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.

[D-fendr]

I'm still wondering how you get here so quickly:

There are 66 books in the Bible that have never been proven wrong… use scripture to interpret scripture…

Did you do a lot of work with manuscripts in archives, learn the original languages/culture/word use, derive the correct translation and meaning to a) arrive at what is accurately termed scripture and b) be able to say they have never been proven wrong.?

Perhaps you did do all this, probably not? It seems to me I must have misunderstood you to say that this is your responsibility and the responsibility of each and every Christian to do the same work for themselves.

Is this correct about your views? Or do you rely upon others' expertise in one or more of the areas above and not do all of the work yourself?

[CynicalBear]

>> 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 have had that situation many times. Both produce their scriptural evidence for what they believe and how they came to that belief. Every time we have agreed to disagree it was over non essential to salvation understanding of some small point. I have had times that I have been enlightened having overlooked something other times I’ve been proven correct in my understanding. Always listen but prove by scripture.

>> 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).<<

Never, ever do I allow the “crowd” to influence what I believe. “narrow is the road” has become more vivid to me as I study and grow.

Bottom line is that I alone am the person who will face my savior when the time comes. I alone will answer for my beliefs and convictions. I alone will answer for my unwavering trust in Christ and in no one else.

[D-fendr]

I have had that situation many times… Every time we have agreed to disagree it was over non essential to salvation…

So the method is to each argue their case, and only then if it involves the set of "essential to salvation"? Would it be correct to say the differences of interpretation are settled by argument using the rules of reason?

[D-fendr]

I alone will answer for my beliefs and convictions.

The obvious follow up here is: If someone who differs with you presents a more compelling, stronger, argument for their interpretation contra yours, will you change your view?

[boatbums]

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.

Yes, Paul's letters contain additional truth NOT revealed by Jesus while he was still here on Earth and they continued his revelation to man. The Gospels only speak about what Jesus taught and did and happened while he was here. You know that, right? The same with John and James and Peter and Jude, they all spoke the truths revealed to them by the Holy Spirit. It is NOT that one supersedes another or replaces the other and it certainly has nothing to do with when they were written down. If you were reading a history of the world, would you start at the founding of America?

I really am mystified why some here seem to presume because Paul wrote the majority of the New Testament that anyone who bases theology on what he taught are "worshiping" him. Tell me why Catholics have such an aversion to Paul? Do you not think it important that God included so many of Paul's epistles in the Bible? Do you think perhaps that there was an important reason for that? Why the need to label people as "Paulicans"? Are you even aware of what the Paulican heresy was about? Here is a little info for you:

Little is known of the tenets of the Paulicians, as we are confined for information to the reports of opponents and a few fragments of Sergius' letters which they have preserved. Their system was dualistic,[12] although some have argued that it was actually adoptionist in nature.[13][14] In it there are two principles, two kingdoms. The Evil Spirit is the author of, and lord of, the present visible world; the Good Spirit, of the future world.[2] Of their views about the creation of man, little is known but what is contained in the ambiguous words of Sergius. This passage seems to teach that Adam's sin of disobedience was a blessing in disguise, and that a greater sin than his is the sin against the Church. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paulicianism

A lot of the information available comes from a primary Paulican source, called The Key of Truth, a statement of doctrinal beliefs discovered in a Russian Armenian colony in 1828. They had once been thought to be Manichean in theology, but the Key suggests otherwise. They believed that Christ became the Son of God when he was adopted by the Father through his baptism; because Jesus demonstrated sinless obedience to God's will, the Holy Spirit "admitted him into the mystery of the holy Godship" (Key of Truth 80). Contrary to John 1:1-18, the Paulicans believed that Jesus Christ was a created being, someone who "is faithful to his creator, as was Moses in all his house" (Key 94). Accordingly, they viewed Jesus primarily as a teacher, acknowledging that His death was a sacrifice, but not as an atonement for sin. In fact, Karapet Mkrttchean, a member of the Paulicans, confessed on his deathbed in 1837 that their group had been taught that Jesus was not God at all (Frederick Conybeare "Paulicans" Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th ed., xxiv-xxvi) The Paulican view of Christ is summed up this way:

"It was in the season of his [Jesus'] maturity that he received baptism; then it was that he received authority, received the high-priesthood, received the kingdom and the office of chief shepherd. Moreover, he was then chosen; then he won lordship... Then he became Savior of us sinners; then he was filled with the Godhead." (Key 75). Their heretical views extended to the Holy Spirit, whom they viewed also as a creature, as a prayer in the Key states, "Blessed art thou, Spirit of the Heavenly Father, forasmuch as thou wast made by the Father." (Key 14).

The Paulicans rejected infant baptism, preferring to baptize at age 30 to conform with the example of Christ (Conybeare, xiii). Before baptism, initiates underwent exorcism by one of the "elect" leaders of the church; then baptism was performed in the nude, both by immersion and pouring. It apparently was also common procedure to believe that sins committed after baptism could not be forgiven.(Conybeare, xxxv, xxxviii & 123)

In other ways, the Paulicans retained many Catholic distinctives, such as belief in the Eucharist as the Body and Blood of Christ (Key 117 and 123) and prayers for the dead (Key 120).

Such doctrines lead Baptist scholar McGoldrick to conclude: "When, by means of the Key, the Paulicans are permitted to speak for themselves, it becomes crystal clear that they were not Baptists. In fact, when judged by a traditional creed or standard of orthodoxy, they cannot be regarded as Christians at all" (Baptist Successionism 34) http://www.angelfire.com/ok3/apologia/paulicans.html

Does this change your mind a little, or will you continue to falsely label us?

[CynicalBear]

>>Did you do a lot of work with manuscripts in archives, learn the original languages/culture/word use, derive the correct translation and meaning to a) arrive at what is accurately termed scripture and b) be able to say they have never been proven wrong.?<<

You wouldn’t believe the books, lexicons, and Greek/Hebrew side by sides I have accumulated over the years. Now with the internet it has become much, much easier to cross reference. You might say that not all have the time but I would simply say that it’s our eternal future at stake and this life is but a blink of an eye if that. My parents both passed on in the last year and they took nothing with them but their faith.

>>It seems to me I must have misunderstood you to say that this is your responsibility and the responsibility of each and every Christian to do the same work for themselves.<<

Would you put your eternal future into the hands of some other human? I would not. Yes it’s each individual’s responsibility to learn and come to their own belief and faith.

>>Is this correct about your views? Or do you rely upon others' expertise in one or more of the areas above and not do all of the work yourself?<<

Of course I use the expertise of language scholars etc. but I can guarantee that I will “search the scriptures daily” to see if what they say fits.

[metmom]

FWIW, I agree with everything you’ve been saying.

Listen and verify.

There is no reason in the world today to not search out the meaning of Scripture by going back to the Greek and Hebrew. There are just too many resources for those languages.

[metmom]

Would you put your eternal future into the hands of some other human? I would not. Yes it’s each individual’s responsibility to learn and come to their own belief and faith.

It would be totally foolhardy to put something as critical and important as one's eternal salvation in the hands of any other human being. That's FOREVER. The only one I trust with that is Jesus. I have committed the security of my salvation to God Himself, asking Him to keep it secure, to protect me from myself, knowing that He will remain faithful even when I am faithless.

Nobody's going to have a perfect understanding of God and who He is and how redemption was wrought for us.

All we can do is trust as we now see through a glass darkly and know that when we finally see Him face to face, all the problems of misunderstanding will be taken care of.

Just like an earthly father doesn't expect perfection out of his two year old, God does not expect perfection out of us. He knows we can't do it and is just as pleased with us trusting as the earthly father is with his own children simply trusting him.

David sinned some great sins but God still called him *a man after God's own heart*.

It's not the perfection of the actions or beliefs, but the trust in God, who He is and trust in His character that He will do what He said He would.

[boatbums]

Just like the Mormons read the Bible through the filter of the Book of Mormon and the Jehovah's Witnesses read the Bible through their Watchtower literature so do Catholics read the Bible through the filter of their Catechism. We all know that at one time, the "lay" person was not permitted to even read the Bible for themselves. There was concern that a person could not possibly understand the Word of God without a clergyman there to explain it all to them. Yet the Bible was all the early church had after the Apostles died out. They had ensured that other stalwart men would continue to preach the true faith to the believers and they left their writings - divinely inspired writings - to ensure the faith would continue. The Bible is God's guidebook, a maintenance manual, for mankind. It is his "love letter" to us so that we don't have to guess about what he requires of us.

There's nothing wrong with commentaries and theological writings of students of Scripture and we are blessed by still having access to the thoughts, struggles and illumination of men and women of God as they grew and matured in their knowledge of him and still do. But they are NOT a replacement for each one of us going into the Word and grasping the truth that the Holy Spirit makes real to us. It is NOTHING to be afraid of and if I was a pastor, I would want my people to know what they believe and also why they believe it. Only egotists expect everyone to swallow their every thought. Paul told Timothy to study the Word to show himself approved and a workman that never needed to be ashamed.

[D-fendr]

I think that is a "yes" to the "did you do a lot of work" portion and a "no' to the rest of the question: "Did you do a lot of work with manuscripts in archives, learn the original languages/culture/word use, derive the correct translation and meaning to a) arrive at what is accurately termed scripture and b) be able to say they have never been proven wrong?"

Of course I use the expertise of language scholars etc.

And not the expertise of some in what is scripture to begin with? And the expertise of others to preserve it long after the originals are gone? It would seem to me that to even get to the point of necessity of language experts one would have to be standing on a mountain of work of others that one must trust. Agree?

[D-fendr]

And others through the filter of three solas.

;)

[caww]

the Bible says,....’Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved.’.....it does not say, “Obey the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved.”.... it is always careful to identify ‘the object of our faith’. Our faith, our trust, our dependence, must be in the Lord Jesus Christ.

[CynicalBear]

>>So the method is to each argue their case, and only then if it involves the set of "essential to salvation"?<<

I have never called it argue but more investigate the reason and foundations for why we believe what we believe. Not only those things essential to salvation because it’s interesting to support and back up what we believe on even the smaller things but then I am a person who enjoys a good debate. Others not so much. I firmly believe that for most people the simple gospel of “believe on the Lord Jesus and you will be saved – and your house” is about as far as they get in their life. As long as they are fervent in that belief I believe they are saved.

>>Would it be correct to say the differences of interpretation are settled by argument using the rules of reason?<<

Human reason seems to always be eliminated by revelation.

[CynicalBear]

>>If someone who differs with you presents a more compelling, stronger, argument for their interpretation contra yours, will you change your view?<<

That has happened to me many times. For example, I no longer believe that the earth is only 6-7000 years old. LOL and don’t ask, it’s too complicated to address in this forum but it is totally in agreement with scripture.

The simple answer is that there were many peripheral beliefs I was taught growing up that I have since changed because of the study of scripture I have done. I will say that most concerned the role of the Holy Spirit and our own efforts as far as salvation is concerned.

[D-fendr]

I think there might be a distinction between believe and obey in this instance if one looks at ‘belief’ in a considerably more shallow version of mental assent and at “obey” as acting contrary to truth.

And, as I’ve said earlier, placing our total focus on our own reward for this assent, is not in line with believing Jesus Christ or His ministry.

thanks for your thoughts...

[boatbums]

And others through the filter of three solas.

No, I believe that IS what Scripture teaches. It is true regardless if a denomination or individual taught it or not. We can know whether or not something is true because we can get it straight from Scripture. From Scripture I can know that we are saved by grace alone, through faith alone, to the glory of God alone. The idea of sola scriptura, though not spelled out exactly, is certainly evident throughout the Bible. Logic also tells me that Scripture, because it is God-breathed making it Divinely-inspired, is the infallible authority we have been given so that we can know what God desires for us to know.

Rather than someone reading Scripture through the lens of the CC Catechism, I think it should be the other way around. Read the Catechism through Scripture, That way you are better able to verify if what is being taught really is how it is taught in Scripture. Of course, I know that Catholics are not encouraged to trust Holy Scripture above what they are told is Holy Tradition and what their Magesterium deems is of the faith. I think that is why there is much disagreement between us about the doctrines and dogmas.

[D-fendr]

"Argue" doesn't only mean a verbal fight. It also is used as in "argue one's case" versus another's. This is how I meant it in this context of what happens when two disagree on interpretation. Debate, as you say, is what I took as your method in these cases with the rules of reason applying.

Human reason seems to always be eliminated by revelation.

If your method for deciding differences is by on reasoned debate, you can't eliminate human reason and still maintain it as a valid method. You could argue what a particular revelation is or means, but not bring in one's own revelation as a deus ex machina when at a loss for reasons to support one's thesis.

My point here was to point out that there is first the decision on scripture, then the decision on interpretation, then the difference on meaning that is then decided by the method of reason/logic.

The other, I think important, thing to note here is that this method of deriving theology adds another requirement, a fairly high level of competency in formal logic. (Else bad reason, or fallacies, can easily win the argument invalidating the result.)

… for most people the simple gospel of “believe on the Lord Jesus and you will be saved – and your house” is about as far as they get in their life. .

Isn't that a violation of your previous position that it was every Christian's 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'm not clear now where you stand on the question. If, for example, "they are fervent in that belief" because it's what their teachers taught them and what their family and social group support, aren't they then relying on others, going with the crowd, etc?

Is each tasked to arrive at their own beliefs as you do or not?

[D-fendr]

No, I believe that IS what Scripture teaches.

Of course you do. And I believe this is primarily because it the lens through which your read scripture.

[CynicalBear]

I appreciate your input and support. Your posts bless me often.

[D-fendr]

The simple answer is that there were many peripheral beliefs I was taught growing up that I have since changed because of the study of scripture I have done.

If it is all your own responsibility, to study, determine, decide your religious beliefs, and this is taken with utmost seriousness and openness, why did you start with the given of Christianity; why not start from scratch? E.g. study and examine Taoism, Buddism, Hinduism, Confucianism, Judaism, Jainism, etc. Or did you do so?

I will say that most concerned the role of the Holy Spirit and our own efforts as far as salvation is concerned.

What would you say is the underlying purpose of this study and effort? Would it be true to say that, for you, it is your own salvation, immortality?