[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
In both cases, it is a name that God gave, not one they appropriated for themselves. Quite different.[/quote]
Okay. I don’t follow your objection. Or see an objection.[/quote]
You are equating the pope choosing a new name for himself with the above cases of men in the bible receiving a new name from God. These instances do not support the pope’s practice.
Consider these verses, especially the last:
Luk 14:7-11 And he put forth a parable to those which were bidden, when he marked how they chose out the chief rooms; saying unto them, (8) When thou art bidden of any man to a wedding, sit not down in the highest room; lest a more honourable man than thou be bidden of him; (9) And he that bade thee and him come and say to thee, Give this man place; and thou begin with shame to take the lowest room. (10) But when thou art bidden, go and sit down in the lowest room; that when he that bade thee cometh, he may say unto thee, Friend, go up higher: then shalt thou have worship in the presence of them that sit at meat with thee. (11) For whosoever exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.
[/quote]
Guess you didn’t read Isaiah 22. Or Matthew 16. Jesus chooses St. Simon Peter and names him Cephas, just like David in Isaiah 22. So, when each Bishop of Rome comes into office, like Cephas they take on a new name.[/quote] How the new name is acquired is what I’m getting at. Surely you are not missing my objection. You can call it irrelevant if you want, but don’t say you don’t understand it. I have read all your references, so skip the sarcasm. I’ll even add another to the list- Jacob is renamed Israel by God in Gen 32:28. All these cases the renamed person receives this name from God, he does not choose his own. The pope chooses his own name. They both end up with new names, but only one group has their new name given by God.[/quote]
Yes, and he renamed James and John. I see your objection. I just don’t follow your objection.
I was educated for a time at a Jesuit institution, but I now disavow that association.
I came into this thread because you wanted to move our conversation here. Now you’re stuck with me.
Both you and Pat have implied I know nothing of your doctrine, yet we have discussed Peter, as well as Paul’s teaching on the law and justification. We will get back to Mt 16:18, so study up. Although KingKai has already taken it past your capabilities. It’s interesting I state RC doctrine of salvation is “another gospel”, and Pat immediately gives me a verse on works. I guess he knows I know what the issue is. I guess I know something huh?
But let’s just do a short one in the interim:
I don’t think the pope should allow himself to be addressed as “Holy Father”, let alone Most Holy Father, because it is a term used to address my Heavenly Father, and NEVER used to refer to any man. How does your papa have the audacity to appropriate it for himself?[/quote]
That is not a Catholic doctrine. Seems like your hung up on minutia. You said you have issues with Catholic doctrine. BC asked you to name one, explain it correctly and then explain your issue with it.
The pope cannot control how he is referred. The name he chose for himself is Pope Benedict XVI. Seems like you don’t know any Catholic doctrine.
Put up or shut up, Chen.[/quote]
As you should have already noted from above, what exactly a Catholic doctrine is needed some clarification.
[/quote]
Proof that our admonitions about you not knowing them are true. If you don’t even know what qualifies as a Catholic doctrine, how do you know you disagree with it. You seem more like a cheerleader than a knowledgeable apologist. You are just going along with what somebody has told you and your not even sure why.
I am not going to help you with this. You have an issue with Catholic doctrine, and you don’t even know what qualifies? That’s just bad.
Are you really passing judgement on me because what you perceived on how much I read scripture? Really?
So you are bragging about how righteous you are to me and admonishing me for not being as righteous as you are, and you don’t see anything wrong with this. When you read, do you understand the words?
What you brought up about Catholicism is ridiculously petty and was answered. Why are you afraid to deal with real issues?
[quote]
The reason I make an issue of it is because a leader like him should avoid all such displays as an example of humility. This is the what you find in the NT. And nobody calls him by his name anyway. The call him “most holy father”. Otherwise he could be addressed as Pope Joseph, like the apostles used their first names. He does it to emphasize his power Pat. His term is called a reign. In the past he had the ability to negotiate with, and even squeeze out kings. Of course the exact opposite of what Christ said he should be doing.
And I’ll add that he didn’t choose his name as a “symbolic action of taking off your old self and putting on a new self”. At least not according to his own words as quoted on Wikipedia. But I’m a bit ignorant, maybe you can explain it better.[/quote]
It’s been explained and it’s petty…So what? What does it matter what people call him. People call their own father’s fathers. Holy Father is more or less an alias.
This is what I call a creative way to avoid substance. Bring up crap that doesn’t matter and hammer away.[/quote]
Baptists don’t read the bible to be righteous Pat, so I’m not claiming to be more righteous than you by doing so. Whether you or I understand it or not is what’s under examination via the current topic of discussion.
The question isn’t if “Holy Father” is an alias or not. Doesn’t that go without saying? The question is whether or not he should use it.
If you find my posts “petty…crap”, why not just let them be where they are. Surely others will be able to recognize my pettiness without you pointing it out. Wouldn’t it be better to let such posts dry out with no comment, rather than getting them on your shoes and tracking them all over?
Also, two other points. On the one hand, I am not really sure what Mr. Chen is trying to prove with this attack on the legitimacy of applying the title “Holy Father” to the Pope. I mean, I understand the ethical issue, i.e., is there not something (at least potentially) sacrilegious about a human being appropriating a title used only of God? I would agree that it would be sacrilegious IF they were using it in the same way as Jesus’ uses it in John 17, i.e., if the Pope were actually using it to identify himself with God the Father. But simply using the words “Holy Father” as a title is no more inherently sacrilegious than a Latino naming their child “Jesus.” Moreover, the fact that Jesus only uses the term “Holy Father” once in Scripture should probably dissuade us from assuming that it is an actual title; it just seems like more of a term of endearment.
On the other hand, I don’t know why Brother Chris is being so dense. I assume he isn’t reading very carefully or something, because most of his responses are not addressing Mr. Chen’s comments at all. He isn’t talking about a pope changing his birth name; he is questioning the validity of applying a (theoretically) divine title to a human being. Most of Chen’s points have a cumulative force, and I don’t feel like Brother Chris is actually addressing any of them. The overarching point of Chen’s arguments seems to be (and feel free to correct me if I am reading you wrong, Mr. Chen) - if the Catholic church claims special interpretive authority and spiritual legitimacy, such that all other Christian denominations are fundamentally in eternal-life-threatening error for refusing to submit to the church’s claims, then shouldn’t the Catholic church itself be free from significant errors? But if a (theoretically) significant number of the Catholic church’s members continue to commit serious sins, even those at the highest rungs of authority (Papacy), at what point does the authority of the entire institution become questionable? How many members must be corrupted before you can call the entire body corrupt?
As a illustration, my step-brother (twenty years my senior) recently married a woman who the entire family believes is wrong for him. Moreover, virtually everyone in my brother’s church believes that this woman is wrong for him. Nevertheless, my brother’s pastor married him and this woman anyway, and the pastor actually said, “my church members are wrong. I think there is a spirit of lustfulness in our church, and that’s part of why so many people are against this marriage.” Assuming (for the sake of argument) that the pastor is right about his parishioners, I can’t help wondering about HIS spiritual credentials, since he allowed such a spiritual force to enter and so thoroughly impact his church. But even if he is somehow exempt and all of his members are corrupt, could we still say that his church is “healthy” or “pure” just because the PASTOR might be?
[quote]KingKai25 wrote:
On the other hand, I don’t know why Brother Chris is being so dense. I assume he isn’t reading very carefully or something, because most of his responses are not addressing Mr. Chen’s comments at all. He isn’t talking about a pope changing his birth name; he is questioning the validity of applying a (theoretically) divine title to a human being. Most of Chen’s points have a cumulative force, and I don’t feel like Brother Chris is actually addressing any of them. The overarching point of Chen’s arguments seems to be (and feel free to correct me if I am reading you wrong, Mr. Chen) - if the Catholic church claims special interpretive authority and spiritual legitimacy, such that all other Christian denominations are fundamentally in eternal-life-threatening error for refusing to submit to the church’s claims, then shouldn’t the Catholic church itself be free from significant errors? But if a (theoretically) significant number of the Catholic church’s members continue to commit serious sins, even those at the highest rungs of authority (Papacy), at what point does the authority of the entire institution become questionable? How many members must be corrupted before you can call the entire body corrupt?[/quote]
I’m not being dense. I asked Mr. Chen for a piece of doctrine in which he can explain (even if that meant copy&paste) and then explain why he disagrees with it. I don’t understand how the use of the Holy Father or changing his name is against the doctrine of humility. Which he hasn’t explained why he objects to our doctrine of humility. He hasn’t even explained the doctrine he disagrees with. So, no I am not being dense. I just don’t understand what Mr. Chen is arguing about and how the doctrine of humility is wrong.
Here are some notes on my argument for the term used by catholics for our pope. Of course we know that the pope is referred to by catholics as “Holy Father.” It is a title, it is not a claim that he is God the Father. There is a distinction between their uses. To say otherwise is to misrepresent the intentions of catholics.
Several reasons why catholics use the term, and the first is because as pope he is supposed to be par excellence example of sanctity, in following Jesus’ actions and because he sits in the Jesus’ office such as the judges sat in this office.
The second reason is because when Jesus revealed the hierarchy of the church, the church’s earthly leaders were the Apostles. These Apostles were given authority to teach, heal, and forgive sins. This authority was not as tyrants or dictators, but as fathers. This is the reason why catholics call priests father, because they are our spiritual fathers. The precedent for this is of course St. Paul’s remark in 1 Cor. 4:15, “I [am] your father in Jesus Christ.”
The third reason stems from this last reason, the pope is the father of all particular catholic churches while alive.
The fourth reason is again based on St. Paul’s theology, specifically his theology on the spiritual fatherhood of the priesthood. He refers to us as “my beloved children,” meaning he is our father.
Further reason, the ‘holy’ points to the spiritual sense of this fatherhood. Though it has no moral judgement, technically, in reference to the pope. Though I would say having met the man, he’s definitely on the third level.
The last reason I can give for the use of the term holy father is because, again no holier than any other catholic, laity or clergy, by office; however, his commission that entails fatherhood over the whole catholic Church is one of a spiritual nature. And, along this lines to denote that the papal power, the power that comes the authority of God the Father is higher than any imperial power on earth.
Concerning objections, such as Matthew 23:9 and that about calling anyone father, I point to Jesus himself calling Abraham our father. Further, if that is the case then we better stop calling people teacher, rabbi, &c.
I was educated for a time at a Jesuit institution, but I now disavow that association.
I came into this thread because you wanted to move our conversation here. Now you’re stuck with me.
Both you and Pat have implied I know nothing of your doctrine, yet we have discussed Peter, as well as Paul’s teaching on the law and justification. We will get back to Mt 16:18, so study up. Although KingKai has already taken it past your capabilities. It’s interesting I state RC doctrine of salvation is “another gospel”, and Pat immediately gives me a verse on works. I guess he knows I know what the issue is. I guess I know something huh?
But let’s just do a short one in the interim:
I don’t think the pope should allow himself to be addressed as “Holy Father”, let alone Most Holy Father, because it is a term used to address my Heavenly Father, and NEVER used to refer to any man. How does your papa have the audacity to appropriate it for himself?[/quote]
That is not a Catholic doctrine. Seems like your hung up on minutia. You said you have issues with Catholic doctrine. BC asked you to name one, explain it correctly and then explain your issue with it.
The pope cannot control how he is referred. The name he chose for himself is Pope Benedict XVI. Seems like you don’t know any Catholic doctrine.
Put up or shut up, Chen.[/quote]
As you should have already noted from above, what exactly a Catholic doctrine is needed some clarification.
[/quote]
Proof that our admonitions about you not knowing them are true. If you don’t even know what qualifies as a Catholic doctrine, how do you know you disagree with it. You seem more like a cheerleader than a knowledgeable apologist. You are just going along with what somebody has told you and your not even sure why.
I am not going to help you with this. You have an issue with Catholic doctrine, and you don’t even know what qualifies? That’s just bad.
Are you really passing judgement on me because what you perceived on how much I read scripture? Really?
So you are bragging about how righteous you are to me and admonishing me for not being as righteous as you are, and you don’t see anything wrong with this. When you read, do you understand the words?
What you brought up about Catholicism is ridiculously petty and was answered. Why are you afraid to deal with real issues?
So let me quote:
“So you haven’t read Chronicles or Kings recently? I thought you were a committed Christian. We committed Christians read our bible DAILY. I average reading through the whole bible once every 3 months.” “I thought you were a committed Christian.”???
You weren’t passing judgement on me? Are you kidding me? You’re going to act all innocent like you didn’t do anything like comparing your righteousness to mine, because you said “We committed Christians read our bible DAILY.” . That pretty much clearly shows you where having a bonafied righteousness “pissing contest”.
What the HELL is the matter with you?
What does it matter? In no, way, shape, or form, under any circumstance is he celebrated, at all, as Christ himself as you are trying to assert. When it boils it down, all you are trying to do, is back door the notion that we Catholics consider, or even maybe worship (if you could prove it) that we worship the pope as God. Let’s be clear, that’s what you are accusing us, isn’t it?
You are trying to entrap one of us, by using every evolving linguistic twists, to get us to say we regard the pope as God.
Can I find out from where are you digging this garbage up from? I’d like to question the source, because it’s pathetic.
I am sure you would like that, but you are spreading lies here, and I am going to stop you.
First of all Chris, we have already had a discussion about our use of the word “doctrine”. I’m currently discussing with you the issue of the pope’s use of the name “Holy Father”. If it’s not a doctrine, it’s official practice.
Of course, he is not using it exactly the way Christ used it. How could he, since he’s not God the Father? There is no need to point this out. The fact is the term is only used one time in Scripture, and it’s used to address God Almighty. I for one would be afraid to be addressed by it. Does it matter what office he sits in? There is NO precedent for it in the NT. You can call it a title or a term of endearment, it doesn’t change the above fact. Concerning Latino’s naming there kids Jesus, I don’t think is quite the same thing, by the way, as it’s merely a first name. I don’t think I’d use it for my kid though.
But there’s more to my objection than just the above. You have earlier listed several verses that describe the spiritual relationship between Paul and his converts. HOWEVER, have you not noticed that NEVER in the NT does anyone ever address Paul as “Father Paul” or any of the other apostles for that matter. Nor do they take on the title themselves. Perhaps it’s because Christ said they shouldn’t do it:
Mat 23:8-10 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. (9) And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. (10) Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.
You write off the words of Christ, as if it can’t be true that he would forbid the practice. That’s right, you shouldn’t address anyone as either “Rabbi”, “Master”, or “Father” if it has any spiritual connotation. And you know very well when Christ refers to Father Abraham, it’s a reference to an ancestor after the flesh, and isn’t the same thing He refers to above. Formulation of a systematic teaching requires you to reconcile all the passages concerning the topic, which in this case is quite simply done in one sentence- Using the word “father” in describing the spiritual relationship is fine, but receiving or using it as an address is not. One is NOT a “precedent” for the other.
Interestingly, there is a case in the bible where a priest is called father:
Jdg 17:10 And Micah said unto him, Dwell with me, and be unto me a father and a priest, and I will give thee ten shekels of silver by the year, and a suit of apparel, and thy victuals. So the Levite went in.
This is the case of an idolatrous Micah hiring himself a younger man to be his priest. Later this young man is stolen away to be the same thing for some Danites. This case certainly doesn’t speak well for the practice of calling a priest a father.
Do we even need to address how wrong it is for him to allow himself to be called “holy”, whether referring to his personal moral character or not. If Christ would not even allow Himself to be called good, than how is it okay for you to use it in a spiritual sense to refer to HIS church’s representative?
Nothing compels the pope to allow this address. It was not done so in the early church. He could just as easily, for the reasons I state, refuse to be addressed this way. I’m pretty sure all Catholics would comply, contrary to what Pat suggests.
I was educated for a time at a Jesuit institution, but I now disavow that association.
I came into this thread because you wanted to move our conversation here. Now you’re stuck with me.
Both you and Pat have implied I know nothing of your doctrine, yet we have discussed Peter, as well as Paul’s teaching on the law and justification. We will get back to Mt 16:18, so study up. Although KingKai has already taken it past your capabilities. It’s interesting I state RC doctrine of salvation is “another gospel”, and Pat immediately gives me a verse on works. I guess he knows I know what the issue is. I guess I know something huh?
But let’s just do a short one in the interim:
I don’t think the pope should allow himself to be addressed as “Holy Father”, let alone Most Holy Father, because it is a term used to address my Heavenly Father, and NEVER used to refer to any man. How does your papa have the audacity to appropriate it for himself?[/quote]
That is not a Catholic doctrine. Seems like your hung up on minutia. You said you have issues with Catholic doctrine. BC asked you to name one, explain it correctly and then explain your issue with it.
The pope cannot control how he is referred. The name he chose for himself is Pope Benedict XVI. Seems like you don’t know any Catholic doctrine.
Put up or shut up, Chen.[/quote]
As you should have already noted from above, what exactly a Catholic doctrine is needed some clarification.
[/quote]
Proof that our admonitions about you not knowing them are true. If you don’t even know what qualifies as a Catholic doctrine, how do you know you disagree with it. You seem more like a cheerleader than a knowledgeable apologist. You are just going along with what somebody has told you and your not even sure why.
I am not going to help you with this. You have an issue with Catholic doctrine, and you don’t even know what qualifies? That’s just bad.
Are you really passing judgement on me because what you perceived on how much I read scripture? Really?
So you are bragging about how righteous you are to me and admonishing me for not being as righteous as you are, and you don’t see anything wrong with this. When you read, do you understand the words?
What you brought up about Catholicism is ridiculously petty and was answered. Why are you afraid to deal with real issues?
So let me quote:
“So you haven’t read Chronicles or Kings recently? I thought you were a committed Christian. We committed Christians read our bible DAILY. I average reading through the whole bible once every 3 months.” “I thought you were a committed Christian.”???
You weren’t passing judgement on me? Are you kidding me? You’re going to act all innocent like you didn’t do anything like comparing your righteousness to mine, because you said “We committed Christians read our bible DAILY.” . That pretty much clearly shows you where having a bonafied righteousness “pissing contest”.
What the HELL is the matter with you? [/quote]
I said I wasn’t claiming to be more righteous than you. I am passing judgement on your laziness. You showed your laziness in regards to your bible study habits, and now you’re embarrassed.
It seems to me your inflammation has gone to your head. I suggest ice 20 minutes at a time, until the brain fever passes. Is someone else with you at home by the way?
Wait, I take that back. Your hysterics are good for readership. This thread has it all then. Flail away, I don’t mind. Besides, it gives me a chance to practice witty retorts, which are inappropriate for a normal discussion like I’m having with Chris.