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.
A few? Did you really read everything at the links I posted and see only a few? That's not true, not even an honest attempt.
your idea of interpreting scripture?
The catechism is a longer form and the creeds the shorter of the most basic and fundamental Christian faith, the most basic statement of what the Christian's believe and the meaning of Holy Scripture for the vast majority of Christianity, Catholic and not, for many many centuries. If you wished the most concise summary of the Christian interpretation of Holy Scripture, here it is:
We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen. We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, one in being with the Father. Through Him all things were made. For us men and our salvation He came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit, He was born of the Virgin Mary , and became man. For our sake He was crucified under Pontius Pilate; He suffered, died, and was buried. On the third day He rose again in fulfillment of the scriptures: He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end. We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. With the Father and the Son, He is worshiped and glorified. He has spoken through the Prophets. We believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.
nobody ever said that Protestants ever claimed infallibility for their Bible commentaries...
Just each individual then? Is your commentary infallible or not?
I think you have to say that there was more to it than that, without minimizing the import of it. http://www.stpaulsirvine.org/html/TheGreatSchism.htm
So your commentary here is fallible also.
>> nobody ever said that Protestants ever claimed infallibility for their Bible commentaries...<<
LOL That was a quote from someone else’s post altogether. Good grief!
Rinny, your own post says that Christ’s mother arrived AFTER his family came to take charge of Him.
Not doing God’s will is sin? Are you doing God’s will right now? I don’t think so. The stench of your posts speaks not of God, but the Adversary. Your ridicule of sacred tradition is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Rest assured of my prayers to the Holy Mother for your contrition, confession, and salvation.
You did not source this quote.. :)
Was this voted on and accepted by the council or simply a time frame? Can you say with certainty that 'St John of Damascus" was INFALLIBLE??
From The Catholic Encyclopedia
Regarding the day, year, and manner of Our Lady's death, nothing certain is known. The earliest known literary reference to the Assumption is found in the Greek work De Obitu S. Dominae. Catholic faith, however, has always derived our knowledge of the mystery from Apostolic Tradition. Epiphanius (d. 403) acknowledged that he knew nothing definite about it (Haer., lxxix, 11).
The dates assigned for it vary between three and fifteen years after Christ's Ascension. Two cities claim to be the place of her departure: Jerusalem and Ephesus. Common consent favours Jerusalem, where her tomb is shown; but some argue in favour of Ephesus. The first six centuries did not know of the tomb of Mary at Jerusalem.
So there is no date, no time, no location, no sure knowledge if she was alone or not.. no cause and not even a sure burial place
>>>>Can you say with certainty that ‘St John of Damascus” was INFALLIBLE??
Can you say with certainty that your interpretation is?
1,500 years of Christian Faith of the Real Presence in the Eucharist. Then, none...
For some. I think this explains Bibliolatry a bit. Substitution.
Of course you don’t pray to Mary do you. Of course not. Never! Wouldn’t think of it! That would be idolatry after all.
Some even have problems with their fallible interpretation of English.
They are ignorant that pray to also means petition as in intercessory prayer, so it becomes the gotcha of an ignoramus.
Of course it does. I see people all the time put posts on here praying to the people to pray for them.
Bwahahahaha!
Just not so ..there was no real consensus on the Lords supper and men were free to believe yes or no ..a close reading of the church fathers show some thought Christ was spiritually present not the platonic view of a physical presence ..it was not doctrine that was required until the Lateran council
So the question is only the "real presence" if one does not believe that the spiritual is real
Ignorant and fallible mind reading now.
That intercessory prayer means asking, pray means ask and we pray to others to pray for us.
They’ve lost the realization of the Communion of Saints and all of this is lost to them. Thank God for His Church.
I pray you will pray for them with me.
*sacred tradition* is nothing but the fantasy of those who are power hungry control freaks who want to have some basis for claiming enough unchallengeable authority to control others.
Jesus condemned tradition every chance He got. Tradition is meaningless. Only the inerrant, God breathed word of God has any authority.
The word of God stands forever, settled in heaven. The traditions of men are NOTHING compared to that.
No. The Real Presence was a key part of the Christian Faith from Scripture onwards as far back as we have records, contiguously.
The early martyrs were martyred for this belief and others. I would not take it lightly.
“The Apostles were witnesses to Mary’s death,”
The Synoptic Gospels were written prior to the fall of Jerusalem without any mention of the death of Mary. John, the Apostle to whom Jesus entrusted Mary wrote his Gospel and letters around 90 A.D. without any mention of Mary’s death. Luke wrote his Gospel and Acts before the fall of Jerusalem. In Acts he mentions the death of the Apostle James but no mention of Mary’s death. Peter does not mention her death in his letters and even her son James failed to mention her death in his epistle.
There is no basis for the statement that the Apostles would have highly cherished Mary’s relics when there is no evidence they treated her death any more highly than any one else in the church community; in point of fact, there is no evidence that the Apostles cherished any relic of Jesus except His memory, words, and deeds.
NOBODY, no human being or groups of human beings are infallible, no matter what they claim about themselves.
God never told us that he would establish a ruling body of clergy who would speak infallibly to us about spiritual and moral matters.
The Catholic church is not infallible either, as is readily apparent to anyone who is honest about what they see.
I'm sorry, but this statement shows an almost total lack of the vocabulary, philosophy, and what the debates between the Platonic and Aristotelean spheres was about; along with an erroneous conflation concerning the Real Presence.
Study up on it quite a bit more and perhaps it can be discussed here.
Fixed it.....
Do not conflate Catholic with Christian. One does not by default mean the other.
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.