holy father?

[Mannyfit75]

Care to share how you jumped to this conclusion, each time I read Acts 10: I see nothing of the sort.

When Peter entered, Cornelius met him and fell down to his feet and worshiped him. But Peter lifted him up, saying, “Stand up; I am too a man.”

Cornelius worshipped Peter and so Peter corrected him. When I met the Cardinal I bow but did not worship him. I greeted him like I would an elder. That is the difference. I presumed you know what lies in a man’s heart since you assumed someone kissing the Pope’s ring and bowing as a kind of worship.

 

[JoeyWarren]

When Peter entered, Cornelius met him and fell down to his feet and worshiped him. But Peter lifted him up, saying, “Stand up; I am too a man.”

Cornelius worshipped Peter and so Peter corrected him. When I met the Cardinal I bow but did not worship him. I greeted him like I would an elder. That is the difference. I presumed you know what lies in a man’s heart since you assumed someone kissing the Pope’s ring and bowing as a kind of worship.

Cmon Manny, you got to high lite it. MfM mind is like a large database. It has filters applied that allow him to see only those records(verses) that correspond to his programming.

If you don’t make it stand out, he will not see it.

Acts 10: 25 And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him.
26 But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man.

MFM will reads Acts 10 one hundred times today and still not see it until we bold it out and change the color to make stand out like a sore thurmb.

 

[toaslan]

I’m passing through this thread quickly, but I see, pages back, that myfavmart objected to my characterization of his posts as stink bombs. I apologize for any offense: I chose a short cut which was apparently too open to misunderstanding–

… how very uncharitable.
Stink bomb? what are you in 2nd grade?

What*** I *** meant by stink bomb was, posting what purports to be an answer but has in fact no target and no effect other than to obscure, mess up, prevent clarity; meanwhile leaving opposed viewpoints untouched. Providing the appearance of dialogue while actually performing monologue!

Hope that’s clear enough!

 

[JoeyWarren]

The whole problem with Protestants, and more importantly anti-catholics such as MfM is that the mind has been programmed wth a certain set of parameters and paradigms such as:

1. If a belief is Catholic, then it is false and pagan.
2. If a verse read literaly is Catholic, then it is figurative, and if it is not figurative then it is symbolic.
3. If a Catholic tells you that it is in a chapter, then you will not find it.

etc.

I would call it programming, others would call it brainwashing.

MfM suffers from what us programmers say: “Garbage in, Garbage out”

Someone fed him Garbage, and now all that come out of his own mouth is Garbage.

MFM claims to have read acts 10 a couple of times and did not see it, even though it was right there in front of him and he still did not see.

Blessed are those that have not seen and believed. What do we call those that have seen and still not believe? What do we call those that have been shown and still don’t see?

Some will never experience a paradigm shift.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Cmon Manny, you got to high lite it. MfM mind is like a large database. It has filters applied that allow him to see only those records(verses) that correspond to his programming.

If you don’t make it stand out, he will not see it.

Acts 10: 25 And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him.
26 But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man.

MFM will reads Acts 10 one hundred times today and still not see it until we bold it out and change the color to make stand out like a sore thurmb.

I hope he’ll get the picture now.

 

[guanophore]

Job 32:21 Let ~me~ not, I pray you, accept any man’s ~person~, neither let me give ~flattering titles ~unto man~.

Job 32:22 For I know ~not~ to give flattering titles; in so doing my maker would soon take me away.

In your opinion, what is the difference between giving “double honor to an elder” and “flattering titles”?

Thought provoking post!

Question though, Why does the “holy father” b16 allow and expect the faithful to bow to him and kiss his ring?

cuz my pastor would be mightly offended by someone doing this, much like Peter was with Cornelius.

We are very conditioned by our culture. In the East, where this practice derived, it is customary to bow. The lower the bow, the greater the respect.

The kissing if things is a sign of reverence. If you ever attend an Orthodox (Eastern) church you will see a lot of bowing and kissing of objects. In some parishes, after the gospel is read, the congregation files up one by each to kiss the finger of the priest who holds the book. In some icons are kissed, or crosses. It is a sign of affection and reverence. Here in the States we have lost most customs we ever had about respect.

 

[JoeyWarren]

As for his signature?

don’t need to be on the swim team…My team owner carries me accross the top of the water…

Well in order to be baptized, you gotta get wet. Peter was able to walk on water because of his faith, but Jesus said he had little faith.

If Peter had little faith then what does the run of the mill Christian have in comparison?

His faith is much greater tha our own…by leaps and bounds…we are just a mere shadow…

 

[MariaG]

You can look at him as a spiritual father all you want…That is clear in scripture! Its the elevation by title such as I quoted in JOB earlier, that is clearly the offense the Lord speaks about.

Job 32:21 Let ~me~ not, I pray you, accept any man’s ~person~, neither let me give ~flattering titles ~unto man~.

Job 32:22 For I know ~not~ to give flattering titles; in so doing my maker would soon take me away.

Did you answer this? I know several have asked but basically it comes down to this.

It appears that you say it is okay, as per scripture, to give the title “Father” to those who are our spiritual Fathers?

But it also appears that you have judged the term “holy Father” a vain title, and not a spiritual one?

Would that be correct?

 

[heisenburg]

Martin…

In regards to the kissing of the ring, bowing, etc. For an outsider, I can see how it may appear a little odd at best. But if you would indulge me for a moment, perhaps I can expound on it a little better.

Look at it from a Catholic POV. We see the Pope as just a man for starters. He Sins, he Fails, he needs to repent. He is a Man. But for a Catholic, we also see him as the person in Guiding the Earthly portion of His Church. Just like you see your Pastor as being the earthly guide to His Flock at your church. Your Pastor is no greater in terms of his Humanity than the Pope is. And Vice Versa.

However, there is one key thing for a Catholic that separates your Local Pastor, and the Pope. We believe completely and totally that in terms of teaching Faith and Morals, the Pope will ALWAYS be guided to truth. It is Impossible in our eyes for any public teaching in Faith and morals to be wrong that comes from the Pope. It is a promise we believe God gave Peter and all his successors. And to be honest, if there ever was a public teaching in Faith and Morals that was ever wrong by any pope, that would mean the whole gig is up.

Something that you may find interesting is doing a search for Popes that had bad theology, but how somehow, things always happened where they were never taught publicly. We see events like that as the HS keeping his promise. (maybe some people can provide some links for Martin to review.)

Now, if, for us, the Pope represents Christ’s trues teaching, submitting to the Pope in Faith and Morals is effectively submitting to God because we do not see the Popes teachings as the Popes, but more the Pope simply being a modern day messenger. If I bow to the pope out of respect, I do not bow out of Worship to the Pope, I am Bowing to the Church that is Guided by God through through the Pope.

For my own personal experience, It makes me feel extremely comforted to know that if I have a view on an issue of faith and morals, and the Churches view is opposite of mine. It is very very very comforting to know who is wrong in that matter. It is not that I do not think for myself because I still want to know why. But sometimes, knowing who is right is half the battle. We believe God Promised us that he would never allow the Catholic Church to teach error.

While I am not insulting your church, so please do not see it that way, You do not have that same promise. If you believe one thing with respect to faith and morals, and your Church Elders believe something else, it can be very difficult to know who is actually right. It is possible you are right and the Pastor wrong, it is possible you are wrong and the pastor is right. So, yes, bowing to your Pastor would be odd and inappropriate. Something I, nor you would probably ever do.

Sorry for the long winded explanation, but I hope that helps

In Christ to you Always

 

[myfavoritmartin]

.

MfM suffers from what us programmers say: “Garbage in, Garbage out”

Someone fed him Garbage, and now all that come out of his own mouth is Garbage.

.

Your insinuating that my reading scripture is garbage in garbage out…That is quite offensive.

I’ve quoted our Lords words and this is what you’ve to say…
WOW!

 

[myfavoritmartin]

And to be honest, if there ever was a public teaching in Faith and Morals that was ever wrong by any pope, that would mean the whole gig is up.

Galileo was labeled a heretic therefore outside of the church where in that era there was no salvation,therefore his issue was of faith and morals and the church was wrong, according to canon he lost his salvation.

 

[clmowry]

So it’s only the “vain titles” of father that are a problem. Not spiritual fatherhood.

So why aren’t “pastor” or “reverend” vain titles?

What exactly differentiates St. Paul’s fatherhood from vain spiritual fatherhood? He calls himself father…thats OK the local priest is called father and that’s not?

Chuck

Actually it is your interpretation of Paul and Abrahams verses…These aren’t about the **vain titles **of Father rather they are about spiritual fatherhood.

 

[djrakowski]

Your insinuating that my reading scripture is garbage in garbage out…That is quite offensive.

On this point, I agree. There’s no need to resort to incivility.

I’ve quoted our Lords words and this is what you’ve to say…
WOW!

Unfortunately, that’s not entirely true. While you’ve quoted scripture, you’ve added your interpretation to the passages you’ve quoted. We have no quarrel with scripture, but rather, how you’ve interpreted it.

This question has been asked a number of times, and I’ve yet to see an answer from you. Your Protestant brother, revmarty, disagrees with your interpretation of the Matthew 23 passage you’ve cited so frequently. How do I know you’re correct and he’s not, or vice-versa? And, are you willing to tell the people in the Orthdox and Anglican communions that they’re not Christians because they call their priests ‘father?’

heisenburg’s recent post, in which he outlined different scenarios regarding priests/pastors who exercise their duties faithfully vs. those who don’t was the best in this thread so far. I’m thankful it made you think, MfM!

 

[heisenburg]

Galileo was labeled a heretic therefore outside of the church where in that era there was no salvation,therefore his issue was of faith and morals and the church was wrong, according to canon he lost his salvation.

While it may seem that this is related to the Public Teaching on Faith and Morals, there is a great deal more to this story that makes it not so. Part of the problem was that He was saying that this is exactly the way it is as a fact. His statement could not be proven fact based on the tools of the day, so, Galileo was wrong. Not from a religious POV but a scientific POV. If someone came out today and said. “It is a fact that there is life on Neptune” You would (hopefully) point out that it is impossible with todays technology to prove this.

The Church didn’t have a problem with the Theory he put forth, it had a problem with him demanding the Church accept it as Fact. Something that no organization could do and still be legitimate for no other reason than it was impossible to prove it with the technology of the day.

That being said, do a a little digging on the subject. You may find it quite interesting. What you wont find is a faith and morals teaching that is wrong. The Church Elders may have handled it poorly, but they never taught in error

In Christ

 

[myfavoritmartin]

And, are you willing to tell the people in the Orthdox and Anglican communions that they’re not Christians because they call their priests ‘father?’

:

Have i ever claimed you guys were not Christian??? NO!
I do however think your church is wrong on this issue and if a brother sins another brother out of love should confront him. Did not Paul correct Peter, out of love?
Now I realise I’ll likely not change most regarding the elitist title “Father” but prayerfully some will give it the consideration it is due.

 

[estesbob]

Galileo was labeled a heretic therefore outside of the church where in that era there was no salvation,therefore his issue was of faith and morals and the church was wrong, according to canon he lost his salvation.

You have been corrected on this at least 5 times in this thread yet refuse to respond I personally have given you links to the truth about the Gallelio affair twice . You know what you say is wrong yet you continue to spew the same nonsnese over and over and over again.

I suspect you are having great fund posting nonsense again and again to this thread and seeing the reaction you get but you should be aware that in Private Messages people are laughing themsleves silly at what you are posting here. Did you deliberately come here to play the fool or do you just not realize that is the way you are coming across.

BTW-I have also received seveal PMs from Protestants embarassed at what you are posting and wondering of you are a Catholic posing as a Protestant to make Proestants look stupid. I said I doubted is as you seem to be ignorant of both faiths.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

While it may seem that this is related to the Public Teaching on Faith and Morals, there is a great deal more to this story that makes it not so. Part of the problem was that He was saying that this is exactly the way it is as a fact. His statement could not be proven fact based on the tools of the day, so, Galileo was wrong. Not from a religious POV but a scientific POV. If someone came out today and said. “It is a fact that there is life on Neptune” You would (hopefully) point out that it is impossible with todays technology to prove this.

The Church didn’t have a problem with the Theory he put forth, it had a problem with him demanding the Church accept it as Fact. Something that no organization could do and still be legitimate for no other reason than it was impossible to prove it with the technology of the day.

That being said, do a a little digging on the subject. You may find it quite interesting. What you wont find is a faith and morals teaching that is wrong. The Church Elders may have handled it poorly, but they never taught in error

In Christ

I’ve read about this in great detail! Next week if you’d like I’ll start a thread on it.

 

[estesbob]

Have i ever claimed you guys were not Christian??? NO!
I do however think your church is wrong on this issue and if a brother sins another brother out of love should confront him. Did not Paul correct Peter, out of love?
Now I realise I’ll likely not change most regarding the elitist title “Father” but prayerfully some will give it the consideration it is due.

Gee when you accused us all of Blaspemy for not agreeing with your personal interperations of Scripture I thought that is was what you were getting at. Can one be guilty of ongoing Blasphemy and still be considered Chrisitan?

 

[heisenburg]

I’ve read about this in great detail! Next week if you’d like I’ll start a thread on it.

I think thats a lovely idea actually

In Christ

 

[djrakowski]

Have i ever claimed you guys were not Christian??? NO!
I do however think your church is wrong on this issue and if a brother sins another brother out of love should confront him. Did not Paul correct Peter, out of love?
Now I realise I’ll likely not change most regarding the elitist title “Father” but prayerfully some will give it the consideration it is due.

Again, by what authority does your interpretation of scripture trump the consistent witness of the Church, other Bible passages that speak of spiritual fatherhood and sonship you’ve chosen to subjugate to Matthew 23 in a complete misunderstanding of that passage, and the witness of other non-Catholic churches who share with us in the practice of referring to our priests as ‘father’?

By what authority do you deem to correct us for this sin that isn’t really a sin?

With respect to whether the Catholic Church (and the churches that share our practice in this matter) are authentically Christian: are you saying that we’re only good Christians if we don’t follow the customary practices of our respective churches? After all, you’ve said that if we do, we’re sinners…