G
- Status
J
jay29
Guest
Without TRUTH all you have is lies. The truth of the GOSPELS always come first, before anything. All this nonsense being preached by schori is heretical and would certainly be condemned by the Apostles.
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
I agree with your first two sentences. Your quote from me certainly isn’t a lie in anyone’s frame of reference I would argue. As to your opinion on Bishop Schori, that remains an opinion. but I’m becoming increasingly gratified that so many Catholics seem to find Episcopal affairs of such interest. I had no idea we were of such importance to the average Roman Catholic.
As to what the apostles might or might not condemn, I rather think her remarks as of late were right down the faith/works Catholic alley. Yet you still protest. Perhaps you really haven’t read or digested her remarks.
In any event, thanks for your deep interest in all things Episcopal.
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
I agree Jay. It makes me think of what Father Karras says to the other Priest, Father Damien, as they went into exorcise the little girl, Regan, who was possessed by the devil in “the Exorcist.” “Don’t listen to what he [the devil] says to you because he will mix lies with the truth to confuse you out of your faith for he is the father of lies.”
That’s what you hear from some posters (u-hem). They talk about how all Jesus wants us to do is feed the hungry, visit the sick, clothe the orphans, and be charitable. There is no moral imperative on us at all. We can cross-dress, sleep with the same sex, ordain lesbians, in vitro lesbian couples so they can have babies, that’s all fine because Jesus only wants us to be soup kitchen stewards and help the homeless.
Boloney.
Jesus expects us to walk and chew gum! We can be stewards of the environment, of the poor, defend the unborn, visit prisoners in ministry, visit the sick, clothe the poor, feed the hungry, and STILL BE MORAL and expect people to REPENT on their way to the Eucharist!!
Spiritmeadow muddies the water and oversimplifies the game of salvation to mere charity and looks at only half the picture. Christ DID walk with prostitutes and tax-collectors. Spiritmeadow is correct in that recollection. But what he/she doesn’t understand or want to remember is how Christ merely ministered to them, got His foot in the door to ENGAGE them, and then forgave them. But notice how St. Matthew was expected to stop cheating people as a tax collector and follow the Lord! Notice that Zaccheus had to quit being a cheat! Notice how Jesus said to the sinful woman, “your sins are forgiven now GO AND SIN NO MORE!”
It’s a strawman weak argument to just say, "you catholics should permit any and all sinful activities and not judge any behavior but rather just do some charities and drop all moral standards. Jesus isn’t about behavior or sins or responsibilities, just feeding the poor and being nice to people.
We all have the duty to do as Christ did and minister to sinners but we must preach the truth in love and be honest to them and show them not only Christ but repentence. We must make Christ accessible as He made Himself available to sinners. But to place no demands of repentence, contrition, or a desire to change upon the sinner is diabolical.
It’s mind-boggling what a simpleton’s gospel that is! The revisionist gospel I’m seing from Spiritmeadow is, “Your sins are forgiven you, and don’t worry about doing them again, ok? We’re fine with it as long as you’re nice to people and give to charities and maybe feed some homeless folks.”
That whole lack of understanding of what the Gospel truly is is further proof of what Our Lord said in the gospel at daily Mass several days back about how God has closed the eyes of the people who think they’re wise…
Anyone who thinks that we can approach the Eucharist in mortal sin with an unrepentent heart but be saved merely from charity and love to others is fooling themselves…
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
“While we sit in the sanctuary and debate faith versus works, Jesus sits in the kitchen dishing up food at the shelter.”
Isn’t it funny that St. Paul in Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians thought faith and works to be an important debate? Isn’t it also funny that James thought this subject worth writing an epistle over? They could walk and chew gum, too, discussing theology and living the Gospel. Amazing how that works!
:
Isn’t it funny that St. Paul in Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians thought faith and works to be an important debate? Isn’t it also funny that James thought this subject worth writing an epistle over? They could walk and chew gum, too, discussing theology and living the Gospel. Amazing how that works!
:
7
7_Sorrows
Guest
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
Quite simple, you cross the line. I don’t talk to others this way.
If that were true, I’d be banned. You don’t have me on ignore, you just wait until you are ready to spew at me, then get the “last word” this way. You refused my PM which was offered kindly and with a move toward reconcilliation. You ignored it. You as you point out quite often seem to enjoy giving people 'a piece of your mind."
Your protestations are without proof and you know that. I am here for many of the same reasons that other Non RCC are here, because we were invited to participate. Careful, a Catholic here got banned for using the term “knickers in a twist.” Your beef is simply that you hate all things liberal. Be honest.
That is why your opinions about TEC are irrelevant. Your personal issues cloud your ability to be fair in any fashion, instead you resort to childish bullying tactics such as making fun of a woman’s looks and clothing. . You claim to be a grown man, however. It drives you nuts that you HAD to leave your Episcopal church because it wouldn’t bend to your will. You made that most clear in other posts.
Close to being only you on that account. Most folks here are tolerable, and quite a few are down right nice. And how many times Gurney have you followed someone who bashed me by saying, "Absolutely great post. You said it all. She’s… "
Seems you’re doing exactly the same thing. And I don’t think you want to go to childish again do you? If you would stop being rude then no one would care about your’re being chastised. You won’t until they do.
The point is Gurney, everyone is owed respect, not just those who agree with you. But again, you make my point even better than I did. YOU HATE US. We get it.
You just said otherwise in the paragraph above. Who are you to define heresy? You walked away from TEC because it didn’t conform to yours. Get a grip. And it’s well known on many threads here that I have and continue to support the RCC in many endeavors and encourage people here to seek it as their church if they seem so inclined. You make this stuff up as you go.
Finally, addressing my “misery.” I’m a happy guy, Spirit, as much it might pain you to know! I am celebrating my tenth wedding anniversary today 7/18/09 taking my wife out tonight for a nice dinner just the two of us. We have a three, two and one year old. I am a teacher with a good job, decent benefits, and great students. I love pulling for my San Francisco Giants, going to ball games, playing my guitar, love my pets, love going to Mass and praying, reading the Bible, have two great parents that are awesome, my wife is the greatest in the world, and each day is a new adventure. What bugs me?..well, heresy and sinful teachings. I believe TEC is the epitome of that. If my anger toward heresy and unwillingness to embrace or water down my opinions toward heresy leads you to believe I’m miserable, so be it. I have nothing against you as a person, just your beliefs, which I feel are dangerous. I just had my annual physical the other day and my bloodwork and checkup were impeccable and blood pressure 120/80. For being miserable, my life and health are pretty good!!
The fact is you are unhappy. If you weren’t you’d talk about things you love instead of spending all your time belaboring how horrid you think TEC is. I’m glad your a happy family man. Your protestations as they say, say much more than your words do. Are you serious that your BP means something? you are over the top.
You have nothing against me but what I believe. And apparently when you don’t like what someone believes, you are raging hatred. That is dangerous in my book.
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
Aww,and I thought I was on ignore. You seem to be spending a lot of time on me Gurney. You simplify things to death yourself there bud. None of those folks debated Gurney. They explained what they believed about the subject. NO debate at all. When I see some living the Gospel, I’ll let ya know. So far I only see arguing over doctrine, and that not well either.“While we sit in the sanctuary and debate faith versus works, Jesus sits in the kitchen dishing up food at the shelter.”
Isn’t it funny that St. Paul in Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians thought faith and works to be an important debate? Isn’t it also funny that James thought this subject worth writing an epistle over? They could walk and chew gum, too, discussing theology and living the Gospel. Amazing how that works!
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
You promised not to read my posts!I agree Jay. It makes me think of what Father Karras says to the other Priest, Father Damien, as they went into exorcise the little girl, Regan, who was possessed by the devil in “the Exorcist.” “Don’t listen to what he [the devil] says to you because he will mix lies with the truth to confuse you out of your faith for he is the father of lies.”
That’s what you hear from some posters (u-hem). They talk about how all Jesus wants us to do is feed the hungry, visit the sick, clothe the orphans, and be charitable. There is no moral imperative on us at all. We can cross-dress, sleep with the same sex, ordain lesbians, in vitro lesbian couples so they can have babies, that’s all fine because Jesus only wants us to be soup kitchen stewards and help the homeless.
Boloney.
Jesus expects us to walk and chew gum! We can be stewards of the environment, of the poor, defend the unborn, visit prisoners in ministry, visit the sick, clothe the poor, feed the hungry, and STILL BE MORAL and expect people to REPENT on their way to the Eucharist!!
Spiritmeadow muddies the water and oversimplifies the game of salvation to mere charity and looks at only half the picture. Christ DID walk with prostitutes and tax-collectors. Spiritmeadow is correct in that recollection. But what he/she doesn’t understand or want to remember is how Christ merely ministered to them, got His foot in the door to ENGAGE them, and then forgave them. But notice how St. Matthew was expected to stop cheating people as a tax collector and follow the Lord! Notice that Zaccheus had to quit being a cheat! Notice how Jesus said to the sinful woman, “your sins are forgiven now GO AND SIN NO MORE!”
It’s a strawman weak argument to just say, "you catholics should permit any and all sinful activities and not judge any behavior but rather just do some charities and drop all moral standards. Jesus isn’t about behavior or sins or responsibilities, just feeding the poor and being nice to people.
We all have the duty to do as Christ did and minister to sinners but we must preach the truth in love and be honest to them and show them not only Christ but repentence. We must make Christ accessible as He made Himself available to sinners. But to place no demands of repentence, contrition, or a desire to change upon the sinner is diabolical.
It’s mind-boggling what a simpleton’s gospel that is! The revisionist gospel I’m seing from Spiritmeadow is, “Your sins are forgiven you, and don’t worry about doing them again, ok? We’re fine with it as long as you’re nice to people and give to charities and maybe feed some homeless folks.”
That whole lack of understanding of what the Gospel truly is is further proof of what Our Lord said in the gospel at daily Mass several days back about how God has closed the eyes of the people who think they’re wise…
Anyone who thinks that we can approach the Eucharist in mortal sin with an unrepentent heart but be saved merely from charity and love to others is fooling themselves…
But seriously, Gurney, does it occur to you at all that perhaps others define morality differently than you do? I know you think there is no possibility you could be wrong, but surely there must be some possibility that anybody else who thinks differently than you might have some truth? Humility requires us all to in the end, to admit that we do what we think is best and not assume that we know for sure. Can’t you find an ounce of respect that others who don’t share your interpretation of scripture do so with the same dedicated desire to understand the truth as you feel you have acquired? I mean really, are you so perfect that you cannot error in your conclusions?
7
7_Sorrows
Guest
7 Sorrows;5462510:
can you point to the specific post. i reread post #100 and i don’t see anything there.
i don’t think i am missing the point, i think you are trying to make an argument about something that isn’t there.
i won’t put you on ignore, but i don’t want to argue my point anymore because you obviously have your mind made up and refuse to see it any other way.
J
jay29
Guest
I am going to clear up some confusion for you:
Matthew 15:19-20 **
19For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. 20These are what make a man ‘unclean’**; but eating with unwashed hands does not make him ‘unclean.’ "
biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2015:19-20;&version=31;
Galatians 5:19-21
19The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.
biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians%205:19-21;&version=31;
Seems pretty clear that the Episcopal Church is preaching against the Holy Scripture.
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
**Originally Posted by SpiritMeadow **
Gurney, does it occur to you at all that perhaps others define morality differently than you do? I know you think there is no possibility you could be wrong, but surely there must be some possibility that anybody else who thinks differently than you might have some truth?
I keep running into pieces of your posts, spirit, and these seem a bit more tame than usual but I’ll address it anyway. You know, you seriously have me pegged wrong. Let me delineate my belief system for you. I think religion is made by God TO CHANGE ME not the other way around. I was not put here to CHANGE GOD. So, I’ve taken a good hard look at my beliefs throughout the years and have actually had to change to fit into Christ. For example, in high school I was a democrat, worked at the Clinton campaign, and was very pro-choice. I remember having those discussions with my friends and students at school, defending a woman’s “choice.”
I also used to think it was ok that women were priests as a young man in my early twenties to mid twenties. It didn’t bother me, equal rights was the way I saw it all. Didn’t bother me at all.
I was also very pro birth control and thought that anybody who had more than two or three kids was an irresponsible slob and a deteriment to the environment.
But let me tell ya, Spirit, as I began reading the Early Church Fathers (ECF’s), I saw that the Church didn’t look like what I saw in protestantism at all. And as I read the scriptures I realized abortion, homosexuality, and women’s ordinations were taboo, forbidden, and horrible crimes against the Spirit and God’s creation. As I read Augustine, Aquinas, the ECF’s, Catholic authors, and even listened to many of my protestant friends, I realized the importance of the pro-life position and the traditional definition of marriage. I had been very sympathetic to gay rights in my youth. But I realized this was folly and sinful.
I realized that being a Christian meant I HAVE TO CHANGE, not God. He has been the same since time immemorial and I as His creation have been expecting to find a religion, philosophy, worldview that went with my comfort zones and what secular pop culture had taught me.
I am not a bigot, Spirit, and most DEFINITELY not a racist! For God’s sake, friend, my wife is from the Philippines! My three children look Asian. My best friend is Mexican, and I’ve had great black friends. And I’m certainly not a chauvenist. My wife would laugh at that notion. I believe in equality for women and dignity for them and that they deserve to be treated RIGHT. And they are every bit as intelligent and resourceful as men.
I’m not small-minded. My beliefs had to change, had to conform, to the will of God, in order for me to be a Christian. And it was hard for me to leave the Anglican Church. I watched this theology being taught that was contrary to what I knew the ECF’s, the Bible, tradition, and Christian principles have always taught, and I put my fingers in my ears, blah blah blah blah blah hoping it would just go away. I loved my rector, loved that building, loved the people there, loved that coffee hour, liked the pastoral care, the talks with my priest, that awesome liturgy, and all the fun times as an Episcopalian. The thought of leaving was a killer. My wife loved it, too. But we became enlightened to the Catholic faith, the faith we had turned our backs on when we were younger and had to eat crow realizing they were right. The deposit of faith, the truth, lay in the Gospels, the Fathers, that tradition, and in the papacy. And my pride made me not want an infallble teacher. I wanted to be my own pope. I wrestled, struggled, and fought like a crocodile drowning someone in the lake, man. It was hard. And the birth control issue killed me the most.
Gurney, does it occur to you at all that perhaps others define morality differently than you do? I know you think there is no possibility you could be wrong, but surely there must be some possibility that anybody else who thinks differently than you might have some truth?
I keep running into pieces of your posts, spirit, and these seem a bit more tame than usual but I’ll address it anyway. You know, you seriously have me pegged wrong. Let me delineate my belief system for you. I think religion is made by God TO CHANGE ME not the other way around. I was not put here to CHANGE GOD. So, I’ve taken a good hard look at my beliefs throughout the years and have actually had to change to fit into Christ. For example, in high school I was a democrat, worked at the Clinton campaign, and was very pro-choice. I remember having those discussions with my friends and students at school, defending a woman’s “choice.”
I also used to think it was ok that women were priests as a young man in my early twenties to mid twenties. It didn’t bother me, equal rights was the way I saw it all. Didn’t bother me at all.
I was also very pro birth control and thought that anybody who had more than two or three kids was an irresponsible slob and a deteriment to the environment.
But let me tell ya, Spirit, as I began reading the Early Church Fathers (ECF’s), I saw that the Church didn’t look like what I saw in protestantism at all. And as I read the scriptures I realized abortion, homosexuality, and women’s ordinations were taboo, forbidden, and horrible crimes against the Spirit and God’s creation. As I read Augustine, Aquinas, the ECF’s, Catholic authors, and even listened to many of my protestant friends, I realized the importance of the pro-life position and the traditional definition of marriage. I had been very sympathetic to gay rights in my youth. But I realized this was folly and sinful.
I realized that being a Christian meant I HAVE TO CHANGE, not God. He has been the same since time immemorial and I as His creation have been expecting to find a religion, philosophy, worldview that went with my comfort zones and what secular pop culture had taught me.
I am not a bigot, Spirit, and most DEFINITELY not a racist! For God’s sake, friend, my wife is from the Philippines! My three children look Asian. My best friend is Mexican, and I’ve had great black friends. And I’m certainly not a chauvenist. My wife would laugh at that notion. I believe in equality for women and dignity for them and that they deserve to be treated RIGHT. And they are every bit as intelligent and resourceful as men.
I’m not small-minded. My beliefs had to change, had to conform, to the will of God, in order for me to be a Christian. And it was hard for me to leave the Anglican Church. I watched this theology being taught that was contrary to what I knew the ECF’s, the Bible, tradition, and Christian principles have always taught, and I put my fingers in my ears, blah blah blah blah blah hoping it would just go away. I loved my rector, loved that building, loved the people there, loved that coffee hour, liked the pastoral care, the talks with my priest, that awesome liturgy, and all the fun times as an Episcopalian. The thought of leaving was a killer. My wife loved it, too. But we became enlightened to the Catholic faith, the faith we had turned our backs on when we were younger and had to eat crow realizing they were right. The deposit of faith, the truth, lay in the Gospels, the Fathers, that tradition, and in the papacy. And my pride made me not want an infallble teacher. I wanted to be my own pope. I wrestled, struggled, and fought like a crocodile drowning someone in the lake, man. It was hard. And the birth control issue killed me the most.
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
continued…reply to Spiritmeadow
I’m not some brainwashed zombie who hates all who think differently from me. That’s where you are again misjudging me. I respect Orthodox or Anglicans who say they don’t accept papal infallibility or the Catholic approach to salvation. Those are tough issues. I may feel one way, but I can understand how others disagree. I adore and love the Blessed Virgin Mary and happen to accept the Immaculate Conception and Assumption but I know that even Thomas Aquinas didn’t accept the I.C. and neither do many protestants. I can see why they feel that way. I can disagree with protestants about confession to a priest/auricular confession and respect their view. I can even disagree with folks about the priesthood versus the more calvinistic approach to the presbyterate. I can agree to disagree with people about a wide range of issues. GKC and some Anglicans I speak with have a tough time accepting universal jurisdiction of the papacy. I’ve wrestled with that, and infallibility, and indulgences, so I understand their reluctance to go Roman.
But what I cannot tolerate is what I read plainly in scripture, tradition, and reason with regard to moral issues. Most especially and obviously abortion is off the table. I will not tolerate it. I will not tolerate gay “marriage.”
But what you don’t realize is that I want homosexuals in the Church. I want the gay community to convert to Catholicism, indeed I do. Homosexuality is a struggle and hard. These people fight these urges like crazy. I don’t expect them to be perfect. They’ll fall once in a while…that’s why we have confession. If a gay person weakens and has an encounter with the same sex, that’s a sin. But so is a heterosexual who looks at pornography or masturbates or cheats on his wife. Both need the healing power of confession, Spirit.
I want people to come to the Church. I don’t want to close the doors. But what I will NOT TOLERATE is them coming in and we tell them, “you don’t have to change, don’t have to fight the sin, don’t have to be contrite, you’re doing nothing wrong!” That’s boloney.
I sin all the time and thank The Lord so much for confession! I’d be swimming in hell without it. I’m no better than a gay man or a woman who has had an abortion. But what I can do is admit I’m wrong and keep crawling back to Christ, confessing, seriously intending to amend my life, and avoid the occasion of sin. I always have that intention and fight my own sins in my life. That’s all I expect of a transgender, a homosexual, an adulterer, a liar, or a cheat, to be contrite, admit the sin, confess, intend to change and conform to Christ, and grow as a person. We all fall, we all sin, we all disappoint God. But He loves us.
What the Episcopal Church, your denomination, does is not confront the sin and admit it for what it is. The TEC thinks one can’t love the sinner without loving the sin and rationalizing it as acceptable.
The truth is immutable, immobile, unchanging, and timeless. I’ve had to eat crow and admit in my life that my beliefs weren’t jiving with God and that I was the problem, I was out of calibration with the Almighty, not the reverse. The Episcopal Church doesn’t seek to correct, mold, change, or steer the seeker toward the Light but rather status quo them into a sense of stagnant, static slush that gets affirmed for their sins and just merely has a friendship with God. I will not accept that, Spiritmeadow. I cannot and will not.
Sometimes I get rough around the edges because I’m passionate about these issues and I truly believe and know from that treasure, the Bible, and the Fathers, the councils, sacred tradition, and especially the Church that these truths are indeed TRUE. To believe any less would nullify my own belief in the nature of God, demean His essence, and how could I be a Christian? Sometimes I get a bit gruff or passionate, and even like to make light and joke about the insanity of what I see in the TEC. I can be a bit irascable. I guess I’m the Doctor McCoy of Catholic Answers Forum. What can I say.
These are my beliefs and I must fight for them. I believe your theology is far off from Christ and it is a gospel of self-affirmation and dangerous idolatry. Your denomination is perverting the Gospel. I just have to call a spade a spade.
I’m not some brainwashed zombie who hates all who think differently from me. That’s where you are again misjudging me. I respect Orthodox or Anglicans who say they don’t accept papal infallibility or the Catholic approach to salvation. Those are tough issues. I may feel one way, but I can understand how others disagree. I adore and love the Blessed Virgin Mary and happen to accept the Immaculate Conception and Assumption but I know that even Thomas Aquinas didn’t accept the I.C. and neither do many protestants. I can see why they feel that way. I can disagree with protestants about confession to a priest/auricular confession and respect their view. I can even disagree with folks about the priesthood versus the more calvinistic approach to the presbyterate. I can agree to disagree with people about a wide range of issues. GKC and some Anglicans I speak with have a tough time accepting universal jurisdiction of the papacy. I’ve wrestled with that, and infallibility, and indulgences, so I understand their reluctance to go Roman.
But what I cannot tolerate is what I read plainly in scripture, tradition, and reason with regard to moral issues. Most especially and obviously abortion is off the table. I will not tolerate it. I will not tolerate gay “marriage.”
But what you don’t realize is that I want homosexuals in the Church. I want the gay community to convert to Catholicism, indeed I do. Homosexuality is a struggle and hard. These people fight these urges like crazy. I don’t expect them to be perfect. They’ll fall once in a while…that’s why we have confession. If a gay person weakens and has an encounter with the same sex, that’s a sin. But so is a heterosexual who looks at pornography or masturbates or cheats on his wife. Both need the healing power of confession, Spirit.
I want people to come to the Church. I don’t want to close the doors. But what I will NOT TOLERATE is them coming in and we tell them, “you don’t have to change, don’t have to fight the sin, don’t have to be contrite, you’re doing nothing wrong!” That’s boloney.
I sin all the time and thank The Lord so much for confession! I’d be swimming in hell without it. I’m no better than a gay man or a woman who has had an abortion. But what I can do is admit I’m wrong and keep crawling back to Christ, confessing, seriously intending to amend my life, and avoid the occasion of sin. I always have that intention and fight my own sins in my life. That’s all I expect of a transgender, a homosexual, an adulterer, a liar, or a cheat, to be contrite, admit the sin, confess, intend to change and conform to Christ, and grow as a person. We all fall, we all sin, we all disappoint God. But He loves us.
What the Episcopal Church, your denomination, does is not confront the sin and admit it for what it is. The TEC thinks one can’t love the sinner without loving the sin and rationalizing it as acceptable.
The truth is immutable, immobile, unchanging, and timeless. I’ve had to eat crow and admit in my life that my beliefs weren’t jiving with God and that I was the problem, I was out of calibration with the Almighty, not the reverse. The Episcopal Church doesn’t seek to correct, mold, change, or steer the seeker toward the Light but rather status quo them into a sense of stagnant, static slush that gets affirmed for their sins and just merely has a friendship with God. I will not accept that, Spiritmeadow. I cannot and will not.
Sometimes I get rough around the edges because I’m passionate about these issues and I truly believe and know from that treasure, the Bible, and the Fathers, the councils, sacred tradition, and especially the Church that these truths are indeed TRUE. To believe any less would nullify my own belief in the nature of God, demean His essence, and how could I be a Christian? Sometimes I get a bit gruff or passionate, and even like to make light and joke about the insanity of what I see in the TEC. I can be a bit irascable. I guess I’m the Doctor McCoy of Catholic Answers Forum. What can I say.
These are my beliefs and I must fight for them. I believe your theology is far off from Christ and it is a gospel of self-affirmation and dangerous idolatry. Your denomination is perverting the Gospel. I just have to call a spade a spade.
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
I concur, Jay29, with both your intial original post that started this thread and with this post here. Nicely-stated.I am going to clear up some confusion for you:
Matthew 15:19-20 **
19For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. 20These are what make a man ‘unclean’**; but eating with unwashed hands does not make him ‘unclean.’ "
biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2015:19-20;&version=31;
Galatians 5:19-21 **
19The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn** you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.
biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians%205:19-21;&version=31;
Seems pretty clear that the Episcopal Church is preaching against the Holy Scripture.
Scott
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
Spiritmeadow again: Clearly CAF is prepared to have the likes of Gurneyhalleck as their “face” and that is fine with me. You all sit back and applaud his remarks when he references our Presiding Bishop as Dracula. How very Christian.
Poppycock. CAF is not having me as their “face” or official spokesperson, how absurd LOL!! I have people disagree with me all the time on here! I’ve had Catholics get on me many a time for siding with a Protestant and I’ve had folks like you think I’m the anti-Christ of political correctness. Hey, Spirit, I view Schiori as a self-centered, cruel, angry woman with an axe to grind against desenters. She has proven that. Her unprecedented lawsuits against traditionalists should even appaul you. How many edifices has she robbed out of under congregants? How many reverse sexist remarks has she made? I remember her anti-Catholic spewing saying how sophisticated Anglicans were for using contraception and having small families, not checking their brains out at the door, and how Roman Catholics were quite the reverse. Nice, huh? And she has fought on the side of abortion, gay “marriages,” aliented the Episcopal Church from the Anglican Communion and the ACNA new province is a direct result of her “presiding” position. She is an utter failure of a leader and a vampire. She has sucked away the lifeblood of the church. And she has terribly abused the power she never really had. A presiding bishop is a position set up by the episcopal church in the 1800’s with the firm determination, if you care to read the history of the episcopal church, to NOT have an archbishop. They gave the P.B. no powers above that of an ordinary bisohp. He (not she) was meant to keep order, bang the gavel, and try to be a first among equals. This woman by her gender shouldn’t be there anyway, but gender aside she is a total abject failure and the biggest lightening rod alienating force in the entire Anglican world. She is hated worldwide. If you can’t see that she has ruined the episcopal church even more than it was already in ruin, then you need stronger bifocles! No apologies, she’s a vampire.
Poppycock. CAF is not having me as their “face” or official spokesperson, how absurd LOL!! I have people disagree with me all the time on here! I’ve had Catholics get on me many a time for siding with a Protestant and I’ve had folks like you think I’m the anti-Christ of political correctness. Hey, Spirit, I view Schiori as a self-centered, cruel, angry woman with an axe to grind against desenters. She has proven that. Her unprecedented lawsuits against traditionalists should even appaul you. How many edifices has she robbed out of under congregants? How many reverse sexist remarks has she made? I remember her anti-Catholic spewing saying how sophisticated Anglicans were for using contraception and having small families, not checking their brains out at the door, and how Roman Catholics were quite the reverse. Nice, huh? And she has fought on the side of abortion, gay “marriages,” aliented the Episcopal Church from the Anglican Communion and the ACNA new province is a direct result of her “presiding” position. She is an utter failure of a leader and a vampire. She has sucked away the lifeblood of the church. And she has terribly abused the power she never really had. A presiding bishop is a position set up by the episcopal church in the 1800’s with the firm determination, if you care to read the history of the episcopal church, to NOT have an archbishop. They gave the P.B. no powers above that of an ordinary bisohp. He (not she) was meant to keep order, bang the gavel, and try to be a first among equals. This woman by her gender shouldn’t be there anyway, but gender aside she is a total abject failure and the biggest lightening rod alienating force in the entire Anglican world. She is hated worldwide. If you can’t see that she has ruined the episcopal church even more than it was already in ruin, then you need stronger bifocles! No apologies, she’s a vampire.
M
morkelkey
Guest
Hi dear friends,
Only blaspheme against the holy spirit sends one to hell. God forgives the blaspheme of the son so he should forgive it against the pope.
Only blaspheme against the holy spirit sends one to hell. God forgives the blaspheme of the son so he should forgive it against the pope.
J
JesusforMadrid
Guest
There is an underlying issue that separates us and that is a question of epistemology or what is truth. For the liberal wing of the Church, truth is subjective, whereas for the orthodox wing, truth is objective and has been defined clearly in Scripture, by the consensus of the Early Church Fathers and in the councils. Your definition of “radical inclusion” means condoning sin. Jesus never did that. You are subjectively defining Christianity and turning it into something completely unrecognisable from the early Church.
Yes, we have a radically different approach to interpreting scripture. You would have that I look to Mssrs Borg and Spong every time I find a difficult passage. I would have that you look to the Church, particularly the consensus of the ECFs. Without going into the relative veracity of your theological position regarding the authorship of Paul, you only have to look to the disciples of the disciples, for example St. Clement I, Paul’s disciple, to know that your interpretation of Paul is errant. He writes like Paul and is very focused on personal holiness, calling all into repentance for acts such as lust and adultery. The Early Church Fathers are replete with condemnations of many things which the liberal TEC supports such as abortion and homosexuality, as can be seen here:
catholic.com/library/Early_Teachings_on_Homosexuality.asp
Liberal scholars in such “academic” institutions such as Harvard Divinity School, spend their lives trying to attack the orthodox interpretation of the Bible. Yet they are fighting a losing battle. The Church, starting with the consensus of the Early Church Fathers, interprets the Bible in a way that is coherent with modern orthodoxy, not the TEC. So you are left with two choices:
(i) either the TEC is more coherent with the message of Jesus and the early church clearly misunderstood the message of Jesus. The problem with this view is that it makes a mockery of the Holy Spirit, who was sent amongst other things to provide wisdom and protect the Church from heresy.
(ii) the TEC is redefining subjectively the message of Jesus. In such case, your message may be subjectively very good. However, please do not seek communion with other orthodox Christians, since your faith has little in common with historic Christianity.
Again, truth is not subjective, but rather the confluence of independent streams of good evidence. We have the Scriptures and Early Church as a witness to the truth, what we might call Tradition.
Since the liberal TEC embraces a theology in contrary to Tradition, it is in contrary to the Truth and is apostate. It is heretical and needs badly fraternal correction. As an Anglican, what hurts me the most is that years of efforts on the part of orthodox Anglicans has produced little if any repentance from heretical views such as the uniqueness of Christ and homosexuality. Following the advice of Paul, it is now, I believe time for orthodox Anglicans to turn aside and let the TEC bear the fruits of its apostasy, which are sexual immorality in its leadership, declining church membership and disputes with other Christians.
D
Dale_M
Guest
I think SpiritMeadow is referring to the unsubstantiated claims which have been made during this discussion that many Episcopalians look down on the African bishops has backwards.
Try post #46 and the post it quoted. There are other posts, but I think those were the originals.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5457626&postcount=46
J
JesusforMadrid
Guest
Bishop Spong stated at the last Lambeth Conference that the African Bishops had “moved out of animism into a very superstitious kind of Christianity. They’ve yet to face the intellectual revolution of Copernicus and Einstein that we’ve had to face in the developing world. That’s just not on their radar screen.”
Pretty condescending…
- Status