Are Catholics boring catechists?

[Albion]

Well people do kiss the Popes (pappas=father) ring and bow down to him so.. anyway my point is that the NT specifically calls this out yet we 'must' utter "father" when addressing a Catholic priest and we can just roll our eyes and remark "well that's the least of our concern" as if it's nothing of importance, maybe Francis can address this issue and revert back to just calling him the pontifex maximus... I believe it meant "bridge builder"?, better than "Father" imo... but yeah it's always bugged me but I guess i'll just join the 'whatever' camp

What was wrong with my explanation? this form of address is simply a term of respect, and the verse that is always cited by people who think that the word "father" must never be used of any mortal is misunderstood by them. Besides, how many of the people who condemn it have never referred to their own male parent as "father?" None, I would think. But let someone else call their pastor by the term, and....

Nevertheless, the ring-kissing and some other gestures (such as calling the Pope the "Holy Father") do go too far, it's safe to say.

 

[Andrew]

What was wrong with my explanation? this form of address is simply a term of respect, and the verse that is always cited by people who think that the word "father" must never be used of any mortal is misunderstood by them. Besides, how many of the people who condemn it have never referred to their own male parent as "father?" None, I would think. But let someone else call their pastor by the term, and....

Nevertheless, the ring-kissing and some other gestures (such as calling the Pope the "Holy Father") do go too far, it's safe to say.

I just see it disrespectful for any leader in Gods church to refer to themselves as "father" when Christ himself condemns it, and not only that but he can take away your sins... its not biblical and yet it is the least of our concern, "it's a title of respect" no it's blasphemy against the word of God.
You can all convince me otherwise but I just don't see why that statement is torn out of the bible and replaced with "respect"

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

Is boring and ignorant the same thing?
I find most Roman Catholics to be biblically ignorant. In fact, it seems atheists are better informed about the Bible than most Roman Catholics.
That being the case, I find them boring.

Personally, the foregoing is subjective opinion, and that's how I read it. You might disagree, however a statement that begins "it seems that 'xyz'..." is not (in fact) fact. but subjective unless accompanied by some measure of accepted truth - or at least some evidence that can be weighed out as to its validity. You haven't (yet) provided that. So, "that being the case", I'll suggest the statements be disregarded until more adequately supported.

They don't have a basis for their faith other than saying "father dantas told me to do 5 hail mary's."

By what objective measure do you come to this conclusion? From what I've seen, MC has posted pages worth of the basis for their faith and you've refused to acknowledge such. So either the basis of their faith is something I won't repeat here (you know what I mean), or they have none. it's clearly confusing for you

They sleep walk through their ceremonies and ultimately think the entrance into heaven is to imagine they have done more good than bad so that God will not think poorly of them.

The last Catholic ceremony I attended was not, in fact, full of sleep-walking zombies but was a scriptural examination of the beauty of Christian marriage. What was your wedding like?

Often they are no different than an atheist in that they view life from a pragmatic and utilitarian perspective.

Okay, now we can work with something. "Often", being a qualifier, brings a bit more credibility. I think we all (including Catholics themselves) can point to some who place more emphasis on pragmatism and ritual than on the virtue of a Christian life - the cart before the horse as it were.

Do what is right in their own eyes and justify it to God when they die.

I've not known a Catholic who says s/he "does what is right in his/her own eyes" with hopes that s/he will get a "pass" when they die. Besides, we will all have to answer for ourselves at the judgment.

It's tough to have a deep conversation with an ignorant person. Just feed them milk, milk and more milk.

So right...

 

[Albion]

I just see it disrespectful for any leader in Gods church to refer to themselves as "father" when Christ himself condemns it

:huh: Christ did not condemn it.

This is the third time of my correcting that misunderstanding. If you want to contest the explanation I gave, at least please do not just reply with a comment that suggests you never read any of it.

 

[MennoSota]

Personally, the foregoing is subjective opinion, and that's how I read it. You might disagree, however a statement that begins "it seems that 'xyz'..." is not (in fact) fact. but subjective unless accompanied by some measure of accepted truth - or at least some evidence that can be weighed out as to its validity. You haven't (yet) provided that. So, "that being the case", I'll suggest the statements be disregarded until more adequately supported.



By what objective measure do you come to this conclusion? From what I've seen, MC has posted pages worth of the basis for their faith and you've refused to acknowledge such. So either the basis of their faith is something I won't repeat here (you know what I mean), or they have none. it's clearly confusing for you



The last Catholic ceremony I attended was not, in fact, full of sleep-walking zombies but was a scriptural examination of the beauty of Christian marriage. What was your wedding like?



Okay, now we can work with something. "Often", being a qualifier, brings a bit more credibility. I think we all (including Catholics themselves) can point to some who place more emphasis on pragmatism and ritual than on the virtue of a Christian life - the cart before the horse as it were.



I've not known a Catholic who says s/he "does what is right in his/her own eyes" with hopes that s/he will get a "pass" when they die. Besides, we will all have to answer for ourselves at the judgment.



So right...

Of course it's subjective. I have not created an inductive research project. Nor have you. It's anecdotal, based upon experience and working with people who identify as Roman Catholic.
If it helps, the Lutherans I have worked with have been equally ignorant of scripture and rely upon their baby baptism and confirmation class to claim faith. They spend more time drinking at the bar than going to church...so...priorities...

 

[MoreCoffee]

Is boring and ignorant the same thing?

No. Boring and ignorant are not the same thing.

I find most Roman Catholics to be biblically ignorant.

There's irony in your comment. Probably unintentional irony.

In fact, it seems atheists are better informed about the Bible than most Roman Catholics.
That being the case, I find them boring. They don't have a basis for their faith other than saying "father dantas told me to do 5 hail mary's." They sleep walk through their ceremonies and ultimately think the entrance into heaven is to imagine they have done more good than bad so that God will not think poorly of them. Often they are no different than an atheist in that they view life from a pragmatic and utilitarian perspective. Do what is right in their own eyes and justify it to God when they die.
It's tough to have a deep conversation with an ignorant person. Just feed them milk, milk and more milk.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

...They spend more time drinking at the bar than going to church...so...priorities...

Well, as long as things aren't based on works... :thumbsup:

 

[MoreCoffee]

Well, as long as things aren't based on works... :thumbsup:

:groupheads:

[ironic humour intended to partially fulfil Proverbs 26:4,5]]Yes, one must never rely on works! So true!! Let's make sure we don't do any works of any kind lest it be thought that people can work their way to heaven!!![/end ironic humour]

It is necessary to state in plain language that good works are good no matter what silliness a foolish post may advocate as a counter to allegedly working one's way to heaven by doing what pleases God and avoiding what is wicked and displeasing to God.

The Lord, Jesus Christ, said if you wish to enter into life, observe the commandments (Matt 19:17)

And for those who want to reply by saying "you are quoting out of context!" I direct them to the thread named Context!!! It is here https://christianityhaven.com/showthread.php?6702-Context!!!&p=159305#post159305

 

[Albion]

Yes, one must never rely on works! So true!! Let's make sure we don't do any works of any kind lest it be thought that people can work their way to heaven!!!

Most people can understand the difference between "rely on" works (in order to earn something or other) and "do works" (for their own sake or because Christ taught it).

But not everyone can.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Most people can understand the difference between "rely on" works (in order to earn something or other) and "do works" (for their own sake or because Christ taught it).

But not everyone can.

Very true. Many people do understand the difference between "do good" and "rely on the good you do".

Some people understand the use of markup tags, even markup tags that are deliberately included in a message to make obvious the use of humour. As, for example, in this case:

[ironic humour intended to partially fulfil Proverbs 26:4,5]]Yes, one must never rely on works! So true!! Let's make sure we don't do any works of any kind lest it be thought that people can work their way to heaven!!![/end ironic humour]​

 

[Andrew]

:huh: Christ did not condemn it.

This is the third time of my correcting that misunderstanding. If you want to contest the explanation I gave, at least please do not just reply with a comment that suggests you never read any of it.

Fair enough, I don't know why I'm getting defensive anyway lol i'll just leave it alone then

 

[Albion]

OK, but I was still thinking of this as I was going to bed yesterday and wondering if I assumed too much. Had I really explained what I thought I had explained? Was my point made well enough? So here is a last try. If it doesn't work, no reply is needed.

It is not that I have read something into the verse. I simply was passing along to you what theologians of most of denominations, other than for the fundamentalists, say is the meaning. And the meaning is not a matter of interpreting a word or two anyway. The whole thing is an analogy. The Bible speaks in such terms all the time, you know.

For example, "You are the light of the world" …."No man is an island" …."fishers of men." So also with this message about calling someone "father." It means not to give a mortal the respect or honor that belongs to God alone.

 

[MoreCoffee]

OK, but I was still thinking of this as I was going to bed yesterday and wondering if I assumed too much. Had I really explained what I thought I had explained? Was my point made well enough? So here is a last try. If it doesn't work, no reply is needed.

It is not that I have read something into the verse. I simply was passing along to you what theologians of most of denominations, other than for the fundamentalists, say is the meaning. And the meaning is not a matter of interpreting a word or two anyway. The whole thing is an analogy. The Bible speaks in such terms all the time, you know.

For example, "You are the light of the world" …."No man is an island" …."fishers of men." So also with this message about calling someone "father." It means not to give a mortal the respect or honor that belongs to God alone.

I think that your explanation is clear but I do not recall ever seeing "no man is an island" written in a bible passage. The other examples are from bible passages that I recognise.

And I agree that the words of Christ in the gospel that say "call no man father because you have one Father in heaven" is a good explanation. It is not intended to ban the use of the word "father" from all uses except when used to designate the Father who is in heaven. That would only make saint Paul's use of it and the places where it is used in the new testament sources of confusion and contradiction of the alleged commandment given by Christ. There are hundreds of places in the new testament where "father" refers to a human father and they can't all be cases of deliberate disobedience to Christ's command unless Christ';s words were not intended to exclude the use of the word "father" wherever it was appropriate but only in cases where its use implied improper honour and possibly worship improperly applied to a creature.

 

[Albion]

I think that your explanation is clear but I do not recall ever seeing "no man is an island" written in a bible passage. The other examples are from bible passages that I recognise.

Right you are. Absentmindedly, I took that from one of John Donnes Meditations, possibly based upon Romans 14:7




.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Right you are. Absently mindedly, I took that from one of John onnes Meditations, possibly based upon Romans 14:7

Fair enough. It is interesting how the things we read and think about shape our own thinking and what we decide to write too.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

:groupheads:

[ironic humour intended to partially fulfil Proverbs 26:4,5]]Yes, one must never rely on works! So true!! Let's make sure we don't do any works of any kind lest it be thought that people can work their way to heaven!!![/end ironic humour]

It is necessary to state in plain language that good works are good no matter what silliness a foolish post may advocate as a counter to allegedly working one's way to heaven by doing what pleases God and avoiding what is wicked and displeasing to God.

The Lord, Jesus Christ, said if you wish to enter into life, observe the commandments (Matt 19:17)

And for those who want to reply by saying "you are quoting out of context!" I direct them to the thread named Context!!! It is here https://christianityhaven.com/showthread.php?6702-Context!!!&p=159305#post159305

There was an apparent misunderstanding. The response about "works" was directed to the good [MENTION=394]MennoSota[/MENTION] who made it a point to chide the Lutherans of his acquaintance for spending more time at the bar than church (i.e. 'bad' works over 'good') - nullifying any point he's made that it isn't about 'works' at all.

Idk, maybe he's confused this

with this

 

[MoreCoffee]

There was an apparent misunderstanding. The response about "works" was directed to the good [MENTION=394]MennoSota[/MENTION] who made it a point to chide the Lutherans of his acquaintance for spending more time at the bar than church (i.e. 'bad' works over 'good') - nullifying any point he's made that it isn't about 'works' at all.

Yes, I know that is what your post was about. I liked it. So I wrote my post to emphasise the difficulty with "no works allowed" salvation theology as espoused in a number of his posts and the realities of no works. The ironic humour tags were intended to make it harder to read what I wrote and treat it as if it were stating my view of the matter but it seems that even adding ironic humour tags doesn't make much difference with some readers. And I do not mean you friend ImaginaryDay2.

All things considered the point is made but probably will make no difference as seems to be the case so many times.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

Yes, I know that is what your post was about. I liked it. So I wrote my post to emphasise the difficulty with "no works allowed" salvation theology as espoused in a number of his posts and the realities of no works. The ironic humour tags were intended to make it harder to read what I wrote and treat it as if it were stating my view of the matter but it seems that even adding ironic humour tags doesn't make much difference with some readers. And I do not mean you friend ImaginaryDay2.

All things considered the point is made but probably will make no difference as seems to be the case so many times.

Ah, I see. Wasn't sure so I thought I'd clarify, but then it dawned on me (it's still early, somewhat) that the 'like' should have been my clue. If anything it'll get under a certain person's skin

:smirk:

^^^^^I like him!!!

 

[MoreCoffee]

:smirk:

^^^^^I like him!!!

Me too, he's cool!

:smirk:

 

[Albion]

Yes, I know that is what your post was about. I liked it. So I wrote my post to emphasise the difficulty with "no works allowed" salvation theology as espoused in a number of his posts....

If I may be excused for butting in here, and for me remembering none of the specifics of the Menno posts that you referred to....

When people speak of no works, the point is (or ought to be) no works AS MERITORIOUS.

So that means that helping the poor or working for peace, for example, IS good, but such acts are good in themselves and because Christ called on us to do them. Its not that they increase our standing with God or enhance our prospects of reaching heaven.