Posted on 11/23/2013 3:32:28 PM PST by markomalley
Posting stuff like this will get you Private Mail from your OTHER Brothers and Sisters!
OK!...
...if, by that "OK," you're saying you see how Scripture effectively disproves the idea that we are literally not to call any man on earth "father." If that's what you means, then, thank you. We do have that in common.. and in common with St. Paul, St. Stephen and St. John.
But rather than follow up on the other 6 major issues you referenced in the next 6 lines --- I want to address this part,
"Why when Catholics want to call their priests *Father* do they insist on *Scripture interprets Scripture* and when non-Catholics do it with some other sacred cow of the Catholics, it's called YOPIOS and not valid?"
... because I think this shows some misunderstandng of the YOPIOS: Your Own Personal (or Private) Interpretation of Scripture.
YOPIOS, as I understand it, does not mean that an opinion is not valid, nor that it is non-Catholic, no that it is false. It just means it is an individual's opinion.
Catholics can and do practice YOPIOS --- personal opinionating --- all the time. I may have more YOPIOS (MOPIOS?) than most, because I may be more opinionated than the average Catholic. Any given pope can have opinions that are YOPIOS --- as did all of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, to some greater or lesser extent.
By using the term "YOPIOS," one is not distinguishing between Catholic and non-Catholic, but between ecclesial and individual.
Many non-Catholic Christians have points doctrine affirmed by, say, the early Ecumenical Councils (e.g. they still believe in the Incarnation and the Trinity) or follow practices originating in the early centuries of the Church (e.g. they still worship on Sundays, or they affirm the Apostles' Creed). Even if they do not make explicit reference to Councils or to early Church practices as their rationale, but only offer proof-texts,I would not call this YOPIOS, because they are in fact ecclesial rather than individual interpretations.
To be fair, I think that even doctrines and practices deriving from Protestant statements of faith, like the Lutheran Book of Concord, the Thirty Nine Articles of Anglicanism, the Baptist Faith and Message, and so forth, should not be called YOPIOS, because they are not individualistic: they owe something to the view that the Holy Spirit is leading the Church (and not just themselves as singularly enlightened individuals).
In other words, I'd venture to say that within most Churches, you can distinguish between an ecclesial doctrine and YOPIOS.
But that's just my opinion :o)
.
Oh, by the way, (real question, no snark) could you tell me if there is any Christian church which teaches officially (as part of its doctrine) that it is literally a sin to call any man on earth "father"?
Rabbi is the Hebrew word for “teacher”. Sometimes also translated “Master” (as in “schoolmaster”.)
http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1916
Such opposition, however, is ironic in the context of church history. For American Protestants regularly called their clergy "Father" 200 and 300 years ago, and some continued to do so a century ago. And during the same years, Protestants addressed venerated women in their churches as "Mother."
The title "Father" was used in four ways in addressing clergy (see my article, "Fathers and Brethren," Church History [September 1968], pp. 298-318). In early America "Father" was a title of respect for elderly men. Although, for example, "Mister" (the designation of a gentleman and a college graduate) was the normal title for Puritan clergy in colonial New England, Congregationalists. Baptists, Methodists and German Reformed commonly addressed older ministers as "Father" well into the 19th century.
Furthermore, Protestants also employed the title for younger ministers who influenced Christian commitment and served as spiritual fathers. This usage is evident in the correspondence between early American ministers and their theological students. The journals of Methodist circuit riders as well as the records of Protestant missions to Indians and seamen also indicate this usage. Herman Melville, for example, based his character Father Mapple -- the whaleman-chaplain in Moby Dick -- on Father Edward Thompson Taylor, the Methodist pastor of Boston’s Seamen’s Bethel.
Protestants of earlier centuries also addressed founders of denominations and religious communities as "Father." American Methodists, for example, referred to John Wesley not only as "Mr. Wesley" but also as "Father Wesley." Following the custom in both genders, the Shakers called their matriarch ‘‘Mother’’ and their male leaders "Father."
Closely related was the custom of calling missionary pioneers "Father." In the 19th century, Presbyterian, Baptist, Congregationalist, German Reformed, Methodist and Universalist missionaries were given the title throughout the New South and West. And American Lutherans used "Father" for their pioneer pastors, their first missionary to India, and their patriarch, Father Henry Melchior Muhlenberg.
Few in Protestant churches of earlier generations would have seen a theological problem in addressing spiritual fathers, founders or missionary pioneers as ‘Father." Just as the author of I John addressed as "fathers" the elderly who were advanced in the knowledge of Christ (I John 2:13-14), so Protestant churches applied the title to experienced ministers who had been long in the service of the church. "Fathers and Brethren" sat in ecclesiastical assemblies, and in the New Testament "Father" denoted the difference between generations.
Moreover, if calling clergy "Father" had violated biblical norms, the Christian Church and Disciples of Christ surely would have opposed it, for these groups were formed in an attempt to restore not only the doctrine and practice of primitive Christianity, but also its very nomenclature. Warren Stone’s motto was "Bible names for Bible things." And Thomas and Alexander Campbell stood on the phrase, "Where the Bible speaks, we speak: where it is silent, we are silent." Ridiculing "Reverend" and "Doctor" as "unscriptural," Alexander Campbell even employed the words of Jesus in Matthew 23:8-10 as a motto for his magazine, the Christian Baptist.
Yet church history clearly indicates that members of the Restoration Movement commonly addressed both the Campbells and Stone as "Father." Furthermore, the three founders used the term for their own clergy as well as for each other. And none of the movement’s opponents ever seemed to exploit a contradiction in the movement’s use of "Father" as a clerical title. They apparently saw no contradiction.
I don't know that that's true...Just because someone at a university says it true, I'll wait for the source material before I comment...
Read the article.
So what then? Is this an example of Catholic reasoning?
“Well, everyone else is doing it. So we’re going to , too. Why can’t we?*
Ummm, because Jesus said not to address any religious leader here on earth with the title of *father*?
Catholic exposition of Scripture as follows:
When a literal interpretation supports Catholic doctrine, use the literal interpretation.
When the figurative interpretation of Scripture supports Catholic doctrine, use the figurative one.
But by all means, don’t be consistent in how Scripture is to be interpreted. Use whatever supports Catholic doctrine but above all, don’t let Scripture determine Catholic doctrine.
>> “but above all, don’t let Scripture determine Catholic doctrine.” <<
.
By Jove, I think she’s got it!
>> “I single you out as you started it with what is trivial to the posted article—whether to call someone father.” <<
.
There is nothing trivial about rejecting Nicolaitanism.
Yeshua said he hates the Nicolaitans, but you think his opinion is trivial?
Men are not to be elevated; we are all equal.
I guess that makes it ok then; Dad.
>> “I think in either case, Jesus weeps.” <<
.
He weeps when men are elevated.
He weeps when his commandments are violated.
He weeps when men pray to the dead.
He weeps when men pray with vain pagan repetition, counting on beads.
He weeps when men hold confessions in private booths.
He weeps when men invent pagan feasts like christmas and easter in place of his feasts.
>> Oh, by the way, (real question, no snark) could you tell me if there is any Christian church which teaches officially (as part of its doctrine) that it is literally a sin to call any man on earth “father”? <<
.
I am abundantly confident that you understand that Yeshua was condemning Nicolaitanism, not telling his sheep that they couldn’t call their birth father ‘father.’
You are far more gracious than most Catholics, then.
Problem I see here, and it's not just Catholicism that engages in this, but in this case it primarily is.
Here is a clearly stated comment, indeed command, by Jesus, and all I see is people explaining why we DON'T have to obey it.
Problem is, this comes from a denomination which elevates (according to adherents of said denomination) that the words of Jesus are taken at a higher level of..... seriousness, I suppose one could say, that the words of anyone else.
And what do I see all over this thread?
Catholics defending why to NOT do what Jesus so clearly commanded. And the argument I've seen used most is the *everybody else is doing it* one.
Oh, by the way, (real question, no snark) could you tell me if there is any Christian church which teaches officially (as part of its doctrine) that it is literally a sin to call any man on earth "father"?
Can't say that I've seen it, but generally it's understood that disobeying a command of Christ's is sin. It seems to be redundant, not to mention a waste of time and paper, to print out all the separate instances of Jesus commanding something when we have Scripture there for all to read.
As far as other denominations deciding that that is a sin. Since they don't do it, I don't see the point of going to the trouble of commanding people not to do something they already don't do.
It's too much works based and legalism. Might as well add it to the *Don't drink, smoke, cuss, or chew and don't go out with girls who do.*
Living by a list of rules and regs may make life predictable and comfortable, but doesn't lend itself in the least to internal personal holiness. Why should Baptists, for example, bother to list as a sin something another denomination does?
Read it...And tried to source it...There was no source other than to claim it came from some guy at William and Mary college in 1985...Maybe you wrote it, I don't know...
When a literal interpretation supports Catholic doctrine, use the literal interpretation.
When the figurative interpretation of Scripture supports Catholic doctrine, use the figurative one.
And if you don't like the literal or the figurative, change the words to support your own doctrine...
And if you can't find it at all, just make something up...
And/or, Jesus doesn't mean what he clearly says in simple, clear 4th grade language...
Got it, just the usual protestant tirade and refusal to admit that Catholics have been correct all along.
Got it, just the usual protestant dodge and refusal to admit that Catholics have been correct all along.
Got it, just the usual dodge tirade and refusal to admit that Catholics have been correct all along.
ROTFLOL!!!!!!
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.