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.
Oh, honey, have you been reading the wrong stuff! You DO remember the first Passover, right? When Moses led the children of Israel out of Egypt. Well ever since then God commanded that they commemorate that time with a feast that would last a week. Read Exodus 12, it's all about the Passover and the Festival of Unleavened Bread. Then in Exodus 34:18, God told the Israelites:
“Celebrate the Festival of Unleavened Bread. For seven days eat bread made without yeast, as I commanded you. Do this at the appointed time in the month of Aviv, for in that month you came out of Egypt.
In Numbers 9, God reminds Moses to remind the Jews to celebrate the Passover Feast while they are STILL in the desert. Deuteronomy 16, reiterates the same rules for the Feast. When Jesus and his disciples met in that upper room that last night, they WERE observing the Passover Feast, which a Seder is another word for that specific night. Matthew 26:17 speaks about that:
On the first day of the Festival of Unleavened Bread, the disciples came to Jesus and asked, “Where do you want us to make preparations for you to eat the Passover?”
Paul even spoke of this in I Corinthians 5:6-8
Your boasting is not good. Don’t you know that a little yeast leavens the whole batch of dough? Get rid of the old yeast, so that you may be a new unleavened batch—as you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. Therefore let us keep the Festival, not with the old bread leavened with malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.
Here is a search of ALL the times the Passover was mentioned in the Bible http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/?search=passover&version1=NIV&searchtype=all&limit=none&wholewordsonly=no
So, I'm not sure why you think Jesus didn't celebrate the Feast of the Passover which INCLUDED the Seder meal, but whoever says such things does not know Scripture. Jesus WAS an observant Jew as were his Apostles, so this was not an out of the ordinary thing he did with them, in fact I have no doubt they did the same the previous two years with him as well.
Yeah. And?
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.
Who ever said they were a church of one?
WE are the church. I am the church, all the others are the church. It's a church made up of all believers of all time.
When we say *I am the church* that doesn't mean that each individual means that they themselves are the only one who is a church, but rather what we're saying is that PEOPLE are the church, not a denomination with headquarters somewhere.
WE are the church, I am the church, they are the church because we/I/they are in Christ and by being in Christ we/I/they make up the church, the true church, the body of Christ.
Yes we will disagree...But we are brothers/sisters in Christ and Christ in us...We are all members of the Body of Christ, with Jesus at the head...We are united...
You’re crossing the Tiber???????
thank you...
Then I'd suggest "I am the church." is at the least extremely poor phrasing. I do think it would be accurate to say that you think that your beliefs, each individual's, are what the Church believes, and this is an obvious error.
but rather what we're saying is that PEOPLE are the church, not a denomination with headquarters somewhere.
We don't believe in denominations either. But when you "take it to the Church" where do you go?
INDEED.
The only ones on FR I know who think like that are the
rabid clique types belonging to the Vatican-Ashteroth-Mary-Goddess cult!
Their arrogance pontificates in such tones and fashion all the time.
PRAISE GOD FOR YOUR CONVICTIONS, BRO.
THX.
ANY part of the
universal Body of Christ—which I believe includes some folks in the RCC—concerns other authentic parts of the Body of Christ.
That is the one thing I worry about the RCC. The Pope does not seem to have an email account where he can send out the “You are an Ex-Catholic and can no longer administrate or take the sacrament” missiles.
Christians have never believed in the Eucharist...
LOL! Hey Hossimus, it looks like everything you say is called a “One Trick Pony” EVEN when you are discussing many, different topics. I think the one who posts this is the pony who is stuck on her very own one trick.
You know you’re talking to a willingly blank wall when you see someone who thinks that the Christian martyrs, even those who wrote eloquently on the Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist, went willingly to their death for these beliefs but never believed in the Eucharist.
Might as well put your effort into convincing an ostrich that the sky is blue. Or just forego giving any credence to such a silly argument altogether.
Now Ironsides is a good reference for Catholics? If you noticed, he is speaking of a group known as "Bullingerites". These are what is called Ultra-dispensationalists, and what Ironside says they teach is obviously NOT something you can just mark up to a sola Scriptura problem. No serious Bible student could possibly believe in:
the sleep of the soul between death and resurrection
the annihilation of the wicked
universal salvation of all men and demons
the denial of the eternal Sonship of the Lord Jesus Christ
denial of the personality of the Holy Spirit
You may not realize this, but Ironside ALSO teaches dispensations, but in these articles, it is those he calls Ultra-Dispensationalists that he condemns and for some pretty salient reasons. This article gives some of his reasoned arguments against their false teachings http://gospelhall.org/bible-teaching/ironside--wrongly-dividing-the-word-of-truth/ultra-dispensationalism--chapter-6--is-the-church-the-bride-of-the-lamb.html.
As to your using a broad brush to accuse sola scriptura, I agree with Hossb86, that the concept of that is simply that the Scriptures are the infallible authority that is God-given to us so that we may know his plan of salvation and so that we may be sure of the central tenets of the Christian faith - truths even H. A. Ironside agrees with.
So, explain to me how your faith tradition is “right” where it departs from the Roman/Latin tradition - who declares that THEY are infallible? How does that work exactly?
The second is a principle enunciated by the Roman Catholic Councils of Trent (1546-1562) and Vatican I (1870) embodied in the phrase 'the unanimous consent of the fathers.' This is a principle that purportedly looks to the past for validation of its present teachings particularly as they relate to the interpretation of Scripture. Trent initially promulgated this principle as a means of countering the Reformation teachings to make it appear that the Reformers' doctrines were novel and heretical while those of Rome were rooted in historical continuity. It is significant to note that Trent merely affirmed the existence of the principle without providing documentary proof for its validity. Vatican I merely reaffirmed the principle as decreed by Trent. Its historical roots hearken back to Vincent of Lerins in the fifth century who was the first to give it formal definition when he stated that apostolic and catholic doctrine could be identified by a three fold criteria: It was a teaching that had been believed everywhere, always and by all (quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est). (2) In other words, the principle of unanimous agreement encompassing universality (believed everywhere), antiquity (believed always) and consent (believed by all). Vincent readily agreed with the principle of sola Scriptura, that is, that Scripture was sufficient as the source of truth. But he was concerned about how one determined what was truly apostolic and catholic doctrine. This was the official position of the Church immediately subsequent to Vincent throughout the Middle Ages and for centuries immediately following Trent. But this principle, while fully embraced by Trent and Vatican I, has all been but abandoned by Rome today in a practical and formal sense. This is due to the fact that so much of Rome's teachings, upon historical examination, fail the test of unanimous consent. Some Roman Catholic historians are refreshingly honest in this assessment. Patrologist Boniface Ramsey, for example, candidly admits that the current Roman Catholic teachings on Mary and the papacy were not taught in the early Church:
Sometimes, then, the Fathers speak and write in a way that would eventually be seen as unorthodox. But this is not the only difficulty with respect to the criterion of orthodoxy. The other great one is that we look in vain in many of the Fathers for references to things that many Christians might believe in today. We do not find, for instance, some teachings on Mary or the papacy that were developed in medieval and modern times.(3)
At first, this clear lack of patristic consensus led Rome to embrace a new theory in the late nineteenth century to explain its teachings—the theory initiated by John Henry Newman known as the development of doctrine. In light of the historical reality, Newman had come to the conclusion that the Vincentian principle of unanimous consent was unworkable, because, for all practical purposes, it was nonexistent. To quote Newman:
It does not seem possible, then, to avoid the conclusion that, whatever be the proper key for harmonizing the records and documents of the early and later Church, and true as the dictum of Vincentius must be considered in the abstract, and possible as its application might be in his own age, when he might almost ask the primitive centuries for their testimony, it is hardly available now, or effective of any satisfactory result. The solution it offers is as difficult as the original problem.(4)
The obvious problem with Newman's analysis and conclusion is that it flies in the face of the decrees of Trent and Vatican I, both of which decreed that the unanimous consent of the fathers does exist. But to circumvent the lack of patristic witness for the distinctive Roman Catholic dogmas, Newman set forth his theory of development, which was embraced by the Roman Catholic Church. Ironically, this is a theory which, like unanimous consent, has its roots in the teaching of Vincent of Lerins, who also promulgated a concept of development. While rejecting Vincent's rule of universality, antiquity and consent, Rome, through Newman, once again turned to Vincent for validation of its new theory of tradition and history. But while Rome and Vincent both use the term development, they are miles apart in their understanding of the meaning of the principle because Rome's definition of development and Vincent's are diametrically opposed to one another. In his teaching, Vincent delineates the following parameters for true development of doctrine:
But some one will say. perhaps, Shall there, then, be no progress in Christ's Church? Certainly; all possible progress. For what being is there, so envious of men, so full of hatred to God, who would seek to forbid it? Yet on condition that it be real progress, not alteration of the faith. For progress requires that the subject be enlarged n itself, alteration, that it be transformed into something else. The intelligence, then, the knowledge, the wisdom, as well of individuals as of all, as well of one man as of the whole Church, ought, in the course of ages and centuries, to increase and make much and vigorous progress; but yet only in its own kind; that is to say, in the same doctrine, in the same sense, and in the same meaning.(5)
First of all, Vincent is saying that doctrinal development must be rooted in the principle of unanimous consent. That is, it must be related to doctrines that have been clearly taught throughout the ages of the Church. In other words, true development must demonstrate historical roots. Any teaching which could not demonstrate its authority from Scripture and the universal teaching of the Church was to be repudiated as novel and therefore not truly catholic. It was to be considered heretical. This is the whole point of Vincent's criticism of such heretics as Coelestius and Pelagius. He says, 'Who ever before his (Pelagius) monstrous disciple Coelestius ever denied that the whole human race is involved in the guilt of Adam's sin?'(6) Their teaching, which was a denial of original sin, was novel. It could not demonstrate historical continuity and therefore it was heretical.
But, with Newman, Rome redefined the theory of development and promoted a new concept of tradition. One that was truly novel. Truly novel in the sense that it was completely foreign to the perspective of Vincent and the theologians of Trent and Vatican I who speak of the unanimous consent of the fathers. These two Councils claim that there is a clear continuity between their teaching and the history of the ancient Church which preceded them (whether this is actually true is another thing altogether). A continuity which can they claimed could be documented by the explicit teaching of the Church fathers in their interpretation of Scripture and in their practice. Vatican I, for example, teaches that the papacy was full blown from the very beginning and was, therefore, not subject to development over time.
In this new theory Rome moved beyond the historical principle of development as articulated by Vincent and, for all practical purposes, eliminated any need for historical validation. She now claimed that it was not necessary that a particular doctrine be taught explicitly by the early Church. In fact, Roman Catholic historians readily admit that doctrines such as the assumption of Mary and papal infallibility were completely unknown in the teaching of the early Church. If Rome now teaches the doctrine we are told that the early Church actually believed and taught it implicitly and only later, after many centuries, did it become explicit.
From this principle it was only a small step in the evolution of Rome's teaching on Tradition to her present position. Rome today has replaced the concept of tradition as development to what is known as 'living tradition.' This is a concept that promotes the Church as an infallible authority, which is indwelt by the Holy Spirit, who protects her from error. Therefore, whatever Rome's magisterium teaches at any point in time must be true even if it lacks historical or biblical support. The following statement by Roman Catholic apologist Karl Keating regarding the teaching of the Assumption of Mary is an illustration of this very point. He says it does not matter that there is no teaching on the Assumption in Scripture, the mere fact that the Roman Church teaches it is proof that it is true. Thus, teachings do not need to be documented from Scripture:
Still, fundamentalists ask, where is the proof from Scripture? Strictly, there is none. It was the Catholic Church that was commissioned by Christ to teach all nations and to teach them infallibly. The mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as definitely true is a guarantee that it is true.(7)
This assertion is a complete repudiation of the patristic principle of proving every doctrine by the criterion of Scripture. Tradition means handing down from the past. Rome has changed the meaning of tradition from demonstrating by patristic consent that a doctrine is truly part of tradition, to the concept of living tradition—whatever I say today is truth, irrespective of the witness of history. This goes back to the claims of Gnosticism to having received the tradition by living voice, viva voce. Only now Rome has reinterpreted viva voce, the living voice as receiving from the past by way of oral tradition, to be a creative and therefore entirely novel aspect of tradition. It creates tradition in its present teaching without appeal to the past. To paraphrase the Gnostic line, it is viva voce-whatever we say.
Excuse me...are you calling YOUR early church fathers FRACTALLY WRONG???!!! Got a funny worldview there, narse.
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.