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.
Is that a commentary approved by the Church as OFFICIAL?
I AM SHOCKED!!
i asked Hoss and every other “sola scriptura christian” on here a question in post #1066 about authority and the canon of Scripture.
an important question, no? if the Bible is our sole rule of faith, we had better be sure that all the books there are inspired and no inspired books were left out.
i was very patient all day at work, i thought for sure there would be many thoughtful, intelligent posts explaining who has the authority to declare the canon and where this authority comes from.
i rushed home, almost getting into an accident because i couldn’t wait to be educated by the “christians” on here.
so you can imagine MY SHOCK to see no answers given to my question.
CB responded and said “the Holy Spirit”. OK, CB, where does the Holy Spirit give us a table of contents to the Bible?
i am left to conclude that no one has the AUTHORITY to declare the correct canon. so when the “sola scriptura’s” say this and that from the Scriptures, we have no idea whether it is the word of God or just someone’s opinion.
I AM SHOCKED!!
This single commentary is probably not conclusive, but it must have been approved as part of the Douay Rheims bible.
we agree!! Christ died once for all.
Getting a little personal there aren’t you? How dare you presume what my culture is and whether or not I do anything “in context” with any group?
>>I submit to Christ, but I don’t submit to your anti-Catholic interpretation of scripture.<<
I can’t help it if plainly posted scripture comes across to you as anti Catholic. If scripture contradicts what Catholics teach it is what it is.
Scripture interprets scripture.
Not being bothered by those pesky circular arguments is fundamental to the practice of sola scriptura.
I am aware of the Haydock, which is preferred by traditional RCs over the NAB, but it seems that both have ecclesiastical approbation, though they can disagree with each other.
Carnal thinking. You want to give credit to some man or organization. It won’t work. The Holy Spirit is the one who preserved the words of scripture that were to be preserved for our time.
>>I AM SHOCKED!!<<
Of course you are and it’s no surprise. Carnal thinking will always leave one shocked and may I say very disappointed.
A year or two ago, I asked the infallible interpreters of Scripture and inerrant arbiters of doctrine on threads like this one to please identify themselves.
No-one, certainly none of the protestant apologists, spoke up.
Their silence indicates that even they themselves recognize that their blather about what is and isn't "Scriptural" is just the fallible musings of fallible men, and can be ignored.
Just for the sake of form, I'll ask again:
Will the infallible interpreters of Scripture and inerrant arbiters of doctrine on this thread please identify themselves?
The magisterium has the responsibility to be the teaching arm of the church..isn't it strange that in 2000 years they NEVER wrote a complete official commentary of the scriptures.. This allows every commentator to be his own personal interpreter of the bible.. exactly what catholics accuse protestants of being
Every Protestant fundamentalist is his or her own Pope and is imbued with infallibility.
I’ll suffer CynicalBear’s worthless anathemas with a :)
That’s easy. You see it every day on threads like this. You just don’t recognize it. Keep looking and maybe one day you will see it.
Can you point us to the INFALLIBLE interpretation of the entire bible by the magisterium ...
the funny thing is, the only thing that unites all these “christians” is their rejection of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Faith.
you are correct, they never identify what they believe. if the Catholic Church didn’t exist ( impossible, i know ), they would be at each others throats because they obey the man in the mirror and they have no AUTHORITY behind their opinions.
Show me the exact verse where it explicitly says scripture interprets scripture.
I’m sorry 1 Timothy 3:6 won’t do.
Maybe you should read 2 Peter 3:15-16 next time you speak Ex Cathedra on FR.
And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
“Scripture interprets scripture.”
ROFTLMAO ...
“CynicalBear interprets CynicalBear”., that’s all you’re saying.
Read the decrees of the ecumenical councils. I know you reject all of them, so Tritheism, Subordinationism, Nestorianism, Pelagianism, Semi-Pelagianism, Monophysitism, etc. are perfectly OK.
Right? Let’s do the right thing and ignore the Church’s interpretations when it condemns Arius, Donatus, etc.
Anytime you interpret the scriptures excluding Arian, Nestorian, Tritheist, etc. interpretations, you are adhering to Tradition.
I might add Evangelicalism is steeped in as much TRADITION as Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy except you resort to denials and appeals to ignorance whenever anyone raises it.
Everything you believe in is TRADITION. Had you been raised a Lutheran, you’d be spouting similar rhetoric, but be using different arguments.
Sola Traditio.
Yes, but the one thing fallible man interprets infallibly is his own fallible opinion.
:)
Based on the choice of proof text used, could as easily be Sabellianism or Modalism.
>>Indeed.
I don’t think it’s any surprise that Unitarianism and Tritheism arose out of the excesses of the Radical Reformation that gave birth to modern Evangelicalism.
Evangelicals actually should be called Biblical Anarchists.
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.