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.
I never said it didn’t and the treatment is adequate.
However, when the knee jerk reaction is to deflect and say *Yeah? Well he does it, too!*, all it looks like is excusing the behavior.
The Church is not “some group” as you put it.
But to a schismatic neo-Donatist like yourself, that goes right over your head.
Fascinating. You rail against the Catholic church which invites him as a guest, but barely utter a word against the protestant church of which he is both a member and a minister.
What's up with that?
See #1509, in which I express my thoroughly negative opinion of this whole business.
Sola Scriptura – All doctrine and teaching must be proven by scripture and scripture cannot contradict itself or be historically inacurate.
Obviously, those who last any length of time on FR are conservative, and those who participate on the religion forum of FR are invariably traditionalists within their respective churches. It appears that you and other traditionalists advocate things as you believe they should be, not at all as they are.
That would go a long way towards explaining the Catholic church and its cozy relationship with the Kennedys, the Kerrys, the Pelosis, etc.
"It seems there was a twofold line of development that went something like this. On one hand consideration of the benefits of partaking of the Lord's supper led to a consideration of the divine life received. The idea of the power in the elements led to a consideration of the invocation of the Holy Spirit as the means that brought about the spiritual blessings. On the other hand, the realist language in the anti-heretical polemic emphasized a literal identity of Christ with the elements. This centered attention on the words of institution and made them the central idea in effecting the presence of Christ. The introduction of the sacrificial idea produced the concept of the Mass. But the idea of sacrifice had to develop from the prayers to the elements to the Christ present in the elements." (http://www.bible.ca/ntx-communion-transubstantiation.htm)
However, it wasn't unil the Council of Trent that the Catholic Church asserted that the Lord’s Supper was a propitiatory sacrifice for sin and that regular receiving of the Eucharist was necessary for infusion of grace that led to salvation. When Jesus spoke of "eating his flesh and drinking his blood" he was talking about "means of appropriating him by faith: ‘He likewise called His flesh by the same appellation; because, too, the Word had become flesh, we ought therefore to desire Him in order that we may have life, and to devour Him with the ear, and to ruminate on Him with the understanding, and to digest Him by faith." (Tertullian, On the Resurrection of the Flesh, ch. 37, p. 572)
This fits in with the false teaching of salvation by infused grace rather than by imputed grace. From the link http://www.the-highway.com/eucharist_Webster.html, we learn that Augustine taught:
Augustine argued that the sacraments, including the eucharist, are signs and figures which represent or symbolize spiritual realities. He made a distinction between the physical, historical body of Christ and the sacramental presence, maintaining that Christ’s physical body could not literally be present in the sacrament of the eucharist because he is physically at the right hand of God in heaven, and will be there until he comes again. But Christ is spiritually with his people.15 Augustine viewed the eucharist in spiritual terms and he interpreted the true meaning of eating and drinking as being faith: ‘To believe on Him is to eat the living bread. He that believes eats; he is sated invisibly, because invisibly is he born again.’16
These views of Augustine are obviously in direct opposition to those of the Council of Trent. In fact, teachings such as his on the eucharist were anathematized by that Council. This highlights once again the lack of patristic consensus on the teaching of this major doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church. The view of the transformation of the elements into the literal body and blood of Christ eventually triumphed within the Church but not without consistent opposition. There were two major controversies in the ninth and eleventh centuries between the literal and more spiritualistic views and even in the Scholastic age there were many prominent theologians who rejected the doctrine of transubstantiation.
A similar lack of consensus existed on the other major characteristic of the Roman Catholic position on the eucharist — that this sacrament is itself a propitiatory sacrifice. According to this teaching, in the mass Christ is physically present through the priestly consecration and he then becomes the divine victim who is immolated on the altar. The word ‘immolate’ specifically means ‘to slay’ or ‘to kill’ and this sacrifice is efficacious as a sin payment to satisfy God’s justice. There are some present day Roman Catholic writers who deny that the Roman Catholic Church teaches that the mass is the re-sacrifice of Christ, but the words of the Council of Trent are quite clear in their meaning:
And forasmuch as, in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the mass, that same Christ is contained and immolated in an unbloody manner who once offered himself in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross . . . For the victim is one and the same, the same now offering by the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross, the manner alone of offering being different. . . If any one saith, that the sacrifice of the mass is only a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving; or, that it is a bare commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross, but not a propitiatory sacrifice. . . and that it ought not to be offered for the living and the dead for sins, pains, satisfactions, and other necessities: let him be anathema.19
Trent teaches that just as Christ was the divine victim and was offered and immolated on the cross as a propitiatory sacrifice for sin, so in the mass, which is a distinct sacrifice in its own right, he is referred to as the divine victim who is again offered and immolated as a propitiatory sacrifice, just as he was immolated on the cross. The only difference, according to Trent, between the sacrifice of the mass and the sacrifice of the cross is that one is bloody and the other unbloody.
The meaning of the term as it is expressed here is strictly that of a sacramental commemoration, it was not literal. However, Trent’s use of the term added a new dimension of meaning to the word which differs from that of Augustine for he did not view Christ as being physically present in the sacrament, nor the eucharist as a propitiatory sacrifice for sin. Augustine certainly did not teach that the sacrifice of the eucharist was the same as the sacrifice of Calvary.
But in Roman theology the eucharist is not merely the commemoration of a sacrifice, it is itself the same sacrifice as Calvary, and the immolation is literal. In the mass Christ is literally and physically present on the altar. He is referred to as a victim and is literally offered and sacrificed in the same manner as he was offered and sacrificed on the cross as an expiation or satisfaction for sin. One would seem to be justified in concluding that the Council of Trent understood immolare to refer to the offering of a victim in sacrifice to God, specifically in death, since this is how Christ was offered on the cross. The teaching of Trent on the nature of the mass is that it is a repetition of the sacrifice of Christ because he is offered again as a propitiation for sin.
While the exact meaning of the term immolare as employed by Trent may be disputed, there is no ambiguity about the fact that the Council teaches that the mass is a propitiatory sacrifice for sin. It was at this point that the Reformers universally challenged the Roman teaching. They charged that if the mass were truly a propitiatory sacrifice then Christ must die, which contradicts the clear statement of Scripture that Christ died once for all and can never die again. And on the other hand, if Rome teaches that Christ does not die, its teaching that the mass is propitiatory for sin is false for it is not a true sacrifice. Vatican II says that the mass was instituted in order to perpetuate Christ’s sacrifice through time. But if his death was once-for-all it cannot be perpetuated through time. Christ can never die again. Propitiation was accomplished at Calvary.
The Supper was established by the Lord Jesus as a memorial of thanksgiving and praise for his atoning sacrifice by which believers were to commune with him spiritually and also to proclaim his death until he comes again.
So, regardless of what you may believe about the "elements" of the Lord's Supper/Eucharist, it is much more important that you grasp the proper purpose of participating in the sacrament/observance. Do you do this in "remembrance of" Christ and his sacrifice for your sin or is it to receive another portion of grace that must be added to a collection of other merits that may one day be judged adequate to merit eternal life with God? This is the REAL question.
Then baptism doesn't save.
Without Christ one goes to hell, period.
Funny, I thought Christ said He was the door.
John 10:7-9 7So Jesus again said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep. 8All who came before me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not listen to them. 9I am the door. If anyone enters by me, he will be saved and will go in and out and find pasture.
If you add anything to Christ, you're saying that the finished work of Christ on the cross was not enough to save. It's Christ and _________. That makes the salvation dependent on the thing you add to Christ.
Baptism does NOT save.
If by 'religion' you mean Christ, your sect should if it's Christian. If by 'religion' you mean as a member of a Catholic parish, research Feeneyism and the Second Vatican Council's document Lumen Gentium.
The Church is not “some group” as you put it.
But to a schismatic neo-Donatist like yourself, that goes right over your head.
SCHISM
(schisma):
Only in 1 Corinthians 12:25. The same Greek word, literally, “a split,” is translated “rent” in Matthew 9:16; Mark 2:21; and “division” in John 7:43; 9:16; 10:19. It designates “a separation,” not from, but within, the church, interfering with the harmonious coordination and cooperation of the members described in the preceding verses (1 Corinthians 12:18). The ecclesiastical meaning is that of a break from a church organization, that may or may not be connected with a doctrinal dissent
by Wayne Blank
See also 1 Year Holy Bible Reading Plan
The English word “schism,” which has come to mean a separation, is derived from a Greek word, pronounced sk-his-mah, which means division, although not necessarily a physical separation. It actually means dissension within a group, which may or may not cause physical parting. The King James Version uses “schism” only once:
“12:25 That there should be no schism [i.e. sk-his-mah] in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another. 12:26 And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it. 12:27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.” (1 Corinthians 12:25-27 KJV)
“They which are approved may be made manifest among you”
The original Greek word was written in the Scriptures more than just the one time that the King James translates it as “schism.” It is also variously translated as “division” and “rent” (i.e. to divide, or make apart), including by the King James itself which uses the two words in 1 Corinthians i.e. the KJV translates the single Greek word in three ways; “schism,” “rent” and “division” or “divisions.”
Notice in this example that the “division” was among those living together in the same house (see also Houses Of The Holy).
“1:10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions [i.e. sk-his-mah] among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. 1:11 For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. 1:12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul [i.e. Paul’s Ministry]; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas [i.e. Peter’s Ministry]; and I of Christ. 1:13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?” (1 Corinthians
The “divisions” described here also involved those of the same house - the House of God.
“11:18 For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions [i.e. sk-his-mah] among you; and I partly believe it. 11:19 For there must be also heresies [see Heretics] among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.” (1 Corinthians 11:18-19 KJV)
In this verse, the King James translates the same Greek word as “rent.” Christ’s lesson here was that division must be healed, not merely covered up.
“9:16 No man putteth a piece of new cloth unto an old garment, for that which is put in to fill it up taketh from the garment, and the rent [i.e. sk-his-mah] is made worse.” (Matthew 9:16 KJV)
The coming of The Son Of God was not a “new” religion. It was simply a matter of some of the people recognizing the long-awaited Messiah (see Israelite Monarchy - The Messiah), while others did not - often to a blasphemous extreme (see the verses quoted below). The same Greek word is here translated as “division.”
“7:43 So there was a division [i.e. sk-his-mah] among the people because of him.” (John 7:43 KJV)
“9:13 They brought to the Pharisees [see also Was Paul Among Them?] him that aforetime was blind. 9:14 And it was the sabbath day when Jesus made the clay, and opened his eyes. 9:15 Then again the Pharisees also asked him how he had received his sight. He said unto them, He put clay upon mine eyes, and I washed, and do see. 9:16 Therefore said some of the Pharisees, This man is not of God, because he keepeth not the sabbath day [see Did Jesus Break The Law?]. Others said, How can a man that is a sinner do such miracles? And there was a division [i.e. sk-his-mah] among them.” (John 9:13-16 KJV)
“10:17 Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. 10:18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father. 10:19 There was a division [i.e. sk-his-mah] therefore again among the Jews for these sayings. 10:20 And many of them said, He hath a devil, and is mad; why hear ye him? 10:21 Others said, These are not the words of him that hath a devil. Can a devil open the eyes of the blind?” (John 10:17-21 KJV)
it is clear from the Scriptures that there is only one Faith, one Church, one Body of Christ.
the Scriptures are also clear that even though the gates of hell can’t prevail against the Church, there will be a falling away from the true Faith right before Jesus Christ 2nd coming. this falling away will be so significant, that Jesus wondered whether He would find faith on the earth when He returned.
it is clear to me that the falling away is well underway. Europe is basically pagan, the Church in this country is in shambles, etc etc.
is there one Catholic Bishop who has the courage to teach Jesus is the way, the truth and the life? i have never heard one.
for the remnant that still hold to the historical, orthodox, Catholic and Apostolic Faith, this is a time of great tribulation.
the two witnesses are truly dead ( a picture of the Church as it brings the Gospel to the world )
the Church is no longer concerned with saving souls, we are more concerned with “social justice”
so i still worship in the Catholic Church because the priest is validly ordained and the Eucharist is still celebrated.
but i have my eyes on the clouds, because the apostosy means Jesus will be coming back soon.
God is not mocked.
Wow, job security to make a teacher's union jealous.
That's got tenure all beat out.
You know what? He OUGHT TO!!!! He ought to lose it all and get sent to the slammer for that.
No person spitting in Christ's face like that has any business pretending to be a stand in for Jesus in any way.
Talk about taking the Lord's name in vain.
It can mean more than swearing.
we are saved by grace.
baptism is the means Jesus instituted to bring grace to the soul and regenerate it.
grace is not irrestitable as Calvin taught, so “once saved, always saved” is not Biblical.
Exactly. Holy Scripture is a work product of Tradition. What was not true according to Church teaching was rejected from the canon.
It really is a logical fail to believe the Church exercised it’s authority to establish a canon that says the Church does not have the authority to establish the canon.
While I don’t agree at all with most of your take on prophecy, having discussed it with you before, I can certainly agree that there is a general falling away.
A question in my mind is, when will you know to come out of her, as I understand your understanding of prophecy to eventually demand? And, what will you be when you do?
Protestant?
a priest can be an apostate and go to hell when he dies. any of them who harmed those little kids without repenting and receiving the forgiveness for those sins are certainly in hell.
but grace has it’s origin in Jesus Christ, not the holiness ( or lack thereof ) of the priest.
God can use evil men for His purposes.
What whole point was completely overlooked?
It’s not Catholicism that has done these evils. It’s people in the Church.
I’m not about to apologize for this heinous corruption, but it doesn’t affect my faith or the truth of the Catholic faith.
My faith is in God, not in bishops who break their oaths. Under the ancient canons they would have been deposed.
A Roman Catholic could attend an Eastern Catholic parish to avoid being under a scandalous priest and bishop.
But remember Jesus says to pray for your enemies.
Alas, this parish is in formal unity with the Church. That is, it's a parish legitimately built by and administered by the Archdiocese of San Francisco. Its pastor was, near as I can tell, validly and licitly ordained. If that sounds a bit legalistic, it should. I intend it to. Because this parish does NOT seem to be in material unity with the Church, as evidenced by its invitation of this foul pervert to lead Vespers.
Will they be corrected by anyone within the church hierarchy
That you even ask the question indicates the answer. I seriously doubt that Abp. Niederaur will do anything about this. He should, though. It's not just his job, it's his sacred vocation.
The inquisition gets an undeserved bad rap for a variety of reasons. When it functioned properly, the inquisition was a formal means for dealing with this sort of thing in a fair and objective manner.
It appears that you and other traditionalists advocate things as you believe they should be, not at all as they are.
I think you'll find that to be true in both the religious and political spheres. I might, for example, speak of the unconstitutional nature of "gun control" laws ... but I'm not about to go construct a machine-gun.
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.