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.
When I was little, I thought everyone was Catholic and all the churches were Catholic. I didn’t know there was anything other than a Catholic Christian, so when kids said they were Christian I thought nothing of it.
Those here who post over and over and over the same tired are not everyday protestants. That’s something I have finally learned.
There is no quarter here for Catholics especially since the raison detre for many here is anti Catholicism.
True to form there, metmom, true to form.
I forget that all Christians except Catholics are perfect, sinless people.
I appreciate the reminder.
My way of interpreting their interpretations is governed by my own cultural traditions, just as yours is. We all have biases of some kind or another because we grow and develop our worldview within the traditions that surround us, though some of us may be fortunate enough to study others. Thank God, his truths found in Holy Scripture transcends cultures, and backgrounds, and biases. The very Holy Spirit of God is what speaks to each heart inclined to hear it and, with his presence, we CAN come to grasp the height, and depth and width of the riches of God revealed to us. It is what sets it apart from all other writings, of any other human endeavors.
Isn’t your interpretation of the meaning of the Bible any less conjectural?
No more and no less than any other believers. What makes their thoughts and musings any more valuable than mine or yours? Is God not able to illuminate his truths to the twenty-first century mind just as easily as he did the first century? Rather than presume everything I was taught growing up about God was completely true, I decided to study it word for word. I put myself through Bible college almost right out of high school - at minimum wage of $1.50 per hour - and I graduated from it with a firm knowledge that it WAS the word of God, that it was true and trustworthy and that I could spend the rest of my life plunging its depths. I don't regret a day I spent there because, now, I not only know what I believe I know why I believe.
There isn’t a single verse in scripture that explicitly says that Jesus was speaking figuratively when he said: “This is my body” “This is my blood.”
Only his own words. Like:
Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty. But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe. All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.” (John 6:35-40)
Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life. I am the bread of life. (John 6:47-48)
Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit and life. Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.” (John 6:61-65)
When Jesus held up the bread and broke it at the last supper with his disciples, he said it was his body which would be broken for them. The bread did not change into flesh, but remained bread. Jesus used the bread to represent his body. The same with the cup. It represented his blood which would be shed for them, by drinking the cup and eating the bread he gave them, they were signifying their faith in his sacrificial death for them. They received him, believing him, just as he told them in the John 6 section, that whoever receives him has eternal life.
Or 1 Peter 3:21, which pronounces that “Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you— not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience— through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,” NASB
There isn’t exactly a single verse in scripture that explicitly says that baptism is symbolic either.
Yet you gave one yourself. All throughout Scripture, there are many ways that God teaches the same truths to us. As Noah was saved from drowning by the Ark, so Jesus saves us by himself. All he required was faith, believe, trust, receive then he does the rest. There IS a baptism of the Spirit that happens when we receive Jesus as Savior. The rite or ritual of water baptism is purely symbolic just as Peter explained.
It comes down to TRADITION of what verses you choose to stitch together to create your catechetical position.
Take a look at the Catechism sometime, if you want to really see patchwork scripture to try to prove a position.
Then you choose to ignore or dismiss verses like 2 Thessalonians 2:14 and 3:6, which challenge your interpretation of the Traditions of Men.
You have no knowledge of what I do or do not believe about Scripture, so please do not presume to tell me what I ignore or dismiss. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. (II Tim.3:16-17)
The very same Spirit that illuminated Scripture, or not, to people two thousand years ago, is just as relevant today and just as able to do the same for those who are open to his leading. II Thess. 2:13-15, says "But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers loved by the Lord, because from the beginning God chose you to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth. He called you to this through our gospel, that you might share in the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter."
Why you presume to tell me I ignore or dismiss these verses is beyond me. Why you seem to insist that these verses PROVE your magesterium has carte blanche to define any "tradition" not recorded in Scripture as equal to Holy Scripture is not beyond me, because I know that they have used these verses to state such before and their intent is plainly visible. So if we want to live the "spirit" of God's truths, we must know what they are first. Only then can we begin to grow in the grace of God and be all he desires for us to be.
“The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit and life.”
This is a favorite verse of protestants. But, it doesn’t mean what you think it means and it certainly is not the Lord’s way of saying what He said earlier in John regarding the true life giving nature of His Body and Blood is symbolic.
What Jesus is saying here is that one cannot enter heaven through works of the flesh. One must have the Spirit of Life within them. He also tells us how we can have the Spirit of Life, HIS VERY SELF, within us,
John 6:56 “He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.”
If what you think this means is true, then why is it that it was FLESH which suffered and died on the cross?
Hardly! I don't believe at all that Jesus was simply an illusion. Have no idea how you could have come to that conclusion.
You are a really troubled individual.
so many words, trying to make up for content by quantity.
if i understood this long winded statement, no one has the authority to declare the canon infallibly.
You didn't, because you made a fallible human decision to trust in a self-proclaimed assuredly infallible magisterium of Rome, as if it were God (who alone is assuredly infallible), and placed your faith in its asserted infallible decrees as infallibly determining Truth — provided you judge each teaching correctly as being infallible among the multitude of potential ones, and interpret them likewise (there is even confusion whether all of Trent was infallible, or what version of the Vulgate referred to as the authentic translation — rather than the means by which true believers were persuaded of the veracity of teachings and spiritual authenticity of men from of old, even before there was a church in Rome, which exalts itself above all, and many who who are only born of the flesh look to her as to God.
“...We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty.. — http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13praec.htm
“The Vicar of Christ is the Vicar of God; to us the voice of the Pope is the voice of God. This, too, is why Catholics would never dream of calling in question the utterance of a priest in expounding Christian doctrine according to the teaching of the Church;...
He is as sure of a truth when declared by the Catholic Church as he would be if he saw Jesus Christ standing before him and heard Him declaring it with His Own Divine lips.” —“Henry G. Graham, "What Faith Really Means", (Nihil Obstat:C. SCHUT, S. T.D., Censor Deputatus, Imprimatur: EDM. CANONICUS SURMONT, D.D.,Vicarius Generalis. WESTMONASTERII, Die 30 Septembris, 1914 ) http://www.catholictradition.org/Tradition/faith2-10.htm]
"And the people gave a shout, saying, It is the voice of a god, and not of a man." (Acts 12:22)
I'm still trying to figure out the counter-argument (or, from the RCC perspective, the "fact") that supports the claim that the RCC has infallibly determined the Canon of scripture. Who among the Roman Catholics did this? The Magisterium? Ecclesiastic Councils? Aren't they ALL comprised of fallible human beings?
The assuredly infallible magisterium (which i abbreviate as AIM) , comprised of the bishops in union with the pope, or just the pope, has infallibly defined that it is infallible whenever it speaks in accordance with its infallibly defined formula (defining a matter of faith and morals to all the church), which renders its very declaration that it is infallible to be infallible, and can declare a such what she needs to support her,
“It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine....
I may say in strict truth that the Church has no antiquity. It rests upon its own supernatural and perpetual consciousness. Its past is present with it, for both are one to a mind which is immutable. Primitive and modern are predicates, not of truth, but of ourselves.” — Cardinal Henry Edward Manning, The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation (New York: J.P. Kenedy & Sons, originally written 1865, reprinted with no date), pp. 227-228; (http://www.archive.org/stream/a592004400mannuoft/a592004400mannuoft_djvu.txt)
While Scriptural warrant may be claimed or presumed for such , assurance of an infallible pronouncement does not depend upon that, but upon the premise that the supreme magisterium is infallible when speaking as described, and which promise of infallibility does not necessarily extend to the reasoning and arguments behind the declarations.
Justification for the AIM is extrapolated out a a few texts and under the premise that the preservation of truth and establishment of Scripture requires the assuredly infallible magisterium of Rome (a fallacy i have posted on before such as here and here), in the light of the problem of human reasoning being fallible, and that that interpretation of Scripture cannot be private interpretation (for which 2Pt. 1:20,21 is invoked, but which interpretation itself is faulty). Having an AIM is thus said to provide assurance of doctrine and uniformity and to counteract the problem of fallible human reasoning (FHR) and the resultant confusion seen among those who look to Scripture as supreme, while cults, which also look to a supreme infallible type magisterium, show most clearly that such a centralized authority claim can greater uniformity.
However, while those who hold the supremacy of and sufficiency Scripture have an assuredly infallibility authority but do not claim an assuredly infallible interpreter, and must partly rely upon FHR, yet the Catholic himself makes a fallible human choice to trust in the AIM of Rome, and while he can claim to have an assuredly infallible interpretive authority, he cannot claim an assuredly infallible interpreter of this authority, which does need varying degrees of interpretation.
The Catholic also must engage in FHR in discerning which of the many potentially infallible pronouncements are infallible (is all of Trent infallible?), which he should know in order to provide the assent of faith such require. He must also engage in such in determining which parts of encyclicals (including the Syllabus' of Errors), and papal Bulls, and the catechism express infallible truths, and which teachings are part of the Ordinary magisterium. And what degree of dissent may be allowed in that realm (which is said to be the majority). In judging what is official church teaching he must also interpret such things as how much weight to give to the imprimatur and nhil obstat.
Also, as the AIM has defined very very few verses of Scripture, and the doctrinal teaching of Rome is far from comprehensive and often is much lacking in precision or perspicuity, thus the Catholic has great liberty to interpret Scripture as he desires in order to defend Rome, using his FHR. In all these things there is variance among Catholics including her apologists, and the things R. Catholics can disagree on is extensive, as well as what they do.
Going back to Scripture, we see truth being established by its effects and supernatural attestation and conformity with that which was previously established as truth by those means, with the Scripture becoming the standard for obedience and testing truth claims. This is not to minimize the magisterium, as Scripture affirms it, but not a perpetual, assured formulaic infallibility, or whose claim to authenticity rests upon formal decent, but one whose authority rests upon demonstrable conformity to Scripture and the manner of attestation it affirms Truth being given, in relation to its claims. Thus from of old writings were established as being Scripture without an AIM, and truth was preserved partly by God raising up men from with the official magisterium to reprove them who supposed supremacy, and thus a man clothed in camel's hair and eating insects, and One (the Lord Jesus) who came not from the tribe of Levi reproved those who sat in Moses's seat, and lowly fishermen displaced them. And God can raise up from stones believers to build His church with, which manifest the faith of the gospel and pass it on, versus the institutionalized form which preaches itself and or fosters faith in ones own goodness for salvation.
AntiChrist?
It is meant in the sense of being the vicar of Christ, which in the sense of being ambassadors of Christ has a place, but Rome tends to use literal language that overstates its place, or that of Mary, etc., then complain when people reprove them having taken such as they sound.
Where I grew up just the opposite, almost no Catholics, all Protestants.
DIdn’t know what a “Catholic” was for sure. One of my best friends went to Catholic school until public High School (for the sports) and went to “Mass” or something instead of church. That’s about all I or any of our friends could tell you.
>>”are not everyday protestants.”
That’s very true in my experience also. This is a very small group on this site, and an even tinier part of Protestants as a whole.
Something to be grateful for.
:)
Perhaps. But there’s a lot of minimalism in some Protestants. And, in some cases, more than a little dualism. Sort of Docetist Light, if you will.
Why do you think it is a "favorite" with Protestants? Do we not celebrate the Lord's Supper with broken unleavened bread and grape juice? Do we not say first that everyone should examine himself before he partakes of the elements? Do we not speak the same words Jesus said to his disciples, this is my body which is broken for you, take and eat of it in remembrance of me? Do we not also take the cup and repeat the words of Jesus, this cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me. For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes?
And do we not do this many times during the year, not just at Easter? Do we not preach that to participate unworthily is a sin? That no one should partake who has not received the Lord Jesus Christ as his Savior? The true life-giving nature of Jesus' flesh and blood is in the fact that he died for our sins upon the cross. His body was broken for us, his blood shed for our sins and without his sacrifice we would be without hope in a dying world full of sin. He also rose again from the grave so that we know our sin debt is paid. If Christ be not risen, we are dead in our sins, Paul said. And because he is risen, so shall we be raised spotless and unblemished, clothed in the righteousness of Christ.
As I have said before, Jvette, it is not so much that some want to believe that the elements are spiritually changed - spiritually because the elements remain bread and wine - into the actual flesh and blood of Jesus, but that they insist that all must partake of this sacrament in order to be saved. That no one who has not received Christ, believed on him, can be saved, I fully accept because it is Biblical truth. What I object to most of all is the dogma that this observance itself is propitiatory. Paul said as often as you do this, you do "show the Lord's death until he comes". That no one was supposed to partake who was not already a believer, is plain, so why would Paul imply - which I don't believe he ever did - that the repeated partaking was what saved one?
Jesus died once for all, Scripture says, and Jesus is in heaven at the right hand of the Father until he comes again. He sacrifice was complete, "it is finished", he said, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sin. It does not need to be repeated again and again, because by one offering he has perfected forever those who are saved. We, by faith, receive him and we are found IN CHRIST. God counts his righteousness in the place of our righteousness and we are perfected in his sight. We are justified and sanctified by grace through faith and we have eternal life through Jesus Christ. The observance of the Eucharist was for thanksgiving, for remembrance, for reminding the saved what Jesus did for them so that we are encouraged to share our faith and to live righteous and holy lives through the power of grace through Christ.
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13praec.htm
“The Vicar of Christ is the Vicar of God; to us the voice of the Pope is the voice of God. This, too, is why Catholics would never dream of calling in question the utterance of a priest in expounding Christian doctrine according to the teaching of the Church;...
He is as sure of a truth when declared by the Catholic Church as he would be if he saw Jesus Christ standing before him and heard Him declaring it with His Own Divine lips.” —“Henry G. Graham, "What Faith Really Means", (Nihil Obstat:C. SCHUT, S. T.D., Censor Deputatus, Imprimatur: EDM. CANONICUS SURMONT, D.D.,Vicarius Generalis. WESTMONASTERII, Die 30 Septembris, 1914 )
http://www.catholictradition.org/Tradition/faith2-10.htm]
Acts 12:22 "And the people gave a shout, saying, It is the voice of a god, and not of a man."
daniel, you left out the best part. The following verse.....verse 23
Acts 12:23 Immediately, because Herod did not give praise to God, an angel of the Lord struck him down, and he was eaten by worms and died.
grape juice????
:)
True.Everyone has some sort of baggage wether they know it or not.My world-view was totally atheistic.My entire family,immediate and extended are (AFAIK) still atheist.Religion of any form was looked upon as a sort of leprosy,pretty much still is,again,AFAIK.
When I think upon His name,I'm still sometimes taken aback at what it is I actually believe.The fact that it is so diametrically opposed to my entire upbringing,opposed to practically everything that I hear and see from the world,that even my own flesh is often violently opposed to and yet I believe.
When I contemplate all that I can't help but think it is a slow-motion miracle so to speak.IOW I find it incredible that I believe what I believe.
"Psalm 119:105 Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path."
Do you get hungry or thirsty? Or whoops, we don't take this one literally......do we?
John 6:51, 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh." 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like the bread the fathers ate and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever."
Hmmm, didn't Jesus have a human flesh and blood body? Oh? He ISN'T made out of dough even though He says He's bread? Not taking that one literally either?
What about living forever? Catholics claim that they eat the actual flesh and blood of Jesus but here He says that anyone who does will never die. Are we switching between literal and spiritual in mid-sentence? Or do Catholics plan on literally living forever in the physical bodies that physically eat the physical body and blood of Jesus?
He's a Labelist? An Assumptionist? A Judgementalist? A Boxer...nope, scratch that one...;o)
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.