Skip to comments.Gay Episcopal Bishop to Preach at San Francisco Catholic Parish
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.
Kiss the ring.
Now... go buy yourself one of those wide brimmed cowboy hats.
NetPopius Hossus I, ex interwebzia
Look around. Take even one small branch of sola scriptura, Dispensationalism. You have one version of Dispensationalism, sola scriptura of course, calling another version of Dispensationalism, sola scriptura also, the work of Satan. Hardly a workable system for One Church.
It's one person at a time.
Each person alone as "church" would be inconceivable to the Apostles, early Christians, and those in the Church today.
Read, study, Christ's prayer in the garden.
We are not alone, we are part of One Body, we pray and help each other, as one, in the Communion of Saints with Christ as the head.
It is not just you and Holy Scriptures, this is not what Church is, not what Our Saviour intends and wishes for us. There is no need for you to be alone, tasked with deciding your own interpretation of Church Scriptures, your own religion, your own theology, soteriology, eschatology, etc. etc.
This is not the daunting task that the Christian faith puts upon its adherents. Christ established a Church, gave it authority and guidance. For all who follow Him and share the same belief to be together as one, as He prayed in the garden.
To remain alone and outside, tasked to figure out your own religion, is a sad and needless choice.
..so you seriously believe that you will be saved as a member of a group? That the RCC is group salvation?
someone once said that “patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel”
i say “resorting to Constantine did.......... ( fill in the blank ) is the last refuge of someone who does not know history”
LOL, you and Greg Dues ( whoever he is ) need the read Igantius of Antioch, the Didache and Justin Martyr.
but he does admit something you won’t
“priesthood as we know it in the Catholic Church was unheard of during the first generation of Christianity”
hmm.....the Catholic Church was around during the first generation of Christianity!!
wow, it’s what i’ve been saying all along!
but we don’t need to look to the Fathers, Paul tells you in 1 Corinthians 10 that the Eucharist is a sacrifice.
Do you believe you are alone, that what you do has no effect on others and what they do has no effect on you? What of the prayers of the righteous? What of our intercessions according to St. Paul?
We are not saved as a group, but we are not alone, ever. Unless we separate ourselves in our pride, or in thinking we have to figure it all out for ourselves as individuals.
No, as Christians, we are one body. What we do, good or ill, affects the whole body. How we treat each other, what we do or do not do for each other matters. This is as Christ taught us. He emphasized it in His commandment. It matters. It has significance.
If you stand before Christ having lived your faith as if it were all up to you alone, solely your self in your individualism, then I believe you will truly be alone in that moment. I don’t wish that on anyone.
It is not your task to take Scripture and decide what the Christian religion or your religion is. This is not what Christ intended for His Church.
You are not alone with the task of determining what it all means, what is the true faith, the ‘correct’ decoding of the Gospel; Holy Scripture is not a puzzle each person must solve for themselves.
Again, this is a sad and needless choice you are putting yourself into on your own, to create or discover your own religion. I know, I have been there.
the proof of what ALL the Apostles taught was the Catholic Church they left behind.
whether you went to Turkey, Egypt, Rome, Jerusalem, Greece, India, Northern Africa, the same Faith was found.
reading the Church Fathers from beginning to end and you won’t find a Church that resembles anything close to what Protestants believe.
and you know what else you won’t find anywhere in the NT?
you won’t find anyone reading the Scriptures and based on their own private interpretation, attacking the Church and starting their own “church”.
I don't think the phrase used here to describe the Holy Father passes muster with the RF rules. I'd be a little shocked if it did.
In any event, the poster has used it a number of times herein.
Now for some TRUTH
The role of priest is NEVER given to the NT church..The function of the priest was to offer SACRIFICES...The jewish priesthood was a TYPE OF CHRIST which was FULFILLED on the cross.. there was not longer a NEED for a priest because the FINAL sacrifice had been offered by the one that was prophet, king and PRIEST..
the greek word for elder is different than the greek words for priest.. archiereus which translates into "High Priest" and hiereus which translates one that OFFERS SACRIFICES.
The role of the priesthood in scripture was to offer sacrifices.. That is what a priest does in scripture.. God set aside one tribe to be priests, they were not granted any land as God was their inheritance .
The greek have a couple words for priest and NEITHER is givenas a role for the new church
1) a priest, one who offers sacrifices and in general in busied with sacred rites
a) referring to priests of Gentiles or the Jews,
2) metaph. of Christians, because, purified by the blood of Christ and brought into close intercourse with God, they devote their life to him alone and to Christ
Outline of Biblical Usage
1) chief priest, high priest
2) the high priests, these comprise in addition to one holding the high priestly office, both those who had previously discharged it and although disposed, continued to have great power in the State, as well as the members of the families from which high priest were created, provided that they had much influence in public affairs.
3) Used of Christ because by undergoing a bloody death he offered himself as an expiatory sacrifice to God, and has entered into the heavenly sanctuary where he continually intercedes on our behalf.
Neither role is given in scripture for the new church .. Christ fulfilled the role of Priest on the cross.. there is no more sacrifice for sin
He is now our High Priest..
The word for elder is presbyteros here is the GREEK definition (NOT PRESIDENT)
1) elder, of age,
a) the elder of two people
b) advanced in life, an elder, a senior
2) a term of rank or office
a) among the Jews
1) members of the great council or Sanhedrin (because in early times the rulers of the people, judges, etc., were selected from elderly men)
2) of those who in separate cities managed public affairs and administered justice
b) among the Christians, those who presided over the assemblies (or churches) The NT uses the term bishop, elders, and presbyters interchangeably
c) the twenty four members of the heavenly Sanhedrin or court seated on thrones around the throne of GodStrongs )
Now the Holy Spirit knows the difference in the greek words.. there is no priesthood provided for in the NT church.
There was no priests in the new church. It was about 300 AD before the first priesthood appeared..
Greg Dues has written Catholic Customs & Traditions, a popular guide (New London: Twenty Third Publications, 2007). On page 166 he states, "Priesthood as we know it in the Catholic church was unheard of during the first generation of Christianity, because at that time priesthood was still associated with animal sacrifices in both the Jewish and pagan religions."
"A clearly defined local leadership in the form of elders, or presbyteroi, became still more important when the original apostles and disciples of Jesus died. The chief elder in each community was often called the episkopos (Greek, 'overseer'). In English this came to be translated as 'bishop' (Latin, episcopus). Ordinarily he presided over the community's Eucharistic assembly."
"When the Eucharist came to be regarded as a sacrifice, the role of the bishop took on a priestly dimension. By the third century bishops were considered priests. Presbyters or elders sometimes substituted for the bishop at the Eucharist. By the end of the third century people all over were using the title 'priest' (hierus in Greek and sacerdos in Latin) for whoever presided at the Eucharist."
LOL, you figured the Pope out. He went into the priesthood so he could live like a rich man.
you do realize that the Pope owns nothing of what is shown, it is the property of the Church and will be there for the next Pope and the one after that.
You're the one that made it about me. Follow the discussion back. I replied to your post making it about me, and you now try to lecture that it isn't about me.
The more you whine, the more I pushed the right button.
I'm not whining, I'm responding to your whine. Or deflection.
Friend, it's not like no one can follow a thread of discussion. This all started when you brought up size and veered when you realized that was a bad idea when you didn't want to answer the simple question of the size of the congregation of the church you attend.
Keep digging if you wish.
the Mass became official in 33ad, not 1215.
This is what we would call the fox watching the hen house.. see how it goes.. the 'church " decides all truth..people are bound to that truth.. and one of the things THEY get to determine is what the Bible says...
Most cults use the same pattern... Truth?? What we say is TRUTH ...so do not read the bible unless we tell you what it means...
They don’t care. They think they know better than the Church fathers.
It’s better to focus on your own holiness and salvation than arguing with people who don’t want to listen.
Ignorant comments don’t deserve replies.
The only problem they have when debating history is history.
The only solution is to ignore it or start history four hundred years ago, or a hundred years ago, or yesterday, or today.
you have to love this quote from Justin, he shows the Church taught baptismal regeneration and the Eucharist as the Body of Christ mid-2nd century, while many people who were personally taught by the Apostle John were still alive.
he contended for the Faith once delivered to the saints against unbelievers in his day, just as we deal with these unbelievers in our day.
nothing new under the sun.
LOL LOL LOL>>>Thats because the Roman church FORBIDS reading the scriptures UNLESS they interpret it.. fox/henhouse effect... brain washed effect/cult effect
Do you know that there is NO official commentary of the ENTIRE BIBLE written by Rome ..could be there is just no way to harmonize what they teach with most of scripture..
1Cr 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.
History can be a b!.. er, problem, when you're on the wrong side of it.
There’s nothing to say, but God bless you and we will agree to disagree.
This Sunday we just changed our Missal (the order of our Mass) to reflect the direct translation of Latin into English rather than the quite liberal, "relative" translation drawn up in the late 1960’s. It is a strong step against the Pink-Purple Mafia (what I call the gay Catholic clergy). As more and more conservative bishops and archbishops are being appointed, and reflect the TRUE spirit of the Church I expect to see stuff like this stop.
However, for the present, I am deeply disturbed and will let my priest and archbishop know that this must be oppossed!
Will they “let” him take Eucharist, too? If so, that is not only a sin for him, but a sin for everyone in that diocese, the priests and deacons of that church, and ALL the parishoners who celebrate this or refuse to condemn it!!!!
Maybe you should read James 2:24 instead of spouting off on your “superior understanding of the Bible.”
“God resists the proud but gives grace to the humble.”
You just can’t reach some people. Instead of arguing polemics, we should focus on our own holiness and salvation.
i used to think those that consistently attack the Church were Protestants who’s understanding of Church doctrine and history is learned from a tract or radiio preacher.
after seeing the repeated “untruths” ( i think that’s what the RM wants me to call them ) and un-Christian behavior, i now believe many of these attacks are coming from muslims, mormons, jehovah witnesses or 7th day adventist pretending to be “born again” Christians.
no one who has been regenerated by the Holy Spirit could post these things i am reading.
truly, by their fruits you will know them.
Are you a Catholic? If so, you are not a basher, and I share you passion and anger.
If you are not a Catholic, then I fail to see how it could or would concern you...
An Orthodox Freeper admonished me privately that I ought to focus on my own salvation than arguing with people who won’t listen.
He’s right. Those who know Jesus live according to a spirit of humility and turn the other cheek.
Im sure you have more than a undocumented comment to prove that. Show the documentation or
.well you know.
the offical teaching of transubstantiation came in 33ad from the Lord Himself.
Christians have believed Him for 2,000 years from Paul to Ignatius to Justin Martyr to Irenaeus to Cyprian to Jerome to Augustine to Thomas to today.
this teaching is folly to the non-Christian.
What’s the point? Even if you saw the citation in black and white you would say it’s not inspired and dismiss it.
One can have a discussion with a person who wants to listen, but you are only interested in demonstrating your own pride and arrogance.
James 2:24. Go look it up.
If there were, some would criticize the Church for being too controlling. You can look at the various systematic theologies as taking pieces of truth and expanding them into one big untruth. That's how heresies are.
The Church is big. It's walls are as far out as possible, allowing as much freedom as possible while remaining true to the teachings of Christ to His apostles. She did so over the centuries dealing with heresies and maintaining the universal, catholic, faith.
The Church has taken the truths taught by heresies and rejected the untruth they derived from them. The Church has harmonized these truths into its teaching. Within these walls, the individual is free to let Holy Scripture mean what it means to them individually, over time. Scripture if it is Holy in the true sense, has many meanings. This freedom of interpretation is more freedom than that found in, say, Calvinism.
The official commentary on the Church's Holy Scriptures is found in its councils' decisions, it's dogmas and creeds.
The great majority of Christians, Catholic or not, still hold to the Church's creeds. This, we believe...
Luther’s problem with transubstantiation was its reliance on Aristotelian categories of accidents and substance.
He even believed that Jesus was corporeally present in the Eucharist except he taught that Jesus was present “In, with, and under the species of bread and wine.”
The Fourth Council of the Lateran isn’t accepted in the Christian East, yet it firmly believes in the real presence of Christ.
It’s a mystery how the change happens, who knows and really why should we care?
Nothing we say will convince these people they are wrong.
The Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, which dates to around 400 A.D. in its essentials prays:
I believe and confess, Lord, that You are truly the Christ, the Son of the living God, who came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the first. I also believe that this is truly Your pure Body and that this is truly Your precious Blood. Therefore, I pray to You, have mercy upon me, and forgive my transgressions, voluntary and involuntary, in word and deed, known and unknown. And make me worthy without condemnation to partake of Your pure Mysteries for the forgiveness of sins and for life eternal. Amen.
How shall I, who am unworthy, enter into the splendor of Your saints? If I dare to enter into the bridal chamber, my clothing will accuse me, since it is not a wedding garment; and being bound up, I shall be cast out by the angels. In Your love, Lord, cleanse my soul and save me.
Loving Master, Lord Jesus Christ, my God, let not these holy Gifts be to my condemnation because of my unworthiness, but for the cleansing and sanctification of soul and body and the pledge of the future life and kingdom. It is good for me to cling to God and to place in Him the hope of my salvation.
Receive me today, Son of God, as a partaker of Your mystical Supper. I will not reveal Your mystery to Your adversaries. Nor will I give You a kiss as did Judas. But as the thief I confess to You: Lord, remember me in Your kingdom.
Since you have seen fit to include me in this posting, I would like you to state which party to which I belong. I am not pretending to be saved; I am saved. I have not the first trace of ill-will toward Roman Catholic people; however, I do have ill-will toward the Roman Catholic Church which leads people down the straight, wide way to destruction.
Make sure you differentiate that fact before you go making blanket accusations that you cannot by any stretch of the imagination back up.
So... which party am I since you know so much?
Wrong. Nice way to conflate two disparate ideas. Non-sequiter. Try again.
Rom. 4:5, "But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness,"
Rom. 5:1, "therefore having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,"
Romans 9:30 What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith.
It's interesting to me that the question is almost entirely a Western one. I once asked an Orthodox how they answered their children when a particular question concerning the Holy Eucharist was asked. His reply was: they don't ask.
It really is a Western mindset that resulted in this. And Protestants and atheists. These arose in the West.
I think there are positives in the Church's Western mind, science and scholasticism and the university system come to mind, but there are negatives also.
I love reading St. John Chrysostom, the Desert Fathers, the Philokalia; I recommend "Orthodox Spirituality by A Monk of the Eastern Church" to all Christians.
I think the two lungs together, taking the best of both, is the ideal we should strive for.
Phil. 3:9, "and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith."
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.
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].
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?