Posted on 12/05/2009 4:29:16 PM PST by Fenhalls555
The worldwide Anglican Church has been plunged into a fresh crisis after a lesbian was chosen as its second gay bishop.
In a move that will dismay the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, Canon Mary Glasspool was elected as an assistant bishop for the diocese of Los Angeles.
The Rev Rod Thomas, the leader of the conservative evangelical group Reform and a member of the General Synod, said: ‘I feel deeply ashamed that this is happening in the Anglican Church.
‘I think a schism is absolutely inevitable.’
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
describing a protestant tactic isnt a personal attack. and you lack of historical knowledge of the early church is evident, despite your claim of studying it.
So again you attack ME rather than deal with the issue.
Here, I’ll help you...where are the priests in the NT, and what role did they play in the life of the church?
If you prefer, discuss Purgatory as covered by the Apostles, knowing, as you do, that Paul taught the church “the full counsel of God”.
Freepmail wagglebee or DirtyHarryY2K to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda ping list.
Be sure to click the FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search link for a list of all related articles. We don't ping you to all related articles so be sure to click the previous link to see the latest articles.
Add keywords homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list.
Tradition is imperfect and subject to change, whereas God does not change.
The beauty of Sola Scriptura is that it is based on the one absolutely reliable source of information about God: His Word, as spoken through the prophets and apostles. Any falling away has come from not believing that Scripture is divinely inspired, not because we Protestants distort the interpretation.
When you look at the Protestant Churches, you will find more of a common set of beliefs rather than wild interpretations. Lutherans, Calvinists, and Baptists (to name three broad streams) all agree on the inerrancy of Scripture, the fallen state of Man, the need for a Redeemer, and the fact that Jesus Christ is that Redeemer, He came, died for our sins, rose on the third day, and will come again in glory.
We're your brothers in Christ, but we don't agree with you about the role of tradition.
NYer,
“Lol ,,, these splits and divisions are all schisms from the one true Church established by Christ. “
correct me NYer, if my history is off here, but I seem to
remember that the Bishop of Rome broke away from the
Orthodox Church over his claims of the primacy of Rome
and exactly who sends the Holy Spirit?
Which of those two is the one true Church established by
Christ? Is it the Church that traces its roots back to Antioch
or the one that arose later?
[For the record, I am a member of the one true Church Christ
founded]
best,
ampu
1 Timothy 3:11
The battle is lost, in my opinion, by men who cannot tell the difference between the fact of the biological sex of the Christian and the act of sexual immorality.
She wasn’t suddenly elevated. She’d been in the clergy for some time, and climbing thru the ranks. This shouldn’t surprise.
While it is true that individual clergy may commit sins, even popes commit sins because in the Church there are both "weeds and wheat" (Matthew 13:30), the Church remains Christ's bride; hence it without spot or wrinkle, as noted on my previous post.
Think about Popes who have been condemned, or when there were 2 Popes, and get back with me on how infallible the Catholic Church is promised to be!
True ... there have been some very bad popes - YET - never in it's 2000 year history has any pope erred on doctrines of faith or morals. You are confusing infallibility with impeccability.
It is the Holy Spirit who prevents the pope from officially teaching error, and this charism follows necessarily from the existence of the Church itself. If, as Christ promised, the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church then it must be protected from fundamentally falling into error and thus away from Christ. It must prove itself to be a perfectly steady guide in matters pertaining to salvation.
Of course, infallibility does not include a guarantee that any particular pope won’t "neglect" to teach the truth, or that he will be sinless, or that mere disciplinary decisions will be intelligently made. It would be nice if he were omniscient or impeccable, but his not being so will fail to bring about the destruction of the Church.
But he must be able to teach rightly, since instruction for the sake of salvation is a primary function of the Church. For men to be saved, they must know what is to be believed. They must have a perfectly steady rock to build upon and to trust as the source of solemn Christian teaching. And that’s why papal infallibility exists.
Since Christ said the gates of hell would not prevail against his Church (Matt. 16:18b), this means that his Church can never pass out of existence. But if the Church ever apostasized by teaching heresy, then it would cease to exist; because it would cease to be Jesus’ Church. Thus the Church cannot teach heresy, meaning that anything it solemnly defines for the faithful to believe is true. This same reality is reflected in the Apostle Paul’s statement that the Church is "the pillar and foundation of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15). If the Church is the foundation of religious truth in this world, then it is God’s own spokesman. As Christ told his disciples: "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me" (Luke 10:16).
Deserves repeating:
“Since Christ said the gates of hell would not prevail against his Church (Matt. 16:18b), this means that his Church can never pass out of existence. But if the Church ever apostasized by teaching heresy, then it would cease to exist; because it would cease to be Jesus’ Church. Thus the Church cannot teach heresy, meaning that anything it solemnly defines for the faithful to believe is true. This same reality is reflected in the Apostle Paul’s statement that the Church is “the pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15). If the Church is the foundation of religious truth in this world, then it is God’s own spokesman. As Christ told his disciples: “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me” (Luke 10:16).”
“True ... there have been some very bad popes - YET - never in it’s 2000 year history has any pope erred on doctrines of faith or morals.”
The Facts About Honorius
Honorius was the bishop of Rome from 625 to 638. In 634 Sergius, the patriarch of Constantinople, wrote to Honorius concerning Sergius’ attempts to bring the monophysites, those who asserted that there was only one nature in Christ, into the catholic fold. Sergius was a monothelite, one who believed that while Christ was indeed one person with two natures, He had but one will, since the will was a function of the one person, not a function of the two natures. Honorius, in responding to Sergius, provides the single clearest example of Papal error that violates the definition of infallibility as given by Rome itself. Honorius agreed with Sergius, clearly, in his first letter. He wrote to Sergius as the bishop of Rome, not as a private theologian. He responded as the bishop of Rome to an official inquiry to the See of Rome regarding a matter of faith and morals. He wrote to a fellow bishop of the church, and in speaking of the very issue of whether Christ had one will or two, he wrote, e}n qevlhma oJmologou`men tou` Kurivou j Ihsou Cristou. Make sure you note the use of the plural, “we confess.” Honorius did not say, “Oh, I think maybe it’s like this.” He employed the very same plural that Roman bishops use today to refer to their representation of the church as a whole.
Now we surely can safely admit that Honorius was not the leading theologian of his day. He made an error based upon ignorance of the issues involved. The biblical standard of the elder or bishop in the church is not, thankfully, infallibility. And surely no one in that day believed in papal infallibility, so to judge Honorius on the basis of modern standards is without merit. His case is famous for no other reason than the glaring and obvious anachronism of Rome’s modern teaching. Rome proclaims her bishop infallible when teaching as the pastor of all Christians on matters of faith and morals. Obviously, it was the intention of the Vatican decree to say that the bishops of Rome have always had this “charism of infallibility,” which would mean it is the Roman Catholic position that this teaching was valid in Honorius’ day just as much as it is today. So it is Rome that has placed the spotlight upon all the Popes of history, not Protestants.
Now, there is absolutely, positively no question that Honorius was, in fact, condemned as a heretic by the 6th Ecumenical Council which met in Constantinople in 680-681 for a teaching he promulgated in an official letter sent to Sergius as the bishop of Rome.
1. His condemnation is found in the Acts in the 13th Session, near the beginning.
2. His two letters were ordered to be burned at the same session as being “hurtful to the soul.” This includes the letter that contains the phrase e}n qevlhma oJmologou`men (hen thelema homologoumen).
3. In the 16th Session the bishops exclaimed “Anathema to the heretic Sergius, to the heretic Cyrus, to the heretic Honorius, etc.”
4. In the decree of faith published at the 18th Session it is stated that “the originator of all evil... found a fit tool for his will in... Honorius, Pope of Old Rome, etc.” Further, this Ecumenical Council said that Honorius taught the heretical doctrine. They said that Satan had “actively employed them in raising up for the whole Church the stumbling-blocks of one will and one operation in the two natures of Christ our true God, one of the Holy Trinity; thus disseminating, in novel terms, amongst the orthodox people, an heresy ...”
5. The Papal legates, representatives of Pope Agatho, made no attempt to stop the burning of the letters, and subscribed to every anathema placed upon Honorius, as well as to the statement that Satan himself had used the bishop of Rome as a “tool for his will.”
6. The report of the Council to the Emperor says that “Honorius, formerly bishop of Rome” they had “punished with exclusion and anathema” because he followed the monothelites.
7. In its letter to Pope Agatho the Council says “We have destroyed the fort of the heretics, and slain them with anathema, in accordance with the sentence spoken before in your holy letter, namely, Theodore of Paran, Sergius, Honorius, Cyrus, etc.” Note that the Council believed its actions to be in full accord with Agatho’s wishes and Agatho’s letter!
8. The imperial decree speaks of the “unholy priests who infected the Church and falsely governed” and mentions among them “Honorius, the Pope of Old Rome, the confirmer of heresy who contradicted himself.” The Emperor goes on to anathematize “Honorius who was Pope of Old Rome, who in everything agreed with them, went with them, and strengthened the heresy.”
9. Pope Leo II confirmed the decrees of the Council and expressly says that he too anathematized Honorius. So strong was Leo’s confirmation that Baronius rejected it, saying it had to have been spurious, and even Cardinal Bellarmine tried to say it had been corrupted. Neither saw in Leo’s words any softening of the Council’s act, though some modern Catholic apologists have attempted to find in Leo’s sentence a ray of hope: Leo anathematizes Honorius “who did not illuminate this apostolic see with the doctrine of apostolic tradition, but permitted her who was undefiled to be polluted by profane teaching.”
10. That Honorius was anathematized by the Sixth Council is mentioned in the canons of the Council of Trullo which met less than two decades after Constantinople (Trullan Canons No. 1). This shows that the condemnation of Honorius was accepted by the wider church immediately after the Council, and amongst those who were familiar with Leo’s letter.
11. So too the Seventh Council declares its adhesion to the anathema in its decree of faith, and in several places in the acts the same is said.
12. Honorius’s name was found in the Roman copy of the Acts. This is evident from Anastasius’s life of Leo II. (Vita Leonis II.) This means that in Rome itself the condemnation with anathema as a heretic was embraced and accepted.
13. The Papal Oath as found in the Liber Diurnus taken by each new Pope up to the eleventh century, states in no uncertain terms, “smites with eternal anathema the originators of the new heresy, Sergius, etc., together with Honorius, because he assisted the base assertion of the heretics.” Every single Pope who took to the chair of Peter for three hundred years did so by anathematizing his predecessor, Honorius.
14. In the lesson for the feast of St. Leo II in the Roman Breviary the name of Pope Honorius occurs among those excommunicated by the Sixth Synod, and the name remains there until the sixteenth century!
Extract from “Failure to Document:Catholic Answers Glosses Over History”
http://vintage.aomin.org/FailuretoDocument.html
no wonder why I and my family left that church
sickening
why on earth do these churches think that if they appease to the left and the perverts they will get with the fashion or more folks
they will not and they need ot look at their numbers going down and down
Religious faggots...
Someone is going to be called on the carpet for this.
LMAOOOOOOOO...
I hear tell that some lesbians actually shave their legs (armpits is a whole different subject).
The new carpet muncher bishop perhaps?
Fomer Anglican here. I went back to the Catholic church because I could no longer deal with this kind of thing.
The institution of the Eucharist at the Last Supper for example.
The Church built upon the "Rock" Peter the 1st Pope... and of course the Church instituted by Christ was and is to this day populated by imperfect humans. Obviously some Church leaders past and present sinned, are sinning and fall short. Many may have even been damned, but every Sacrament is found in the Gospels.
Purgatory actually is from Old Testament books the Reformers removed from the Apostolic bible. The books of Maccabees from the Old Testament practiced praying for the dead. Most protestant denominations reject that practice but as a Catholic I believe Jesus was a religious Jew who read, taught and lived the Jewish scriptures. Believe it or not some of the 15th century Reformers actually removed the Book of James for a period of time because he intimated works were necessary for salvation...
The fractured and unfortunately still fracturing Protestant Churches were picking and choosing what they interpreted as truth and what was heresy... after all, they continually break from each other for some "theological" interpretation or reason .. that heretical activity appears quite similar in some way to the modern Anglicans accepting homosexuality in their priests...
The Catholic Church has practiced worship tradition based sacramental rituals from the very apostolic beginnings and are continuing these same rituals to the present time. The earliest new testament books didn't even exist until late in the first century... and early Christians practiced their faith based upon Christ instituted Apostolic worship... the first gospels weren't even written until after 60 AD.
I'm not trying to change any ones personal Christian beliefs, faith is personal for all of us. I defend my faith based upon my own deeply held beliefs; I'm just becoming very tired of self promoting "theologians" attacking my individual walk with Christ and the specific tenets of my Church.
Jesus taught me to "Judge not lest ye be judged."
Things get somewhat dicey here. ST Mary of The Angels (where we went for Evensong) pulled out of the Episcopal diocese some years ago principally for its gay infiltration. They’re pretty conservative in this overall. Yet the only Biblical condemnation of lesbianism is again from Paul as we were discussing before concerning women’s roles in the Church.
Again, Orthodox Judaism forbids female rabbis, and may have evolved some Talmudic prohibition of lesbianism, but it’s not forbidden anywhere in Tanach that I know of. And once more there’s Conservative Judaism where there was a woman at Beth Meier sometimes who was studying for the rabbinate, and I think she was a lesbian.
Thus it can get dicey depending on where one’s interpretation lies. But male homosexuality is clearly “abomination” in both Orthodox Judaism and Christianity.
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.