A Father is to be honored

1. 1. Confused Catholic said:

      
      I easily go along with calling a priest "father", I wouldn't address a priest without using a title. But how to justify calling a priest "My Lord" (Monsignor)? And what about the titles: excellence, eminence, right reverend, very reverend.. and so on. These titles from courtly times need to go; or just used as a private hierarchy within the clergy.

      
      
      You said they need to go, but why? Are these not consecrated people and, especially in the cases of bishops, direct successors of the Apostles
      
      These are all titles given a "father". A father is "Lord" of his house. A mother, the wife of the father, "Lady" of his house.
      
      Mister is simply a derivative of "master". And it means, "Lord". Likewise, Mistress, is a derivative of "master" as well. Although it now bears a bad connotation associated with adultery, the Mistress of the house is the Lady of the house
   2. This is one of the reasons why Protestants abhor the title in respect to priests. Because they deny that they must obey them. They claim they believe the Scriptures. I don't know what they do with Heb 13:17:
      
      Hebrews 13:17 Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.
      
      Sincerely,
      
      De Maria
      
      
      
      

What does the Bible say about the Pope?

The word "Pope" is Latin for "Father".  The Bible speaks of God as "Our Father",

Matthew 6:99 After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.

Scripture also says that the Apostles considered themselves the Fathers of their flocks:

1 Corinthians 4:15
15 For though ye have ten thousand instructers in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel. 

1 John 2:1My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: 

Because Jesus Christ appointed Simon to "feed" His flock.  The Church has always called him the first "Pope" or "Father" of the Church:

John 21:1717 He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

It is illogical to say comparison of your church to the Catholic Church voids the teaching of Scripture

Lutero: 

Ah yes, and I also remember kneeling at the communion rail and the Roman Catholic priest bearing the chalice that would whiz to and fro the inner sanctuary to distribute communion, and as he would pass by the stench of alcohol that radiated from him permeated the air - passing out communion thru blurry, bloodshot eyes and with a shaking hand to hold the "body of Christ" that just hours before was holding booze-filled containers pressed to his lips as he guzzled down his favorite liquor. And they blasphemously call themselves "another Christ".

The teaching of the Catholic Church has been proven sufficiently by the Catholics who posted before me. If you know of some priest who does not obey the Church, why do you blame it on the Church?

In my life, I met several misbehaving Protestant ministers. One of them was a drunkard who loved to force himself on his female employees. Should that be blamed on his Protestant upbringing and faith?

Protesto:

Comparing Catholic priests to Protestant ministers means there goes out the window of the Catholic Church being the self titled 'One True Church' and the 'fullness of anything'.

Non Sequitur.

It is illogical to say that my comparison of any aspect of your church to the Catholic Church would somehow disqualify the teaching of Scripture:

1 Timothy 3:15

King James Version (KJV)
¹⁵ But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

Obviously Catholic apologists don't believe the faith they pretend to embrace.

This is a false conclusion based upon a false premise. Since your premise above is false, you have been led to a false conclusion.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Jesus, Priest and Victim

Hi Lutero, 

We can never rely on the church fathers for consistency and fully on church history. The safest and secure bet is to only stick to sola scriptura.

What does Scripture say?

Follow those who have received the promise-Heb 6:12

Hear the Church-Matt 18:17;
Church teaches the wisdom of God-Eph 3:10;
Church is the pillar of truth-1 Tim 3:15

About Jesus being a victim its meaning?

Christ is our Passover Sacrifice-1 Cor 5:7

Scripture records Jesus as being in control. He came to be a sacrifice according to God’s sovereign plan. One might argue that Jesus was a victim of sinful men who acted against the law persecuting an innocent man. Even at this level God was in control.

Did Jesus kill Himself? Or was He killed by others?

Acts 2:23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:  This is contrary to a victim taken by some religious group to make a human sacrifice.

Have you not read in Scripture:

John 11:50

Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.

The Church taught me that this verse was in Scripture. Obviously, you didn’t know that the Jews sacrificed one man, Jesus Christ, for the sake of the nation. In other words, they “sacrificed” Jesus.

Or someone who is assaulted against their will.

Sacrifice has nothing to do with the victim’s will. Again have you not read in Scripture:

Judges 11:34-36

King James Version (KJV)

34 And Jephthah came to Mizpeh unto his house, and, behold, his daughter came out to meet him with timbrels and with dances: and she was his only child; beside her he had neither son nor daughter.  35 And it came to pass, when he saw her, that he rent his clothes, and said, Alas, my daughter! thou hast brought me very low, and thou art one of them that trouble me: for I have opened my mouth unto the Lord, and I cannot go back.  36 And she said unto him, My father, if thou hast opened thy mouth unto the Lord, do to me according to that which hath proceeded out of thy mouth; forasmuch as the Lord hath taken vengeance for thee of thine enemies, even of the children of Ammon.

Jeptha’s daughter was not unwilling. Can you say she was not a victim?

After having Jesus flogged and declaring Him innocent Pilate was told he had no authority over Jesus. John 19:9-11.  This simple interaction shows that Jesus was not a victim. His answer to Pilate’s veiled offer of potential release was to put Pilate in his place. Jesus in essence took away what authority Pilate thought he had. Pilate had no bargaining chips to offer Jesus who did not look for a way out of the false imprisonment as a victim would.

That is the most obvious example of READING INTO Scripture I have ever seen in my life. Where does Scripture say any of that? I don’t see it. You are simply reading into it that which you think unwilling victims would do.

Jesus most explicit statement of authority showing He is not a victim comes from the Gospel of John. John 10:17-18

That just explains that Jesus was a willing victim.

As being a Passover sacrifice in 1 Corinthians 5:7 and lamb of God in John 1:36 that was to be a one time sacrifice as the lamb of God

The Passover Lamb must be consumed (Exodus 12:8-10); that is why Jesus gave us the Bread which is His Flesh for the life of the world (John 6:51). So that we might participate in His Sacrifice and be saved (John 6:54).

Sincerely,

De Maria