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.

[boatbums]

I "get it from you straight"? Ummm...I don't think so. So far, it seems all you have done is ignore what I have actually said and substituted your own "interpretation" in your own words of what you think I meant. Why not stick to what I said? First of all, I didn't say Jesus was only for the Jews. I said he said he came for the Lost Sheep of House of Israel. He DID say that. But that didn't mean his words and teachings were not relevant for all. You can't understand his teachings if you don't understand their context. The same with Peter who said himself he was the Apostle to the Jews and Paul to the Gentiles. THAT'S in Scripture. I didn't make it up. All that means is help in understanding the context of what they teach.

As to the Gospels versus the Epistles, I said the epistles were "further revelation". This means they contained MORE truth than what Jesus taught during his three year ministry. Nonetheless, they are ALL Divine revelation. I do not get why you keep insisting I believe Paul should be worshiped or anyone else but Jesus. I have certainly stated unabashedly numerous times now that Jesus is who is the source of all truth - he alone is to be glorified and worshiped. Keep saying the opposite, it won't make anyone but yourself look bad.

My "logic" hasn't been destroyed, Mark, only what you think or pretend I am saying. But, go ahead, do what you want, think what you want, I can only say what I believe in the way I know how to say it.

[boatbums]

You’re right. I can only say something so many times and then leave it up to the Lord to break through the haze.

[MarkBsnr]

I’d certainly MUCH RATHER post with and amidst civility, compassion, caring . . . mutual respect. And, I think I’ve gradually increased the number of RC’s to which I do use those tones and attitudes at least the great majority of the time if not virtually always or even always.

Anyway—I applaud the goal of INCREASING the constructive Biblical tones and exchanges betwen the two camps. I’ve tried toward that several times. We shall see how far this effort gets.

When the Protestant side attempts to return to Christianity, we shall certainly see.

[MarkBsnr]

It is neither. Paul's teaching is not different from (heteros versus allos) nor did it supersede (in the sense of supplant) what Jesus was teaching. Paul's teaching is, according to him, what he received directly from the Lord.

You and I and all Christians understand that. It is the Paulians who preach the gospel of Paul. Now I have some problems with the text of your quote, inasmuch as we have terms like "Jesus believed himself to be...", but generally speaking, we are in accord that Paul was a bishop of the Church and that he taught Christianity and enforced it upon the parishes and communities of which he had charge.

[Quix]

Wellll, Dear Heart . . . I don’t think “haze” is quite adequate.

Thick, stinking, fetid, black swamp muck fits more what I observe.

[Quix]

So let’s say you’re correct....”WHY” do so if there love for God is as they claim....or are they indeed just truly blind to the truth of who God is?

They canNOT SEE God . . . obscured behind Mary's halo or apron strings or throne.

Barf.

[Quix]

I do think some lash out when they are struggling with that which cannot be defended...and importantly.... once it’s brought ‘into the light’ of scriptures....light shines in darkness and the darkness cannot understand it!

INDEED . . . nor . . . TOLERATE The Truth.

[Quix]

INDEED.

[MarkBsnr]

I "get it from you straight"? Ummm...I don't think so. So far, it seems all you have done is ignore what I have actually said and substituted your own "interpretation" in your own words of what you think I meant. Why not stick to what I said?

If my paraphrasing of what you actually said does not equate to the actual intent of your postings, then please clarify. I can only go on what you actually post, not what you think that you are posting.

As to the Gospels versus the Epistles, I said the epistles were "further revelation". This means they contained MORE truth than what Jesus taught during his three year ministry.

You mean Paul's letters contain more truth than the Gospels. Hmmm. What about John? His writings refer to events after Paul, are listed after Paul in the Bible, and were written after Paul. His revelation, instead of being secret was written for all to see. Tell me why Paul so fascinates the antiCatholics, if you please.

My "logic" hasn't been destroyed, Mark, only what you think or pretend I am saying. But, go ahead, do what you want, think what you want, I can only say what I believe in the way I know how to say it.

In other words, your claims that Paul occurs after the Gospels, that Paul was written after the Gospels, and that Paul is listed Biblically after the Gospels and therefore contains MORE truth than the Gospels do not apply to John. Again, I will ask you: why do you guys worship Paul as opposed to John, if not simply following in the footsteps of the Paulian heretics of the first millennium?

[Jvette]

So, any errors or contradictions in the Bible YOU ACCEPT are dismissed out of hand because they are in tune with what you believe. Proven to be misinterpretations ....blah,blah,blah...

And now the adulteress story may not have been included in the original, may not be authentic?

Really, CB?

This explains a lot.

[metmom]

It seems to be a malady amongst Catholics to accurately interpret ANYTHING.

No matter what’s posted, Scripture, CF’s, the catechism, someone else’s words, no matter how clearly stated and how concise, it doesn’t mean what it says, it means what they say or think it says.

Seeing as they cannot interpret Scripture properly, it comes as no surprise that they cannot interpret you properly either. Wear it as a badge of honor. You’re keeping good company.

[aruanan]

You and I and all Christians understand that. It is the Paulians who preach the gospel of Paul. Now I have some problems with the text of your quote, inasmuch as we have terms like "Jesus believed himself to be...", but generally speaking, we are in accord that Paul was a bishop of the Church and that he taught Christianity and enforced it upon the parishes and communities of which he had charge.

That's more stylistic than anything else if you've read more of N.T. Wright. Look at his book The Resurrection of the Son of God. I don't think he has any doubt that Jesus is who Jesus claimed himself to be. I thought his remark about circumcision and the form-critics was pretty good.

[CynicalBear]

>>And now the adulteress story may not have been included in the original, may not be authentic?<<

I was simply acknowledging the fact that there are some who show cause. I try to look at all evidence before making my personal decision as to what to believe. I neither discount the evidence nor refute it until more facts are known.

[D-fendr]

I try to look at all evidence before making my personal decision as to what to believe.

From this and other of your posts it appears to me that you see it as your task to determine what is scripture or revelation, what is the correct translation and meaning of same and from this what are the correct beliefs (i.e. doctrine, dogma) for your religion. I think it would be accurate to say the result being, according to you, the correct Christian Faith or religion.

If I'm correct in this, three questions:

1) Is every Christian tasked to do the same?

2) Are your results/religious beliefs then binding for all Christians or only for you?

3) If every Christian is tasked the same as you (above), when others arrive at different results, what is the standard or basis on which to determine which is correct; or, is it not necessary to have an objective standard, relative truth (for each individual) is all that matters?

[CynicalBear]

>>Is every Christian tasked to do the same?<<

Yes, there is no universal salvation. You’re not saved just belonging to a group. To each is given the Holy Spirit. The Bereans were commended for “searching the scriptures daily” to see if the things they were told were true.

>>Are your results/religious beliefs then binding for all Christians or only for you?<<

Binding? Only Catholics would use that term. Those of us who are set free from bindings by Christ are “free indeed”. For those who truly seek God’s will the Holy Spirit, if asked in earnest, will be given the guidance they each need.

>>If every Christian is tasked the same as you (above), when others arrive at different results,<<

There is only one Holy Spirit and will lead each to all truth if He is asked with a pure heart. Put aside personal prejudices and preconceived ideas. No human can have your interest at heart more then you and the Holy Spirit do. Trust someone else to interpret for you and you will get what they get.

God will never turn down a person who earnestly seeks Him and His will. Seek the will of some human somewhere and there is no promise.

[D-fendr]

Every Christian is tasked to do the same? Do they have to learn languages, study all extant manuscripts, etc.. to accomplish this task with sufficient skill? How good is your Koine Greek for example? Is it ok to trust someone else's knowledge here? How would that trust be determined, or can it *never* be delegated?

Binding?

Meaning apply, restrict to, limited to, encompassed within... You could either believe your results, say concerning salvation, apply to or are true for every Christian or not. If so, then we could say others are bound by your results. It is whether they are "free indeed" to arrive at different conclusions and still be valid in your view.

I'm still not sure what your answer is to this question; yes? no?

There is only one Holy Spirit and will lead each to all truth…

The question was when others arrive at different results, what standard or basis is used to determine which is correct. If you are saying the Holy Spirit, how is this done in practice? What if both do as you say and still arrive at different results?

Trust someone else to interpret for you and you will get what they get.

Is the measure of an interpretation that it is yours? Or that it is true? On what basis or standard is this determined?

[CynicalBear]

Why don’t you just start at the beginning? Paul, when asked by the Jailor “what must I do to be saved” said “believe on the Lord Jesus and you will be saved – and your house”. Paul didn’t then go on to list and entire book on do’s and don’ts. We are also told that even our best works are as dirty rags to God. Does that sound like anything we can do is ever going to be good enough? We are also told that once we believe it’s Christ in us that does the works.

Looking for legalisms where there should be none is religion. With a bottom line of the simple gospel of “believe on the Lord Jesus and you will be saved – and your house” and the understanding that nothing I can do will be good enough and Jesus is the one doing the good works through me “ask and it shall be given, seek and you will find” the truth with the help of the Holy Spirit. Looking for carnal answers will get you no where. Trying our own understanding is futile. Trust in Him alone and He will guide your footsteps. Trust totally in Him and He will never let you down.

[D-fendr]

Why don’t you just start at the beginning? Paul, when…

The beginning here would be if and why Paul's writing is scripture and, if so, what it means in context of soteriology. You said you believe that every Christian's task is to:

…determine what is scripture or revelation, what is the correct translation and meaning of same and from this what are the correct beliefs…

I should make clear here that I'm not looking to discuss what your results are but, rather, how they are derived and so on.

Trying our own understanding is futile.

Doesn't this contradict your view above? Isn't the point of the task to arrive at your own understanding?

ask and it shall be given, seek and you will find” the truth with the help of the Holy Spirit.

I understand the statement as it refers to the topic: your methodology for determining your religious beliefs.

My question again is: What then is the basis or standard for determining which 'truth' is correct when two, using the same method, arrive at different truths?

[CynicalBear]

There are 66 books in the Bible that have never been proven wrong. Even though there are doubts about some small portions here and there it has never been proven. If you believe Jesus words that the Apostles would be given the Holy Spirit to “bring to their remembrance all that was said” then you must believe that God also preserved those words for us today. If you don’t believe that much then it won’t matter anyway.

You also have to believe that if God is perfect there will be no part of scripture that contradicts any other part of scripture. Also I believe the “two or three witnesses” also applies to scripture. No single verse can stand alone as doctrine. As an example in James 2 a verse that appears to say that faith alone isn’t enough. But there are many verses that state that’s it’s faith that saves. One cannot be right and the other wrong or God would not be consistent.

No, I am not trying to come to “my own understanding”. I am trying to come to the understanding of the Holy Spirit. Two different people will not come to different conclusions or understanding if they use scripture to interpret scripture with the help of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit will not guide two different interpretations. If I can be shown from scripture that any understanding that I have is in error I will surely pray for the Holy Spirit to show me truth as I many times have in the past. The beliefs taught me growing up have been shown to be wrong in many instances.

[D-fendr]

Two different people will not come to different conclusions or understanding if they use scripture to interpret scripture with the help of the Holy Spirit.

How is that determined in practice? If both do this, or truly believe they do this, and have different conclusions, what is the standard or basis to determine which is right, which is wrong?

I can see two options: which one agrees with you (or your understanding of which the Holy Spirit agrees with); which one has more who agree with them (using the same criteria/method).

Would one of these two options be your basis for deciding? Or another?