Matthew 23:9

This is the only singular use of the word you could find, isn't it? And even though the word itself is singular, it is referring to a "group" of people. Every "saint" in the general sense means "all of the Christians."

It was NEVER used in addressing an individual person. For example, you will not find it saying, "Salute Saint Soandso in Christ Jesus."

It's like telling a teacher to gather her "students" for an assembly. You could also say, "gather each student" for the assembly. However, the title of student is dropped when you are addressing a specific student. I doubt you will hear anyone say "Student Mary", please come to the front of the class. In this case the "title" of student is dropped.

Student, like Saint, was a word used to discuss the collective whole without having to address them name by name. All the saints are all of us, but individually, I am referred to as Lori, not Saint Lori. A saint is what I am, it is not who I am.

Scripturally you will find no other usage of the word.

~Lorelei

 

That is not the entire verse, any reason you are negating the rest of the verse and context with which it was written?

First of all, not many versions interpret the verse this way. In the original language it was worded this way, "Who also with many honored (timais') honors (etimeesan)" The NIV and NKJV interprets it as "honored us in many ways." This verse NEVER tells us in what way that honor was displayed. With abosolutely NO verses that call ANYONE at anytime "Holy Father," this argument is extremely weak.


Secondly, this verse does not tell us that we MUST honor the clergy with "marks of respects." He merely states that someone "honored him in many ways." He never says in what way that was done, nor did he say that all of us MUST do the same.

Here, we have merely a sequence of events that took place and a simple statement saying that they were honored. There is no command that this is the acceptable or expected practice.

Also note why they were honored. They were honored because of the miraculous healing that the apostles did, not for merely being the "clergy."

~Lorelei

 

I have no problem with that. I don't believe in the doctrine of Sola Scriptura because it is not taught in Holy Scripture.

I don't ignore the father-child relationship that St. Paul describes in Scripture, and I don't ignore that St. Paul tells of being given marks of respect. I can understand what St. Paul teaches about the body of Christ and how if one member is honored the whole body rejoices. I am able to get the big picture.

Without the big picture you have some people saying we can't celebrate Father's Day, can't call a man a teacher, can't call a man father. I'll imitate St. Paul who was following Christ. He knew what he was talking about. He had a father-child, shepherd-sheep relationship with the Christians. They also respected his authority which was from Jesus Christ.

Remember those who led you, who spoke the word of God to you; and considering the result of their conduct, imitate their faith. Hebrews 13:7

“They also honored us with many marks of respect;” Acts 28:10

“And if one member suffers, all the members suffer with it; if one member is honored, all the members rejoice with it.” 1 Corinthians 12:26

Salute every saint in Christ Jesus. Philippians 4:21

Honoring the Body of Christ and individual members of the Body is scriptural. Marks of respect for our clergy is a scriptural.



God Bless

 

Then why pretend to prove a point scripturally? What purpose did it serve to quote a verse that did not support your view? All you had to do was just admit that you did not care how the term was used Biblically.

You have admitted you do not believe in sola scriptura but you are still trying to prove this point scripturally. Repeating the same verses did not change their meaning. They still do not support your view. Only with your churches presupposed interpretation could anyone even begin to glean that understanding from them, and even then it's a great stretch.

The question asked was rather specific. It didn't ask which verses does your church use to try to justify using titles that were never used in the Bible. It asked specifically for scripture that said one and only one thing.

You can simply say, there aren't any. Is that so difficult?

~Lorelei

 

There is no Scripture that refers to any man as "holy father". There also is no verse that refers to "altar calls", "sola scriptura", celebrating Christmas, how to determine the date that Easter falls on, determining what books belong in the Bible, etc.

I have given scriptural support that has proven my point that Holy Scripture teaches us to honor our clergy, and honor the body of Christ and individually the members of the body, and understand the relationship of St. Paul to the Church as father and children, and the call for us to be holy, etc. And yes, those verses I use support the reasons why the Catholic Church honors our clergy, and explains St. Paul’s father-son relationship within the church.

God Bless

 

Thanks

~Lorelei

 

You are welcome. I knew you were going to take that sentence out of context.

God Bless you anyway.

 

You have listed a number of claims here. Let's look at them:
1. There is no Scripture that refers to any man as "holy father."
2. There is also no verse that refers to "altar calls."
3. Neither "sola scriptura,"
4. Neither "celebrating Christmas,"
5. Neither how to determine the date that Easter falls on.
6. Neither determining what books belong in the Bible
7. Scripture teaches one to honour our clergy.
8. Scripture teaches one to honour the body of Christ.
9. Scriptures teach one to honor individually the members of the body.
10. Scriptures us to understand the relationship of St. Paul to the Church as father and children,"
11. Scriptures teach us the call to be holy.

Those are the main points.
Now concerning sola scriptura. Notice the Scripture teaches. How do you know? You only know this because of sola scriptura. Because someone, like yourself, has studied the Bible, and interpreted it enough to come to these conclusions. That is sola scriptura. If you do not believe it, why do you practice it?
DHK

 

"
Now concerning sola scriptura. Notice the Scripture teaches. How do you know? You only know this because of sola scriptura. Because someone, like yourself, has studied the Bible, and interpreted it enough to come to these conclusions. That is sola scriptura. If you do not believe it, why do you practice it?
DHK "

No, not somebody. Somebody with authority rather than joe blow protestant who wants to become a pastor and finds his guy entrenched for the next 30 years so he picks a verse, convinces people of his thoughts on it and starts up his own little Church accross the streat, calling the other pastor a herectic. Do you think that when these little nondenominatioal denominations divide (and don't tell me it doesn't happen because I have seen it myself) the parting commmentary is "oh, your taking hald the congreation with you, oh how nice. Well God bless" or "don't let the door hit you on the posterior side on the way out."?

As for Kathryn using sola scriptura, no she is not. She is using the 2000 year tradition of the Catholic Church that completments Scripture. Not some half baked idea from an individual man's mind as to what the truth is. Paul says "hold fast to the traditions you have recieved whether by WORD of MOUTH or in writing from us.". We do not derive our beliefs from scirpture as the New Testament was not around when the Gospel started being preached or for 50 years or so afterward. And then it was not available even to clergy in its entirety for some time after that.

As for there being no scripture saying that a man can be called holy father, there is none that tells you to flush the toilet either. You guys get beat so bad on that call no man father gig that the conversation always drifts to this issue. No accountability for the false interprutatoin of Mt. 23:9. You just slide to the next topic. Your use of God's Holy word is only to "show" others wrong. Your anti-Catholic mentality forces you in to inappropriate uses of scripture and false interprutaions all the time. Yet you will not acknowledge any false interprutation on your own part. I don't think the scriptures are a catalog of everything that we should and shouldn't do. Otherwise cloning would be fine. They are a guide and a way of living such that they can be applied to our daily lives. But not without the help of the traditions carried on for 2000 years by Christ's Church.

We can call a man holy (as scripture does) and we can call men father as Paul calls himself and calls abraham (see my post above) (both in a spiritual sense). As long as his fatherhood is subordinate to God the father we can call a man father. Simple enough. As long as his life is dedicated to God (which is what holy means) we can call him holy father. You don't half to if you don't want to but I will with a clean conscience. Later.

 

Notice also that the Catholic church says that "the magesterium of the church is the final authority in all matters of faith and practice."

How do they know this?

Well, "because Matt 16:18 teaches this."

How do you know that that is Scripture?

"Because the magesterium of the church told us that it it."

Ad Infinitum.

 

This verse refers to natural father, not spiritual Father. Abraham is our father of our father of our fathers father of our fathers father father, etc...

To tell the way father is used in the Bible, look for the little "f" and the big "F." Little "f" equals natural father and big "F" equals spiritual Father. There is only One spiritual Father, and that is God himself. IMHO, to give this title to another is blasphemy.

 

So why are the church leaders who did not live their life dedicated to God still given the title? Church leaders that many catholics admit are in hell, who committed all kinds of grevious offenses to humanity (including murder and torture), crimes for which the current leader has apologized for, why do you still refer to them with "marks of honor"?

There should be no way to call such men holy or father with a clean conscience.

~Lorelei

 

You are speaking of a father by the flesh. I am a gentile yet, Abraham is my "spiritual father" because I am a Christian. Abraham is not a father by the flesh to all Christians. He is however a spiritual father to us all. St. Paul explains it very well.

"Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called [to be] an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,) Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; And declared [to be] the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead: By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name: Among whom are ye also the called of Jesus Christ: To all that be in Rome , beloved of God, called [to be] saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ." Romans 1:1-7………………………….

"Therefore [it is] of faith , that [it might be] by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all , (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, [even] God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were." Romans 4:13-17

Like I have said all along, Abraham is an example of a holy spiritual father to us all. This is one of the big promises of God to Abraham in the Old Testament. It is no wonder you guys don't accept St. Paul as a spiritual father to the Christians.

Do the non-Catholics here deny that Abraham is our spiritual father?


God Bless

 

We deny the way the Catholic Church teaches it.

Though Abraham was the father of the faith, it was not by his means that we are born again into the likeness of Christ. Those in the faith who are "fathers" were merely good examples. They were not our only means of instruction to the faith. As the Bereans did, we are still expected to examine the scriptures daily to make sure what they are teaching us is true.

Abraham was the first to have faith in God and believe His promise. He passed this faith on to the rest of us. A faith of belief in God, not himself. Being the first does not make him greater than any other saint in the hall of faith or today, and the Bible never teaches otherwise.

The honor given in the New Testament never put those who they honored in another station of worth or status. People gave honor to those who they respected in the faith but that never meant that they were inferior to those they gave honor to. 1 Corinthians 12 is quite clear that even though we are all called to different areas of service, each part of the body is just as significant as the others. Not one member was inferior to the other.

Let us look again at the context of Matthew, it is quite clear with which motives honor is not to be given, the catholic teaching is in violation of them.

The Bible shows us no examples of anyone being given the honorable title of "holy father." The only basis for this teaching comes from men who are the recipients of the honors they demand are scriptural.

Thus the problem with the Catholic Church. We have men who are doing things that Jesus condemned others for doing, but since they claim they are the only ones who can interpret what Jesus "really meant" then there is no way to question their authority. There is no way for us to be a noble minded Berean and test these men the way that people tested Paul.

So I will continue to listen to Jesus over these men, for if they were infallible, their doctrine would not contradict the very God the profess to proclaim.

~Lorelei

 

Do the non-Catholics here deny that Abraham is our spiritual father?

Your answer seems to be yes.

This is contrary to what St. Paul teaches here in Holy Scripture.

God Bless

 

You might want to reread my post, I think you missed it.

We define "spiritual father" differently.

As shown above, it is the practice of the Catholic Church that is contrary to what Christ taught.

~Lorelei

 

"They were not our only means of instruction to the faith. As the Bereans did, we are still expected to examine the scriptures daily to make sure what they are teaching us is true. "

Is that really what Acts 17 is about? Now I certainly will not deny that Paul's words were in accord with scripture, but is that really the point of that verse? The Thessalonians had and new the scriptures. They may even have read them. But they rejected what Paul said because they had their own interprutation and were not open to listening to his. The Bereans however "recieved the word readily". What word? Pauls. His interpretation. They were open to it and that is where their nobility lies. Not in coming up with their own interprutations. If the noble thing were every time the Apostles preached to go and read the scriptures and come up with your own interprutation then why in the stories of the Enuch and Phillip, Peter and Cornelius, and Paul and Lydia among many many others was their no mention of any of them searching scriptures against their words? Acts 17 is the only case of its kind and it shows the hardness of the Thessalonians who have their own ideas about scripture (much like Protestants today who have various conflicting views of what scripture says, gee I think I have another title for a book on that other thread) and are not open to the real truth about what the scriptures have to say.

Blessings

 

OK, I have been told that Jesus Christ is the only spiritual father for us Christians. St. Paul teaches that Abraham is also in a way our spiritual father. He goes on to explain how Abraham is justified by faith. I am not asking if you believe in a Catholic view of spiritual fatherhood. I am asking very directly if you believe that St. Paul teaches Abraham is our spiritual father. Can you go along with this?

 

"The Bible shows us no examples of anyone being given the honorable title of "holy father." The only basis for this teaching comes from men who are the recipients of the honors they demand are scriptural."

More anti-catholic habadashery. I have never had anyone put a gun to my head and force me to call them father. I do not have to call the Pope Holy Father. Further you muddy the water on this thread with your arguement. The arguement of saying that Mt. 23:9 of calling anyone father is not the same arguement as calling the Pope Holy Father. I don't think that the Bible intends to expound every title anyone on earth should have. There are titles for God which also apply to man, such as Holy One. Further, I think it has been quite clearly shown that calling a man father in the Catholic way in a spritual sense can be used toward man. Clearly it is used for Paul by himself and by Paul with regard to Abraham. Therefore to say that Mt. 23:9 says not to call someone father in a spiritual or physical sense shows completely destroys the credibility of anyone who claims otherwise. How can one claim to say they are correct that the Bible shows we can't call a man Holy Father when they show their bias against the Catholic Church. All of their interprutations are based on what the Catholic Church teaches. Not what the verse is really trying to get accross. "The Catholic Church calls a priest father and I don't believe in their teachings so the Bible says not to call anyone father.". I see a problem that you don't have anyone on earth to call father in the right context if Paul calls himself father and John strongly implies that he is a father by calling his converts "my children". There is nothing but confusion on the issue of Mt. 23:9 and this thread demonstates it quite well. The Catholic view is quite coherent and follows quite well what scripture says.


By the way, someone above mentioned that captialization was what made a title wrong. Funny thing, it is well know that there was no such thing as captalization in the Hebrew Texts.


"Ancient writing contained no punctuation, capitalization, or word spacing. It was meant to be read aloud, and you were thought extremely weird if you tried to read silently. Greek and Hebrew writing at first didn't even have vowels (Hebrew used apostrophe-like marks to mark where the vowel sounds went). In the west, capitalization (actually, the invention of lower-case letters), punctuation, and word spacing were all gradually introduced during the early middle ages, but didn't find complete expression until the advent of the mechanical printing process. "

Better rip those paragraphs and periods out also.

[ June 16, 2003, 03:33 PM: Message edited by: thessalonian ]

 

I'm not trying to derail this thread. Bur I do find it interesting Thessalonian, that all that I have read in your last two posts I would not find in the Catechism--a definite sign of sola scripture. Oh, I forgot you don't practice that.