-
Soros Funds Anti-‘Torture’ Report
May 17, 2013 | 105 comments
-
Transsexual Flights from Reality
May 3, 2013 | 91 comments
-
State Funerals and Christendom
April 23, 2013 | 12 comments
-
The Hero of Star Wars
April 19, 2013 | 45 comments
-
Margaret Thatcher the Methodist
April 9, 2013 | 38 comments
A Further Perspective
Occupying Churches
Anything to boost attendance, cynics would say.
With fewer and fewer people attending the spiraling Episcopal Church, some prelates seem to see opening the doors to Wall Street Occupiers as a potential solution.
Since Occupiers lost their protest encampment at Boston’s Dewey Square, the Episcopal Diocese of Massachusetts has hospitably opened the doors of its Cathedral Church of St. Paul to the Occupiers to perpetuate the “conversation” about social justice.
“The issues raised by the Occupy movement are important to be discussing in society, and so I’m happy to offer our cathedral to provide hospitality and a venue so those conversations can continue,” enthusiastically chimed cathedral dean the Very Reverend Jep Streit. According the diocesan website, Occupation “general assemblies” would begin at the cathedral on December 13 and would continue three times a week.
At such a rate, perhaps Occupation rallies will become more frequent at the cathedral than worship services. Or perhaps for leftist “social justice” churches, demonstrations for governmentally orchestrated massive income redistribution are themselves a form of worship.
The Episcopal cathedral in Boston seems to resemble what comedian Flip Wilson once spoofed in the early 1970s as the “Church of What’s Happening Now.” Rev. Strait boasts on his cathedral website that this church named for the Apostle Paul resembles a “United Nations gathering” and holds weekly Muslim prayer meetings. One canon priest, he notes, is quite “disciplined” in yoga practice. And “ancient church traditions” mix with “urban grooves” at the cathedral’s “emerging church worship community.” No doubt.
Meanwhile, the rector at historic and very wealthy Trinity Episcopal Church at Wall Street in New York recently observed, somewhat defensively, that his church has “probably done as much or more for the protestors than any other institution in the area.” Trinity has given the Occupiers “meeting rooms and offices” for assemblies, private discussion, computer use, cell phone charging, and bathroom visits, he announced. “Hundreds” of these young class warriors have availed themselves of Trinity Church’s radical hospitality but apparently are not satisfied.
“We disagree with those who argue that Trinity should—indeed, must as a matter of conscience—allow Occupy Wall Street to liberate its Duarte Square lot at Avenue of the Americas and Canal Street for an open encampment and large scale assemblies,” protested the Rev. Dr. James H. Cooper. “In all good conscience and faith, we strongly believe to do so would be wrong, unsafe, unhealthy and potentially injurious.”
Rev. Cooper complained of Occupiers who have vandalized church property even while demanding access to it. “Calling this an issue of ‘political sanctuary’ is manipulative and blind to reality,” he reasonably surmised. “Equating the desire to seize this property with uprisings against tyranny is misguided,” Cooper fumed, citing “hyperbolic distortion” by grandstanding Occupiers seeking arrest. Apparently political correctness has limits, even in the Episcopal Church.
This Saturday, the Occupiers plan a “non-violent” occupation of Trinity Church’s Duarte Square, against which the church rector has threatened police action. Naturally, a retired Episcopal bishop will join the Occupiers. “Trinity might mobilize platoons of police in riot gear and ring this sad little space with multiple barricades,” bemoaned Bishop George Packard. “No room in this Inn!” Denouncing Trinity Church as “profoundly wrong,” he likened the potential confrontation to “some mythological drama out of C.S. Lewis.”
Located at the heart of the original Wall Street Occupation, Trinity Church, even if perhaps the Episcopal denomination’s richest congregation, can only afford so much patience and will risk the “drama.” In contrast, the Episcopal cathedral in Seattle has offered property to the Occupation. All these ecclesial hugs for the Occupy movement are just fine with Episcopal Presiding Bishop Katherine Jefferts Schori. In a recent sermon at the Episcopal cathedral in St. Louis, she compared the Occupiers to the communal generosity of Jesus’ Disciples. Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, titular head of the Anglican Communion, has likewise embraced Occupiers in Britain with mystic terminology, despite the mishaps encamped Occupiers have inflicted on St. Paul’s Cathedral in London.
Leftist prelates internationally have identified with Occupy Wall Street. The head of the Geneva-based World Communion of Reformed Churches (WCRC) pronounced in a lecture at Princeton University last month that John Calvin would have backed the Occupation. “I am sure he would have been in the streets of New York or London with a placard,” asserted WCRC General Secretary Setri Nyomi. “Calvin expressed opposition to all forms of social oppression resulting from money,” the Reformed theologian reportedly insisted.
Similarly, the top Capitol Hill-based lobbyist for The United Methodist Church declared that John Wesley would have supported the Occupation. “There is no question in my mind that Wesley would have protested greed and the neglect of the poor,” said Jim Winkler of the General Board of Church and Society. “He would support the goals.” Doubtless plenty of liberal Catholics also think St. Francis of Assisi would be encamped in Washington, D.C.’s McPherson Square or blocking traffic on K Street.
The prelates and theologians who eagerly invest Occupy Wall Street with transcendent authority almost all share a common spiritual ennui. No longer enlivened by the drama of their own faith’s teachings about divine redemption, they instead look for excitement in the bedraggled camps of unemployed twenty-somethings a fraction of their own age. The Occupiers will eventually get bored with their own tedium and move on. But will their ecclesial admirers?
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 (72) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Mark Tooley
More Articles From A Further Perspective
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/12/16/occupying-churches
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
Timothy L. Pennell| 12.16.11 @ 6:56AM
And that's what Church is for. It's for RADICALISM. It's for Black Liberation Theology: "GODDAMN AMERICA!" It's for Church Orders, like the JESUITS, who spent the entire 70's and 80's, Blessing the BULLETS of the Sandinistas and the Shining Path, and every other MARXIST GROUP, that CHRIST might guide them to their targets, as they waged War in South America.
Church has become a place for SOCIAL CHANGE. We have Lesbians, and Openly Gay Priests, these days, giving us weekly services on the Wages of SIN, and the Joy of Gay Marriage.
In the Catholic Church, they are not so Out of the Confessional. (If you get my drift) They don't allow their Priest to Marry a Woman, so their ranks are filled with Homosexuals, and we all know how that's working out.
Occupy is a MARXIST Organization. For all of those with short Memories? (Pay attention JESUITS. This concerns YOU) Marxists don't believe in God. In fact, the closest thing to a Marxist, would be the ROMANS, who used to CHEER, as the Christians were fed to the Lions, in the Colosseum.
If you can't fill your Churches? Perhaps you should take heed, of what CHRIST told his Apostles: "Men shall know you by the Company you keep."
Indeed.
TrueBlue| 12.16.11 @ 12:41PM
Not to say that what they're doing is right (it's not), but the percentage of American priests in general even accused of rape is MUCH lower than the rest of the country (about 20x more likely from a family member/friend and 50x more likely by a stranger). Catholic priests specifically is actually slightly lower than Protestant priests (though not by much) but any Christian priest that is accused almost always gets called Catholic by the media. They're held to a higher standard because of their position (as they should be) but they are still only human.
Definitely in agreement with you on the subject of the various social change types in churchs though, it's why I shy away from organized religion as a whole.
Jacob R| 12.17.11 @ 9:25AM
Alright bud. I'll bite, you shy away from religion because you're so righteous.
It has nothing to do with laziness or fear of offending your friends I'm sure!
There are plenty of traditional churches that don't partake in this nonsense.
You don't have to like church, but don't BS us!
Patrick| 12.16.11 @ 2:35PM
To begin with, please stay on topic. This is about the lunacy of the Episcopalian Church, the biweekly Catholic controversy is elsewhere.
However, since you went there, let's have at it. So, you read a "Call to Action" pamphlet and maybe a Chick tract and now you know everything wrong with the Catholic Church now? Your blinding ignorance towards the actual data and causes of the various problems in the Catholic church is readily evident.
As for the Jesuit Order, it is dying out. Don't pay them any attention, as their place as the vanguard of orthodoxy has been vacated for decades.
Jacob R| 12.17.11 @ 9:26AM
Be careful Patrick. DHS doesn't like these kinds of statements about fanatical Roman Catholics.
A lot of these pagans and their friends would lynch you for far less!
Margie| 12.17.11 @ 12:44PM
Riiiight, Jacob~ while Patrick the RC trashes Christians in the same breath!
The hypocrisy of the Papists is blinding.
You see, the RC's believe their Apostate Religion is the ONLY TRUE RELIGION, therefore they are "permitted" to trash Christians (Catholicism isn't Christianity), as they please.
But my, oh my~ Christians are nothing but lunatics!
After all, we stand on Scripture!
Off with our heads!
OOps~ they the Papists already enjoyed doing that for six centuries, but shhhh! Don'r bring THAT up.
Clint| 12.17.11 @ 8:00PM
American Spectator's resident Joisey White Trash Anti-Catholic Bigot Pig, Margie's In The Building.
Now Tell All The Practicing Jews & Muslims Where You Say They Go When They Die, Apocalyptic Crank Lady Bigot Margie.
You're Up Coward Truth Teller.
Margie| 12.18.11 @ 4:26PM
When you make any sense, it'll be a sure sign of your repentance from your Religious Idolatry to a living Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.
Till then, your spewing of filth and lies and utter hypocrisy will continue to reveal just who and WHAT you truly are!
race_to_the_bottom| 12.17.11 @ 5:50PM
Tim sez, "Occupy is a MARXIST Organization"
Tim, I know political science is not your strong point, but Occupy is anything BUT Marxist. In fact, it has a very strong ANARCHIST element. Anarchist, NOT Marxist. Anarchism is a middle class ideology. Marxism is a working class ideology. Bakunin, the anarchist, was kicked out of the first international by the Marxists. in 1872. They were in conflict during the Spanish Civil War.
Anarchist meetings are characterized by a touchy-feely need to achieve "consensus". A small minority can thwart the will of the majority. Marxist organizations make decisions like pretty much any other organization. Majority rule.
Bankers and their supporters should be happy that the anarchists are running things, rather than the Marxists, especially the Stalinists. They will engage in endless meetings, which working people have not patience for, street theater, minor vandalism, etc. A lot of sturm und drang. They have no real track record of leading any movements which changed society in any lasting way. In fact, it can be useful to plant a few in every organization which attempts to change things so as to gum up the works. If no anarchists are available, Trotskyites will work too.
The Marxists, on the other hand, have a long track record of involvement and leadership in most of the movements of the 20th century which changed our society, the women's, civil rights, labor movements in the first place, without which Michele Bachmann could not begin to think of running for president. Herman Cain too. Ironic, isn't it. Their ideological forefathers fought against allowing people like them to even carry the luggage of a white man.
Timothy L. Pennell| 12.18.11 @ 9:19AM
Splitting Hairs again, I see. That would appear to be your Strong Point. They're BOTH, Dumb*ss.
Your last paragraph is like a Self Portrait. Such praise for a Political System responsible for the MURDER of so many MILLIONS of innocent people, by their own Benevolent Marxist Overseers. Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro, Pol Pot, close your eyes and throw a Dart at Africa.
Thank you, for that little Autobiography.
And, don't forget: Merry ARBEIT MACHT FREI to you, and yours.
Clint| 12.17.11 @ 8:09PM
Do Your Homework.
" The Associated Press reported recently that three insurance companies receive upward of 260 reports each year of young people under 18 being sexually abused by Protestant clergy, challenging the assumption that clergy sexual abuse is an exclusively Catholic problem that does not take place in other churches.
That is a higher number than the annual average of 228 “credible accusations” brought against Catholic clerics in records reported by the Catholic Church in response to media scrutiny, a priest observed in a Fox News commentary questioning why the story isn’t garnering more attention. "
Ken (Old Texican)| 12.16.11 @ 6:57AM
Mark,
I have an idea. Why don't you guys set up an online Church?
You could offer carrioki choir hymns and we could sing along...
You could pick especially meaningful prayers and post them...
etc etc...
Margie| 12.16.11 @ 3:29PM
Struck a nerve or something, Ken?
Anthony| 12.16.11 @ 7:42AM
Moral relativism is a disease that can be caught anytime, anywhere. It causes spiritual weakness, which results in the death of the human spirit.
American Christian Churches, like the American Left in general, have lost their core values, or worse, are ashamed of their core values, hence, are substituting Marxist bromides for traditional Christian values. Apparently, the Bible has been replaced by The Communist Manifesto and Rules for Radicals.
If one did a graph of both American Leftism and American Christian Churches, they would match perfectly.
When the moral and religious pillars of our culture collapse, is it any wonder that America finds itself dying under the presidency of a Muslim Marxist?
race_to_the_bottom| 12.17.11 @ 8:59PM
Hey Tony, Marxists are atheists, donchano? Muslims have more in common with Christians and Jews than Marxists.
sjccoach| 12.16.11 @ 8:06AM
More proof that everything the left touches it destroys. When you believe in nothing you'll believe in anything. The leftist clergy, don't forget the Catholic Bishop, don't believe their doctrine anymore. So instead of Christianity we get Marxism.
Jacob R| 12.17.11 @ 9:28AM
You do realize that the Catholic Church is the strongest single defender of the majority of values that conservatives consider paramount?
Jacob R| 12.17.11 @ 9:29AM
I disagree with Mexican bishops about immigration.
But when the pope is said to be talking about wealth redistribution, he's talking about charity. (Unfortunately modern pagans no longer acknowledge that there is such a word as 'charity'.)
Martin Owens| 12.16.11 @ 10:03AM
" No longer enlivened by the drama of their own faith's teachings about divine redemption, they instead look for excitement in the bedraggled camps of unemployed twenty-somethings a fraction of their own age"
Is this spiritual pederasty?
Nina| 12.16.11 @ 10:14AM
Religion is a man made agenda. They can change the wording to fit with it whenever they want. I was raised Episcopalian, my mom must be rolling over in her grave at this. I do not attend church because I can't find one that has not got it's hand out for itself...not a religion with man made rules and regulations and man's idea of the interpretation of the bible. When they can change the wording of a prayer to fit with popular thought or when the Catholic church can remove books from the bible, that tells me it's a man made "religion". I believe in God and I have faith in God, but unfortunately, over time my faith in my fellow human beings has faded...
Now that being said, this is a church where people are allowed to enter and seek sanctuary. Not that I agree with this crowd getting a free pass so to speak, since they should have already been done and over with, go home already! But having a mayor on their side, they get away with still being out there disrupting hard working people and businesses. So, yeah, let the church take them in...
Tony in Central PA| 12.16.11 @ 9:19PM
Whoa ! What books did the Catholic Church remove from the Bible ?
markenoff| 12.17.11 @ 1:01AM
Maybe he watches too much Discovery or History Channel and thinks the unauthentic gospels of Peter, Thomas and Mary Magdalene were once accepted as canonical books.
Jacob R| 12.17.11 @ 9:36AM
Nail on the head! Too much History Channel and Discovery shock shows about how everything we clingers believe is just a part of a fanciful myth that the mostly poor and destitute people who wrote it somehow coordinated across centuries to enslave our minds.
Somehow we're capable of often defeating secularists at debates, yet at the same time we believe purely in utter nonsense. Pagans believe this and that we're all man gods or magically appeared from nothingness, but we're the whackos for believing that God made the universe!
(This reminds me of how MTV is like a cool 13 year old who stopped capitalizing God to prove a point that mom can't tell me what music video I watch! What an absolutely pathetic era we live in! The era of manchildren.)
race_to_the_bottom| 12.17.11 @ 9:18PM
Hey Jake, You need to see some Richard Dawkins videos. He makes mincemeat of theists every day.
"but we're the whackos for believing that God made the universe!"
Yes you are.
Who created god? Modern physics shows there is no need for a god to explain the existance of the Universe. Of course, the "science" as taught in fundamentalist Christian "schools" has ignored this because it kicks the props out from under their Bronze Age creation myths.
Nick| 12.18.11 @ 3:13AM
Richard Dawkins is a pathetic, foolish soul.
Like his deity, Darwin.
Margie| 12.18.11 @ 4:27PM
And you are a foolish, lying Reprobate.
Like your Father the Devil.
Atom&Yves;| 12.18.11 @ 3:56PM
@already_at_the_bottom, watch 'Proving God'. There are atheist (and theist) physicists, and scientists from many fields of study, collaborating/searching for the answer to, "Does God exist?" So, your comment, "Modern physics shows there is no need for a god to explain the existance of the Universe" is not only patently false, but also displays your notable lack of knowledge on current research being done. Will science remain your god, if science proves God exists? Really, son, watch the program.
LOL. Watch the program.
Tony in Central PA| 12.19.11 @ 9:05PM
Actually, among the various scientific disciplines today, physicists are the most likely subgroup to believe in God.
" Modern physics " is apparently in need of convincing some modern physicists.
Mike Hawk| 12.17.11 @ 9:43AM
Those 'books' have been shown to have been assembled in the last 150 years. They werenever a part of the religous compendium known as the Bible.
Patrick| 12.19.11 @ 4:18AM
While you are correct in noting that they had never been Christian canon, these and many other false gospels were extant in ancient times. Of course, they were rejected in ancient times by the Christians as well for being clearly heretical and non-Apostolic in origin.
Nick| 12.17.11 @ 12:16AM
Nina,
Your Christian catechesis seems to have been riddled with error, if you believe that the Catholic Church removed books from the Bible.
I would encourage you to read the Apostolic Fathers. Read the writings of Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp, Irenaeus, and Justin Martyr. These men were taught by the Apostles, or, by those who were taught by the Apostles.
And pray! Pray to the Holy Spirit on how to come closer to God and know what His plan is for you.
Merry Christmas and God Bless!
p.s. Here's a link to find these early Church Fathers:
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/
Margie| 12.17.11 @ 12:49PM
Beware of RC's that bear false witness against the brethren in Christ.
Nick is a lying Papist who denies the Inquisitions and the murder of Christians for six centuries by his cult.
He calls those Christian Martyrs heretics, like the good Papist that he is.
And beware the false teachings of most of those so-called "early church Fathers", as the lot of them were papists themselves and heretical.
Make sure when reading them you have a Bible in your other hand to compare with what they say!
Nick| 12.18.11 @ 3:19AM
Margie,
Show me one lie I have posted, here, at AmSpec? You cannot. Also, I have never denied the Inquisitions, ever.
The Fathers were only taught by....the Apostles.
Of course, you know better than they did, correct?
"Make sure when reading them you have a Bible in your other hand to compare with what they say!"
How would you know? You've never taken the time to read them, anyway. Maybe if you did, prayerfully, you would learn something.
God Bless!
Margie| 12.18.11 @ 4:29PM
The "Early Church Fathers" at least many of them that I have read seemed to think they knew better than THE SCRIPTURES!
Repent, Religious Idolator and blasphemer and utter, utter hypocrite!
Nick| 12.19.11 @ 1:16AM
Margie,
The "Early Church Fathers" at least many of them that I have read seemed to think they knew better than THE SCRIPTURES!
No, you seem to think that you know better than men who were taught by the Apostles Simon Kephas, John, and Paul. Like Saints Polycarp, Papias, and Ignatius. And, those who were taught by them, like Irenaeus and Justin Martyr.
Such arrogance.
Besides, anyone who has read the early Church Fathers can see that you have not. You couldn't even keep Ignatius and Origen straight, remember?
God Bless!
Margie| 12.18.11 @ 4:40PM
"How would you know? You've never taken the time to read them, anyway. Maybe if you did, prayerfully, you would learn something.
God Bless!"
What a snake!
You dare to bless me by the God that you blaspheme?
After you lie and misrepresent both me and the Scriptures?
Your conscience is seared~ you have not one!
Nick| 12.19.11 @ 1:23AM
Margie,
I do not blaspheme the Most Holy God. Quit saying that I do. I love the LORD with my whole heart and with my whole soul and with my whole mind. And, I love my neighbor as myself.
These are the two Great Commandments. Try living them, for a change.
May God Bless you, and Victor, during this Holy Season!
Margie| 12.19.11 @ 1:33PM
"..since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.." Rom. 3:23.
Then have you repented of your unbelief?
You said yesterday that Paul was just generalizing when he said this, and that it didn't include Mary.
Your cult teaches what you believe, but it is against the Holy Spirit, against God.
Have you repented of your thinking and forsaken it, and now believe the Word of God, spoken through His appointed Apostle?
If not, then you do NOT love Jesus, truly, and are in danger of Hell, because as you know, Jesus COMMANDS us to BELIEVE HIS WORDS and HIS GOSPEL, and He tells us who it is that love Him:
"He who does not love Me does not keep My Words; and the Word which you hear is not Mine but the Father's who sent Me." Jn. 14:24.
"Jesus answered him, "If a man loves Me, he will keep My Word, and my Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him." Jn. 14:23.
Repent, Nick~ and then you will have a standing to tell me something.
Nick| 12.20.11 @ 12:40AM
Margie,
"You said yesterday that Paul was just generalizing when he said this, and that it didn't include Mary."
Yes, Saint Paul was generalizing. Was Jesus included in "all"? No, He was not. So, there were exceptions; all did not mean "ALL".
Therefore, if there was one exception, there could have been two, or, many more. And there were many more. Are infants included when Paul says all have sinned? How can an infant sin?
Paul uses the Greek pantes for all, in Romans 3:23. He uses the same word, pantes, in Romans 5:12, as you quoted at 12.19.11 @ 1:54PM, below. Now, since Enoch and Elijah did not die, pantes does not mean "ALL", as you keep asserting. There are exceptions.
Finally, if you had kept reading Romans 5, you would have seen that Paul wrote this, in verse 19:
"For as by the disobedience of one man, many were made sinners: so also by the obedience of one, many shall be made just."
Was Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, contradicting himself? How do you explain this apparent contradiction?
You should be trying to listen to the message that the Holy Spirit is giving you, through these writings of Paul; not trying to find proof-texts to try to prove that the Catholic Church is wrong. This is not how the Word of God is to be applied.
God Bless!
Margie| 12.19.11 @ 1:38PM
"Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven." Mt. 12:31.
Nick| 12.20.11 @ 12:55AM
Margie,
You don't even know what "blasphemy against the Holy Spirit" is.
From the Catholic Encyclopedia:
The sin or blasphemy against the Holy Ghost is mentioned in Matthew 12:22-32; Mark 3:22-30; Luke 12:10 (cf. 11:14-23); and Christ everywhere declares that it shall not be pardoned. In what does it consist? If we examine all the passages alluded to, there can be little doubt as to the reply.
Let us take, for instance, the account given by St. Matthew which is more complete than that of the other Synoptics. There had been brought to Christ "one possessed with a devil, blind and dumb: and he healed him, so that he spoke and saw". While the crowd is wondering, and asking: "Is not this the Son of David?", the Pharisees, yielding to their wonted jealousy, and shutting their eyes to the light of evidence, say: "This man casteth not out devils but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils." Jesus then proves to them this absurdity, and, consequently, the malice of their explanation; He shows them that it is by "the Spirit of God" that He casts out devils, and then He concludes: "therefore I say to you: Every sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven men, but the blasphemy of the Spirit shall not be forgiven. And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but he that shall speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not he forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in the world to come."
So, to sin against the Holy Ghost is to confound Him with the spirit of evil, it is to deny, from pure malice, the Divine character of works manifestly Divine. This is the sense in which St. Mark also defines the sin question; for, after reciting the words of the Master: "But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost shall never have forgiveness", he adds at once: "Because they said: He hath an unclean spirit." With this sin of pure downright malice, Jesus contrasts the sin "against the Son of man", that is the sin committed against Himself as man, the wrong done to His humanity in judging Him by His humble and lowly appearance. This fault, unlike the former, might he excused as the result of man's ignorance and misunderstanding.
But the Fathers of the Church, commenting on the Gospel texts we are treating of, did not confine themselves to the meaning given above. Whether it be that they wished to group together all objectively analogous cases, or whether they hesitated and wavered when confronted with this point of doctrine, which St. Augustine declares (Serm. ii de verbis Domini, c. v) one of the most difficult in Scripture, they have proposed different interpretations or explanations.
From Paragraph #1864, of the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
"Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven."136 There are no limits to the mercy of God, but anyone who deliberately refuses to accept his mercy by repenting, rejects the forgiveness of his sins and the salvation offered by the Holy Spirit.137 Such hardness of heart can lead to final impenitence and eternal loss.
Margie| 12.19.11 @ 1:54PM
Furthermore Nick:
The APPOINTED Apostle Paul concerning the issue of Sin:
"Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned--" Rom. 5:12
And continues on here:
"Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sins were not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.
But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift in the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many." Rom. 5:14 & 15.
And here:
"But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift in the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many." Rom. 5:18.
And finally:
"But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the Grace of God and the free gift in the Grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many." Rom. 5:21.
NOW: Not only does this PROVE that ALL have sinned, and therefore must include Mary, but that Salvation is by the Grace of God.
You also erroneously stated that "Mary was full of Grace" and that proves she had no sin.
FALSE!
Well, as you can see, according to the the Word of God~ Grace is given to ALL believers who come to Him, according to HIS WILL.
"For by Grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God- not because of works, lest any man should boast." Eph. 2:8 & 9.
"But if it is by Grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise Grace would no longer be Grace." Rom. 11:6.
Repent and believe the Gospel, HIS Gospel.
Nick| 12.20.11 @ 12:57AM
Margie,
See my reply, above.
Nick| 12.20.11 @ 1:07AM
Margie,
Oh, just one thing.
"The APPOINTED Apostle Paul concerning the issue of Sin"
The APPOINTED Apostle John, who witnessed Christ actually speak these words, and later wrote them down, concerning the Holy Eucharist:
"'He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood has everlasting life, and I will raise him up in the last day.' [...] Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: 'This saying is hard; and who can hear it?' But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: 'Does this scandalize you?' [...] After this, many of his disciples went back and walked no more with him." - John 6:54, 60-61, 66
Guess which kind of disciple you are, Margie?
God Bless!
Margie| 12.18.11 @ 4:50PM
A LOOK AT SOME OF THE CHURCH FATHERS
Ignatius (c. 50-110)
Ignatius was the bishop of Antioch in the early second century. He was arrested in about A.D. 110 and sent to Rome for trial and martyrdom.
1. He taught that churches should have elders and a ruling bishop; in other words, he was exalting one bishop over another, whereas in scripture the terms “bishop” and “elder” refer to the same humble office in the assembly (Titus 1:5-7).
2. He taught that all churches are a part of one universal church.
3. He claimed that a church does not have authority to baptize or conduct the Lord’s Supper unless it has a bishop.
These relatively innocent errors helped prepare the way for more error in the next century.
Justin Martyr (c. 100 – c. 165)
When Justin embraced Christianity, he held on to some of his pagan philosophy.
1. He interpreted the Scriptures allegorically and mystically.
2. He helped develop the idea of a “middle state” after death that was neither heaven nor hell. Eventually this doctrine became Rome’s purgatory.
Irenaeus (c. 125-202)
Irenaeus was a pastor in Lyons, France, who wrote a polemic titled Against Heresies in about A.D. 185.
1. He supported the authority of the bishop as a ruler over many churches.
2. He defended church tradition beyond what the Scripture allows. For this reason he is claimed by the Roman Catholic Church as one of their own.
3. He taught the Catholic heresy of “real presence,” saying, “The Eucharist becomes the body of Christ.”
Clement of Alexandria (c. 150 – c. 230)
1. Clement headed the allegorizing school of Alexandria from 190 to 202. This school was founded by Pantaenus.
2. Clement intermingled the philosophy of Plato with Christianity.
3. He helped develop the doctrine of purgatory and believed that most men would eventually be saved.
Tertullian (c. 155 – c. 255)
Tertullian lived in Carthage in North Africa (located on the coast of the Mediterranean Sea in modern Tunisia, between Libya and Algeria).
1. Though he fought against Gnosticism, he also exalted the authority of the church beyond that allowed by Scripture. He taught that the church’s authority comes through apostolic succession.
2. He believed that the bread of the Lord’s Supper was Christ and worried about dropping crumbs of it on the ground.
3. He adopted Montanism, believing that Montanus spoke prophecies by inspiration of God.
4. He taught that widows who remarried committed fornication.
5. He taught that baptism is for the forgiveness of sins.
6. He classified sins into three categories and believed in confession of sins to a bishop.
7. He said that the human soul was seen in a vision as “tender, light, and of the colour of air.” He claimed that all human souls were in Adam and are transmitted to us with the taint of original sin upon them.
8. He taught that there was a time when the Son of God did not exist and when God was not a Father.
9. He taught that Mary was the second Eve who by her obedience remedied the disobedience of the first Eve.
Cyprian (? – 258)
Cyprian was the “bishop of Carthage” in Africa.
1. He was tyrannical and wealthy and he wrote against the Novatian churches for their efforts to maintain a pure church membership.
2. Cyprian defended the unscriptural doctrine that certain bishops had authority over many churches and that all pastors must submit to them.
3. He supported the heresy of infant baptism.
No wonder Cyprian was made one of the “saints” of the Catholic Church.
Origen (185-254)
Though he endured persecution and torture for the cause of Christ under the emperor Decius in 250, Origen was loaded with false teachings. Origen’s character is described by the Lutheran historian Mosheim as “a compound of contraries, wise and unwise, acute and stupid, judicious and injudicious; the enemy of superstition, and its patron; a strenuous defender of Christianity, and its corrupter; energetic and irresolute; one to whom the Bible owes much, and from whom it has suffered much.”
We do not agree that the Bible owes Origen much, but there is no doubt that it suffered much at his hands.
Following are some of the strange heresies of Origen:
1. He denied the infallible inspiration of Scripture.
2. He rejected the literal history of the early chapters in Genesis and of Satan taking the Lord Jesus up to a high mountain and offering him the kingdoms of the world (Will Durant, The Story of Civilization, Vol. III, p. 614). Durant quotes Origen: “Who is so foolish as to believe that God, like a husbandman, planted a garden in Eden, and placed in it a tree of life ... so that one who tasted of the fruit obtained life?”
3. He accepted infant baptism.
4. He taught baptismal regeneration and salvation by works. “After these points, it is taught also that the soul, having a substance and life proper to itself, shall, after its departure from this world, be rewarded according to its merits. It is destined to obtain either an inheritance of eternal life and blessedness, if its deeds shall have procured this for it, or to be delivered up to eternal fire and punishment, if the guilt of its crimes shall have brought it down to this” (Origen, cited by W.A. Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers).
5. He believed the Holy Spirit was possibly a created being of some sort. “In His case [that of the Holy Spirit], however, it is not clearly distinguished whether or not He was born or even whether He is or is not to be regarded as a Son of God” (Origen, cited by W.A. Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers).
6. He believed in a form of purgatory and universalism, denying the literal fire of hell and believing that even Satan would be saved eventually. “Now let us see what is meant by the threatening with eternal fire. ... It seems to be indicated by these words that every sinner kindles for himself the flame of his own fire and is not plunged into some fire which was kindled beforehand by someone else or which already existed before him. ... And when this dissolution and tearing asunder of the soul shall have been accomplished by means of the application of fire, no doubt it will afterwards be solidified into a firmer structure and into a restoration of itself” (Origen, cited by W.A. Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers).
7. He believed that men’s souls are preexistent and that stars and planets possibly have souls. “In regard to the sun, however, and the moon and the stars, as to whether they are living beings or are without life, there is not clear tradition” (Origen, cited by W.A. Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers).
8. He believed that Jesus was a created being and not eternal. “He held an aberrant view on the nature of Christ, which gave rise to the later Arian heresy” (Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, “Origen”). That Origen believed Jesus Christ had an origin is evident from this statement: “Secondly, that Jesus Christ Himself, who came, was born of the Father before all creatures; and after He had ministered to the Father in the creation of all things,--for through Him were all things made” (Origen, quoted by W.A. Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers).
9. He denied the bodily resurrection, claiming that the resurrection body is spherical, non-material, and does not have members. “He denied the tangible, physical nature of the resurrection body in clear contrast to the teaching of Scripture” (Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, “Origen”). He was condemned by the Council of Constantinople on this count.
10. Origen allegorized the Bible saying, “The Scriptures have little use to those who understand them literally.” In this he was one of the fathers of the heretical amillennial method of prophetic interpretation, which was given further development by Augustine and later adopted by the Roman Catholic Church. This destroyed the apostolic doctrine of the imminency of the return of Christ (Mt. 24:42, 44; 25:13; Mk. 13:33) and the literal Tribulation and Millennial Kingdom. It also did away with a literal fulfillment of God’s promises to Israel and set the stage for the persecution of the Jews by the Roman Catholic Church.
Eusebius of Caesarea (270-340)
1. Eusebius collected the writings of Origen and promoted his erroneous teachings. “Whatever proof exists that Origen and his school deteriorated the correctness of the text, it is to the same extent clear that Eusebius accepted and perpetuated that injury” (Discussions of Robert Lewis Dabney, I, p. 387).
2. Constantine the Great, who had joined church and state in the Roman Empire and had thereby laid the foundation for the establishment of the Roman Catholic Church, hired Eusebius to produce some Greek New Testaments. Frederick Nolan and other authorities have charged Eusebius with making many changes in the text of Scripture. “As it is thus apparent that Eusebius wanted not the power, so it may be shewn that he wanted not the will, to make those alterations in the sacred text, with which I have ventured to accuse him” (Nolan, Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate, p. 35).
3. Many of the noted omissions in the modern versions can be traced to this period, including Mark 16:9-20 and John 8:1-11. After intensive investigation, Frederick Nolan concluded that Eusebius “suppressed those passages in his edition” (Nolan, p. 240). In fact, many textual authorities have identified Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, the manuscripts so revered by modern textual critics, as two of the copies of the Greek New Testament made by Eusebius. These manuscripts also contained the spurious apocryphal writings, Shepherd of Hermas and the Epistle of Barnabas. Origen had considered these two uninspired and fanciful books as canonical Scripture (Goodspeed, The Formation of the New Testament, p. 103).
Jerome (Sophronius Eusebius Hieronymus) (340-420)
Jerome was called upon by Damasus, the Bishop of Rome, to produce a standard Latin Bible. This was completed between A.D. 383 and 405 and became the Bible adopted by the Roman Catholic Church. It is commonly called the Latin vulgate (meaning common).
Modern textual critic Bruce Metzger says that the Greek manuscripts used by Jerome “apparently belonged to the Alexandrian type of text” (Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, p. 76). This means they were in the same family as those underlying the modern versions. Kenyon and Robinson also affirm this (Kenyon, The Text of the Greek Bible, p. 88; Robinson, Ancient Versions of the English Bible, p. 113).
This means that the Jerome Latin vulgate adopted by Rome represents the same type of text as the critical Greek text underlying the modern versions. These commonly remove “God” from 1 Timothy 3:16 and contain many other corruptions.
Jerome was deeply infected with false teaching:
1. Jerome followed the false teaching of asceticism, believing the state of celibacy to be spiritually superior to that of marriage, and demanding that church leaders be unmarried. James Heron, author of The Evolution of Latin Christianity, observed that “no single individual did so much to make monasticism popular in the higher ranks of society” (Heron, 1919, p. 58).
2. Jerome believed in the veneration of “holy relics” and the bones of dead Christians (Heron, pp. 276, 77).
3. Jerome “took a leading and influential part in ‘opening the floodgates’ for the invocation of saints,” teaching “distinctly and emphatically that the saints in heaven hear the prayers of men on earth, intercede on their behalf and send them help from above (Heron, pp. 287, 88).
4. Jerome taught that Mary was the counterpart of Eve, as Christ was the counterpart of Adam, and that through her obedience Mary became instrumental in helping to redeem the human race (Heron, p. 294). He also taught that Mary was a perpetual virgin (Heron, pp. 294, 95).
5. Jerome believed in the blessing of water (Heron, p. 306).
6. Jerome justified the death penalty for “heretics” (Heron, The Evolution of Latin Christianity, p. 323).
As for his spirit and character, Jerome is described, even by a historian who had high respect for him, with these words: “such irritability and bitterness of temper, such vehemence of uncontrolled passion, such an intolerant and persecuting spirit, and such inconstancy of conduct” (Schaff, History of the Christian Church, III, p. 206).
It is obvious that Jerome had imbibed many of the false teachings and attitudes that eventually became the entrenched dogmas and practices of the Roman Catholic Church.
Ambrose (339-397)
Ambrose was bishop of Milan, in Italy, from 374-397. Because of his commitment to many early doctrinal heresies, his writings have been appealed to by popes and Catholic councils. Ambrose had a strong influence upon Augustine. The Catholic Church made him a saint and a doctor of the church.
1. Ambrose used the allegorical-mystical method of Bible interpretation, having been influenced by Origen and Philo.
2. He taught that Christians should be devoted to Mary, encouraged monasticism, and believed in prayers to the saints.
3. He believed the church has the power to forgive sins.
4. He believed the Lord’s Supper is a sacrifice of Christ.
5. He taught that virginity is holier than marriage and whenever possible he encouraged young women not to marry. His teaching in this helped pave the way for the Catholic monastic system.
6. He offered prayers for the dead.
Augustine (354-430)
Augustine was polluted with many false doctrines and helped lay the foundation for the formation of the Roman Catholic Church. For this reason Rome has honored Augustine as one of the “doctors of the church.”
1. He was a persecutor and the father of the doctrine of persecution in the Catholic Church.
The historian Neander observed that Augustine’s teaching “contains the germ of the whole system of spiritual despotism, intolerance, and persecution, even to the court of the Inquisition.” Augustine instigated persecutions against the Bible-believing Donatists who were striving to maintain pure churches after the apostolic faith. He interpreted Luke 14:23 (“compel them to come in”) to mean that Christ required the churches to use force against heretics.
2. He was the father of a-millennialism, allegorizing Bible prophecy and teaching that the Catholic Church is the kingdom of God.
3. He taught that the sacraments are the means of saving grace.
4. He was one of the fathers of infant baptism. The ‘council’ of Mela, in Numidia, A.D. 416, composed of merely fifteen persons and presided over by Augustine, decreed: “Also, it is the pleasure of the bishops in order that whoever denies that infants newly born of their mothers, are to be baptized or says that baptism is administered for the remission of their own sins, but not on account of original sin, delivered from Adam, and to be expiated by the laver of regeneration, BE ACCURSED” (Wall, The History of Infant Baptism, I, 265). Augustine thus taught that infants should be baptized and that the baptism took away their sin. He called all who rejected infant baptism “infidels” and “cursed.”
5. He taught that Mary did not commit sin and promoted her worship. He believed Mary played a vital role in salvation (Augustine, Sermon 289, cited in Durant, The Story of Civilization, 1950, IV, p. 69).
6. He believed in purgatory.
7. He accepted the doctrine of “celibacy” for “priests,” supporting the decree of “Pope” Siricius of 387 that ordered that any priest that married or refused to separate from his wife should be disciplined.
8. He exalted the authority of the church over that of the Bible, declaring, “I should not believe the gospel unless I were moved to do so by the authority of the Catholic Church” (quoted by John Paul II, Augustineum Hyponensem, Apostolic Letter, Aug. 28, 1986, www.cin.org/jp2.ency/augustin.html).
9. He believed that the true interpretation of Scripture was derived from the declaration of church councils (Augustine, De Vera Religione, xxiv, p. 45).
10. He interpreted the early chapters of Genesis figuratively (Dave Hunt, “Calvin and Augustine: Two Jonahs Who Sink the Ship,” Debating Calvinism: Five Points, Two Views by Dave Hunt and James White, 2004, p. 230).
11. He taught that God has pre-ordained some for salvation and others for damnation and that the grace of God is irresistible for the true elect. By his own admission, John Calvin in the 16th century derived his TULIP theology on the “sovereignty of God” from Augustine. Calvin said: “If I were inclined to compile a whole volume from Augustine, I could easily show my readers, that I need no words but his” (Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book III, chap. 22).
12. He taught the heresy of apostolic succession from Peter (Hunt, ibid., p. 230).
John Chrysostom (347-407)
Chrysostom was a leader in Antioch, in the Greek part of the Catholic church of that day, and became “patriarch” of Constantinople in 398.
1. He believed in the “real presence” of the mass, that the bread literally becomes Jesus Christ.
2. He taught that church tradition can be equal in authority to the Scriptures.
Cyril (376-444)
Cyril was the “patriarch” of Alexandria and supported many of the errors that led to the formation of the Catholic Church.
1. He promoted the veneration of Mary and called her the Theotokos, or bearer of God.
2. In 412, Cyril instigated persecution against the Donatist Christians.
Nick| 12.19.11 @ 1:11AM
Margie,
Mr. Cloud forgot Saints Polycarp and Clement of Rome. Why?
He does disparage Saints Ignatius and Irenaeus, though. Aren't they both praised in your precious Martyr's Mirror?
How can these great Catholic saints be praised in the book you say proves that the Catholic Church "murdered millions"?
God Bless!
Tony in Central PA| 12.19.11 @ 7:53AM
I think that's probably the first time somebody posted an entire chapter of a John Amkerberg book in one of these threads. Ugh.
Ryan| 12.19.11 @ 8:34AM
Sooo...are your beliefs all completely correct, Margie?
Margie| 12.19.11 @ 1:19PM
That all ya got, Nick?
More of the same. Weak, very weak.
And as usual, you won't deal with the truth~ the false and unbiblical teachings of these men.
Tony:
So the truth matters not to you.
Ryan:
My "beliefs" are the Holy Scriptures. What do YOU believe, the teachings of men?
Instead of actually reading what these so-called church fathers believed and how they were utterly heretical and against the Scriptures, they do the usual~ trash the messenger.
And you trash Christ and His Gospel.
The only Early Church Fathers were the Apostles~ not these heretics who are the first Reprobates to bring in false teachings and BEGAN what is called today the CATHOLIC church.
An Apostate and fallen organization, unrepentant to this very day~ with the blood of the millions of Martyrs that they tortured and killed because these brethren (whom the lying Reprobate Nick calls heretics) refused to bow their knees to the murderous Papists.
Anyone who has eyes to see, given to them by the God of the Bible, will read what the above FRAUDS taught, and will get their Bibles out and read them and see the truth.
Repent, and believe the Gospel of God!
"You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said: 'This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.'". Mt. 15:7-9.
"For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths." 2 Tim. 4:3 & 4.
"He who does not love Me does not keep My Words; and the Word which you hear is not Mine but the Father's Who sent Me." Jn. 14:22.
"But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction." 2 Pe. 2:1.
DOES THIS DESCRIBE YOU?
"The coming of the lawless one by the activity of Satan will be with all power and with pretended signs and wonders, and with all wicked deception for those who are to perish, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved.
Therefore God sends upon them a strong delusion, to make them believe what is false, so that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness." 2 Thess. 2:9-12.
Jesus COMMANDS us to REPENT and BELIEVE His Gospel for a reason.
What you BELIEVE takes you either to Heaven or to Hell.
It is BASED UPON BELIEF.
HIS Gospel... not the false gospel.
Nick| 12.20.11 @ 1:10AM
Margie,
"That all ya got, Nick?"
You should know me better than that, by now. Of course that isn't all I have. Are you trying to use my own words against me?
Nick| 12.18.11 @ 3:34AM
Nina,
Martin Luther removed Baruch, Sirach, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Tobit, Judith, and the Wisdom of Solomon. And parts of Daniel and Esther. Luther also removed four New Testament books: Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation.
The four New Testament books we put back in by other Protestant reformers, and, eventually, by Luther himself. But, the Deuterocanonicals were left out, because they teach Catholic doctrine, which the Protestants were protesting against.
You can read all about this, here:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/answers/deuteros.htm
Margie| 12.18.11 @ 4:33PM
Ahh yes, and Luther was far from perfect but he also brought the Reformation!!!
Your Religious Popery brought the torture and murder of Bible believing Christians who refused, like him, to bow the knee to your blasphemous teachings against the WOrd of God!
And you are a product of these liars, for you blaspheme the Holy Spirit yourself~ as you did in the other thread when you claimed that the Apostle Paul, speaking by the same Holy Spirit, did not mean ALL are sinners when he spoke it in Romans 3:23!
You claimed that he was only "generalizing, and that that didn't include Mary".
Repent, liar!
Nick| 12.19.11 @ 1:05AM
Margie,
So, you pull Luther out from under the bus when you need him, huh? Have you also ripped out the books of Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation from your Bible, as did Luther?
No, you couldn't have, since you continuously wrench verses out of context from these books. Especially, Hebrews and Revelation.
And, Saint Paul was speaking generally, in Romans 3:23; not about Our Lady.
Merry Christ's Mass and God Bless!
Margie| 12.19.11 @ 1:23PM
Nick:
You throw Christ under the bus repeatedly, kiddo.
You are a blasphemer and unless you repent you are going to burn.
You blaspheme the Spirit of God when you said, and BELIEVE that when Paul said, "ALL HAVE SINNED AND FALL SHORT OF THE GLORY OF GOD", that that doesn't include Mary. Rom. 3:23.
You and your lying Papist partners in crime are making a BIG MISTAKE!
Repent and BELIEVE the GOSPEL OF GOD.
Nick| 12.20.11 @ 1:14AM
Margie,
I never throw anyone under the bus. Unlike someone I know.
In case you missed it, I answered your objection about Saint Paul's use of the word all (pantes in Greek,) in Romans 3:23, above. Please, check it out.
Ryan| 12.19.11 @ 8:36AM
You do realize Luther believed in the Trinity and infant baptism...
Margie| 12.19.11 @ 1:25PM
And what does Ryan believe?
The Gospel of Jesus Christ OR the false "gospel" of Catholicism?
The Holy Scriptures OR the traditions of Men?
Your choice, your destiny.
Nick| 12.20.11 @ 1:17AM
Ryan,
This is how Margie pulls Luther out from under the bus, and, then, throws him back under, again.
She likes Luther when he attacks the Catholic Church. She doesn't like him that much when he believes things contrary to her gospel.
God Bless!
markenoff| 12.17.11 @ 12:58AM
Actually it was Protestants who removed books from the bible.
Mike Hawk| 12.17.11 @ 9:39AM
Just what books did they remove. You are not a person of faith, that is obvious. The agnostic telling the faithful what they think is like a Liberal telling a Conservative Republican who to nominate for office.
Petronius| 12.16.11 @ 10:27AM
Let the episcopal bishop remove the altar from his sanctuary and install mirrors for himself and his new converts.
Jacob R| 12.17.11 @ 9:38AM
Good idea! At least this would be more honest than their current pose, going about still pretending to care at all about their founder, who, they'll tell you, was kinda like THE original new age faith based spiritual healer!
Citizen Jerry| 12.16.11 @ 10:38AM
In the spirit of Christmas, I think Charles Dickens wrote a fitting epitaph for the Episcopal Church, along with many other mainline churches:
"Marley was dead: to begin with. There is no doubt whatever about that. The register of his burial was signed by the clergyman, the clerk, the undertaker, and the chief mourner. Scrooge signed it: and Scrooge's name was good upon 'Change, for anything he chose to put his hand to. Old Marley was as dead as a door-nail."
Big Leo| 12.16.11 @ 11:06AM
The United Methodist Church has become a plantation. The leadership and a few of its sycophants in the congregations is leftist and the majority of the people are moderate or conservative. I served as clergy (Elder) for thirty years. Few in the pews pay any attention to the leftist maunderings of a distant and isolated bureaucracy. Every year, those that do pay attention are appalled by what they see and leave for other denominations, or else begin the fight to reclaim the UMC for orthodox Christianity. We will win.
C Smith| 12.16.11 @ 11:24AM
These "social gospel" prelates and theologians "no longer enlivened by the drama of their own faith's teachings" are not so much unlike the pastorate of the Promise Keeper "gospel of guyhood" of yesteryear. They both have a common destiny:
"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity" Matthew (7:21-23).
Ron| 12.16.11 @ 12:57PM
Something caught my eye in the article...The term "class warriors."
WTH? Is that a recycled term for the Occasionally Washing Selves mob?
Maybe they could enlist and become real warriors, not spoiled, petulant, self absorbed wannabes.
Margie| 12.16.11 @ 3:36PM
Liberal Leftist Christians are no Christians at all.
They use Religion to promote their SIN, whatever it may be.
Usually Homosexuality or "Social Justice", or alcohol abuse, or whatever floats their boats.
They preach a different gospel, and will take their place amongst the Religious hypocrites that Jesus spoke of:
"You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said: 'This people honors Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me; in vain do they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.'" Mt. 15:7-9.
Mark30339| 12.16.11 @ 4:31PM
Mr. Tooley, since I don't usually agree with you, I wanted to commend you on an interesting piece. I think Christians are called to give aid to their fellow man -- but I have a hard time equating Christian outreach with assenting to indignant demands by pseudo refugee occupiers. Surrendering possession of parish property should never be a pre-condition to simple dialogue.
Tony in Central PA| 12.16.11 @ 9:21PM
Liberation theology never ends well.
POST American| 12.16.11 @ 10:52PM
-----AGAIN-----
Putting these SOROS-ROT-child scripted
and, no doubt, funded ant-ticks aside----
-----------CLEAN OUT YOUR CHURCHES!----------
Throw off the half century of utterly sinister,
utterly deadly, Rockefeller EUGENICS
'ek--YOU--men--ICK--all--ism'
----get rid of the SOD-dummy ops
------hurl tjhe Arminian Heretics a la Billy Graham
--------call out the 'FREE-MAY--SIN--Re' infiltrations
GET BACK --BACK ----BACK! to scripture
and sound, unflinching doctrine.
EVEN if you're only left with 2 people.
"Two people make a universe."
D H Lawrence
----------IN this, the 11th hour of the Globalist
RED China world TREASON and EUGENICS
OP ----indeed they do!
---------------------------------------INDEED!
Mike Hawk| 12.17.11 @ 9:34AM
As the Episcopal Church becomes more secularized, the faithful leave for churches that don't. At some point they will be completely secular and die. When the Episcopal church finally abandons the foundations of faith and belief it was founded on, it will be the end. The PCUSA is fighting that fight as well, but Presbyterian congregations have alternatives to turn to other that the secular hierarchies trying for 'Hope and Change' in Louisville. We are governed from the bottom up, not the top down.
With God all things r possible| 12.17.11 @ 10:43AM
"'There is no question in my mind that Wesley would have protested greed and the neglect of the poor,' said Jim Winkler of the General Board of Church and Society. 'He would support the goals.'"
After observing the fornication, cursing, public urination and defecation, assaults, placards stating "kill your parents", John Wesley would surely support OWS and its goals?
What is this, opposite day?