OK, Scripture interprets Scripture..
About Peter = rock thing.....
Hey, Elsie, about those passages on God = rock.....
And then we can get back to the eucharist and the prohibition against eating blood.
And while we're at it, the whole who we pray to.
And whether any human being can be sinless.....
And the list goes on....
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?
And then we can get back to the eucharist and the prohibition against eating blood.
Darn it; I have a LIFE!!!!
If they wanna eat blood; let 'em!
It makes ZERO impact on a person's salvation anyway.
Heck...
They can call them Ray if they want...
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"?