Gay Episcopal Bishop to Preach at San Francisco Catholic Parish

Catholic Culture ^ | 11/22/11

[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.

[Quix]

Since you pinged me, should I assume you are accusing me of being dishonest about being raised a Roman Catholic? You also pinged others that have testified such as well, are you accusing them of being liars? So we are clear here, we were [Roman] Catholics so that does NOT make us "phony catholics". You DO know the difference, right?

Wouldn't that be the ones still pretending to be [Roman] Catholics? Like the ones who vote Democrat?

Those of us who have left Catholicism are not *phony [Roman] Catholics* because we are not still claiming to BE [Roman] Catholics. Nothing *phony* about that. It's the [Roman] Catholics who keep claiming that we're still [Roman] Catholics. You know, *Once a [Roman] Catholic, always a [Roman] Catholic.* Come back across the Tiber. Please. Pretty please. We'll take you back. All will be forgiven. Otherwise you'll burn in hell you heretic.

Let me just ask you this, you too, Mark, what is so difficult to believe about someone being a Roman Catholic and deciding that it was not for them? Is it impossible to imagine that once a person knows Roman Catholicism - and knows it well - that they could honestly leave it and still be a Christian? I'm asking not to be argumentative or hostile, but to get an honest response. Why resort to calling people, who admit they were once Roman Catholics, dishonest and liars?

[Qx: It's Vatican !!!!TRADITION!!!! and a RELIGIOUS duty of obligation!]

I realize that this particular thread has been a knockout, drag out battle royale, but are such accusations coming from that bloodied field or do you really believe none of us are being truthful? Time to clear some air.

You know, I know there are a few [Roman] Catholics on these threads who state that they were raised Protestant and converted to [Roman] Catholicism and yet

I do not recall ANY non-[Roman]Catholics calling them liars or accusing them of making stuff up about their Protestant experience.

[Qx: I can't recall a single case in the 11+ years of my FR experience. Proddys just tend to act more Christian as well as more rational--most of the time. We also tend to give the other person more of the benefit of the doubt more of the time.]

There's not a one of us who doesn't recognize that there are some local congregations out there that have issues. If someone came out of something like that, I'm not going to call them a liar or imply that they are lying about what they relate.

The only reason that I can figure that there is such accusation about us lying and being dishonest and misrepresenting [Roman] Catholicism is because what many of us who were raised as [Roman] Catholics, and those who were educated as [Roman] Catholics have to say about the reality of what [Roman] Catholicism is at the grassroots level, and even some of the things we've found stated in the Catechism of the [Roman] Catholic church, is an outright [intolerable cognitive dissonance] embarrassment to [Roman et al] Catholics.

Better to attack the character and integrity of those pulling off the mask than trying to deal with the truth of the situation.

AMEN! AMEN! AMEN! AMEN! AMEN! AMEN! AMEN!

!ABSOLUTELY INDEED!

[Iscool]

finally, the clearest evidence from the Bible for baptismal regeneration is in Acts 8:30-39
the eunuch had Philip preach Jesus to him and the enuch said there is water, what prevented him from being baptized. obviously Philip had told him he needed to be baptized for the forgiveness of his sins.

Obviously??? Only to someone who is ignorant of the word of God...Philip didn't tell him any such thing...

The Eunuch believed on the Lord Jesus Christ...The Eunuch accepted Jesus as his Saviour...Only then, was the Eunuch allowed to be baptized...

Buy a Bible...Read it...Get saved; baptized with the Spirit...And then get baptized with water, if you'd like...

[2nd amendment mama]

Thank you for your prayers. I had to stop reading this thread with Christians bashing Christians when something like this has happened to my friend’s son - at the hands of Muslims. One thing about it though - it has brought me closer to God.

[metmom]

learn the definition of “repent”, it is not the forgiveness of sins. unless one is “in Christ” and has been regenerated, repentance means nothing. a Muslim can “repent”, does that mean their sins are forgiven?

If this is the typical view of repentance, it sure explains a lot.

Funny how everything in Catholicism is so compartmentalized.

[Quix]

I don’t support delay . . .

however . . . it’s common in China to watch a new convert for a year to see if their Christian walk warrants Baptism.

[MarkBsnr]

Bowing the head and/or the knees is NOT what God requires for salvation. It MUST be the emotional and intellectual equivalent of doing so that God wants and, only then, is the physical act accepted.

Oh dear, is a Protestant apologist preaching 'works' now? You must do before you are saved? My, my. May I ask for further explanation?

By confessing with our mouths that Jesus is Lord and believing in our hearts that God raised him from the dead is what God says saves us. One who has done so can be assured of eternal life and to continue to beg and plead for God's mercy to save us after he has already done so is demonstrating a lack of faith not a humble faith.

So it is only by doing the works of God that one is saved? I am truly astonished at your post. If you have experienced a change of heart, then I welcome your conversion.

[metmom]

I think that most of them have determined that the god in the mirror is where they ought to be paying attention. Just imagine this: a room full of liberals. Is there any difference to a room full of mirrors, or a room full of antiCatholics? All mirroring the other, with no substance, and no meaning.

What a laugh. If a Catholics disagrees with official church doctrine, he is damned to hell. The beliefs of each and every one of them MUST conform to the church, no individuality allowed. Carbon copies of each other.

And you say that Protestants *mirror* each other? LOL!!!!!

[MarkBsnr]

When you say "We do not declare that we are the Church", are you speaking as an individual"

That is correct. I do not presume the arrogance of that level of declaration.

What you label as "pride" only appears so to those who do not have confidence in the promises of God.

I have confidence in God. It is the riff raff of the Reformation and their empty promises that I have no confidence in.

In fact, I think it is MORE prideful to think I must still do more to earn my salvation.

Tsk, tsk, you MUST read your own posts a little more thoroughly.

When we come to saving faith in Jesus Christ we leave ALL pride at the foot of the cross because we can do nothing of ourselves to merit the unspeakable gift of God's grace. God gives us the choice, believe and be saved or reject the gift and be damned. Those who do not believe are condemned already, Jesus said. Those who believe are NOT condemned, he also proclaimed.

Matthew 22:37 "You shall love the Lord your God with your whole heart, with your whole soul, and with all your mind, (and) you shall love your neighbor as yourself."

If you do not do as Jesus commands, you are denied salvation.

Matthew 7: 21 Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven. 22 Many will say to me in that day: Lord, Lord, have not we prophesied in thy name, and cast out devils in thy name, and done many miracles in thy name? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity. Ah, there we have it. Evil doers will be rejected by God at their Judgement. Those who do as Jesus commands will be accepted by God at their Judgement.

I welcome a change in a heart that may formerly have been as stony as a Biblical execution. Thank you for sharing this with us.

[Judith Anne]

The beliefs of each and every one of them MUST conform to the church, no individuality allowed. Carbon copies of each other.

Anyone can believe anything they like, no problem, free country. But in order to call themselves Catholic with any credibility, and in order to receive the sacraments, they must accept Catholic teaching. There are some areas of Catholic teaching that are left to the individual conscience, and some where agreement is required for participation in the Eucharist.

The church does not "damn anyone to hell." That is so ugly as to be worth calling putrid protestantism. Capital punishment and just wars are just two of the areas where good Catholics can disagree. This has been argued up and down these threads for literally years, the error of your post has been declared multiple times, no wonder few of us think you have ever been Catholic, any Catholic would know better.

However, you cannot be a Catholic in communion with the Church and believe in abortion, same-sex marriage, ordination of owomen, fetal stem cell experimentation, so these are pretty much core Catholic issues where no Catholic can disagree and still bear the name. Which of these do you insist on disagreeing with the Church?

Lutherans have core beliefs, so do presbyterians, so do even the squishy Methodists. Those are not interchangeable denominations. Sola scriptura evangelicals vary widely in their interpretations, and no I will not give you examples, and numbers of all yall have condemned Catholics to hell, so, pardon me if I don't take that too seriously, being an idolator and all. /sarc

[metmom]

Being a part of the New Covenant, what Jude warns about is as true today as it was under the Old Covenant, and Jude warns us about a heresy that still is common, the heresy of, "the priesthood of all believers".

Are you calling PETER a heretic or accusing him of teaching heresy?

Because HE'S the one telling us that we're a royal priesthood, a holy nation.

1 Peter 2:1-10 1 So put away all malice and all deceit and hypocrisy and envy and all slander. 2 Like newborn infants, long for the pure spiritual milk, that by it you may grow up into salvation— 3if indeed you have tasted that the Lord is good.

4As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious, 5 you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6For it stands in Scripture:

"Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a cornerstone chosen and precious, and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame."

7So the honor is for you who believe, but for those who do not believe,

"The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone," 8and "A stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense." They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do.

9But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. 10 Once you were not a people, but now you are God’s people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.

[count-your-change]

Lots of interesting comments on this thread but there are a couple of aspects of baptism that in looking I haven't found here, so a couple of questions to whomever wishes:

1. John baptized for what purpose and
2. Why would someone baptized by John be baptized again?
3. Why would a sinless Jesus be baptized?

[Rashputin]

Which books of the Bible did you throw out today?

Everyone is free to interpret Scriptures to suit their own preconceptions and the first sentence of #2950 beginning with "Are you ... : proves that beyond a shadow of a doubt. Scripture does not contradict Scripture, I did not contradict Scripture, but apparently some people cannot read and understand a simple sentence or two in the Book of Jude and see that warning against a heresy that rises again and again isn't in any way contradicting Peter. No way, no how, no time, and not to anyone who understands Scripture rather than twisting Scriptures to suit the personal preconceptions they built their own personal religion of Self around.

Just like some folks pretend there is no Church, they pretend there are no shepherds to guide us, teach us, and bless the Eucharist for the sheep to share in. They have to build heresy on heresy once they insist that Jesus Christ was either too stupid to say what he meant or that Jesus Christ was lying when He said, "My Flesh", and "My Blood". It's that simple, blindness begets blindness until those who have built their own personal religion of Self on their abbreviated version of the Bible cannot resist piling one warped and twisted fable on top of their last tortured and twisted fantasy that allows them to claim they are equal in every way to the Holy Spirit.

The individual being their own final authority in all things due to their needing only Scripture and no shepherd is found nowhere in the Bible but those who pursue that single lie end up denying the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, that Christ is completely Man and completely God, and top even that horrible insult to Christ by proclaiming that the Holy Spirit is not a part of the Trinity, God from God, Light from Light, but only their personal slave, totally subordinate to their personal religion of Self. There is no surrender to Christ, only the lies that the Holy Spirit can be enslaved and Christ can be legally bound to the whims of each individual who creates their own personal religion of Self.

That's they way it goes once someone begins with a single heresy or even a single error and then follows their own personal intellect rather than surrendering to Christ. It's clear for all to see who read the constant drumbeat of those who follow the religion of Self because every argument they make boils down to the simple fact that they cannot accept Scripture but always say, "that's what it says, but that's not what it means". Unless, of course, we're talking about the portions of the Bible they've already thrown in the trash can. Those books they just ignore because they claim to know more than Christ and the Apostles who never said a word about there being any books in the then existing Scriptures that didn't belong there.

have a nice day

[Judith Anne]

9But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation,

Excuse me, you have never claimed to be a Jew, you are not one of the chosen race. And you, woman, are not a priest will never be a priest, and cannot be a priest.

What is the obsession with Catholics, anyway? You all reject the Church, move on, leave it alone, get a life.

[MarkBsnr]

Let me just ask you this, you too, Mark, what is so difficult to believe about someone being a Roman Catholic and deciding that it was not for them? Is it impossible to imagine that once a person knows Roman Catholicism - and knows it well - that they could honestly leave it and still be a Christian?

Extremely far fetched, certainly. Impossible? That's for the Lord to Judge. My main point, though is that so many claim to be ex Catholics, even to the point of teaching the Faith, and yet post time after time gross caricatures to the point of falsification. What would you think, given the opposite circumstances.

Look at the converts to the Faith that post on here. Do you hear ex Anglicans bash the Anglican faith? Lutherans? Can you point out one ex Protestant convert to the Faith who bashes and posts caricatures to the point of falsification of their former faith, making up all kinds of stuff? I don't see the ex Mormons on FR doing that either when talking to current Mormons (and yes I am a part time Flying Inman).

Why resort to calling people, who admit they were once Roman Catholics, dishonest and liars? I realize that this particular thread has been a knockout, drag out battle royale, but are such accusations coming from that bloodied field or do you really believe none of us are being truthful? Time to clear some air.

There is an individual here, very anti Catholic, who claims to have been Catholic that has never to my knowledge posted one truth about the Faith, other than spelling the name correctly every so often. How would you take that individual?

[D-fendr]

That would be your contention that free will is not critical to salvation?

[Judith Anne]

Some here think it gives them some sort of credibility when they criticize the Church, to claim to have been members in the past.

They trumpet, “I saw the light, now I know the truth” and it’s as phony as a three dollar bill. They cannot even describe the Church accurately, have no idea about scripture in the mass, never knew Catholic teaching about Mary, and claim that the Bible is their sole authority. Those people were never Catholic. You can say it’s midnight at noon, doesn’t mean anyone with eyesight will believe it.

[MarkBsnr]

The irony of all the Catholic railing about baptism being necessary for salvation, is that even if one believes that to be the case, I don't know a Christian who has not been baptized at some point in their lives. I was infant baptized into the Catholic church.

When I was in Indiana in the midst of a bunch of small non denominational churches, a great deal of them were not baptized, or were baptized as more mature adults.

Well, let us see what else the Bible says about baptism. You argue from the point that certain conditions are required for salvation. We agree that they are there. What else is there?

John 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

Luke 3:3-4 And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

Looks like we have an "and" going here. Unless you take Jesus and John the Baptist off the ticket entirely.

[MarkBsnr]

What a laugh. If a Catholics disagrees with official church doctrine, he is damned to hell. The beliefs of each and every one of them MUST conform to the church, no individuality allowed. Carbon copies of each other.

John 17: 20 And not for them only do I pray, but for them also who through their word shall believe in me; 21 That they all may be one, as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee; that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

22 And the glory which thou hast given me, I have given to them; that they may be one, as we also are one: 23 I in them, and thou in me; that they may be made perfect in one: and the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast also loved me.

There is one God and one Gospel. Not the gospel that the image in the mirror has.

And you say that Protestants *mirror* each other? LOL!!!!!

In their methodologies and in their repudiation of the Church that Jesus Created and the Holy Spirit Commissioned at Pentecost, sure.

[D-fendr]

Besides, my request wasn’t for links to threads. It was for specific verses and examples

Specifically it was for *wildly divergent interpretations* of scripture. Which are found in abundance in the links I provided which included scripture verses, soteriology, eschatology and theology - all derived sola scriptura, i.e., interpretations.

In your 2846, you said: "Pick a couple verses and expound on the wildly divergent interpretations of said verse by each group."

Which I complied with in my post #2865

Now, again in your 2934, it's the same request; so, same reply:

Enjoy: Passages Arminians Must Harmonize from Soteriology: Calvinism & Arminianism also posted on FR as A comparrision of Calvinism and Arminianism by CCWoody

If you're interested in other interpretations that yield major disagreements among sola scriptura adherents they're not that difficult to find.

[D-fendr]

no individuality allowed. Carbon copies of each other.

Are you the same poster who complained that the Church didn't have a line by line "official" interpretation for all of Scripture, or was that someone else.