Gay Episcopal Bishop to Preach at San Francisco Catholic Parish

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.

Man's logic has nothing to do with God or his word...

If OLOFOB picks up a bible, maybe he will loan it to you...

>> Join a Catholic church, get wet and bingo, you're on your way to heaven...You ever heard of anything so unGodly???<<

Don’t forget that like every other cult they must swear allegiance to that organization and made to believe that because they have “the keys to heaven” the RCC can lock them out of heaven.

The Bible was written by fallible human beings. St. Paul, St. Peter, etc. were fallible.

Really? I always thought that scripture was God-breathed... inspired by the Holy Spirit.... I didn't know you believed God was fallible by working through fallible humans.

Hoss

What's not logical at all though, is for the Catholic church to claim that it wrote Scripture

Yeah, got me. everyone knows it was the Methodists.

:)

>>You aren’t exactly Jesus no are you?<<

Nope but He did say that whatever we ask in His name it would be done.

John 14:13 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.

Of course what we ask must be according to His will.

1 John 5:14 And this is the confidence that we have in him, that, if we ask any thing according to his will, he heareth us: 15 And if we know that he hear us, whatsoever we ask, we know that we have the petitions that we desired of him.

Now how about you show us what Jesus will is regarding His own words in John 5.

"Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life." (John 5:24)

Surely you can show in His own words where He renounced that statement or revised it right?

St. Paul didn’t teach Sola Fide.

Riiiiiigggghhhht.

Try reading Romans. Paul teaches it all through Romans.

Again -- if you're going to be snarky, try to be accurate.

Hoss

So with all that why didn’t they make sure to get what the Apostles wrote about the bodily assumption of Mary in there?

Actually, the scriptural document detailing the Assumption, De Obitu S. Dominae, was declared apocryphal by the canonists. Doubtless that was not for the Assumption, but for some other proposition considered erroneous. Records show that the Assumption remained a reputable belief.

I've read Romans. I just don't reach the same conclusion as yourselves. St. Vincent of Lerins writes in his Commonitorium around 434 AD: Chapter 8.

Exposition of St. Paul's Words, Gal. i. 8.

[21.] When therefore certain of this sort wandering about provinces and cities, and carrying with them their venal errors, had found their way to Galatia, and when the Galatians, on hearing them, nauseating the truth, and vomiting up the manna of Apostolic and Catholic doctrine, were delighted with the garbage of heretical novelty, the apostle putting in exercise the authority of his office, delivered his sentence with the utmost severity, Though we, he says, or an angel from heaven, preach any other Gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. Galatians 1:8

[22.] Why does he say Though we? Why not rather though I? He means, though Peter, though Andrew, though John, in a word, though the whole company of apostles, preach unto you other than we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. Tremendous severity! He spares neither himself nor his fellow apostles, so he may preserve unaltered the faith which was at first delivered. Nay, this is not all. He goes on Even though an angel from heaven preach unto you any other Gospel than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. It was not enough for the preservation of the faith once delivered to have referred to man; he must needs comprehend angels also. Though we, he says, or an angel from heaven. Not that the holy angels of heaven are now capable of sinning. But what he means is: Even if that were to happen which cannot happen—if any one, be he who he may, attempt to alter the faith once for all delivered, let him be accursed.

[23.] But it may be, he spoke thus in the first instance inconsiderately, giving vent to human impetuosity rather than expressing himself under divine guidance. Far from it. He follows up what he had said, and urges it with intense reiterated earnestness, As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other Gospel to you than that you have received, let him be accursed. He does not say, If any man deliver to you another message than that you have received, let him be blessed, praised, welcomed,— no; but let him be accursed, [anathema] i.e., separated, segregated, excluded, lest the dire contagion of a single sheep contaminate the guiltless flock of Christ by his poisonous intermixture with them.

Chapter 9.

His warning to the Galatians a warning to all.

[24.] But, possibly, this warning was intended for the Galatians only. Be it so; then those other exhortations which follow in the same Epistle were intended for the Galatians only, such as, If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit; let us not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another, etc.; Galatians 5:25 which alternative if it be absurd, and the injunctions were meant equally for all, then it follows, that as these injunctions which relate to morals, so those warnings which relate to faith are meant equally for all; and just as it is unlawful for all to provoke one another, or to envy one another, so, likewise, it is unlawful for all to receive any other Gospel than that which the Catholic Church preaches everywhere.

[25.] Or perhaps the anathema pronounced on any one who should preach another Gospel than that which had been preached was meant for those times, not for the present. Then, also, the exhortation, Walk in the Spirit and you shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh, Galatians 5:16 was meant for those times, not for the present. But if it be both impious and pernicious to believe this, then it follows necessarily, that as these injunctions are to be observed by all ages, so those warnings also which forbid alteration of the faith are warnings intended for all ages. To preach any doctrine therefore to Catholic Christians other than what they have received never was lawful, never is lawful, never will be lawful: and to anathematize those who preach anything other than what has once been received, always was a duty, always is a duty, always will be a duty.

[26.] Which being the case, is there any one either so audacious as to preach any other doctrine than that which the Church preaches, or so inconstant as to receive any other doctrine than that which he has received from the Church? That elect vessel, that teacher of the Gentiles, that trumpet of the apostles, that preacher whose commission was to the whole earth, that man who was caught up to heaven, 2 Corinthians 12:2 cries and cries again in his Epistles to all, always, in all places, If any man preach any new doctrine, let him be accursed. On the other hand, an ephemeral, moribund set of frogs, fleas, and flies, such as the Pelagians, call out in opposition, and that to Catholics, Take our word, follow our lead, accept our exposition, condemn what you used to hold, hold what you used to condemn, cast aside the ancient faith, the institutes of your fathers, the trusts left for you by your ancestors and receive instead—what? I tremble to utter it: for it is so full of arrogance and self-conceit, that it seems to me that not only to affirm it, but even to refute it, cannot be done without guilt in some sort.

ouch,.....

IOW, nothing......

I don't think that was forgotten...It was a given...So OK then...Once your murderin' hit man confesses his crimes to his priest, who by the way is obligated to keep it secret, the mobster is then forgiven and has a clean getaway to purgatory/heaven???

Wow..... Sounds like what Catholics complain to non-Catholics about about cheap grace.

That's a nice little get out of hell free card. So any baptized Catholic can do whatever he feels like, break whatever law he pleases, and as long as he goes to confession, which the priest is obligated to keep silent about, there are no consequences. No hell, no jail, no legal repercussions, no restitution required.

Just a trip around the rosary a few times and voila' you're all set.

What a nice neat little set up.

It is the attempt to separate faith and works that leads to error. Even if you try to do so using one book or a couple of verses, even Romans:

Romans 2:6,7; 13: "For he will repay according to each one's deeds. To those who by patiently doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; for it is not those who hear the law who are just in the sight of God; rather, those who observe the law will be justified."

It is trying to separate the two, our faith and what we do, and say that "only this one matters, that one doesn't apply" that causes error. The two are inseparable.

I’m reading your selective reading of scriptures. They are every bit as fallible as you accuse the Church Fathers of being.

But I keep forgetting that you think your interpretation of scripture is infallible.

That’s my point exactly. God used fallible men to act infallibly by the power of his Holy Spirit.

That didn’t end. The Church is infallible by the power of the Holy Spirit, so if we can’t trust fallible men to act infallibly then we should think twice about trusting the claims of scripture.

>> Actually, the scriptural document detailing the Assumption, De Obitu S. Dominae, was declared apocryphal by the canonists.<<

Well, let’s look at a couple of items of interest from the Catholic Church.

The belief in the corporeal assumption of Mary is founded on the apocryphal treatise De Obitu S. Dominae, bearing the name of St. John, which belongs however to the fourth or fifth century. [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02006b.htm]

So even the Catholic Church admits that the belief for the assumption of Mary comes from a dubious work. That should give a great feeling of assurance in what that organization believes and even proclaims to be something that must be believed.

Then we have this from the Catholic Church.

St. Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, at the Council of Chalcedon (451), made known to the Emperor Marcian and Pulcheria, who wished to possess the body of the Mother of God, that Mary died in the presence of all the Apostles, but that her tomb, when opened, upon the request of St. Thomas, was found empty; wherefrom the Apostles concluded that the body was taken up to heaven.[ http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02006b.htm]

So the RCC claims that all the Apostles were present at her death but not one of them wrote about it even though it is so central to beliefs of the RCC. We are to believe that the Apostles “concluded” that her body was taken to heaven but not one of them thought such an important event should be recorded.

How gullible must one be to fall for such a cult? And then have the audacity to proclaim as heretics those who hold to scripture only as the source for all truth.

Protestant Fundamentalists confuse the trees for the forest.

They fail to see the big picture.

James 2:24

Yeah, I didn’t think you could back up your non answers with scripture.

The Church is infallible by the power of the Holy Spirit, so if we can’t trust fallible men to act infallibly then we should think twice about trusting the claims of scripture.

The RCC which changes it's doctrine to suit it's mood, is INFALLIBLE, while Scripture which hasn't changed in 2,000+ years isn't infallible?

Tell me..... If something is infallible, how can it change? Is there more than one truth? If what you had was truth and you changed it, doesn't it then become not true?

And if you change something that is not true, it does not necessarily go to follow that it got changed TO the truth. It could have just as easily been changed to other error.

What makes the magisterium so special as men that they can act infallibly where others of us, who are also men (and women) can't?

Where in Scripture did Jesus establish this infallibly acting magisterium?

Peter's fir recorded words after that *rock* discussion earned him the rebuke of *Get behind me Satan*. Real infallible.

But you go ahead. Trust man and see where it gets you with God. You can't say you weren't warned.

James 2:24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

Well, let’s see what Jesus says about that shall we.

“Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.” John 6:28-29