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.
I respect your right to believe how you will and this may need to be where we agree to disagree, but let me just say a little bit more on this one point. When you say that nowhere in the NT is the Lord's Supper said to be symbolic, I part ways with you. My take is that the whole thing HAD to be understood as symbolic in order for the Apostles to even teach it after Christ ascended as well as how the Holy Spirit brought it back to their remembrance everything that he had taught them.
If it HAD been meant literally, then when Jesus said he was "living water" and whoever drank of him out of their bellies would flow living water, why is there no such ordinance for drinking the water of life? He said he was the "door to the sheepfold", the "bread of life", the "horn of salvation", the "light of the world", the "lion of the tribe of Judah", our "Passover", the "everlasting rock", the "true light", the "true vine", the "word of life", the "bridegroom" and the shepherd and overseer as well as several hundred other titles. All of these titles and attributes speak of him in symbolic and figurative ways BUT still true language.
When the early Christians observed what is called the Eucharist - which means "thanksgiving" - they used the same object lesson tools that Jesus did. The bread, which was torn, was his body which was torn or broken for us. The cup, the fruit of the vine, was his blood which was shed for us/our sins and whenever those people together went through the actions of the ritual, they were doing it in remembrance of him. Not one person - until many, many years later - thought that the bread was really changed into Jesus' flesh, because it was eaten as a sign that the person had received Jesus already. The same with the drinking of the cup. It was a sign that the participant by drinking the cup had received the blood of Christ as payment for their sins. So, though they identified the bread and wine as the body and blood of Christ, it was symbolic. As anyone could clearly see, the bread did not change. The wine did not change. Even in the doctrine of transubstantiation, the "elements" remain the same. Whatever the state of those consecrated "elements" - be it earthly or spiritually - they are still bread and wine, what they are.
When the followers of Jesus left after he spoke of eating his flesh and drinking his blood, I don't really think they left because they were afraid he really meant it in some kind of gruesome way, but that he wasn't going to just be there to feed their physical needs, he was wanting to fill their spiritual needs more. In fact, it was the spiritual hungering and thirsting that he wanted to sate. The Jews were used to having symbolism in their rituals. All were signs and figures of a spiritual reality.
Like I said, we may never agree about this subject just as the early church fathers were not in unanimous agreement regardless of what historians may say. What is more important is what we think of Jesus' sacrifice. Is it enough to pay the full penalty of all our sins and accomplished once for all at Calvary? Or does it need to be repeated in an "unbloody" manner again and again to be a continuing sacrifice for sin which must be added to in order to be effectual? That is the most important part.
We’ve been declared sinless by God, in a legal transaction.
>>That’s the problem. You Westerners follow the pagan Romans in interpreting everything in legal terms.
That’s simply not the Greek way. St. Paul’s writings show a strong Platonistic influence not unlike that of Philo of Alexandria.
http://www.orthodoxconvert.info/Q-A.php?c=Salvation-The%20Atonement
Colossians 2:14, which you cite as your proof text refers to the 613 Levitical laws that he abolished on the cross.
Haydock:
http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id213.html
Ver. 14. Blotting out, &c.[4] This is commonly expounded of the sentence of eternal death pronounced against sinful Adam, and all his posterity, for having sinned in him. Others would have it to signify only the yoke and obligations of the Mosaical law, which could not of itself remit sins, and occasionally made persons greater sinners. This sentence of death (whether we understand the one or the other) Christ took away, fastening it as it were, to the cross, taking it away by his death on the cross. (Witham)
St. John Chrysostom Homily on Colossian v. 14:
Beware then lest we be condemned by this, after saying, I renounce Satan, and array myself with You, O Christ. Rather however this should not be called a bond, but a covenant. For that is a bond, whereby one is held accountable for debts: but this is a covenant. It has no penalty, nor says it, If this be done or if this be not done: what Moses said when he sprinkled the blood of the covenant, by this God also promised everlasting life. All this is a covenant. There, it was slave with master, here it is friend with friend: there, it is said, In the day that you eat thereof you shall die Genesis 2:17; an immediate threatening; but here is nothing of the kind. God arrives, and here is nakedness, and there was nakedness; there, however, one that had sinned was made naked, because he sinned, but here, one is made naked, that he may be set free. Then, man put off the glory which he had; now, he puts off the old man; and before going up (to the contest), puts him off as easily, as it were his garments. He is anointed, as wrestlers about to enter the lists. For he is born at once; and as that first man was, not little by little, but immediately. (He is anointed,) not as the priests of old time, on the head alone, but rather in more abundant measure. For he indeed was anointed on the head, the right ear, the hand Leviticus 8:23-24; to excite him to obedience, and to good works; but this one, all over. For he comes not to be instructed merely; but to wrestle, and to be exercised; he is advanced to another creation. For when one confesses (his belief) in the life everlasting, he has confessed a second creation. He took dust from the earth, and formed man Genesis 2:7: but now, dust no longer, but the Holy Spirit; with This he is formed, with this harmonized, even as Himself was in the womb of the Virgin. He said not in Paradise, but in Heaven. For deem not that, because the subject is earth, it is done on earth; he is removed there, to Heaven, there these things are transacted, in the midst of Angels: God takes up your soul above, above He harmonizes it anew, He places you near to the Kingly Throne.
A number of other commentaries on the verse can be found in the following link.
http://bit.ly/sXMcXF
Forensic justification is a novel interpretation.
Wait... what????
Catholics praying TO someone besides God FOR something from them?
I thought that never happened....
Say it ain't so......
That cannot help but remind of the relativist creed: all statements are false including this one.
You have cut off your own legs.
In the future, I'll assume you mean this, and give your opinion and that of your church the worth you have assigned it: none.
Christ was much wiser than to entrust His Church to such a hopeless scheme.
Better watch that CO2 build up.
Most Holy Mary Virgin Mother of God,
I am unworthy to be your servant.
Yet moved by your motherly care for me
and longing to serve you,
I choose you this day to be my Queen,
my Advocate, and my Mother.
I firmly resolve ever
to be devoted to you
and to do what I can to encourage others
to be devoted to you.
My loving Mother,
through the Precious Blood of your Son shed for me,
I beg you to receive me
as your servant forever.
Aid me in my actions
and beg for me the grace
never by thought, word, or deed
to be displesing in your sight
and that of your most holy Son.
Remember me, dearest Mother,
and do not abandon me at the hour of death.
My soul magnifies the Lord,
And my spirit rejoices in God my Savior.
For He has regarded the low estate of His handmaiden,
For behold, henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.
For He who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is His name. And His mercy is on those who fear Him from generation to generation.
He has shown strength with His arm:
He has scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts.
He has put down the mighty from their thrones,
and exalted those of low degree.
He has filled the hungry with good things;
and the rich He has sent empty away.
He has helped His servant Israel, in remembrance of His mercy;
As He spoke to our fathers, to Abraham and to His posterity forever.
Glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit.
As it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen
Magníficat ánima mea Dóminum,
et exsultávit spíritus meus
in Deo salvatóre meo,
quia respéxit humilitátem
ancíllæ suæ.
Ecce enim ex hoc beátam
me dicent omnes generatiónes,
quia fecit mihi magna,
qui potens est,
et sanctum nomen eius,
et misericórdia eius in progénies
et progénies timéntibus eum.
Fecit poténtiam in bráchio suo,
dispérsit supérbos mente cordis sui;
depósuit poténtes de sede
et exaltávit húmiles.
Esuriéntes implévit bonis
et dívites dimísit inánes.
Suscépit Ísrael púerum suum,
recordátus misericórdiæ,
sicut locútus est ad patres nostros,
Ábraham et sémini eius in sæcula.
Glória Patri et Fílio
et Spirítui Sancto.
Sicut erat in princípio,
et nunc et semper,
et in sæcula sæculórum.
Amen.
She became the Mother of God, in which work so many and such great good things are bestowed on her as pass man’s understanding. For on this there follows all honor, all blessedness, and her unique place in the whole of mankind, among which she has no equal, namely, that she had a child by the Father in heaven, and such a Child . . . Hence men have crowded all her glory into a single word, calling her the Mother of God . . . None can say of her nor announce to her greater things, even though he had as many tongues as the earth possesses flowers and blades of grass: the sky, stars; and the sea, grains of sand. It needs to be pondered in the heart what it means to be the Mother of God.
(Commentary on the Magnificat, 1521; in Luther’s Works, Pelikan et al, vol. 21, 326)
Sorry I left out the Methodist for the first 1,500 years.
:)
Do not conflate Catholic with Christian. One does not by default mean the other.
>Spoken like a true apostate Catholic with an ax to grind.
I think the animosity would be mutual with Luther. He was quite critical of every ‘milkmaid’ having her own theology.
And he abandoned the Peasant’s Revolt that was partly in his name.
I don’t think he realized what he had wrought.
John said quite plainly in his Gospel that he did not include everything of importance. There is no basis for claiming that the Assumption of Mary did not happen because it was not reported in the Gospels.
But there is the testimony of St. John of Damascus, logic, and the constant belief of 2000-year, Paraclete-informed Christian Church
“Mary’s relics would have been highly cherished, not Hoffa’s.”
I wouldn’t be to sure about that. It seems that 10 to 11 times a year, including the pre and post season, between 60,000 to 70,000 people make the pilgrimage to the Meadowlands to pay their respects at the potential site of Hoffa’s burial.
So then he is infallible?
For your edification. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4E3ToVNOD4
You must think I really care what Luther thought, taught or did other than open the eyes of people to see that the CC was not following scripture. He and others were instrumental in getting the scriptures back into the hands of the people and was used by God for that but I test his views against scripture as I do all others. The CC tendency to follow individuals is not something that has intruded into my study.
“John said quite plainly in his Gospel that he did not include everything of importance:”
No, what John said was that there were “many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book”, not that “he did not include everything of importance.” There is a difference.
Are you?
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.