Medieval Usages

  • Thread starter Thread starter Xpi22
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
X

Xpi22

Guest
How can Catholics justify the continued use of Medieval forms of address like excellency, eminence, Monsignor , holy father, holiness given the humility of the Lord and His direction to His disciples?
 
Xpi22 said:
given the humility of the Lord and His direction to His disciples?
Click to expand...
You just called Him “Lord”. If it’s so wrong to honor humble people stop doing it yourself.
 
Last edited:
Scripture gives Our Lord that Title, for He is Lord of lords and King of kings. Can you not answer my original question?
 
Are you only going by Scripture?

How do you think we should address Church Officials?
 
I answered your question it just wasn’t an answer you like.

If someone being humble=you can’t give them honorable titles then Jesus wouldn’t have one. But he does. So it’s biblical to give apostles and their successors titles.
 
I think Lieutenant, Commander, Captain, and Admiral would be fine.

I’m just a humble fisherman and seaman.
 
Last edited:
Scripture is fundamental. As for address of persons in the Church, imagine what visitors to Paul house in Rome called him or imagine how he styled himself: Paul. The problem I see for our Church, in carrying over medieval forms is that it is not helpful in prosetelizing or apologics and is not conformed to Our Lord’s words to His Apostles about being the least.
 
@Xpi22 let me put a question to you.

How does St. Luke justify calling Theophilus “your Excellency” in Luke 1:4?
 
Good point :-). Yet I don’t see Luke’s literary forum as justification for hundreds of excellencies, eminences, monsignours or even styling the Bishop of Rome, holiness or holy father. I am a Catholic, by the way and it was not my intention to provoke hostility from brothers, but rather to give a reason for our usages to those who inquire or oppose the Catholic Church.
 
“Father” is scriptural as Paul refers to himself as a father to Timothy. The patriarchs are called father, etc.
 
Ideally our clergy should be humble. These titles, though, emphasize that Christ works through them in ways he ordinarily doesn’t through others. It’s not respect for the man per se, but for the office, and Christ’s participation in that office, and what he does through it.
 
Last edited:
Xpi22 said:
In my opinion, your attempt begs the question.
Click to expand...
Considering you haven’t provided any counter argument or explained why my logic doesn’t work, you’re the one actually begging the question, if you wish to use that term correctly.
 
Xpi22 said:
by the way and it was not my intention to provoke hostility from brothers, but rather to give a reason for our usages to those who inquire or oppose the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
It’s not hostility from me anyway and I understand why you’re questioning this…

It’s really about respect and recognizing that our Priests and Bishops are all “alter Christus’” - other Christs or little Christs… And especially the Bishops and Pope are successors to the Apostles.

Paul continually makes a point in his letters of calling himself an Apostle - I’m sure the people in the Churches he founded referred to him with some exalted title… His Jewish converts at least I’d imagine called him Rabbi Saul.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top