holy father?

[guanophore]

Have i ever claimed you guys were not Christian??? NO!

No, really, it seems more like you are taking pot shots at erroneous notions of what you have been told we believe, and point out that these spurious beliefs are unchristian.

Or its another situation where the easy definition of Christs’ words is getting twisted to fit to a later tradition of man…
YEP seems very likely in this case.

Kinda like the graven image verse…Doesn’t apply to ROME!
oh yeah and the bowing to people one, oh yeah and the abstaining from meat one, OH yeah and the forbidding marraige one, OH yeah and the communicating with the dead one, OH yeah and the mediator one, OH oh yeah and the eating flesh and blood one, oh yeah and the vain repetition of prayer one.

Here you list a menu of common misperceptions about Catholic belief, and imply that ROME thinks these erroneous practices are fine, implying that we are anti scriptural. . You also state that Catholics “twist” scripture to fit “tradition of man”. So, if we are not deny the Word of God, how can we then be Christian?

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?

Perhaps this is the answer I was looking for earlier? I asked you in several posts why you are here. If you are here to correct us because we are wrong, then I now have the answer to my question.

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.

This might just be one of those areas that you don’t understand, mfm. I don’t know if you are able to change your mind on this point or not, it does not seem so. We have told you in as many ways as we can think of that the use of “father” in Catholicism is not “elitist”. It is a term of honor that we give to the shepherds appointed over us by God, out of reverence for God. It is not vanity, and it is not inappropriate exaltation.

 

[revmarty]

How does any of that translate into only needing to “born again” to be saved? I mean its a nice story and a very pleasant interertation but it appears that other than that there is no" there there"

I , BTW, can never recall entering a “new” relationship with Christ I have been in close relationship with him since my parents had me baptized when I was less than a month old. I had a close relationship with the Lord before i was even aware he existed. That was a gift to me both from God and my parents.

. The biggest change in my relationship came when I was 7 and actually got to receive the physical Body and Blood of the our Lord and Savior. This morning I once again held our Lord & Saviors Physical Body in my hands and followed his instructions to eat his body and drink his blood. There is no way you can have a closer relationship than that.

I

Of course it was the Catholic Church. There simply no evidence of another credible Christian Church until 1,500 years after Christ founded his Church. The idea that there was no physical Chuch was not beleived by hardly anyone from the time of the Aposles unitl the 16th Century. I suggest you do some readings of the writings of the Church Fathers.-some of whom lived in the early 1st centtury. If you read them you will see there was no doubt in their minds that what became known as the Catholic Church was the one true Chruch. You will also find for the first 1,500 years of Christianity the core doctrines of protestanism (Sola Scriptura and Sola Fidels) had not been taught by anyone-more or less believed. Of course since neither is supported by Scripture or tradition that should come as no suprise

Myfavoritemartin and many others who have visited these forums claim that to call anyone but God “father” is blasphemy. They read the same bible you do and claim that the Spirit will reveal the truth to anyone who studies scipture-just like you do. So how do we reconcile this? Are there many versions of the truth ?

I appreitiate the time and effort it took you to respond to my post, however I was hoping for a deeper response, one perhaps that was more oh I don’t know? more based on the biblical truth, rather than a doctrinal theory or iligimate ritual. you see the bread and wine are symbols alway’s were alway’s have been, for the wine to turn to Blood and the bread or the well prepared people friendly waffer biscuit to be the actual body, well that would be some what cannabalistic, Jesus was illastrating to the disciples the need to remember the great sacrifice that was about to take place.

John the baptist never dropped water on the heads of people as they came to be baptized, the word baptized means full immersion, and the whole point of Jesus conversation with a religous leader in John 3 was to emphasize being born into a religion is not a enough and does not constitute salvation or relationship "Now there was a Pharisee named Nicodemus, a leader of the Jews. He came to Jesus by night and said to him, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God; for no one can do these signs that you do apart from the presence of God.” Jesus answered him, “Very truly, I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born again.” Nicodemus said to him, “How can anyone be born after having grown old? Can one enter a second time into the mother’s womb and be born?” Jesus answered, “Very truly, I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit.”

– John 3:1-5

Bless you
Marty

 

[Nevarlander]

i called my biological father “dad” and his father “grandpa”. the founding fathers, i called “founding fathers”. the “rule” was you could call your biological father “father”, but no one else.

How can you get to call your biological father “father” if it says not to?
My take on this is that Jesus was talking about people who set themselves up as followers of such and such a teacher, saying that Jewish Teacher X was their “father” and ignoring that their teacher’s wisdom came from God. At least that’s what I’m thinking he meant by it. So he didn’t literally mean “call no man father”, he just meant to not follow men ahead of God.

 

[revmarty]

I started a new thread for this, Marty, since it is off topic here. Are you saying that the holy spirit does not work through the Pope?

Hey G, No that is not what I’m saying, niether you or myself know the Pope apart from his position, so I can not Judge his relationship with God or question wether or not he is filled with HS, Let me state for the record I believe there will be a many pentecostals, Catholics, COF, Baptist and a like that will spend eternity in Hell and Many just same will be in Heaven God is not a respector of persons he cares nothing for our Church label he searches the heart, he will not ask what your parents did or what church they attended or how much money they earned.
I believe the Pope must be a Godly man. and many Catholics with whom i am friends and aquantances love the Lord, and question as I do the traditions of their Church and I of mine. a deligent Christian will search for the truth even when it might challenge the Churches veiw point, we should make sure that the activity’s of the Church are not in direct contridiction to the word of God.

Bless you

 

[revmarty]

Martin…

Quick question…
Do you have people that help you in learning about Christ? Hopefully, the answer is yes. If you do, this means you look up to them in matters of faith, not that they are equal to god, but more learned about god than you. There is nothing wrong with this in scripture.

Now, step back from the passage for a moment. which of these two situations is wrong…

1. A man who is learning about Christ goes to his pastor. Through many One on one meetings, the Man comes to Christ, and continues Using that same pastor to continue to Grow in christ.
2. A man is learning about Christ. The pastor seems to know about everything to the man, and the man begins to see him as an equal to god.

Obviously the first is OK, the second is wrong

Now, take that from a different point of view…

1. A Man has for many years studied the ways of Christ, scripture, the ECF’s etc. He begins to lead a local flock of followers as their Pastor to Christ. He always gives the GLory to God and God alone. His title is Father, but he understands that though while he is charged with guiding this part of Christs Flock, he is far from an equal.
2. A Man has for years studied about Christ. He becomes very arrogant, and thinks everyone should bow down to his understanding because “he is always right” Though he does not make himself equal to god, he believes that he is always right, no matter what. His title is Father

Case 1 is OK, because the title really doesn’t matter, its what you do with that title. Just like its ok to use Pastor, Bishop, Rev. etc. Christ is talking about what is going BEHIND the title by the person USING the title…

Case 2 is horrible because the man is abusing his title and not giving the Glory to God alone.

It is the arrogance of some people with these titles, not the titles themselves that Christ was condemning in Matt.

Now, take it to a differant level.

1. A man follows Christ and believes in Christ completely. He is given a title to indicate he is an elder. Say… Father.
2. A Man is given a Title, say Pastor, and abuses his title. Professes that since he is the Pastor he is the supreme arbiter. and is generally a bad guy

When (1) dies and is judged, Will God say, you know, you lead the ideal life I wanted for my servants, but you had the title Father… You go the hell

Or

When (2) dies, will God frown upon the Pastor, maybe still send him to hell, but say… Hey, thanks for not using the title Father

DO you think God cares more about the Title, or the action behind the title…

In Christ

Well said, Men care for titles not God…

Marty

 

[mercygate]

I appreitiate the time and effort it took you to respond to my post, however I was hoping for a deeper response, one perhaps that was more oh I don’t know? more based on the biblical truth, rather than a doctrinal theory or iligimate ritual. you see the bread and wine are symbols alway’s were alway’s have been, for the wine to turn to Blood and the bread or the well prepared people friendly waffer biscuit to be the actual body, well that would be some what cannabalistic, Jesus was illastrating to the disciples the need to remember the great sacrifice that was about to take place.

John the baptist never dropped water on the heads of people as they came to be baptized, the word baptized means full immersion, and the whole point of Jesus conversation with a religous leader in John 3 was to emphasize being born into a religion is not a enough and does not constitute salvation or relationship "Now there was a Pharisee named Nicodemus, a leader of the Jews. He came to Jesus by night and said to him, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God; for no one can do these signs that you do apart from the presence of God.” Jesus answered him, “Very truly, I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born again.” Nicodemus said to him, “How can anyone be born after having grown old? Can one enter a second time into the mother’s womb and be born?” Jesus answered, “Very truly, I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit.”

– John 3:1-5

Bless you
Marty

Bless you, too, Rev Marty. This should all go to another set of threads. When you learn what Catholic teaching really is on these issues, I doubt that you will request a “deeper” or “more biblical” treatment. Can you really believe that a faith tradition that has faced every heresy known to man for 2000 years and has been blessed with some of the greatest and most profoundly faithful theological minds holds shallow beliefs?

You’re in for a treat if you really mean to explore the riches of Catholic sacramental theology. For starters, I would recommend Scott Hahn’s popular treatment of the Eucharist: The Lamb’s Supper.

Now back to “holy father?”

 

[mercygate]

Hey G, No that is not what I’m saying, niether you or myself know the Pope apart from his position, so I can not Judge his relationship with God or question wether or not he is filled with HS, Let me state for the record I believe there will be a many pentecostals, Catholics, COF, Baptist and a like that will spend eternity in Hell and Many just same will be in Heaven God is not a respector of persons he cares nothing for our Church label he searches the heart, he will not ask what your parents did or what church they attended or how much money they earned.
I believe the Pope must be a Godly man. and many Catholics with whom i am friends and aquantances love the Lord, and question as I do the traditions of their Church and I of mine. a deligent Christian will search for the truth even when it might challenge the Churches veiw point, we should make sure that the activity’s of the Church are not in direct contridiction to the word of God.

Bless you

Well thought, Rev! That’s just how a lot of us ended upl here! BTW: we do know something of the Pope because he’s written a lot of outstanding books. He’s not just a short white-haired guy in a funny hat for us. He’s a really great teacher. Really.

 

[Church_Militant]

ONE CATHOLIC PLEASE ANSWER THIS

How did you INTERPRET the catholic church to be the correct church???Answer.

 

[guanophore]

Hey G, No that is not what I’m saying, niether you or myself know the Pope apart from his position, so I can not Judge his relationship with God or question wether or not he is filled with HS, Let me state for the record I believe there will be a many pentecostals, Catholics, COF, Baptist and a like that will spend eternity in Hell and Many just same will be in Heaven God is not a respector of persons he cares nothing for our Church label he searches the heart, he will not ask what your parents did or what church they attended or how much money they earned.
I believe the Pope must be a Godly man. and many Catholics with whom i am friends and aquantances love the Lord, and question as I do the traditions of their Church and I of mine. a deligent Christian will search for the truth even when it might challenge the Churches veiw point, we should make sure that the activity’s of the Church are not in direct contridiction to the word of God.

Bless you

We can know some about the pope by his writings. I think where you are limited is in your understanding of the word of God. The Word of God is His revelation to humanity. The Word is Jesus. Jesus revealed the kingdom to his disciples orally, never writing any books of His own. Some time later, some of these teachings were written, and the Church compiled them into what we know of today as our New Testament. Some of that revelation did not get written down, but has been preserved in the Sacred Traditions of the Church. There are no contradictions between these Sacred Traditions and the Written Word, since they both come from Jesus.

 

[revmarty]

As for his signature?
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…

Peter was a fisherman, he was no better than you or I, this is the fundemental problem with the teachings you believe.
You see you elevate particular men, whilst leaving the majority of the Church without a chance, this was the same problem Jesus faced from the Catholics oops religious people of his time, and then Paul faced from the Jews when wanting to open the way for the gentiles, and now 2007 we still have this spiritual poverty mentality swallowed by the masses so to justify why they are not seeing the power of God in their lives.

Peter was a man he actually claims to an ordinary man, Paul say’s he is the greatest of sinners as he drew closer to God he saw how bad mankind is on the inside. HUMILITY That is the key,

We have the possibility to be as great, NO, Greater than the Founding fathers of the Church of God. we owe them that.

Marty

 

[Church_Militant]

I appreitiate the time and effort it took you to respond to my post, however I was hoping for a deeper response, one perhaps that was more oh I don’t know? more based on the biblical truth

, rather than a doctrinal theory or iligimate ritual.So… why would anyone do that when nowhere in the Word of God does it teach that the Bible is to be the sole authority for all that we believe and practice. If you can prove that this belief is Biblical then we have a basis to begin with.

I don’t think you can.

you see the bread and wine are symbols alway’s were alway’s have been, for the wine to turn to Blood and the bread or the well prepared people friendly waffer biscuit to be the actual body, well that would be some what cannabalistic, Jesus was illastrating to the disciples the need to remember the great sacrifice that was about to take place.

Really? I can’t tell from St. Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians chapter 10:16-17, and 11:23-30.

John the baptist never dropped water on the heads of people as they came to be baptized, the word baptized means full immersion,

Really? Prove this…

and the whole point of Jesus conversation with a religous leader in John 3 was to emphasize being born into a religion is not a enough and does not constitute salvation or relationship "Now there was a Pharisee named Nicodemus, a leader of the Jews. He came to Jesus by night and said to him, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God; for no one can do these signs that you do apart from the presence of God.” Jesus answered him, “Very truly, I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born again.” Nicodemus said to him, “How can anyone be born after having grown old? Can one enter a second time into the mother’s womb and be born?” Jesus answered, “Very truly, I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit.”

Wow, sounds very much as if Our Lord means baptism is necessary for salvation. What about Acts 2:38-39 and 22:16?

Why else would the New Testament make such about it otherwise.

 

[lak611]

I appreitiate the time and effort it took you to respond to my post, however I was hoping for a deeper response, one perhaps that was more oh I don’t know? more based on the biblical truth, rather than a doctrinal theory or iligimate ritual. you see the bread and wine are symbols alway’s were alway’s have been, for the wine to turn to Blood and the bread or the well prepared people friendly waffer biscuit to be the actual body, well that would be some what cannabalistic, Jesus was illastrating to the disciples the need to remember the great sacrifice that was about to take place.

From the KJV:Joh 6:53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, **Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
Joh 6:54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
Joh 6:55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
Joh 6:56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. **Joh 6:57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
Joh 6:58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.
Joh 6:59 These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.
Joh 6:60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?
Joh 6:61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?
Joh 6:62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
Joh 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
Joh 6:64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.
Joh 6:65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
Joh 6:66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.

If Jesus was only talking about a symbol, the disciples would not have walked away. They walked away because they could not accept eating His Body and drinking His Blood.

John the baptist never dropped water on the heads of people as they came to be baptized, the word baptized means full immersion, and the whole point of Jesus conversation with a religous leader in John 3 was to emphasize being born into a religion is not a enough and does not constitute salvation or relationship "Now there was a Pharisee named Nicodemus, a leader of the Jews. He came to Jesus by night and said to him, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God; for no one can do these signs that you do apart from the presence of God.” Jesus answered him, “Very truly, I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born again.” Nicodemus said to him, “How can anyone be born after having grown old? Can one enter a second time into the mother’s womb and be born?” Jesus answered, “Very truly, I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit.”

– John 3:1-5

Bless you
Marty

Catholics do sometimes baptize by full immersion. A friend of mine who was a non-Christian chose to be baptized by immersion when he became Catholic. Catholics do not believe that being born into a religion saves anyone. We are saved only by the Grace of God.

 

[revmarty]

We can know some about the pope by his writings. I think where you are limited is in your understanding of the word of God. The Word of God is His revelation to humanity. The Word is Jesus. Jesus revealed the kingdom to his disciples orally, never writing any books of His own. Some time later, some of these teachings were written, and the Church compiled them into what we know of today as our New Testament. Some of that revelation did not get written down, but has been preserved in the Sacred Traditions of the Church. There are no contradictions between these Sacred Traditions and the Written Word, since they both come from Jesus.

I think you are limited because you read the word of God throught catholic church coloured glasses, you see someone 1800 years ago said something and called it doctrine and because a man declared them a saint you all believe it, the Old testament was written over 1000’s of years and before we recieved the NT, The NT echos the OT, God through these willing vessells penned his word and allowed them to witness these events so that we could recieve first hand the account of the life of Jesus and the beginning of his awesome Church. I understand the word, but what you are selling, I cant buy.

thank you

 

[Church_Militant]

Peter was a fisherman, he was no better than you or I, this is the fundemental problem with the teachings you believe.
You see you elevate particular men, whilst leaving the majority of the Church without a chance, this was the same problem Jesus faced from the Catholics oops religious people of his time, and then Paul faced from the Jews when wanting to open the way for the gentiles, and now 2007 we still have this spiritual poverty mentality swallowed by the masses so to justify why they are not seeing the power of God in their lives.

In YOUR opinion…And I’ll thank you to mind your comments in the context if the Forum Rules that you agreed to when you decided to join us here at CAF.

You completely misrepresent the Catholic Church with this statement. Who told you this? They are wrong and you would be wise to question the propaganda that you are being fed.

Peter was a man he actually claims to an ordinary man, Paul say’s he is the greatest of sinners as he drew closer to God he saw how bad mankind is on the inside. HUMILITY That is the key,

I haven’t seen a pope yet who wasn’t humble.

We have the possibility to be as great, NO, Greater than the Founding fathers of the Church of God. we owe them that.

You’ll never know since you have so little knowledge of what the early believers wrote and (God forbid) that what they say they found in the New Testament is different from what you have been taught and believe.

It takes some courage to seek the truth and somehow…I just don’t see you being that committed to the truth. You’ll get scared when you discover that what you believe today doesn’t align with what the early church says they heard from the apostles and the New Testament.

 

[revmarty]

From the KJV:Joh 6:53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, **Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
Joh 6:54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
Joh 6:55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
Joh 6:56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. **Joh 6:57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
Joh 6:58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.
Joh 6:59 These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.
Joh 6:60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?
Joh 6:61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?
Joh 6:62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
Joh 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
Joh 6:64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.
Joh 6:65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
Joh 6:66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.

If Jesus was only talking about a symbol, the disciples would not have walked away. They walked away because they could not accept eating His Body and drinking His Blood.

 

[lak611]

why is it you take literally to eat flesh and drink blood, yet when we are told that we all meaning all have access to the throne of grace you struggle to come bodly, instead that is the priest Job, or lay hands on the sick and they will be healed, maybe it is easier to eat a waffer and drink some wine. thats easier to swallow i guess sorry for the Punn…

Marty

I do not eat “a wafer and drink wine”. I eat the Body of Christ and drink His Blood, as He commanded me to do in the Bible.

 

[guanophore]

Deaf ears and blind eyes will never see truth!

If they truly felt I was in the wrong they should do the scriptural thing and approach me person to person, and point out my error using scripture…Seeing as no one has, I am inclined to disbelief in your comment

I suppose you think the truth is the way you see things, and if we don’t agree, we are deaf and blind? Actually, mfm, the scriptural thing to do, once the person has been approached by one and many, as you have here, and still refuses to listen is to TAKE IT TO THE CHURCH! It is the CHURCH that is the pillar and bulwark of the truth, mfm. The reason for this is that there are so many different interpretations of the Bible. That is why Jesus left the Apostles with the final authority.

You reject the authority that God has placed over all of His Body that resides in this Apostolic sucession. Of course you are a disbeliever!

As i said before I use the same authority to understand scripture as you used to determine the catholic church was the correct church…
My imperect one.

I think not, mfm. We understand Church by what Jesus taught us, and who He left in charge when he ascended to heaven. He gave the keys to Peter, and Peter passed them to his successor, and so on. There is only one church, one body, one faith, one Lord.

 

[revmarty]

So… why would anyone do that when nowhere in the Word of God does it teach that the Bible is to be the sole authority for all that we believe and practice. If you can prove that this belief is Biblical then we have a basis to begin with.

I don’t think you can.Really? I can’t tell from St. Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians chapter 10:16-17, and 11:23-30.Really? Prove this…Wow, sounds very much as if Our Lord means baptism is necessary for salvation. What about Acts 2:38-39 and 22:16?

Why else would the New Testament make such about it otherwise.

What is the deal with believing the bible over your man made dogma, made by men or a that least putting the bible on parr.

yes baptism is essential to salvation? your point being?

Please explain?

 

[revmarty]

I do not eat “a wafer and drink wine”. I eat the Body of Christ and drink His Blood, as He commanded me to do in the Bible.

you missed the point, but that’s OK.

 

[guanophore]

“But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, Whom the Father will send in my name, He will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you” (Jn 14:26).

It is great that the HS led you here, mfm, so that you can be led into all truth!

You guys have been reading the riot act regarding personal interpretation, I am sharing scripture regarding it.

The written words of Jesus were never meant to be separated from the Sacred, Apostolic, oral tradition from which they were produced. Yes, the HS will lead us into all truth. He does that through the One Body which He established, and His own authority which He left with His apostles. Scripture teaches us to obey those that God has appointed over us in the faith. Therefore, if your personal interpretation is different from that arrived at by those He appointed…