Gay Episcopal Bishop to Preach at San Francisco Catholic Parish

If we look historically we see that individual bishops/elders held councils that decided things like canonical books and rules for the “priesthood”... The church held an independence for more than 300 years until Rome decided it had complete authority and wielded the sword to prove it

>>I have news for you. The Church of Rome did not gain complete juridical supremacy over the Western Church until after the year 1000.

The Church was DECENTRALIZED. Yes, Rome was recognized as having a primacy of honor, but most of the debates over the canon took place in the East.

Your theory doesn’t hold any water. Besides the Church was underground for the years leading up to Constantine’s legalization of Christianity, so the sort of communication needed to standardize the canons of scripture just didn’t exist.

Maybe if you doubt what the priests decided, you should start reading the First Epistle of St. Clement to the Corinthians and the Shepherd of Hermas as scripture.

They were regarded by some local Christian Churches as part of the New Testament. So I guess you can thank Constantine for corrupting the Bible and getting those books tossed from the canon.

Ah, poor Luther. He’s just not modern enough.

I hear Joel Olsteen is getting a reality tv show.

How was your visit to the Church of Satan?

MHGinTN says:

I lost respect for you long ago, when it became apparent that you had a mental instability toward anything Catholic. You have solidified that assessment repeatedly with your mentally sick attacks on Catholics and the Catholic Church. You don’t need to keep proving your sickness, but you don’t have to try to reinforce the illness after you’re called on it either. You are one sick dude. I would suggest you get help, but you appear too far gone in your obsession to be reasoned with.

I agree.

If you read the entire article you see this .. that this tradition was accepted by all the Churches of East and West.

No EVIDENCE only tradition marks this spot.. The Catholic encyclopedia admits that there is no surety in the tomb of mary.. all supposition ..Do you believe Mary was sinless??

Yeah, back then you had a bunch of different denominations like the Gnostics. The Cainites, the Valentinians, etc.

And it’s not true that there was no authority. It’s more loose knit than the hierarchy of the RCC, but it’s still there.
>>Like the Orthodox Church is today, but Rome was seen has the final court of appeal in cases where the local churches could not settle matters themselves.

Eastern Catholics still resist Roman centralism. The Melkite Church, for example, rejected the First Vatican Council. But to date we haven’t been called by Rome to account for that rejection.

Cf. the canons of the Council of Sardica.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3815.htm

Yeah, and Mohammad had vision and ascended into heaven and John Smith had visions and Angels and thousands see Mary in toast.

Exactly ... no PROOF.. but sadly Catholics do not require proof of anything ..they have have placed their faith in the doctrine of men that lacks any basis ..no different than the mormons that are measuring the heavens for the curtains for their own planet...

Jesus says salvation is through HIM. He never said anyone has to go through a church to be saved.

John 14:6 esus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

John 10:7-9 7So Jesus again said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep. 8All who came before me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not listen to them. 9I am the door. If anyone enters by me, he will be saved and will go in and out and find pasture.

Acts 4:8-12 8Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, "Rulers of the people and elders, 9if we are being examined today concerning a good deed done to a crippled man, by what means this man has been healed, 10let it be known to all of you and to all the people of Israel that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead—by him this man is standing before you well. 11 This Jesus is the stone that was rejected by you, the builders, which has become the cornerstone. 12And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved."

Jesus didn't establish the church to lead us, He promised the Holy Spirit to us for that purpose.

John 14:15-17, 26 "If you love me, you will keep my commandments. 16And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever, 17even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will be in you.
26But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.

Out of His Church came the Scriptures, under the guidance and inspiration of the Holy Spirit who was to lead them to all truth.

Truth which included what was to be considered as Scriptures.

They, too, are well aware that I can do everything they can do. Yet they treat me as a stranger in their discipline, these incurable fellows, as if I had just arrived this morning and had never seen or heard what they teach and know. How they do brilliantly parade around with their science, teaching me what I outgrew twenty years ago!

LOL!!! It looks like NOTHING has changed in Catholicism in how many hundreds of years?

no “polemical statements”, just showing what the historical, orthodox Christian Faith is, as opposed to the new 16th century gospel so many on here seem to believe.

Actually you are just engaging in assertions, and not interacting with the Scripture evidence presented against this being New Testament faith, and thus more is not warranted, while as for historicity in the post apostolic age, most Roman Catholics are ignorant of what recent research has evidenced, such as on the early papacy.

► Jesuit Father Klaus Schatz on Priesthood, Canon, and the Development of Doctrine in his work, “Papal Primacy”:

..if we ask whether the historical Jesus, in commissioning Peter, expected him to have successors, or whether the authority of the Gospel of Matthew, writing after Peter’s death, was aware that Peter and his commission survived in the leaders of the Roman community who succeeded him, the answer in both cases is probably “no” (page 1)

.. if we ask in addition whether the primitive church was aware, after Peter’s death, that his authority had passed to the next bishop of Rome, or in other words that the head of the community at Rome was now the successor of Peter, the Church’s rock and hence the subject of the promise in Matthew 16:18-19, the question, put in those terms, must certainly be given a negative answer. (page 2)

"If one had asked a Christian in the year 100, 200, or even 300 whether the bishop of Rome was the head of all Christians, or whether there was a supreme bishop over all the other bishops and having the last word in questions affecting the whole Church, he or she would certainly have said no." (page 3, top). More

► Catholic historian and political conservative Paul Johnson in his 1976 work “History of Christianity” states:

By the third century, lists of bishops, each of whom had consecrated his successor, and which went back to the original founding of the see by one or the other of the apostles, had been collected or manufactured by most of the great cities of the empire and were reproduced by Eusebius…– “A History of Christianity,” pgs 53 ff.)

► American Roman Catholic priest and Biblical scholar Raymond Brown says, “The claims of various sees to descend from particular members of the Twelve are highly dubious. It is interesting that the most serious of these is the claim of the bishops of Rome to descend from Peter, the one member of the Twelve who was almost a missionary apostle in the Pauline sense – a confirmation of our contention that whatever succession there was from apostleship to episcopate, it was primarily in reference to the Puauline tyupe of apostleship, not that of the Twelve.” (“Priest and Bishop, Biblical Reflections,” Nihil Obstat, Imprimatur, 1970, pg 72.) More

► Patrologist Boniface Ramsey 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.' — Boniface Ramsey, Beginning to Read the Fathers (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1986), p. 6.

And what for what it is worth, the fallible CFs can be seen as opposing Rome, and not settled or unified in all things, and the claimed and required “unanimous consent” of the fathers for Rome is not a literal reality (and thus the EOs for one enlist them against Rome).

As for the Reformation being novel, the New Testament is the standard which exposes the deviation of Rome which autocratically is its own standard, while as one researcher states,

►"Recent research on the Reformation entitles us to sharpen it and say that the Reformation began because the reformers were too catholic in the midst of a church that had forgotten its catholicity...— Jaroslav Pelikan, (Lutheran scholar who later converted to Eastern Orthodoxy) The Riddle of Roman Catholicism (New York: Abingdon Press, 1959) p. 46

“If we keep in mind how variegated medieval catholicism was, the legitimacy of the reformers' claim to catholicity becomes clear. pp. 46-47).

“...To prepare books like the Magdeburg Centuries they combed the libraries and came up with a remarkable catalogue of protesting catholics and evangelical catholics, all to lend support to the insistence that the Protestant position was, in the best sense, a catholic position.”

"Substantiation for this understanding of the gospel came principally from the Scriptures, but whenever they could, the reformers also quoted the fathers of the catholic church. There was more to quote than their Roman opponents found comfortable" ( 48-49).

“In the end, the Council of Trent ended up (in true Roman fashion) condemning the true heritage, and canonizing its own path. In its decrees, Trent "selected and elevated to official status the notion of justification by faith plus works, which was only one of the doctrines of justification [found] in the medieval theologians and ancient fathers. When the reformers attacked this notion in the name of the doctrine of justification by faith alone -- a doctrine also attested to by some medieval theologians and ancient fathers-- Rome reacted by canonizing one trend [the wrong one] in preference to all the others. What had previously been permitted (justification by faith and works), now became required. What had been previously been permitted also (justification by faith alone), now became forbidden. In condemning the Protestant Reformation, the Council of Trent condemned [the better part of] its own catholic tradition" (pp. 51-52).

so anyone today who believes the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Faith is attacked. we understand this, we have been attacked by Gnostics, Arians, Nestorians, Muslims, Jews all thru history, so Protestantism was nothing new.

What is new is Rome not physically persecuting those who dissent from her, as she has the most blood on her hands, as it is Rome which exalts herself as the OTC, and claims power to punish those members, ecclesiastical or lay, who have not conformed to its laws by physical means, and universal jurisdiction and then cries victim after a history of making souls such. But you left out some Catholic persecuters: http://www.the-pope.com/wvat2tec.html

one final note, Jesus takes attacks against the Church very personally. read Acts 9:4-5 to see how personally.

Indeed, and thus the pope should apologize for the persecution and murders it sanctioned, and not just for erring children, and for exalting itself as the one true church with its demigod popes, and “every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.” (Lk. 18:14) And we all need to more.

Nuts!

You make assumptions. I don't have to.

# 841 The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. “The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.”[330]

Don't twist scripture. The deeds of the law St. Paul refers to are the 613 Levitical commandments that Jesus abrogated on the cross. They have NOTHING to do with the sacraments that Christ himself instituted and commanded us to perform. Rom. 4:5, "But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness," Haydock Ver. 5. Abraham, before his vocation, was an idolater, according to Josephus; (Jewish Antiquities, lib. i. chap. viii.) according to some of the Rabbins, and as the Scripture itself seems to insinuate, Josue chap. xxiv; Isaias xliii; Wisdom x; Judith v. He did not then merit his vocation to the faith by his works. But when God had called him, and made him depart from his country, when he promised to him an innumerable posterity, Abraham believed in his promises, and it was reputed to him unto justice, that his faith and his justice were the pure gift of God. His faith was not a dead and speculative faith only, but an active faith, a faith animated by charity, as appears from the sequel of his life. (Calmet) Chrysostom Ver. 5. To him that believes in Him that justifies the ungodly. For reflect how great a thing it is to be persuaded and have full confidence that God is able on a sudden not to free a man who has lived in impiety from punishment only, but even to make him just, and to count him worthy of those immortal honors. Do not then suppose that this one is lowered in that it is not reckoned unto the former of grace. For this is the very thing that makes the believer glorious; the fact of his enjoying so great grace, of his displaying so great faith. And note too that the recompense is greater. For to the former a reward is given, to the latter righteousness. Now righteousness is much greater than a reward. For righteousness is a recompense which most fully comprehends several rewards. Therefore after proving this from Abraham, he introduces David also as giving his suffrage in favor of the statement made. What then does David say? And whom does he pronounce blessed? Is it him that triumphs in works, or him that has enjoyed grace? Him that has obtained pardon and a gift? And when I speak of blessedness, I mean the chiefest of all good things; for as righteousness is greater than a reward, so is blessedness greater than righteousness. Having then shown that the righteousness is better, not owing to Abraham's having received it only but also from reasonings (for he has whereof to boast, he says, before God ); he again uses another mode of showing that it is more dignified, by bringing David in to give his suffrage this way. For he also, he says, pronounces him blessed who is so made righteous, saying, Romans 3:28 Haydock Ver. 20. &c. To the end of this chapter, the apostle shews that the Jews cannot be truly justified, and sanctified by the works of the written law of Moses only; that a knowledge of sin, or of what is sinful, came by the law, but if they did not comply with the precepts of the law, this knowledge made them more guilty. Now, at the coming of Christ, the justice of God, that is, the justice by which he made others just, and justified them, cannot be had without faith in Christ, and by the grace of our Redeemer Jesus Christ, whom God hath proposed to all, both Gentiles and Jews, as a sacrifice of[3] propitiation for the sins of all mankind, by faith in his blood; that is, by believing in him, who shed his blood and died for us on the cross. It is he alone, (ver. 26.) that is the just one, and the justifier of all. And as to this, there is no distinction. The Gentiles are justified and sanctified without the written law, and the Jews who have been under the law, cannot partake of the justice of God, that is, cannot be justified, sanctified, or saved, but by the faith and grace of Christ Jesus. St. Paul does not pretend that the virtue of faith alone will justify and save a man; nothing can be more opposite to the doctrine of the gospel, and of the apostles in many places, as hath been observed, and will be shewn hereafter. He tells us in this chapter (ver. 20. and 28.) that man is justified without the works of the written law: and he teaches us, that no works of the law of Moses, nor any works that a man does by the law of nature, are sufficient to justify a man, and save him of themselves, that is, unless they be joined with faith, and the grace of God. And when he seems to say, that men are justified or saved by faith, or by believing, as he says of Abraham in the next chapter, (ver. 3. and 5.) he never says (as some both ancient and later heretics have pretended) that faith alone is sufficient. And besides by faith, he understands the Christian faith and doctrine of Christ, as opposite to the law of Moses, to circumcision, and the ceremonies of that law, as it evidently appears by the design of the apostle, both in this epistle and in that to the Galatians. He teaches us in this epistle (chap. ii. 6.) that God will judge every man according to his works: (chap. ii. 13.) that "not the hearers of the law," but the doers, shall be justified. See also chap. vi. He tells the Galatians (chap. v. ver. 6.) that the faith, by which they must be saved, must be a faith working by charity. He also tells the Corinthians (1 Corinthians vii. 19.) that circumcision is nothing, nor uncircumcision, but the keeping of the commandments of God. That though a man should have a faith, that so he could remove mountains, it would avail him nothing without charity. How often does he tell us that they who commit such and such sins, shall not inherit or possess the kingdom of God? Does not St. James tell us, that faith without good works is dead? See chap. ii. Of this more hereafter. (Witham)

St.John Chyrsostom comments showing that St. Paul is referring to the possibility of salvation for the Gentiles who don't keep the kosher laws. Ver. 28. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the Law. When he had shown that by faith they were superior to the Jews, then he goes on with great confidence to discourse upon it also, and what seemed therein to annoy he again heals up. For these two things were what confused the Jews; one, if it were possible for men, who with works were not saved, to be saved without them, and another, if it were just for the uncircumcised to enjoy the same blessings with those, who had during so long a period been nurtured in the Law; which last confused them more by far than the former. And on this ground having proved the former, he goes on to the other next, which perplexed the Jews so far, that they even complained on account of this position against Peter after they believed. What does he say then? Therefore we conclude, that by faith a man is justified. He does not say, a Jew, or one under the Law, but after leading forth his discourse into a large room, and opening the doors of faith to the world, he says a man, the name common to our race. And then having taken occasion from this, he meets an objection not set down. For since it was likely that the Jews, upon hearing that faith justifies every man, would take it ill and feel offended, he goes on,

Quix, can’t stand the heat.

The Jews changed their canon at the Synod of Jamnia, some 60 years AFTER Jesus ascended into heaven.They affirmed and closed their canon they did not change it.

The Book of Deuteronomy includes a prohibition against adding or subtracting,[2][3] which might apply to the book itself (i.e. a "closed book," a prohibition against future scribal editing) or to the instruction received by Moses on Mt. Sinai.[4]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_Jewish_Bible_canon

The apocrypha contains errors and contradictions within their pages.. all inspired scripture is written by prophets ( one that speaks for God)..yet in maccabees we are told that there was no prophets during that inter-testimonial period ..These writings have been a part of the jewish culture as of historic interest.. but never as inspired scripture

When Jerome learned that he refused to translate them .

The Jews Never accepted the apocrypha as part of the Old testament canon.

One more time..Where did Jesus ever give the NT church the authority to add to the Hebrew Bible..