Gay Episcopal Bishop to Preach at San Francisco Catholic Parish

Catholic Culture ^ | 11/22/11

[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.

[Iscool]

a ten year old hearing John preach in 95ad would be 65 years old in 150ad.

John was tucked away in isolation on the Island of Patmos...Justin (the) Martyr wasn't there...

[smvoice]

They preach another Jesus, another gospel, another spirit, another doctrine. Only the names are the “same”. The meanings are completely opposite of God’s Word.

[D-fendr]

The first Bible Study Church I attended was in Louisiana, in 1983…

A mere puppy. I'd been through three churches, agnosticism and atheism and more by that time.

:)

As for your knowledge of Catholicism, would you recommend I learn Dispensationalism from a refugee of same? Nah, study the sources friend, and just study the history of Christianity, I promise you won't regret it.

[smvoice]

I didn’t say that was the first CHURCH I attended. I said that was the first BIBLE STUDY CHURCH I attended. BIG difference.

[metmom]

Do you think that God isn’t capable of taking responsibility of the life that is committed to Him, to safeguard it and keep the person from error?

Do you think that God is either going to abandon us to our own devices, or let us go so easily once He’s got us?

[Iscool]

St. Ignatius of Antioch Epistle to the Smyrneans AD 105 Chapter 7. Let us stand aloof from such heretics They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that you should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion [of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved. But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils.

In the other version of the same writing, Ignatius doesn't mention a Eucharist...So which version is the real one and which one is the forgery by the Catholic religion??? Do you see any clues???

[CynicalBear]

>>And Jesus says to come out from among them...<<

That He does.

Revelation 18:3 For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies.

4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.

5 For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities.

6 Reward her even as she rewarded you, and double unto her double according to her works: in the cup which she hath filled fill to her double.

7 How much she hath glorified herself, and lived deliciously, so much torment and sorrow give her: for she saith in her heart, I sit a queen, and am no widow, and shall see no sorrow.

8 Therefore shall her plagues come in one day, death, and mourning, and famine; and she shall be utterly burned with fire: for strong is the Lord God who judgeth her.

[smvoice]

Amen!

"Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ." Philippians 1:6.

It doesn't get any clearer that that!

[D-fendr]

He was very clear about how we should live, how we should treat each other, how we are to be One.

It’s not God I’m worried about; it is those who needlessly and sadly choose to not to accept the abundant life Christ came to give us, rejecting the One Church and instead choosing to be a Church of One.

I worry for those who think: I am the Church.

[Iscool]

No I cannot imagine it. But then, I also cannot imagine someone holding a religious faith with so little knowledge of its teaching and history, its creeds for goodness sake!

I agree with you...The Mormons agree with you...The Izlamaniacs agree with you...

The difference is, we don't put our faith into a man made religion like you guys do...

We Christians have the words and thoughts of Jesus Christ and the promise of eternal security with Him...That is our faith...We have Jesus Christ abiding in us and we in him...That is OUR church...

[Rashputin]

"It only show that we participate in the forgiveness of sins just as the Israelites did. Listening to the meanings injected by the control freaks in Rome will lead to severe problems.

Now that's just silly.

1 Cor 10:16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?
1 Cor 10:17 For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.
1 Cor 10:18 Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?
1 Cor 10:19 What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing?
1 Cor 10:20 But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils.
1 Cor 10:21 Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils.

Anyone can read I Cor 1:16-21 and see that it is a direct comparison between the sacrifice to idols and the sacrifice of the Eucharist otherwise the comparison of the cups and tables makes no sense. It is a direct comparison of the consumption of the blood and meat from the sacrifice of Christ and the consumption of the blood and meat from the sacrifice to a demon represented by an idol.

[metmom]

Thank you.

I know of a couple other Catholic FReepers who have stated as much.

It’s good to know that you’re not alone.

[presently no screen name]

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.

AMEN!! Amazing GRACE! Unmerited Favor!

[metmom]

He saw fit to include all of us in that screed.

There’s nothing a Catholic likes better than to pigeon hole and if they can’t get the information out of you about where you go to church by direct questioning, they will make the most absurd accusations and charges and then challenge you to deny them in order to get the same information out of you by the process of elimination.

Not playing that game. I see it for the manipulative, control tactic that it is.

[boatbums]

I believe Jesus when He said “This is My Body” Paul tells us Jesus felt so strongly about this doctrine He personally taught it to him. Ignatius tells us the Gnostics did not take the Eucharist because they did not believe it to be the flesh of Jesus Christ. ( it seems the doctrine was “folly” to them ) the question is why you hold to the gnostic belief over Jesus, Paul and Ignatius.

Incorrect. Ignatius as well as Irenaeus disputed with the Gnostics especially as concerning the observance of the Eucharist. The Gnostics didn't believe that Jesus HAD flesh and blood. The Gnostics viewed everything physical as evil. Had Irenaeus argued that the natural elements of common juice and bread were transubstantiated into something different than what they appear, namely the body and blood of Christ, the Gnostics would have agreed completely, while maintaining their view that the body of Christ was not composed of natural elements, but only appeared to be. Had Irenaeus been arguing transubstantiation, the Gnostics would have countered, "We agree and it proves Jesus did not have literal flesh and blood. Just as you (Irenaeus) have argued that the bread and juice must be transubstantiated into something that is undetectable to our senses, we argue that the reason it is undetectable to our senses, is because the literal body and blood of Christ on the cross, like the bread and juice, were not what they appear!

So it was critical that Irenaeus specifically avoid the doctrine of transubstantiation in his recorded argument against the Gnostics.

The way the church refuted the Gnostics was based upon the symbolic view. As late as 200 AD, Tertullian bases the reality of Christ's body on the cross, upon the fact that the bread is symbolic:

"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)

http://www.bible.ca/ntx-communion-transubstantiation.htm

[metmom]

In the Passover, the blood was NEVER, EVER to be eaten.

It was to be poured out and for the original Passover, it was to be applied to the physical doorposts of the physical house, NOT for consumption.

[presently no screen name]

Had Martin Luther studied the Greek fathers instead of William of Ockham, perhaps he would have led his followers into Eastern Orthodoxy.

That would be deception to deception.

It is God himself acting through the priest who forgives sin and reconciles us to both God and Man.

WRONG! Thank you Luther for your obedience to God!

It worked out PERFECT for Christianity as the gates of hell have not prevailed against His Church. Get over it.

[Iscool]

show me one ECF that attacked the doctrine of the Real Presence. the Didache, Ignatius and Justin Martyr all taught this prior to 150ad. show me one ECF who condemned this doctrine and taught that the Eucharist only “represented” the Body of Christ.

Well that settles it...I'm going to dump God's bible and go with the Catholic early church fathers...Even if I know some of their church father testimonies were forgeries...

I'm gonna celebrate...Gimme another beer, I'm headed for the bingo party...

[Iscool]

some still don’t DISCERN THE BODY. how can anybody be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord, if the Lord is not present?

You eat the broken bread and drink of the cup to remember the sacrifice Jesus made on the Cross...You eat and drink as a Christian...If you eat the bread and take the drink while not being a Christian, you have profaned Jesus' death and the blood he shed on the Cross for you...

For Christians, the Lord is always present...We don't need bread and wine for the Lord to be present...We break, eat and drink the stuff to put His sacrifice on the Cross foremost in our memory...

What do you guys do at home or work during the week when a crisis shows up, run to the nearest parish to grab a wafer???

[D-fendr]

Don’t even bother bringing some posters up to speed on the context of your posts.

Some work very hard not to follow a coherent discussion, it would prevent what some may think are humorous jibes.

If they work this hard to be worthy of being ignored in a coherent debate, let them be ignored.