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.
From the Catholic Encyclopedia on the belief in the Assumption of Mary:
“The belief in the corporeal assumption of Mary is founded on the apocryphal treatise De Obitu S. Dominae, bearing the name of St. John, which belongs however to the fourth or fifth century. It is also found in the book De Transitu Virginis, falsely ascribed to St. Melito of Sardis, and in a spurious letter attributed to St. Denis the Areopagite. If we consult genuine writings in the East, it is mentioned in the sermons of St. Andrew of Crete, St. John Damascene, St. Modestus of Jerusalem and others. In the West, St. Gregory of Tours (De gloria mart., I, iv) mentions it first. The sermons of St. Jerome and St. Augustine for this feast, however, are spurious. St. John of Damascus (P.G., I, 96) thus formulates the tradition of the Church of Jerusalem:
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; wherefrom the Apostles concluded that the body was taken up to heaven.”
“...nobody of any stature testifying against it.”
Well, the apostle Paul said that “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God”. (1 Cor. 15:50 NAB)
John of Damascus or Paul of apostle?
Was prayerfully pondering such some more in the shower.
That sounds like an appeal to
It pretends that WORDS don't mean much.
God has a DIFFERENT perspective . . . not the tiniest punctuation of HIS WORD will pass away--as Christ emphatically asserted.
Where's the dictionary for metaphors?
Metaphors, even more than words, are quite vulnerable to influences from individual psychologies, childhood conditioning, weather, indigestion, reference group norms, context, trends, emotions, degrees of education etc.
So here you have millions of say Filipino's . . . or Calcutta slum families or Santiago working class or even middle class families or even elites dyed in the wool Roman Catholics.
The Ashteroth-Mary-Goddess-Queen-of-Heaven personage/meme has been intensely incorporated into their Roman Catholicism from birth.
They read such stuff or hear it verbalized from a priest or Bishop . . . what do they truly think or hear in their minds, hearts, spirits?
Do you HONESTLY THINK
that they say to themselves:
Self--that doesn't mean what it says--it's just a metaphor. Mary's NOT REALLY part of the Godhead. It's just flowery language. She's NOT REALLY the ONLY way to God--that's just flowery language.
If you REALLY BELIEVE THAT, then I'm skeptical any rational discourse with you is remotely possible.
The whole INSTITUTION of the Vatican at every level has been increasingly spewing such blasphemous idolatrous stuff for many decades, if not centuries. And if you think that has no effect on the rank and file--welllll--that's just incomprehensible.
If it has no influence on the rank and file, why is so much money, time, energy, wood pulp and media time UTTERLY INTENSELY DEVOTED TO SUCH BLASPHEMOUS DAMNABLE ASSERTIONS?
I'll tell you why--because the king of hell has a huge investment in making it so. And the RCC Magicsterical and other hierarchy find it lucrative and powerfully manipulative to go along with the horrific scheme.
Further, if you think that God Almighty, Son and Spirit find such to be harmless metaphors, then I don't think we know the same God by a long stretch.
John of Damascus or Paul of apostle?
LOL. St. Paul never testified against the Assumption of Mary. When has there ever been negative authoritative testimony in direct reference to the Assumption of Mary?
It is CONCEIVABLE
that God could have taken Mary’s body to Heaven—to discourage the very idolatry that has resulted anyway—just as He may well have done with Moses’ body.
It is NOT CONCEIVABLE that the whole RCC dogmatic idolatrous hoopla surrounding such a possibility has a shred of truth to it.
What a stench the overlays are!
“Spurious” sources and commentary from the 5th. - 8th. cen. versus Paul's clear statement? Not what I could reasonably call “evidence in favor”
Since Paul's words were applicable to others besides Mary why would he single her out, living or dead?
Salvation is a GIFT from God
The ROman Catholic church has nothing to do with that gift
Welcome, Josh.
What a gracious post.
I’m glad you are our Catholic brother here on the forum.
God bless.
ROE.
By what objective measure can the passage you quoted be considered an argument against the Assumption of Mary, since there is no direct reference? Has any reliable authority interpreted this scripture to be applicable to the Assumption of Mary? I do not see it.
Welcome to FR, Josh.
You can find a lot of authoritative Catholic posters here on FR if you are willing to do a bit of searching. If you look up Salvation’s threads, she is a wonderful resource here at FR for all things Catholic.
Private message coming your way.
Hi ROE,
Thank you for your welcome. It is much appreciated.
I’ll probably be asking a lot of questions at first as I’m not well catechized and I’m looking to grow in our Faith. If anything I know I’m in the right place based on the charity of my fellow Catholics. Over time I hope to contribute substantially to the forum.
In the meantime just consider me an enthusiastic cheerleader :-)
God Bless You
Best Regards,
Josh
Welcome Josh,
Thank you for your wonderful and kind post. I hope we can learn together in love and charity while defending the Faith, and take advantage of that most important lesson offered on these threads; Patience and forbearance.
:)
God bless you and yours...
Paul's encompassing statement of principle would include Mary just as much as his admonition about who would not inherit God's kingdom.
D-Fendr,
Thank you for the welcome. That is my hope as well. The wealth of knowledge of the Faith here is staggering for someone like myself. However, I trust that goodwill and charity will see us all grow in the Faith.
God Bless you and yours as well!
Best Regards,
Josh
Pastor JD had interesting linkage between Fatima, Islam, Mary, Roman Catholicism.
You quoted: “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God”. (1 Cor. 15:50 NAB)
How does this passage relate to or disprove the Assumption of Mary?
With that level of understanding of the Christian Church, I despair of teaching you the truth. Jesus Created the Catholic Church. Men created the rubble of the Reformation.
Beware of what you would build the foundation of your faith on: the pillar and foundation of truth versus the foundation on sand. St. Paul is very explicit.
When can we get back to the Angels on a Pin thing?
Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”
Placemarker
I’ll tell you what’s offensive. Not reading scripture than accusing someone of twisting scripture. First of all. In that verse repentance came before baptism. So don’t twist the two and claim baptism forgave sins when scripture clearly states repentance does. Second. Weren’t you the buy who accused me of taking the quote that Peter was the “Apostle to the circumcision” from a Protestant book?
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.