Posted on 03/17/2015 10:41:34 PM PDT by Steelfish
Presbyterian Church (USA) Changes Its Constitution To Include Gay Marriage
By Sarah Pulliam Bailey March 17
The Presbyterian Church (USA), the largest body of Presbyterians in the country, approved a change in the wording of its constitution to allow gay and lesbian weddings within the church, a move that threatens to continue to split the mainline Protestant denomination.
The 171 regional presbyteries (local leadership bodies within the PCUSA) have been voting on whether to change the wording to call marriage a contract “between a woman and a man” to being “between two people, traditionally a man and a woman.” On Tuesday, the denomination reached its needed majority of “yes” votes from at least 86 presbyteries to take effect. The change will be included in the church’s “Book of Order,” part of its constitution, taking effect on June 21.
The church, which has more than 1.7 million members, voted last June to allow clergy to perform same-sex weddings. That vote gave clergy the choice of whether to preside over same-sex marriages in states where they are legal, an action which is now allowed in 36 state and the District of Columbia. Clergy will not be compelled to perform same-sex marriage.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
And from whence does your authority come? I wouldn't count out Simon Peter, thus not his successors.
Mouthwash is meant to be spit back out, it says so on the instructions. Ingesting it can have serious side effects. Erratic behaviour; irrational speech; bombastic postings; playing whack a mole, literally or figuratively...
Maybe it's time to shut the carnival down and civilly discuss the topic at hand.
And please, Jesus, forgive those who have created a FAKE woman to be your mother.
A sexless, frigid Jewish woman that is nowhere found in Scripture.
Teaching?
Why be so selective?
I was referring to CONDUCT of certain folks; with their Our way or the Highway; We're better than you attitudes.
That; my FRiend, is ¢ r @ P
DAMN RIGHT! The woman found in Scripture is Mary, the Ever-Virgin Mother of Jesus: Jesus was conceived by the Power of the Holy Spirit, He is therefore the Son of God and the Son of Mary!
Those who don't believe that still have no excuse to call the Mother of Jesus names, nor act as if St. Joseph were some fool. And, as with any other married couple, IT'S NOT ANYONE ELSE'S BUSINESS!
“Christ did establish ONE Church. But the people turned away from the Church during the time of the original Apostles. History shows this to be true.”
But Stormprepper did you miss the crucifixtion, and how many in the crowd turned away from Him when He taught about how unless a person eats His Flesh and drinks His blood there will have no everlasting life?
So Elise turns “internet theologian” by demanding we look at some samples of Scripture which is just the point Catholics make. Neither you, nor Billy Graham, nor Joel Osteen, nor Jim Jones or David Koresh get to offer an “authentic” and “infallible” interpretation.
That infallible interpretation was given to the Church by which the books in the Bible were deemed the “Word of God” and the Church also was in possession of the received oral tradition based on so many things Christ said and did that were not reduced to writing. John could not have made this more clearly in 21: 25.
These Words of Christ were not redundant that were lost to the four winds. This is also why America’s preeminent Lutheran theologian, scholar, and professor, Richard Neuhaus said when he converted to Catholicism after a lifetime of study that he found Catholic beliefs and traditions “the fullest expression of Christ.” So too did the brilliant Cardinal Henry Newman after whom the Oxford Movement began.
Unfortunately, the “Joel Osteen congregants” have about the same IQ as those who attend the “churches” of Rev. Jeremiah Wright or Jimmy Swaggart or Benny Hinn.
What you have among the thousands of multiple and contradictory brands of Protestantism is a First Baptist Church, First Presbyterian Church, First Calvary Church, First Emmanuel Church, First AME Church, and every other tripe of first class nonsense where anyone and their grandmother gets to crack open the page of the Bible, wave it in the air, and bellow “their” interpretations of the Bible that are at odds with the early Church Fathers who assembled the books in the Bible. You see how absurd this gets and why Protestantism today is reduced to a caricature. Catholic have single Credo and Catechism for one and all
I understand your frustration with me; but isn't it misdirected?
It is YOUR chosen religion's leaders that has made it THEIR business to exalt, venerate, adore and otherwise pay WAY too much 'attention' to Mary; the Mother of Jesus.
There is NOTHING in my description of her that in ANY way goes against what your church is teaching about her.
You just do not like the plain language that I have typed.
Beats being an IGNORANT non-theologian that accepts everything that headquarters pumps out.
Do mean THESE guys???
As regards the oft-quoted Mt. 16:18, note the bishops promise in the profession of faith of Vatican 1,
Likewise I accept Sacred Scripture according to that sense which Holy mother Church held and holds, since it is her right to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy scriptures; nor will I ever receive and interpret them except according to the unanimous consent of the fathers. — http://mb-soft.com/believe/txs/firstvc.htm
Yet as the Dominican cardinal and Catholic theologian Yves Congar O.P. states,
Unanimous patristic consent as a reliable locus theologicus is classical in Catholic theology; it has often been declared such by the magisterium and its value in scriptural interpretation has been especially stressed. Application of the principle is difficult, at least at a certain level. In regard to individual texts of Scripture total patristic consensus is rare...One example: the interpretation of Peter’s confession in Matthew 16:16-18. Except at Rome, this passage was not applied by the Fathers to the papal primacy; they worked out an exegesis at the level of their own ecclesiological thought, more anthropological and spiritual than juridical. — Yves M.-J. Congar, O.P., p. 71
And Catholic archbishop Peter Richard Kenrick (1806-1896), while yet seeking to support Peter as the rock, stated that,
“If we are bound to follow the majority of the fathers in this thing, then we are bound to hold for certain that by the rock should be understood the faith professed by Peter, not Peter professing the faith.” — Speech of archbishop Kenkick, p. 109; An inside view of the vatican council, edited by Leonard Woolsey Bacon.
Your own CCC allows the interpretation that, “On the rock of this faith confessed by St Peter, Christ build his Church,” (pt. 1, sec. 2, cp. 2, para. 424), for some of the ancients (for what their opinion is worth) provided for this or other interpretations.
• Ambrosiaster [who elsewhere upholds Peter as being the chief apostle to whom the Lord had entrusted the care of the Church, but not superior to Paul as an apostle except in time], Eph. 2:20:
Wherefore the Lord says to Peter: 'Upon this rock I shall build my Church,' that is, upon this confession of the catholic faith I shall establish the faithful in life. — Ambrosiaster, Commentaries on Galatians—Philemon, Eph. 2:20; Gerald L. Bray, p. 42
• Augustine, sermon:
"Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter's confession. What is Peter's confession? 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' There's the rock for you, there's the foundation, there's where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer. — John Rotelle, O.S.A., Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine , © 1993 New City Press, Sermons, Vol III/6, Sermon 229P.1, p. 327
Upon this rock, said the Lord, I will build my Church. Upon this confession, upon this that you said, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God,' I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer her (Mt. 16:18). — John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City, 1993) Sermons, Volume III/7, Sermon 236A.3, p. 48.
• Augustine, sermon:
For petra (rock) is not derived from Peter, but Peter from petra; just as Christ is not called so from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ. For on this very account the Lord said, 'On this rock will I build my Church,' because Peter had said, 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.' On this rock, therefore, He said, which thou hast confessed, I will build my Church. For the Rock (Petra) was Christ; and on this foundation was Peter himself built. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Christ Jesus. The Church, therefore, which is founded in Christ received from Him the keys of the kingdom of heaven in the person of Peter, that is to say, the power of binding and loosing sins. For what the Church is essentially in Christ, such representatively is Peter in the rock (petra); and in this representation Christ is to be understood as the Rock, Peter as the Church. — Augustine Tractate CXXIV; Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: First Series, Volume VII Tractate CXXIV (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf107.iii.cxxv.html)
• Augustine, sermon:
And Peter, one speaking for the rest of them, one for all, said, You are the Christ, the Son of the living God (Mt 16:15-16)...And I tell you: you are Peter; because I am the rock, you are Rocky, Peter-I mean, rock doesn't come from Rocky, but Rocky from rock, just as Christ doesn't come from Christian, but Christian from Christ; and upon this rock I will build my Church (Mt 16:17-18); not upon Peter, or Rocky, which is what you are, but upon the rock which you have confessed. I will build my Church though; I will build you, because in this answer of yours you represent the Church. — John Rotelle, O.S.A. Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City Press, 1993), Sermons, Volume III/7, Sermon 270.2, p. 289
• Augustine, sermon:
Peter had already said to him, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' He had already heard, 'Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona, because flesh and blood did not reveal it to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of the underworld shall not conquer her' (Mt 16:16-18)...Christ himself was the rock, while Peter, Rocky, was only named from the rock. That's why the rock rose again, to make Peter solid and strong; because Peter would have perished, if the rock hadn't lived. — John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City, 1993) Sermons, Volume III/7, Sermon 244.1, p. 95
• Augustine, sermon:
...because on this rock, he said, I will build my Church, and the gates of the underworld shall not overcome it (Mt. 16:18). Now the rock was Christ (1 Cor. 10:4). Was it Paul that was crucified for you? Hold on to these texts, love these texts, repeat them in a fraternal and peaceful manner. — John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City Press, 1995), Sermons, Volume III/10, Sermon 358.5, p. 193
• Augustine, Psalm LXI:
Let us call to mind the Gospel: 'Upon this Rock I will build My Church.' Therefore She crieth from the ends of the earth, whom He hath willed to build upon a Rock. But in order that the Church might be builded upon the Rock, who was made the Rock? Hear Paul saying: 'But the Rock was Christ.' On Him therefore builded we have been. — Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume VIII, Saint Augustin, Exposition on the Book of Psalms, Psalm LXI.3, p. 249. (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf108.ii.LXI.html)
• Augustine, in “Retractions,”
In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: 'On him as on a rock the Church was built.'...But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: 'Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,' that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,' and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received 'the keys of the kingdom of heaven.' For, 'Thou art Peter' and not 'Thou art the rock' was said to him. But 'the rock was Christ,' in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter. But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable. — The Fathers of the Church (Washington D.C., Catholic University, 1968), Saint Augustine, The Retractations Chapter 20.1:.
• Basil of Seleucia, Oratio 25:
'You are Christ, Son of the living God.'...Now Christ called this confession a rock, and he named the one who confessed it 'Peter,' perceiving the appellation which was suitable to the author of this confession. For this is the solemn rock of religion, this the basis of salvation, this the wall of faith and the foundation of truth: 'For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus.' To whom be glory and power forever. — Oratio XXV.4, M.P.G., Vol. 85, Col. 296-297.
• Bede, Matthaei Evangelium Expositio, 3:
You are Peter and on this rock from which you have taken your name, that is, on myself, I will build my Church, upon that perfection of faith which you confessed I will build my Church by whose society of confession should anyone deviate although in himself he seems to do great things he does not belong to the building of my Church...Metaphorically it is said to him on this rock, that is, the Saviour which you confessed, the Church is to be built, who granted participation to the faithful confessor of his name. — 80Homily 23, M.P.L., Vol. 94, Col. 260. Cited by Karlfried Froehlich, Formen, Footnote #204, p. 156 [unable to verify by me].
• Cassiodorus, Psalm 45.5:
'It will not be moved' is said about the Church to which alone that promise has been given: 'You are Peter and upon this rock I shall build my Church and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.' For the Church cannot be moved because it is known to have been founded on that most solid rock, namely, Christ the Lord. — Expositions in the Psalms, Volume 1; Volume 51, Psalm 45.5, p. 455
• Chrysostom (John) [who affirmed Peter was a rock, but here not the rock in Mt. 16:18]:
Therefore He added this, 'And I say unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church; that is, on the faith of his confession. — Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of Saint Matthew, Homily LIIl; Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf110.iii.LII.html)
• Cyril of Alexandria:
When [Peter] wisely and blamelessly confessed his faith to Jesus saying, 'You are Christ, Son of the living God,' Jesus said to divine Peter: 'You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church.' Now by the word 'rock', Jesus indicated, I think, the immoveable faith of the disciple.”. — Cyril Commentary on Isaiah 4.2.
• Origen, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Book XII):
“For a rock is every disciple of Christ of whom those drank who drank of the spiritual rock which followed them, 1 Corinthians 10:4 and upon every such rock is built every word of the church, and the polity in accordance with it; for in each of the perfect, who have the combination of words and deeds and thoughts which fill up the blessedness, is the church built by God.'
“For all bear the surname ‘rock’ who are the imitators of Christ, that is, of the spiritual rock which followed those who are being saved, that they may drink from it the spiritual draught. But these bear the surname of rock just as Christ does. But also as members of Christ deriving their surname from Him they are called Christians, and from the rock, Peters.” — Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Book XII), sect. 10,11 ( http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/101612.htm)
• Hilary of Potier, On the Trinity (Book II): Thus our one immovable foundation, our one blissful rock of faith, is the confession from Peter's mouth, Thou art the Son of the living God. On it we can base an answer to every objection with which perverted ingenuity or embittered treachery may assail the truth."-- (Hilary of Potier, On the Trinity (Book II), para 23; Philip Schaff, editor, The Nicene & Post Nicene Fathers Series 2, Vol 9.
Would you like me to follow the example of the LATE 'church fathers'; found in reply #84?
You're getting a one-sided presentation of the statements of the Churh Fathers regarding papal primacy
Pope Clement I (A.D. 80)
"Owing to the sudden and repeated calamities and misfortunes which have befallen us, we must acknowledge that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the matters in dispute among you, beloved; and especially that abominable and unholy sedition, alien and foreign to the elect of God, which a few rash and self-willed persons have inflamed to such madness that your venerable and illustrious name, worthy to be loved by all men, has been greatly defamed. . . . Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobey the things which have been said by him [God] through us [i.e., that you must reinstate your leaders], let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger. . . . You will afford us joy and gladness if being obedient to the things which we have written through the Holy Spirit, you will root out the wicked passion of jealousy" (Letter to the Corinthians 1, 58–59, 63 [A.D. 80]).
Ignatius of Antioch (A.D. 110)
"Ignatius . . . to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father" (Letter to the Romans 1:1 [A.D. 110]).
Irenaeus (A.D. 189)
"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).
Cyprian of Carthage (A D 251)
"The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]). ... On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were also what Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).
"Cyprian to [Pope] Cornelius, his brother. Greeting. . . . We decided to send and are sending a letter to you from all throughout the province [where I am] so that all our colleagues might give their decided approval and support to you and to your communion, that is, to both the unity and the charity of the Catholic Church" (Letters 48:1, 3 [A.D. 253]).
"Cyprian to Antonian, his brother. Greeting ... You wrote ... that I should forward a copy of the same letter to our colleague [Pope] Cornelius, so that, laying aside all anxiety, he might at once know that you held communion with him, that is, with the Catholic Church" (ibid., 55[52]:1).
"Cornelius was made bishop by the decision of God and of his Christ, by the testimony of almost all the clergy, by the applause of the people then present, by the college of venerable priests and good men ... when the place of Fabian, which is the place of Peter, the dignity of the sacerdotal chair, was vacant. Since it has been occupied both at the will of God and with the ratified consent of all of us, whoever now wishes to become bishop must do so outside [the Church]. For he cannot have ecclesiastical rank who does not hold to the unity of the Church" (ibid., 55[52]:8).
"With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and b.asphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" (ibid., 59:14).
Oh?
You mean to say that the church fathers have come down on BOTH sides of the issue?
Christ established One Church to insure that His teachings are correct and preserved for all generation. It was the Church that for ELEVEN centuries after the Synod of Rome in AD 382 that assembled, taught, interpreted, and preserved the canonical texts. Even after the curse of the Reformation, it continues to this day as the blossomed mustard seed, except we now have each Tom, Dick, and Harry and the neighborhood Foursquare Church pastor purporting to open the pages of the Bible (completely oblivious to the unwritten words of Christ who’s oral traditions and rituals lie exclusively with the Church) and belt out his/her own interpretation of God’s Word.
Hence the married gay and lesbian pastors of many mainline Protestant denominations. Thus for several hundreds of years, past generations of Protestants who belonged to these organizations got it all wrong. Even now, attendees at the local Foursquare Church suddenly feel let down when their pastor gets an epiphany and alls for gay marriage. This fish rots from the head. The Reformation’s doctrinal heresy continues.
This explains why droves of preeminent Lutheran theologians, pastors, scholars, and preachers, have converted to Catholicism. The rest is all Billy Graham-type vapid nonsense or lethal interpretations provided by Jim Jones and David Koresh. Their congregants are low-information Bible Christians who have never heard, much less read, the great works of Augustine, Aquinas, Newman, and Benedict.
Augustine himself wrote that were it not for the infallible authority of the Catholic Church in matters of doctrine he could not have belong to it.
>>>It is YOUR chosen religion's leaders that has made it THEIR business to exalt, venerate, adore and otherwise pay WAY too much 'attention' to Mary; the Mother of Jesus.<<<
Yes, Catholicism is my chosen Faith. It is not up to anyone to decide how much "attention" we pay to her. She is not God and never claimed to be. I love Our Lady! That love is because of my love of God, not in place of it!
>>>There is NOTHING in my description of her that in ANY way goes against what your church is teaching about her.<<<
That statement is a totally erroneous opinion, based on an obviously limited understanding of Church Teaching. We are each entitled to our opinion, although the best discussions involve respect for those opinions whether or not one agrees.
>>>You just do not like the plain language that I have typed.<<<
Mind-reading.
In posting, plain, not crude, language stating one's opinion in a considerate manner would be appropriate. When Mary is repeatedly insulted, her relationship with Joseph focused on repeatedly, thus impugning her perpetual virginity-in ways one would not expect the mother of Jesus to be regarded; when one word is taken out of context, the point of the post ignored, I find it painful because I LOVE MARY! Much more importantly, JESUS LOVES HER! I find it offensive because I was taught that marital relations were private. I find it annoying that the topic at hand is ignored and a tangent introduced. I find it an insult to what is left of my intelligence to find childish graphics, silly remarks, rhetorical questions that stray from the argument introduced to the forum. Posts such as these are not conducive to intelligent discussion and increased understanding of one another in forum.
That's all I choose to say. I'm not trying to convert anyone. My parents didn't impose their Faith on me when I was away from the Church. I wouldn't do that to someone else. God gives us a free will, and I choose Catholicism. That doesn't mean I'm not open to listening to other people's discussion of their faiths; it never had in my personal life. There does, however, need to be mutual respect for that to happen.
As always, Elsie, may God bless you, and give you His Peace!
Sorry to hear about this boys. Surprised you are not flogging it. I also see you have your female quix.
They stopped existing to me when I left them back in 1995. Like I already said above, they are apostate.
They're as dead to me as they are to Gamecock.
I also see you have your female quix.
Who would that be? They certainly can't be any worse than the priest-wannabee that holds mass in the RF every night, as if her bishop had actually called her to a vocation.
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.