holy father?

  • Thread starter Thread starter guardian1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
estesbob said:
I am allowed to interpert as many verses as i want-and when my iinterperation conflicts with the teacings and traditions of the Catholic Church I know my interperation is wrong. I dont read scpiture to find the truth-I read Scripture to understand the Truth more fully
Click to expand...
Well said. There are actually only a handful – around a dozen – of scriptural texts that the Church requires to be interpreted in a specific way. For the rest, we have full liberty.
 
myfavoritmartin said:
Gladly if you guys drop the interpretation issue from this thread otherwise we’ll get nowhere.
Click to expand...
I’ll create a thread especially for you so you can explain kindly why personal interpretation and truth are not oxymorons.
 
myfavoritmartin said:
Gladly if you guys drop the interpretation issue from this thread otherwise we’ll get nowhere.
Click to expand...
How can we possibly do that since your whole argument concerning “call no man father” is based on your personal interpertaion of Scriptue?
 
Perhaps you can answer a similar question?

Do you believe that You are filled with the Holy Spirit while everyone who disagrees with you is not?

You profess that Christ says refering to spiritual leader as “father” is wrong, blasphemy, I believe was the word of choice.

Your basis for this is a belief that as you are filled with the Holy Spirit and therefore your (name removed by moderator)erpretation of the bible is correct.

You also profess that the Hoy Spirit will lead all to truth.

The only conclusion that can be drawn from these statements is that you believe that anyone who does not agree with your intepretation of the bible must not be filled with the Holy Spirit.

Forget the Catholic position on the subject. There are many protestants who whole heartedly disagree with you as well. They must be decieved as well!

You’ve been presented with information from protestant sources showing that up until quite recently “most” protestant ministers were refered to as “father” as well.

You profess that throuhout the 2,000 year history of Chrisitianity, most of Chrisitianity got it wrong.

It therefore must be logically concluded that you believe that for most of Christian history “christians” were not filled with the Holy Spirit and were therefore deceived.

Have I got something wrong here?

Chuck
myfavoritmartin said:
Nope! But the spirit can lead all to truth!
Are you guys so arrogant as to think the true path to salvation and indwelling of the HS can only happen through the CC and its sacrements? Do you think God only allows players at one position (so to speak) on HIS team.
And then ya’ll follow up calling us seperated brethren, that is the height of arrogance. Whatever happened to humble servants?
Click to expand...
 
You should start another thread for this discussion. One subject at a time will keep the discussion going better.

Chuck
myfavoritmartin said:
ONE CATHOLIC PLEASE ANSWER THIS>>>>>>
How did you INTERPRET the catholic church to be the correct church???
Click to expand...
 
myfavoritmartin said:
Nope! But the spirit can lead all to truth!
Are you guys so arrogant as to think the true path to salvation and indwelling of the HS can only happen through the CC and its sacrements? Do you think God only allows players at one position (so to speak) on HIS team.
And then ya’ll follow up calling us seperated brethren, that is the height of arrogance. Whatever happened to humble servants?
Click to expand...
If the Church is Who Jesus said she would be “his” and “guided into all the truth” then there is no arrogance at all in standing firm in that truth. When the spirit leads to ALL the truth, it is in Communion with the Catholic Church.

You are a brother because you call upon the Name of Jesus Christ. You are separated from the trunk of the tree by your own will. The door is open. The light is on for you. If “humble servant” is your true self-description, then step right up and come on in!
 
myfavoritmartin said:
Gladly if you guys drop the interpretation issue from this thread otherwise we’ll get nowhere.
Click to expand...
It isn’t possible to separate the private interpretation issue from your argument, as it stems from a faulty private interpretation, and thus is *central *to the argument.
 
Well which is it?

You keep saying “call no man father”.

Then you say this only applies to “vain titles” and not to our fathers.

Yet the only “vain title” that you seem to have a problem with is the title of “Father” as applied to a Catholic priest or “Holy Father” as applied to the Pope.

“Reverend” and “Pastor” and “Teacher” and “Professor” and “Doctor”: Are these “vain titles” or is the “only vain title” that we are supposed to avoid using “father”?

If it’s only “father” that’s a problem because “that’s what Christ said” then, since Christ did not speak english, and he likely made this statement in either Aramaic or Hebrew, is it not ok to use “father” just not the “Hebrew or Aramaic” equivalents?

Chuck
myfavoritmartin said:
YEAH and even a caveman can understand this…
"call no man father"
I see so for you its okay but not ME, EH?
Click to expand...
 
Ok, now that thread is started, which I really, really hope Simon will give his arguments on. Let’s get back to the subject at hand:

Why is it ok for you to call your pastor Reverend and not for Catholics to call our Pope Holy Father? Do you not see the inconsistency? (If you say because the Bible says so, please eleborate more than a simple Scripture passage and an insult to our intelligences).
 
MfM,

Back in post #267, I referred to a quote in which some followers of Martin Luther referred to him as “Reverend Father.” If it is sinful to refer to clergy or other religious leaders as “Father,” why didn’t Luther correct them?
 
I think it “might be” though the more important issue is a belief in “infallible” private interpretation.

If we stick to the subject at hand, I think it can be (in fact already has been) shown several times that the position that is being taken is “logically” and “scripturally” inconsistent.

However, “IF” a belief in “infallible private interpretation” allows someone to maintain “logically” and “scripturally” inconsistent positions, then, you are correct, further discussion of any given subject is a complete waste of time until the interpretation issue is dealt with first.

This might be a good reason to abandon the “father” discussion entirely until the other is completed.

Chuck
djrakowski said:
It isn’t possible to separate the private interpretation issue from your argument, as it stems from a faulty private interpretation, and thus is *central *to the argument.
Click to expand...
 
clmowry said:
I think it “might be” though the more important issue is a belief in “infallible” private interpretation.

If we stick to the subject at hand, I think it can be (in fact already has been) shown several times that the position that is being taken is “logically” and “scripturally” inconsistent.

However, “IF” a belief in “infallible private interpretation” allows someone to maintain “logically” and “scripturally” inconsistent positions, then, you are correct, further discussion of any given subject is a complete waste of time until the interpretation issue is dealt with first.

This might be a good reason to abandon the “father” discussion entirely until the other is completed.

Chuck
Click to expand...
Great post. Check out my thread if you wish to discuss this more with martin.
 
clmowry said:
This might be a good reason to abandon the “father” discussion entirely until the other is completed.
Click to expand...
Agreed… Dancelittleewok’s thread is a good place to hash out the interpretation issue.
 
djrakowski said:
MfM,

Back in post #267, I referred to a quote in which some followers of Martin Luther referred to him as “Reverend Father.” If it is sinful to refer to clergy or other religious leaders as “Father,” why didn’t Luther correct them?
Click to expand...
You have evidently missed the core argument that myfavoritemartin is making. his interperation is that the phrase means "let no **Catholic** call man Father"
 
myfavoritmartin said:
Your insinuating that my reading scripture is garbage in garbage out…That is quite offensive.
Click to expand...
You misunderstood, mfm. The reading of scripture is not the problem. More power to you! However, what appears on this board is not you reading scripture, but your interpretation and understanding of what you have read. that interpretation is colored and goes through a number of filters, before it gets here.
myfavoritmartin said:
I’ve quoted our Lords words and this is what you’ve to say…
WOW!
Click to expand...
you have quoted the words, but something is amiss in the way you apply them.
 
myfavoritmartin said:
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.
Click to expand...
I don’t think so, mfm. This is probably coming from that anticatholic filter you have been using.

catholic.com/library/galileo_controversy.asp

If Galileo chose not to believe the written word of God, and decided his science was better, then that is his choice. The church’s job is to proclaim the truth, and at times, make clear statements about what is not the truth. Scripture is truth. It may also be that the solar system is heliocentric, but that does not make the Scripture less true. If Galileo put more faith in his scientific theory than he did in the word of God, how did you suppose he was going to be saved at all, with or without a tribunal?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top