Gay Episcopal Bishop to Preach at San Francisco Catholic Parish

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.

ROTFLMAO ... Yeah, baby, time for the 'Scripture Alone' crowd to roll out another interpretation, one big enough to require two of the usual 'Jesus N'Me' papers and light it on up. Because that's all the folks redefining and reinterpreting Scriptures for themselves can do, stay stoned enough on their own ego to not think about how badly they're disobey the very Scriptures they claim are their only guide.

Fixation on Luther, LOL. Someone mimics the guy who tosses out whatever portions of the Bible he doesn't agree, pretends the Book of Jude isn't in the New Testament, and like Luther revises everything they read in the Bible to suit their own intellect, then pretends someone else is "fixated" on Luther when they point out the facts. ROTFL... Gee, I guess that means the same people have to complain about the Catholic fixation on Christ, not about Mary. Because it's Christ the Catholic Church preaches, Christ the Catholic Church serves, Christ the Catholic Church relies on for Salvation, and has for nearly two thousand years it has been the Catholic Church that has insisted Christ has to be the focus of all things, not some collection of letters or books men like the 'Scripture Alone' crowd can tear entire books out of. So, thanks for the admission that by your own standards the Catholic Church is fixated on Christ.

Is the book of Jude in your New Testament?
Is the Book of Jude for those of us under the New Covenant to learn from?
When the Bible tells us that anyone who does not partake of the flesh and blood of Christ in the real Eucharist has no life in them, does it exempt those who don't like that idea?

So, the questions once again go unanswered as yet another diversion and attempt to change the subject is tossed into the thread by the crowd who roll their personal interpretations in 'Jesus N'Me' banana flavored papers and smoke them to stay stoned on their own ego. And being stoned on their own intellect they worship, they try and avoid the Truth that it is Christ, not a book, that we are to bow down to. Christ, not some book, that we are to worship. Christ, not personal intellect that should guide us. Christ who clearly said that unless you partake of His flesh and His blood you have no life in you and are incapable of understanding His Word.

And those who are in such darkness that they have no life in them think someone should answer their lies and distortions but that they should never, ever, answer a question or even stay on topic. The topic being, of course, the fact that an ordained Episcopalian queer may be allowed to preach at a Catholic Church unless someone corrects the errant priest who invited him. Of course, if you like the idea of ordaining queers and having queers married down at the "Roll Yer Own Bible Doobies Church of Me", I guess you just don't want to deal with the tens of thousands of individual Protestant and Protestant derived churches that are ordaining queers, marrying queers one to another, and otherwise being every bit as infallible as the "Roll Yer Own Bible Doobie" crowd. Even if you don't approve but 'only' claim that everyone can be their own infallible interpreter of Scriptures you really, really, want to avoid thinking about why so many of those who make the same claims you do are all for such things along with abortion, euthanasia, and anything else that makes them feel good. So, such folks just attack the Catholic Church and ignore the queer Episcopalian who was and still may be an Episcopalian Bishop, who speaks to plenty of his fellow infallible interpreters of Scriptures in places other than Catholic Churches, and otherwise is a glowing witness for and tribute to the doctrine of "Scripture Alone".

Some people are not drawn to Christ rather than their own intellect precisely because Christ is so merciful, kind, and generous, in the way He approaches us through the Holy Spirit. Like Adam and Eve, some people are so accustomed to the way the Holy Spirit shows mercy that they have drifted into worship of their own intellect. In my experience, such folks need some sort of shock in order to recognize the Truth. May the Grace of God draw those now worshiping their own intellect to Christ and show them their need for Salvation. May the Mercy of God abandon them so completely they are frightened into near shock by the darkness swallowing them and rush to abandon their own intellect, surrender to the Holy Spirit, and beg Christ for forgiveness, Salvation, and Mercy. Amen.

have a nice day

"I cannot see the SS crowd giving up their arrogance ... "

Unfortunately I think you're right in the case of the folks on FR, but there's something very big going unnoticed these days. From what I've been hearing, RCIA classes are a good bit larger than they've been in the past, and a great many of those coming to the Catholic Church say the same thing drew them. Their realization that when each person interprets Scripture for themselves, there's no limit to the number of interpretations and no limit to the number of false teaching that people will accept as being Biblical since everything revolves around individual intellect.

Never underestimate the ability of the Holy Spirit to do incredible things very, very, quietly. Christ constantly pours Mercy on us all, all of us don't recognize it as Mercy, though. That's the real problem, especially in this country, so many people think they're having a smooth ride because they're on the right road when in fact they're drowning in Mercy but swimming away from the source of that Mercy because they love themselves more than anything they can imagine. What cross is there to bear when you decide for yourself what you will and will not obey? What cross is there to bear when you refuse to accept anything first and grow to understanding later? How much can you follow Christ when you're charting your own course by redefining the Word to suit yourself?

Too many people refuse to acknowledge the meaning of the word 'surrender'. When you enlist in the USMC you accept boot camp, you only understand that it's required for you to become a Marine, you do not understand all the details of what is going on and why things are done the way they are done. Believe me, bogus theories of what's really going on abound in boot camp, but everyone has accepted that they have to go through it without completely understanding it. Likewise, following Christ requires acceptance with understanding only following once you know how to follow orders.

Then you can graduate to grunt and fight, you don't graduate to being an olive drab couch potato in your personal little world where you can nibble on your orders, picking and choosing which portions of your orders you like and which portions you'll rewrite. It's the same way with Christianity, you do not revise, rewrite, reinterpret, or otherwise find ways to ignore direct orders. If you do, you are NOT Christian, you're avoiding the battle by starting your own personal peace movement and yielding the battlefield to the enemy in hopes of being left alone to roll your own little ego doobies and stay stoned on your own ego. You may convince yourself that the victor will be so generous that He will ignore your cowardice, but that's not what our Commander in Chief said, He said He will tell many who call His name, "I never knew you".

The Holy Spirit is drawing those who are sincerely seeking Christ to His One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church and driving away those who are Catholic in name only, born Catholic and thoughtless, or so enamored of their own ego that they refuse to surrender to Christ but pretend to believe. Those who are coming to Him know they're grunts, not couch potatoes, not a new way of home churches where they never even have to hear something that threatens their own ego, and not infallible interpreters of all Scriptures sufficient unto themselves in all matters of faith and morals. As Holmes used to say, "the game is afoot", and the losers are getting ever more agitated and ever more reliant on the age old lies about His Church rather than on even the pretense of reason and the usual appeals to selfish, egotistical, interpretations to tempt others into error.

JMHO. Sorry for the lengthy posts, but I went to the rite of Acceptance on Sunday and Jesus Christ was there, in person, without a doubt, and more clearly than I ever have seen Him in the Lutheran church or any other I ever attended. Physically, really, present in a way I can't really describe. I had to keep reminding myself to not smile so much because I was afraid people might think I wasn't taking things seriously. All I want to know now is how often can I go to Church. Is every day too much?

Regards

A condition!!! You must be baptized!!!

Then you have a contradiction within Scripture, which does NOT exist if baptism is NOT a condition for salvation.

So, explain the contradiction of this passage where there is no mention of baptism.

Romans 10: 5-17 5For Moses writes about the righteousness that is based on the law, that the person who does the commandments shall live by them. 6But the righteousness based on faith says, "Do not say in your heart, 'Who will ascend into heaven?'" (that is, to bring Christ down) 7or "'Who will descend into the abyss?'" (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead).

8But what does it say? "The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart" (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim); 9because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. 11For the Scripture says, "Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame." 12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. 13For "everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."

14How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? 15And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!" 16But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?" 17So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.

The irony of all the Catholic railing about baptism being necessary for salvation, is that even if one believes that to be the case, I don't know a Christian who has not been baptized at some point in their lives. I was infant baptized into the Catholic church.

So we're good to go anyway......

Next......

Since you pinged me, should I assume you are accusing me of being dishonest about being raised a Roman Catholic? You also pinged others that have testified such as well, are you accusing them of being liars? So we are clear here, we were Catholics so that does NOT make us "phony catholics". You DO know the difference, right?

Wouldn't that be the ones still pretending to be Catholics? Like the ones who vote Democrat?

Those of us who have left Catholicism are not *phony Catholics* because we are not still claiming to BE Catholics. Nothing *phony* about that. It's the Catholics who keep claiming that we're still Catholics. You know, *Once a Catholic, always a Catholic.* Come back across the Tiber. Please. Pretty please. We'll take you back. All will be forgiven. Otherwise you'll burn in hell you heretic.

Let me just ask you this, you too, Mark, what is so difficult to believe about someone being a Roman Catholic and deciding that it was not for them? Is it impossible to imagine that once a person knows Roman Catholicism - and knows it well - that they could honestly leave it and still be a Christian? I'm asking not to be argumentative or hostile, but to get an honest response. Why resort to calling people, who admit they were once Roman Catholics, dishonest and liars? I realize that this particular thread has been a knockout, drag out battle royale, but are such accusations coming from that bloodied field or do you really believe none of us are being truthful? Time to clear some air.

You know, I know there are a few Catholics on these threads who state that they were raised Protestant and converted to Catholicism and yet I do not recall ANY non-Catholics calling them liars or accusing them of making stuff up about their Protestant experience. There's not a one of us who doesn't recognize that there are some local congregations out there that have issues. If someone came out of something like that, I'm not going to call them a liar or imply that they are lying about what they relate.

The only reason that I can figure that there is such accusation about us lying and being dishonest and misrepresenting Catholicism is because what many of us who were raised as Catholics, and those who were educated as Catholics have to say about the reality of what Catholicism is at the grassroots level, and even some of the things we've found stated in the Catechism of the Catholic church, is an outright embarrassment to Catholics.

Better to attack the character and integrity of those pulling off the mask than trying to deal with the truth of the situation.

Acts 10:43 says “everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins through His Name”

WHY?

because anyone who believes in Him will be baptized for the forgiveness of sins.

Acts 22:16 “ and now why do you wait? rise and BE BAPTIZED, AND WASH AWAY YOUR SINS, CALLING ON HIS NAME”

This is what Paul was taught about baptism. Romans 10:9-10 is true again because anyone believing in Christ will want to receive the forgiveness of sins, be placed into Christ and receive the Holy Spirit, all happen in baptism.

You are close to agreeing with me here, that the faith that saves is one that will effect baptism.

However, Rm. 10:9,10 clearly states "with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation" (Romans 10:10) with the type of faith that confesses the Lord Jesus being the instrumental cause, not the act of baptism being what procures salvation ex opere operatos (by the very fact of the action's being performed), as per Rome. Acts 10:43ff is an example of faith procuring forgiveness before baptism, while Acts 22:16 is a valid example of this confession being made at baptism, which is consistent with the principle of confession. And as i affirmed, baptism can be the occasion when one comes to faith (and normatively it is part of the conversion event), but Scripture does not restrict the time of regeneration to baptism, so that forgiveness and regeneration cannot precede baptism, which is what you are contending for versus me.

Acts 10 DOES NOT TEACH REGENERATION PRECEDES BAPTISM.

Read Acts 11:15 “as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them.......” it does not say they voiced faith in Jesus, confessed him with their lips and believed in their hearts. read their verse again, it says the Holy Spirit fell on them “as I BEGAN to speak” clearly the falling of the Holy Spirit resulted in them “speaking in tongues and extolling God” it was a sign to Peter that the Gospel was for the Gentiles as well as the Jews. they had not been regenerated, that is why Peter commanded them to be baptized. it does not say they were baptized as a first act of obedience, nor to display outwardly what has happened inwardly. this language is not contained in the Bible.

Now again you are demonstrating the mind lock of Roman Catholicism which forbids conclusions of objectively analysis if they contradict Rome, even though it seems you are more Catholic than the pope as you thus far have even forbid what Rome allows. The fact is, that as i showed you, what the Holy Spirit clearly shows and you ignore is that REGENERATION DID PRECEDE BAPTISM: "Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which HAVE RECEIVED the Holy Ghost as well as we? " (Acts 10:47) In the next chapter Peter also refers to this event as being baptized with the Holy Ghost, as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord,” (Acts 11:17) and in Acts 15:8,9 he likewise states that “God, which knoweth the hearts giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;
And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.”

Moreover, the falling of the Holy Spirit which resulted in them speaking in tongues and extolling God signified the reception of the same gift as the apostles had received, and which reception is the same as was realized in Acts 2 in which the apostles were “filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.” (Acts 2:4)" and which “gift” is what 2:38 promises.

Your argument from silence, “it does not say they voiced faith in Jesus” “ is desperate, reversible and legalistic, disallowing that “magnifying God” was an expression of faith in Jesus, (cf. Acts 8:39) which faith Peter had just told them would find forgiveness, “whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.” (Acts 10:4).

As for “began to speak,” this does not infer something less truth than what would enable regeneration, which would be the opposite of what the Holy Spirit says here, but that Peter had hardly given them the means by which they may find forgiveness when the these well-disposed souls became born again. And other uses of the phrase by Luke show this does not denote a restriction what is being said to the first sentence, (Lk. 7:24; 20:9) but the time in which a teaching began.

As for the premise that the speaking of tongues was before regeneration and simply “a sign to Peter that the Gospel was for the Gentiles as well as the Jews” so that they would be baptized and forgiven and regenerated, that directly contrary to what Peter said, which was “Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which HAVE RECEIVED the Holy Ghost as well as we?” That they had received the Holy Spirit and thus that the Gospel was for the Gentiles (confirming what God had already shown Peter), was what the glossolalia and praise evidenced, being confirmatory of their regeneration, and thus made them fit subjects for baptism, directly contrary to your contrived construct!

Moreover, the gifts of the Holy Spirit are not given to unbelievers in the New Testament, and speaking in tongues was a result of being born again, (Gal. 4:6; 1Cor. 12:10; 14:14)

Thus while it was already made clear, it is made even clearer here that regeneration preceded baptism, and what you have damnably done is denied the words of God which the Holy Spirit choose, that these had received the Holy Ghost just like the apostles who were thus filled, “giving them the Holy Ghost,” being “baptized with the Holy Ghost,” before baptism, and using your own private interpretation you have wrested them to mean regeneration awaited baptism!

Moreover, even your own Bible commentaries understand this as receiving the Holy Spirit before baptism:

NAB: Just as the Jewish Christians received the gift of the Spirit, so too do the Gentiles. http://www.usccb.org/bible/acts/10

Haydock Commentary: Such may be the grace of God occasionally towards men, and such their great charity and contrition, that they may have remission, justification, and sanctification, before the external sacraments of baptism, confirmation, and penance be received; as we see in this example: where, at Peter's preaching, they all received the Holy Ghost before any sacrament. http://www.veritasbible.com/drb/compare/haydock/Acts_of_the_Apostles_10

I doubt that other Catholics here even agree with you that regeneration did not precede baptism here, or that it absolutely cannot.

You also ignored the rest of my responses and refutation of your argument, and instead repeat more of the same, and in which you evidence a superficial understanding or treatment of the issue and of the teaching of your own church.

let’s look at what the Bible says about baptism:

Looking at what you say the Bible says is the problem. You have just disqualified yourself from being a Biblical exegete who is worthy to engage in further disputation, nor do your additional verses and argumentation from silence prove that the act of baptism is what causes regeneration or appropriates forgiveness, and is absolutely necessary for it, versus the faith behind baptism being what appropriates the gift.

If you will not concede that you were wrong in contending that forgiveness and regeneration did not precede baptism, and thus it can, then no further exchange is warranted on this issue. Titus 3:2

"Only the Catholics are fixated on Luther. "

I'm so very sorry, but you're just wrong and more than likely you know it. Only non-Catholics imitate Luther and throw out big chunks of the Scriptures then pretend to believe in the remainder, that's a pretty sure sign of fixation whether you admit to it or not. Anyone who agrees with Luther about the canon is fixated on Luther, not someone who points out the fact that others imitate Luther, tell the same lies as Luther, and otherwise wallow in heresy along with Luther.

I realize a lot of non-Catholics could care less about Luther, primarily because other than agreeing that portions of the Bible should be thrown in the trash can such folks just make up their own religion. If they already know Luther threw out part of the Bible and wanted to throw out even more, fine, no need to mention Luther.

Folks who begin with an incomplete Bible don't compare Catholicism to the parts of the Scripture they don't even have in their Bible, that's for sure. They don't compare Catholicism to direct quotes of Jesus Christ that are in the Bible they accept until they first make the claim that Christ could not make Himself understood and was incapable of saying what He meant. They don't believe in Scripture until you reinterpret it to suit themselves so they don't really compare Catholicism to Scripture at all. They compare Catholicism to their own little religion of Self and whatever portions of the Bible they haven't thrown out yet.

Fine, Luther is a non-issue. It isn't that folks have been led astray by the heresy and lies that have grown out of what Luther did. That means that folks who ignore the fact that a portion of the Bible they accept as complete is missing are willfully and with malice aforethought refusing to accept the entire canon of Scriptures. That means that rather than being deceived, they very deliberately refuse to even accept what they don't throw out without first revising them exactly the same way that the Jehovah's Witness crowd do.

No Luther inspired errors lead them astray, they just deliberately call Christ a liar and walk away from Him exactly the same way His disciples walked away when he told them something they didn't like, that it is His flesh and His blood in the Eucharist. Thank you for clearing that up, I was under the impression that Luther inspired errors were the reason so many people are so foolish but now I realize it is 100% personal self worship and has nothing to do with people falling into error. They are deliberately walking into heresy with their eyes wide open because they love their own self to the exclusion of all else.

have a nice day

Some people are so blind they do not recognize Scripture when it is right in front of them. They behave that way because they refuse to recognize anything other than their own intellect and they worship their Self. That's the sort of folks who pretend they've answered questions they haven't, that Christ could not say what He meant, and that they know better than Christ and the Apostles what belongs in the Bible. They're also the type of folks who pretend Jude is not in the New Testament and therefore a part of the New Covenant. Being a part of the New Covenant, what Jude warns about is as true today as it was under the Old Covenant, and Jude warns us about a heresy that still is common, the heresy of, "the priesthood of all believers".

Jude 1:9 When Michael the archangel, disputing with the devil, contended about the body of Moses, he durst not bring against him the judgment of railing speech, but said: The Lord command thee.
Jude 1:10 But these men blaspheme whatever things they know not: and what things soever they naturally know, like dumb beasts, in these they are corrupted.
Jude 1:11 Woe unto them, for they have gone in the way of Cain: and after the error of Balaam they have for reward poured out themselves, and have perished in the contradiction of Core.

Num 16:1 And behold Core the son of Isaar, the son of Caath, the son of Levi, and Dathan and Abiron the sons of Eliab, and Hon the son of Pheleth of the children of Ruben,
Num 16:2 Rose up against Moses, and with them two hundred and fifty others of the children of Israel, leading men of the synagogue, and who in the time of assembly were called by name.
Num 16:3 Let it be enough for you, that all the multitude consisteth of holy ones, and the Lord is among them: Why lift you up yourselves above the people of the Lord?

Scriptures clearly presented but someone pretends there was no Scripture given. Hmmmm.

Acts 22:16 “ and now why do you wait? rise and BE BAPTIZED, AND WASH AWAY YOUR SINS, CALLING ON HIS NAME”

Couldn't be further from the truth...No one goes to heaven without repentance...Doesn't matter if you stand under a waterfall for 3 days...

So you think getting we is going to get you clean, eh???

1Pe 3:21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

That was the definition of baptism for the believer...Has nothing to do with water...It's all about a clear conscience toward God...It's spiritual...

Act 22:16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord

The problem is that there is no water in the verse...

that there is such a thing as “water baptism”............... ( no verses can be cited )

that there is such a thing as “spirit baptism”........... ( no verses can be cited )

You have been corrected on this numerous times but you continue to totally disregard the words of God...

Act 1:5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.

That verse not only shows you that baptism does not mean water, it shows you that there is a water baptism and a spiritual baptism...

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.