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.
That is provably false. I have had many dialogues with you in which I have used Scripture to support what I believe. It is not propaganda and no different that what any protestant does here.
****We’re not interested in the mythologies of the RCC that Catholics fall for.****
What you call mythologies are doctrines developed over much time and many years by great minds throughout the history of the Church.
Let's take for example the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception which protestants claim was made up of whole cloth in the 19th century. That is was not a doctrine or belief of earlier Christians. Well, let's just look at the very work in which we have been so engrossed.
From page 30, "for this passage has been applied to her by the Church in the office of the Immaculate Conception." Here St. Ligouris is speaking of a passage from Ecclesiasticus, which I realize is a book that protestants reject. The point is that that doctrine was not one which was suddenly proclaimed out of nowhere. It was something the Church had believed and preached for hundreds of years.
It is one thing to reject the Church, reject her authority and another altogether to be dishonest about her and her members.
****Other than CatholicChristian myth, hearsay, and doctrine made from whole cloth or pagan influences....
Gee, with the slight adjustments I made, that could come from an atheist.
It really is tiresome to see the same falsehoods repeated over and over. I guess that is what one must resort to when faced with the fact that the Church is as old as Christianity itself and that what you claim as "hearsay" are actually the written testimonies of men who lived much closer to the beginning than anyone here.
You do realize don't you that there are groups of people who claim Christianity is nothing more than a myth, who reject that the NT is Scripture and claim what is written is nothing more than hearsay? Why there are groups who discount the whole story of Paul as being impossible!
When attempts are made to inject scripture by Catholics, proofs of error are swift and complete by those who haven’t fallen under the heretical propaganda of the CC.
A matter of one's opinion of what Scripture means, not proofs of error. What makes your interpretation more valid or sure than anothers? I am a believer, I read Scripture, I claim guidance by the Holy Spirit. What gives you the right to dispute that and claim I am wrong and you are right? Only yourself, not God and not Scripture.
****Open our hearts to Mary?****
CB, do you believe Jesus loves His mother? And if you do, why? Scripture never says He does.
Look, I’m tired of ya’ll’s stupid name-calling exercises. You’re both too dumb to realize you’re on the same team. Your asinine comment combined with that “One True Church” garbage I keep seeing just sets me off. I know all about “Catholic guilt” as my wife was raised a Catholic, had it used on her by her parents, and she tries to use it on me sometimes, but your nonsense is not going to win anyone over. You should give people reasons why they should want to join, not insult them if they don’t.
****but your nonsense is not going to win anyone over. You should give people reasons why they should want to join, not insult them if they don’t.*****
As this is the first interactions I have ever had with you, I will not defend myself to you for what has transpired here.
I have said that I defend my faith here, it is not my intent to convert anyone. Things are said here that deserve refutation.
I don’t know how familiar you are with me, but others who have been engaged with me over the years, know that I like to practice apologetics and that much of what I do here I take with me when I am teaching the faith to the young people of my church.
I have never shied away from honest debate and nearly always offer my own words and understandings of Scriptures when challenged.
How in all this thread, or any of the threads which devolve to anti Catholic bashing at nearly every turn, you decided to single me out for expressing my opinion, I don’t know.
Gee, just lucky me, I guess.
Thanks for the input, I will take it under consideration.
Yes they do and lets look at one reason.
Ecclesiasticus 3:30 Water will quench a flaming fire; and alms maketh an atonement for sins.
Alms make atonement for sin?
Colossians 2:13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; 14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;
Christ paid for all our sins, nailing them to the cross. With that kind of error contained in Ecclesiasitcus it becomes obvious that it was not inspired by God and no relevance should be given any part of it. Any reference to it for dogma, doctrine or inspiration should be disgarded.
>> The point is that that doctrine was not one which was suddenly proclaimed out of nowhere.<<
No, the point is that the doctrine was derived from something that was not inspired by God and therefore not to be considered. Using something other than writings that we know were inspired by God are the folly of the CC no matter how long they have done it. Error based on error is no way to build on a “solid Rock” which is Christ.
>> It is one thing to reject the Church, reject her authority and another altogether to be dishonest about her and her members.<<
Nothing dishonest was said. Given the proven errors in books the CC uses for doctrine it can only be said that those books were written from mans hearsay, fantasies, or myths.
>> What gives you the right to dispute that and claim I am wrong and you are right?<<
Contradictions with other portions of scripture.
Building doctrine on the carnal knowledge of men? No thanks.
I would say, rather, that they use the current example as an excuse, reason, rationale, in order to further their own self-indulgence in antiCatholicism, or indeed, in somehow justifying it to themselves.
Anti-Catholicism is the Fundamentalist religion. I can’t help but note their smug arrogance when Catholics quote scripture, claiming we lack the Holy Spirit, and only THEY can understand it.
No Protestant reads the Bible without starting with a firm foundation of anti-Catholicism.
Anti-Catholicism comes first then the Bible. So what Luther believed in the sacraments. For crying out loud, my devotion to the sacraments began when I was a LUTHERAN.
The only difference between Lutherans an Catholics when it comes to what is or what is not a sacraments is the definition.
Lutherans say a sacrament is something that was COMMANDED by Christ that commends grace, while Roman Catholics and most Orthodox Christians say that a sacrament/sacred mystery is something that was INSTITUTED by Christ that commends grace.
My old priest friend said the best thing to do is to avoid engaging in Bible bingo with Protestants because it always becomes an un-Christian game of egotism.
The only contradictions between Sirach and the rest of scripture can be found in your anti-Catholic prejudice.
Your religion is anti-Catholicism, and that precedes everything else in your faith.
Thanks be to God. In contrast to the manifestation of the truth is the desperation exampled by certain RCs who must rely upon private interpretation of Scripture to defend Rome, asserting an interpretation with certitude which their own church and comrades do not even agree with, and when their wresting of Scripture is exposed before all they simply assert their claim even more.
In my prejudice you say? How about we look at the facts.
Sirach 12:4-7 “Give to the godly man, and help not a sinner. Do well unto him that is lowly, but give not to the ungodly; hold back thy bread, and give it not unto him... give unto the good, and help not the sinner.”
But Jesus says:
Luke 6:27 But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you, 28 Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you. 29 And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloak forbid not to take thy coat also. 30 Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again.
There are more but even the one direct contradiction of Jesus words should be enough to understand that Siach is not of God. In my prejudice indeed. It’s time Catholics come out of the deceitful heresy of Catholicism and understand they have been lied to.
The contradiction is in your mind. The Old Testament teaches that we have to follow all 613 Levitical laws, but St. Paul says we don’t have to.
The New Testament frequently supersedes the Old Testament.
Good night, and enjoy your ham sandwich.
I’m sorry your religion is anti-Catholicism.
Scripture is anti-Catholicism.
Don’t discuss scripture with me because you don’t understand it.
Rather you interpret the Bible in the light of your anti-Catholicism.
Basically, you are a bigot.
Your anti-Catholic bias is telling because you dismiss anything any Catholic tells you out of hand.
There are hundreds of allusions to the Septugint canon books throughout the New Testament. I’ll add that there aren’t any quotations from Esther in the New Testament, which lacks any reference to God in the Hebrew recension.
Anti-Catholicism factors into your Biblical interpretations. The Catholic Church says X, so you believe Y.
It’s transparent. There isn’t any point having any sort of honest discussion with you because you are not interested.
I’m happy that it’s just your conscience twisting the scriptures in the wind because what you think has no bearing on my eternal salvation.
And I do it with scripture which Catholics can’t refute.
And I do it with scripture which Catholics can’t refute.
>>In your dreams. The trouble is you just can’t see it. You have failed.
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.