Catholicism Against Itself

[2tim215]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Jan 15 2006, 03:03 PM']Oh, and I suppose the 178 page abridged version represents the cream of the crop. This alone would be enough to show any educated Catholic that the approach of this book is to take obscure quotes (quite often from sources that lack any authority), completely out of context, and imply a some derogatory meaning that is foreign to the actual context.

Some funny examples (my comments will be in [i]italics[/i]):

[b]Ladies Not Allowed in Bar in Headquarters of Knights of Columbus![/b]
This I observed in their headquarters in St. Louis. I sup­pose a woman could get in, but a lady would not want to be there!
[i]hehe, what utter depravity![/i]

[b]Get Drunk—Stay Drunk—Cannot Go to Hell![/b]
“A child that has not yet attained the full use of reason, a person half asleep, or half drunk, or half-witted, cannot know and appreciate sufficiently the malice of mortal sin, and so cannot commit it” (Manual of Moral Theology, I, 137).
[i]Ok, a random quote taken from a random moral theology book proves that Catholicism teaches that getting drunk is a way to avoid hell? Obviously in context the only point being made is that culpability is lessened by circumstances in which the faculty of reason is inhibited.[/i]

[b]Profanity Approved[/b]
“There may be unconscious, involuntary lapses under the constant pressure of a strong inclination, as in the vice of cursing, and it remains innocent as long as it is not willfully yielded to and indulged” (Explanation of Catholic Morals, 27).
[i]Again, we have a quote from some random moral theology text which is obviously not "approving" profanity. Such a suggestion is infact absurd.[/i]

[i]Some of my favourite are those in the section on the saints:[/i]

[b]“St.” Peter of Alcantara Never Looked at Women[/b]
From the time that he put on the religious habit to his death, he never looked any woman in the face.
[i]Oh the scandal!! I can think of a few women saints who took upon themselves the penance of never looking upon men. I guess this fact means that I should abandone the faith. That's dumb.[/i]

[b]“St.” Collete—Devils Buzzed Around Her!
“St.” Pachomius—Only Slept One Hour Sitting Up!
Relics of “St.” Bonaventure Stop Plague!
Ignorant and Fanatical Flagellants—Jesuit Inspired Today!
Birds and Bees Listen to “St.” Francis Assisi Preach![/b]
[i]Oh the humanity!![/i]

[b]Extreme Unction Works Miracles!!![/b]
    “God frequently works miracles through the ordinary ad­ministration of the Sacrament of Extreme Unction”
[i]I'm scandalized![/i]

[b]Crucifix Bowed Its Head[/b]
    He offered up his prayers before a great crucifix.  Whilst he continued . . the crucifix miraculously bowed its head to him, as it were to give him a token how acceptable the sacrifice of his resentment” (Lives of the Saints, Butler, VII, 91, 92).
[i]I'm losing my faith..    j/k[/i]

Alright, I'm done picking on the book. There are many things in the book that are not so obviously silly, and I don't doubt that there are some issues brought up in the book that are in fact difficult, but in general the book is a hoot. And I can't imagine an educated Catholic having their faith shaken by this book.
[right][snapback]856781[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

[2tim215]

If and when you get the Books, check them with Vatican II and tell me if there is no Authority in them!

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='2tim215' date='Jan 15 2006, 03:53 PM']Sorry been reading so much of ya'lls questions and answers on the boards, I get so sad at all the misinformation you have been fed through the years that I didn't know where to begin! All I know is that it doen't coinside with Bible Doctrine for the New Testament Church, Sooo Sad!  I sent one message that I would like an answer to The father deal? 2tim215,  If you Can, answer that, I'll be satisfied and not bother you again,    II Tim. 3:10-11
[right][snapback]856924[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
[b]Call No Man "Father"?[/b]

Many Protestants claim that when Catholics address priests as "father," they are engaging in an unbiblical practice that Jesus forbade: "Call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven" (Matt. 23:9).

In his tract 10 Reasons Why I Am Not a Roman Catholic, Fundamentalist anti-Catholic writer Donald Maconaghie quotes this passage as support for his charge that "the papacy is a hoax."

Bill Jackson, another Fundamentalist who runs a full-time anti-Catholic organization, says in his book Christian’s Guide To Roman Catholicism that a "study of Matthew 23:9 reveals that Jesus was talking about being called father as a title of religious superiority . . . [which is] the basis for the [Catholic] hierarchy" (53).

How should Catholics respond to such objections?

[b]The Answer[/b]

To understand why the charge does not work, one must first understand the use of the word "father" in reference to our earthly fathers. No one would deny a little girl the opportunity to tell someone that she loves her father. Common sense tells us that Jesus wasn’t forbidding this type of use of the word "father."

In fact, to forbid it would rob the address "Father" of its meaning when applied to God, for there would no longer be any earthly counterpart for the analogy of divine Fatherhood. The concept of God’s role as Father would be meaningless if we obliterated the concept of earthly fatherhood.

But in the Bible the concept of fatherhood is not restricted to just our earthly fathers and God. It is used to refer to people other than biological or legal fathers, and is used as a sign of respect to those with whom we have a special relationship.

For example, Joseph tells his brothers of a special fatherly relationship God had given him with the king of Egypt: "So it was not you who sent me here, but God; and he has made me a father to Pharaoh, and lord of all his house and ruler over all the land of Egypt" (Gen. 45:8).

Job indicates he played a fatherly role with the less fortunate: "I was a father to the poor, and I searched out the cause of him whom I did not know" (Job 29:16). And God himself declares that he will give a fatherly role to Eliakim, the steward of the house of David: "In that day I will call my servant Eliakim, the son of Hilkiah . . . and I will clothe him with [a] robe, and will bind [a] girdle on him, and will commit . . . authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah" (Is. 22:20–21).

This type of fatherhood not only applies to those who are wise counselors (like Joseph) or benefactors (like Job) or both (like Eliakim), it also applies to those who have a fatherly spiritual relationship with one. For example, Elisha cries, "My father, my father!" to Elijah as the latter is carried up to heaven in a whirlwind (2 Kgs. 2:12). Later, Elisha himself is called a father by the king of Israel (2 Kgs. 6:21).

[b]A Change with the New Testament?[/b]

Some Fundamentalists argue that this usage changed with the New Testament—that while it may have been permissible to call certain men "father" in the Old Testament, since the time of Christ, it’s no longer allowed. This argument fails for several reasons.

First, as we’ve seen, the imperative "call no man father" does not apply to one’s biological father. It also doesn’t exclude calling one’s ancestors "father," as is shown in Acts 7:2, where Stephen refers to "our father Abraham," or in Romans 9:10, where Paul speaks of "our father Isaac."

Second, there are numerous examples in the New Testament of the term "father" being used as a form of address and reference, even for men who are not biologically related to the speaker. There are, in fact, so many uses of "father" in the New Testament, that the Fundamentalist interpretation of Matthew 23 (and the objection to Catholics calling priests "father") must be wrong, as we shall see.

Third, a careful examination of the context of Matthew 23 shows that Jesus didn’t intend for his words here to be understood literally. The whole passage reads, "But you are not to be called ‘rabbi,’ for you have one teacher, and you are all brethren. And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. Neither be called ‘masters,’ for you have one master, the Christ" (Matt. 23:8–10).

The first problem is that although Jesus seems to prohibit the use of the term "teacher," in Matthew 28:19–20, Christ himself appointed certain men to be teachers in his Church: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations . . . teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you." Paul speaks of his commission as a teacher: "For this I was appointed a preacher and apostle . . . a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth" (1 Tim. 2:7); "For this gospel I was appointed a preacher and apostle and teacher" (2 Tim. 1:11). He also reminds us that the Church has an office of teacher: "God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers" (1 Cor. 12:28); and "his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers" (Eph. 4:11). There is no doubt that Paul was not violating Christ’s teaching in Matthew 23 by referring so often to others as "teachers."

Fundamentalists themselves slip up on this point by calling all sorts of people "doctor," for example, medical doctors, as well as professors and scientists who have Ph.D. degrees (i.e., doctorates). What they fail to realize is that "doctor" is simply the Latin word for "teacher." Even "Mister" and "Mistress" ("Mrs.") are forms of the word "master," also mentioned by Jesus. So if his words in Matthew 23 were meant to be taken literally, Fundamentalists would be just as guilty for using the word "teacher" and "doctor" and "mister" as Catholics for saying "father." But clearly, that would be a misunderstanding of Christ’s words.

[b]So What Did Jesus Mean?[/b]

Jesus criticized Jewish leaders who love "the place of honor at feasts and the best seats in the synagogues, and salutations in the market places, and being called ‘rabbi’ by men" (Matt. 23:6–7). His admonition here is a response to the Pharisees’ proud hearts and their grasping after marks of status and prestige.

He was using hyperbole (exaggeration to make a point) to show the scribes and Pharisees how sinful and proud they were for not looking humbly to God as the source of all authority and fatherhood and teaching, and instead setting themselves up as the ultimate authorities, father figures, and teachers.

Christ used hyperbole often, for example when he declared, "If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell" (Matt. 5:29, cf. 18:9; Mark 9:47). Christ certainly did not intend this to be applied literally, for otherwise all Christians would be blind amputees! (cf. 1 John 1:8; 1 Tim. 1:15). We are all subject to "the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the pride of life" (1 John 2:16).

Since Jesus is demonstrably using hyperbole when he says not to call anyone our father—else we would not be able to refer to our earthly fathers as such—we must read his words carefully and with sensitivity to the presence of hyperbole if we wish to understand what he is saying.

Jesus is not forbidding us to call men "fathers" who actually are such—either literally or spiritually. (See below on the apostolic example of spiritual fatherhood.) To refer to such people as fathers is only to acknowledge the truth, and Jesus is not against that. He is warning people against inaccurately attributing fatherhood—or a particular kind or degree of fatherhood—to those who do not have it.

As the apostolic example shows, some individuals genuinely do have a spiritual fatherhood, meaning that they can be referred to as spiritual fathers. What must not be done is to confuse their form of spiritual paternity with that of God. Ultimately, God is our supreme protector, provider, and instructor. Correspondingly, it is wrong to view any individual other than God as having these roles.

Throughout the world, some people have been tempted to look upon religious leaders who are mere mortals as if they were an individual’s supreme source of spiritual instruction, nourishment, and protection. The tendency to turn mere men into "gurus" is worldwide.

This was also a temptation in the Jewish world of Jesus’ day, when famous rabbinical leaders, especially those who founded important schools, such as Hillel and Shammai, were highly exalted by their disciples. It is this elevation of an individual man—the formation of a "cult of personality" around him—of which Jesus is speaking when he warns against attributing to someone an undue role as master, father, or teacher.

He is not forbidding the perfunctory use of honorifics nor forbidding us to recognize that the person does have a role as a spiritual father and teacher. The example of his own apostles shows us that.

[b]The Apostles Show the Way[/b]

The New Testament is filled with examples of and references to spiritual father-son and father-child relationships. Many people are not aware just how common these are, so it is worth quoting some of them here.

Paul regularly referred to Timothy as his child: "Therefore I sent to you Timothy, my beloved and faithful child in the Lord, to remind you of my ways in Christ" (1 Cor. 4:17); "To Timothy, my true child in the faith: grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord" (1 Tim. 1:2); "To Timothy, my beloved child: Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord" (2 Tim. 1:2).

He also referred to Timothy as his son: "This charge I commit to you, Timothy, my son, in accordance with the prophetic utterances which pointed to you, that inspired by them you may wage the good warfare" (1 Tim 1:18); "You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus" (2 Tim. 2:1); "But Timothy’s worth you know, how as a son with a father he has served with me in the gospel" (Phil. 2:22).

Paul also referred to other of his converts in this way: "To Titus, my true child in a common faith: grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior" (Titus 1:4); "I appeal to you for my child, Onesimus, whose father I have become in my imprisonment" (Philem. 10). None of these men were Paul’s literal, biological sons. Rather, Paul is emphasizing his spiritual fatherhood with them.

[b]Spiritual Fatherhood[/b]

Perhaps the most pointed New Testament reference to the theology of the spiritual fatherhood of priests is Paul’s statement, "I do not write this to make you ashamed, but to admonish you as my beloved children. For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel" (1 Cor. 4:14–15).

Peter followed the same custom, referring to Mark as his son: "She who is at Babylon, who is likewise chosen, sends you greetings; and so does my son Mark" (1 Pet. 5:13). The apostles sometimes referred to entire churches under their care as their children. Paul writes, "Here for the third time I am ready to come to you. And I will not be a burden, for I seek not what is yours but you; for children ought not to lay up for their parents, but parents for their children" (2 Cor. 12:14); and, "My little children, with whom I am again in travail until Christ be formed in you!" (Gal. 4:19).

John said, "My little children, I am writing this to you so that you may not sin; but if any one does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous" (1 John 2:1); "No greater joy can I have than this, to hear that my children follow the truth" (3 John 4). In fact, John also addresses men in his congregations as "fathers" (1 John 2:13–14).

By referring to these people as their spiritual sons and spiritual children, Peter, Paul, and John imply their own roles as spiritual fathers. Since the Bible frequently speaks of this spiritual fatherhood, we Catholics acknowledge it and follow the custom of the apostles by calling priests "father." Failure to acknowledge this is a failure to recognize and honor a great gift God has bestowed on the Church: the spiritual fatherhood of the priesthood.

Catholics know that as members of a parish, they have been committed to a priest’s spiritual care, thus they have great filial affection for priests and call them "father." Priests, in turn, follow the apostles’ biblical example by referring to members of their flock as "my son" or "my child" (cf. Gal. 4:19; 1 Tim. 1:18; 2 Tim. 2:1; Philem. 10; 1 Pet. 5:13; 1 John 2:1; 3 John 4).

All of these passages were written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and they express the infallibly recorded truth that Christ’s ministers do have a role as spiritual fathers. Jesus is not against acknowledging that. It is he who gave these men their role as spiritual fathers, and it is his Holy Spirit who recorded this role for us in the pages of Scripture. To acknowledge spiritual fatherhood is to acknowledge the truth, and no amount of anti-Catholic grumbling will change that fact.

[rkwright]

I hate to just qoute other people's work, and I hope someone will give you a good response, but I think is a great one... from catholic.com

[quote]First, as we’ve seen, the imperative "call no man father" does not apply to one’s biological father. It also doesn’t exclude calling one’s ancestors "father," as is shown in Acts 7:2, where Stephen refers to "our father Abraham," or in Romans 9:10, where Paul speaks of "our father Isaac."

Second, there are numerous examples in the New Testament of the term "father" being used as a form of address and reference, even for men who are not biologically related to the speaker. There are, in fact, so many uses of "father" in the New Testament, that the Fundamentalist interpretation of Matthew 23 (and the objection to Catholics calling priests "father") must be wrong, as we shall see.

Third, a careful examination of the context of Matthew 23 shows that Jesus didn’t intend for his words here to be understood literally. The whole passage reads, "But you are not to be called ‘rabbi,’ for you have one teacher, and you are all brethren. And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. Neither be called ‘masters,’ for you have one master, the Christ" (Matt. 23:8–10).

The first problem is that although Jesus seems to prohibit the use of the term "teacher," in Matthew 28:19–20, Christ himself appointed certain men to be teachers in his Church: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations . . . teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you." Paul speaks of his commission as a teacher: "For this I was appointed a preacher and apostle . . . a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth" (1 Tim. 2:7); "For this gospel I was appointed a preacher and apostle and teacher" (2 Tim. 1:11). He also reminds us that the Church has an office of teacher: "God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers" (1 Cor. 12:28); and "his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers" (Eph. 4:11). There is no doubt that Paul was not violating Christ’s teaching in Matthew 23 by referring so often to others as "teachers."[/quote]

[quote]Perhaps the most pointed New Testament reference to the theology of the spiritual fatherhood of priests is Paul’s statement, "I do not write this to make you ashamed, but to admonish you as my beloved children. For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel" (1 Cor. 4:14–15). [/quote]

[quote]Catholics know that as members of a parish, they have been committed to a priest’s spiritual care, thus they have great filial affection for priests and call them "father." Priests, in turn, follow the apostles’ biblical example by referring to members of their flock as "my son" or "my child" (cf. Gal. 4:19; 1 Tim. 1:18; 2 Tim. 2:1; Philem. 10; 1 Pet. 5:13; 1 John 2:1; 3 John 4). [/quote]

[rkwright]

ahhh L_D beat me to it

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='rkwright' date='Jan 15 2006, 04:08 PM']ahhh L_D beat me to it 
[right][snapback]856937[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


I'm on the phone so I can't type.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

[quote name='2tim215' date='Jan 15 2006, 02:04 PM']You all have answered as I expected, see you at the GREAT WHITE THRONE JUDGMENT, I heard a tape of Keeting and a man Peter S. Ruckman in a debate and Keeting Fell on his FACE and could not give answers to simple matters of his own faith, just as you all are doing! MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND THE ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH. The book in question is ALL your Catholic Traditions and Doctrines which are in conflict with the word of God! Zech. 2:10; 11:17; Rev. 18:
[right][snapback]856721[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Who compiled the Word of God?

Edited January 15, 2006 by thedude

[2tim215]

Got to go too, My Family is awaiting me to read God's word, as we do at 6pm every evening! May God Help you!, to find the Truth! In Christ Jesus, 2tim215 Do you know for sure If you die RIGHT NOW if you would go to Heaven? I Have That Assurance! Would you like to have it??? Eph. 2:8-9

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='2tim215' date='Jan 15 2006, 05:02 PM']Do you know for sure If you die RIGHT NOW if you would go to Heaven? I Have That  Assurance!  Would you like to have it???      Eph. 2:8-9
[right][snapback]856975[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I prefer to work out my salvation with fear and trembling Phil 2:12-13

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='2tim215' date='Jan 15 2006, 06:02 PM']Got to go too, My Family is awaiting me to read God's word, as we do at 6pm every evening!  May God Help you!,  to find the Truth!    In Christ Jesus, 2tim215    Do you know for sure If you die RIGHT NOW if you would go to Heaven? I Have That  Assurance!  Would you like to have it???      Eph. 2:8-9
[right][snapback]856975[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

You do? Are you sure? What if you find out that you are one of the people in your fundie churches that has to get 're-saved' because you didn't do it right the first time? What if you sin in the future rejecting God and find out that you really didn't accept Christ? Are you sure you are saved?

And by the way tim, Ephesians 2:8-9 doesn't say anything about "once you are saved you can't lose your salvation", so why don't you post an actually passage for us that says "once saved always saved". Happy hunting.

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='Theoketos' date='Jan 15 2006, 08:35 AM']The best response to these two works of falsity and fallacy is "Catholicism and Fundamentalism" by Karl Keeting. They are so rediculous even protestant academics shun them.

Edit

L_D otherwise gave a great answer to the question on another board.
[right][snapback]856543[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

It's odd I hadn't read those two before. I guess they aren't as well known as "Roman Catholicism" and "The Gospel According to Rome". Why do anti-Catholics think that Catholics fear their 'arguments'. I wonder if they realize now they actually sound. Then again I probably didn't when I was anti-Catholic.

[2tim215]

: John 10:27-30 And by the way I am NOT a protestant, I am a BAPTIST! BIBLE BELIEVING, SAVED, BORN AGAIN, CHILD OF GOD! Protestants are a branch of your ununited Failing church. May God lead you to the TRUTH, I have no more time for you, you have made your chose! Titus 3:4-11 Enough said! Oh! by the way It Is IDOL SHEPHERD YOUR pastor! Zech. 10:2; 11:17

[Guest JeffCR07]

2tim215, L_D answered your question regarding "call no man father" before I could get a chance, are you going to respond to him? He took quite a bit of time writing out a very well written post...

Also, this is for both your knowledge and L_D's: There is another reason why Christ said "call no man father" and "you are not to be called 'rabbi'." Jerusalem and the Diaspora at the time was a place full of many cultures - Roman, Jews, Arabs, travelling Greeks, etc. It was a common practice for many Jews at the time to assert their superiority over the other peoples (the gentiles) by pointing out that Abraham was the Father of the Jews, and not their father, and that the prophets were the teachers (rabbis) of the Jews, and not their teachers.

Thus, when Christ says "call no man 'father'" and "you are not to be called 'rabbi'" he is speaking out against a common sin of pride that could be found in the Jews.

[Theoketos]

Well, no Library in my city has the book. So I am not going to go and get it. However I do not think there is a need based on the lack of clarity and charity from our guest.

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='2tim215' date='Jan 16 2006, 08:52 AM']:  John 10:27-30  And by the way I am NOT a protestant, I am a BAPTIST! BIBLE BELIEVING, SAVED, BORN AGAIN, CHILD OF GOD! Protestants are a branch of your ununited  Failing church.  May God lead you to the TRUTH, I have no more time for you, you have made your chose!  Titus 3:4-11  Enough said!  Oh! by the way It Is IDOL SHEPHERD YOUR pastor!  Zech. 10:2; 11:17
[right][snapback]857479[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Yes, we gathered as much. Unfortunately you are so afraid of the truth the Bible speaks (compared to your own private interpretation) that you are totally unwilling to discuss, calmly and intelligantly the Christian faith. And you are quite unaware of the history of your own Church. I converted to Catholicism from the Baptist Church. You come from a Protestant background. Your founder (unlike our founder, Jesus Christ) is Ulrich Zwingli a Protestant Reformer. You should know the history of your own sect.

I'm sorry you feel the need to lie about what Catholics believe. That doesn't say much at all for your position. You can't even address the questions and claims we bring up. We are Catholics after all, we know what we believe.

but go on your merry way. You aren't going to effect anyone here. We will just shake our head that here has come and gone another anti-Catholic zealot completely incapable of having a conversation and discussing the beliefs that we each hold to. Just becuase you study one faith doesn't mean you are going to convert to it. You can study Mormonism without becoming Mormon. In fact, you can even read what Mormons believe from the mormon sect and ask them questions. You can do all that, remain intellectually honest, and not become Mormon. But you can't do that with Catholicism can you? Becuase you are afraid of finding out that the Bible doesn't say what you try to force it to say. You are afraid of the truth?

Perhaps I'm being too harsh, but I'm offering you a challenge to better yourself, be intellectually honest, and grow as a person, Catholic or not.