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.
Galatians 1:8
Sure...They want us to believe their pope is a pauper when in fact he has access to any thing a Saudi Prince or Bill Gates has...After all, he took a vow of poverty, didn't he???
i understand the sentiment, but Paul brought the Faith to unbelievers and we should as well. if they reject the truth, well we can shake the dust off our shoes and move on. Salvation and Faith are gifts from the Holy Spirit, we can only be instruments.
And yet we struggle on with you, hoping to cure that ignorance.
Hoss
read Matthew, you have a Bible don’t you?
thank you for bringing forth the wisdom of the Eastern Fathers. i enjoy reading your posts and have learned a lot.
I would try again, if you could phrase your response into a more complete explanation instead of just your conclusion.
The discussion was whether sola scriptura was unworkable and impractical. I used two fiercely competing schools of sola scriptura in the same small branch as examples why it was.
You said this is a “Non-sequiter” [sic].
How so?
Protestants and Roman Catholics are stuck in the Middle Ages.
The polemics I see on this board unveil the shallowness of Protestant and Roman Catholic scholasticism that reduces everything to a medieval debate over scriptural interpretation.
I became a Catholic, but I never became a Scholastic.
Had Martin Luther studied the Greek fathers instead of William of Ockham, perhaps he would have led his followers into Eastern Orthodoxy.
In my Melkite Catholic parish, the priest asks God’s forgiveness.
The early Medieval words of absolution in the Roman rite did the same. It’s not the priest who forgives sins. It is God himself acting through the priest who forgives sin and reconciles us to both God and Man.
More red herrings.
Which part of 1 Corinthians 10 calls the Eucharist a sacrifice?
Only God can cure ignorance. So say a prayer.
You conflated sola scriptura with Dispensationalism. That does not follow.
Sola Scriptura is something that spans Protestantism; Dispensationalism has nothing to do with SS; it's a subset that doesn't cause issue among Protestants as it relates to salvation, but is more an issue of Eschatology. They are disparate; what I read you say made them appear to be in some relative comparison. If I misread, my bad.
Hoss
Did the apostles eat the real , actual, physical flesh and blood of Christ at the last supper??
not knowing you personally, i have no idea.
anyone who says the Catholic Church leads people to the straight wide way to destruction is, i hate to say it, an idiot.
the NT you have in your hand would not be possible except for the Church.
so whether you are a muslim, mormon, JW, 7th day adventist etc, i don’t know. but your posts could be written by one of them.
i guess it’s possible that you are just ignorant of which you write and don’t realize it.
but a real Christian would have respect for the beliefs of the Church that have been held for 2,000 years. ( that’s a long time and a lot of people on their way to hell )
were there any Christians alive from 95ad thru the 16th century?
if yes, can you name two or three?
I sit on both sides. I have the inclinations of both a scholastic and a mystic. That is my curse. I think if I could choose, I would prefer being born in the East.
I agree that it would be best, for some things, if the Scholastic mind did not exist the human species. But it would be worse for some things.
Whether I am correct in this is not important; it exists and we have to deal with it, hopefully striving for applying it in the sphere where it is a proper tool, and avoiding category errors.
thanks for your reply..
St. John Chrysostom comments on 1 Corinthians 10:16-18
1 Corinthians 10:16
3. The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a communion of the Blood of Christ?
What do you say, O blessed Paul? When you would appeal to the hearer’s reverence, when you are making mention of awful mysteries, do you give the title of cup of blessing to that fearful and most tremendous cup? Yea, says he; and no mean title is that which was spoken. For when I call it ‘blessing,’ I mean thanksgiving, and when I call it thanksgiving I unfold all the treasure of God’s goodness, and call to mind those mighty gifts. Since we too, recounting over the cup the unspeakable mercies of God and all that we have been made partakers of, so draw near to Him, and communicate; giving Him thanks that He has delivered from error the whole race of mankind ; that being afar off, He made them near; that when they had no hope and were without God in the world, He constituted them His own brethren and fellow-heirs. For these and all such things, giving thanks, thus we approach. How then are not your doings inconsistent, says he, O you Corinthians; blessing God for delivering you from idols, yet running again to their tables?
The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a communion of the Blood of Christ? Very persuasively spoke he, and awfully. For what he says is this: This which is in the cup is that which flowed from His side, and of that do we partake. But he called it a cup of blessing, because holding it in our hands, we so exalt Him in our hymn, wondering, astonished at His unspeakable gift, blessing Him, among other things, for the pouring out of this self-same draught that we might not abide in error: and not only for the pouring it out, but also for the imparting thereof to us all. Wherefore if you desire blood, says He, redden not the altar of idols with the slaughter of brute beasts, but My altar with My blood. Tell me, What can be more tremendous than this? What more tenderly kind? This also lovers do. When they see those whom they love desiring what belongs to strangers and despising their own, they give what belongs to themselves, and so persuade them to withdraw themselves from the gifts of those others. Lovers, however, display this liberality in goods and money and garments, but in blood none ever did so. Whereas Christ even herein exhibited His care and fervent love for us. And in the old covenant, because they were in an imperfect state, the blood which they used to offer to idols He Himself submitted to receive, that He might separate them from those idols; which very thing again was a proof of His unspeakable affection: but here He transferred the service to that which is far more awful and glorious, changing the very sacrifice itself, and instead of the slaughter of irrational creatures, commanding to offer up Himself.
4. The bread which we break, is it not a communion of the Body of Christ? Wherefore said he not, the participation? Because he intended to express something more and to point out how close was the union: in that we communicate not only by participating and partaking, but also by being united. For as that body is united to Christ, so also are we united to him by this bread.
But why adds he also, which we break? For although in the Eucharist one may see this done, yet on the cross not so, but the very contrary. For, A bone of Him, says one, shall not be broken. But that which He suffered not on the cross, this He suffers in the oblation for your sake, and submits to be broken, that he may fill all men.
Further, because he said, a communion of the Body, and that which communicates is another thing from that whereof it communicates; even this which seems to be but a small difference, he took away. For having said, a communion of the Body, he sought again to express something nearer. Wherefore also he added,
1 Corinthians 10:17
For we, who are many, are one bread, one body. For why speak I of communion? says he, we are that self-same body. For what is the bread? The Body of Christ. And what do they become who partake of it? The Body of Christ: not many bodies, but one body. For as the bread consisting of many grains is made one, so that the grains no where appear; they exist indeed, but their difference is not seen by reason of their conjunction; so are we conjoined both with each other and with Christ: there not being one body for you, and another for your neighbor to be nourished by, but the very same for all. Wherefore also he adds,
For we all partake of the one bread. Now if we are all nourished of the same and all become the same, why do we not also show forth the same love, and become also in this respect one? For this was the old way too in the time of our forefathers: for the multitude of them that believed, says the text, were of one heart and soul. Acts 4:32 Not so, however, now, but altogether the reverse. Many and various are the contests between all, and worse than wild beasts are we affected towards each other’s members. And Christ indeed made you so far remote, one with himself: but thou dost not deign to be united even to your brother with due exactness, but separatest yourself, having had the privilege of so great love and life from the Lord. For he gave not simply even His own body; but because the former nature of the flesh which was framed out of earth, had first become deadened by sin and destitute of life; He brought in, as one may say, another sort of dough and leaven, His own flesh, by nature indeed the same, but free from sin and full of life; and gave to all to partake thereof, that being nourished by this and laying aside the old dead material, we might be blended together unto that which is living and eternal, by means of this table.
1 Corinthians 10:18
5. Behold Israel after the flesh: have not they which eat the sacrifices communion with the altar?
Again, from the old covenant he leads them unto this point also. For because they were far beneath the greatness of the things which had been spoken, he persuades them both from former things and from those to which they were accustomed. And he says well, according to the flesh, as though they themselves were according to the Spirit. And what he says is of this nature: even from persons of the grosser sort ye may be instructed that they who eat the sacrifices, have communion with the altar. Do you see how he intimates that they who seemed to be perfect have not perfect knowledge, if they know not even this, that the result of these sacrifices to many oftentimes is a certain communion and friendship with devils, the practice drawing them on by degrees? For if among men the fellowship of salt and the table becomes an occasion and token of friendship, it is possible that this may happen also in the case of devils.
But do thou, I pray, consider, how with regard to the Jews he said not, they are par-takers with God, but, they have communion with the altar; for what was placed thereon was burnt: but in respect to the Body of Christ, not so. But how? It is a Communion of the Lord’s Body. For not with the altar, but with Christ Himself, do we have communion.
But having said that they have communion with the altar, afterwards fearing lest he should seem to discourse as if the idols had any power and could do some injury, see again how he overthrows them, saying,
1 Corinthians 10:19
What say I then? That an idol is any thing? Or that a thing sacrificed to idols is any thing?
As if he had said, Now these things I affirm, and try to withdraw you from the idols, not as though they could do any injury or had any power: for an idol is nothing; but I wish you to despise them. And if you will have us despise them, says one, wherefore do you carefully withdraw us from them? Because they are not offered to your Lord.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/220124.htm
i assume you can read.
Sola Scriptura is founded on Ockham’s Razor.
I believe Jesus when He said “This is My Body”
Paul tells us Jesus felt so strongly about this doctrine He personally taught it to him.
Ignatius tells us the Gnostics did not take the Eucharist because they did not believe it to be the flesh of Jesus Christ. ( it seems the doctrine was “folly” to them )
the question is why you hold to the gnostic belief over Jesus, Paul and Ignatius.
Scholasticism is good particularly on moral issues, but it’s effort to scientifically categorize God’s actions opened the door to people like Martin Luther and the Enlightenment’s rejection of faith.
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.