Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Gay Episcopal Bishop to Preach at San Francisco Catholic Parish
Catholic Culture ^ | 11/22/11

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.


TOPICS: Catholic; Current Events; Mainline Protestant; Moral Issues
KEYWORDS: catholic; ecus; episcopagan; episcopaganbishop; homonaziagenda; homonazibishop; homosexualagenda; homosexualbishop; religiousfaggot; religiousleft; romancatholic; sanfranpsycho; sanfransicko; sexualpaganism
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 2,061-2,0802,081-2,1002,101-2,120 ... 4,081-4,087 next last
To: CynicalBear
a few texts

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?

2,081 posted on 12/02/2011 6:12:44 PM PST by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2075 | View Replies]

To: rzman21; metmom

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


2,082 posted on 12/02/2011 6:15:15 PM PST by daniel1212 (Our sinful deeds condemn us, but Christ's death and resurrection gains salvation. Repent +Believe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2021 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
We believe the Bible is infallible and innerent but we are not.

So your commentary here is fallible also.

2,083 posted on 12/02/2011 6:15:25 PM PST by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2080 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr; metmom; boatbums; smvoice; RnMomof7
ROTFLOL! Talk about the tendency to take things out of context! Good grief. You include a quote from another post in an answer to my post. It was not I who had this in the post you responded to.

>> 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!

2,084 posted on 12/02/2011 6:18:56 PM PST by CynicalBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2081 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7

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.


2,085 posted on 12/02/2011 6:22:16 PM PST by Judith Anne (For rhe sake of His sorrowful passion, have mercy on us, and on the whole world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2041 | View Replies]

To: mas cerveza por favor; metmom
Greek Father St. John of Damascus testified “St. Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, at the Council of Chalcedon (451), made known to the Emperor Marcian and Pulcheria, who wished to possess the body of the Mother of God, that Mary died in the presence of all the Apostles, but that her tomb, when opened, upon the request of St. Thomas, was found empty; where from the Apostles concluded that the body was taken up to heaven.”

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

2,086 posted on 12/02/2011 6:23:30 PM PST by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2067 | View Replies]

To: metmom
MM, intended to ping you on 2081, apologies..
2,087 posted on 12/02/2011 6:26:03 PM PST by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2077 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7

>>>>Can you say with certainty that ‘St John of Damascus” was INFALLIBLE??

Can you say with certainty that your interpretation is?


2,088 posted on 12/02/2011 6:28:19 PM PST by Judith Anne (For rhe sake of His sorrowful passion, have mercy on us, and on the whole world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2086 | View Replies]

To: rzman21
Luther and Zwingli almost came to physical blows over it.

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.

2,089 posted on 12/02/2011 6:31:28 PM PST by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1980 | View Replies]

To: Judith Anne; smvoice; HossB86; RnMomof7; metmom; boatbums; caww
>> Rest assured of my prayers to the Holy Mother<<

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.

2,090 posted on 12/02/2011 6:33:23 PM PST by CynicalBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2085 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear

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.


2,091 posted on 12/02/2011 6:40:27 PM PST by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2090 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr
>> They are ignorant that pray to also means petition as in intercessory prayer<<

Of course it does. I see people all the time put posts on here praying to the people to pray for them.

Bwahahahaha!

2,092 posted on 12/02/2011 6:45:11 PM PST by CynicalBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2091 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr; rzman21; CynicalBear; metmom
1,500 years of Christian Faith of the Real Presence in the Eucharist. Then, none...

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

2,093 posted on 12/02/2011 6:49:21 PM PST by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2089 | View Replies]

To: Judith Anne

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.


2,094 posted on 12/02/2011 6:49:39 PM PST by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2092 | View Replies]

To: Judith Anne; RnMomof7
Your ridicule of sacred tradition is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.

*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.

2,095 posted on 12/02/2011 6:49:52 PM PST by metmom (For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2085 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7

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.


2,096 posted on 12/02/2011 6:51:40 PM PST by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2093 | View Replies]

To: mas cerveza por favor; metmom; 1000 silverlings; Alex Murphy; bkaycee; blue-duncan; boatbums; ...

“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.


2,097 posted on 12/02/2011 6:52:58 PM PST by blue-duncan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2044 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr

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.


2,098 posted on 12/02/2011 6:54:51 PM PST by metmom (For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2087 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
..a close reading of the church fathers show some thought Christ was spiritually present not the platonic view of a physical presence ..

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.

2,099 posted on 12/02/2011 6:55:15 PM PST by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2093 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr
1,500 years of Christian Catholic Faith of the Real Presence in the Eucharist.

Fixed it.....

Do not conflate Catholic with Christian. One does not by default mean the other.

2,100 posted on 12/02/2011 6:56:29 PM PST by metmom (For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2089 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 2,061-2,0802,081-2,1002,101-2,120 ... 4,081-4,087 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson