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.
the arrogance is astounding!
Where are the answers to those quizzes I gave you?
No one said the RCC is a sola Scriptura church, they are a sola Popa church.
You cited NO early church fathers...We already know that by the time these people wrote, or your religion attributed someone’s writing to them, Constantine’s pagan religion was in full operating mode...
I think everything you have to say is meaningless drivel as well, so let’s call it a draw.
just as i thought, another one who can’t tell us how we know which books are Scripture and which are not.
i would think that if i believed in “sola scriptura”, i would want to know for sure that every book in the Bible is the Word of God and not just some man’s opinion.
i never can get answer to this question.
congrats rz, there is a rule in religous debates....when one side needs to claim “Constantine” did something, the other side wins!!
LOL!
They have no response...They don't know any response...So the insults fly to deflect their complete lack of biblical knowledge...
They have no response...They don't know any response...So the insults fly to deflect their complete lack of biblical knowledge...
Everything you write is an insult, so what’s point of arguing with you?
You don’t counter with scripture. You counter with your INTERPRETATION of scripture. We care as much about what you think about scripture as you do about what we do.
Evangelicalism is founded on Okham’s razor, which says the simplest answer is the correct one. That is the same principle that atheism is predicated on.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15636a.htm
So don’t go accusing Catholics and the Jews before then of using pagan philosophy. Catholics inherited the use of philosophy from the Jews.
Everything you write is an insult, so what’s point of arguing with you?
You don’t counter with scripture. You counter with your INTERPRETATION of scripture. We care as much about what you think about scripture as you do about what we do.
Evangelicalism is founded on Okham’s razor, which says the simplest answer is the correct one. That is the same principle that atheism is predicated on.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15636a.htm
So don’t go accusing Catholics and the Jews before then of using pagan philosophy. Catholics inherited the use of philosophy from the Jews.
It opposes God’s Word - of course, it’s false.
>>Translation: “Catholicism opposes my opinion - of course, it’s false.”
They are puppets...Everything is scripted...When we go outside of their script with scripture, they are completely lost...
>>Look in the mirror.
This is the most dishonest post in a very long line of dishonest posts from you. Although it attempts to cite its sources the entire post with typos and formatting was copied (stolen; plagiarized?) as it is clearly the work of others. Presenting stolen falsehoods and deceptions to prove you and your version of Christianity is superior is in deed ironic. This might pass for scholarship amongst the guests at George W. Hill but it doesn't in the honest world. Just when I thought it impossible to think less of you.........
VEHEMENTER NOS was written to address a law passed by a French leftist government in which the state had to approve the selection and retention of Bishops. You might not oppose the Obama administration selecting your clergy but actual Christians did and do object "vehemently".
Your link to the Baltimore Catechism does not work, proving even further your sloppy standards for scholarship. Even though, as we have discussed on many occasions, the Baltimore Catechism was a compendium produced for children with the purpose of INTRODUCING them to the faith the section your source snipped from addresses the four marks of the Church. These, from the Apostles Creed, are it is One, it is Holy, it is Catholic, and it is Apostolic. Question 554 is one of the proofs that it is One, because those who reject any article of faith have CHOSEN to not be in Communion.
Fr. Stapleton's Explanation of Catholic Morals - a Concise, REASONED, and Popular Exposiiton of Catholic Morals" is where your post is most damning of your efforts. The source you plagiarized from truncated the title since the full title is counter to the argument. The chapter the quote is from is not Chapter XXIII The Consistent Believer, it is from Chapter XIX Whence Our Belief: Reason. That chapter builds a reasoned case to put our trust in God and once we have followed that reason, and have faith in God, our own reason in matters of faith becomes unnecessary. It does not begin with that premise as your plagiarized source misrepresents.
I would suggest that you read the entire book, as you appear to be in dire need of it and to pay particular attention to chapters dealing with Contumely, Defamation, Detraction, Calumny, Mendacity, and Concealing the Truth.
Bishop Henry G. Graham, the Author of What Faith Really Means" is particularly galling to Presbyterians since he was a convert from the Church of Scotland and was the end of an unbroken family tradition of clergy in the Church of Scotland that had lasted over 200 years. Since its publication in 1910 it has been ridiculed and quoted out of context. The 90 page book is available on line and is largely an appeal to, as Bishop Graham puts it, "our separated brethren".
To portray St. Alphonsus De Liguori's True Spouse of Christ as a teaching for all catholics is one of your bigger whoppers. It is a book intended for nuns in training. LOL.....BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH
Lastly, there is nothing really damning cited from PRAECLARA GRATULATIONIS PUBLICAE except what is not mentioned, its context. It is an encyclical that addresses the heresy of Modernism and calls upon all Catholics to reject it. We all know how you embrace heresy so your finding fault with this encyclical is no surprise.
You were told - you just don’t like the answer.
Now were are the answers to the questions I asked a few days back? FAIL!
No. What you believe is your opinion. I don’t understand why you can’t see that you place yourself above scripture.
Are you saying that you are infallible in your personal scriptural interpretations?
I’d say that you are interpreting the Bible in the light of your anti-Catholic prejudice. You arbitrarily stitch together scriptural passages that fit your prejudice and ignore those that don’t.
I’m not a Roman Catholic, BTW. :)
The Bible is objectively inerrant, but your interpretations aren’t exactly God-breathed. Forget papal infallibility. You seem to be pretty confident in your own infallibility.
“you were told” - what post# was i told in? i must have missed it.
questions from a few days back - again, i have no idea what you are talking about. i will answer your questions, but you first must answer my canon question.
since from experience i know you can’t answer my question, i’ll answer yours anyway just to educate you, just let me know the post # that contains your question.
Maybe because the gospel of Peter was not written by Peter and that it was written a century after Peter’s real writing? Or maybe the account in the gospel of Peter of a talking cross emerging from the tomb? Nothing was known about it until some fragments were found in the late 1800s. Then it could be the historical errors contained in the gospel of Peter.
If errors and contradictions with the writings of the original Apostles are contained and it can be shown that it probably wasn’t even written by who the real writer wants us to think then it’s a pretty good bet it’s not inspired by God.
There we have it in a nutshell. Stop quoting Scripture.....
I reject your interpretation as much as you reject mine. I see the Gospel According to Metmom, not the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
I RARELY post my interpretation, rather let Scripture speak for itself.
Your argument is with Scripture, the word of God, itself.
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.