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.
How do you know objectively and extrinsically say that Homer wasn’t divinely inspired by the Holy Spirit when he wrote the Odyssey and the Iliad?
Or the Gospel of Thomas, for example?
What is the extrinsic criterion for determining a text was inspired by the Holy Spirit?
Makes one wonder how many leaders back in that day wrote things contrary to your religion’s belief that have been destroyed or are hidden away in your secret Vatican archives...
>>Tell that to the Orthodox.
Sola Ockham. The simplest explanation is the right one, correct?
However, I am still waiting for a source for the excerpt and quotes on post 752, RnMomof7.
They, each one, merely learns Greek, studies all the extant writings of the time, immerse themselves in the the teachings of living students of the Apostles, consult the Holy Spirit, and...
Agree with Martin Luther, subtractions and additions all inclusive.
Voilá!
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
From http://www.bible.ca/ntx-communion-transubstantiation.htm
Roman Catholics and Orthodox misrepresent the historical development of Transubstantiation, since its invention was no sooner than the third century. After all, Transubstantiation only became official Catholic doctrine in 1215 AD, with Pope Innocent III, in the Fourth Lateran Council. So before 200 AD, when writers said that the unleavened grape juice and bread were the body and blood of Christ, they were merely borrowing the words of Christ: "This is my body" etc. It is clear, however, that the church understood this in the symbolic sense, not in the later false doctrine of Transubstantiation.
Here are the historical records that are usually never quoted by Roman Catholic and Orthodox writers because they know it destroys their case.
1. Justin Martyr (150 AD):
Justin Martyr would reject transubstantiation because he referred to the unleavened bread as a "remembrance of His being made flesh", not that the bread was the literal body. He also referred to the unleavened juice as "in remembrance of His own blood" not that the juice was the literal blood of Christ:
"Now it is evident, that in this prophecy [Isa 33:13-19] to the bread which our Christ gave us to eat, in remembrance of His being made flesh for the sake of His believers, for whom also He suffered; and to the cup which He gave us to drink, in remembrance of His own blood, with giving of thanks." (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, ch 70)
2. Irenaeus (180 AD):
Irenaeus refutes the Gnostics on the basis that the Lord would not use "evil material things" like bread and juice in the Lord's Supper. Had Irenaeus argued that the bread and juice Transubstantiated (changed) into something different from what they appear, the Gnostics would have agreed, saying this change was essential because Jesus did not have physical flesh either!
"Irenaeus has the realist terminology but not the realist thought. There is no conversion of the elements. Indeed, if there were any change in the substance of the elements, his argument that our bodies-in reality, not in appearance-are raised would be subverted." (Early Christians Speak, Everett Ferguson, 1981, p 114)
3. Tertullian (200 AD):
Tertullian comes right out and states that the bread is a mere symbol of the body of Christ and specifically refutes the Gnostics on this basis:
"Taking bread and distributing it to his disciples he made it his own body by saying, "This is my body," that is a "figure of my body." On the other hand, there would not have been a figure unless there was a true body." (Tertullian, Against Marcion IV. 40)
4. Cyprian (200 AD):
Augustine as late at 400 AD, quotes Cyprian as saying that the juice is offered in remembrance as a type and foreshadow of the blood of Christ:
""Observe" he (Cyprian) says, in presenting the cup, to maintain the custom handed down to us from the Lord, and to do nothing that our Lord has not first done for us: so that the cup which is offered in remembrance of Him should be mixed with wine. For, as Christ says, 'I am the true vine,' it follows that the blood of Christ is wine, not water; and the cup cannot appear to contain His blood by which we are redeemed and quickened, if the wine be absent; for by the wine is the blood of Christ typified, that blood which is foreshadowed and proclaimed in all the types and declarations of Scripture." (Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, book 4, ch 21, quoting Cyprian)
The same situation prevails in the writings of Tertullian and Cyprian: ... both men when they speak with precision distinguish the symbol from what it represents. The bread was a "figure" of the body. But Tertullian turns the word figura against the Docetism of Marcion (IX.6). The language of symbolism does not help those who deny a real body to Jesus. The bread would not be a figure unless there was first a true body of which it was a figure. There is no shadow without a substance to cast the shadow. Similarly, for Cyprian, literal language about drinking Christ's blood is balanced by language of "remembrance" (X.5) and "representation" (IX.7). Both symbolism and realism are present in the thought of Cyprian and Tertullian. The symbolism concerns bread and wine as signs. (Early Christians Speak, Everett Ferguson, 1981, p 115)
4. Hippolytus (200 AD):
Hippolytus speaking of the Lord's Supper as an antitype based upon Prov 9:1:
"And she hath furnished her table: "that denotes the promised knowledge of the Holy Trinity; it also refers to His honoured and undefiled body and blood, which day by day are administered and offered sacrificially at the spiritual divine table, as a memorial of that first and ever-memorable table of the spiritual divine supper. (Hippolytus, Fragment from Commentary on Proverbs 9:1) For Hippolytus, too, the bread and wine are the antitypes or likenesses of the reality portrayed. His consecration prayer (VIII.5) contains both the words of institution and petition for the Holy Spirit. But there is no suggestion of a change in the elements. (Early Christians Speak, Everett Ferguson, 1981, p 115)
Luther’s problem was he remained “too Catholic.” Don’t you know? (Sarc.)
Baptismal regeneration, private confession and absolution, priestly vestments and candles, the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, sacramental grace, etc.
Catholic bad. Iconoclast good.
Because you can see nothing happens...It's not a mystery...Nothing happens...And some of you have said it only happens if you believe it happens...
Some (like me) would call that a fairy tale...I'd be asking a lot of questions before I'd base my Christianity and eternity on a fairy tale...
I drive my Viper convertible to work every day...Just burnin' up the highway...Sleek, fast, and a real head turner...
I climb out of the cock-pit in my employer's parking lot...A co-worker pulls up next to me and says, 'hey, your old Monte Carlo is is looking and sounding kind of rough'...
If he only knew, it's really a Viper...UhHuh....
Yes! LOL. Too Catholic.
One must avoid that as far as possible. Some have managed to become completely unrecognizable!
So what.
No errors or contradictions and has never been proven wrong.
You can keep your Western rationalism.
reading the Church Fathers from beginning to end and you won’t find a Church that resembles anything close to what Protestants believe.
That has been proven wrong so many times...
>>The Church fathers present inconvenient truths.
No errors or contradictions and has never been proven wrong.
>>I’d say you are relying on a subjective criterion.
By that criteria Albert Einstein was divinely inspired when he developed the theory of general relativity. It hasn’t been disproved and lacks contradictions.
Once a person understands his place in God's Plan for man, there is no stopping that person. He can and does preach the word, in season,out of season, reproving, rebuking, and exhorting with all longsuffering and doctrine.
They no longer live in fear. Fear of losing what they were taught they're not even sure they have..or fear of their works not being good enough, or that they will be swept around by every doctrine that comes along, or that God's wrath is waiting to be poured out on them. They are free. Free to be what God wants them to be: an ambassador for Christ. 2 Cor. 5:14-21.
They can read deceit and see it for what it truly is. There is no more doubt.
They are all of us who have accepted the finished work of Christ, who are saved by the blood of Christ, baptized into the Body of Christ by the Holy Spirit, sealed unto the day of redemption, and assured that we are there to stay.
Seriously, you should give it a try. It will save you. God's Word never fails.
What's really ironic is the criticism and condemnation people like Ted Haggard and Joel Osteen get from Catholics for living in luxury off the donations of their followers when their pope lives in luxury far exceeding Haggard or Osteen off the donations of some billion strong Catholics.
They justify in their church leader the very things they condemn in others. It's do as I say, not as I do mentality.
Exceedingly hypocritical.
They are...Another gospel which is different than THEIR gospel...And they know it...They outright reject the gospel you speak of...
A lot of people think Catholics and we are brothers in Christ...We are not...And Jesus says to come out from among them...
He may well have been. We will know for sure after say 2000 years.
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.