Posted on 08/24/2014 3:18:46 AM PDT by markomalley
Perhaps; but it does a REAL good job of 'hiding' the plain meaning of Scripture in places.
If you have a point; it seems to me that you need to post what you are wanting us all to see, as we could use the time WE'D use, looking it up ourselves, and then trying to discern what we were suppose to be learning in a more productive manner.
Strange how it produced the COUNTER Reformation in the Roman Catholic Church; isn't it?
Why do no Catholics EVER seem to admit it was the excesses and SIN in the Catholic leadership that CAUSED the Reformers to appear?
Nope; I question the Church to say such a thing when you claim that EITHER 'interpretation' is acceptable.
It bears repeating: OFTEN!
How DARE you use human logic to try to understand spiritual things?
Come back to the Mother Church... NOW!
Well; SOMEBODY sure elected them BAD POPES!!!
What was GOD trying to do; anyway??
Paul did NOT tell his 'children' to call him Father.
This is an RCC construct.
No; they were not.
There is NO 'scripture' to support this assertion.
Scripture!
Sure it is.
You have Pharisees for PARENTS?
So; if I read you right; there are Catholics that do not know there is only one pope, and it had to be repeated, WORLDWIDE, to those who have been, evidently, poorly catechized?
Elsie:
That would mean People into Communion with Him and other people into the communion of saints. Should have been clearer
Elsie:
Actually, that passage has lots of great Catholic Theology in it. The Apostles received a ministry of reconciliation [us] and of course Paul got this how, by being linked to the Peter, James, John and other Apostles and what exactly is the ministry of reconciliation, that it the Apostles are ambassadors for Christ [ambassador meaning like his representative or agents acting on his behalf, etc] and God is making an appeal through us [Apostles] we implore you on Christ behalf, etc.
Ties well to the ordained clergy and having the authority by Christ to forgive sins and reconcile in his name and because of him, that is God acts and works to make himself known through the Church. Lots of Catholic Ecclesiology and sacramental theology present in that passage you cited.
See my earlier post. Nothing has changed since the last one I posted to you.
I cited this earlier. Papa is just a word that means “Daddy”. Pappa was used by priests and other Bishops but eventually the word was exclusively used for the Bishop of Rome as a term to relate which Bishop/Church had the Primacy [not that you all agree with Rome having a primacy but that is the context].
As for calling no man Father, the use of the term Father or other terms like Pope to refer to all priests or to see them as having a spiritual Fatherly role, as opposed to a biological one, is perfecting in keeping the NT.
In the OT, God said Honor your Father and Mother. Do you really think Christ meant “oh, btw, honor them, but don’t call them Father and Mother”. In Mt. 15 Christ tells scribes and Pharisees that God Commanded you to “Honor your Father and Mother” and he who speaks evil of father and mother, let him die [Mt 15:4-5]. The Gospels of Mark and Luke both cite Christ stating that a Christian should honor his Father and Mother [Mk. 10:19; Luke 18:20] and Matthew cites Christ again stating honor your Father and Mother [Mt 19:19]. Saint Paul tells the Christian Community at Ephesus to “Honor your Father and Mother” [Eph 6:2]. Did Saint Paul miss the memo, is he a heretic for using that theology.
In another Gospel passage, when Christ enters Jerusalem Saint Mark calls David “Father” [c.f. Mk 11:10]. In Luke 16:24, the parable of bosom of Abraham, we read “and he called out Father Abraham”.
The passages above are enough to show your views are not correct with respect to the term father. But lets go even further. Saint Paul, writing to the Thessalonian Church states “for you know, like a {father} with his children, we exhorted each one of you...” [1 Thess 2:11]. In 1 Timothy 5:1, Saint Paul states regard an older man exhort him as you would a {father}. Perhaps the greatest kicker is this one “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. I urge you then be imitators of me. [1 Cor 4:14-16, which has already been cited using the Catholic Latin Vulgate rendering or Douay-Rheims which is a direct translation from the Vulgate]
In numerous other passages, Saint Paul called Timothy his Child [obviously not his biological child, so in this sense, Paul was like a spiritual or theological father in the same sense Catholics call their priests Father]. For example, “Therefore I sent to you Timothy, my beloved and faithful child in the Lord, to remind you of my ways in Christ” (1 Cor. 4:17); “To Timothy, my true child in the faith: grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord” (1 Tim. 1:2); “To Timothy, my beloved child: Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord” (2 Tim. 1:2).
In other passages, he refers to Timothy as his son. “This charge I commit to you, Timothy, my son, in accordance with the prophetic utterances which pointed to you, that inspired by them you may wage the good warfare” (1 Tim 1:18); “You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus” (2 Tim. 2:1); “But Timothy’s worth you know, how as a son with a father he has served with me in the gospel” (Phil. 2:22). Titus was also called by Saint Paul his child: “To Titus, my true child in a common faith: grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior” (Titus 1:4); “I appeal to you for my child, Onesimus, whose father I have become in my imprisonment” (Philem. 10).
In summary, if your view is correct that Father can’t be used in any context save for “God the Father” [and it is NOT], then all the Gospel writers and Saint Paul are heretics. Catholics call priests Father in the sense of a spiritual Father just as many of the Apostles referred to Abraham [as cited earlier] and Isaac [Romans 10:9] as spiritual fathers and Saint Paul referred to himself as a spiritual father. You can also read Saint John’s Letters were he referred to those Christians and those Churches that he was writing to as his children several times.
And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Thou shalt also make a laver of brass, and his foot also of brass, to wash withal: and thou shalt put it between the tabernacle of the congregation and the altar, and thou shalt put water therein. For Aaron and his sons shall wash their hands and their feet thereat: When they go into the tabernacle of the congregation, they shall wash with water, that they die not; or when they come near to the altar to minister, to burn offering made by fire unto the LORD: So they shall wash their hands and their feet, that they die not: and it shall be a statute for ever to them, even to him and to his seed throughout their generations.
There were certainly commandments regarding washing; to whom and when they were a requirement is one aspect, and that they are generally followed today among the observant is without doubt. So it is a logical tradition of men that was derived from commandments and had a healthy sanitary effect. Perhaps the problem is more that the tradition regarded the washed as morally pure and the unwashed as morally impure, sinful, while ignoring their actual spiritual condition. This would fit more with what is recorded. Washing of hands is good, and the blessing is good, if a man understands it in the spiritual and moral context. The water does not clean the soul, just the body.
Hand washing before meals and after bathroom activities is proven to extend life expectancy significantly. How would one deal with that reality if one believes Jesus and his disciples did not, and were not supposed to, wash their hands before meals ? A literal fundamentalist might forgo washing hands so he could be a true disciple. Hmmm ... not good.
These are scriptures regarding washing of hands in the NT (Luke 11:37-54, Matthew 15:1-20, Mark 7:1-8; I'm including Matthew 23:23 and Psalm 24 to sum it up). and I think this from Matthew makes it clear that Jesus was more concerned about the spiritual condition of a man than his ritual observances, whether they be in the Law of Moses or added as a tradition. The issue is not tradition but the moral condition of the people. Are they fulfilling the law of Moses in the weightier matters, or are they like someone in a religious ministry (Institute of Basic Life Principles for example) who adheres to a system of religion but is morally unclean. Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying , Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread. But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?For God commanded , saying , Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death. But ye say , Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying , This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. And he called the multitude, and said unto them, Hear , and understand : Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man. Then came his disciples, and said unto him, Knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended , after they heard this saying? But he answered and said , Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted , shall be rooted up . Let them alone : they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch. Then answered Peter and said unto him, Declare unto us this parable. And Jesus said , Are ye also yet without understanding? Do not ye yet understand , that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught? But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel. Who shall ascend into the hill of the LORD? or who shall stand in his holy place? He that hath clean hands, and a pure heart; who hath not lifted up his soul unto vanity, nor sworn deceitfully. He shall receive the blessing from the LORD, and righteousness from the God of his salvation. This is the generation of them that seek him, that seek thy face, O Jacob. Selah.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.