Why does the Church object?

[ferdie]

My question is, why didn’t the Holy Spirit just tell the eunich what the passage meant? Why did He bring Phillip to the eunich?

My question is, if all of the Christians were guided by the Holy Spirit, why not simply let them make up their own minds about what they should be required to do? Why did they ask the elders and the Apostles to decide what was appropriate and what was not? And why did the Apostles feel the need to force their conclusions on everyone else, by sending letters to the Christians to tell them what they should and should not do? And why did the Christians at the time feel they needed the Apostles’ guidance on this matter?

Maybe it is not really the Holy Spirit that guided them, but the Spirit of division like the one that guided the reformers?

 

[FCEGM]

Show me in scripture where anyone ever addressed Paul as father. When Peter talked about Paul did he say father Paul, or when Paul talked about Peter did Paul say father Peter?

Why must this been seen in Scripture? Where does Scripture itself say that it alone is the source of what is to be believed and practiced? But to your point, St. Paul’s usage of “father” in his own regard already has shown that your interpretation of Our Lord’s words is erroneous. Do you believe that he was sinning when he used this as a self-reference? What about these events:

Acts 7:1 - Here Stephen addresses the Sanhedrin as “my brothers” and " my fathers". If the Lord’s words are to be taken as literally as you would take them, would not Stephen now be sinning in the very act of defending the faith? - a faith for which he was about to be martyred?

In Acts 22:1 we see St. Paul addressing the crowd in Jerusalem with the same words as St. Stephen, “My brothers, my FATHERS.” Is St. Paul committing the same “sin” as St. Stephen?

In 1 Thess. 2, is not St. Paul refering to himself as a spiritual father? And in 1 Corinthians 4 does he not say, “You have in Christ ten thousands teachers, but not many fathers, because in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through announcing the gospel. Therefore I exhort you to become imitators of me.” - which the Catholic Church did and does. St. Paul further writes: “I do not write this to make you ashamed, but to admonish you as my beloved children. For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the Gospel” (1 Corinthians 4:14-15).

St. Paul refers to Timothy as “my son” and Titus as “true child of mine.” Is he not then arrogating to himself the position that only God the Father should have in their lives according to the way you read the Lord’s words?

Look at 1 John 2 where the beloved disciple calls the Christian men “Fathers.” Was he sinning in doing so? The cumulative effect of these verses certainly casts doubt on a literalistic reading of Matt 23.

In Isaiah 22, we see that Eliakim, by virtue of his being invested as Major Domo of the King’s Household, is spoken of as a “father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the House of Judah”. Thus when Peter is placed in a comparable position vis a vis the Church, speaking of him and his successors as “Pope”, i.e., “Father” is being faithful to the whole typology of this passage of Isaiah.

In the NT, besides the passages already cited, we have both James and Paul speaking of “our father Abraham”. If one were to apply the Lord’s words in Matthew 23 as stringently as some question suggest, would they not be sinning - or at least in error - by referring to Abraham as “father”?

Looking at the manner in which Our Lord is speaking, we have to remember, too, that the limited vocabularly of Hebrew and Aramaic necessitated the use of hyperbole to get points across. We see this, e.g, in His words about “if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off - if your eye, pluck it out, . . . [etc]”.

Father Mitch Pacwa points out that “There are 144 occasions in the New Testament when the title of father is used for someone other than God. It is applied to the patriarchs of Israel, the fathers of families, to Jewish leaders and to Christian leaders” (“Call No Man Father?”, THIS ROCK, January 1991).

Many times in the Gospels Jesus refers to our earthly fathers as well as our Heavenly Father. If the command to call no one on earth father were in the strict literal sense, He would not have done so. Similarly, we would not be commanded to “Honor your father and mother,” (Exodus 20:12).

Many Christians call their ministers “Pastor.” Pastor means shepherd. In John 10:14-16 Jesus says, “I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, as the Father knows me and I know the Father, and I lay down my life for the sheep. And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, one shepherd.” If we reason that we cannot call a priest Father because we “have one Father who is in heaven,” then can we not also reason that we cannot call a minister Pastor because there is only “one Shepherd?”

continued. . .

 

[FCEGM]

God is Father and Jesus is Shepherd in the ultimate sense. Church leaders are shepherds and fathers in a lesser sense. Why else would Peter say in 1 Peter 5:2-4, “Tend the flock of God that is your charge, not by constraint but willingly, not for shameful gain but eagerly, not as domineering over those in your charge but being examples to the flock. And when the chief Shepherd is manifested you will obtain the unfading crown of glory.”? The term “Chief Shepherd” indicates that there are subordinate shepherds. One scripture verse clarifies another, and so it is with the different verses pertaining to the title of father.

So, what is the import of the Lord’s words of Matthew 23? No matter how strong the ties of blood of friendship may be, God always has first claim on our heart, our mind, our
will, and we must recognize this and act accordingly. We find this great truth in both the Old and the New Testaments; the Catholic Church has never taught less than this. These words of the Lord must be taken definitively in their spiritual meaning; but are they to be taken definitively in their literal meaning, as some would have it? As has already been demonstrated to you in numerous posts, it is apparent from the New Testament that they are not.

 

[KathyH]

I’m curious about your opinion of two passages from Acts.
26Now an angel of the Lord said to Philip, “Go south to the road—the desert road—that goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza.” 27So he started out, and on his way he met an Ethiopian[a]eunuch, an important official in charge of all the treasury of Candace, queen of the Ethiopians. This man had gone to Jerusalem to worship, 28and on his way home was sitting in his chariot reading the book of Isaiah the prophet. 29The Spirit told Philip, “Go to that chariot and stay near it.”
30Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. “Do you understand what you are reading?” Philip asked.

31"How can I," he said, “unless someone explains it to me?” So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.

32The eunuch was reading this passage of Scripture:
“He was led like a sheep to the slaughter,
and as a lamb before the shearer is silent,
so he did not open his mouth.
33In his humiliation he was deprived of justice.
Who can speak of his descendants?
For his life was taken from the earth.”**

34The eunuch asked Philip, “Tell me, please, who is the prophet talking about, himself or someone else?” 35Then Philip began with that very passage of Scripture and told him the good news about Jesus.

36As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, “Look, here is water. Why shouldn’t I be baptized?”[c] 38And he gave orders to stop the chariot. Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptized him. 39When they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord suddenly took Philip away, and the eunuch did not see him again, but went on his way rejoicing. 40Philip, however, appeared at Azotus and traveled about, preaching the gospel in all the towns until he reached Caesarea.

My question is, why didn’t the Holy Spirit just tell the eunich what the passage meant? Why did He bring Phillip to the eunich?**
The eunuch hadn’t even been baptized with water yet, much less the Holy Spirit Holy Spirit.

 

[mercygate]

The eunuch hadn’t even been baptized with water yet, much less the Holy Spirit Holy Spirit.

Kathy, in your tradition, must one receive water baptism before receiving the Holy Spirit? or do you teach that water baptism is just an ordinance done as a sign of your baptism with the Holy Spirit?

 

[KathyH]

God is Father and Jesus is Shepherd in the ultimate sense. Church leaders are shepherds and fathers in a lesser sense. Why else would Peter say in 1 Peter 5:2-4, “Tend the flock of God that is your charge, not by constraint but willingly, not for shameful gain but eagerly, not as domineering over those in your charge but being examples to the flock. And when the chief Shepherd is manifested you will obtain the unfading crown of glory.”? The term “Chief Shepherd” indicates that there are subordinate shepherds. One scripture verse clarifies another, and so it is with the different verses pertaining to the title of father.

So, what is the import of the Lord’s words of Matthew 23? No matter how strong the ties of blood of friendship may be, God always has first claim on our heart, our mind, our
will, and we must recognize this and act accordingly. We find this great truth in both the Old and the New Testaments; the Catholic Church has never taught less than this. These words of the Lord must be taken definitively in their spiritual meaning; but are they to be taken definitively in their literal meaning, as some would have it? As has already been demonstrated to you in numerous posts, it is apparent from the New Testament that they are not.

I am not sure what you are asking, but yes I believe the church has leaders (shepherds). What their role is may be what you are asking me. My understanding is the leaders of the church are to bring people to knowledge of Jesus and his Word. After a person comes to know God the Holy Spirit leads them.

 

[KathyH]

Kathy, in your tradition, must one receive water baptism before receiving the Holy Spirit? or do you teach that water baptism is just an ordinance done as a sign of your baptism with the Holy Spirit?

I believe normally a person is baptized with water in the name of Jesus first, but not always. As in Acts while Peter was talking, the Holy Spirit came to the people to whom he was talking.

 

[mercygate]

I believe normally a person is baptized with water in the name of Jesus first, but not always. As in Acts while Peter was talking, the Holy Spirit came to the people to whom he was talking.

Ah. Oneness Pentecostal. Helps to get a better idea of where you’re coming from. Thanks.

Maybe this is another thread, but how does your tradition of “Jesus only” baptism handle the specific directive from Jesus himself to "Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."?

It would be particularly interesting for us to learn how you handle this considering the enormous effort you have made to convince us that we must follow the directive not to call anybody “Father.” Since you say that Paul’s and John’s use of the word “father” doesn’t carry the weight of a direct dominical statement, how is it that you accept Peter’s word for it in Acts but not Jesus’ word in Matthew?

I suppose you are aware that baptism in the name of Jesus only is not considered valid by any Christian body (forget about Catholics on this one). So maybe we can include this in your OP question.

 

[Sean_Boyle]

After a person comes to know God the Holy Spirit leads them.

Yes the Holy Spirit does work in mysterious ways. He led you to seek the Truth in these forums from a group of caring, spirit filled christians. The Holy Spirit has led you to Christ’s Church the Catholic faith. Whether you accept his lead or follow your own free will… Well thats up to you.

 

[sara888]

Yes the Holy Spirit does work in mysterious ways. He led you to seek the Truth in these forums from a group of caring, spirit filled christians. The Holy Spirit has led you to Christ’s Church the Catholic faith. Whether you accept his lead or follow your own free will… Well thats up to you.

**
Hi Sean, Well said.!

Sometimes people feel once the Holy Spirit is upon them they are no longer able to sin or exercise their free will, which is not biblical or scriptural.

AngelJan… (now Sara888)**

 

[valient_Lucy]

The eunuch hadn’t even been baptized with water yet, much less the Holy Spirit Holy Spirit.

What about the gentile believers in the other passage I quoted? Why did they still feel the need to ask the Apostles as to what they should do?

 

[Milliardo]

Show me in scripture where anyone ever addressed Paul as father.

Dear, he addressed himself as father; that’s more evidence than anyone else calling him as such, since it’s already his own self that admits it. Do you need more proof than that, or can’t you admit that Paul called himself as a father in faith?

 

[Milliardo]

My understanding is the leaders of the church are to bring people to knowledge of Jesus and his Word. After a person comes to know God the Holy Spirit leads them.

And after leading people to Jesus, what is the role of the leaders of the Church then? Does not the Holy Spirit manifest Himself through the Church–that the Church leads men, and that through her the Holy Spirit works in men and with men?

 

[alexaustralia]

What is the reason for this?
If I were to take the word “father/teacher” and change its meaning to mean “playing music brilliantly” … would Jesus have a problem with us using the word “father/teacher”…you will most likely say NO as I have disassociated the ACTION that corresponded to that word.

Ok then what you must be insinuating then is that what Jesus has a problem with is in the very ACT of fatherhood/teaching. That is people should refrain from acting in any way that reassembles a father/teacher figure…Can you see any problems with that? How is society meant to function without the older generation teaching the new? How are we meant to continue as a species if men cannot father children?

You have only two options with your interpretation of that passage

1. The word irrespective of its meaning is at fault according to Jesus
2. The very act the word represents is at fault according to Jesus

Which one of these options do you select 1or 2?

KathyH,
You have not replied to my comments above, which I believe are vital into understanding where you are coming from.

 

[KathyH]

And after leading people to Jesus, what is the role of the leaders of the Church then? Does not the Holy Spirit manifest Himself through the Church–that the Church leads men, and that through her the Holy Spirit works in men and with men?

This may not be polite, and please forgive me, for instead of answering your question, I would like to ask you one. What do you think a person should do, if after being baptized in the Holy Spirit, (the person knows beyond any doubt that it is God who they have been baptized with), they receive a teaching that doesn’t go along with the Catholic Churches teaching?

You say that won’t happen? Well I witness that it does and the Holy Spirit’s teaching always agrees with the Word of God, the Bible.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I am a Christian. I follow Jesus. Why do I use protestant arguments, well my arguments are not protestant. I am just pointing out areas where the Catholic Church is in error, and many people in the Christian world have also seen those errors. The Catholic Church keeps defending them instead of changing.

Can you explain that remark?

Any luck on the history of your Bible between 30-330 AD?

 

[Mickey]

This may not be polite, and please forgive me, for instead of answering your question, I would like to ask you one. What do you think a person should do, if after being baptized in the Holy Spirit, (the person knows beyond any doubt that it is God who they have been baptized with), they receive a teaching that doesn’t go along with the Catholic Churches teaching?

You say that won’t happen? Well I witness that it does and the Holy Spirit’s teaching always agrees with the Word of God, the Bible.

I think before anyone responds to any of your questions, you should begin to respond to a few of the intelligent refutations against your position. Outnumbered you say? How about responding to mercygate’s post # 145?

 

[ncgolf]

This may not be polite, and please forgive me, for instead of answering your question, I would like to ask you one. What do you think a person should do, if after being baptized in the Holy Spirit, (the person knows beyond any doubt that it is God who they have been baptized with), they receive a teaching that doesn’t go along with the Catholic Churches teaching?

You say that won’t happen? Well I witness that it does and the Holy Spirit’s teaching always agrees with the Word of God, the Bible.

The Catholic Church’s teaches are Christ’s teachings so there cannot be an untruth. We rely on this so we can discern truth from lies. If you “receive” a teaching that contradicts the truth then either God is a liar (speaks out of both sides of His mouth) or what you have receieved is not the truth. What have you witnessed? The answer to your question really only has 2 possibilites and I have listed them.

 

[Texan_in_DC]

Yet the Church sponsored the Crusades, supported most of the wars that the U.S. has been in for the last one hundred years. .

Kathy Kathy Kathy,

Name one time in the United States History that the Catholic Church has supported not most but one war in US History, please document your resources.

 

[KathyH]

Can you explain that remark?

Any luck on the history of your Bible between 30-330 AD?

After three hundred and some years the Holy Spirit wanted a written Word assembled so he had the Church at that time assemble the writings that he considered to be the Word of God. Now any word that contradicts the written Word is not of God.