenian Church of America
• Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)
• Christian Methodist Episcopal Church
• Church of the Brethren
• The Coptic Orthodox Church in North America
• The Episcopal Church
• Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
• Friends United Meeting
• Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
• Hungarian Reformed Church in America
• International Council of Community Churches
• Korean Presbyterian Church in America
• Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church
• Mar Thoma Church
• Moravian Church in America Northern Province and Southern Province
• National Baptist Convention of America
• National Baptist Convention, U.S.A., Inc.
• National Missionary Baptist Convention of America
• Orthodox Church in America
• Patriarchal Parishes of the Russian Orthodox Church in the USA
• Philadelphia Yearly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends
• Polish National Catholic Church of America
• Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)
• Progressive National Baptist Convention, Inc.
• Reformed Church in America
• Serbian Orthodox Church in the U.S.A. and Canada
• The Swedenborgian Church
• Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioch
• Ukrainian Orthodox Church of America
• United Church of Christ
• The United Methodist Church
• www.onenewsnow.com/2007/01/religious_watchdog_ncc_support.php
Thank you for that.
As a hint and rule of thumb: if you have an old protestant-denomination church that is officially affiliated with some high-falutin’ sounding name national organization - it’s liberal.
I belong to Missouri-synod Lutheran church. I no longer belong to the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (high-falutin’), although I have belonged to some good individuals of that stripe. But they’re doomed.
OMG !!
Dear friend, to which religious denomination do you belong that you should believe the screed you have just posted?
Because the Old and New Testament Scriptures are the divinely-revealed, written Word of God, Catholics venerate the Scriptures as they venerate the Lord's body. But Catholics do not believe that God has given us His divine Revelation in Christ exclusively through Scripture. Catholics also believe that God's Revelation comes to us through the Apostolic Tradition and teaching authority of the Church.
What Church? Scripture reveals this Church to be the one Jesus Christ built upon the rock of Saint Peter (Matt. 16:18). By giving Peter the keys of authority (Matt. 16:19), Jesus appointed Peter as the chief steward over His earthly kingdom (cf. Isaiah. 22:19-22). Jesus also charged Peter to be the source of strength for the rest of the apostles (Luke 22:32) and the earthly shepherd of Jesus' flock (John 21:15-17). Jesus further gave Peter, and the apostles and elders in union with him, the power to bind and loose in heaven what they bound and loosed on earth. (Matt. 16:19; 18:18). This teaching authority did not die with Peter and the apostles, but was transferred to future bishops through the laying on of hands (e.g., Acts 1:20; 6:6; 13:3; 8:18; 9:17; 1 Tim. 4:14; 5:22; 2 Tim. 1:6).
By virtue of this divinely-appointed authority, the Catholic Church determined the canon of Scripture (what books belong in the Bible) at the end of the fourth century. We therefore believe in the Scriptures on the authority of the Catholic Church. After all, nothing in Scripture tells us what Scriptures are inspired, what books belong in the Bible, or that Scripture is the final authority on questions concerning the Christian faith. Instead, the Bible says that the Church, not the Scriptures, is the pinnacle and foundation of the truth
There’s something for everyone in Hell as well.
Inconsequential. Try and focus on my words instead of flailing about for a religious doctrine to try and oppose.
“Because the Old and New Testament Scriptures are the divinely-revealed, written Word of God, Catholics venerate the Scriptures as they venerate the Lord's body.”
Forgive me but is the word venerate anywhere in the Bible? Does it say that the apostles venerated Jesus’ words? Does it explain that the early church [as laid out by Paul] “venerated” anything?
Try and lose the cheesy jargon and you might start to get on the right track.
The very title of pope [from Latin: papa, father; from Greek papas, father] itself is a direct affront to the Bible. The Word says clearly in Matthew…And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
If going by the rules of logic & debate, I should stop here because you are already in error.
Regardless, for the sake of some unsuspecting FReeper who may be led astray by your foolishness, I shall continue.
The fact of the matter is that so called papal infallibility is but another construct of prideful, religious [see without relationship] men. There is no proof whatsoever that papal infallibility was part of catholic doctrine even before the 13th century...this nonsense was invented by rebellious franciscans because it suited their aims to do so...it was only after serious disagreement and reluctance, that it was accepted by the catholic hierarchy...and that only because it was convenient.
So so-called papal infallibility did not even originate with a pope from the top down but instead originated from insubordinate franciscians from the bottom up.
Again, using the rules of logic & debate I could stop there with you dead in the water.
If as you would state, the pope is infallible in his ministry then how do you account for Pope Innocent X, Alexander VII claiming “in the chair” that the reality of human beings being born in the original sin of Adam [supported by the Bible*], and that without God’s own intervention a human being could never become righteous or the notion that prayer and confession are commonsense steps [supported by the Bible***] to go through before taking communion are all heretical?
*Born in the original sin of Adam
Genesis: the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die.
Genesis: To Adam God said, "Because you…ate from the tree…which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it…you will eat your food until you return to the ground since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return...
Romans: Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression...
1 Corinthians: For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive...
Romans: Therefore as by the offence of one [Adam] judgment came upon all men to condemnation...
**Without God’s own intervention a human being could never become righteous.
1 Corinthians:...in Christ shall all be made alive...
Romans: As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one...
Romans: To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus...
Romans: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God...
Romans:...so by the obedience of one [Jesus] shall many be made righteous.
***Prayer and confession are commonsense steps to go through before taking communion.
1 Corinthians: Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall 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 that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.
Please I make it quite plain that so-called papal infallibility is a joke.
If this were not enough, the vatican has never provided anyone with a complete list of papal statements that are considered infallible. Therefore, how is one to know? Nothing God does is hidden under a basket. The Bible says to let your light shine so that all men will be drawn to it. Surely an act of infallibility is considered divine and therefore not to be kept in secret.
???
Anyway...
Now, if the papal decree concerning any of these specific things that I have cited is unsupported by scripture, then by default...there is no papal infallibility and your position is toast.
You sufficiently address these clear flaws in catholic doctrine and I will continue to defeat your statements, otherwise I will consider you ill equipped to defend your own twisted dogma and get back to serious posters.
I was raised in the old ALC which eventually became the apostate ELCA. We left the ELCA for the LCMS about 14 years ago. Never been sorry.
I was raised in the old ALC which eventually became the apostate ELCA. We left the ELCA for the LCMS about 14 years ago. Never been sorry.
There are 1,511 references to father, fathers. etc. in the King James version of Sacred Scripture. Most of these do not refer to God the Father. There is no admonition by Jesus or anyone else that these usages were wrong. When Jesus used the reference 'your father' it would have had little meaning if the basic concept of father was not clearly understood by being in common usage.
In Matt. 3:9; Luke 3:8 - Jesus refers to Abraham as our "father." And in John 7:22 - Jesus refers to the "fathers" who gave the Jews the practice of circumcision.
The use of the word "father," in regards to priests, only means that a priest acts as a spiritual guide under the authority of God the Father. No one in their right mind thinks that each priest is God the Father or that any human being is their creator. Jesus made this statement to help us focus on our true origins and upon that which has lasting value. This type of message is called a metaphor. It is figurative language used as a method of teaching and not meant to be taken literally. It is a way of getting across a message.
There is no proof whatsoever that papal infallibility was part of catholic doctrine even before the 13th century.
I would beg to differ with you. First of all, what is your understanding of papal infallibility?
If as you would state, the pope is infallible in his ministry then how do you account for Pope Innocent X, Alexander VII claiming “in the chair” that the reality of human beings being born in the original sin of Adam [supported by the Bible*] ..
If this is your understanding of papal infallibility, then you have been wrongfully mislead. Infallibility belongs in a special way to the pope as head of the bishops (Matt. 16:17–19; John 21:15–17). As Vatican II remarked, it is a charism the pope "enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith (Luke 22:32), he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals. Therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly held irreformable, for they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, an assistance promised to him in blessed Peter."
The infallibility of the pope is not a doctrine that suddenly appeared in Church teaching; rather, it is a doctrine which was implicit in the early Church. It is only our understanding of infallibility which has developed and been more clearly understood over time. In fact, the doctrine of infallibility is implicit in these Petrine texts: John 21:15–17 ("Feed my sheep . . . "), Luke 22:32 ("I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail"), and Matthew 16:18 ("You are Peter . . . ").
In the course of its 2000 year history, there have been good popes and bad but not one has ever erred in doctrine!
Again, using the rules of logic & debate I could stop there with you dead in the water.
I'm still swimming.
You sufficiently address these clear flaws in catholic doctrine and I will continue to defeat your statements, otherwise I will consider you ill equipped to defend your own twisted dogma and get back to serious posters.
Good luck :-) You are well versed in what you have been taught in your Fundamentalist Church and a staunch believer in the Bible, right?
The Bible is indeed the Word of God, but you only know that because the Catholic Church told you so. How do you know what books should be in the Bible when the Bible doesn't tell you? You only know it because the Catholic Church definitively declared the Bible canon at the end of the fourth century.
If the Bible canon is necessary for our salvation, but Christ did not reveal it to His apostles, then Christ must have established an authority that would guarantee the early Christians' determination of the Bible canon after He ascended into heaven. This authority is the Holy Catholic Church.
There was no Bible as you know it for 400 years after Christ's death, and it wasn't even distributed for 1500 years after His death. If the Bible is the only way to get us to heaven, then what happened to those millions of poor souls who never had a Bible during the 1500 year period?
Scripture never says that Scripture is the sole infallible authority for God's Word. Scripture also mandates the use of tradition. This fact alone disproves sola Scriptura.
Bro, that was lame.
I asked you specific question...you provided generalizations as rebuttals, not answers.
You're getting off on the wrong foot. ~grin~
One of two things...you are either incapable of grasping fundamental [see grade school] English or you are being intellectually dishonest.
I know precisely what so-called papal infallibility is supposed to be. At no point did I or anyone else inquire as to what you thought the meaning is. Nobody on this thread has needed it clarified. You threw that in as a vain attempt at filibuster, nothing more.
I said that there is no proof whatsoever that so-called papal infallibility was part of catholic doctrine even before the 13th century. You responded with a vain "I would beg to differ with you." and proceeded to provide absolutely no proof to the contrary.
Save your begging for someone willing to give you a hand out. If you would like to provide a single example of so-called papal infallibility being part of established catholic doctrine pre-13th century [when catholic doctrine was well on it's way], by all means....feel free.
As it is, you cannot. Because there was|is none. As I said, it is a purely human doctrine laid down as a result of both compromise and convenience.
Anyone trying to imply that this is how God resolves issues or faith, is a person who simply does not know His ways. Basics.
Now, I gave a specific example of how a pope in ex cathedra attempted to condemn three fundamental [see basic] lessons of the Bible.
I will do it again, that there be no misunderstanding.
In 1653, Pope Innocent X condemned five propositions as heretical. For the sake of my argument I only address three that I can absolutely support with scripture.
1. Born in the original sin of Adam.
2. Without God’s own intervention a human being could never become righteous.
3. Prayer and confession are commonsense steps to go through before taking communion.
I provided the scriptures to back them up already and will not do so again.
Please do not attempt to fall back to the cerebrally shallow argument about solo-scriptura because solo-scriptura is precisely what Jesus himself practiced on multiple occasions. Peter did so as well [Acts 1:20]. If Jesus and Peter can do it, so can I.
You cannot find a single scripture that clearly explains that Adam's sin affected him and only him.
You cannot find a single scripture that clearly explains how humankind can become righteous without the intervention of God himself.
You cannot find a single scripture that clearly explains why prayer and confession are not necessary steps to take prior to receiving communion.
Therefore Pope Innocent X while attempting to condemn these three positions [ex cathedra] as heretical [a belief that rejects the orthodox tenets of a faith] was in fact incorrect and as a result, clearly fallible.
Papal-infallibility shattered right there and unable to be resurrected as a legitimate Christian Doctrine.
Seriously, I can do this all day.
In your arrogance to show self righteousness, you failed to read my response. You also failed to answer my question.
Seriously, I can do this all day.
Hopefully you are employed and devote time to prayer as well. God's blessings on you.
Typical, but you should be ashamed. Being incapable of [with anything other than raw supposition] defending your own doctrines.
The Bible says plainly that you are to study to show yourself approved so that you would not be ashamed [2 Timothy 2:15] and to be prepared to give an answer [implied: clear and legitimate] for the reason behind your hope [1 Peter 3:15].
You sir, are incapable of doing either. Do you honestly think God will be any easier on you when you stand in front of him? With me you can run around in circles and obfuscate...with him you MUST give an answer.
The problem is that the very foundation on which you have manufactured your faith is flawed [Matthew 7:21-29] and as a direct result, neither you [or anyone else] can defend it properly.
Oh and that was a poor attempt at imitating the Holy Spirit. Sorry Bro, it will take more than empty condescension from a shallow individual [plugged into the wrong outlet] to bring me to condemnation.
I’d encourage you to go and find a catholic FReeper big wig [cuz you clearly are not one], or some preist or even the pope himself and send them on over and watch me detail dissasemble their arguements as well.
Maybe then the eyes of your understanding can be enlightened. If not yours then perhaps some other misled FReeper.
I may be cocky...but at least I know the truth.
Then truthfully answer my question. Where does the Bible teach sola scriptura?
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.