Posted on 06/23/2018 7:48:28 AM PDT by Salvation
But he wasn’t guilty. Why?
you made the sign of the cross because the Holy Eucharist was kept in the sanctuary, the living body of Christ....not because it was a church...
I'm glad to have these open threads because it is SO telling of the prejudice so many non Catholics have, arrogance to be exact.
Yes it is.
“I am the Lord thy God, thou shalt not have any strange gods before Me.”
Does this apply at the dinner table?
“Call no man father”
>> you made the sign of the cross because the Holy Eucharist was kept in the sanctuary, the living body of Christ....not because it was a church...<<
I'm glad to have these open threads because it is SO telling of the prejudice so many non Catholics have, arrogance to be exact.
I like the open threads as well.
However, whenever Roman Catholicism is examined for what it teaches/promotes, and is found wanting when compared to Scripture, Roman Catholics develop very, very thin skin.
It is a good thing Paul and the other Apostles didn't have such thin skin as many RCs on these threads do. The Gospel might not have been spread like it did.
Because that is not a graven image. Again, if you read Exodus and Deuteronomy along with Bible on this topic you might understand.
“Call no man father”
****************
Context, my FRfriend....context.
You still have not answered this one. Maybe perhaps you don’t really have an answer??
For example, you made the outlandish claim that Jesus does not have any blood in His resurrected body. That implies He does not have a heart either, for the purpose of a heart is to pump blood. He would also not have any need for veins or arteries. He would also not need lungs to oxygenate His blood. So ultimately I am using human reason to show that your statement about Jesus not having any blood is in its own peculiar way a denial of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, body and soul. It implies that Jesus is now not human in any way, He is a pure spirit only. But by Faith I know that He resurrected under His own power from the dead. Dead as in dead as a door nail, He bled so much that there was nothing left when Longinus pierced His side. I also believe that His resurrection gives me hope that I will also be resurrected, body and soul from the dead. That is an example of how the gift of Faith can show that a concept such as Jesus-not-having-blood is absurd and does not belong to the sacred deposit of Faith left to us by Jesus Christ through His Apostles.
Why?
great, glad to know that context applies.
In the same way that a man has responsibility over his children, and it is fitting to call him “father”, so also is it fitting to call a man who has taken responsibility over a small flock of souls “father”. Especially those who have sacrificed all for their flock, as in celibates who forgo the joys of having a family so that they can focus on bringing more souls to Christ.
No where in the New Testament will you find an apostle calling themselves, Father John, Father Matthew, etc. Hence the appeal to context.
In the same way that a man has responsibility over his children, and it is fitting to call him “father”, so also is it fitting to call a man who has taken responsibility over a small flock of souls “father”. Especially those who have sacrificed all for their flock, as in celibates who forgo the joys of having a family so that they can focus on bringing more souls to Christ.
You're using man's thinking to justify this.
You still have the prohibition on calling no man father which you cannot reconcile with how Rome addresses its priests.
And you have no NT example of the office of priest as presented in Roman Catholicism.
Now, what remains is the real life case of Roman Catholicism allowing their members to kneel, pray before, burn incense to and serve Mary.
That is the issue to resolve that Rome cannot resolve without destroying Roman Catholicism.
Having a lay person tell me what the Sacred Scriptures mean is not a rule of Faith for me. It should not be a rule of Faith for anyone.
Having the Holy Spirit enlighten me as I read he holy books, which of themselves are a rule of Faith for me, that is the mode I use.
In the same vein, I have no authority to expound upon the meaning and interpretations of the sacred texts than any other lay person.
In Matt 23 is found a condemnation of self-centered spirituality of the Scribes and Pharisees, who take upon themselves he appellation of “Rabbi” or “Father” as a mark of distinction and pride. In the Catholic tradition the priest is the grain of wheat that falls to the ground to die and yield 100fold. He is the servant that has received a commission in the laying on of hands from Jesus Christ Himself through his Apostles. If a priest had not received such a commission for a sacrificial life in the service of the Gospel, it would be foolish to call him father.
Here is a modern twist on Mark 23: “Call no man Pastor”. This applies to those who take up positions of authority and preach the Gospel without having received a commission through the laying on of hands from the Apostles.
Here, let me help you since you can't seem to say it. The reason is because these images are not worshipped. So, using coins does not violate the Commandment:
“I am the Lord thy God, thou shalt not have any strange gods before Me.”
You guys love to claim Augustine when it suits you. Here is what he has to say:
It is asked, in what way the Ten Commandments of the Law are to be divided: whether there are four up to the commandment concerning the Sabbath, which pertain to God Himself, and six that remain, of which the first is, “Honor thy father and mother,”1 which pertain to man; or whether it is more fitting that the former be three, and the latter seven. Indeed those who say the former to be four, separate the commandment, “You shall have have no other gods before me,” that it might be a separate commandment, “You shall not make for yourself an idol,”2 whereby the worshipping of images is prohibited. However those same wish to combine into one, “You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife; you shall not covet your neighbor’s house,”3 and all the rest up to the end. Certainly those who say the first group to be three, and the second group seven, wish to combine into one whatever is commanded concerning worshipping God, that nothing before God is worshipped. These on the other hand divide the last one into two, that “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house” might be a separate commandment. In neither case is there any doubt that there are Ten Commandments, since Scripture itself testifies to this.
Still it seems to me more fitting that the first group be accepted as three, and the other as seven, because those three which pertain to God seem to make known the Trinity to those diligently contemplating. And truly the commandment, “You shall have no other gods before me,” is itself explicated more completely by the prohibition of worshipping images that follows. Further on, coveting another’s wife, and coveting another’s house, differ as much in the sins as in the commandments themselves. “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house” might also be joined to other things Scripture says, “Nor his field, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything of your neighbor’s.”4 Moreover coveting the wife of another seems to be separate from coveting anything else of another, since both begin thus, “You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife; You shall not covet your neighbor’s house”: both commandments begin with the statement “You shall not covet,” but it is only to the latter that it fastens the other things, saying nor his house, nor his field, nor his servant, and the rest. These all appear to have been joined together and seem to be contained by one commandment, and are separate from that commandment where the wife has been named. The commandment which says, “You shall have no other gods before me,” appears more devoted to the carrying out of those things which have been placed under it. To what indeed does this pertain, “You shall not make an idol, nor any likeness of anything which is in heaven on high, or anything on earth below, or anything in the sea beneath the earth; you shall not worship them or serve them,”5 unless to the commandment, “You shall have no other gods before me”?
You may recall Paul did not have a "commission" from the Apostles.
He received his straight from Jesus.
Are you saying Jesus can no longer call men into His service?
I don't believe you will find I appeal to the ECFs on these matters.
And therein is the rub.....Roman Catholics DO indeed worship Mary in their actions and their writings.
But even then, as per Roman Catholicism and what many have told us on these threads, you cannot understand the texts without a priest to explain them to you.
Has the Vatican issued a formal ruling/interpretation of the passage in question?
But in the New Testament we have apostle telling us he became our father.
No. Paul never called himself Father Paul.
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.