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.

[metmom]

Do you ignore Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation like Luther did or do you just redefine parts of those books to suit yourself? When your're ignoring and revising various chapters and verses to suit your own personal interpretation of Scriptures, do you insert whole pages of revised replacements you came up with or do you go verse by verse with Post-it notes layered one over the other?

My personal interpretation is that gays should not be clergy or in the ministry? What do those books have to do with that? Did they say somewhere that immorality in the leadership of the church is acceptable?

[Rashputin]

didn't read that, didn't need to

When those who interpret Scriptures to suit themselves come to a direct quote of Jesus Christ that doesn't agree with their own interpretation of Scriptures, is it the infallible opinion of the interpreter that Jesus Christ lied or that Jesus Christ was too stupid to say what He meant?

Among the infallible who interpret Scriptures to suit themselves are many churches that ordain queers and claim their own infallible interpretation of Scriptures proves that ordaining queers is a good thing. If an infallible interpreter of Scriptures has their own personal interpretation of Scriptures that doesn't approve of ordaining queers, why isn't the fact that such infallible interpreters of Scriptures insist that Jesus Christ couldn't make Himself clearly understood reason enough to admit that ordaining queers might be just fine since Christ couldn't say what he meant?

When an infallible interpreter of the Bible denies that Jesus Christ said what he meant, does that mean that Christ was stupid, that the interpreter has special secret knowledge, that the interpreter is so much smarter than Christ that the interpreter can divine the true meaning even though Christ misspoke, or that the Bible does contain errors but only those errors the infallible interpreter defines as they see fit based on their own personal interpretation of Scriptures?

[one Lord one faith one baptism]

it’s the Holy Spirit leading us to faith in Jesus Christ, using THE CHURCH, as reflected all thru ACTS.

no one in the NT was brought to faith in Jesus Christ without THE CHURCH, if you can name someone who was, please show me where.

[metmom]

was Paul the husband of one wife?

Well, the Bible doesn't explicitly say he wasn't so we can just work on the presumption that he was until someone comes along and disproves it.

[one Lord one faith one baptism]

LOL, the Scriptures don’t explicitly say Mary wasn’t assumed into heaven once she dies, so we can work on the presumption she was until someone comes along and disproves it.

right?

[Rashputin]

didn't read that, didn't need to

Luther came up with a new doctrine and then threw out seven books in the Old Testament and wanted to throw out books in the New Testament as well but his drinking buddy Phil didn't think that was a good move politically, so Luther let the books he didn't like in the New Testament stay but called them junk. Calvin added a book to the New Testament he included in his version of the canon saying what he wrote was every bit as inspired as what the Apostles wrote.

Since it's obvious that the originators of the doctrine of each individual having their own personal version of Scripture started with their own doctrine and then manipulated the Bible to suit themselves, why shouldn't everyone who interprets the Bible to suit themselves add and subtract books to suit their own interpretation of Scripture instead of crossing out so many verses and sticking Post-It notes everywhere?

Do all infallible interpreters of Scriptures who started by accepting a Bible with parts of the Old Testament thrown out buy special copies of the New Testament with some of the verses already crossed out or is adding and deleting verses something they all do for themselves because they are each and every one individually infallible and smarter than anyone who has ever lived before in the entire history of the world?

[Quix]

THOSE ARE INCREDIBLE STATS.

What a stark indictment against the fossilized farce of the Vatican Ashteroth-Mary-Goddess cult.

Have you speculated on how many microseconds it will take the DENIERS to begin carping and vainly trying to explain them away?

[one Lord one faith one baptism]

the stats are further confirmation that the falling away from the Faith right before the end is here.

truly the two witnesses are dead ( as described in Revelation) and the world is rejoicing.

the question you two guys should be asking yourselves is, “why i am i rejoicing as well?”

[Quix]

1. The TWO Witnesses have not yet appeared on the scene.

Certainly the body of Elijah and ____?_____ have not lain in the streets of Jerusalem for 3 days in full view of the "whole world."

If ignorance of that is evidence of RC's Biblical knowledge, welllll . . . that's embarrassing.

2. I don't observe that the last 'Revival' Great Ingathering move of God has occurred yet. The falling away is most likely to come after that. Even a number of RC's have been posting about RC prophetic types discoursing about that. I forget what label y'all call it by.

3. God is not going to leave all the drama and miraculous demonstrations to satan. Not by a long shot.

Exodus 20:4-6 4 "You shall NOT make for yourself
a carved image,
or any likeness
of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. 5 You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, 6but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.

[Rashputin]

But you can pray over a hankie and that's fine. Well, it's only fine if someone blows the old schnoz on it first so it's not considered to be some sort of icon.

[metmom]

didn't read that, didn't need to

Yes, you do or you're going to continue to make a fool of yourself.

OK. this conversation started in post 2220 here....

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2811552/posts?page=2200#2200
with you saying:

"Hey, how about that infallible Episcopalian clergyman, he's just fine and wonderful like the Presbyterian lesbian pastor, and the Baptist queer couple, and on and on. All anyone has to know about who cannot do anything other than whine and repeat total untruths is to look at what this whole series of comments started over. A Catholic priest who may get away with allowing an ordained Episcopalian queer preach in a Catholic Church. Forget that the guy preaches in his own church or if still an Episcopalian Bishop, many churches, forget the fact that Protestant churches by the thousands are ordaining queers, marrying one faggot to another, preaching that abortion is fine, forget all of that and attack the Catholic Church."

To which I responded in post 2210

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2811552/posts?page=2210#2210

You then replied with post 2217 which said, (Rashputin)"didn’t read that, didn’t need to. Why do you like Episcopalian queers but hate Catholics?"

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2811552/posts?page=2217#2217

I replied with 2219 which was mm: "Do you have reading comprehension issues? Reread the first few sentences again. I don’t justify it for ANY clergy or anyone in the ministry of anyone in any position of responsibility within any church."

to which you responded with post 2225 .....

"didn't read that, didn't need to Do you ignore Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation like Luther did or do you just redefine parts of those books to suit yourself? When your're ignoring and revising various chapters and verses to suit your own personal interpretation of Scriptures, do you insert whole pages of revised replacements you came up with or do you go verse by verse with Post-it notes layered one over the other?"

Now, God and you alone know where that came from and what it could possibly have to do with gays in the clergy.

It appears that you have lost track of the conversation because I can't for the life of me figure out what you're arguing with me about and how that relates to my statement that there is no excuse for anyone being in leadership position in the church who is living in that kind of blatant immorality.

Tell me, how is one to otherwise interpret verses in Scripture that condemn immorality in the person who calls themselves a believer?

[one Lord one faith one baptism]

LOL, the two witnesses have been here for 2,000 years.

the witnesses are THE CHURCH.

the testimony of the Church has effectively been killed and the world is rejoicing.

why are you rejoicing as well?

[Iscool]

Where did John say in his writings that he did not write down everything of importance? That's what was claimed.

It wasn't in his writings...It was in his 'beyond scripture' teaching that he revealed to the Catholic church...Which became part of their tradition...

They obviously don't care what scripture says...

What a scheme that these people fall for...

Like Jesus said, there's a sucker born every minute...

[rzman21]

Yeah. I’m probably a bit younger than most of these ex-Catholics.

I can say that Bible reading is emphasized in many contemporary Roman Catholic parishes.

[rzman21]

Yeah. I’m probably a bit younger than most of these ex-Catholics.

I can say that Bible reading is emphasized in many contemporary Roman Catholic parishes.

[Rashputin]

didn't read that, didn't need to

When the elders get together to have a hankie prayer party because so many fellow believers have sent in their ten hankie bucks, and none of the elders has sinus congestion, do the elders still pay a junkie with chronic post nasal drip to blow his nose on each one so it won't be considered an icon or have they gone to just having an elder salivate on each one? Or, do some infallible interpreters of Scriptures who have their own personal interpretation of Scriptures not know about the prayer hankie ritual?

If one infallible interpreter of Scripture knows about the hankie ritual and another infallible interpreter of Scripture doesn't, do the interpreters who don't know the ritual still open their chest of drawers and find soiled hankies after a hankie prayer party so that they won't think their hankies are icons?

If someone sends their own hankie in to have it prayed over, and the hankie is lavender with "Chuck loves Bubba" on it, do the infallible interpreters of Scripture send it back, blow their nose on it and send it back without praying over it, or go ahead and both blow their nose on it and pray over it because they know an fellow infallible interpreter of Scripture sent it in along with ten bucks so even if they're queers they're infallible queers?

[rzman21]

Luther also had his sites on Hebrews, Jude, and Revelation.

[Quix]

I’d have thought that

“And God wrought special miracles by
the hands of Paul: So that from his body, were brought unto the sick handkerchiefs or
aprons, and the diseases departed from them, and the evil spirits went out of them.”
Acts 19:11-12

Was even in y’all’s rubberized ‘Bible.’ ???

Oh, it must be! LOL:

http://www.totallycatholic.com/product.php?id=2256

[rzman21]

Haydock commentary on 1 Timothy 2:5 One mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus: who gave himself a redemption for all. Take all these words together, and we may easily understand in what sense the apostle calls our Saviour Christ, the one or only mediator; that is, he is the only mediator, who at the same time is our Redeemer; the only mediator who could mediate betwixt God, the person offended by sin, and men the offenders; the only mediator who reconciled God to mankind by his incarnation and death, by the infinite price of his blood, by his own merits, independently of the merits of any other. All Catholics allow that the dignity and office of mediator in this sense belongs only to our Redeemer, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, made man to save us. The sense then of this place is, that as there is but one God, who created all, so there is but one mediator, who redeemed all. But yet the name of mediator is not so appropriated to Christ, but that in an inferior and different sense the Angels and saints in heaven, and even men on earth, who pray to God for the salvation of others, may be called mediators, intercessors, or advocates; and we may apply ourselves to them to pray, intercede, and mediate for us, without any injury to Christ, since we acknowledge that all their intercession and mediation is always grounded on the merits of Christ, our Redeemer. The same word for mediator, in the Greek as well as in the Latin, is given to Moses, God's servant. Gal. iii. 19. See also Deut. v. 5. The words of our Saviour himself, (Mat. xxiii.) taken according to the letter, contain an express prohibition of being called masters, or fathers; and this reason is given, because all men have one Father in heaven, and because Christians have one master, Christ. Yet no one can justly pretend from thence, that in a different sense, a man may not be called father or master, without any injury to God, or to Christ. Wi. — Christ is the one and only mediator of redemption; who gave himself, as the apostle writes, a redemption for all. He is also the only mediator, who stands in need of no other to recommend his petitions to the Father. But this is not against our seeking the prayers and intercessions, as well of the faithful upon earth, as of the saints and Angels in heaven, for obtaining mercy, grace, and salvation, through Jesus Christ. As S. Paul himself often desired the help of the prayers of the faithful, without any injury to the mediatorship of Jesus Christ. Ch. — If there be other mediators among the Angels and saints, they are only so in subordination to the first, who by themselves have no right to mediation or favours, and who cannot demand them but through the merits of him who is our only essential mediator. Estius, Menoch. &c. Consult. Judg. iii. 9. 2 Esd. ix. 17. Acts vii. 35. — A redemption for all. Not only for the predestinated, not only for the just, not only for the faithful, but for all Gentiles and infidels: and therefore he says again, (c. iv. 10.) that Christ is the Saviour of all men, and especially of the faithful. See S. Aug.[1] and S. Chrysostom.[2] Wi.

St. John Chyrosotom He had before said, to come to the knowledge of the truth, implying that the world is not in the truth. Now he says, that there is one God, that is, not as some say, many, and that He has sent His Son as Mediator, thus giving proof that He will have all men to be saved. But is not the Son God? Most truly He is; why then does he say, One God? In contradistinction to the idols; not to the Son. For he is discoursing about truth and error. Now a mediator ought to have communion with both parties, between whom he is to mediate. For this is the property of a mediator, to be in close communion with each of those whose mediator he is. For he would be no longer a mediator, if he were connected with one but separated from the other. If therefore He partakes not of the nature of the Father, He is not a Mediator, but is separated. For as He is partaker of the nature of men, because He came to men, so is He partaker of the nature of God, because He came from God. Because He was to mediate between two natures, He must approximate to the two natures; for as the place situated between two others is joined to each place, so must that between natures be joined to either nature. As therefore He became Man, so was He also God. A man could not have become a mediator, because he must also plead with God. God could not have been mediator, since those could not receive Him, toward whom He should have mediated. And as elsewhere he says, There is one God the Father,...and one Lord Jesus Christ 1 Corinthians 8:6; so also here One God, and One Mediator; he does not say two; for he would not have that number wrested to Polytheism, of which he was speaking. So he wrote One and One. You see how accurate are the expressions of Scripture! For though one and one are two, we are not to say this, though reason suggests it. And here you say not one and one are two, and yet you say what reason does not suggest. If He begot He also suffered. For there is one God, he says, and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus.

[rzman21]

Romans 5:1
St. John Chrysostom
Chap. v. ver. 1. Therefore being justified by faith, let us have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.

What does Let us have peace mean? Some say, Let us not be at variance, through a peevish obstinacy for bringing in the Law. But to me he seems to be speaking now of our conversation. For after having said much on the subject of faith, he had set it before righteousness which is by works, to prevent any one from supposing what he said was a ground for listlessness, he says, let us have peace, that is, let us sin no more, nor go back to our former estate. For this is making war with God. And how is it possible, says one, to sin no more? How was the former thing possible? For if when liable for so many sins we were freed from all by Christ, much more shall we be able through Him to abide in the estate wherein we are. For it is not the same thing to receive peace when there had been none, and to keep it when it has been given, since to acquire surely is harder than to keep. Yet nevertheless the more difficult has been made easy, and carried out into effect. That which is the easier thing then will be what we shall easily succeed in, if we cling to Him who has wrought even the other for us. But here it is not the easiness only which he seems to me to hint at, but the reasonableness. For if He reconciled us when we were in open war with Him, it is reasonable that we should abide in a state of reconciliation, and give unto Him this reward for that He may not seem to have reconciled untoward and unfeeling creatures to the Father.