Eminentoes
Florida’s Kissing Priest Ignites Catholic-Episcopal Row
Liberal Episcopalianism recruits its kind of sinner — and revels in its victory over dread Catholicism.
A tabloid exposé of a celebrity (now former) Catholic priest’s cavorting with his bikini-clad consort on the sands of a Florida beach has ignited an ecumenical brouhaha between the Catholic Archdiocese of Miami and the Episcopal Diocese of Southeast Florida.
“This truly is a serious setback for ecumenical relations and cooperation between us,” observed Archbishop of Miami John Favalora about a May 28 press conference featuring the smooching priest and his new supervising prelate, Episcopal Bishop of Southeast Florida Leo Frade. ”The Archdiocese of Miami has never made a public display when for doctrinal reasons Episcopal priests have joined the Catholic Church and sought ordination. In fact, to do so would violate the principles of the Catholic Church governing ecumenical relations. I regret that Bishop Frade has not afforded me or the Catholic community the same courtesy and respect.”
The amorous priest is Alberto Cutié, a telegenic 40-year-old Miami-based television and radio talk show host sometimes called “Father Oprah” for his love advice and chatty broadcast presence. Easily recognizable to millions of Spanish-speakers after his years on Telemundo and EWTN Español, Cutié could not have been overly surprised when a photo spread of his frolics with girlfriend Ruhama Buni Canellis splashed across a Spanish-language tabloid in early May. In the following days, Cutié coyly told inquiring media that that he supports the Catholic Church’s expectation of celibacy for priests but was uncertain about his own vocation, about which he was supposedly consulting with his own archdiocese.
So the Archbishop was surprised when Cutié and a smiling Miss Canellis, whom some press reports describe as a fiancée, appeared at a lavishly covered press conference with Episcopal Bishop Frade and his own beaming wife. The two couples, appearing outside Trinity Episcopal Cathedral in Miami after Cutié’s reception into Episcopalianism, more resembled a presidential ticket than parties to a transfer of ecclesial allegiance. “We welcome Father Alberto into the ministry of the Episcopal Church,” gushed Bishop Frade, whose flashy purple and red vestments, with towering miter, were perhaps more suited to a medieval pope consecrating a Holy Roman emperor than a Miami press conference. Surrounded by 50 clamoring reporters and photographers, Bishop Frade dressed the part for what was undoubtedly the media zenith of his church career. “Our ministry has centered on spiritual growth, love, forgiveness, and a sense of community,” Frade pronounced. “Guided by a spirit of fellowship and understanding, the Episcopal Church remains a beacon of hope and faith for all.”
An Episcopal News Service report was enthusiastic about Cutié’s transfer. “He and Mother Angelica, they are the Roman Catholic televangelists,” pronounced one Episcopal Church official. “This is like Joel Osteen [a popular Christian preacher, author and televangelist] changing faith, abandoning ship.” Another quoted Episcopal official was equally excited, calling Cutié “very good looking,” “eloquent,” and “charismatic,” who’s “hung out with stars,” befriended Gloria Estefan, and now, himself a “celebrity,” is “very boldly go[ing] against his promise to the church and its teachings.” Bishop Frade credited the media frenzy to there being “nothing like a priest committing a sin, as seen by Rome; a good looking man finding someone he loved.” The bishop claimed: “We were hoping that it would be low key, but that was impossible.”
Purportedly, unknown to the archdiocese, Cutié’s high profile switch to Episcopalianism was preceded by two years of “discernment.” “I thank God for the many people in our community who have shown me their love and support,” Cutié told the press conference. “Your prayers have truly sustained me at this time of transition in my life. With God’s help, I hope to continue priestly ministry and service in my new spiritual home.” Bishop Frade’s news release hailed Cutié’s “bilingual skills, evangelical voice, and cultural sensitivities” as a “natural fit” for Miami area Episcopalians.
The Frade-Cutié press conference was a reminder that Episcopal bishops, presiding over an ever diminishing flock, typically only get media play in the midst of sexual imbroglios, usually involving controversies over homosexual clergy, a cause of increasing church schism. Unlike the other two Episcopal bishops in Florida, Frade sides with his church’s dominant liberal faction. Last year, he publicly denounced Florida’s successfully approved constitutional amendment defining marriage as between man and woman. He has celebrated the Episcopal Church’s affirmation of various “sexual orientations.” Last year, Bishop Frade marched with other Anglican bishops through the streets of London in an anti-poverty demonstration, wrapping his own placard with a rainbow flag, because, “when we talk about justice and mercy, we need to remember that gay and lesbian persons are discriminated against by the church and the government.”
Archbishop Favrola, who presumably has never marched with a rainbow flag, pronounced that Father Cutié had separated himself from Roman Catholicism by professing “erroneous faith and morals, and refusing submission to the Holy Father.”
Favrola said Cutié had “caused grave scandal within the Catholic Church, harmed the Archdiocese of Miami — especially our priests — and led to division within the ecumenical community and the community at large,” whose “wounds” were deepened by the press conference with Bishop Frade. “He has never told me that he was considering joining the Episcopal Church,” he noted of Cutié. As for the Episcopal bishop, the Catholic Archbishop curtly observed: “I have only heard from him through the local media.”
Wasting no time, Cutié delivered his first sermon from an Episcopal pulpit on May 31, though he will have to wait another year before formal ordination. According to the Miami Herald, he got several standing ovations. “The spirit of God has been with me,” he told his now fellow Episcopalians. “And I’m going to tell you something: God is the only one we follow.”
Fawning Episcopalians predicted Cutié would bring energy and new members to the numerically declining Episcopal Diocese of Southeast Florida. With only 35,000 members (compared to the growing Catholic Archdiocese of Miami, with 800,000 members), the Episcopalians of Miami surely could use the help.
About the Author
Mark Tooley is president of the Institute on Religion and Democracy in Washington, D.C. and author of Methodism and Politics in the Twentieth Century. You can follow him on Twitter @markdtooley.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (112) | Leave a comment
Related Articles
More Articles by Mark Tooley
More Articles From Eminentoes
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/06/09/floridas-kissing-priest-ignite
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Eric Damon| 6.9.09 @ 6:37AM
Let the Episcopalians have him, since he has obviously decided that he cannot abide by the rules of the Catholic Church. I'm not a Catholic, yet I know that part of becoming a priest is to take the vow of celibacy, and it would seem that if the vow was going to be a problem then one should not enter the priesthood. Heck, it looks like the Espiscopals will take anyone these days so this guy should fit right in.
Andrew B| 6.9.09 @ 8:19AM
Doesn't the Episcopal Church already have its quota of clergy who cannot honor their vows? Do they really need to import more? I am sure that the bishop was disappointed that Father Cutie is straight, but I guess he'll take anyone he can get.
This is all part of the brilliant master plan which has done so much to swell the ranks of the Episcopal Church--drive out the faithful, chase after every passing trend and wait for the avalanche of new parishoners. How's that working out?
And my old parish wonders why I am no longer an Episcopalian.
Jeremy Stevens| 6.9.09 @ 8:40AM
A life-long Episcopal friend, choosing to enter the ministry after his parents' death, was told that his New England Episcopal diocese already had "too many like you," by which the diocesan official meant white and male and heterosexual. In fact, a member of the Standing Committee that deals with ministry candidates joked with him afterward, "Now, if you were a Lesbian of color, on the other hand ..." He moved to Canada and was ordained in the Maritimes.
If you check out the Episcopal bishop's background, you'll find he honed his "ecumenical skills" by "growing" the Episcopal Church in Honduras. Gee, wonder how he did that? Which makes this stunt a very transparent and cheesy play to snag Hispanic Catholics of the Cutie Fan Club!
Perhaps at long last some of our "open-minded" Roman Catholic bishops will finally come to see that, when it comes to the Episcopal Church and Roman Catholicism, ecumenism is strictly a one-way street. Speaking of streets, one of Episcopal Bishop Frade's dumbest line was, " Over the centuries there's been a lot of traffic between Rome and Canterbury." Unfortunately for the Episcopal Church the road FROM Rome to Canterbury is called Broken Vows Boulevard. On the other hand, Episcopal priests who, for reasons of theology or conscience, leave Canterbury for Rome have to leave salary, pension, often insurance/health benefits and family and friends to make the journey.
I've never yet met an ex-Roman priest who, after years of theological and historical research and soul-searching, concluded that the fire in Henry VIII's loins was actually the warmth of the Holy Ghost! An old high school teacher of mine once remarked, "How anyone could watch A Man for All Seasons and stay Episcopal is beyond me!"
wbheff| 6.9.09 @ 8:43AM
The Catholic Church was established by god, in the person of Jesus the Son. The Episcopal heresy was founded by a mortal man, Henry VIII, rebelling against the Church when he wanted a divorce. Also, that name, Cutié, is wonderfully ironic.
Anthony| 6.9.09 @ 9:08AM
Another reminder as to why I am a Deist.
1freeman| 6.9.09 @ 9:31AM
No where in the Bible does the Catholic Church receive the instruction to make their priests celibate. The Catholic Church has, and continues to over step it's authority claiming to speak as the voice of God. I am married to a Catholic and have that faith in my home every day. The Church must regain it's faith and stop all the silly rule making. The masses of people in the faith can now read and decide for themselves what their faith is. If the Church refuses to realign it's self with the actual word of God they will continue to loose parishioners and the church will continue its decline. Catholicism, like all of the denominations on earth, was created by Man to worship God. When you atray from the Bible and claim to have the voice of God as you make rules for your faith you are making denominational doctrine. Doactine of the church is the same as "rules of Man". The Bible I read tells me not to do this thing.
The Church must regain its biblical foundation.
Philoktetes| 6.9.09 @ 9:36AM
The Church was established by God the Son. The Catholic Church was established by Constantine, a mortal man. Sometimes the two are confused to be the same.
Because of the vow of celibacy, how many potentially good priests/pastors, theologians have been lost by the RCC?
jerryofva| 6.9.09 @ 10:18AM
A couple of comments here:
The Anglican Church is not a creation of Henry VIII. Thomas Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury, was the father of Anglicanism. Henry created a national church but was still a Roman Catholic in theology and practice. The title "Defender of the Faith" was originally bestowed on Henry by the Pope for his disputation with Martin Luther. Cranmer had to keep his Protestant sympathies secret until the end of Henry’s life. This popular misconception of the origins of Anglicanism is held by many Anglicans as well as universally believed by Catholics.
We should celebrate the Episcopal Diocese of Miami for welcoming a more or less normal man to become a priest in that church. At least the good father wasn’t seeing another man or molesting children. It would have been better for all concerned if he had made this decision to go the Episcopal Church based upon his conscience rather then under duress. I agree with the Romans that the Episcopal Bishop did not act like gentleman. He should have left it as a private manner but then again the Episcopal Church is no longer a place where ladies and gentleman dominate.
Like many of its practices, the Roman Catholic Church’s position on celibacy is not rooted in scripture. It is the creation of men. The Orthodox Church, which carries on the oldest practices, allows candidates to the priesthood to marry before their formal ordination. Bishops must celibate or a widower. Had the Church followed Orthodox practice the widespread molestation scandal would not have happened. Better to marry then to burn in Hell.
I am a Missouri Synod Lutheran married to a Roman Catholic.
Eric Giunta | 6.9.09 @ 11:25AM
I think a couple of clarifications are in order:
1) The Catholic Church does not require ANYONE to remain celibate. Rather, for some 1600 years the Latin Church has chosen its ministers from the pool of those who have voluntarily committed to living as eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom, in imitation of Christ and in accord with the Pauline injunctions concerning consecrated celibacy. The historic Eastern Churches also choose their bishops from among the voluntarily celibate. The Catholic practice is not at all unbiblical. It does not stand to reason that because the Apostles choose elders ("priest" means "elder") and bishops from among the married, that therefore the Church in succeeding generations had no God-given authority to decide otherwise.
What IS unBiblical is the near-total disappearance of any kind of monastic principle from the Protestant churches, particularly in "low churches" where consecrated celibacy is considered an abomination, as it was to the original Reformers.
2) The Catholic Church was not founded by Saint Constantine the Great; no serious student of church history subscribes to such an assertion, and it is contradicted by even a cursory knowledge of the earliest Church Fathers, and by the very history of the development of the Biblical canon, which incidentally is itself a product of post-Constantinian Catholic Christianity.
3) Henry VIII certainly was the founder of the Anglican Communion. Certainly he was more "Catholic" than many of his successors, but Anglicanism is not the same today as it was in, say, 1540, but this religion has always been infinitely amorphous, quite according to the whims of the reigning monarch and the episcopal flavors of the month. To say that Henry's religion was not "Anglican" because it was "very Catholic" would be to doubt the Anglicanism of thousands of "Anglo-Catholic" in communion with the See of Canterbury.
Episcochick| 6.9.09 @ 11:27AM
I am a former Roman Catholic married to a former Roman Catholic Priest who is now an Episcopal priest. We couldn't be happier. And as for the ecumenical talks they are one way with the Romans always saying "We have to ask the Pope." Episcopalians don't have a pope to fix our trike when its broken, so we don't need to ask the pope. Also the poster who said that "Doesn't the Episcopal Church have its quota of clergy that do not honor it's vows? Maybe so my friend, but your church certainly leads the way. The child sex abuse scandal and its cover up was not about the Episcopal church and neither was the very timely articles in the Kansas City Times on Aids in the priesthood. Also, one anthropologist, Jane Anderson, wrote a book called "Priests in Love" which scientifically chronicles Roman priests who are having long term affairs with women outside of marriage. In light of this you have hand it to Father Cutie, he will transfer his faculties to the Episcopal Church and be married. He did do the right and moral thing. Why is it that the clergy in the Roman Church think that it is OK to bang altar boys, sleep with other men but when it comes to a committed marital relationship, all of a sudden they get girl cutties? My question is if gay Roman clergy can't be celibate, and heterosexual clergy
c can't be celibate, it might be time to look at mandatory celibacy. There is no clergy shortage in the Episcopal Church but there clearly is one in the Roman Church. Also because we allow married clergy and those gay couple in a committed union to be ordained, we have better clergy. My husband no longer has to do five services on Sunday, a funeral a wedding and come home to an empty rectory. WHen he comes home, he comes home to people who care. As one bishop in the Episcopal Church told me the Roman Church always gets the bottom of our barrel and we skim off the top of theirs. A good example is Bishop Jerry Lamb. A former Roman educated at the Pontifical Institute in Rome. There are many good men of integrity that come over from Rome and the Episcopal Church is happy to have them. As for me, I will be forever grateful to the Episcopal Church for welcoming us with open arms and for recognizing that God did indeed call my husband to both the sacrament of marriage and priesthood. I wish Father Cutie and his lovely fiance many blessings on their new life.
Clusiana| 6.9.09 @ 11:28AM
Matthew 16:18: Thou are Peter and upon this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
The Roman Catholic Church began with these words and with Peter as the head of the Church. The pope. Constantine did not invent the RCC.
As for Cutie. His actions are a scandal to all Catholics. It seems he became too attached to his celebrity status and fell away from his priestly calling. Leaving the priesthood for the Episcopal church...from truth to division? Scandalous.
As for celibacy. When a man discerns his calling to the RCC priesthood, he understands that he must accept the ideals of consecrated celibacy. If he doesn't understand or accept...he shouldn't waste his time on becoming a priest. Celibacy has nothing to do with molestation. If this were so explain the molestation cases by protestant ministers who are married.
I can't bring myself to pray for Cutie. God will judge him. God will bring him back...if Cutie is willing.
jerryofva| 6.9.09 @ 11:46AM
Eric:
You are absolutely wrong about Henry and Anglicanism. The Anglican Church is Protestant in theology and practice. Cranmer's first Book of Common Prayer was theologically Lutheran but later became more influenced by Calvin. He did not publish the book until Henry was on his deathbed. The reason that there is no separate Protestant Reformation in England is not that Henry was its leading exponent but because once he separated from Rome the small band of Lutherans was outlawed. They were fine allies when Henry was arguing against Rome but they became heretics when he declared himself head of the English Catholic Church.
Indeed there are plenty of so-called Anglo Catholics around but their existence is a testament to their cowardice not their faith. Unlike John Cardinal Newman who saw that the logic of the Tractarians led one to Rome, they go through mental gymnastics to rationalize how catholic practice condemned in the 39 Articles are acceptable.
The collapse of the Episcopal Church and Anglican dominations in the West can be attributed to the collapse of authority of the governing principals of the English Reformation brought about by Thomas Cranmer embodied by the famous 39 Articles of Religion. The unwillingness of the COE hierarchy to invite the Tractarians to leave for Rome ultimately undermined the authority of the Episcopate that bore bad fruit in the mid-20th Century.
Mass Appeal| 6.9.09 @ 11:54AM
I have been fortunate to have as a spiritual director and confessor a man who was one of the first married former Protestant pastors to be ordained a Catholic priest.
The contrast between his holiness, humility, selflessness, and orthodoxy and the shallow, self-absorbed life of "Father" Cutie is stunning.
Both are now where they belong.
As, no doubt, are Episcochick and her ex-priest husband. "We couldn't be happier," she says. Well, that's all that matters, then, isn't it?
Anneke| 6.9.09 @ 11:58AM
"This is like Joel Osteen [a popular Christian preacher, author and televangelist] changing faith, abandoning ship."
No, this is more like Jim Bakker jumping ship. Oh wait. Jim Bakker wasn't so "very good looking," "eloquent," and "charismatic," and didn't hang out with stars. So, he wouldn't be as auspicious a prize.
"Fawning Episcopalians predicted Cutié would bring energy and new members to the numerically declining Episcopal Diocese of Southeast Florida."
I see they're committed to using the same old strategy that led to the mass exodus from the denomination. The Episcopal Church is committed to putting willful, self-indulgent, worldly people into it's pulpits--people who set themselves against God and against God's word. They have just revealed their primary moral value--Rebellion--in which "very boldly go[ing] against his promise to the church and its teachings" is a laudatory action.
Cathochick| 6.9.09 @ 12:14PM
Western Rite Catholic priests are celibate. Eastern Rite Catholic priests (in communion with Rome) can be married. They must be married before ordination, however. Once ordained, they are required to be celibate, but they can be married while in seminary.
We are most familiar with the Western Rite because most countries we're familiar with and visit use it. There's also the African Rite, among others. They retain all doctrinal essentials but can also be quite different.
Catholicism is not just what you see in the movies, thankfully.
Seek| 6.9.09 @ 12:29PM
Good for Father Cutie. He had the courage to do openly what other priests do (or fantacize about doing) secretly. And if he's happier, that's not a sin. Misery is optional.
Tim| 6.9.09 @ 12:36PM
From what I've read so far, Father Cutie hasn't married anyone- so it leaves open the possibility that this affair wasn't love, just lust.
Given his celebrity status it's entirely possible that the one he loves is himself. Ye shall know them by their fruits. No pun intended.
As for you Episcopalians, you have got to get over the inferiority complex.
Nick| 6.9.09 @ 12:40PM
Reading the reports of the press confrence and the quotes of the Episcopalian Church officials, it reminded me of the Soviets parading Field Marshal Paulus around after his surrender at Stalingrad.
Bishop Frade is acting like he captured a high profile target from the enemy. Very unseemly behavior for a cleric. I'm Roman Catholic, so I admit I'm probably biased.
I pray Father Cutie sees the error of his ways. He hasn't stopped being an ordained priest in Christ's Church, the mark of priesthood is on his soul forever.
He has turned his back on his vows and God, and at the same time opened himself up to attack by the Enemy. Father Cutie needs all our prayers.
Irish Spectre | 6.9.09 @ 12:44PM
Hey , Episcochick,
Congratulations that you and your vows-breaking husband are happy.
Now, tell me, is it just me, or is it really the case that what little that's left of mainstream Protestantism today has been distilled down to an organ whose sole purpose is to assert God's blessing upon abortion, fornication, homosexuality and the other prevalent, contemporary ills that are earning many a soul a ticket to eternal damnation?? ...just askin'!!
Nick| 6.9.09 @ 1:04PM
To all the anti-Catholic bigots that Satan has sent to this thread:
If you think homosexuality in the clergy is a problem confined only to the Roman Catholic Church, your prejudice is blinding you.
Why do you think clerics in all denominations are trying to claim homosexuality is acceptable to Christ?
James Newland| 6.9.09 @ 1:30PM
In response to jerryofva: Not everything of the Faith is explicitly found in Scripture...not even when it comes to doctrine. I presume, for instance, that jerryofva believes in the doctrine of the Trinity, yet nowhere in the sacred writings is that word to be found, nor any explicit teaching about it. So the principle he cites gets us nowhere in determining the justice of the celibacy rule.
While it's true that the matter of priestly celibacy is a disciplinary matter and not specifically doctrinal, nevertheless it is entirely in accord with Scripture, for nowhere in Scripture is it suggested that Jesus was married. The priest, therefore, who, according to Catholic theology, acts in persona Christi, is rightly conjoined from marrying so as to more perfectly follow his Master's example. Moreover, given the priority a married man must rightly give to the well-being of his wife and family, it would conflict greatly with his priestly mission to his whole flock if that distraction were present in his life.
Thus, far from there being something unreasonable and un-Biblical about priestly celibacy, it is actually the married priesthood that strays further from the Christlike ideal.
Episcochick| 6.9.09 @ 1:32PM
Irish Spectere,
The Episcopal Church has had a long history of social justice. There's the rub. How can you have a anti abortion stance and then sit there and support your clergy as they abuse children. We have a process that removes clergy like that. As for gay clergy, you have more than anyone? We honor the relationships of gay and married clergy. As for the poster who quotes the eastern and western churches, they are certainly almost obsolete and they prohibit the remarriage of their clergy. Just another celibacy trap for people who are not called to it. There are many Roman clergy who break their vow to celibacy but continuing to living the lie while you are still ordained is crazy. The Order of the Paraclete is totally devoted to priest and religious who are mentally ill. Can you imagine a whole order devoted to this? There are many of these places that deal with these people living a double life because they aren't courageous enough to make the hard choices. Fr. Cutie made the choice and God Bless him for doing it. In doing it he both honored his vocation and the woman who supports it. Maybe the reason the Roman church has such few vocations is because of the appalling expectations they have of their clergy. For a good look at the statistics of priestly celibacy in the Roman Church you might want to look at the Richard Sipes book who wrote extensively on the lack of priestly celibacy . Lots of scientific research. And by the way, Richard Sipes job in the Roman Church was to counsel priests with sexual dysfunction and apparently there are a lot of them. I must say I don't miss that militant, judgmental, and down right mean attitude of the Roman Church. I think you have enough planks in your own eye to pull out without throwing stones at another church. God Bless.
Episcochick| 6.9.09 @ 1:40PM
Hey Nick,
How about all the anti Episcopal and gay bigots, are they Satan's spawn too? We are all God's children.
Eric Giunta | 6.9.09 @ 1:53PM
Jerry:
I'm afraid it is you who are mistaken. The problem wish your rebuttal is that you assume that Anglicanism has an essence, when in fact it doesn't. Indeed, this is something many Anglicans themselves take pride in. So there is no mutual exclusivity between Henry VIII's "Catholicism" and his Anglicanism.
I agree with you that so-called "anglo-Catholics" are intellectually inconsistent, but then I would say the same of all Protestants. They reject the magisterium of the Catholic Church, yet they hold so tenaciously to a Scripture that is itself the historical product of Catholic Christianity.
If Protestants really wanted to be consistent, they should throw in their hats with the "Jesus Seminar" types. If one is going to posit some kind of a "Great Apostasy," (and all Protestants implicitly do) wherein the entire Church went hay-wire, the honest student of history can't help but trace the "apostasy" to the earliest days of the Church. Why not, then, assume that the Apostles themselves went apostate and corrupted the true teachings of Jesus?
Deacon Righteous| 6.9.09 @ 2:09PM
So the Catholics and the Episcopalians are having a spat??
...Yawn...Who cares?
One is a compeletely appostate organization formed from the shell of Rome's idol-worshipping priesthood whose doctrines, including the Goddess Worship of Mary (foolishly referred to as "The Mother of God", and believed to be a perpetual virgin despite bearing additional children for Joseph, her husband) are so far removed from scripture (and occasionally in direct opposition to scripture) that it's a stretch to even refer to them as truly "Christian".
The other is a lame, limp-wristed spin-off of another lame spin-off of the previously described apostate "church"which was only formed because Henry VIII wanted a divorce so he could get jiggy with Anne Boleyn...
As a believing Christian who DOES not acknowledge the legitimacy of the Pope in Rome (the Catholic Church is NOT the Church that was founded on Pentecost, and Peter was NEVER a "Pope"), and does not recognize the plethora of denominations, each with their own unique set of strange, utterly unscriptural rules and regulations (like gay marriage, the primacy of works, and infant baptism), again, I say...
Who cares???
Nick| 6.9.09 @ 2:16PM
Hey Episcochick,
Then why have you done nothing but attack Roman Catholics, your fellow brothers and sisters in Christ?
And if Jesus approves of homosexual acts, why did He command Moses to tell Aaron and his sons, and all the people of Israel that it is an abomination (Lev. 18:22) and the offenders should be put to death (Lev. 20:13)?
Are you more Christian than Christ?
Deacon Righteous| 6.9.09 @ 2:24PM
@ Eric Giunta:
"...a Scripture that is itself the historical product of Catholic Christianity."
Ummmm...No. The chicken did NOT come before the egg. Christ was not a Catholic, nor were any of the apostles, including Peter. That statement is utter poppycock.
"If one is going to posit some kind of a "Great Apostasy," (and all Protestants implicitly do) wherein the entire Church went hay-wire, the honest student of history can't help but trace the "apostasy" to the earliest days of the Church. Why not, then, assume that the Apostles themselves went apostate and corrupted the true teachings of Jesus? "
This is logically incoherent. It's a faulty analogy. "A" is not to "B" as "B" is to "C". The apostles did not go apostate. However, many of the earlier Churches most certainly did. Please read Paul's extant letters in the New Testament, it happened often (and early).
FYI, one is not automatically a Protestant if one denies the legitimacy of Catholicism. "Protestantism" is an umbrella-term applying to denominations that also self-identify as "Christian"; the keyword is "denomination".
As an example, I am a Christian. I don't belong to a denominational organization, and I don't acknowledge the legitimacy of the Pope in Rome. It's not an "either/or" situation.
Catholic Sex Abuse| 6.9.09 @ 2:26PM
Over several decades in the 20th and 21st centuries, priests and lay members of religious orders in the Catholic Church sexually abused minors on a scale such that the accusations reached into the thousands. Although the majority of cases were reported to have occurred in the United States, victims have come forward in other nations such as Ireland, Canada and Australia. A major aggravating factor was the actions of Catholic bishops to keep these crimes secret and to reassign the accused to other parishes in positions where they had continued unsupervised contact with youth, thus allowing the abusers to continue their crime.
El Rey| 6.9.09 @ 3:30PM
Episcopals must be lowering "their" standards.
After all, "Father" Alberto Cutié took up with a woman, not another man ... or boy.
jerryofva| 6.9.09 @ 3:40PM
Eric:
I am going to put on my pure Lutheran hat here to rebut your arguments about the nature of the true church.
Martin Luther and the other reformers were not revolutionaries. They were conservatives who wanted to return the Church to the practices and teachings of the early Church. Reformation theology is quite in sync with Orthodox doctrine. Luther was quite clear in specifying that the Roman Church had deviated from traditional biblical teaching of what we now call the Eastern Church.
The early and Orthodox use of the term catholic was used to describe the universal church and not a specific man-made institution. When the early Church Fathers began using catholic to describe the faith there was only one Church and if we wish to associate this Church with a particular institutional arrangement it would be the Eastern Church and not the Church of the West that split off from the Orthodox faith.
Traditional Protestant theology takes the point of error to be well after the New Testament age so your argument of associating Protestantism with the heretical Jesus Seminar is nothing less then a simple minded strawman. A good Roman Catholic should be able to do better than this.
Nick| 6.9.09 @ 3:44PM
Deacon Righteous,
For someone who doesn't "care", you sure have much to say on the subject.
Could you explain to me how the Roman Catholic Church DIDN'T codify the canon of scripture, especially the 27 books of the New Testament?
jerryofva| 6.9.09 @ 3:47PM
Episcochick:
A reading from the book of Acts:
33 When they heard this, they were enraged and wanted to kill them.
34 But a Pharisee in the council named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law held in honor by all the people, stood up and gave orders to put the men outside for a little while.
35 And he said to them, “Men of Israel, take care what you are about to do with these men.
36 For before these days Theudas rose up, claiming to be somebody, and a number of men, about four hundred, joined him. He was killed, and all who followed him were dispersed and came to nothing.
37 After him Judas the Galilean rose up in the days of the census and drew away some of the people after him. He too perished, and all who followed him were scattered.
38 So in the present case I tell you, keep away from these men and let them alone, for if this plan or this undertaking is of man, it will fail;
39 but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them. You might even be found opposing God!”
The Episcopal Church is imploding and an accelerating rate. Perhaps you should head the message of Rabbi Gamaliel.
Andrew B| 6.9.09 @ 4:03PM
Episcochick,
You replied to my posting by quoting me ("Doesn't the Episcopal Church have its quota of clergy that do not honor their vows?") and reply by saying "Maybe so my friend, but your church certainly leads the way."
First, I am not a Catholic, as you seem to assume. I am an Anglican. Secondly, here is a short role-call from my home diocese when I was still an Episcopalian: The married rector in the neighboring parish took up with the wife of the choir director and installed her in the rectory. The bishop, who is an alcoholic spendthrift, did nothing. Another rector (and several other clergy from the diocese) was featured in Penthouse Magazine for bringing boys from Latin America for orgies in the church. He was quietly removed, then even more quietly reinstated.
The Archdeacon of the diocese was unceremoniously dumped from his position because the bishop didn't like him, but only after he had been grossly slandered as a racist.
Priests in my diocese were and are afraid to retire, because they know that the bishop will "punish" their parishes for misdeeds only he can detect.
Immorality, adultery, fiscal malfeasance, pedarasty, emotional cruelty, deception. Which part of this would have been made worse by priestly celibacy?
jerryofva| 6.9.09 @ 4:14PM
Nick:
Let me help you out there. When the New Testament was codified there was not such thing as the Roman Catholic Church. There was just the Christian Church and it was nearly synonymous with what we now call the Orthodox Church.
Vern Crisler| 6.9.09 @ 4:31PM
It gave me a good laugh to read Andrew B's comment that the Episcopal bishop must have been disappointed that Father Cutie is straight. This precisely captures what is wrong with the the Episcopal church today!
As to whether WBHeff is right that the Roman church was founded by Jesus, I'd say no. It came about at the time of the Reformation.
Prior to that the mediaeval church was everybody's church. It's just that the "Catholics" did not want to correct (until it was too little and too late) the sub-Christian theology and piety that had infected the mediaeval church.
The reforming Catholics (i.e., Protestants) were halted in their tracks by institutional inertia and circle-the-wagons traditionalism. The Protestant church (of which Episcopals are, or at least were, a part), formed in opposition to this ecclesiastical intransigence.
In reality, Christ's church transcends any ecclesiastical body. It is not a true church which is one outwardly, but it is a true church that is one inwardly. Hmmm, I think I've heard that, or something like it, somewhere before.
I don't think Roman Catholics should feel too superior now that Cutie is gone. After all, they still have Father Pfleger.
James Newland| 6.9.09 @ 5:06PM
Deacon Righteous wrote: "As an example, I am a Christian. I don't belong to a denominational organization, and I don't acknowledge the legitimacy of the Pope in Rome. It's not an 'either/or' situation."
If you are not Catholic, you are not, in the full and proper sense of the word, Christian. You are a heretic and, for that reason, are hated by Christ. It doesn't matter how YOU feel about it or whether YOU doubt that Christ could hate you. As Episcochick testifies, she and her apostate husband feel just wonderful about themselves. But then so do any number of people who explicitly and loudly reject the Lord. In fact, it is the ones who reject Christ outright who tend to be the most satisfied with themselves. So that is no measure of anything.
The fact is, you will not be saved because you do not truly love Him. If you loved Him you would be obedient to Him and the Church He has left you. It will do you no more good when you come to Judgment to say, "But I really didn't believe it was your church, Lord," than it will avail a Muslim to say, "But I really didn't believe you were the Son of God." Belief in the Son of God entails belief in everything the Son of God has said and taught, and he clearly teaches that Peter is the rock upon which His Church is built--not just any apostle, nor all the apostles in general, but this particular man, this particular rock, Peter. Those who would try to wish away Christ's words or pretend that they mean something else succeed only in wishing themselves away from eternal life.
THAT is the reality. Error of this type is not some inconsequential thing which can be excused with an, "Oops, sorry Lord. My bad." It is the most serious of things, and is mortally sinful due to the ill will behind it. It is saying to the Lord of Creation, along with Satan, "Non serviam." "I will not serve."
Fred| 6.9.09 @ 5:09PM
Just another example of the idiocy of morons and mouthbreathers who worship the angry storm god of an ancient desert tribe that carried said god around in a box,mainly because they were too stupid to use wheels.
E. Winger| 6.9.09 @ 6:21PM
I am glad to see Catholics letting their superiority complex and hatred of non Roman Catholics out in the open. Those of us who have had family members murdered by your cult know what you evil beings have in you.
Eric Giunta | 6.9.09 @ 6:43PM
Deacon Righteous:
The Apostles certainly were Catholics. This is quote apparent to anyone familiar with the history of the early Church, especially the works of the Apostolic Fathers, and those who understand that the early Church was continuous with what came before. You of course read the Scriptures differently than I do, but the Fathers are rather explicitly Catholic, both in name and in theological/liturgical substance.
Call yourself what you wish. You're either a denomination unto yourself, or else you have fellowship in an independent Protestant denomination, or else you belong to one of several "restorationist" denominations which claim to be non-denominational. Your very theological presuppositions are Protestant through and through. Solca Scriptura, for one. Talk about a chicken-and-egg scenario. You forget that Scripture is a product of the Church, not vice-versa.
As if people were just wandering around in spiritual ignorance before some book fropped down, magically from heaven, which they read, and said "O, gee! We need to start a religion based on this book!"
Jerryofva:
With all due respect, I'm afraid I must dissent from your reading of history. When the Church Fathers used the word "Catholic," they most certainly meant a visible institution, differentiated from other Christian denominations (Gnostics, Judaizers, Marcionites, Montanists, Novationists, Sabbelianists, etc.).
And besides, what's in a name? Strictly speaking, Catholics do not consider that the True Church has a name: she is simply The Church. For convention's sake, she has called herself "Catholic" since Apostolic times, but other names as well (The Way, Orthodox, etc.) according to time, place, and circumstance. Name aside, the early Church certainly was Catholic. The early orthodox Christians considered the Church to be a visible institution, united by common doctrines, a common worship, and a three-fold hierarchical leadership.
As well, Lutheran theology, on almost any point, is completely at odds with Eastern Christianity, so I don't know what point you're trying to make there. The Orthodox do not, and never have, affirmed "faith alone" in the Protestant sense, let alone anything remotely resembling consubstantiation, forensic justification, the theology of sacramental grace, etc.
I will concede that the criticisms I have respectfully leveled against Protestantism do not per se apply to the Orthodox Church, but only because (to my knowledge) there are no Orthodox participants in this discussion.
E. Winger:
I have tried to be respectful in this discussion, and sure hope to God that I do not have a superiority complex. And as a student of history, you surely know that Protestantism has no cleaner record vis-a-vis religious persecution than Catholics. Hundreds of our saints are venerated as martyrs to your religious principles.
Of course, if one belongs to a store-front do-it-yourself denomination founded five minutes ago, they can claim to be exempt from all scandal and persecutory tendencies. One of the benefits of starting your own religion, I suppose . . .
rita| 6.9.09 @ 6:46PM
The Anglican Church was founded on adultery--it is appropriate Father would join this faith tradition.
Eric Giunta | 6.9.09 @ 6:53PM
I often wonder where Fundamentalist Protestants, like Righteous Deacon, believe the Bible came from.
Historically speaking, the Christian Church preceded and produced the Scriptures, not the other way around. This is just so self-evident. The Bible was written by believers, for believers., and is clearly supplemental to the basic theological knowledge it presupposes.
Who recognized certain Christian works as inspired over others, and by what criteria? How do Protestants escape the fact that the New Testament canon did not receive its final form until post-Constantinian Catholic bishops (celibate, Mary-worshiping, transubstantiating bishops!) gave it such at synods convened in the late 4th century?
Anyone?
jerryofva| 6.9.09 @ 8:56PM
Eric
Have you ever read Martin Luther. To claim that his theology is at odds with the Eastern Church shows an astounding ignorance of either Lutheran or Orthodox theology.
If there is one true institutional Church it is the Eastern Church not the various denominations of the West Roman included.
John T. O'Connor | 6.9.09 @ 9:18PM
Not to make light of a serious dispute of faith, but the whole .
Father Cutie??
Where are his buddies, father Hottie and monsignor Flowernuts?? And the Episcopal Church welcomes this flower child priest with a celebration??
My god! Only in 21st century America.
Nick| 6.9.09 @ 9:22PM
jerryofva,
The Roman Catholic Church is the same Church Christ instituted at Cesarea Phillipi in the Gospel According to Saint Matthew, chapter 16. It is the same Church recorded in Saint Luke's Acts of the Apostles.
It is the same Church that has beaten back every heresy from Gnosticism all the way up to Modernism and liberation theology, because as Jesus told Cephas (Rock, Petros, Peter), "the gates of Hades shall not prevail against [the Church]." (Matthew 16:18)
My bishop, Archbishop Allen Vigneron of Detroit, has an unbroken succesion all the way back to the Apostles.
That means a bishop laid his hands upon Father Vigneron, to elevate him from priest to bishop (see Acts 6:1-6). That bishop himself had some other bishop lay their hands on his head to elevate him from priest to bishop. And that bishop was elevated by another bishop...and on and on...all the way back to one of the Apostles.
This is not moral superiority, it simply and humbly sharing the Truth of Christ.
God Bless!
Steve| 6.9.09 @ 10:56PM
You Protestants crack me up. The Church is ONE, not the 55,000 or so sects you idiots created. It is a simple matter of history that the Catholic Church is the Church founded by Christ. And yes, the New Testament was written by Catholics (inspired by God)and cannonized by the by the Bishop of Rome - otherwise known as the Pope. It didn't just fall from the sky, as so many of you think.
Hey Philoktetes, Constantine was not a Catholic, he was an idiot like you who was baptized an Arian on his death bed. But heck, you guys wouldn't know any of this because Protestants weren't around them. You guys, now standing at 55,000 sects or so, came centuries later.
Reason alone illustrates that Protestants are deniers of Christ's established church. You guys started your malignant growth with Luther, an insane priest, some 1500 years after Christ. So I guess Christ got it wrong? It took men like Luther, Calvin, and good old Henery VIII to get things going?
Hey Deacon Righteous, you are an idiot! To start with , stop calling yourself "Deacon Righteuos." You're not a deacon and you don't fit the meaning of righteous. You are in fact an elementarily trained anti-Catholic. Your logic is moronic. You seem to take pride in not being part of a denominational church. In other words, you believe what you want and do as you please, because you're weak. The essence of faith is obedience, and God demands total obedience. Anything else is a sin. But people like you can't live a life of obedience to God, because it is easier to go by your own rules. I don't no where you were educated, but the fact that Peter was the first in the long and continuing reign of popes has pretty much been settled by something called "factual history."
I'll retire to Bedlam!
JRS| 6.9.09 @ 11:34PM
Cathochick you are right, except for the ignorance of the Western church (notably the Irish immigrants) resulted in forced latinization and celibacy of the Eastern Rite Catholics in the US which has only been recently reversed (strongly at the encouragement of the late Bishop of Rome, Jonh Paul II). Being raised a Byzantine catholic who reverently attends Latin mass (due to convenience), I would consider myself highly traditional, so much so that I think the Roman church really should return to its roots and allow a married clergy. A celibate clergy is only an artificial event that developed well after the foundations of the church. From a practical manner, a married clergy would certainly be of benefit in areas such as marriage counseling as well as reverse the unfortunate appearance (partially true but mostly propagandized by the anti catholic media) that the ministry is a refuge of homosexuals and child molesters. There obviously would still be room (and definitely encourage) those who wish to enter a life of total devotion to the church, and I would think all hierarchy should be drawn from this group.
Protestant Bill| 6.10.09 @ 12:14AM
He's a cutie. Har har har. But seriously, why the fuck do any of you give a fuck about this? None of you are Catholics.
Paul Revere| 6.10.09 @ 12:44AM
Those of you who have come on here to play the Bill Maher "Catholic-Priest-child-molester" card -- since child abuse is quite obviously a sore subject with you, why don't you do something useful and call down to the governor of Oklahoma and ask him why he's not lifting a finger to go after that in-the-liberal-pocket judge who just gave a 1 year sentence to that repeat offending child molesting scumball? I guess what I'm trying to say is that your anger is misdirected. Just a thought.
M M | 6.10.09 @ 12:44AM
Aside from all of this theological/historical discussion & going back to Father Alberto...
Whether ANYone else believes in celibacy vows or not...when HE took the vow, HE believed in it...and promised GOD...that IS the issue...
Then, for 2 yrs, he broke it and continued in deceit as if nothing were going on..HE had NO issues with Catholicism at ALL ...until HE got caught.... THEN, AFTER getting caught, all of a sudden... he was questioning HIS vocation...NOT the Catholic celibacy vows, as HE explained himself... what any of US think is NOT the point.
Now, had he NOT got caught, WHERE would HE be at now? HINT: the answer IS NOT the Episcopalian church...HE would have stayed Catholic, IF HE could have...which became impossible, since his girlfriend is divorced AND he is a priest who took vows...NO ONE can break those for HIM...because a promise to God is not something anyone else can get in between.
However, he left in as much DECEIT as he lived in before...SAD! After he marries, IF he does, HE will discover that even having a woman, HE can still 'fall in love' with another, years down the road...and faithfulness is NOT easy for anyone these days. If he then decides to live in deceit again...Will that be acceptable too? If he TRULY 'falls in love'? Is that ALL that matters? The 'warm & fuzzies'? Hm,m....
Does someone's word and promise mean anything nowadays? I sure hope so!
Eric Giunta | 6.10.09 @ 1:45AM
jerryofva:
I confess that most of my knowledge of Luther comes from secondary sources (Catholic, Protestant, and otherwise), but I consider myself suitably well-read in the subject to know that Luther's theology was far, FAR from Orthodox. For what it's worth, I almost converted to the Orthodox Church several years ago, and so consider myself to have something of a good layman's knowledge in that faith tradition.
Conservative Lutherans themselves acknowledge this. For instance:
http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=2233
"The Eastern Orthodox Church views salvation as a process by which the Christian becomes more and more like God through a combination of faith and love, while the LCMS believes that a person is saved by God's grace alone through faith alone in Jesus Christ. Justification is a declaration of God's grace, not a 'process' involving a person's sanctification."
I also know that Luther's theology was rather eclectic; the earlier Luther was much more "Catholic" in his theology, and so more "Orthodox."
The only real commonality between Luther and the Orthodox is their mutual antipathy (to say the least) concerning the papal primacy of jurisdiction, and the shared anti-Catholicism. Luther may well have CLAIMED that he was one with the Eastern churches (I'd be interested if you would document this), but I would imagine this would be much like his early claim that he was reviving the teaching of St Augustine of Hippo.
Which of course is a fully assertion. Augustine of Hippo was thoroughly CATHOLIC in all his theological distinctives (as Luther himself later had to admit); the only thing he had in common with Luther was his doctrines of total depravity and double predestination, acceptable theses for a Catholic to hold during Augustine's lifetime, but anathematized soon after his death.
Speaking of which, surely you must know that the Orthodox are VERY ambivalent about the doctrine of original sin, to the point that they often claim the doctrine is a heretical Augustinianism. And they do so precisely because they conflate the Catholic teaching with classical Protestant orthodoxy, and through the baby out with the bath water.
Aside from the Biblical canon and a Chalcedonian Christology, what specific congruences would you possibly see between the Orthodox Church and Lutheranism? Shall we go dogma-by-dogma?
Sighter| 6.10.09 @ 3:18AM
Ahahaha the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus ahahahaha that's a good joke.
Michael Dooley| 6.10.09 @ 8:37AM
Mercy! We do get the vapors when we amateur Catholic and Protestant theologians get together! Our spiritual forefathers discussed their differences in their spare time in far more depth than anything written here. Our present leaders also lend far more respect to each other than is evident here. Perhaps it should be remembered that when the persecutors (be they Muslim, Communist, or some other) come after us they don't differentiate one from another. Catholics, the Orthodox and Protestants are all thrown into prison or shot in the back of the head together one and the same. Unfortunately, the persecutors are growing in number and in many more places. Like it or not, under the AK-47, hangman’s noose and boot, we who bear the name of Christ are all true brothers and sisters with one another.
Perhaps there are two things Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant may agree upon in the Cutie saga. 1.) It is dishonorable for a man to abandon his vows reject his beliefs because they get in the way of something he wants. [Don’t pretend that isn’t what happened] 2.) He could as least shown the decency to have waited to party with his bikini babe until AFTER he left the Catholic Church
respect to each other than evedent here. Perhaps it should be remembered that when the persecutors (be they Muslam, Communist, or some other ideology) come after us they don't differenicate one from another. Catholics, the Orthodox and Protestants are all thrown into prison or shot in the back of the head together.
Gumboz 1953| 6.10.09 @ 8:58AM
One poster says, above: "If you are not Catholic, you are not, in the full and proper sense of the word, Christian. You are a heretic and, for that reason, are hated by Christ. It doesn't matter how YOU feel about it or whether YOU doubt that Christ could hate you. "
Christ hates somebody? Whatever happened to all that "love your enemies" stuff?
What a hypocrite he was. Shucks.
nader paul kucinich gravel| 6.10.09 @ 9:18AM
Blood in the streets in the town of New Haven
Blood stains the roofs and the palm trees of Venice
Blood in my love in the terrible summer
Bloody red sun of Phantastic L.A.
Federal Reserve liars?
AIPAC liars?
911 liars?
Bluegrass Miriam| 6.10.09 @ 10:30AM
As a volunteer with international ministry Jews for Jesus, I'm noticing that commentors here are overlooking the fact that the New Testament is a Jewish book. Its basic theme is uniquely a Jewish one: the fulfillment of the messianic hope. In Matthew, gentile "wise men" recognize that the promised Deliverer is to be the "King of the Jews." During the early stages of the spread of the Gospel, the "good news" about the Messiah, it is only Jews and those gentiles under the influence of Judaism who are ready to receive the message about His coming.
In page after page of the New Testament, the literary treasure in which supreme authority is invested is the Hebrew Scriptures. When Y'shua (Jesus) and His followers intone "It is written" or "Thus saith the Lord," they are resting upon those Scriptures as the final court of appeal.
Jesus tells the Jewish leaders of His day, "You search the Scriptures...it is these that bear witness of Me." (John 5:39). Such passages, refering to Moses and the prophets, indicate that what is taking place is the fulfillment of the Jewish hope.
The New Testament is the vision of the ancient Hebrew prophets who proclaimed that God would bring the gentiles into the blessings of Israel through the Messiah. Y'shua and all of His earliest followers were Jewish, not Catholic or Episcopalian. Remember, the first big dispute of the (Jewish) Church was whether or not GENTILES could be saved through Messiah Y'shua -- God had to show Peter a vision three times before he finally got it: "Then has God ALSO to the gentiles granted repentance to life." (Acts 11: 18). (emphasis mine; I've taken these points from www.jewsforjesus.org, which I hope y'all will visit some time for more about this overlooked topic).
Eric Giunta | 6.10.09 @ 11:49AM
"Y'shua and all of His earliest followers were Jewish, not Catholic or Episcopalian."
Now we're tripping on semantics. Catholics consider that, spiritually speaking, they ARE Jewish, and that their Church is the institutional successor to Biblical Judaism.
Whether one goes out of their way to call Jesus "Yeshua" is not a lithmus test for orthodoxy, nor is one's ethnicity (there are, by the way, Hebrew Catholics).
"Jews for Jesus" are themselves just another Evangelical Protestant denominations, teaching and preaching the same Protestant doctrines as other Evangelicals. Very little that is Jewish about them, save their penchant for Hebrew and some Jewish ritual.
Nick| 6.10.09 @ 12:19PM
Bluegrass Miriam,
I am completely aware of the Jewishness of the New Testament. I have been discovering this treasure for the past decade.
As a Roman Catholic, I consider myself a Spititual Semite, the fulfillment of all that God promised in the Old Testament.
My Faith in Christ has led me to conclude that it is only logical to believe Jesus founded ONE Church, not the estimated 40,000 fractured denominations we have today.
When I say Christ instituted the Catholic Church, all I mean is the church Jesus founded, circa A.D. 30, is still here; it is now known as the Roman Catholic Church.
Back in the first century A.D., worshipers of Christ were simply called Christains.The only way to know if you were getting the One, True Faith was to know what connection the church leader had to the Apostles. Like Saint Peter did in the Acts of the Apostles, his successor (guided by the Holy Spirit) settled all disputes.
It is in the Apostle's Creed that we find the words: "I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy Catholic Church".
Bluegrass Miriam| 6.10.09 @ 12:30PM
Eric G., on what basis do you claim that folks in Jews for Jesus have "very little that is Jewish about them"? About whom are you speaking in particular? Not the young Jewish believer with whom I worked on a recent witnessing outreach, whose Ukrainian grandfather, a rabbi, was shot to death in the doorway of his synagogue by members of a nearby Russian Orthodox church. I doubt you have bothered to speak with any of the Jews for Jesus staff members I know, who have suffered rejection by their own families for the sake of following Jesus. You're quick to write off Jews for Jesus; why not phone any of the branch offices listed at their Web site and actually talk to one or two about their Jewishness and their love for their Messiah?
Dave| 6.10.09 @ 2:44PM
Why are people fighting about issues that go back 500 years? "We are the real church." "No, you are the whore of Babylon and we are the real church!" The whole argument is pathetic. I see nothing wrong with this priest discerning that he can no longer maintain his vow of celibacy but he went about it in an underhanded way. He should have petitioned the Vatican to be released from his vows. He should not have been presenting himself as a RC priest when he was discerning a calling to leave its priesthood. He should have been forthcoming with his Bishop and should be ashamed of the scandal he has caused.
Eric Giunta | 6.10.09 @ 2:45PM
Miriam:
I do not for a moment doubt the Hebrew ethnicity, or the love of that ethnicity, by the so-called "Jews for Jesus," nor did I mean to cast aspersion on their devotion to Jesus Christ. I apologize if I gave this impression, though I don't see how my words could have left it.
My point is that their THEOLOGY is thoroughly Protestant, not Jewish, and as far as I've been able to tell indistinguishable from that of other Evangelical Protestants. For instance, they profess the doctrines of sola scriptura and sola fides, doctrines which are both characteristically unJewish.
And as I noted, within my own Church are many converts from Judaism. You might say they are the original "Jews for Jesus". See:
http://www.salvationisfromthejews.com/
ROB| 6.10.09 @ 3:54PM
Joyce had it right when he included the doggeral: The Anglican faith, founded on the bollocks of Henry VII. When asked if he had turned Protestant, he responded " lost my faith not my reason". But to JRS I suppose we can categorize him among the "ignorant" Irish.
Read your Bible| 6.10.09 @ 4:32PM
ASS Bandits, Whore of Babylon, RC. You have a one way ticket to HELL!
Take the Pope with you. Nazi YOUTH, and still don't get it!
TSD| 6.10.09 @ 7:38PM
Well, it appears that the actions of this priest did not affect ecumenical relations. Obviously the situation is horrid without his help. As for the hateful comments spilling forth on this page - my, how very Christian. It is the antithesis of Christianity to spew this kind of venom and to suppose that your way is the "right way" and all others are doomed. My, my - the afterlife will probably be quite a shock to those with such narrow and hateful views.
Bluegrass Miriam| 6.10.09 @ 7:57PM
Eric, I'm glad that you know and love some Jewish believers in Jesus. Faith alone, and Scripture alone, are very Jewish concepts in the Bible. Jesus warned against substituting the traditions of men for the word of God. It was by looking in faith to the bronze serpent in the wilderness that the Israelites were saved, as Jesus Himself said (John 3:14-15), to give just one example. It is rabbinic Judaism that puts much more weight on tradition and the keeping of certain laws. As for conversion, I'd say that Jewish believers in Jesus are converted sinners, not converted Jews. (As are all believers.) And "convert" in Scripture means "to bring back," "turn back," or "refresh" -- turning back toward God is a good thing, to be sure. It is Protestant theology that follows biblical Judaism, and so it has much in common with messianic Judaism, for they both take Scripture as Gospel. Accept no substitutes!
Pingback| 6.11.09 @ 12:55AM
Florida’s Kissing Priest Ignites Catholic-Episcopal Row « Joel Osteen Blog links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Bluegrass Miriam| 6.11.09 @ 9:36AM
A follow-up point or two for Eric and Nick:
It is modern, rabbinic Judaism that has strayed from the Bible, not messianic Judaism. Leviticus 17:11 insists that blood is necessary for the atonement of sin; there is nothing in Scripture that says that God has repealed that requirement. Until the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D., the Jewish people obeyed that command and made blood sacrifices in the Temple (and no, Micah 6:8 doesn't prove it isn't necessary -- Micah never advocated the stopping of blood sacrifice in the Temple). Jesus' disciples and followers understood that His was the ultimate blood sacrifice required by God, which is why they referred to Him as "our Passover Lamb." They understood that anyone who painted the doorposts of their hearts with His blood (through faith) would be passed over by the Angel of Death, when it came to eternal judgment for their sins. But rabbinic Judaism was unwilling to accept Jesus and His sacrifice, and so, with no Temple in which to offer animal sacrifices, the rabbis began telling their people that offering prayers (without that sacrifice), doing good deeds and obeying religious laws would be enough to merit salvation.
Messianic Jews (whose numbers have included British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli, composer Felix Mendelssohn, and planetary astronomer William Hershel) have gratefully accepted God's ultimate blood atonement, the death of Jesus, and so are following biblical Judaism.
Ministries such as Jews for Jesus are doing what Andrew did in John 1:41 -- proclaiming to Jews (and gentiles) "We have found the Messiah!" That, too, is a very biblical thing to do.
Eric Giunta | 6.11.09 @ 10:23AM
Miriam:
The problem, once again, is that all these so-called "Messianic Jews" in fact read the Gospel through the lens of 16th century theological revisionism, and so read "sola scriptura" into verses that clearly do not teach them.
Jesus' controversies with the Pharisees weren't really theological, as they were with the Sadducees. Jesus, rather, condemned the Pharisees for their ostentatious hypocrisies, putting traditions of men over those of God insofar as they insisted on following the letter of their ecclesial enactments over and against their intended spirit.
But Jesus never for a moment contested the authority of the Jewish leaders to make such enactments, nor did he rebuke them for holding doctrines that were not explicitly "Biblical" (the resurrection of the body, the immortality of the soul, etc.).
In any event, to throw onto Christ the doctrine of sola scriptura is ludicrous. For one thing, the "Scriptures" as we Christians know them did not exist in Jesus' day, and the canon of the Tanakh was itself far from settled.
And more fundamentally, the Scriptures themselves do not teach "sola scriptura," nor could they logically. Judaism preceded the Scriptures, just as Christianity preceded the Christian New Testament. Not vice-versa. In Scripture itself, the phrase "word of God" NEVER refers to the Bible, much less "the Bible alone," nor COULD it, as "The Bible" as we know it wasn't even in existence, nor does the Bible come with an inspired table of contents to tell us what works make up Scripture.
I could go on, but I think the point is clear. Protestant Christianity is the only religion on the planet that has a doctrine of "sola scriptura," and that only because of the ecclesial amnesia that its denominations have concerning the history of the writing and canonization of their sacred texts.
Richard Baker| 6.11.09 @ 1:30PM
And we should be surprised that the mainline Protestant denominations do this sort of thing? Look at just the recent past and secularism pervades these churches. As a Catholic I decry my Church when it sins but keep noticing that it makes changes when it should, forced or otherwise. The Protestant denominations seem to shrug the shoulder and move on to the next one. Perfection is impossible on this Earth, true, but the goal is to keep trying and not give up trying to "fight the feelin'".
Pingback| 6.11.09 @ 3:27PM
An honest assessment of Catholic-Episcopal row ignited by Florida’s ‘kissing priest’ links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Mike Wright| 6.14.09 @ 11:55AM
Oh please! Give it a rest. The Catholic church has no moral high ground on the sexual ethics of its clergy. Look back over the past few years and see the BILLION dollars the church is spendng to silence those victimized by predator priests.
I'm a cradle catholic who is getting ready to switch to the Episcopal church because I cannot stand the virulent all or nothing sanctimonious judging by the othodox catholics on issues of sexuality and the smothering chauvanism of the church hierarchy. I have been obedient but I don't agree so why stay.
I call on all my fellow Catholic progressives to go to an Episcopal church service, talk to an episcopal priest and see that it truly can be a new home!
Episcochick| 6.14.09 @ 10:14PM
Great post Mike and very kind as well I might add. The name of the book that gives and in depth historical account of sexual abuse in the Roman Church over the called, "Sex, Priests, and Secret Codes." It's the Richard Sipes book I mentioned in the above post. And I was also a cradle Catholic educated in Catholic seminary, Catholic College, and Catholic High School. I spent five years in religious life in a very fine community but found I was not called to celibacy. I know how difficult it can be if one is not called to that vocation and to assume that a young who has a vocation to priesthood also has a vocation to celibacy is arrogance and unfair to the young man. My brother in law is a Franciscan Priest and a really great guy. We get together often because we are in the same state. Currently in our diocese there is a young man who left the Roman Seminary to come to the Episcopal Church but he had to figure that out on his own. NO one in that seminary even considered that he was not called to celibacy. Catholics are mad not because this guy broke his vows but because he is human. When this priest was flying high, everyone clergy and laity put him on a pedestal making and idol out of him. When they found out he was human like the rest of us, suddenly everyone is pissed off. I suspect the reason he fell in love with this woman is because she treated him like the human being that he is. Of the Four men who were ordained from my Seminary class, two are in the Episcopal church leaving at about the same age as FR. Cutie. Another order priest from that same diocese left as well. He was a golden boy just like Fr. Cutie but he is a much humbler man for having married and having three daughter. Nobody is perfect. God Bless you Mike , I'm happy you found a new home.
Nick| 6.16.09 @ 12:22AM
Hey Episcochick,
How about answering my questions?
Adult Toys | 9.14.09 @ 3:54PM
Dogma is so tired. Give it a rest already.
Adult Toys
Trackback| 9.24.09 @ 10:03AM
Homeowner Insurance, on Homeowner Insurance, links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Copy Xbox 360 Games | 12.18.09 @ 10:25PM
hello admin, I found your blog from yahoo and read a few of your other posts.They are awesome. Please keep it up!!
_____________________________________
copy xbox 360 games
MARCIA SMITH| 2.25.10 @ 1:59PM
The only reason that Catholic priests are celibate is not from the Bible but from medival times when the Catholic Church was literally insane. Popes, cardinals and priests for ages had had children in and out of wedlock. The Church did not want any fortunes made in the clergy's lifetime to be willed to children/family and not the Church. Therefore, celibate priests left the bulk of (if not all of) their fortunes to the Church. Celibacy has been touted as a sacrifice that a priest must make (which should be a personal willing sacrifice between he and God), but its origin is really due to Church economics.
poptropica| 4.9.10 @ 11:53PM
You can see how to do this in the videos, but basically you need to jump up when the Hydra is about to strike. He will rear one of his heads back to attack and his eyes will bulge out.
Poptropica
When this happens, jump up in the air and then try to land on top of his head. That head will get knocked out. When all five heads get knocked out, the Hydra will be asleep and you can click on him to get one of the scales. poptropica
I’ll have a full written walkthrough very soon, but in the meantime, here are some answers to some of the frequently asked questions about Mythology Island. Having trouble? Post a question in the comments and I’ll try to answer it!poptropica
Getting Hercules to Help You
Hercules won’t help you until you have all five items from Zeus’ quest. poptropica
Once you have the five items, bring them to Athena. Zeus will appear and steal them. The big jerk! Once this happens, talk to Athena and she will tell you that Hercules will help you.
Poptropica
. You’ll need to have the magic mirror from Aphrodite because Hercules doesn’t want to have to walk. He’s so lazy!
Getting the Hydra Scale
You can see how to do this in the videos, but basically you need to jump up when the Hydra is about to strike. He will rear one of his heads back to attack and his eyes will bulge out.Poptropica When this happens, jump up in the air and then try to land on top of his head. That head will get knocked out. When all five heads get knocked out, the Hydra will be asleep and you can click on him to get one of the scales. poptropica
Jewel| 12.30.10 @ 5:19PM
Jesus said, "love one another". Stop judging Fr. Alberto C.; look at the log in your eyes before you point at his. If you do not believe this, then, you did not read or follow God's command as said in the Holy Bible; stop ridiculing him. Fr. Alberto is just a man in love and his behavior is between him and God to discuss.