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.
Catholicism will be the world religion. Inshallah!
It was the body of believers who hold him as their Lord and Savior and no one organization contains all who do.
>>Once again, your subjective opinion founded in your vitriolic anti-Catholicism.
Sola CynicalBear!
No, we don't NEED to be infallible or inerrant in order to have the inerrant and infallible truth of God's word touch our hearts and minds in Christ Jesus.
Quite so. I explicitly deny being either an infallible interpreter of Scripture or an inerrant arbiter of doctrine. Yet even I can read the Scriptures, and through the Holy Spirit the truths therein can and does change my life.
That, however, is not the point.
From the First Century AD right up to the present day, folks can, have, and continue to read the Scriptures and arrive at contradictory and mutually exclusive beliefs regarding salvation, the nature of God, the nature of the Church, and many other topics. They cannot all be right. You tell me that none of them are infallible interpreters of Scripture or inerrant arbiters of doctrine. I tell you that God is not the author of chaos.
Either Jesus Christ is truly God, of the same substance as the Father ... or He is not.
Either Jesus Christ is truly Man, Son of Mary (and therefor "Son" of Adam) ... or He is not.
I have seen folks on this very forum arguing the "or not" position on both those questions. Their arguments were based on Scripture ... or at least their own interpretation therof.
I say they are wrong ... based on the authority of the Church, established by Christ and granted protection from doctrinal error by the Holy Spirit. Indeed, the Catholic Church, guided and protected by the Holy Spirit, resolved those questions almost two millenia ago. And on what basis? The Scriptures, of course. What else?
In the absence of an infallible interpreter of Scripture, we have no more reason to choose the teaching of the Church over the teaching of Arius.
That is why we need an authoritative teaching Church, established and protected by God ... and why God gave us one.
The claim that we (individual Christians) don't NEED to be gifted with infallibility is true. It's true because God gave us a Church, gifted with infallibility, protected by Him from error, to resolve dissputes.
Matt 16:18-20.
I would observe, then, that if (as you say) none of us on this forum are able infallibly to interpret Scripture or inerrantly define docrine ... then we all should be a lot more humble ... and a lot less eager to trumpet our own beliefs as the only "Biblical answer" while deriding those with whom we disagree as being "unscriptural" or having a "carnal mind". Protestants in particular, who (as you do) deny that anyone is able to interpret Scripture infallibly, should in fact be the most humble about their disagreements.
Getting saved in the Protestant concept is a bit like practicing a magic incantation.
“I believe in Jesus as my personal Lord and Savior.” Poof your saved. That’s not Biblical because you have to work out your salvation.
Romans 2:5-6 5But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;
6Who will render to every man according to his deeds.
2 Timothy 4:14
Alexander the coppersmith hath done me much evil: the Lord will reward him according to his works
Nontheless, you can lie, cheat, steal, etc. as long as you say those magic words. Once saved always saved.
John 8:
58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
Wrong again!
Isaiah 7:14
Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.[God with us]
Isaiah 9:6-7
For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the greatness of his government and peace there will be no end. He will reign on David’s throne and over his kingdom, establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever.
Are you playing Twenty Questions game again? You SHOULD know, as Rnmomof7 has stated, that Jesus himself said that Moses and the Prophets spoke of him. Now, if you are talking of NEW revelation such as Christ revealed to Paul about the Holy Spirit indwelling a believer (Christ in you, the hope of glory) and NOT LEAVE, then you would be correct. Paul also spoke of other mysteries that were not known beforehand.
Sorry! I just didn’t want you to go to bed thinking everyone is a poopy-head. Sweet Dreams! ;o)
The proof is that the comments lead to that conclusion and comments interpret comments.
Look at you throwing around all these labels and name tags. Is yours Grand Inquisitor?
It seems that throughout this thread you have been eager to be thought a "Catholic" and you have posted multiple times stating that there is little difference between the Western/Latin and the Eastern Catholic/Orthodox. Yet we know that there ARE multiple differences. You asked CB if he believed the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father or from the Son. This is one of the many differences between you. It is called the Filioque and is why you use different Creed wordings. You also refuse to obey the Pope of Rome as your head and when I asked you about the statements in Roman Catholic documents that condemn those who refuse obeisance to the Pope, you never answered. You also don't agree about the Immaculate Conception, do you?
This thread has been used a lot to accuse the "Protestants" of a million different "interpretations" and being their own Popes, but so far, we have been pretty consistent on what we recognize as the Gospel, the person of Jesus Christ, the sufficiency of Holy Scripture. Most of the REAL differences are between the two groups that are buddying up against the Non-Catholics. I just think it is not very honest to pretend such unity when you should know there isn't in everything.
No, I don't agree. I have had numerous conversations with Calvinists on this forum and all agree that regardless if one is of the "elect" salvation STILL happens because of God's grace and through faith. The difference is the belief that those who are predestined to salvation do not resist God's grace but they still do have faith. Without faith NO ONE comes to God. I won't presume to explain their doctrine for them, but that is what I have understood them to say. As to the other petals on the tulip, I think even you would agree with more than a few points.
Amen! Thank you, dear Alamo-Girl.
Who among the Roman Catholics did this? The Magisterium? Ecclesiastic Councils? Aren't they ALL comprised of fallible human beings?
God Almighty has given his holy and inspired word... and He IS infallible.
Just can't quite figure out how fallible Roman Catholics infallibly determine the Canon -- or fallibly determine it as the truth has it.
Hoss
Now on that I will grant you are in all likelihood correct. I’m intrigued as to why you made that statement and if you really feel that way. I have sensed that many Catholics truly believe that. I would be interested to know how many other Catholics also believe that.
So does that mean that you worship the bread and wine because it has turned into the body and blood of Chirst?
I thought it was only the Pope who did infallible things and then only on some occasions. But then you have the changes that have happened over time where the infallible statements were changed to something else. I suppose God changed His mind or something.
Thanks, poopy-head. ;-)
I don’t have time at the moment to go point by point, but the difference between the interpretations and theological approaches between East and West are more matters of terminology and approach.
The difference with Protestants is they throw the baby out with the bathwater, and they can’t even agree among themselves about matters of fundamental Christian dogma.
The Bible was written by fallible human beings. St. Paul, St. Peter, etc. were fallible.
Hmmmm.
:D
Hoss
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.