Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Vatican Archbishop: I Do Not Agree With The Title ‘Pope Emeritus’
The Catholic Herald (UK) ^ | 5/4/17 | Staff Reporter

Posted on 05/04/2017 5:05:11 PM PDT by marshmallow

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-93 last
To: ealgeone
Doesn't matter what I believe...Jesus said it and that about ends the argument.
    We can agree on this.
  1. It does not matter what you believe (other than for your own conscience) about it.
  2. Messiah Jesus did say it. There is no argument about that.

81 posted on 05/06/2017 5:10:25 PM PDT by af_vet_1981 (The bus came by and I got on, That's when it all began.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: ealgeone
However, the injunction isn't against biological fathers.

It seems to me you have conceded it is not a literal injunction, since "And call no man your father upon the earth:" would apply to biological fathers if it were literal, not to mention the other references to Abraham that I posted. I assume you are aware of many more scriptures where the words of the LORD Jesus Christ, if taken literally, would be a very grave error.
82 posted on 05/06/2017 5:14:41 PM PDT by af_vet_1981 (The bus came by and I got on, That's when it all began.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: af_vet_1981
Do you think it is a sin to call Abraham father ?

Do you think it is a sin to call a Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, or Lutheran who uses the title "Father" by that title when addressing him ?

Do you think it is a sin to call a Jew who has סמיכות (ordination) by the title rabbi ?

Again...context is your friend.

How is father used in relation to Abraham in the Bible?

Out of politeness I would address a person by the title of their job.

Same if I were to meet an Imam or a leader in another religion.

Would I subject myself to those individuals? No.

83 posted on 05/06/2017 5:16:15 PM PDT by ealgeone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: ealgeone
Again...context is your friend.

How is father used in relation to Abraham in the Bible?


Literally and figuratively, physically and spiritually, and definitely as a title of honor

Out of politeness I would address a person by the title of their job. Same if I were to meet an Imam or a leader in another religion. Would I subject myself to those individuals? No.

Concur
84 posted on 05/06/2017 5:25:02 PM PDT by af_vet_1981 (The bus came by and I got on, That's when it all began.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: af_vet_1981
>>However, the injunction isn't against biological fathers.<<

It seems to me you have conceded it is not a literal injunction, since "And call no man your father upon the earth:" would apply to biological fathers if it were literal, not to mention the other references to Abraham that I posted. I assume you are aware of many more scriptures where the words of the LORD Jesus Christ, if taken literally, would be a very grave error.

I've not conceded anything.

As I've said before, and will continue to say...context is your friend in understanding the Bible. I know that's probably something new for a Catholic. But context, along with a good working knowledge of the Greek, will clear up a lot of these problems caused by Roman Catholicism.

Jesus at one time told people to gouge out their eye if it caused them to sin.

Was this a literal command of His? Some may read it that way but apparently the audience of His day, and the subsequent readers of the NT, understood it not to be a literal command. If so, there would be a lot of blind and maimed Christians in the world.

We have no record of any of the disciples or apostles ever gouging out their eyes or cutting off their hands.

We can deduce then Jesus didn't mean for us to literally harm our bodies. We would call it hyperbole.

Again, if read in context, the meaning of the text is clear.

I've shown in 1 Corinthians 4:15 how the part of the verse in question is rendered in Greek.

It does not support the RCC position.

85 posted on 05/06/2017 5:26:58 PM PDT by ealgeone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: af_vet_1981
>Out of politeness I would address a person by the title of their job. Same if I were to meet an Imam or a leader in another religion. Would I subject myself to those individuals? No.<

Concur

Houston, the Eagle has landed!! Write down this date. We agree on something. :)

86 posted on 05/06/2017 5:29:03 PM PDT by ealgeone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: ealgeone

What title do you use to address leadership in your faith community ?


87 posted on 05/06/2017 5:32:20 PM PDT by af_vet_1981 (The bus came by and I got on, That's when it all began.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: af_vet_1981

Usually, brother ____. Sometimes I call him by his first name.


88 posted on 05/06/2017 5:36:13 PM PDT by ealgeone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: ealgeone
Usually, brother ____. Sometimes I call him by his first

There is a notable scriptural example where "Brother" was used as an honorific title, and it was for Saul while he was blind, before he was baptized, and before he received the Holy Spirit. Afterward the Apostle Peter used the phrase "our beloved brother Paul" in his second epistle.

name.


I see nothing wrong with using "Brother." Catholics use "Brother" too. Honorifics are a way of addressing people, so it seems we are stuck with them for now. Can you imagine addressing every man as "Brother" and every woman as "Sister ?"

The salient point, it seems to me, is not that exact word used for the honorific, but that we do not honor anyone as a teacher, master, father, etc. above "our Father which art in heaven."
89 posted on 05/06/2017 6:10:00 PM PDT by af_vet_1981 (The bus came by and I got on, That's when it all began.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: ealgeone
Usually, brother ____. Sometimes I call him by his first name.

There is a notable scriptural example where "Brother" was used as an honorific title, and it was for Saul while he was blind, before he was baptized, and before he received the Holy Spirit. Afterward the Apostle Peter used the phrase "our beloved brother Paul" in his second epistle.

I see nothing wrong with using "Brother." Catholics use "Brother" too. Honorifics are a way of addressing people, so it seems we are stuck with them for now. Can you imagine addressing every man as "Brother" and every woman as "Sister ?"

The salient point, it seems to me, is not that exact word used for the honorific, but that we do not honor anyone as a teacher, master, father, etc. above "our Father which art in heaven."
90 posted on 05/06/2017 6:10:57 PM PDT by af_vet_1981 (The bus came by and I got on, That's when it all began.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: ealgeone
Neither Greek nor Hebrew at the time of the writing of the Bible had lower-case letters. All the letters were capital. As for my capitalization (way back in that previous post you referred to), it was not intended to have some special significance. It would make exactly the same point without capitalization.

The connection between "father" as a noun and and as verb is grammatical, but it isn't merely grammatical. It is a logical corollary. Father can only mean someone who fathers in some way, whether this is biological, social, historic, pedagogic or metaphorical: "John Paul Jones, Father of the American Navy." "Martin Luther and John Calvin, the fathers of the Protestant Reformation."

The valuable information you copied from Strong's makes my point very well. Calling a man "father" because he is bringing someone over to his way of life is reckoned "the same as though he had begotten him"; (cf. Philo, leg. ad Gaium § 8))

This well explains the justification for calling Abraham our father in the faith; calling Paul the "father" of Onesimus; and calling our monks and priests "father." They are spiritual fathers.

As you yourself concluded, "The injunction against calling 'no man father' remains with no contradiction.

91 posted on 05/06/2017 6:27:34 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o (The harmony between thought and reality is found in the grammar of the language. Ludwig Wittgenstein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: ealgeone
And why bring St. Paul in all this?

Yeah, why bring up the Bible when we're having a religious discussion?

92 posted on 05/06/2017 6:53:25 PM PDT by BipolarBob (Don't be a pessimist, be an optometrist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
Neither Greek nor Hebrew at the time of the writing of the Bible had lower-case letters. All the letters were capital. As for my capitalization (way back in that previous post you referred to), it was not intended to have some special significance. It would make exactly the same point without capitalization.

Then why did you put in caps something that isn't in caps??

The connection between "father" as a noun and and as verb is grammatical, but it isn't merely grammatical. It is a logical corollary. Father can only mean someone who fathers in some way, whether this is biological, social, historic, pedagogic or metaphorical: "John Paul Jones, Father of the American Navy." "Martin Luther and John Calvin, the fathers of the Protestant Reformation."

However, the verb in question in 1 Corinthians 4:15 doesn't say that as noted previously.

I repost again for context.

...ἐγὼ (I) ὑμᾶς (you) ἐγέννησα (have begotten).

The valuable information you copied from Strong's makes my point very well. Calling a man "father" because he is bringing someone over to his way of life is reckoned "the same as though he had begotten him"; (cf. Philo, leg. ad Gaium § 8))

b. in a Jewish sense, of one who brings others over to his way of life: ὑμᾶς ἐγέννησα I am the author of your Christian life, 1 Corinthians 4:15; Philemon 1:10 (Sanhedr. fol. 19, 2 "If one teaches the son of his neighbor the law, the Scripture reckons this the same as though he had begotten him"; (cf. Philo, leg. ad Gaium § 8)).

This is not justifying calling Paul "Father" as in Roman Catholicism.

As I've told afvet...context is the key to understanding. You're lifting things out of context.

This well explains the justification for calling Abraham our father in the faith; calling Paul the "father" of Onesimus; and calling our monks and priests "father." They are spiritual fathers.

Yet in none of this are we to call anyone "Father" as practiced in Roman Catholicism.

To do so goes against what Jesus was saying.

As you yourself concluded, "The injunction against calling 'no man father' remains with no contradiction.

Only in the context of what I've said.

The RCC priesthood however does exactly what Jesus is saying not to do. They've elevated the priests over the laity. Which leads to the title of "Father ______ " and a whole bunch of other false teachings.

93 posted on 05/06/2017 6:56:07 PM PDT by ealgeone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-93 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson