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.
no “polemical statements”, just showing what the historical, orthodox Christian Faith is, as opposed to the new 16th century gospel so many on here seem to believe.
the Scriptures are very clear and the Church has taught and believed for 2,000 years that baptism is for the remission of sins, receiving the Holy Spirit, being placed “into Christ” and saving us. Neither Acts 10:43-47, nor Acts 15:7-9 mentions regeneration BEFORE baptism. Acts 11 tells us the Holy Spirit fell on the Gentiles as Peter began to speak. This did not occur as a result of the Gentiles believing in Jesus Christ. Luke tells us directly in Acts 2:38 and 22:16 that baptism is for the remission of sins.
Titus 3:6 tells us we are saved by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit ( baptism )
1 Peter 3:21 tells us baptism saves us, not for the washing of the outer body, but the appeal to God for a clear conscience.
This is the Faith taught by the Apostles, which was passed on to Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Cyprian, Athanatius, Jerome, Ambrose, Augustine, Gregory, Thomas, etc. etc. up until today. It is the Universal Faith, believed everywhere and at all times.
Another “gospel” arose in the 16th century and claimed to be scriptural that taught baptism was just “ceremonial” and it wasn’t for the remission of sins, it was a first act of obedience and an outward sign of the salvation that has occurred already. Of course, none of that is from the Scriptures, it is all a 16th century tradition of men.
the Bible tells us false teachers would arise and lead many astray. the false always comes out of the true, true never comes out of the false. there were so many inventions of the 16th century that up until then, no one believed. the biggest 3 were:
1. denial of baptismal regeneration
2. denial of the Real Presence in the Eucharist
3. the 66 book Bible
so anyone today who believes the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Faith is attacked. we understand this, we have been attacked by Gnostics, Arians, Nestorians, Muslims, Jews all thru history, so Protestantism was nothing new.
the fact that in the last generation we are seeing a huge falling away from the Faith, unlike any in Church history, is powerful confirmation that the Church is the Body of Christ and Jesus is soon to return to earth at the end of the world.
one final note, Jesus takes attacks against the Church very personally. read Acts 9:4-5 to see how personally.
Yest there is. Testimony from an authoritative source is considered evidence in a court of law. You have been provided testimony on the Assumption of Mary from St John of Damascus, universally recognized as one of the authoritative Greek Fathers. You choose not to accept said evidence, but please give up your pretense that none exists.
Not according to YOUR CATHOLIC encyclopedia.. what you are citing IS NOT PROOF.. it is hearsay tradition NOT PROOF..
Do Catholics even know what proof is??
Regarding the day, year, and manner of Our Lady's death, nothing certain is known. The earliest known literary reference to the Assumption is found in the Greek work De Obitu S. Dominae. Catholic faith, however, has always derived our knowledge of the mystery from Apostolic Tradition. Epiphanius (d. 403) acknowledged that he knew nothing definite about it (Haer., lxxix, 11).
The dates assigned for it vary between three and fifteen years after Christ's Ascension. Two cities claim to be the place of her departure: Jerusalem and Ephesus. Common consent favours Jerusalem, where her tomb is shown; but some argue in favour of Ephesus. The first six centuries did not know of the tomb of Mary at Jerusalem.
So there is no date, no time, no location, no sure knowledge if she was alone or not.. no cause and not even a sure burial place
The Catholic Encyclopedia
Mas there is NO EVIDENCE ..nothing written by witnesses to her death or assumption..no physical evidence ,not even assurance where the tomb was..
You said that John himself stated in his gospel where he left out many important things Jesus said or did.
Where does John make that statement?
Well, RnMom, since this was the best rebuttal you got, you must have really hit a nerve.
When you can’t refute the facts...... attack the character.
Typical.....
Hey, can I have some of those Hello Kitty decals? Hello Kitty is sooooo cute......
Can’t you just feel the LOOOOOVE?
Well, Quix, since this was the best rebuttal you got, you must have really hit a nerve.
When you can’t refute the facts...... attack the character.
Typical.....
It's a toss-up whether to respond or not to posts that reflect some obvious questions of personality, er, stability. Each has to decide, and I could support either choice: they should be ignored/they should be opposed.
Personally, I've come down of the side of avoiding tar babies and trusting that sane and rational Christians are more than wise enough to see them for what they are. As St. Paul said in his second letter to Timothy:
Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so also these teachers oppose the truth. They are men of depraved minds, who, as far as the faith is concerned, are rejected. But they will not get very far because, as in the case of those men, their folly will be clear to everyone.
The Jews have the RIGHT to confirm their own scripture the NT church does not ..Rome has NO RIGHT to change the OT scriptures..
Just show me where the NT church was given the authority by Christ..
Those you accuse of the removal of books simply returned the right to the canon to the jews..
Mocking me does not change the truth..jesus never gave permission for the NT church to change the JEWISH Canon ... live with it
So do you have evidence that the NT church had the GOD GIVEN authority to add to the Hebrew canon? ...Also do you believe that the bible is inspired by God .
Does such haughtiness . . . populate your reference groups in similar fashion?
ABSOLUTELY INDEED.
Great long doc above, BTW. As usual.
Thx thx.
If the Church didn’t have authority, it would have been every individual for themself: a plethora of churches of one or two or a dozen or more, disagreeing with each other, and all without any authority.
Wouldn’t have worked any better back then than it does today.
I lost respect for you long ago, when it became apparent that you had a mental instability toward anything Catholic. You have solidified that assessment repeatedly with your mentally sick attacks on Catholics and the Catholic Church. You don’t need to keep proving your sickness, but you don’t have to try to reinforce the illness after you’re called on it either. You are one sick dude. I would suggest you get help, but you appear too far gone in your obsession to be reasoned with.
BTW,
Where’s all the EXTRA EXTREME KNEE JERK BRITTLE 2 YR OLD TYPE NASTINESS coming from on the part of the other side recently???
Is Holy Spirit working harder with his CONVICTION arrows?
Wouldn’t have worked any better back then than it does today.
It worked OK in the book of Acts and there was no mention of that sort of stuff in Jesus' letters to the seven churches in Revelation.
And it's not true that there was no authority. It's more loose knit than the hierarchy of the RCC, but it's still there. Besides, Scripture gives the criteria for the men who are called to be pastors and elders.
There are plenty of local, independent assemblies of believers under local authority which work just fine, with no fighting with others.
Besides, some of the doctrinal differences which have resulted in different denominations are not a matter of fighting nor do they continue in it.
The problem is, when the churches get along and co-operate, nobody hears about it because it's not newsworthy.
There's plenty of ministries which involve several different denominations co-operating with them and each other.
The portrayal that just because there are differences by default means fighting is not correct.
Lack of centralized authority works fine now as it did then.
The enemy of men’s souls hates the word.
I really don’t see how anyone can read Acts or the Church Epistles, the Council of Jerusalem, etc. and not see the Church with authority and hierarchy.
Some can, but iMHO it’s because they must ignore Church authority in earlier times once they have rejected the Church’s authority today.
Individualism, sola scriptura become necessities elevated to virtues in this case.
12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. 13For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
Hmm, Jesus said, “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
****It’s up to Him to correct your theology and lead you into all truth.*****
He did that by founding His Church.
The charter of the NT church is found in the NT ..no where is there authority to add doctrine , or to change Gods revelation to the Jews.. The NT churches were functioning independently only loosely joined by the doctrine that had been preached to them ...
Indeed ..he knows that it is the word that leads men to Christ..so he places practices and tradition to confuse and defer men from the scriptures
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.