Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Gay Episcopal Bishop to Preach at San Francisco Catholic Parish
Catholic Culture ^ | 11/22/11

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.


TOPICS: Catholic; Current Events; Mainline Protestant; Moral Issues
KEYWORDS: catholic; ecus; episcopagan; episcopaganbishop; homonaziagenda; homonazibishop; homosexualagenda; homosexualbishop; religiousfaggot; religiousleft; romancatholic; sanfranpsycho; sanfransicko; sexualpaganism
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,101-1,1201,121-1,1401,141-1,160 ... 4,081-4,087 next last
To: rzman21; RnMomof7
The seder meal was a rabinnical invention that didn’t exist in Jesus’s time.

Oh, honey, have you been reading the wrong stuff! You DO remember the first Passover, right? When Moses led the children of Israel out of Egypt. Well ever since then God commanded that they commemorate that time with a feast that would last a week. Read Exodus 12, it's all about the Passover and the Festival of Unleavened Bread. Then in Exodus 34:18, God told the Israelites:

“Celebrate the Festival of Unleavened Bread. For seven days eat bread made without yeast, as I commanded you. Do this at the appointed time in the month of Aviv, for in that month you came out of Egypt.

In Numbers 9, God reminds Moses to remind the Jews to celebrate the Passover Feast while they are STILL in the desert. Deuteronomy 16, reiterates the same rules for the Feast. When Jesus and his disciples met in that upper room that last night, they WERE observing the Passover Feast, which a Seder is another word for that specific night. Matthew 26:17 speaks about that:

On the first day of the Festival of Unleavened Bread, the disciples came to Jesus and asked, “Where do you want us to make preparations for you to eat the Passover?”

Paul even spoke of this in I Corinthians 5:6-8

Your boasting is not good. Don’t you know that a little yeast leavens the whole batch of dough? Get rid of the old yeast, so that you may be a new unleavened batch—as you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. Therefore let us keep the Festival, not with the old bread leavened with malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

Here is a search of ALL the times the Passover was mentioned in the Bible http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/?search=passover&version1=NIV&searchtype=all&limit=none&wholewordsonly=no

So, I'm not sure why you think Jesus didn't celebrate the Feast of the Passover which INCLUDED the Seder meal, but whoever says such things does not know Scripture. Jesus WAS an observant Jew as were his Apostles, so this was not an out of the ordinary thing he did with them, in fact I have no doubt they did the same the previous two years with him as well.

1,121 posted on 11/28/2011 9:22:35 PM PST by boatbums ( Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us. Titus 3:5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 978 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr; 1000 silverlings; Alex Murphy; bkaycee; blue-duncan; boatbums; caww; count-your-change; ...
He was very clear about how we should live, how we should treat each other, how we are to be One.

Yeah. And?

It’s not God I’m worried about; it is those who needlessly and sadly choose to not to accept the abundant life Christ came to give us, rejecting the One Church and instead choosing to be a Church of One. I worry for those who think: I am the Church.

Who ever said they were a church of one?

WE are the church. I am the church, all the others are the church. It's a church made up of all believers of all time.

When we say *I am the church* that doesn't mean that each individual means that they themselves are the only one who is a church, but rather what we're saying is that PEOPLE are the church, not a denomination with headquarters somewhere.

WE are the church, I am the church, they are the church because we/I/they are in Christ and by being in Christ we/I/they make up the church, the true church, the body of Christ.

1,122 posted on 11/28/2011 9:24:24 PM PST by metmom (For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1109 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr
They will disagree, at the very least with those who teach salvation by election.

Yes we will disagree...But we are brothers/sisters in Christ and Christ in us...We are all members of the Body of Christ, with Jesus at the head...We are united...

1,123 posted on 11/28/2011 9:25:52 PM PST by Iscool (You mess with me, you mess with the WHOLE trailerpark...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 995 | View Replies]

To: Iscool

You’re crossing the Tiber???????


1,124 posted on 11/28/2011 9:26:21 PM PST by metmom (For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1118 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7

thank you...


1,125 posted on 11/28/2011 9:27:11 PM PST by Iscool (You mess with me, you mess with the WHOLE trailerpark...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 990 | View Replies]

To: one Lord one faith one baptism
anyone who says the Catholic Church leads people to the straight wide way to destruction is, i hate to say it, an idiot.

It doesn't lead them - they are already on the wide road. Dangerous road since no one knows when the last breathe comes.

Someone following man-made teachings and doesn't believe God's Word is THE ULTIMATE FINAL Authority are NOT on the narrow path - ONE Way-JESUS, ONE Truth-God's WORD. It's not rocket science to know that - so who is the idiot?

Catholics have way too much baggage to fit on the narrow path.
1,126 posted on 11/28/2011 9:28:48 PM PST by presently no screen name (If it's not in God's Word, don't pass it off as truth! That's satan's job)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 954 | View Replies]

To: metmom
*I am the church* that doesn't mean that each individual means that they themselves are the only one who is a church,

Then I'd suggest "I am the church." is at the least extremely poor phrasing. I do think it would be accurate to say that you think that your beliefs, each individual's, are what the Church believes, and this is an obvious error.

but rather what we're saying is that PEOPLE are the church, not a denomination with headquarters somewhere.

We don't believe in denominations either. But when you "take it to the Church" where do you go?

1,127 posted on 11/28/2011 9:32:47 PM PST by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1122 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear

INDEED.


1,128 posted on 11/28/2011 9:34:20 PM PST by Quix (Times are a changin' INSURE you have believed in your heart & confessed Jesus as Lord Come NtheFlesh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1107 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr; metmom; smvoice; RnMomof7; HossB86; presently no screen name; marbren
I worry for those who think: I am the Church.

The only ones on FR I know who think like that are the

rabid clique types belonging to the Vatican-Ashteroth-Mary-Goddess cult!

Their arrogance pontificates in such tones and fashion all the time.

1,129 posted on 11/28/2011 9:36:50 PM PST by Quix (Times are a changin' INSURE you have believed in your heart & confessed Jesus as Lord Come NtheFlesh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1109 | View Replies]

To: Alas Babylon!

PRAISE GOD FOR YOUR CONVICTIONS, BRO.

THX.


1,130 posted on 11/28/2011 9:38:06 PM PST by Quix (Times are a changin' INSURE you have believed in your heart & confessed Jesus as Lord Come NtheFlesh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 923 | View Replies]

To: Alas Babylon!

ANY part of the

universal Body of Christ—which I believe includes some folks in the RCC—concerns other authentic parts of the Body of Christ.


1,131 posted on 11/28/2011 9:39:34 PM PST by Quix (Times are a changin' INSURE you have believed in your heart & confessed Jesus as Lord Come NtheFlesh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 927 | View Replies]

To: chuckles

That is the one thing I worry about the RCC. The Pope does not seem to have an email account where he can send out the “You are an Ex-Catholic and can no longer administrate or take the sacrament” missiles.


1,132 posted on 11/28/2011 9:43:07 PM PST by Goreknowshowtocheat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: rzman21; RnMomof7
instead of spouting off on your “superior understanding of the Bible.”

If RnMom has a superior understanding of God's Word - that is NOT a sign of being proud but a blessing to the Body of Christ and very pleasing to God.

You are way too secular to understand the things of God. And too proud to learn from RnMom.
1,133 posted on 11/28/2011 9:50:27 PM PST by presently no screen name (If it's not in God's Word, don't pass it off as truth! That's satan's job)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 924 | View Replies]

To: one Lord one faith one baptism
Christians have always believed the Eucharist is the fulfillment of Malachi 1:11.

Christians have never believed in the Eucharist...

1,134 posted on 11/28/2011 9:51:14 PM PST by Iscool (You mess with me, you mess with the WHOLE trailerpark...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 986 | View Replies]

To: HossB86

LOL! Hey Hossimus, it looks like everything you say is called a “One Trick Pony” EVEN when you are discussing many, different topics. I think the one who posts this is the pony who is stuck on her very own one trick.


1,135 posted on 11/28/2011 9:58:50 PM PST by boatbums ( Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us. Titus 3:5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1017 | View Replies]

To: one Lord one faith one baptism

You know you’re talking to a willingly blank wall when you see someone who thinks that the Christian martyrs, even those who wrote eloquently on the Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist, went willingly to their death for these beliefs but never believed in the Eucharist.

Might as well put your effort into convincing an ostrich that the sky is blue. Or just forego giving any credence to such a silly argument altogether.


1,136 posted on 11/28/2011 10:13:49 PM PST by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1134 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr; HossB86
Again, my point is that if sola scriptura is based on the same authority, it cannot result in such radically different religions, or interpretations. You cannot have the same authority saying one is the word of God and the other is from satan. This example illustrates that sola scriptura is incredibly unworkable as a framework for One Faith, One Church.

Now Ironsides is a good reference for Catholics? If you noticed, he is speaking of a group known as "Bullingerites". These are what is called Ultra-dispensationalists, and what Ironside says they teach is obviously NOT something you can just mark up to a sola Scriptura problem. No serious Bible student could possibly believe in:

the sleep of the soul between death and resurrection

the annihilation of the wicked

universal salvation of all men and demons

the denial of the eternal Sonship of the Lord Jesus Christ

denial of the personality of the Holy Spirit

You may not realize this, but Ironside ALSO teaches dispensations, but in these articles, it is those he calls Ultra-Dispensationalists that he condemns and for some pretty salient reasons. This article gives some of his reasoned arguments against their false teachings http://gospelhall.org/bible-teaching/ironside--wrongly-dividing-the-word-of-truth/ultra-dispensationalism--chapter-6--is-the-church-the-bride-of-the-lamb.html.

As to your using a broad brush to accuse sola scriptura, I agree with Hossb86, that the concept of that is simply that the Scriptures are the infallible authority that is God-given to us so that we may know his plan of salvation and so that we may be sure of the central tenets of the Christian faith - truths even H. A. Ironside agrees with.

1,137 posted on 11/28/2011 10:27:13 PM PST by boatbums ( Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us. Titus 3:5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1018 | View Replies]

To: rzman21

So, explain to me how your faith tradition is “right” where it departs from the Roman/Latin tradition - who declares that THEY are infallible? How does that work exactly?


1,138 posted on 11/28/2011 11:09:39 PM PST by boatbums ( Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us. Titus 3:5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1068 | View Replies]

To: rzman21
In the history of Roman Catholic dogma, one can trace an evolution in the theory of tradition. There were two fundamental patristic principles which governed the early Church's approach to dogma. The first was sola Scriptura in which the fathers viewed Scripture as both materially and formally sufficient. It was materially sufficient in that it was the only source of doctrine and truth and the ultimate authority in all doctrinal controversies. It was necessary that every teaching of the Church as it related to doctrine be proven from Scripture. Thomas Aquinas articulated this patristic view when he stated that canonical Scripture alone is the rule of faith (sola canonica scriptura est regula fidei). (1) Additionally, they taught that the essential truths of Scripture were perspicuous, that is, that they were clearly revealed in Scripture, so that, by the enablement of the Holy Spirit alone an individual could come to an understanding of the fundamental truths of salvation.

The second is a principle enunciated by the Roman Catholic Councils of Trent (1546-1562) and Vatican I (1870) embodied in the phrase 'the unanimous consent of the fathers.' This is a principle that purportedly looks to the past for validation of its present teachings particularly as they relate to the interpretation of Scripture. Trent initially promulgated this principle as a means of countering the Reformation teachings to make it appear that the Reformers' doctrines were novel and heretical while those of Rome were rooted in historical continuity. It is significant to note that Trent merely affirmed the existence of the principle without providing documentary proof for its validity. Vatican I merely reaffirmed the principle as decreed by Trent. Its historical roots hearken back to Vincent of Lerins in the fifth century who was the first to give it formal definition when he stated that apostolic and catholic doctrine could be identified by a three fold criteria: It was a teaching that had been believed everywhere, always and by all (quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est). (2) In other words, the principle of unanimous agreement encompassing universality (believed everywhere), antiquity (believed always) and consent (believed by all). Vincent readily agreed with the principle of sola Scriptura, that is, that Scripture was sufficient as the source of truth. But he was concerned about how one determined what was truly apostolic and catholic doctrine. This was the official position of the Church immediately subsequent to Vincent throughout the Middle Ages and for centuries immediately following Trent. But this principle, while fully embraced by Trent and Vatican I, has all been but abandoned by Rome today in a practical and formal sense. This is due to the fact that so much of Rome's teachings, upon historical examination, fail the test of unanimous consent. Some Roman Catholic historians are refreshingly honest in this assessment. Patrologist Boniface Ramsey, for example, candidly 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.(3)

At first, this clear lack of patristic consensus led Rome to embrace a new theory in the late nineteenth century to explain its teachings—the theory initiated by John Henry Newman known as the development of doctrine. In light of the historical reality, Newman had come to the conclusion that the Vincentian principle of unanimous consent was unworkable, because, for all practical purposes, it was nonexistent. To quote Newman:

It does not seem possible, then, to avoid the conclusion that, whatever be the proper key for harmonizing the records and documents of the early and later Church, and true as the dictum of Vincentius must be considered in the abstract, and possible as its application might be in his own age, when he might almost ask the primitive centuries for their testimony, it is hardly available now, or effective of any satisfactory result. The solution it offers is as difficult as the original problem.(4)

The obvious problem with Newman's analysis and conclusion is that it flies in the face of the decrees of Trent and Vatican I, both of which decreed that the unanimous consent of the fathers does exist. But to circumvent the lack of patristic witness for the distinctive Roman Catholic dogmas, Newman set forth his theory of development, which was embraced by the Roman Catholic Church. Ironically, this is a theory which, like unanimous consent, has its roots in the teaching of Vincent of Lerins, who also promulgated a concept of development. While rejecting Vincent's rule of universality, antiquity and consent, Rome, through Newman, once again turned to Vincent for validation of its new theory of tradition and history. But while Rome and Vincent both use the term development, they are miles apart in their understanding of the meaning of the principle because Rome's definition of development and Vincent's are diametrically opposed to one another. In his teaching, Vincent delineates the following parameters for true development of doctrine:

But some one will say. perhaps, Shall there, then, be no progress in Christ's Church? Certainly; all possible progress. For what being is there, so envious of men, so full of hatred to God, who would seek to forbid it? Yet on condition that it be real progress, not alteration of the faith. For progress requires that the subject be enlarged n itself, alteration, that it be transformed into something else. The intelligence, then, the knowledge, the wisdom, as well of individuals as of all, as well of one man as of the whole Church, ought, in the course of ages and centuries, to increase and make much and vigorous progress; but yet only in its own kind; that is to say, in the same doctrine, in the same sense, and in the same meaning.(5)

First of all, Vincent is saying that doctrinal development must be rooted in the principle of unanimous consent. That is, it must be related to doctrines that have been clearly taught throughout the ages of the Church. In other words, true development must demonstrate historical roots. Any teaching which could not demonstrate its authority from Scripture and the universal teaching of the Church was to be repudiated as novel and therefore not truly catholic. It was to be considered heretical. This is the whole point of Vincent's criticism of such heretics as Coelestius and Pelagius. He says, 'Who ever before his (Pelagius) monstrous disciple Coelestius ever denied that the whole human race is involved in the guilt of Adam's sin?'(6) Their teaching, which was a denial of original sin, was novel. It could not demonstrate historical continuity and therefore it was heretical.

But, with Newman, Rome redefined the theory of development and promoted a new concept of tradition. One that was truly novel. Truly novel in the sense that it was completely foreign to the perspective of Vincent and the theologians of Trent and Vatican I who speak of the unanimous consent of the fathers. These two Councils claim that there is a clear continuity between their teaching and the history of the ancient Church which preceded them (whether this is actually true is another thing altogether). A continuity which can they claimed could be documented by the explicit teaching of the Church fathers in their interpretation of Scripture and in their practice. Vatican I, for example, teaches that the papacy was full blown from the very beginning and was, therefore, not subject to development over time.

In this new theory Rome moved beyond the historical principle of development as articulated by Vincent and, for all practical purposes, eliminated any need for historical validation. She now claimed that it was not necessary that a particular doctrine be taught explicitly by the early Church. In fact, Roman Catholic historians readily admit that doctrines such as the assumption of Mary and papal infallibility were completely unknown in the teaching of the early Church. If Rome now teaches the doctrine we are told that the early Church actually believed and taught it implicitly and only later, after many centuries, did it become explicit.

From this principle it was only a small step in the evolution of Rome's teaching on Tradition to her present position. Rome today has replaced the concept of tradition as development to what is known as 'living tradition.' This is a concept that promotes the Church as an infallible authority, which is indwelt by the Holy Spirit, who protects her from error. Therefore, whatever Rome's magisterium teaches at any point in time must be true even if it lacks historical or biblical support. The following statement by Roman Catholic apologist Karl Keating regarding the teaching of the Assumption of Mary is an illustration of this very point. He says it does not matter that there is no teaching on the Assumption in Scripture, the mere fact that the Roman Church teaches it is proof that it is true. Thus, teachings do not need to be documented from Scripture:

Still, fundamentalists ask, where is the proof from Scripture? Strictly, there is none. It was the Catholic Church that was commissioned by Christ to teach all nations and to teach them infallibly. The mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as definitely true is a guarantee that it is true.(7)

This assertion is a complete repudiation of the patristic principle of proving every doctrine by the criterion of Scripture. Tradition means handing down from the past. Rome has changed the meaning of tradition from demonstrating by patristic consent that a doctrine is truly part of tradition, to the concept of living tradition—whatever I say today is truth, irrespective of the witness of history. This goes back to the claims of Gnosticism to having received the tradition by living voice, viva voce. Only now Rome has reinterpreted viva voce, the living voice as receiving from the past by way of oral tradition, to be a creative and therefore entirely novel aspect of tradition. It creates tradition in its present teaching without appeal to the past. To paraphrase the Gnostic line, it is viva voce-whatever we say.

http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/livingtradition.html

1,139 posted on 11/28/2011 11:18:18 PM PST by boatbums ( Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us. Titus 3:5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1070 | View Replies]

To: narses

Excuse me...are you calling YOUR early church fathers FRACTALLY WRONG???!!! Got a funny worldview there, narse.


1,140 posted on 11/28/2011 11:28:18 PM PST by boatbums ( Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us. Titus 3:5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1095 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,101-1,1201,121-1,1401,141-1,160 ... 4,081-4,087 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson