03 Apr 05
Originally posted by UnaThank you for your good word, Father.
If one believes scripture then here it is:
Matthew 28-8-9
23:8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.
23:9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
Notice the first "father" is not capitalized, the second is denoting God the Father.
referring to each ...[text shortened]... at scripture says and there are churches who ignore scripture and follow religious tradition....
03 Apr 05
Originally posted by DarfiusSo, when Jesus had the Prodigal Son refer to his father as father, Jesus was
I'm saying Jesus told us not to call anyone on earth 'father'.
instructing using a disobedient person?
How about when St Stephen talks about 'father Abraham' in Acts 7 or St Paul when
he talks about 'father Isaac' in Romans 9? How about when St John address his
congregation as 'fathers' in I John 2:13? Are you saying that these instructive texts
are riddled with sinful interpolations?
Do you not think that, in the context of St Matthew 23, Jesus was saying that
Christians ought not call someone 'Father' on earth (with a capital 'F'😉, not
'father?' Wouldn't this make more sense?
Yes it would, and this is why I expect that you will reject it.
Nemesio
03 Apr 05
Originally posted by lucifershammerasserted explicitly that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ; ... The Pope is considered the man on earth who represents the Son of God,
What rubbish!
The Pope doesn't call himself Christ. And you claim to be raised Catholic!
oh, I forgot he represents the Son of God, but every believer who has the Holy Spirit represents Christ. And it is the Holy Spirit that is the representative of Christ on earth not a pope or anyone else but the Holy Spirit.
03 Apr 05
oh, I forgot he represents the Son of God, but every believer who has the Holy Spirit represents Christ. And it is the Holy Spirit that is the representative of Christ on earth not a pope or anyone else but the Holy Spirit.
Maybe the pope is filled with the Holy Spirit, and it is the Holy Spirit through him that represents Christ.
Besides he's been a far greater example of what Jesus Christ is celebrated for than you or Darfius.
03 Apr 05
Originally posted by RBHILLGo away and let the Catholic's have some peace in a time of berevement..... aint you got any decency in you?
asserted explicitly that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ; ... The Pope is considered the man on earth who represents the Son of God,
oh, I forgot he represents the Son of God, but every believer who has the Holy Spirit represents Christ. And it is the Holy Spirit that is the representative of Christ on earth not a pope or anyone else but the Holy Spirit.
03 Apr 05
Originally posted by telerionIt is not about being a good example or not it is about knowing God that is important, being good will not git you to heaven.
[b]oh, I forgot he represents the Son of God, but every believer who has the Holy Spirit represents Christ. And it is the Holy Spirit that is the representative of Christ on earth not a pope or anyone else but the Holy Spirit.
Maybe the pope is filled with the Holy Spirit, and it is the Holy Spirit through him that represents Christ.
Besides he's been a far greater example of what Jesus Christ is celebrated for than you or Darfius.[/b]
Matthew 7:21 - "Not every one who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
Matthew 7:22 - On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?'
Matthew 25:11 - Afterward the other maidens came also, saying, 'Lord, lord, open to us.'
Luke 6:46 - "Why do you call me 'Lord, Lord,' and not do what I tell you?
And you can read the verses that are in the same Chapter of these ones to get a better understanding.
03 Apr 05
Originally posted by NemesioWe must establish what we are talking about here.
So, when Jesus had the Prodigal Son refer to his father as father, Jesus was
instructing using a disobedient person?
How about when St Stephen talks about 'father Abraham' in Acts 7 or St Paul when
he talks about 'father Isaac' in Romans 9? How about when St John address his
congregation as 'fathers' in I John 2:13? Are you saying that these in ...[text shortened]... s make more sense?
Yes it would, and this is why I expect that you will reject it.
Nemesio
God is our Spiritual Father.
Both the Catholic and Episcopalian church refer to the leader of the Parish as Father. In the case of the Episcopalian church he is also known as Dean. The term in both churches implies they are your spiritual leader and have spiritual authority over you. Clearly, Christ was instructing us not to do this. Rather we are to look to Father God as having spritual authority over us.
Again, clear case of religious tradition replacing what we are directed by scripture to do or in this case not do.
03 Apr 05
Originally posted by UnaIs Isaac or Abraham not a spiritual father?
We must establish what we are talking about here.
God is our Spiritual Father.
Did St Paul and St Luke instruct in a sinful way?
Did St John call his congregation 'fathers' in a literal sense (i.e., did he have
many fathers??) or a spiritual sense?
The use of the term Father for the spiritual leaders of communities goes back
to Apostolic times; it's in the Bible (St John's first letter). Did these guys
somehow forget that Jesus Himself gave a mandate, or did they understand what
it really meant: to have no 'Father' on earth for the 'Father' resides in heaven?
Do you call your dad 'father?' If so, you are violating the literal Bible. If you
argue that this passage must be interpreted (i.e., it is not completely literal),
then why do you choose to interpret it in a way contrary to that which Sts Luke,
Paul and John found perfectly amenable?
Nemesio
03 Apr 05
Originally posted by NemesioNemesio, if it isn't that , it would be something else. "They pray to Mary" , "They use Latin" , "They're pediophiles." "They have icons."
Is Isaac or Abraham not a spiritual father?
Did St Paul and St Luke instruct in a sinful way?
Did St John call his congregation 'fathers' in a literal sense (i.e., did he have
many fathers??) or a spiritual sense?
The use of the term Father for the spiritual leaders of communities goes back
to Apostolic times; it's in the Bible (St John's firs ...[text shortened]... t in a way contrary to that which Sts Luke,
Paul and John found perfectly amenable?
Nemesio
"They worship idols." Always something.
04 Apr 05
Originally posted by kirksey957As you well know, Kirk, I am first in line to criticize the RCC, but where they deserve it.
Nemesio, if it isn't that , it would be something else. "They pray to Mary" , "They use Latin" , "They're pediophiles." "They have icons."
"They worship idols." Always something.
I've not tolerated bald-faced lies against the RCC, the Mormon Church, or Islam. The
theological premise upon which fundamentalists base their objection to calling a priest
'Father' is violated in Scripture.
So either they can maintain their stance and say that Scripture is riddled with sinful
paternal references or they can give up on this form of attack on the Church and focus
on criticizing her where she deserves it.
Nemesio
04 Apr 05
Originally posted by NemesioActually, the teachings of the Ecumenical Councils are part of the infallible dogma (? not sure if that term is correct, but you get the point) of the Church and, so, are as valid today as they were back in the 16th century. The Council of Trent, in particular, stands out for its definition of various doctrines such as the Source(s) of Revelation and doctrine of Justification. They're still true today.
More uncited nonsense. The Council of Trent? From the 16th century? Great source.
It's been outdated since the First Vatican Council in the late 19th century. Then you
cite statements from the First Vatican Council which has been outdated since the 1960s.
Another great source, representative of little which the Church stands for today.
Of course, this does not apply to the canons and organisational reforms instituted as these are not part of doctrine.
04 Apr 05
Originally posted by NemesioThe Infallibility you're talking about is Papal Infallibility. In fact, the General Councils of the Church also enjoy infallibility.
Once again, your ignorance of the Roman Catholic Church betrays itself.
The 'infallibility doctrine' to which you refer has only formally existed for
a little over 100 years and only pertains to matters of faith which are
executed ex cathedra. If I am not mistaken, the Pope has exercised
this power on only a handful of occasions, and not in ...[text shortened]... urces whence
you get your information.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm
Nemesio
04 Apr 05
Originally posted by lucifershammerJust a second, then.
Actually, the teachings of the Ecumenical Councils are part of the infallible dogma (? not sure if that term is correct, but you get the point) of the Church and, so, are as valid today as they were back in the 16th century. The Council of Trent, in particular, stands out for its definition of various doctrines such as the Source(s) of Revelation and ...[text shortened]... not apply to the canons and organisational reforms instituted as these are not part of doctrine.
The Roman Church 'revised' its position on Justification. I don't have time right
now to find it, but perhaps you could quote what it says in the Council of Trent
and then what the RCC said in the late 1990s in their discussions with the Lutheran
Church.
If you don't, I'll poke around and try to find it.
Nemesio