"skeptical" deserves a better answer (Why call him Pope?)greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread |
The easiest way to muddle-up Jesus' teachings is to allow our church to claim, "When Jesus said X, he really meant Y."If you were taught, "When Einstein said E=MC-squared, he really meant, "E+MC-cubed." then it would be obvious that someone wasn't a very good teacher- Either Einstein or your teacher; one of them is wrong.
So, do the math. If: (A) Jesus was a very good teacher (never mind divine for purpose of this discussion.) (B) Jesus gave a very clear direction about using the term "Father".
Then, it's a really, really bad idea to call priests "father".
"Skeptical" seems to be intelligent, well-informed and well meaning - and there are millions like him/her out there who can see this blatant contradiction. As long as JohnPaul2 is in a mood for making apologies and generally getting his affairs in order, it would be nice if he just asked us all to drop the title "father".
---Billy Pilgrim
-- Billy Pilgrim (madhack@mail.md), October 05, 2000
Following your logics from now on I'll forbid my sons to call me "father", otherwise they'll be sinning every time they do so. I would like to know how many Catholics or non-Catholics will follow your advice. By the way, how do suggest that my children call me?Enrique
-- Enrique Ortiz (eaortiz@yahoo.com), October 05, 2000.
Don't strain at a gnat. Let 'em call you "Dad".
-- Billy Pilgrim (madhack@mail.md), October 05, 2000.
Hi, Enrique.
It is an unfortunate fact that many fathers in modern society have not lived up to their responsibilities.
Some have deserted their families.
Others have not deserted, but are absent from home so much (due to work, sports, bar-hopping, etc.) that they are hardly seen by their spouses and children.
Others are at home a lot, but keep to themselves, being absorbed in books, television, or hobbies -- not participating in family life.
Still others are at home a lot, but the families wish that they were not there, since they are drunkards, verbally abusive, violent (strikers), or sexually abusive (spousal rapists or incestuous with sons or daughters).
Finally, a small number of "spiritual fathers" (clergymen of all religions) and other "father figures" are seriously abusive in various ways toward their spiritual children or kids under their supervision.
Now ... there are many children of these poor "fathers" who, by a miracle of grace, do not develop an aversion toward them and do not experience discomfort in their relationship with God the Father.
But it should not surprise us that some children who have these poor-father[-figure] experiences do develop an aversion toward -- or a discomfort with -- not only the actual offending man in their lives, but sometimes all men in authority, sometimes all men in general, and sometimes even God the Father.
I'm sorry to have to observe that we are likely to meet some of these deeply hurt young people on this forum. Their true difficulties can be hidden behind the mask of an objection to Catholics calling their priests "Father." Their true difficulties can often become manifest in behaviors that are homosexual or radical feminist or non-conformist or disrespectful of laws, rules, and traditions.
It becomes clear, therefore, that others besides "fundamentalists" will object to the title, "Father" -- but for very different reasons.
I wish to offer my deepest sympathy and most heartfelt prayers for these innocent young people who have suffered greatly. May they experience the genuine love of a new "father figure" (and especially God the Father) so that they may forgive the offending fathers and may be healed of their wounds.
God bless you.
John
-- J. F. Gecik (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), October 06, 2000.
Yes John that's so beautifully put. I know exactly what you mean.Jane
-- Jane Ulrich (carlos.eire@yale.edu), October 06, 2000.
Billy: according to the Biblical commentaries I have read, the equivalent of "Dad" in hebrew is Abba, which St. Paul uses to refer to God. So by calling me Dad my sons wuold be still sinning, since they would be using God's name. Funny, isn't it?Enrique
-- Enrique Ortiz (eaortiz@yahoo.com), October 06, 2000.
Billy, you said,Don't strain at a gnat. Let 'em call you "Dad".
C'mon Billy, doesn't "dad" effectively mean the same thing as "father"? Who's straining at gnats here?
If you want to be specific, Jesus NEVER said don't use the term "father" as far as I know, he was speaking in Aramaic, NOT English, and so wouldn't have used and English word for "father" that his audience wouldn't have understood. I'll make you a deal, I won't call the Pope "Father" in Aramaic (and will continue to do so in English) if you'll quit worrying about it.
Motes and Gnats abound,
Frank
-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), October 06, 2000.
John,Jesus said, "This is My body." and we believe he meant exactly what he said. It's tuff, but he wasn't just talking to hear his head rattle
But when he gave a very clear direction about using the term "Father", we not only ignore it, but we insist that he must must have meant something else. Then we go ahead and apply the term to our priests.
I've always thought this contradiction was wierd. When "Skeptical" brought the topic up, he got the brush-off - I got called a homo.
Now, in recent memory, we all got used to changing the term "Holy Ghost" into "Holy Spirit". It was no big deal. It just corrected an accident of time/translation and the generally understood meaning of a word. Same this is much the same. "Skeptical" isn't unique. A lot of people are uncomfortable with this title, 'Father'. When we defend it, we're spin doctors. That's a shame.
Moreover, this discussion illustrates my original point: "The easiest way to muddle-up Jesus' teachings is to allow our church to claim, "When Jesus said X, he really meant Y."
There is obviously an error here that could be fixed to everyones' advantage. It's like when we de-canonized saints who had existed only in legand. That kind of house cleaning shows the world that we're serious and honest enough to fix our little screw-ups. It's an opportunity to teach our children, and remind the world, that Jesus revealed we have a parent/child relationship with our Creator.
As to your charge of abuse ... I have a youngster (18)living in my home, one of my son's friends, who was thrown out of his Mormon home. He's an excellent kid, but was never a good enough Mormon for his father.
When Travis was little, he told me about a book he had where the Mormons had tracked his geneology back to Adam. Kinda funny, really, because everybody knew that his dad wasn't his real father, and his folks had decided to wait untill he was 14 to tell him the truth.
So he showed up at my house, with only the clothes on his back. He later told me, "The truth is, that there wern't any ancient Jews in America. No lost tribes, no lost cities..." And he wouldn't go off on his Mormon mission and lie about it.
"The truth," I told him, "is that this isn't your fault, and what happened has nothing to do with you and has nothing to do with God. Your dad just bought into some fable. Now he'd rather lose you than admit that he's wrong and his own parents before him were wrong, too. Everybody's just going along with something they knew was wrong because it's tough to make waves when you're threatened with being banished."
Here's a kid who has been emotionally and spiritually abused by his dad, and it leads him to admit the truth. I like him. He'll enter the Marines in about a week.
If, as speculated, I only argue with the Church because of some abusive father or priest, it still wouldn't change the truth of the facts - Jesus said what he said; you know it, I know it, Skeptical knows it. Someday we'll fix it.
Billy Pilgrim
-- Billy Bilgrim (madhack@mail.md), October 06, 2000.
Jmj
I'm sorry, Billy, but you are quite wrong about this in general -- and wrong in many specific things you have written.
Please return to the thread initiated by "Skeptic" (Why Call Him Pope), and study all the replies much more carefully. His objections and yours were fully answered. The case is closed. (There is nothing for the Church to "fix.") Here is the URL for that thread:
http://greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=003mRk
"Skeptic" most certainly did not get "the brush-off." (And even more certainly, you did not get "called a homo.") If you will go to the original thread and study it objectively, you will find out what Jesus was really condemning -- the sort of "personality cults" that could be seen among the Jewish religious leaders, a phenomenon Jesus did not want to see starting among his followers.
By rereading that thread, you will see that St. Paul, inspired by God, referred to himself as a "father."
And if you will look into early Church history, you will find that the earliest Eastern bishops were referred to as "pappas" (Greek for "father").
Eventually, that term went through language changes and was applied to all bishops and priests. It is unbecoming of anyone to criticize the Church and claim that she needs to change on this. She has been reading and studying that passage of scripture for over 1950 years. She would never have begun (or at least would never have continued) to refer to bishops and priests as "father," if a literal ban of that title was really what Jesus had in mind. It is amazing that you don't give 2000 years of the Church's leaders (men wiser and more learned than me and you) credit for enough intelligence to have done what is right in this regard. Rather than side with fundamentalists and criticize your Church, you should humbly be learning from your Church. Until Gabriel blows his horn on that final day, Catholics will call their priests "Father."
Changing from "Holy Ghost" to "Holy Spirit" is in no way like changing from "Father" to something else. We still sing, "Come, Holy Ghost," because that is a perfectly proper term. Changing to "Spirit" was not a "correction," as you called it. It was simply a modernization, done because of the alternate connotations of the word "ghost."
Billy, you stated, "A lot of people are uncomfortable with this title, 'Father'. When we defend it, we're spin doctors. That's a shame."
The discomfort is unfortunate, but it has not been caused by the Church. The existence of discomfort does not drive Christian practice. Rather, the Church is willing to help those who are uncomfortable to become comfortable. She does not engage in "spin-doctoring," but wisely clings to nearly 2000 years of Apostolic Tradition, not paying attention to "political correctness."
Billy, you stated, "It's like when we de-canonized saints who had existed only in legend."
There is a saying that goes, "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing." Someone gave you just enough information on this topic to get you into trouble. The Church did not "de-canonize" any saints. Rather, she reformed the universal liturgical calendar in the late 1960s, simplifying it in various ways, one of which was the removal of very early saints about whom there was insufficient clear information. But no one was "de-canonized," and priests are still permitted to make a private choice (on some days) to celebrate Mass in memory of any of those ancient martyrs, etc., whose lives were so poorly documented. Yes, Billy, there is a Santa Claus -- and we are permitted to believe that there is also a St. Christopher (not "Mister Christopher," as some have cracked).
Finally, I must say that your "original point" does not withstand scrutiny. It is something that one would expect to hear, not from a Catholic, but only from a "literalist" fundamentalist. You stated, "The easiest way to muddle-up Jesus' teachings is to allow our church to claim, "When Jesus said X, he really meant Y."
From these words of yours, it follows that you believe that when Jesus said X, he really meant X -- and never anything else. Therefore, I would rather never meet you face-to-face, Billy, because you apparently lack your limbs and eyeballs. Yes, Jesus said "X" ("... if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off ... if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off ... if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out), so you believe that he meant exactly "X," and you most likely have been through some unpleasant amputations -- right? No, wrong. You take things literally when it pleases you to do so, and you take things figuratively when that pleases you. But this is not what a Catholic does. A Catholic accepts the guidance of the Magisterium, the successors of the Apostles, with respect to controversial passages, such as the one we are discussing.
(Oh, and I don't think that we should ever speak in terms of what we "allow our church to claim," to use your words. The Catholic faithful do not "allow" or "disallow" anything done by the Magisterium.)
God bless you.
John
-- J. F. Gecik (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), October 06, 2000.
From the Blue Letter Bible Commentary:2. (14-15) Living in the Spirit means living as a child of God
a. It is only fitting that those who are the sons of God be led by the Spirit of God; however, we should not think that being led by the Spirit is a pre-condition to being a son of God; instead, we become sons first, then we are able to be led by the Spirit of God b. Living as a child of God means an intimate, joyful relationship with God (not as the bondage and fear demonstrated by the law); it is exemplified in the cry Abba, Father! (Daddy!)
Enrique
-- Enrique Ortiz (eaortiz@yahoo.com), October 09, 2000.
Billy: I posted one of the Commentaries I found in the Blue Letter Bible on Rom. 8,15.It must be clarified that this Commentary IS NOT MADE by a Catholic.
Enrique
-- Enrique Ortiz (eaortiz@yahoo.com), October 09, 2000.
Is the Catholic Religion based on the Bible? Where did the Pope get the authority to say only Catholics will go to Heaven? It does not say that in the Bible. What is the Catholic Religion based on?
-- Susan Shepherd-Magistro (heartwjesus@yahoo.com), October 12, 2000.
Susan: maybe you have by now visited Chris' page. In case you haven't, here it is again:www.catholic.butlerlinks.com
Enrique
-- Enrique Ortiz (eaortiz@yahoo.com), October 12, 2000.
Enrique, What , don't you know the answer? It's a pretty straight forward question. The Catholic Religion was created by some human being. The Bible has the answers to all of lifes questions. You don't need a religion, just true faith in Jesus Christ and a church that teaches the Bible, and does not add or take away from the word of GOD.... Susan
-- Susan Shepherd-Magistro (heartwjesus@yahoo.com), October 12, 2000.
Susan. YOU WROTE:The Catholic Religion was created by some human being.
So was the Bible, Isaiah, Moses, Mark, .....were human beings.
Enrique
-- Enrique Ortiz (eaortiz@yahoo.com), October 13, 2000.
Susan,The Catholic Church defined the canons of the Old and New Testaments at the councils of Hippo (393 A.D.) and Carthage (397 A.D.). This was the first time that which books of "The Bible" were officially defined as being inspired, or not.
How then can you say that all of life's questions are in the Bible, but not in the church when it was the church (with God's inspiration) who DECIDED what books belonged in the Bible and which didn't?
The traditions of the Catholic church go back to Jesus and His disciples. Jesus didn't say "only read this book", and IMO, neither should you.
Frank
-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), October 13, 2000.
Susan? You around?Frank
-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), October 16, 2000.
Hi Frank, I really don't care what the Catholic Church defined,or decided.Don't care about their traditions.I do care about the accounts by the Apostles of Jesus and His teachings.I believe that the Bible is TRUE, and I am going to live the rest of my life the way Jesus told us to live it. May Jesus show you the way.Susan
-- Susan Shepherd-Magistro (heartwjesus@yahoo.com), October 16, 2000.
Frank, I'm going to say the same thing that I just told Enrique, John and Claire. Let's all just agree that we don't agree on everything. Also when I said "May Jesus show you the way" I meant if you don't already know. You and I have not conversed much. My heart has been grieving over all this bashing that has been going on. I love people, black yellow, brown, red & white. My goal in life for the last 5 years has been to spread the Truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ to those who don't know Him. So, I pray that I have not offended you, and if I have ,I apologize. Love in Jesus name, Susan
-- Susan Shepherd-Magistro (heartwjesus@yahoo.com), October 17, 2000.
Boy, do you people ever get off topic!
-- Billy Pilgrim (madhack@mail.md), October 18, 2000.
Billy, Where have you been? I don't like being out on this edge all by myself.Susan
-- Susan Shepherd-Magistro (heartwjesus@yahoo.com), October 19, 2000.
Hi Susan! ... didn't mean to abandon you.As I refocus on this topic, I'll try a fresh angle; "anomaly".
An anomaly is a fact that doesn't fit in with the other facts at hand; a ship's disappearance over the horizon is an anomaly to sailors who have been taught that the earth is flat. They investigate (over the deck hands' objections) and, lo, wonderful discoveries are made.
How do we handle an anomaly in Catholicism???
There really is no mechanism of inquiry. Instead, we have a gasbag system in place that says, in effect, that all this has already been thought through so a Catholics proper duty is to shut up.
It's kind of like the youngster I mentioned before, who moved into my house when he refused to go on his Mormon mission. The obvious fact that there are no Mormon artifacts showing their ancient existence in America is an anomaly. Mormons teach that there was an ancient Semite tribe in America that had swords, cities, etc. Since there are no ancient cites, no ancient mines or forges, a realistic kid knows that someone has made the whole thing up.
I pointed out a rather harmless anomaly. But it reminds me of the old joke: " Have ya heard their canceling Easter this year? Yeah .. They found the body."
The Templeton Prize for advancement in religion is a lot bigger $$$ prize than the Nobel Prize. But with the gasbag approach to anomalies, advancement is not likely to happen.
-- Billy Pilgrim (madhack@mail.md), October 19, 2000.
+
Hi, Billy.
You words sadden me, because they reveal your unfamiliarity with what the Church actually permits and how she acts.
You wrote: "How do we handle an anomaly in Catholicism? There really is no mechanism of inquiry. Instead, we have a gasbag system in place that says, in effect, that all this has already been thought through so a Catholics proper duty is to shut up."
When fresh new and unforeseen matters (including "anomalies") arise in the voyage of civilized mankind, Catholics are more than welcome to theorize, speculate, philosophize, theologize, and follow their consciences -- until such time as the Magisterium (pope and bishops in union with him) makes a firm judgment and gives us their teaching.
When faced with something truly new, our Church's teachers most certainly would take into consideration all legitimate opinions that will have been presented (including anything you would have sent to them, Billy) -- and, having prayerfully analyzed them against the backdrop of Divine Revelation and all the past doctrine derived from it, they would arrive at a decision guided by the Holy Spirit. Part of being a Catholic is to trust the decision made and not to dissent from it. One who insists on an alleged "right" to dissent is one who needs to admit that he has actually stepped outside communion with the Church -- until such time as his veil has been lifted and he can give the appropriate humble submission called for by the documents of Vatican I and II.
I fear, however, that you, Billy, may be among those who have been deeply influenced by democratic government, as we have in the U.S. and other nations. It seems that you may be interested in having a Church in which the majority rules. If so, then you will have to seek out a comfortable protestant denomination in which such a viewpoint is welcome. By now, you should be aware of the fact that it is incompatible with Catholicism. Jesus simply did not intend for things to be that way in religion, because humans cannot "vote" on what is true (faith doctrines) or right (moral doctrines). Nor can they say that something is true one day, but false some time later -- which is what happens when "majority rules."
It is not the Magisterial teaching approach provided us by Jesus that is a "gasbag," but rather the "majority rules" approach is the "gasbag," since it is [with apologies to Shakespeare] "a tale told by dissenters -- full of sound and fury, but signifying nothing."
God bless you.
John
-- J. F. Gecik (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), October 19, 2000.
Billy,I've got one for you. I asked Jesus," How much do you Love me? He said, " This much". Then He stretched out His arms and died. Not very funny , huh? I wish words could express how I feel about Jesus. I can make a feeble attempt to express it. I have been a huge sinner. I didn't deserve forgiveness. But Jesus took the stripes for my sin.Why did He do it? Because He is LOVE. Selfless and perfect. John, I think you'll recognize this prayer by: Frances Xavier My God, I love thee; Not because I hope for heaven thereby Nor yet because who love thee not must die eternally. Thou,O my Jesus,Thou didst me upon the cross embrace; For me didst bear the nails, and spear, and manifold disgrace, Why, then why, O blessed Jesus Christ, Should I not love Thee well? Not for the hope of winning heaven or of escaping hell, Not with the hope of gaining aught, Not seeking a reward; But as Thyself hast loved me, O everloving Lord! Even so I love Thee, and will love, and in Thy praise will sing; Solely because Thou art my God, and my Eternal King. Love, Susan
-- Susan Shepherd-Magistro (heartwjesus@yahoo.com), October 19, 2000.
John,It is not a matter of democracy that causes someone to face the fact that Jesus, like Americans, had a healthy reticence regarding the use of titles. It was pointed out that there is great irony in how our church turns around and applies the terms "Father" to it's own priests. That is a legitimate point, Johnny boy, but not a fatal flaw in Catholicism.
I have only argued that Jesus said what he said, and it's really bogus to claim that he meant something else. Here are the results:
- I have been belittled by those who distort the discussion (My kids mustn't call me Dad).
- I have been painted as one having difficulty with authority in general, my father in particular, and perhaps a latent homo.
- I have been told to "seek out a comfortable Protestant denomination"
What arrogance!
There are millions of us - Catholics who are fed up with the self-anointed, pompous one-upmanship so routine in our church. When you belittle us, you lose. When you accuse us of being homos, you reveal more about your own problems than mine. When you suggest we would be happier elsewhere, you undermine the Church. There are millions of us and we are not going away.
The legacy of Vatican2 is, "Who died and left you king?"
-- Billy Pilgrim (madhack@mail.md), October 20, 2000.
+ Thanks for the lovely prayer, Susan.
I wish you a pleasant weekend.
John
-- J. F. Gecik (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), October 20, 2000.