most holy redeemer catholic church

SAN FRANCISCO -- Parishioners of the Most Holy Redeemer Catholic Church in San Francisco's Castro neighborhood plan to arrive early for morning Mass today so they can paint over walls that were scrawled with swastikas and other graffiti.
A priest walking his dog early Sunday outside the church at 100 Diamond St. found the black swastikas and angry messages about Proposition 8, the state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage that voters approved in November, a church employee said Monday. The vandalized walls were washed Monday morning to remove most of the scrawlings.

What do they hope to accomplish besides nothing?

I suspect the problem was that it was a Catholic church. The Catholic Church has had the same pro-family doctrines since 33 AD. Unlike the Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Church of Christ, and other churches ruled by the people of this world, the Catholic Church is not going to overrule Christ to placate the latest worldly fad favoring sexual profligacy. That's why the leftist Protestants are bleeding members and the Catholics (and Mormons) are doing well.

Cheers,
Bruce

2009-01-06 14:48:25 by Crimmy

This exclusive video is never being published for public view before as the actual presentation was supposed to be made during the Church#39;s ...

The Catholic Church, through her Popes and Councils, gathered together the separate books that Christians venerated which existed in different parts of the world; sifted the chaff from the wheat, the false from the genuine; decisively and finally formed a collection—i.e., drew up a list or catalogue of inspired and apostolic writings into which no other book should ever be admitted, and declared that these and these only, were the Sacred Scriptures of the New Testament. The authorities that were mainly responsible for thus settling and closing the 'Canon' of Holy Scripture were the Councils of Hippo and of Carthage in the fourth century, under the influence of St. Augustine (at the latter of which two Legatees were present from the Pope), and the Popes Innocent I in 405, and Gelasius, 494, both of whom issued lists of Sacred Scripture identical with that fixed by the Councils. From that date all through the centuries this was the Christian's Bible. The Church never admitted any other; and at the Council of Florence in the fifteenth century, and the Council of Trent in the sixteenth, and the Council of the Vatican in the nineteenth, she renewed her anathemas against all who should deny or dispute this collection of books as the inspired word of God.

What follows from this is self-evident. The same authority which made and collected and preserved these books alone has the right to claim them as her own, and to say what the meaning of them is. The Church of St. Paul and St. Peter and St. James in the first century was the same Church as that of the Council of Carthage and of St. Augustine in the fourth, and of the Council of Florence in the fifteenth, and the Vatican in the nineteenth—one and the same body—growing and developing, certainly, as every living thing must do, but still preserving its identity and remaining essentially the same body, as a man of 80 is the same person as he was at 40, and the same person at 40 as he was at 2. The Catholic Church of today, then, may be compared to a man who has grown from infancy to youth, and from youth to middle-age. Suppose a man wrote a letter setting forth certain statements, whom would you naturally ask to tell what the meaning of these statements was? Surely the man that wrote it. The Church wrote the New Testament; she, and she alone, can tell us what the meaning of it is.

Again, the Catholic Church is like a person who was present at the side of Our Blessed Lord when He walked and talked in Galilee and Judea. Suppose, for a moment, that that man was gifted with perpetual youth (this by the way is an illustration of W. H. Mallock's, 'Doctrine and Doctrinal Disruption', chap. xi.,) and also with perfect memory, and heard all the teaching and explanations of Our Redeemer and of His Apostles, and retained them; he would be an invaluable witness and authority to consult, surely, so as to discover exactly what was the doctrine of Jesus Christ and of the Twelve. But such undoubtedly is the Catholic Church: not an individual person, but a corporate personality who lived with, indeed was called into being by, Our Divine Saviour; in whose hearing He uttered all His teaching; who listened to the Apostles in their day and generation, repeating and expounding the Saviour's doctrine; who, ever young and ever strong, has persisted and lived all through the centuries, and continues even till our own day fresh and keen in memory as ever, and able to assure us, without fear of forgetting, or mixing things up, or adding things out of his own head, what exactly Our Blessed Lord said, and taught, and meant, and did. Suppose, again, the man we are imagining had written down much of what he heard Christ and the Apostles say, but had not fully reported all, and was able to supplement what was lacking by personal explanations which he gave from his perfect memory: that, again, is a figure of the Catholic Church. She wrote down much, indeed, and most important parts of Our Lord's teaching, and of the Apostolic explanation of it in Scripture; but nevertheless she did not intend it to be a complete and exhaustive account, apart from her own explanation of it; and, as a matter of fact, she is able from her own perpetual memory to give fuller and clearer accounts, and to add some things that are either omitted from the written report, or are only hinted at, or partially recorded, or mentioned merely in passing. Such is the Catholic Church in relation to her own book, the New Testament. It is hers because she wrote it by her first Apostles, and preserved it and guarded it all down the ages by her Popes and Bishops; nobody else has any right to it whatsoever, any more than a stranger has the right to come into your house and break open your desk, and pilfer your private documents. Therefore, I say that for people to step in 1500 years after the Catholic Church had had possession of the Bible, and to pretend that it is theirs, and that they alone know what the meaning of it is, and that the Scriptures alone, without the voice of the Catholic Church explaining them, are intended by God to be the guide and rule of faith—this is an absurd and groundless claim. Only those who are ignorant of the true history of the Sacred Scriptures—their origin and authorship and preservation—could pretend that there is any logic or commonsense in such a mode of acting. And the absurdity is magnified when it is remembered that the Protestants did not appropriate the whole of the Catholic books, but actually cast out some from the collection, and took what remained, and elevated these into a new 'Canon', or volume of Sacred Scripture, such as had never been seen or heard of before, from the first to the sixteenth century, in any Church, either in Heaven above or on earth beneath, or in the waters under the earth! Let us make good this charge.

Open a Protestant Bible, and you will find there are seven complete Books awanting—that is, seven books fewer than there are in the Catholic Bible, and seven fewer than there were in every collection and catalogue of Holy Scripture from the fourth to the sixteenth century. Their names are Tobias, Baruch, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, I Machabees, II Machabees, together with seven chapters of the Book of Esther and 66 verses of the 3rd chapter of Daniel, commonly called 'the Song of the Three Children', (Daniel iii., 24-90, Douai version). These were deliberately cut out, and the Bible bound up without them. The criticisms and remarks of Luther, Calvin, and the Swiss and German Reformers about these seven books of the Old Testament show to what depths of impiety those unhappy men had allowed themselves to fall when they broke away from the true Church. Even in regard to the New Testament it required all the powers of resistance on the part of the more con­servative Reformers to prevent Luther from flinging out the Epistle of St. James as unworthy to remain within the volume of Holy Scripture—'an Epistle of straw' he called it, 'with no character of the Gospel in it'. In the same way, and almost to the same degree, he dishonoured the Epistle of St. Jude and the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the beautiful Apocalypse of St. John, declaring they were not on the same footing as the rest of the books, and did not contain the same amount of Gospel (i.e., his Gospel). The presumptuous way, indeed, in which Luther, among others, poured contempt, and doubt upon some of the inspired writings which had been acknowledged and cherished and venerated for 1000 or 1000 years would be scarcely credible were it not that we have his very words in cold print, which cannot lie, and may be read in his Biography, or be seen quoted in such books as Dr. Westcott's The Bible in The Church. And why did he impugn such books as we have mentioned? Because they did not suit his new doctrines and opinions. He had arrived at the principle of private judgment—of picking and choosing religious doctrines; and when­ever any book, such as the Book of Machabees, taught a doctrine that was repugnant to his individual taste—as, for example, that 'it is a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead that they may be loosed from sins', 2 Mach. xii., 46—well, so much the worse for the book; 'throw it overboard', was his sentence, and overboard it went. And it was the same with passages and texts in those books which Luther allowed to remain, and pronounced to be worthy to find a place within the boards of the new Reformed Bible. In short, he not only cast out certain books, but he mutilated some that were left. For example, not pleased with St Paul's doctrine, ‘we are justified by faith', and fearing lest good works (a Popish superstition) might creep in, he added the word 'only' after St Paul's words, making the sentence run: 'We are justified by Faith only', and so it reads in Lutheran Bibles to this day. An action such as that must surely be reprobated by all Bible Christians. What surprises us is the audacity of the man that could coolly change by a stroke of the pen a fundamental doctrine of the Apostle of God, St. Paul, who wrote, as all admitted, under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. But this was the outcome of the Protestant standpoint, individual judgment: no authority outside of oneself. However ignorant, however stupid, however unlettered, you may, indeed you are bound to cut and carve out a Bible and a Religion for yourself. No Pope, no Council, no Church shall enlighten you or dictate or hand down the doctrines of Christ. And the result we have seen in the corruption of God's Holy Word.

Yet, in spite of all reviling of the Roman Church, the Reformers were forced to accept from her those Sacred Scriptures which they retained in their collection. Whatever Bible they have today, disfigured as it is, was taken from us. Blind indeed must be the evangelical Christian who cannot recognise in the old Catholic Bible the quarry from which he has hewn the Testament he loves and studies; but with what loss! at what a sacrifice! in what a mutilated and disfigured condition! That the Reformers should appropriate unabridged the Bible of the Catholic Church (which was the only volume of God's Scripture ever known on earth), even for the purpose of elevating it into a false position—this we could have understood; what staggers us, is their deliberate excision from that Sacred Volume of some of the inspired Books which had God for their Author, and their no less deliberate alteration of some of the texts of those books that were suffered to remain. It is on consideration of such points as these that pious persons outside the Catholic fold would do well to ask themselves the question—Which Christian body really loves and reveres the Scriptures most? Which has proved, by its actions, its love and veneration? and which seems most likely to incur the anathema, recorded by St John, that God will send upon those who shall take away from the words of the Book of Life? (Apoc. xxii., 19.)

Are Christians capable of love?

2007-10-16 11:10:13 by robert

Council of Ephesus

Philip the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See said: "There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from the Lord jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors." (Acts of the Council, session 3 [A.D.431]).

Irenaeus



The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome], they handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus (Against Heresies 3:3:3 [A.D. 189]).

Tertullian



This is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrneans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John, like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter (Demurrer Against the Heretics 32:2 [A.D. 200]).

Is this a connection,Are these men and writings accepted by Both the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Church?

What exactly is the claims of the Bishop of Rome and does it hold water?


P.S Please don't quote rehersed verses."For even the Heretics can use scripture".

Mark,

I speak as an Eastern Orthodox Christian and student of theology. The particular claims of the Pope to which I object are two.


First, he claims that he has "universal ordinary jurisdiction" — that is, that he may exercise all over the world ("universally") the authority ("jurisdiction") normally belonging to the local diocesan bishop ("the local ordinary").

This is a rather astonishing assertion, and it contrasts sharply with the teachings of St. Ignatius of Antioch, who speaks of the bishop's authority *without* adding that it may be overruled at any time by the Bishop of Rome. The Canons of the Apostles also fail to give witness to this.

You may be familiar with the Protestant practice of proof-texting using the words of scripture. It is my observation that Catholic writers tend to do the same thing with the Holy Fathers. One problem with this (as we shall see) is that ancient Church writers often addressed each other using exaggerated terms of honor — it was the style of the time. Another is that it is too easy to read modern Catholic claims into disconnected excerpts. Consider your last two quotes — read closely, do they really say anything about today's papal claims?

(As to the first, who is this grand-speaking Philip fellow? Just what *is* he claiming? And, if there is "no doubt" about it — whatever "it" is — and it has been "known in all ages," why does he have to go on and on to the council like he does?)


There is no question that the Bishop of Rome was held in great esteem in the early Church, and that he had a primacy of honor and also certain administrative prerogatives. But there is a great distance between this and the claim that he may appear anywhere in the universe and announce that he is taking over. This certainly was not the opinion of the sainted Pope Gregory the Great. He wrote to the Eulogios, the Bishop of Alexandria as follows:

"You address me saying, 'As you have commanded.' This word 'command', I beg you to remove from my hearing, since I know who I am, and who you are. For in position you are my brethren, in character, my fathers .... In the preface of the epistle which you have addressed to myself, who forbade it, you have thought fit to make use of a proud appellation, calling me Universal Pope. But I beg your most sweet Holiness to do this no more, since what is given to another beyond what reason demands, is subtracted from yourself .... For if your Holiness calls me Universal Pope, you deny that you are yourself what you call me universally" (Epistles 8.30).

The word "Pope" comes from the Greek "pappas," meaning bishop or patriarch. Thus, we sometimes speak of the "Pope of Rome," and the bishop of Alexandra might have been referred to as the "Pope of Alexandria." St. Gregory's complaint, then, is that by calling him "Universal Bishop," Eulogios has denied that he, too, is a bishop just as is St. Gregory. "For in position you are my brethren, in character, my fathers ...."


Second, there is the claim of infallibility. Now — though it is false no matter how it is understood — fairness requires acknowledging that this claim has at times been made to seem excessively absurd. The Pope, for example, does not claim to be right when he predicts that it is going to rain, when he speaks about politics, or even when he ventures a private theological opinion (for example, in a personal letter).

He does, however, claim that when he speaks on a matter of faith or morals, doing so not simply as himself, but "ex cathedra" — that is, from his episcopal throne, on behalf of the Catholic Church — then he is incapable of committing error.

Catholics say that this happens very rarely. (In fact, they sometimes have trouble agreeing when it has happened, historically, and when it has not!) They also emphasize that the Pope would not make such a statement without having a council and getting everyone's opinion and so on. But the fact is that he can do it as often as he likes, and he need not ask anyone's opinion about it, either.

A Catholic will not deny that some popes have been womanizers, child-molesters, and so on — even that some of them are likely damned — but he will insist that this does not jeopardize the guarantee that they accurately taught the faith. Since Orthodox believe that God directly reveals dogmatic truths to the pure of heart, and so this idea is very foreign to us. It seems to require that all Popes have been pure of heart, which is manifestly false; or that when Popes speak ex cathedra (or choose not to) God is working them like puppets. But this would be a grave violation of man's free will.


There is not space for me to say much more, but I think it appropriate to close with an account from the life of St. Maximus the Confessor, a monk who lived in the seventh century. Neither a bishop nor a priest, he was however a great master of prayer and a brilliant theologian, and he was right when all those about him were wrong. The matter concerned the two natures of Christ, and all the patriarchates were in heresy — including the Church of Constantinople, to which St. Maximus belonged. The single exception was Rome.

Here, I suppose, a Catholic would declare his point made: there's no heresy in Rome! But that wasn't how St. Maximus saw it at all. We know this because the Church authorities lied to him: they told him that the Pope had also given in. St. Maximus didn't say, "Impossible! The Pope is infallible!", and he certainly didn't say, "Oh, well, I guess it's not a heresy then." What happened was this:

"[He was asked], 'To which church do you belong? To that of Byzantium, of Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, or Jerusalem? For all these churches, together with the provinces in subjection to them, are in unity. Therefore, if you also belong to the Catholic [that is, Universal] Church, enter into communion with us at once, lest fashioning for yourself some new and strange pathway, you fall into that which you do not even expect!'

"To this the righteous man wisely replied, 'Christ the Lord called that Church the Catholic Church which maintains the true and saving confession of the Faith. It was for this confession that He called Peter blessed, and He declared that He would found His Church upon this confession. However, I wish to know the contents of your confession, on the basis of which all churches, as you say, have entered into communion. If it is not opposed to the truth, then neither will I be separated from it.'"

In a later discussion, the saint reminded his interrogators that the Patriarchs of Constantinople and Alexandria and the other heretical bishops "have been deposed and deprived of the priesthood at the local synod which took place recently in Rome." Again, they lied:

"'But what will you do,' inquired the envoys, 'when the Romans are united to the Byzantines? Yesterday, indeed, two delegates arrived from Rome, and tomorrow, the Lord's day, they will communicate the Holy Mysteries with the Patriarch.'

"The Saint replied, 'Even if the whole universe holds communion with the Patriarch, I will not communicate with him. For I know from the writings of the holy Apostle Paul: the Holy Spirit declares that even the angels would be anathema if they should begin to preach another Gospel, introducing some new teaching.'"


This, then, has always been the Orthodox way, the way of the Church. No man is infallible, and every Christian must be ready to defend the truth at all times. It may sound unworkable, but, two thousand years later, here we are — trusting not in men, but in the Holy Spirit.

May God guide you on your journey!

+

2009-07-22 05:38:30 by Kopczyk

Price: $78.99

The catholic church promotes the idea that Mary is not a sinner.
In Luke 1:47, Mary calls God her “Savior.” Only a sinner needs a savior. The Bible states that Jesus is our redeemer (Galatians 3:13; 4:4-5; Titus 2:14; 1 Peter 1:18-19; Revelation 5:9). The “Hail, Holy Queen” calls Mary our “most gracious advocate,” but the Bible calls Jesus our Advocate to the Father (1 John 2:1) and our one Mediator (1 Timothy 2:5). The only time in Scripture that the title “Queen of Heaven” is found it is in a negative way (Jeremiah 7:17-19; 44:16-27). The whole of Scripture teaches us to pray to God alone. Never once can you find an example or admonition to pray to anyone else! The only basis for the idea of getting to God through Mary is based on the biblical story of Mary coming to Jesus to ask for his help at a wedding feast (John 2). But in light of all of the other verses, including Jesus’ own instruction on how we are to pray.
Likewise, is it appropriate to call Mary our “life” and “hope?” Again, these are terms that are used of God alone in Scripture, particularly God the Son, Jesus Christ (John 1:1-14; Colossians 3:4; 1 Timothy 1:1; Ephesians 2:12; Titus 2:13). Thus, the practice of saying the rosary goes contrary to Scripture in a number of ways. Only God can hear our prayers. Only God can answer our prayers. The Bible nowhere instructs Christians to pray through intermediaries, or to petition saints or Mary (in Heaven) for their prayers.

In the bible we are told not to have any gods before God. 1st commandment. We are told in both the new testiment that we are gods. If we pray to a departed christian are we setting a god over God.

1 Tim 2:5

For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus,

Seems clear we should only pray to God through His Son

2007-01-14 13:45:54 by Thomas A

I recently started a debate on debate.org, if you disagree with me you can contribute if you like, I was wondering what youo think of my arguments:

Jesus Christ, contrary to popular public opinion, never existed.

First to define who Jesus Christ was according to the "Holy Bible": Jesus Christ is a central figure in Christianity who supposedly lived from around 4 B.C. to 30 A.D. He was a prophet of Judaism who many believed was the Messiah, the one who would deliver the Jews to salvation. He began a new religious movement, called his ministry, that was composed of 12 disciples and other followers. He was sentenced to death by the Jewish authorities of Judea and was crucified by the Roman authorities.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org...

Now to define the term existence: The term existence means in simple Latin form to be.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org...

Jesus Christ never existed because he never lived. All documents that are about his life were written many years after his death, with the first gospel being written in 70 AD, 30 years after Jesus' supposed death in 40 AD. He was made up from a conglomeration of myths of the Roman and earlier time periods, and his story was significantly altered to meet the needs of Christians and the Jewish prophecies of the Messiah. Even if this is not the case Jesus could have been a conglomeration of various Jewish messianic cult leaders of the time.
Source: http://www.religioustolerance.org...

One of the more prominent religions that Christianity borrowed from for the story of Jesus was Mithraism, with many elements of the story of Mithra in Mithraism being very similar if not identical to the story of Jesus:
"Mithra was a fictional character who was worshipped as a Good Shepherd, the Way, the Truth and the Light, the Redeemer, the Savior, and the Messiah. A religion in his name was founded in the 6th century BCE. 5 Mithraism one of the most popular of religions in the Roman Empire, particularly among its soldiers and civil servants. It was Christianity's leading rival. 19 Mithra was also believed to have been born of a virgin. Like Jesus, their births were celebrated yearly on DEC-25. Mithra was also visited by shepherds and by Magi. He traveled through the countryside, taught, and performed miracles with his 12 disciples. He cast out devils, returned sight to the blind, healed the lame, etc. Symbols associated with Mithra were a Lion and a Lamb. He held a last supper, was killed, buried in a rock tomb. He rose again after three days, at the time of the spring equinox, circa MAR-21. He later ascended into heaven. Mithraism celebrated the anniversary of his resurrection, similar to the Christian Easter. They held services on Sunday. Rituals included a Eucharist and six other sacraments that corresponded to the rituals of the Catholic church" (Source: http://www.religioustolerance.org...).
Another god-figure that Jesus shared many similarities with was Horus of Egyptian myth. Both of them were born by a virgin, and were the sons of a God (Yahweh and Osiris), their births were both heralded by a star, they were both of royal descent, had step fathers, both their births were celebrated around the winter solstice, their births were announced by angels, three wise men/deities witness their births, Herut tried to have Horus murdered and Herod tried to have Jesus murdered when they were babies, they were both baptized in rivers, both of their baptisers were later beheaded, they were both tempted on mountains in the desert by Set and Satan, they both: Walked on water, cast out demons, healed the sick, restored sight to the blind, and stilled the sea, they both had a sermon on the mount, Horus died by either a scorpion sting or crucifixion and Jesus died by crucifixion, they were both buried in tombs, and they were resurrected in three days and this was announced by groups of women.
Source: http://www.religioustolerance.org...
Here's a link to the debate: http://www.debate.org/debates/Jesus-Chri st-Never-Existed/1/
Oh sorry, the links did not copy and paste right, here are the correct ones:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jc no.htm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jc no.htm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jc pa5b.htm
Idiot, I only cited Wikipedia to define Jesus Christ and the term existence, and both terms are right.
Thanks for the advice Caligula, its true that Josephus' writings were changed by third century Christians, and they know this now because the sentence comes out of the blue and Josephus would not have known some of the terms used.