Essays for Lent: Call No Man Father

**Isolating and grabbing hold of one scripture verse is risky. It can be misleading or even dangerous. Even an honest and well-intentioned Christian can subconsciously bend a verse to suit his or her own needs.**

YOPIOS at work again?

1 posted on 03/30/2012 8:43:38 PM PDT by Salvation

To: nickcarraway; NYer; ELS; Pyro7480; livius; ArrogantBustard; Catholicguy; RobbyS; marshmallow; ...

2 posted on 03/30/2012 8:45:40 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)

To: Salvation; lilycicero; MaryLou1; glock rocks; JPG; Monkey Face; RIghtwardHo; pieces of time; ...

3 posted on 03/30/2012 8:46:16 PM PDT by narses

4 posted on 03/30/2012 8:59:46 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)

YOPIOS at work again?

Yeah, people keep thinking for themselves. It's a drag, innit?

As opposed to Catholics, who never personally chose Catholicism.

So they simply are not personally responsible for Catholicism's position on any issue.

Sweet deal.

5 posted on 03/30/2012 9:26:57 PM PDT by Talisker (He who commands, must obey.)

“We can take it a step further and say, not what Scripture says but what Scripture means”.

Then let us honestly take that next step forward and admit that there was no office or title of priest in the Christian church.

There were overseers, the more general servants of the congregation and the much broader term, minister, all described functions, none were titles anymore than carpenter or fisherman was.

Christ alone was called a high priest but no one in the congregation was a priest/king and would not be while on earth.

6 posted on 03/30/2012 9:40:39 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have to be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)

To: count-your-change; narses

That was explained above. Christ was talking to the Pharisees about seeking honors. I’ll take Christ’s words and interpretation.

7 posted on 03/30/2012 9:45:00 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)

This is about Christ’s teaching about seeking honors and places of respect at a table. He was talking to the Pharisees.

Did you read all of that in the article>

8 posted on 03/30/2012 9:46:31 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)

Uh...No it wasn’t and it appears no you won’t.

And apparently the author is engaged in the redefinition of words to justify a practice Christ forbade.

9 posted on 03/30/2012 10:12:45 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have to be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)

To: count-your-change

Read the entire section of scripture there. Christ WAS talking to the Pharisees.

10 posted on 03/30/2012 10:15:10 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)

To: count-your-change; Religion Moderator

Are you saying that I won’t take Christ’s words seriously? Are you trying to “mind=read”? That’s against the rules.

11 posted on 03/30/2012 10:16:45 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)

Matt. 23:1-12 was addressed to the “crowds and to his disciples” (NASB), only at vs. 13 does Jesus single out the Pharisees and scribes.

A footnote in the NASB on these verses (8-12) says, in part, “These verses, warning against the use of various titles, are addressed to the disciples alone.”

So it’s not my interpretation at all but rather the totality of what the Scriptures say. And that totality shows the author to be mistaken and that you are repeating his error.

12 posted on 03/30/2012 10:48:46 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have to be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)

As opposed to Catholics, who never personally chose Catholicism.

Some of us Catholics prayed and thought our way into Catholicism.

Yeah, people keep thinking for themselves.

Paul says "some" are teachers. Two things follow: (1) Not all are teachers. (2)Some are students.

It is proper to students to let their thinking be guided by their teachers.

13 posted on 03/31/2012 2:47:22 AM PDT by Mad Dawg (Jesus, I trust in you.)

To: count-your-change; Talisker

c-y-c:A footnote in the NASB on these verses (8-12) says, in part, “...

Talisker, meet c-y-c. Discuss thinking for yourself.

14 posted on 03/31/2012 2:50:45 AM PDT by Mad Dawg (Jesus, I trust in you.)

15 posted on 03/31/2012 3:20:46 AM PDT by johngrace (I am a 1 John 4! Christian- declared at every Sunday Mass , Divine Mercy and Rosary prayers!)

To: count-your-change

Then let us honestly take that next step forward and admit that there was no office or title of priest in the Christian church.

Well the old arguments and misunderstandings persist.

"Priest" of course, derives from πρεσβυτερος, but translates "ιερευς", and from this equivocation a lot of problems have arisen. Presbyters are mentioned in Paul. And IHS is THE priest, as Hebrews, which some of us read this time of year, makes abundantly clear.

I'm guessing that so far we are together. Where we part would be that we would say more or less, that the Church has a priestly function which is exercised first by the whole Church together. A clear example of this is found in part of our Good Friday service. We pray, at length, for the whole world, "applying", so to speak, the sacrifice of Christ to the world's need. Clergy and laity together intercede, in and through Christ's self-oblation.

And we further differ in that, as I see it, we take seriously the Pauline division of parts and functions within the body. So within the priestly function of the entire Church there are "members" who uniquely exercise the priestly function.

Chief among these is the "overseer," the επι-σκοπος. Simply because the episkopos can't be everywhere at once, bishops delegated some of their functions to presbyteroi, in particular their functions of preaching, teaching, and presiding at sacramental worship.

But the priesthood is first Christ's and therefore the Church's. So we would say a "priest" in the modern usage is a priest NOT instead of Christ but because of Christ and his priesthood and "in" Christ.

James himself suggests a limitation of sacramental function when he says, "Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord...". So I sent a friend who has a concussion to an "elder" for anointing yesterday.

I happen to know this particular friar pretty well, and he would be the first to deny loudly that HE himself has any healing powers of his own. It's not about him. It's about the KIND of member of the body which he is.

I get that that is not your view. And I am not arguing so much as sketching the sort of thinking from which our view arises. And I'll further cop to some (many?) in the Catholic Church (including some priests) failing to keep in mind that priestly function is theirs only the way sunlight belongs to a window -- except that this sun is always shining.

As for "titles", I don't know what to say. I call the friar whose office is across the hall "Your Luminosity" and he calls me "Dog-boy." And then we laugh.

16 posted on 03/31/2012 3:22:03 AM PDT by Mad Dawg (Jesus, I trust in you.)

The term used in the NT for “priest is “hiereus”, it is used for Christ as a priest, the Levite priests and those Christians chosen to rule as king/priests from heaven.
The term is not applied to the whole church as Christ alone offered his blood in redemption (Heb. 9:12) and those king/priests do not exercise that office as humans.

If it proper for a priest to titled “father” then it must first be shown that anyone in the Christian church of the NT was a priest. None are so termed. None had the title of “father” nor any other title.

No Reverend Peter or Elder Timothy or Deacon or Most Holy Father....

17 posted on 03/31/2012 4:11:01 AM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have to be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)

To: count-your-change

Did you read what I wrote? You're just restating your thesis. You know what I think about the utility of repetition.

If it proper for a priest to titled “father” then it must first be shown that anyone in the Christian church of the NT was a priest.

Only if the process of development which is shown in the NT must have stopped when the last book of the NT was was written. I find nothing in the NT to say that it did.

18 posted on 03/31/2012 4:20:55 AM PDT by Mad Dawg (Jesus, I trust in you.)

And just why should you object to someone quoting from the NAB?

19 posted on 03/31/2012 4:37:53 AM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have to be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)

Yes, I read what you wrote and perhaps you can explain what this “development” is.

Paul certainly spoke of a development of apostasy that was at work even in his day. When those who restrained it, like Paul himself, were gone this development could and did proceed rapidly. (2 Thess. 2). And as Jesus parable of the wheat and tares showed the apostate tares were to grow with the wheat til the harvest.

So, no, the process of development didn't stop.

20 posted on 03/31/2012 5:07:36 AM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have to be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794