Posted on 11/15/2023 8:11:03 PM PST by Morgana
The number of abuse cases in public schools dwarfs anything that can be attributed to Catholic priests by several orders of magnitude. AND it’s ongoing. AND they cover it up scrupulously. AND they’ve gotten bold enough now that parents who try to defend their kids against the abuse (ie, the gay and trans social contagions) may be brought up on charges and lose custody.
And public schools don’t claim to be *holy* and represent Christ to the world.
And again, as Catholics have been told time and again, it’s
the mishandling of the abuse that is the biggest problem.
I never said nor implied that. You have failed to read my posts on it so I’ll repeat them again......
See post 11 of mine in this thread, and for that matter, go back and re-read the threads comments as others make the same point.
And this post......
https://freerepublic.com/focus/religion/4197135/posts?page=15#15
Are you going to demand that Catholic posters lay off non-Catholics about abuse of children, too? Or is it only non-Catholics who cannot expose and rightly condemn the handling of its sexually abusive priests? Or maybe CATHOLICS will actually admit that their church messed up in that area? Something I see precious few do.
It speaks volumes that most Catholics dismiss it and excuse it away or deflect whenever the topic comes up instead of actually condemning the priests who did it and the way the Catholic hierarchy handled it.
Or are you all really OK with priests being moved around to protect them, that they are given access to fresh victims, allowed to continue to claim they act as representatives of Christ, and that they do not serve time in jail for their actions?
Is the fact that your church’s hierarchy over centuries of time and worldwide enabled predator priests, not a problem for you?
15 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.
It never gets old... lol.
And it’s possible to show this issue extends much further back in time for Rome.
Except in all of his writings Paul never introduced himself as Father Paul.
Looks like Paul was complaining that no one...
...wait for it...
...called him father.
And no one CALLED him FATHER Paul; either!
So lets get back to the Bible...
As Paul DOES claim himself still, to be a Father,
in THE Bible
Through spreading and preaching the Gospel...
You certainly then can have no problem
With a Catholic Priest, calling HIMSELF a Father of
His Parishioners?
Yes?
Not that we Parishioners can call him Father...mind you
Does Paul set that precedent then?
Thoughts?
Does Scripture lie or not?
Does GOD lie in Scripture or not?
Why do you use examples of what you all seem to think of someone disobeying Jesus to justify YOUR disobeying Jesus, if He REALLY meant that nobody should ever identify another person as a father?
The context of the passage is about religious leaders as Catholics have been told time and again and will continue to be told. He’s addressing the use of religious titles for religious and by religious leaders. There is nothing in that passage that indicates that any other use of the word aside from a title, as in *FATHER* Paul, is prohibited
Why are Catholics such Bible literalists when it comes to cherry picked verses that contradict Scripture when it comes to supporting some Catholic doctrine, but when they want to justify disobeying Jesus, it’s excuse and rationalization city? The plain clear meaning of a passage is not enough, but it needs to be *interpreted* to mean something other than what it says.
All would include everyone EXCEPT Christ.
You’d think our fellow Christians would band together in celebrating our allegiance to God and Jesus, especially in light of the ongoing Muslim Crusade to turn the world Islamic. Instead they think nothing of constantly denigrating the Catholic faith in hopes that we’ll abandon it and turn to their “religion,” usually an obscure non-denominational form of Christianity with no hierarchy and therefore no one to blame when their own clergy abuse and debase their congregants. I don’t consider their behavior to be “Christian” when they continuously attack the only Church that Jesus founded, and I don’t think He does either.
St. Paul IS NOT disobeying Christ.
That is false box you have to put tourself in to make your false claims upon.
Nor does Jesus disobey Jesus in that passage-
(that you want to isolate- it of context- for your own bias.)
when Jesus rebukes Nicodemus and calls him a "Teacher of Israel"...
Is Jesus contradicting himself -" call no one Teacher..."-as well?
Or when in his parables he uses the title of "Master"... vs. his "Call no one Master..."
NO.READ the entire passage as a whole- not isolating one snetence.
Only a conjured twisted theology would think that Matt 23
was purposed for some neat clause Jesus stuck in there so that Catholics -
hundreds of years later
could be faulted- chastised- for seeing the Parish priest as a Father of a Faith community
such as St. Paul archetyped.
Catholics KNOW WE HAVE ONE ABBA FATHER in Heaven-
and join the Priest at Mass in every Mass praising the ONLY Father in Heaven,
reciting "OUR FATHER WHO ART IN HEAVEN"... which puts all Chrsitians in his sonship.
Though its hard for you to get, Catholics really don't get confused- mixing up Fr. Matt who lives in the Rectory-
with Abba Father in Heaven- either.
WHICH IS the context of Matt 23- which you choose to ignore.
(Maybe some ex-Catholics got confused on that... but I'm sure it is rare.)
The context of the passage is about religious leaders as Catholics have been told time and again
and will continue to be told. He’s addressing the use of religious titles for religious
and by religious leaders. There is nothing in that passage that indicates that any other use of the word
aside from a title, as in *FATHER* Paul, is prohibited
What are you talking about?
Your making assumptions there you cannot make.
Do you think Jesus is referring to Jews of his day calling Rabbi’s “Father” so-and-so?
Or as mentioned- a clause there to prevent Catholics -hundreds of years in the future- from doing so?
The passage context is about ABUSE of religious authority, exalting MEN to a position reserved for God-
About praising a humility and recognizing the Supreme authority of God- above all humans, idols and ruling authorities .
Jesus spoke Aramaic- NOT GREEK
Jesus would have used the word "Abba" to describe or call on God – not the commonly greek translated “Father”.
The Greek translation for generic "Father" of any description is misleading.
Jesus recoginizes the commandment to honor thy Father-
and refers to HUMAN Fatherhood in scripture.
That is the Fatherhood St. Paul ascribes to himself – NOT a competitive - DIVINE - Fatherhood- you can't get past.
Your literalist interpretation in this matter fails on many levels- and that’s what I am pointing out to you.
Why are Catholics such Bible literalists when it comes to cherry picked verses
that contradict Scripture when it comes to supporting some Catholic doctrine,
but when they want to justify disobeying Jesus, it’s excuse
and rationalization city? The plain clear meaning of a passage is not enough,
but it needs to be *interpreted* to mean something other than what it says.
Literalists? Cherry picking? Please.
Look in the mirror – because you are seriously projecting here.
Even worse- you guys, straight-faced, can make interpretation
based solely on only a partial individual verse- ignoring even a complete sentence !
Its done falsely to attack Catholics- and its done ALL.THE.TIME.
Ignoring surrounding context in passages- as if it did not apply is your forte.
If you just looked deeper into scripture and ask –
Why do I really believe this?
Investigating with honest discernment- (and not just falling for what someone tells you)
your faith life would be enriched even more.
You want to adhere to Sola Scriptura doctrine- fine-
but what I can tell you refuse to do little more than scratch the surface of these rich, multilevel ancient texts.
You treat the Bible as a sort of text book for self-referential needs.
That aint even Bible Alone.
Again St. PAUL DOES NOT DISOBEY Jesus, and my pointing it out is NOT some sort of gotcha. It is exactly what it it written.
He is exactly correct in his Fatherly role in Faith.
He CLEARLY knows the distinction of giving himself Fatherly responsibility
that is aligned with proclaiming the Gospel -
And IS NOT disobeying “call no man Abba Father ON EARTH”.
Nor does he confuse his Fatherhood, with God’s- as he wrote, and said often…
Romans 8:15
15 For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear,
but you have received the spirit of sonship.
When we cry, “Abba! Father!”
Galatians 4:6 -
And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.
Hebrews 12
It is for discipline that you endure; God deals with you as with sons;
for what son is there whom his father does not discipline?
But if you are without discipline, of which all have become partakers, then you are illegitimate children and not sons.
Furthermore, we had earthly fathers [plural] to discipline us, and we respected them
1 Corinthians 8:6 ESV
Yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we
exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.
Ephesians 4:6 ESV
One God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.
St. Paul was not confused in his role.
I’m tempted to give you many verses where scripture indicates “Father” in many earthly- non-confusing instances…
honoring, dividing, not loving a biological father more than God….
But I think (hope) you get the idea.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.