Catholic Q&A Continues

[pat]

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:

Brother Chris wrote: Lol, LAWL! This is great stuff. Who hired this guy?

I was educated for a time at a Jesuit institution, but I now disavow that association.

Brother Chris wrote: Please for all our sakes. Ask a question or get out. That’s what this thread is about, or did Tirib have alterior motives?

I came into this thread because you wanted to move our conversation here. Now you’re stuck with me.

Brother Chris wrote: Anyway, curious. Can you name or even describe one RC doctrine, properly? We can make it interesting: explain one piece of doctrine that you disagree with, describe it properly, then explain why you don’t agree with it.

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.

As far as your claim the pope is not able to control what people call him, absolutely ridiculous.

His habit of taking a name like a king is peculiar. Does this have some precedent in Scripture that I’ve missed, or perhaps during the early decades of church life?[/quote]

I believe in Chronicles or Kings there is some sort of precedent. It’s been a while since I read them so I do not remember off hand.
It’s just merely a symbolic action of taking off your old self and putting on a new self. It’s not really that important, it’s just tradition. I cannot imagine why something so small bothers you so much. Who cares really? He doesn’t have to change his name if he doesn’t want to, I imagine most do it because their birth names are difficult for the world populous. [/quote]
This is Catholic Q and A Pat, I might bring up something in regards to Catholicism that I’m not clear about. But feel free to ignore me. I was having that discussion with someone else anyway.

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’ve done this for 30 years. You complain about me not coming up with the goods, but you’re going to refer to something that you think might be in the bible. Why don’t you look it up? Don’t you have a bible study tool on your computer? Although you’d have to know at least a word or two contained in the verse in question to find it.

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?

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.

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.
[/quote]
I am embarrassed? You are reaching now. You’re words from the previous post call this one a lie. So let’s just leave it at that. I think you’ve said enough dumbness about this.
You haven’t presented one thing scriptural here to back yourself up. Actually you are quite random. You focus in on minutia and the second you start to feel the pressure you switch topics to something even more meaningless. You’re just a sad little petty person, and you need to stop. I am willing to stop this if you are willing to have a polite conversation on matters. But if all you are going to do is compare your religiousness to ours or mine, or compare your scripture or prayer life to mine, then you have much bigger issues that have nothing to do with me.

[quote]
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?[/quote]

You sound like tirib now… He always said crap like this when backed in to a corner.

Now do you have something real to discuss? OR maybe an actual doctrine of the church? For crying out loud. Who cares what a persons title is, really? Let’s call him Fred. There, feel better?
Why do you call your ministers Reverend? They aren’t part of apostolic tradition. I can call my dog ‘Reverend’ and it means as much. For real, who cares. The question was asked and answered, move on.

[pat]

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
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.
[/quote]
Do you take all scripture literally?
You’ve never referred to your dad as your father?

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 still cannot see the point of this. This seem to me very pharasitical. To concentrate so intensely on the minutia of the law, and missing the whole point.
Ezekiel was also called ‘Son of Man’, but he was not the Christ, no one ever thought different.

"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others.

(Matthew 23:23 ESV)"

The word ‘father’ comes from here:
"The word Father is used in the New Testament to mean a teacher of spiritual things, by whose means the soul of man is born again into the likeness of Christ: “For if you have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet not many fathers. For in Christ Jesus, by the gospel, I have begotten you. Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me, as I also am of Christ” (1 Corinthians 4:15, 16; cf. Galatians 4:19). The first teachers of Christianity seem to be collectively spoken of as “the Fathers” (2 Peter 3:4).

Thus St. Irenæus defines that a teacher is a father, and a disciple is a son (iv, 41,2), and so says Clement of Alexandria (Stromata I.1.1). A bishop is emphatically a “father in Christ”, both because it was he, in early times, who baptized all his flock, and because he is the chief teacher of his church."

Quit being petty.
Are you interested in matters of faith or just titles? Are you at all concerned with the weightier matters of faith?

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
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.[/quote]

Our discussion of doctrine was utterly insufficient since you seem not to grasp that Holy Father is not a piece of doctrine, which is what I asked of you to make the subject of your question instead of making another divergence from the topic at hand. Further, you said we were leaving the name behind to discussion humility, I’m still waiting for your objection to the doctrine of humility.

A quick aside: it seems that you ignored the fact that the Pope’s words about the particular name he chose was based on the reason he choose that particular name he choose rather than the general reason for taking a new name, which I believe is what Pat was referring to in his posts to your objections.

Of course, he is not using it exactly the way Christ used it. How could he, since he’s not God the Father?

When I say he is not using it exactly the way Christ used it, I am saying the intentions are not the same. Further, the Pope doesn’t much call himself the Holy Father. He doesn’t use it, others use it. Which is not an objection, but it seems strange that you keep thinking this man goes around calling himself Holy Father, which would probably be somewhat prideful.

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.

Explain, using some kind of standard exegesis as to why this is anything close to being a prohibition to using the name Holy Father for Pope Ratzinger. I just don’t understand it at all.

Looking at the verse Matthew 23:9 again, Jesus says, “Call no man father.” Protestants, such as yourself, can use this verse in a means to give evidence that Catholics are wrong for their use of the word for priests. However, this is nothing but eisegesis, rather than exegesis. When using context, such as in exegesis we can see that jesus is rebuking his disciples not to use, in which it elevates men, the term for scribes and Pharisees to the titles of “fathers” and “rabbis” because they were hypocrites. Further, this is also a warning of not elevating anyone to the level of our heavenly Father, however you’d have to understand the eternal Fatherhood to understand what that last statement means.

I for one would be afraid to be addressed by it.

Anecdotal. Please use exegesis.

Does it matter what office he sits in? There is NO precedent for it in the NT.

What has no precedent?

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.

Except that the name Jesus is above all other names.

I don’t think I’d use it for my kid though.

Still anecdotal, gives no actual reason why we shouldn’t use either term.

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.

That’s because the Apostles were writing themselves, so why would someone call themselves Father in their writing when there is no dialogue besides the Gospels. Further, Paul calls himself Father. “I became your father in Christ Jesus,” in 1 Cor 4:15.

[quote]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.[/quote]

St. Paul does.

You write off the words of Christ, as if it can’t be true that he would forbid the practice.

Somewhat inflammatory. I believe in that verse one hundred percent and I’ll defend it. However, I deny your private interpretation of the verse. This is just the example of the hubris of some Protestants that they have been given private revelation to the “actual” meaning of scripture.

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.

Then how can Abraham be “our father” when I am not a descendant of Abraham? It has nothing to do with Abraham being our ancestor after the flesh. It is because Abraham is father to all of us as St. Paul definitively teaches, “16 That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his descendantsâ??not only to the adherents of the law but also to those who share the faith of Abraham, for he is the father of us all,” Rom. 4:16.

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.

I have reconciled all the passages, yet you have ignored Paul, calling Abraham a spiritual father, and Paul referring to himself as a spiritual father in Jesus Christ.

[quote]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.[/quote]

Then of course there is Jesus, John, Paul, certain followers, Mary, Ananias, Holy Spirit, James, and Peter.

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.

Yes, many fathers have been kidnapped, enslaved, tortured, crucified upside down, sideways, &c. I’m not sure how this is objection as Jesus received worse than this. Are you saying that because one has “bad luck” one is displeasing to God. That is just shameful, after all Jesus had the worst of it.

Do we even need to address how wrong it is for him to allow himself to be called “holy”,

Saying you don’t need to address something, doesn’t mean you don’t actually have to show evidence. Please go ahead.

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?

Jesus asked why they called him good, I don’t believe he said that they shouldn’t.

[KingKai25]

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
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.[/quote]

There are a lot of assumptions underlying your arguments above, and all of them need substantiated if you wish to convince someone. You claim that the Pope exhibits a lack of humility by allowing himself to be addressed as “holy father.” You then back this claim up by pointing out (1) that the two words are juxtaposed only once in Scripture (2) to address God Almighty, (3) which above facts would dissuade YOU from allowing yourself to be addressed by it. Point 3 merely begs the question, so I’ll set that one aside for now. The first two points rest on a thoroughly baptist perspective - I went to several baptist churches and graduated from a baptist high school, so I am familiar with the lines of thought. The first point rests on the assumption that Scripture predetermines what terms we can use as believers. You have to demonstrate that, not just assume it. It doesn’t necessarily matter if there is no precedent in the NT; that fact is not, in and of itself, an argument. Point 2 also rests on a shaky foundation, i.e., a faulty view of the nature of language. Words do not have inherent meaning; the juxtaposition of the words “holy” and “father” does not automatically refer to God. If you recognize that Catholics are not using the term “holy father” to identify the pope with God, why do you still fault them?

My point about Latino’s naming a child Jesus is relevant, specifically because if there is nothing inherently wrong with the transfer of a PROPER name from even the Lord Jesus to someone else, why is the transfer of a TERM OF ENDEARMENT inherently wrong?

[quote]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.[quote]

This is an argument from silence. The fact that we don’t have a biblical example doesn’t prove that Paul wasn’t called “father” by some of his churches. Moreover, in how much of the New Testament is Paul addressed? We only have five books of narrative in the New Testament - 4 gospels and Acts - and Paul is only a major player in 2/3 of Acts. Even in that 2/3, however, the focus is on Paul as protagonist; we don’t get the view of him from his churches. Similarly, Paul’s letters are from him to his churches, not vice versa. Where then is the opportunity for someone to address Paul as “father Paul?” Some of his congregations may well have done that, but since we don’t have any of their letters to Paul, we have no way of knowing. The possibility cannot be ruled out, however, simply because you don’t have an explicit biblical example. My baptist teachers in high school used to make this same sort of argument all the time, and I repeat to you what I said to them - “everything in the bible is true, but not all truths are in the bible.”

Furthermore, Brother Chris and Pat ARE trying to reconcile all the passages concerning the topic. Despite the fact that Jesus “call no one father,” Paul calls himself the Corinthians “father” (1 Cor. 4:15). The issue here is which passage gets reconciled with which. Protestants hold Paul as primary and James as secondary, and they try to harmonize James with Paul. Catholics hold more of a balance between the two. In this case, however, only two possibilities have been offered. We could harmonize Paul’s usage to Jesus’ statement, as you want to do, and somehow argue that (1) its not the height of hubris for someone to call HIMSELF “father” and (2) read Jesus legalistically as condemning the use of the the terms rabbi, master, and father. This move makes Jesus’ words appear arbitrary and legalistic, and most importantly, this move makes Paul into a sinner, because he clearly states, “even if you had ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel” (1 Cor. 4:15). The fatherhood Paul is talking about is CLEARLY spiritual. Not only that, but Paul repeatedly refers to Abraham as a SPIRITUAL father in Romans (4:11-12, 16-18), in so far as Abraham is the father of all who believe. Therefore, in light of Paul’s statements, I am inclined to agree with Chris and others that Jesus’ words cannot imply a strict denial of our right to call anyone “father” in a spiritual sense. Rather, it is far more likely that what Jesus is objecting to is calling anyone “father” in an ultimate sense - God is the ultimate father, and he is the one to whom we ultimately answer. His authority trumps that of all other fathers. This reading makes sense in context AND doesn’t portray Paul as a sinner, nor does it require any exegetical gymnastics to escape the fact that Paul refers to Abraham and to himself as “fathers” in a spiritual sense.

[quote]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.[/quote]

I don’t think this point is relevant to the argument. Micah also said he would pay the man; does that indicate that we should think twice about paying our pastors or clergy? I think you’re drawing too much significance from what the text doesn’t say.

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?

Here you commit a categorical mistake. hagios (holy) is not functionally synonymous with agathos (good). The former term is cultic in nature and broad in applicability - it simply denotes something separate and unique. The altar is holy, not because it possesses some sort of exemplary moral quality, but because it is reserved for a special use. They are not completely unrelated - one can be holy by being good, i.e., one’s goodness can distinguish one from others - but they are not synonymous. Was John the Baptist not called “righteous and holy” (Mk 6:20)? Does Paul not address believers directly as “holy ones” (Eph. 1:1)?

[Brother_Chris]

Found this interesting article on speaking in tongues.

A Neuroscientific Look at Speaking in Tongues (Published 2006)

[pat]

KingKai25 wrote:

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
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.[/quote]

There are a lot of assumptions underlying your arguments above, and all of them need substantiated if you wish to convince someone. You claim that the Pope exhibits a lack of humility by allowing himself to be addressed as “holy father.” You then back this claim up by pointing out (1) that the two words are juxtaposed only once in Scripture (2) to address God Almighty, (3) which above facts would dissuade YOU from allowing yourself to be addressed by it. Point 3 merely begs the question, so I’ll set that one aside for now. The first two points rest on a thoroughly baptist perspective - I went to several baptist churches and graduated from a baptist high school, so I am familiar with the lines of thought. The first point rests on the assumption that Scripture predetermines what terms we can use as believers. You have to demonstrate that, not just assume it. It doesn’t necessarily matter if there is no precedent in the NT; that fact is not, in and of itself, an argument. Point 2 also rests on a shaky foundation, i.e., a faulty view of the nature of language. Words do not have inherent meaning; the juxtaposition of the words “holy” and “father” does not automatically refer to God. If you recognize that Catholics are not using the term “holy father” to identify the pope with God, why do you still fault them?

My point about Latino’s naming a child Jesus is relevant, specifically because if there is nothing inherently wrong with the transfer of a PROPER name from even the Lord Jesus to someone else, why is the transfer of a TERM OF ENDEARMENT inherently wrong?

[quote]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.[/quote]

This is an argument from silence. The fact that we don’t have a biblical example doesn’t prove that Paul wasn’t called “father” by some of his churches. Moreover, in how much of the New Testament is Paul addressed? We only have five books of narrative in the New Testament - 4 gospels and Acts - and Paul is only a major player in 2/3 of Acts. Even in that 2/3, however, the focus is on Paul as protagonist; we don’t get the view of him from his churches. Similarly, Paul’s letters are from him to his churches, not vice versa. Where then is the opportunity for someone to address Paul as “father Paul?” Some of his congregations may well have done that, but since we don’t have any of their letters to Paul, we have no way of knowing. The possibility cannot be ruled out, however, simply because you don’t have an explicit biblical example. My baptist teachers in high school used to make this same sort of argument all the time, and I repeat to you what I said to them - “everything in the bible is true, but not all truths are in the bible.”

Furthermore, Brother Chris and Pat ARE trying to reconcile all the passages concerning the topic. Despite the fact that Jesus “call no one father,” Paul calls himself the Corinthians “father” (1 Cor. 4:15). The issue here is which passage gets reconciled with which. Protestants hold Paul as primary and James as secondary, and they try to harmonize James with Paul. Catholics hold more of a balance between the two. In this case, however, only two possibilities have been offered. We could harmonize Paul’s usage to Jesus’ statement, as you want to do, and somehow argue that (1) its not the height of hubris for someone to call HIMSELF “father” and (2) read Jesus legalistically as condemning the use of the the terms rabbi, master, and father. This move makes Jesus’ words appear arbitrary and legalistic, and most importantly, this move makes Paul into a sinner, because he clearly states, “even if you had ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel” (1 Cor. 4:15). The fatherhood Paul is talking about is CLEARLY spiritual. Not only that, but Paul repeatedly refers to Abraham as a SPIRITUAL father in Romans (4:11-12, 16-18), in so far as Abraham is the father of all who believe. Therefore, in light of Paul’s statements, I am inclined to agree with Chris and others that Jesus’ words cannot imply a strict denial of our right to call anyone “father” in a spiritual sense. Rather, it is far more likely that what Jesus is objecting to is calling anyone “father” in an ultimate sense - God is the ultimate father, and he is the one to whom we ultimately answer. His authority trumps that of all other fathers. This reading makes sense in context AND doesn’t portray Paul as a sinner, nor does it require any exegetical gymnastics to escape the fact that Paul refers to Abraham and to himself as “fathers” in a spiritual sense.

[quote]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.[/quote]

I don’t think this point is relevant to the argument. Micah also said he would pay the man; does that indicate that we should think twice about paying our pastors or clergy? I think you’re drawing too much significance from what the text doesn’t say.

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?

Here you commit a categorical mistake. hagios (holy) is not functionally synonymous with agathos (good). The former term is cultic in nature and broad in applicability - it simply denotes something separate and unique. The altar is holy, not because it possesses some sort of exemplary moral quality, but because it is reserved for a special use. They are not completely unrelated - one can be holy by being good, i.e., one’s goodness can distinguish one from others - but they are not synonymous. Was John the Baptist not called “righteous and holy” (Mk 6:20)? Does Paul not address believers directly as “holy ones” (Eph. 1:1)?

EDIT by pat: I just fixed the quote tags the rest of the post is unaltered.

[KingKai25]

[quote]pat wrote:
KingKai25 wrote:

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
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.[/quote]

There are a lot of assumptions underlying your arguments above, and all of them need substantiated if you wish to convince someone. You claim that the Pope exhibits a lack of humility by allowing himself to be addressed as “holy father.” You then back this claim up by pointing out (1) that the two words are juxtaposed only once in Scripture (2) to address God Almighty, (3) which above facts would dissuade YOU from allowing yourself to be addressed by it. Point 3 merely begs the question, so I’ll set that one aside for now. The first two points rest on a thoroughly baptist perspective - I went to several baptist churches and graduated from a baptist high school, so I am familiar with the lines of thought. The first point rests on the assumption that Scripture predetermines what terms we can use as believers. You have to demonstrate that, not just assume it. It doesn’t necessarily matter if there is no precedent in the NT; that fact is not, in and of itself, an argument. Point 2 also rests on a shaky foundation, i.e., a faulty view of the nature of language. Words do not have inherent meaning; the juxtaposition of the words “holy” and “father” does not automatically refer to God. If you recognize that Catholics are not using the term “holy father” to identify the pope with God, why do you still fault them?

My point about Latino’s naming a child Jesus is relevant, specifically because if there is nothing inherently wrong with the transfer of a PROPER name from even the Lord Jesus to someone else, why is the transfer of a TERM OF ENDEARMENT inherently wrong?

[quote]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.[/quote]

This is an argument from silence. The fact that we don’t have a biblical example doesn’t prove that Paul wasn’t called “father” by some of his churches. Moreover, in how much of the New Testament is Paul addressed? We only have five books of narrative in the New Testament - 4 gospels and Acts - and Paul is only a major player in 2/3 of Acts. Even in that 2/3, however, the focus is on Paul as protagonist; we don’t get the view of him from his churches. Similarly, Paul’s letters are from him to his churches, not vice versa. Where then is the opportunity for someone to address Paul as “father Paul?” Some of his congregations may well have done that, but since we don’t have any of their letters to Paul, we have no way of knowing. The possibility cannot be ruled out, however, simply because you don’t have an explicit biblical example. My baptist teachers in high school used to make this same sort of argument all the time, and I repeat to you what I said to them - “everything in the bible is true, but not all truths are in the bible.”

Furthermore, Brother Chris and Pat ARE trying to reconcile all the passages concerning the topic. Despite the fact that Jesus “call no one father,” Paul calls himself the Corinthians “father” (1 Cor. 4:15). The issue here is which passage gets reconciled with which. Protestants hold Paul as primary and James as secondary, and they try to harmonize James with Paul. Catholics hold more of a balance between the two. In this case, however, only two possibilities have been offered. We could harmonize Paul’s usage to Jesus’ statement, as you want to do, and somehow argue that (1) its not the height of hubris for someone to call HIMSELF “father” and (2) read Jesus legalistically as condemning the use of the the terms rabbi, master, and father. This move makes Jesus’ words appear arbitrary and legalistic, and most importantly, this move makes Paul into a sinner, because he clearly states, “even if you had ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel” (1 Cor. 4:15). The fatherhood Paul is talking about is CLEARLY spiritual. Not only that, but Paul repeatedly refers to Abraham as a SPIRITUAL father in Romans (4:11-12, 16-18), in so far as Abraham is the father of all who believe. Therefore, in light of Paul’s statements, I am inclined to agree with Chris and others that Jesus’ words cannot imply a strict denial of our right to call anyone “father” in a spiritual sense. Rather, it is far more likely that what Jesus is objecting to is calling anyone “father” in an ultimate sense - God is the ultimate father, and he is the one to whom we ultimately answer. His authority trumps that of all other fathers. This reading makes sense in context AND doesn’t portray Paul as a sinner, nor does it require any exegetical gymnastics to escape the fact that Paul refers to Abraham and to himself as “fathers” in a spiritual sense.

[quote]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.[/quote]

I don’t think this point is relevant to the argument. Micah also said he would pay the man; does that indicate that we should think twice about paying our pastors or clergy? I think you’re drawing too much significance from what the text doesn’t say.

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?

Here you commit a categorical mistake. hagios (holy) is not functionally synonymous with agathos (good). The former term is cultic in nature and broad in applicability - it simply denotes something separate and unique. The altar is holy, not because it possesses some sort of exemplary moral quality, but because it is reserved for a special use. They are not completely unrelated - one can be holy by being good, i.e., one’s goodness can distinguish one from others - but they are not synonymous. Was John the Baptist not called “righteous and holy” (Mk 6:20)? Does Paul not address believers directly as “holy ones” (Eph. 1:1)?

EDIT by pat: I just fixed the quote tags the rest of the post is unaltered.[/quote]

haha Thanks Pat! I am seriously so computer illiterate…

[Tiribulus]

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Found this interesting article on speaking in tongues.

A Neuroscientific Look at Speaking in Tongues - The New York Times the Catholic view Christopher? This a Catholic Q&A after all =]

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Found this interesting article on speaking in tongues.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/07/health/07brain.html?_r=2&oref=slogin [/quote]
What’s the Catholic view Christopher? This a Catholic Q&A after all =]
[/quote]

It’s the New York Times. Do I have to explain that the New York Times is not a Catholic source?

- YouTube

Awesome video by the CFRs. If you’re ever in Brooklyn, everyone should go visit them.

[Mr_Chen]

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:Our discussion of doctrine was utterly insufficient since you seem not to grasp that Holy Father is not a piece of doctrine, which is what I asked of you to make the subject of your question instead of making another divergence from the topic at hand. Further, you said we were leaving the name behind to discussion humility, I’m still waiting for your objection to the doctrine of humility.
[/quote]
I believe I have already indicated I understand we are not discussing a doctrine. Sorry, but I feel no need to submit to your requirements for what I can ask about on this thread. If you want such a limitation, may I suggest you start a thread titled “Catholic Doctrine Q&A”.

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:Explain, using some kind of standard exegesis as to why this is anything close to being a prohibition to using the name Holy Father for Pope Ratzinger. I just don’t understand it at all.

Looking at the verse Matthew 23:9 again, Jesus says, “Call no man father.” Protestants, such as yourself, can use this verse in a means to give evidence that Catholics are wrong for their use of the word for priests. However, this is nothing but eisegesis, rather than exegesis. When using context, such as in exegesis we can see that jesus is rebuking his disciples not to use, in which it elevates men, the term for scribes and Pharisees to the titles of “fathers” and “rabbis” because they were hypocrites. Further, this is also a warning of not elevating anyone to the level of our heavenly Father, however you’d have to understand the eternal Fatherhood to understand what that last statement means.[/quote]
I think Mt 23:9 must be considered carefully. Wouldn’t it be better to err on the side of being conservative in this matter? Do you mean to limit Christ’s prohibition to only how hypocritical scribes and pharisees are addressed? You will take no lesson beyond that? Let’s at least widen to to cover hypocritical priests of the modern era.

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:That’s because the Apostles were writing themselves, so why would someone call themselves Father in their writing when there is no dialogue besides the Gospels. Further, Paul calls himself Father. “I became your father in Christ Jesus,” in 1 Cor 4:15.
[/quote]These 2 sentences are directly contradictory. Paul is describing a relationship, not addressing himself. I would expect if God intended this address to be used to see it at least once. Either in Acts, or any one of the epistles as one apostle making a reference to another.

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:Then how can Abraham be “our father” when I am not a descendant of Abraham? It has nothing to do with Abraham being our ancestor after the flesh. It is because Abraham is father to all of us as St. Paul definitively teaches, “16 That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his descendantsÃ??0â?¡1??Ã??0â?¡1?Ã??0â?¡0Ã??0â??4??not only to the adherents of the law but also to those who share the faith of Abraham, for he is the father of us all,” Rom. 4:16.
[/quote]
Abraham is not a spiritual in the sense that Paul is a spiritual father to his converts. It is a doctrinal similitude.

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:Jesus asked why they called him good, I don’t believe he said that they shouldn’t.
[/quote]Again, it makes sense to err on the side of being conservative.

[Mr_Chen]

Is it even possible to go in an add another set of quote tags to a post like above, and have answers appear directly under what you are answering, leaving the rest in tact. You all know what I mean. I’m thinking it would be easier than cutting and pasting out what I’m answering, if I could just figure it out.

[Mr_Chen]

KingKai25 wrote:There are a lot of assumptions underlying your arguments above, and all of them need substantiated if you wish to convince someone. You claim that the Pope exhibits a lack of humility by allowing himself to be addressed as “holy father.” You then back this claim up by pointing out (1) that the two words are juxtaposed only once in Scripture (2) to address God Almighty, (3) which above facts would dissuade YOU from allowing yourself to be addressed by it.

Yes, and I think it should be enough to dissuade others.

KingKai25 wrote:The first point rests on the assumption that Scripture predetermines what terms we can use as believers. You have to demonstrate that, not just assume it.

If not Scripture, then what, the vocabulary of Greek philosophers? I assume it a priori. If we don’t start there, where do we start?

KingKai25 wrote: It doesn’t necessarily matter if there is no precedent in the NT; that fact is not, in and of itself, an argument.

Not a complete argument, but certainly a consideration.

KingKai25 wrote: Point 2 also rests on a shaky foundation, i.e., a faulty view of the nature of language. Words do not have inherent meaning; the juxtaposition of the words “holy” and “father” does not automatically refer to God.

Combining words often results in a special and specific usage. Since Jesus only does this once, you might argue that He has not set an example by habitual usage. However, I do believe He has set a precedent we should pay close attention to. Catholics are in no way compelled to appropriate the term. They could just as easily not use it.

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:My point about Latino’s naming a child Jesus is relevant, specifically because if there is nothing inherently wrong with the transfer of a PROPER name from even the Lord Jesus to someone else, why is the transfer of a TERM OF ENDEARMENT inherently wrong?
[/quote]
Yes, Jesus is a proper first name. In fact, I don’t think it’s right for them to do so. I would even advise an adult Latino to legally change his name if this was the case.

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:This is an argument from silence. The fact that we don’t have a biblical example doesn’t prove that Paul wasn’t called “father” by some of his churches. Moreover, in how much of the New Testament is Paul addressed? We only have five books of narrative in the New Testament - 4 gospels and Acts - and Paul is only a major player in 2/3 of Acts. Even in that 2/3, however, the focus is on Paul as protagonist; we don’t get the view of him from his churches. Similarly, Paul’s letters are from him to his churches, not vice versa. Where then is the opportunity for someone to address Paul as “father Paul?” Some of his congregations may well have done that, but since we don’t have any of their letters to Paul, we have no way of knowing. The possibility cannot be ruled out, however, simply because you don’t have an explicit biblical example. My baptist teachers in high school used to make this same sort of argument all the time, and I repeat to you what I said to them - “everything in the bible is true, but not all truths are in the bible.”
[/quote]
I addressed this in my answer to Chris. I will add that if I am arguing from silence, they are practicing from silence. Certainly this is dangerous.

KingKai25 wrote:Despite the fact that Jesus “call no one father,” Paul calls himself the Corinthians “father” (1 Cor. 4:15).

Paul is not addressing himself. See my answer to Chris on this.

KingKai25 wrote:read Jesus legalistically as condemning the use of the the terms rabbi, master, and father. This move makes Jesus’ words appear arbitrary and legalistic,

It’s certainly not arbitrary if we keep in mind what these words mean. We have one Heavenly Father, who we address as “Father”, who we could not address this way before. We now have a new “Master”, who we did not know as a master in any sense before. These terms certainly should be reserved for these uses only.

KingKai25 wrote:I don’t think this point is relevant to the argument. Micah also said he would pay the man; does that indicate that we should think twice about paying our pastors or clergy? I think you’re drawing too much significance from what the text doesn’t say.

The point is the “father” was an idolatrous priest. Maybe not directly relevant. I only brought it up as a point of interest.

KingKai25 wrote:but they are not synonymous. Was John the Baptist not called “righteous and holy” (Mk 6:20)? Does Paul not address believers directly as “holy ones” (Eph. 1:1)?

(Don’t you mean Eph 1:4?) In both cases, the word is used in an adjectival sense, not as an address, and certainly not as a title.

KingKai, I believe I’ve answered at all the more important parts of your post, if not here directly, than in my answer to Chris above. It’s the best I can do for today.

[Mr_Chen]

Some more food for thought- In 2Pet 2:5 all christians are said to be part of a “holy priesthood”, yet no such practice of tacking on “holy” to everyone’s name exists, i.e. “Holy Bro. Chris”.

[Mr_Chen]

[quote]pat wrote: Do you take all scripture literally? [/quote] A funny question coming from someone who believes “take, eat, this is my body” is literal. I take it literally, unless it obviously shouldn’t be.

[quote]pat wrote: Ezekiel was also called ‘Son of Man’, but he was not the Christ, no one ever thought different. [/quote] Why would I object to what God calls Ezekiel? The question isn’t might people think the pope thinks he is God if he allows himself to be addresssed as “Holy Father”. This should be very clear to you by now. It is to Chris and KingKai.

I agree with the explanation of the use of “father” as you list it in those verses. I do not deny this is the case. My objection is against using it as a title.

[quote]pat wrote: You’ve never referred to your dad as your father? [/quote] Read what I said Pat- “if it has any spiritual connotation”. If you can’t take the time to study your bible, or read my posts, I don’t think we should bother having a discussion.

pat wrote: Quit being petty.

If you tack this kind of stuff on any more, I won’t answer for sure. As I said, if it’s petty, no need for you to say so, all will see it.

[Mr_Chen]

I appreciate the recent posts by both Chris and Kingkai, as they evidence thoughtful consideration of God’s word. I don’t see this as nit picking or petty. It spurs on all who would participate to more careful study. I guess I put in 3 hours for these last couple replies to you two.

I’m getting ready to do some international traveling in a few weeks, and it’s not likely I’ll show up here in any substantial way, although you may see a spitball or two.

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:Our discussion of doctrine was utterly insufficient since you seem not to grasp that Holy Father is not a piece of doctrine, which is what I asked of you to make the subject of your question instead of making another divergence from the topic at hand. Further, you said we were leaving the name behind to discussion humility, I’m still waiting for your objection to the doctrine of humility.
[/quote]
I believe I have already indicated I understand we are not discussing a doctrine. Sorry, but I feel no need to submit to your requirements for what I can ask about on this thread. If you want such a limitation, may I suggest you start a thread titled “Catholic Doctrine Q&A”.

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:Explain, using some kind of standard exegesis as to why this is anything close to being a prohibition to using the name Holy Father for Pope Ratzinger. I just don’t understand it at all.

Looking at the verse Matthew 23:9 again, Jesus says, “Call no man father.” Protestants, such as yourself, can use this verse in a means to give evidence that Catholics are wrong for their use of the word for priests. However, this is nothing but eisegesis, rather than exegesis. When using context, such as in exegesis we can see that jesus is rebuking his disciples not to use, in which it elevates men, the term for scribes and Pharisees to the titles of “fathers” and “rabbis” because they were hypocrites. Further, this is also a warning of not elevating anyone to the level of our heavenly Father, however you’d have to understand the eternal Fatherhood to understand what that last statement means.[/quote]
I think Mt 23:9 must be considered carefully. Wouldn’t it be better to err on the side of being conservative in this matter? Do you mean to limit Christ’s prohibition to only how hypocritical scribes and pharisees are addressed? You will take no lesson beyond that? Let’s at least widen to to cover hypocritical priests of the modern era.

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:That’s because the Apostles were writing themselves, so why would someone call themselves Father in their writing when there is no dialogue besides the Gospels. Further, Paul calls himself Father. “I became your father in Christ Jesus,” in 1 Cor 4:15.
[/quote]These 2 sentences are directly contradictory. Paul is describing a relationship, not addressing himself. I would expect if God intended this address to be used to see it at least once. Either in Acts, or any one of the epistles as one apostle making a reference to another.

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:Then how can Abraham be “our father” when I am not a descendant of Abraham? It has nothing to do with Abraham being our ancestor after the flesh. It is because Abraham is father to all of us as St. Paul definitively teaches, “16 That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his descendantsÃ???0Ã?¢?Ã?¡1??Ã???0Ã?¢?Ã?¡1?Ã???0Ã?¢?Ã?¡0Ã???0Ã?¢??4??not only to the adherents of the law but also to those who share the faith of Abraham, for he is the father of us all,” Rom. 4:16.
[/quote]
Abraham is not a spiritual in the sense that Paul is a spiritual father to his converts. It is a doctrinal similitude.

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:Jesus asked why they called him good, I don’t believe he said that they shouldn’t.
[/quote]Again, it makes sense to err on the side of being conservative. [/quote]

Do you see that the context is that Jesus is rebuking the scribes and Pharisees?

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
Again, it makes sense to err on the side of being conservative. [/quote]

If we’re going to be conservative I have to resort to prejudice and prescription of old: The early Church Fathers and other authoritative ecclesiastical writers.

I do not see your specific objection of using the word father for title or affection. It seems that St. Jerome ( reports that in the monasteries the brethren call each other, Father.

Jerome makes it plain further down in his writings:

It is one thing to be father or master by nature, another by sufferance. Thus when we call any man our father, we do it to shew respect to his age, not as regarding him as the author of our being. We also call men ‘Master,’ from resemblance to a real master; and, not to use tedious repetition, as the One God and One Son, who are by nature, do not preclude us from calling others gods and sons by adoption, so the One Father and One Master, do not preclude us from speaking of (p. 776) other fathers and masters by an abuse of the terms.

On the issue of humility, pseudo-Chrys. tells us the intention of the Lord here, “For He rebukes not those who recline in the highest place, but those who love such places, blaming the will not the deed.”

If we look to the early homilies, we can even see further the intention about your verse in question, “And again, â??Call not, father,â??13 not that they should not call, but they may know whom they ought to call Father, in the highest sense. For like as the master is not a master principally; so neither is the father. For He is cause of all, both of the masters, and of the fathers” - Chrysostom, Homily 72

So using prejudice and prescription, that which is conservative, the objection is not the deed, in calling a man Father, we even see the early monks called each other Father. So, the objection is to something else, it seems.

[Tiribulus]

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< It’s the New York Times. Do I have to explain that the New York Times is not a Catholic source >>>[/quote]I was sincerely asking your Catholic response to that article. Not suggesting that the article was Catholic. If you get a chance. Just curious.

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< It’s the New York Times. Do I have to explain that the New York Times is not a Catholic source >>>[/quote]I was sincerely asking your Catholic response to that article. Not suggesting that the article was Catholic. If you get a chance. Just curious.
[/quote]

Speaking in tongues is a gift from the Holy Spirit, it is actually an extraordinary gift. Such as faith, expression of knowledge and wisdom, miracles, tongues and their interpretation, prophecy, discernment of spirits and healing. I have seen them, and see them quite often. Miracles not so much, besides manifestation of the gifts and eucharistic miracles.

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
Some more food for thought- In 2Pet 2:5 all christians are said to be part of a “holy priesthood”, yet no such practice of tacking on “holy” to everyone’s name exists, i.e. “Holy Bro. Chris”.[/quote]

No, but we are called saints on earth, which comes from the latin word that we get holy from (and sacred). Plenty of my separated brothers call me saint BC.