Name one Catholic teaching that contradicts Scripture

[kujo313]

To Abstain From Foods

Jovian P. Lang, OFM, in his book entitled Dictionary of the Liturgy (copyright 1989, Catholic book publishing Co. N.Y.) on page 11 writes under “Abstinence,”

Refraining from eating meat or food prepared with meat on certain days as commanded by the church, to remind us of Jesus’ redeeming Death (on a Friday), to prepare for the celebration of certain feasts, to win heavenly graces, and to practice the virtue of penance (to atone for sin and for help in the firm purpose of amendment). “Days of abstinence” in the United States include Ash Wednesday, Good Friday and Fridays of Lent." On other Fridays of the year, all are exhorted to perform acts of devotion, self-denial, and charity in the spirit of piety and penance, and particularly for peace; abstinence from meat is especially recommended but under no obligation by law. Canon Law for the world prescribes abstinence on all Fridays (Canon 1251).

Mr. Lang acknowledges here that the Catholic Church does command to “abstain from foods” (1 Timothy 4:3). Catholic “Canon Law” (the official law of the Catholic Church) makes such a prohibition.

Canon 1251 - Abstinence from eating meat or another food according to the prescriptions of the conference of bishops is to be observed on Fridays throughout the year unless they are solemnities; abstinence and fast are to be observed on Ash Wednesday and on the Friday of the Passion and Death of Our Lord Jesus Christ. (The Code Of Canon Law: A Text And Commentary, p. 854, copyright 1985 by the Canon Law Society of America, published by Paulist Press, Mahwah, N. J.)

Catholics are “bound” by this law of abstinence.

Canon 1252 - All persons who have completed their fourteenth year are bound by the law of abstinence; (ibid., p. 855).

In other words, they are commanded to not eat meat (“or another food”) on certain days. Worldwide, these days include Ash Wednesday, Fridays of Lent, Good Friday, and every other Friday of the year. For those in the United States, every Friday of the year is no longer obligatory.

The National Conference of Catholic Bishops in their pastoral statement of November 18, 1966 determined the following:

Catholics in the United States are obliged to abstain from the eating of meat on Ash Wednesday and on all Fridays during the season of Lent. They are also obliged to fast on Ash Wednesday and on Good Friday. Self-imposed observance of fasting on all weekdays of Lent is strongly recommended. Abstinence from flesh meat on all Fridays of the year is especially recommended to individuals and to the Catholic community as a whole. (ibid., p. 855)

 

[Mannyfit75]

Forbidding to Marry

In the official Catechism of the Catholic Church (Libreria Editrice Vaticana, copyright 1994, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, CA) on page 395 under #1580, speaking in the context of “priests” it states:

“In the East as in the West a man who has already received the sacrament of Holy Orders can no longer marry.”

It is well known that both priests and nuns are forbidden to marry. Yet, Scripture condemns such a practice in 1 Timothy 4 and identifies those who practice this as ungodly wicked people (1 Timothy 4:1-3). Despite this clear declaration of the Word of God, Catholic Answers (a Catholic apologetic ministry, P. O. Box 199000, San Diego, CA 92159; 619-387-7200; www.catholic.com) has produced a tract entitled “Celibacy and the Priesthood” in which they attempt to justify the unholy ways of the Catholic Church. In this tract, they write, “. . . the Catholic Church does not forbid anyone to marry.” But then, “speaking lies in hypocrisy” (1 Timothy 4:2) in the next paragraph they state,

It is true that Catholic priests in the West may not be married, but no one is obliged to become a priest.

Marriage is not forbidden to them as human beings, but as priests.

It is still forbidden! 1 Timothy 4:3 simply says, “forbidding to marry”, not “forbidding to marry as human beings.” Earlier (in the first paragraph of the tract) they admit (speaking in the context of the “Eastern Rites”),

Once ordained, though, an unmarried priest may not marry, and a married priest, if widowed, may not remarry.

A deacon, though, can marry. My uncle did twice.

First of all. Marriage is not forbidden. Those who in the Latin Rite decided upon themselves to be chaste and not marry. This is a discipline which can change.

If you say it is forbidden you might as well tell Paul that he is wrong that he remain celibate, or Jesus Christ himself who is also celibate.

Those called into the religious life choose to be celibate. They are not forced against their own well.

I can speak for this since I myself is discerning priesthood.

 

[LilyM]

And the answer to the issue of fasting and abstaining is the same as that of celibacy - it is a discipline, not an invariable forbidding of marriage or any type of food for all Catholics for all days of their lives.

Jesus himself did a little more than abstain, he also fasted - most notably for a full forty days in the desert. Which is more than any Catholic is currently commanded to do.

And he commanded his followers to do the same. He said ‘WHEN you fast, do not put on a long face …’ and ‘the bridegroom will be taken away, and then THERE WILL BE fasting’ (not ‘IF you fast …’ or ‘there MIGHT be fasting …’).

 

[kujo313]

First of all. Marriage is not forbidden. Those who in the Latin Rite decided upon themselves to be chaste and not marry. This is a discipline which can change.

If you say it is forbidden you might as well tell Paul that he is wrong that he remain celibate, or Jesus Christ himself who is also celibate.

Those called into the religious life choose to be celibate. They are not forced against their own well.

I can speak for this since I myself is discerning priesthood.

Actually, following the news in the last two years, the RCC is accepting those who are married into the priesthood ONLY because there’s a shortage of priests. In the Detroit area, there are just a few less priests than there are churches. Also, priests are asked to stay past retirement age, too, because of a shortage of priests.
This is a first in the RCC.
May I remind you that, yes, Paul remained single but Peter, your first “pope” was married? How many more popes were married?
Also, how many young boys’ innocense would’ve not been lost if the RCC let priests marry back then?

1 Cor 7:8-9
8 But I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if they remain even as I am; 9 but if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

Again, this “marriage” thing is relatively new. In my 43 years, I grew up in the RCC and spent half of my life in there. I was told in Catecism and by my mother (who left the nunship to marry my dad) that priests were forbidden to marry.

1 Timothy 4:1-4
1 Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, 2 speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, 3 forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. 4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be refused if it is received with thanksgiving; 5 for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

“Forbidding to marry” = giving heed to deceiving spirts and doctrines of demons.

It’s ok to walk away from your faith and get married. Just stick to the faith in Jesus Christ and not in to the religion that shuns you. In the end, all religions will be gone but the Word shall remain!
To those priests who committed sin with young boys, you have to face punishment by the law. But, you CAN be forgiven! Just ASK! Ask your victims and their families! Ask God!

You have not because you ask not.

Matthew 7:7-11 (in the Words of our High Priest)

7 “Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. 8 For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened. 9 Or what man is there among you who, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone? 10 Or if he asks for a fish, will he give him a serpent? 11 If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask Him!

 

[JoeyWarren]

WHAT?!?! What do you think I’m doing here? I’m researching by asking Catholics about this stuff. How could you say that I can’t think indepenently, and I believe in propaganda? Didn’t you read the first part of my post? I’m not trying to put down the church, or even saying I believe that stuff. I just want to hear the other side of the story.

I offer my apologies then.

 

[MariaG]

Well, I was behind before, I am still not caught up and I doubt I could do so and properly address all the posts. I will pray that my fellow brethren were able to answer the questions as we are approving the time that threads are closed, 1000 post.

I will try to catch up, but I have been trying to do that for awhile now, not much computer time lately.

God Bless all you have participated and my the Holy Spirit lead you to all truth. I know He led me

And when this one is done, let’s do it again, if it won’t drive you all too crazy:hypno:

 

[joshua_b]

Well, I was behind before, I am still not caught up and I doubt I could do so and properly address all the posts. I will pray that my fellow brethren were able to answer the questions as we are approving the time that threads are closed, 1000 post.

I will try to catch up, but I have been trying to do that for awhile now, not much computer time lately.

God Bless all you have participated and my the Holy Spirit lead you to all truth. I know He led me

And when this one is done, let’s do it again, if it won’t drive you all too crazy:hypno:

I will do it again, IN SPITE OF the fact that it will drive me nuts.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Does no one remember that there were Gnostic groups who for centuries taught the heresy that “matter = bad, spirit = good”? These are the ones being addressed by Paul, not just by the forbidding to marry part but elsewhere.

You know, you can’t have it both ways. While the discipline (not doctrine or dogma) of celibate clergy has existed in the Catholic Church (and the Orthodox Church as well) since the time of Christ, the fact is that a sizeable number of priests/bishops etc. were married for the first 500 years or so. Yet, not only was the celibate ‘option’ not addressed (and every other ‘heresy’ or departure was, so why not this big ‘bugaboo’ if it was contrary to Scripture?), by the 6th century, it was widely acknowledged in the Latin Rite that this discipline, practiced by St. Paul and by Jesus Himself, was not only NOT ‘unscriptural’ but preferable as a discipline in that, as St. Paul notes, “married men must care for their wives, but the unmarried man is free to concentrate on serving the Lord.” We are to believe that Christ permitted some 1000 years of anti-Scripture before providing ‘relief’ in the form of Protestantism. . .even though Protestants themselves disagree with thousands of other ‘Scripture passages’ among themselves?

Again, there is a far cry from 'forbidding to marry" --Catholics as a whole are not forbidden to marry, yet many gnostic and heretical groups, such as the Albigensians, DID forbid ALL their members to marry–as opposed to a discipline which is freely CHOSEN by those Catholics who are called to the priesthood.

 

[believers]

Actually, following the news in the last two years, the RCC is accepting those who are married into the priesthood ONLY because there’s a shortage of priests. In the Detroit area, there are just a few less priests than there are churches. Also, priests are asked to stay past retirement age, too, because of a shortage of priests.
This is a first in the RCC.
May I remind you that, yes, Paul remained single but Peter, your first “pope” was married? How many more popes were married?
Also, how many young boys’ innocense would’ve not been lost if the RCC let priests marry back then?

1 Cor 7:8-9
8 But I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if they remain even as I am; 9 but if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

Again, this “marriage” thing is relatively new. In my 43 years, I grew up in the RCC and spent half of my life in there. I was told in Catecism and by my mother (who left the nunship to marry my dad) that priests were forbidden to marry.

1 Timothy 4:1-4
1 Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, 2 speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, 3 forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. 4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be refused if it is received with thanksgiving; 5 for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

“Forbidding to marry” = giving heed to deceiving spirts and doctrines of demons.

It’s ok to walk away from your faith and get married. Just stick to the faith in Jesus Christ and not in to the religion that shuns you. In the end, all religions will be gone but the Word shall remain!
To those priests who committed sin with young boys, you have to face punishment by the law. But, you CAN be forgiven! Just ASK! Ask your victims and their families! Ask God!

You have not because you ask not.

Matthew 7:7-11 (in the Words of our High Priest)

7 “Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. 8 For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened. 9 Or what man is there among you who, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone? 10 Or if he asks for a fish, will he give him a serpent? 11 If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask Him!

Hey Kujo, Nice to see you back. I too was a catholic for (36 years). My mother-in-law was going to be a nun and father-in-law was going to be a priest but had to leave because they wanted to get married. “Lies in hypocrisy” comes to mind every time I hear a catholic say that we don’t forbid marriage. The catholic church most certainly does. You’re able to marry but your priests and nuns are not.

Anyway, Paul was telling Timothy what would happen in the latter days which we’re in now. Forbidding to marry and abstaining from meat is false doctrine. Abstaining from meat is not fasting. There’s a big difference. Thanks for being a good minister for Christ by reminding us of this.

1Ti 4:1
Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

1Ti 4:2
Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;

1Ti 4:3
Forbidding to marry, [and commanding] to abstain from meats**, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

1Ti 4:4
For every creature of God [is] good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:

1Ti 4:5
For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

1Ti 4:6
If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained.

 

[Nevarlander]

Hey Kujo, Nice to see you back. I too was a catholic for (36 years). My mother-in-law was going to be a nun and father-in-law was going to be a priest but had to leave because they wanted to get married. “Lies in hypocrisy” comes to mind every time I hear a catholic say that we don’t forbid marriage. The catholic church most certainly does. You’re able to marry but your priests and nuns are not.

Anyway, Paul was telling Timothy what would happen in the latter days which we’re in now. Forbidding to marry and abstaining from meat is false doctrine. Abstaining from meat is not fasting. There’s a big difference. Thanks for being a good minister for Christ by reminding us of this.

1Ti 4:1
Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

1Ti 4:2
Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;

1Ti 4:3
Forbidding to marry, [and **commanding

]** to abstain from meats**, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

1Ti 4:4
For every creature of God [is] good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:

1Ti 4:5
For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

1Ti 4:6
If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained.

The abstenince and not marrying was the practice of a lot of life-hating Gnostic sects that pretended that Jesus was one of them. No one was supposed to eat meat b/c it was flesh and thus came from life, and marriage was bad b/c it made children and thus made more flesh and was evil. Paul is not talking about the “abstinence as penance” Catholics practice, or priests not marrying.

 

[Yerusalyim]

Marriage is NOT forbidden because priesthood is a CHOICE. And we have to go back to the context of what Paul was writing about…the gnostic heresies that forbade members to marry or eat certain foods. Catholics (and the Orthodox more so) give up specific foods and food groups for periods of time…the gnostic sects spoken of here completely forbade consumption of meat…all the time. This is clear in the context…Christ fasted and fasts are commanded in the Hebrew Scriptures.

I’m sorry you left the Church…you can always come back home.

 

[LukeJ]

Thanks. I think what I’m trying to get at is, If you went to a Roman Catholic mass in around 400 A.D., would it pretty much be the same as mass today? Because protestants (that I know) say that it would be totaly different since they think the church has changed a lot, and it started out good, but then it got corrupt. But, If the Roman Catholic church is infallible and their docrines don’t really change, then it would seem that mass would pretty much be the same.

 

[St_Violet]

I believe you mean mass services were different some where around the 100s a.d before Constantine and the Concil of Nicea and also Just before Ignatius?, Mass services were held in homes also known as house services, I believe because of Christianity’s rapid growth, Christianity needed to be centralized or united to survive, So Ignatius of Antioch wrote (one of the christian early church fathers)

" You should all follow the Bishop as Jesus Christ did the Father, Follow the Elders as you would for the apostles and respect the deacons as you would for God’s Law, he who pays the Bishop honor is Honored by God. but he who acts without the Bishops knowledge is of the devil’s service"

Ignatius of Antioch 110 A.D

I think most protestants believe that christianity became corrupt during the time of Constantine. everytime some non catholic wants to “educate” me on history they always tend to bring up constantine.

someone brought up that the Catholic Church forbids marriage, and I have found that quite absurd, this is probabaly the first time I have ever heard this in regards of the Catholic Church, like someone said Celibacy is a Disipline, A priest is aware of this sacrifice before he became a priest and chose to be celibate, I never seen a priest and I have met many who were angry at the fact they cannot marry, because they know it is a choice they made, alot of people make it seem that these priests are chained up. I am not against that our priest cannot Marry infact St. Paul didn’t recommend marriage although he didn’t “forbid it”. I have nothing but respect for our priest in the Catholic Church, their celibacy just proves how strong they are spiritually and how tough they are in regards of temptations, sexual temptations are of the highest temptations.

 

[The_Truthinator]

Furthermore, you would have to refrain from using any synonym for Father as well.

And I just love the way Satan leaves out the previous verse and next verse when citing this one.

Matthew 23:8
8 But be not ye called Rabbi(4461): for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.

G4461 ῥαββί rhabbi hrab-bee’
Of Hebrew origin [H7227] with pronominal suffix; my master, that is, Rabbi, as an official title of honor: - Master, Rabbi, Teacher

I hope you don’t send your kids to school since Principal, Headmaster, and Teacher, Instructor all fall into this category.

Not to mention if you hold a Master’s degree, then you are a MASTER of what you have learned…

Matthew 23:10 10 Neither be ye called masters(2519); for one is you master, Christ.

G2519 καθηγητής kathēgētēs kath-ayg-ay-tace’
From a compound of G2596 and G2233; a guide, that is, (figuratively) a teacher: - master.

This is really interesting. I have some thoughts on this, as well. I think it’s fairly clear that Yeshua was being less-than-literal when he said, “Don’t call anyone ‘father.’” All these terms seem to denote religious superiority. And one of the Scriptural instances Catholics like to quote to justify calling priests “father” is the fact that Paul says Timothy is like a son to him and he has been like a father to him. Yet these aren’t formal titles. When speaking of the Apostles, does Paul say, “I opposed Father Peter to his face”? No. It’s a fair enough point to say that the fact that Paul acts like a parent in the faith towards Timothy does not mean Timothy knows him as “Father Paul,” though many of us are nourished by Paul’s (God’s, really) words daily.

Disturbing to me is that in light of this command prompting us not to denote others with terms of religious superiority (“father, teacher,” etc.) the Catholic Church calls their Head “Papa”–or, “Pope,” an extremely intimate term …

 

[MariaG]

Thanks. I think what I’m trying to get at is, If you went to a Roman Catholic mass in around 400 A.D., would it pretty much be the same as mass today? Because protestants (that I know) say that it would be totaly different since they think the church has changed a lot, and it started out good, but then it got corrupt. But, If the Roman Catholic church is infallible and their docrines don’t really change, then it would seem that mass would pretty much be the same.

Hi Luke,

I am fairly caught up though it was more of a skim.

It I did not notice in the reading if you mentioned which denomination your parents left the church for? It would be helpful to know because in our explanations, it is helpful to know if one believes in OSAS or can lose their salvation. That kind of thing.

As for your question about Mass, most who make the claim that the Catholic Church was corrupted, usually believe it happened sometime before 300AD. Constantine is the usual suspect who is pointed at.

I would first address this claim. I stand on Scripture.

We see in scripture, that there will always be God’s Church. And we can see that the Church will never fail.

There are many scripture verses I could cite. Things like Matt 16:18 in which the gates of hell will not prevail; John 14:16 which tells us the Holy Spirit will be with us always.

But my favorite is this one.

1Tim 3:15 if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.

If the Church became corrupt in its teachings, how can it be the pillar of truth? Either something is true, or it is not. To think that the Catholic Church fell into error in teachings (not error in actions, there are plenty of sinners in the leadership of the Church throughout the Ages) but error in the what it taught as officially true, how can scripture still be true?

It was the pillar of truth, started to crumble and then God brought the reformation, and transfered His church to Protestants? In scripture we can see where Christ transferred the leadership to His new Church with the New covenant. We also see in scripture that it warns us of those who will come along teaching falsely. Where in scripture do we see the transfer of authority to Protestants and who came along Protestants or Catholics?

As for what the Mass looks like, it depends on how you mean. In early Christianity, they worshipped in houses, things were secret for fear of persecution. The Church grew. It became legal to worship as a Christian, Churches started to spring up. And glorious churches, decorated for the glory of God became the norm.

So what exactly are you referring to when you ask about what it “looked like”.

And do you believe that something can change in appearance but still be the “same”? For example, can a tree grow from a sapling into a old growth tree but still be a tree? Have the changes in the appearances of the tree changed the basic fact that it is still a tree?

God Bless,
Maria

 

[JoeyWarren]

This is really interesting. I have some thoughts on this, as well. I think it’s fairly clear that Yeshua was being less-than-literal when he said, “Don’t call anyone ‘father.’” All these terms seem to denote religious superiority. And one of the Scriptural instances Catholics like to quote to justify calling priests “father” is the fact that Paul says Timothy is like a son to him and he has been like a father to him. Yet these aren’t formal titles. When speaking of the Apostles, does Paul say, “I opposed Father Peter to his face”? No. It’s a fair enough point to say that the fact that Paul acts like a parent in the faith towards Timothy does not mean Timothy knows him as “Father Paul,” though many of us are nourished by Paul’s (God’s, really) words daily.

Disturbing to me is that in light of this command prompting us not to denote others with terms of religious superiority (“father, teacher,” etc.) the Catholic Church calls their Head “Papa”–or, “Pope,” an extremely intimate term …

Do you object to calling a protestant preacher “Pastor Bob” or “Reverend Bob”

A rose is a rose is a rose, by any other name is still a rose.

Would you prefer “Prime Minister”? After all, that is exactly what he is.

Would you prefer an up close and personal Pope or a distant and impersonal Prime Minister?

Would you like the owner of your company(or any company for that matter) to be close, intimate, caring and personable or would you prefer one that is distant, stand-offish, and detached?

 

[MariaG]

This is really interesting. I have some thoughts on this, as well. I think it’s fairly clear that Yeshua was being less-than-literal when he said, “Don’t call anyone ‘father.’” All these terms seem to denote religious superiority. And one of the Scriptural instances Catholics like to quote to justify calling priests “father” is the fact that Paul says Timothy is like a son to him and he has been like a father to him. Yet these aren’t formal titles. When speaking of the Apostles, does Paul say, “I opposed Father Peter to his face”? No. It’s a fair enough point to say that the fact that Paul acts like a parent in the faith towards Timothy does not mean Timothy knows him as “Father Paul,” though many of us are nourished by Paul’s (God’s, really) words daily.

Disturbing to me is that in light of this command prompting us not to denote others with terms of religious superiority (“father, teacher,” etc.) the Catholic Church calls their Head “Papa”–or, “Pope,” an extremely intimate term …

Interesting. You say you believe that God was being less than literal, yet you are disturbed by the literal.

If God was not being literal, if the meaning of the text is that we need always remember that God is our supreme protector, provider and instructor, why does it disturb you that we literally use the word father for our spiritial fathers, as long as we understand what the role they play is and always acknowledge God’s supremacy?

In light of this command… So you do think it is literal?

 

[JoeyWarren]

Joey said: Would you like the owner of your company(or any company for that matter) to be close, intimate, caring and personable or would you prefer one that is distant, stand-offish, and detached?

Let me add and note that the owners of my company are the former and not the latter. It makes IMHO opinion a better work environment. It encourages me more to work even harder for them.

P.S. the owners are Presbetyrian(2) and the other is a Baptist.

 

[The_Truthinator]

Interesting. You say you believe that God was being less than literal, yet you are disturbed by the literal.

I mean he was less-than-literal in that Yeshua probably referred to Miriam as “Mother,” yet refused to acknowledge anyone as being in a position of religious superiority, because doing so only served to boost their ego and detract from the unique role God plays as Father, Teacher, Sustainer, etc. I do not think it sinful to refer to one’s parents as “Mom and Dad” yet I am very skeptical about titles in general in churches: “Pastor Billy-Bob, or Father Harris,” and such things. An example comes from a teacher of mine. He, agreeing that these titles are unnecessary and counter-Scriptural, recalled going through initiation to become a minister, anticipating with great eagerness receiving the pastoral robes, the title …

The same is true of many today. They can become puffed up (or just plain too fond of) the admiration and respect they receive because of the position within the church, and oftentimes, whether meaning to or not, put themselves on an unreachable pedestal, much like the Pharisees did.

Also, I do not believe in papal authority to begin with. Scripture (yes, even Matt. 16:18) is in no way supportive of such a … well, heresy. So call Benedict “Prime Minister” if you like … But he is certainly not worthy of “Papa,” when God is lucky to receive a distant “Father.”

 

[valient_Lucy]

Disturbing to me is that in light of this command prompting us not to denote others with terms of religious superiority (“father, teacher,” etc.) the Catholic Church calls their Head “Papa”–or, “Pope,” an extremely intimate term …

Why should this be disturbing?