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.

[rzman21]

I guess if your father is still living, you should apply your polemic to him and address him by his first name.

Like all things, Biblical literalists take this passage out of context.

Why are Priests Called Father in Your Church?

by Father Steven Tsichlis

Recently, in a conversation with someone who attends a “non-denominational” church, the question was asked: “Why are priests called ‘Father’ in your Church? This is not what the Bible teaches! Doesn’t Jesus Himself say, ‘Call no man on earth your father, for you have one Father who is in heaven.’ (Matthew 23:9).”

This is simply another example of what can only be called the “fundamentalist gridlock” of some Christian groups in understanding and interpreting the Scriptures: the taking of this or that biblical passage out of context and applying it to whatever you want. St. Athanasios, the 4th century patriarch of Alexandria in Egypt, was the first person in Christian history to definitively list those 27 books that we today call the New Testament. A pivotal person in the formation of the New Testament canon, St. Athanasios says that when Christians read the Bible, they are not to take passages out of context but rather to keep the “skopos”, the scope or “big picture” in mind. Let’s examine this question keeping the full scope - or “big picture” - of the Scriptures in mind.

First: the question asked seems to presuppose that this passage of Scripture should be taken literally as an absolute prohibition ie, that we should call no man father. In other words, if we were to interpret Matthew 23:9 literally, no one could be called father, not even our biological fathers. Christians could not, for example, celebrate Fathers Day. Nor could George Washington be called “the father of our country.” Is this what Jesus intended? Of course not! Doesn’t Jesus Himself tell the rich young man to “keep the commandments” including the one to “honor your father and mother” (Matthew 19:19)? And when the Jews questioned Jesus about His teaching that He is “the bread of life,” doesn’t He respond to them by saying: “ I am the bread of life. Your fathers (ie the ancestors of the Jewish people who took part in the Exodus from Egypt with Moses and are therefore called the “fathers” of Israel) ate the manna in the wilderness and they died” (John 6:48-49)?

Second: What would we do with the apostle Paul? When St. Paul discusses the Exodus, doesn’t he - like Christ Himself - refer to the ancestors of the Israel of his day as “our fathers” (1 Corinthians 10:1)? When discussing discipline in the Christian family, doesn’t he say “Fathers, do not provoke your children or they may lose heart” (Colossians 3:21).

Furthermore, with regards to spiritual fatherhood in the Christian community, to the Church in Corinth he wrote: “I do not write this to make you ashamed but to admonish you as my beloved children. For though you might have 10,000 guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers. Indeed, in Christ Jesus I became your father through the Gospel” (1 Corinthians 4:14-15). And he describes his relationship with the Christians of the Church in Thessalonica as being “like a father with his children” (1 Thessalonians 2:11). Doesn’t St. Paul, in the above passages, claim to be the spiritual father of the Corinthian and Thessalonian Churches, their father in the Gospel - Father Paul, if you will?

Third: When interpreting Matthew 23:9, it would be helpful to read the entire 23rd chapter of Matthew in order to get a proper understanding of the context of this passage. This 23rd chapter of Matthew contains the Lord’s indictment of the scribes and pharisees for their hypocrisy, their focus on the externals of religion without genuine repentance and a corresponding conversion of heart. So, not only does Jesus condemn the scribes and pharisees for their use of the address “Father” in a vain and empty way, but in the very next verse says: “Nor are you to be called teachers, for you have one teacher, the Christ” (Matthew 23:10). Yet, many contemporary non-denominational TV preachers describe themselves as “Bible teachers” and no one has ever argued that the Church should not have Sunday school teachers on the basis of this passage. Indeed, Jesus Himself acknowledged Nicodemus to be a “teacher of Israel” (John 3:10) and in the Book of Acts we read that certain men in Antioch were called “teachers” (Acts 13:1), to give only two examples. Therefore, as can be clearly understood when one reads the 23rd chapter of Matthew in its entirety, Jesus takes issue not with these titles and roles in and of themselves, but rather with their self-aggrandizing abuse by the scribes and pharisees.

Fourth: The term “father” when used to address a priest is not merely an assertion of his “higher” status in the community of believers; rather, it is a term of endearment, of intimacy and love, as the apostle Paul uses it in 1 Corinthians and 1 Thessalonians, already mentioned above. In Greek, a priest in his village is addressed as “Papa” and in Russian as “Batiushka” - both being terms of endearment and intimacy. The spiritual fatherhood of the priest is intended to be a sign of the depth of intimacy and relationship which those in the life of the Church have with their leaders, a relationship based on the priest’s role in our second birth, our birth in the Gospel - our baptism. Just as our biological father has an important role in our birth and continuing nurture, so the priest - as the one who baptizes us - has an important role in our second birth, our birth “from above…of water and the Spirit” (John 3:3-5).

Finally: This kind of attempt to interpret the Scriptures literally and then apply a passage taken out of context in a polemical way, usually towards Roman Catholics - but by extension often towards us as Orthodox Christians as well - is, unfortunately, all too typical of much “non-denominational” Christianity. At best, it is a misreading and misunderstanding of the Scriptures; at worst, it can be an expression of religious bigotry. Nonetheless, it remains a simple fact that the overwhelming majority of Christians in the world today (Orthodox, Roman Catholics, Anglicans, etc.) - and across the 20 centuries of Church history - have addressed and continue to address their clergy as ‘Father.”

If anyone wishes to be contentious about this, we have no other practice - nor do the churches of God. - 1 Corinthians 11:16

[rzman21]

Watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APdFL22-WY4

[rzman21]

ALL apostolic Churches believe in what amounts to transubstantiation even if they reject the Aristotelian explanation.

St. Justin the Martyr uses the term metaousios, which implies a transformation occurs in the gifts. The Greek Church still uses this word.

Apology: 66. And this food is called among us Εὐχαριστία [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, “This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body;” and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, “This is My blood;” and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn.

In the Confession of Dositheus, Patriarch of Jerusalem, the Orthodox Church confesses: Decree 17

We believe the All-holy Mystery of the Sacred Eucharist, which we have enumerated above, fourth in order, to be that which our Lord delivered in the night in which He gave Himself up for the life of the world. For taking bread, and blessing, He gave to His Holy Disciples and Apostles, saying: “Take, eat; This is My Body.” {Matthew 26:26} And taking the chalice, and giving thanks, He said: “Drink you all of It; This is My Blood, which for you is being poured out, for the remission of sins.” {Matthew 26:28} In the celebration of this we believe the Lord Jesus Christ to be present. He is not present typically, nor figuratively, nor by superabundant grace, as in the other Mysteries, nor by a bare presence, as some of the Fathers have said concerning Baptism, or by impanation, so that the Divinity of the Word is united to the set forth bread of the Eucharist hypostatically, as the followers of Luther most ignorantly and wretchedly suppose. But [he is present] truly and really, so that after the consecration of the bread and of the wine, the bread is transmuted, transubstantiated, converted and transformed into the true Body Itself of the Lord, Which was born in Bethlehem of the ever-Virgin, was baptized in the Jordan, suffered, was buried, rose again, was received up, sits at the right hand of the God and Father, and is to come again in the clouds of Heaven; and the wine is converted and transubstantiated into the true Blood Itself of the Lord, Which as He hung upon the Cross, was poured out for the life of the world. {John 6:51}

Further [we believe] that after the consecration of the bread and of the wine, there no longer remains the substance of the bread and of the wine, but the Body Itself and the Blood of the Lord, under the species and form of bread and wine; that is to say, under the accidents of the bread.

Further, that the all-pure Body Itself, and Blood of the Lord is imparted, and enters into the mouths and stomachs of the communicants, whether pious or impious. Nevertheless, they convey to the pious and worthy remission of sins and life eternal; but to the impious and unworthy involve condemnation and eternal punishment.

Protestant polemics unfortunately rely on provincial attacks solely on the Western Church puntuated by ignorance.

The fact remains that no Eastern Christian church ever denied the presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

Our liturgical praxis is clearer about the change than the Roman Catholic texts in the form of our epiklesis.

The 4th century Liturgy of St. James, which serves as the basis of the later Eastern liturgies prays: Priest (aloud): Thy people and Thy Church entreat Thee. (thrice)

People: Have mercy on us, Lord God, the Father, the Almighty. (thrice)

The Priest, in a low voice: Have mercy on us, Lord God, the Father, the Almighty. Have mercy on us, God our Saviour. Have mercy on us, O God, in accordance with Thy great mercy, and send forth upon these holy gifts, here set forth, Thine all-holy Spirit, (bowing) the Lord and giver of life, enthroned with Thee, God and Father, and Thine only-begotten Son, co-reigning, consubstantial and co-eternal, who spoke by the Law and the Prophets and by Thy New Covenant, who came down in the form of a dove upon our Lord Jesus Christ in the river Jordan, and rested upon him, who came down upon Thy holy Apostles in the form of fiery tongues in the upper room of holy and glorious Sion on the day of Pentecost. (Standing up) Thy same all-holy Spirit, Lord, send down on us and on these gifts here set forth, (aloud): that having come by his holy, good and glorious presence, He may sanctify this bread and make it the holy Body of Christ,

People: Amen.

Priest: and this Cup (chalice) the precious Blood of Christ, People: Amen.

The Priest signs the holy Gifts and says in a low voice: that they may become for all those who partake of them for forgiveness of sins and everlasting life. For sanctification of souls and bodies. For a fruitful harvest of good works. For the strengthening of Thy holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, which Thou didst found on the rock of the faith, so that the gates of Hell might not prevail against it, delivering it from every heresy and from the scandals caused by those who work iniquity, and from the enemies who arise and attack it, until the consummation of the age.

[HossB86]

there are many today who think they are “saved”, but actually they have rejected the Faith and are under a strong delusion.

know anybody this might apply to?

Well.... since you asked....

A great many in the Roman Catholic Church.

Hoss

[one Lord one faith one baptism]

you may be correct, but i don’t think so.

if the problem was a lack of understanding, the false charges would stop once they are shown they are wrong.

but the pattern of falsehoods continues, even after evidence is shown otherwise.

this thread is a good example.

the charge was made that the 431 Council taught that diana should be worshipped.

i proved it obvioulsy didn’t teach this.

was the charge withdrawn and an apology forthcoming?

this would have been the case if we are dealing with Christians who may have understood something differently.

no, not only was the charge not withdrawn, IT WAS REPEATED.

this is not the behavior of Christians.

Christians love the truth, because Jesus is the way, the truth and the life.

[rzman21]

Evangelicals reject Catholic teaching for the same reason atheists reject God. They have a knee-jerk hatred of Catholicism that keeps them from going deeper than their partisanship.

Examining something on its own merits rather than on the basis of polemics means having to do something about it.

That’s why Evangelical Fundamentalists refuse to examine Catholic teaching on its own merits and understanding and atheists remain equally strident in their hatred of God and religion.

Modern atheism is the offspring of Protestantism and the rationalism it spawned.

[Mears]

“Wait, what? I thought all Catholics were unified under one set of rules.”

---

It was never unified world-wide.The Holy Days of Obligation were different in some countries.Never made sense to me.

[Natural Law]

"Jesus clearly and plainly teaches that nobody is to call religious leaders or authority *father*."

Last Sunday this same accusation was brought up in a different thread by the same poster. At that time I addressed it by pointing out that the Greek used in the New Testament had multiple meanings for the word "Pator" (πατηρ); genitor, metaph, and God. Only one of these actually means father. So we are expected to imprint the limitations of English onto Scripture and accept what it gives us as the meaning of God to appease the Protestant sensibilities. It is similar to watching a modern High Definition movie on an old black and white TV.

[metmom]

Okay. But I am annoyed with the repeated hints that Catholics are Satanic.

BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

That charge has been laid to non-Catholics many times on this very thread by Catholics in much clearer terms than just hints. And other times on other threads in the form of exorcism prayers being directed towards them.

Catholics have little to complain about in that department. If they can't take it, they shouldn't dish it out.

Perhaps the caucus threads would be better for someone so thin skinned as to be annoyed by a fairly common charge.

[rzman21]

These aren’t sects. The Eastern Catholic Churches are local CHURCHES that differ from the Roman Church in terms of ritual, language, and theological emphases.

But they unlike the the Protestants are UNITED in dogma and faith.

The Orthodox are in schism with the Catholic Church, as are these Old Catholic sects that have more clergy than laity.

But they have more in common with the Catholic Church than Protestants have among themselves.

If you get 10 different Protestants in the same, room you likely will see 10 different faiths represented.

There are more differences between Baptists and Lutherans than there are between Catholics and Orthodox Christians.

I find as a Catholic who attends Orthodox Churches on occasion that I agree with Orthodox priests far more often than I disagree with them.

Only about 2-5 percent separates Catholics and Orthodox, compared with the 50-90 percent that separates Catholics and Protestants.

[rzman21]

Some Lutheran ministers use the title “father.” http://www.ziondetroit.org

[metmom]

Wrong because IN CONTEXT, which is how Catholics always tell us Scripture must be interpreted, Jesus is talking about religious leaders and the titles assigned to them.

The context does not state nor imply that one not call their earthly father *Father*.

Besides, even IF that passage meant that nobody at all should call their earthly father *Father*, even if the whole rest of the world were to disobey that command, what gives the Catholic church the right to disregard Jesus clear command and teaching? Who gave them permission to disregard Jesus clear teaching on a subject?

[rzman21]

Why should we care what a heretic like yourself thinks anyways? :)

[metmom]

Last Sunday this same accusation was brought up in a different thread by the same poster.

That's good because I don't remember what day I did it on.

You keeping track or something?

And so how does pointing out clear teaching of Jesus and when someone violates it count as *accusation*?

[Natural Law]

"That's good because I don't remember what day I did it on."

You obviously didn't remember what the right answer was either. You do realize that using deception to change the perception of the naive and innocent into accepting a false Reformist premise or that repeating it at some regular interval doesn't really make it true, don't you?

[one Lord one faith one baptism]

NL,

this is exhibit A about whether these are “mistakes” or delibrate “untruths”

no one can be this stupid, so the only logical conclusion is they are delibrate “untruths”

the RM prevents me from being more frank, but you get the message.

[Iscool]

one aspect of this Faith is we are baptized into Christ for the remission of sins and receiving the Holy Spirit.

No you are not...You are baptized into water...Well, not even that...You get dripped upon...

You guys are baptized with John's baptism...

[Iscool]

may i suggest you read Galatians 3:27 to find out how one is placed “into Christ”

Gal 3:27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

You better keep searching...You don't get baptized into Christ by getting wet...

[narses]

CHRISTUS VINCIT
Christ King of Glory

Acclamations VIII Cent.
Ambrosian Chant (Variant)

Christus vincit! Christus regnat! Christus imperat!
Exaudi, Christe. Ecclesiae Sanctae Dei salus perpetua. Redemptor mundi, Tu illam
adjuva!

Christ Lord of glory, Christ Prince of nations, Christ our King of kings! Christ Jesus,
hear us. Perpetual safety and welfare to the Church of God. Redeemer, Savior. Assist
and strengthen her.

1. Sancta Maria: Tu illam adjuva!
O Mary blessed Mother. Assist and strengthen her.

2. Sancte Joseph: Tu illam adjuva!
Joseph holy guardian. Assist and strengthen her.

3. Sancte Michael Tu illam adjuva!
Blessed Michael patron Assist and strengthen her.

Optional (Sancte Patricii: Tu illam adjuva!)
Blessed Saint Patrick: Assist and strengthen her.

All repeat: Christus vincit! Christus regnat! Christus imperat!

Exaudi, Christe. Pio summo Pontifici et universali Papae vita! Salvator mundi, Tu illum
adjuva!

Christ Jesus hear us. Life and health and blessings to Pope Pius our Holy Father.
Redeemer Savior, Assist and strengthen him.

1. Sancte Petre, Tu illum adjuva! 1. Rex regum!
Blessed Peter, Assist and strengthen him. King of kings.

2. Sancte Paule, Tu illum adjuva! 2. Rex noster!
Blessed Paul, assist and strengthen him. Christ our King

3. Spes nostra!
Christ our hope.

Repeat: Christus Vincit! etc.

Gloria nostra, Misericordia nostra! Auxilium nostrum! Fortitudo nostra, Ar ma nostra
invictissima! Murus noster inexpugnabilis! Defensio et exaltatio nostra!

Lux, Via, et Vita nostra! Ipsi soli imperium, Laus et jubilatio per infinita saecula
saeculorum. Amen.

Jesus our glory, Fountain of grace and all mercy. Source of all our blessing. Defender
in battle, Strong arm of our God invincible. Our stronghold and our exaltation. Our
captain leader who has won our salvation.

Christ Jesus, our life and light eternal. To Him only is victory all praise and jubilation.
Through all the endless ages of eternity. Amen.

Tempora bona veniant! Pax Christi veniat! Redemptis Sanguine Christi: Feliciter!
Regnum Christi veniat! Deo Gratias! Amen.

Abundance of good things be ours. The peace of Christ be ours. Redeemed by the blood
of Jesus. Proclaim our joy. May His holy kingdom come. Praise be to our God Amen.

---

Provided courtesy of:
Eternal Word Television Network
5817 Old Leeds Road
Irondale, AL 35210
www.ewtn.com

[Natural Law]

"You don't get baptized into Christ by getting wet..."

Spoken by one who is usually all wet....