Hi Everyone, Can someone explain to me why a Preist is called Father.

As I understand it, the Bible says that no one shall be called Father, for there is only one Father; Jesus Christ.

Sincerely, Kathy

-- Kathy (Curious@aol.com), March 12, 2002

Answers

Hello Kathy,

EWTN provides a bible-based answer at this URL: http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/father_for_priests.htm

I hope this helps.

Mateo

-- (MateoElFeo@netscape.net), March 12, 2002.

Kathy, does this mean you don't call your own father Father?

-- Christina (introibo2000@yahoo.com), March 13, 2002.

Kathy, You are right. It's such an obvious contradiction to the gospel that it attracts the attention of anti-Catholics, who in turn say that it is evidence that Catholicism is a false religion. If the Church could get us to stop saying holy "Ghost", if they can drop the Latin mass and add a phrase to the Lord's Prayer, you'd think they could settle this. Maybe call priests "Pastor". A monsignor recently told me he thought all priests should be called "monsignor". It's not a minor thing to many people. At the very least, it points out the arrogance of the old exalted clerical culture that is now imploding. The traditionalists will insist that they are right because the church is right because this has already been addressed and resolved, etc, etc., etc. But you are right. When an explanation of our religion has to begin with, "Jesus said not to call men Father, but he didn't mean it; in fact he want's us to the opposite." Well, what can I say. You're right.

-- Bob Hennessy (bobhenn@hotmail.com), March 13, 2002.

Bob, -You have NO authority to say absolutely ANYTHING about the Church's teaching and ritual. You said so yourself, you're a fallen-away Catholic. Since when is your opinion worth squat to practicing Catholics? Even if you were correct, which you aren't--

Our Lord said we have one Father, His FATHER in heaven / / not Jesus Himself. He says it in the prayer He taught us, OUR FATHER, and He calls on His heavenly Father throughout the New Testament narratives. But in these same narratives, Jesus says many other things which show the foolishness of how you see the scriptural verse. He Himself said --''Your fathers ate of the mannah from heaven--'', --''What father would give a serpent to his child, who asks him for a loaf of bread?'' plus many other similar words about fathers. Proving that the verse you (incorrectly) interpret is not a literal command, but His own homage as a man to God the Father.

The Church does NOT contradict scripture. You misread scripture and contradict the Holy Church of the Apostles.

Our priests are called Father only as a matter of respect; because they stand as spiritual fathers to the people of their Church. We stand as the faithful children of our pastors; and calling them ''father'' does NOT take ONE THING away from our worship of God the eternal Father. Because (open your eyes and SEE) if it did take something away, the Church would NOT allow it! The Catholic Church, with her ultimate authority from Christ is perfectly capable of knowing what is properly God's and what is for the world. She doesn't need Bob Hennessy to ''cocka-doodle-doo'' about what he thinks.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), March 13, 2002.

Kathy

Also, the scripture in question is a statement against titles given to rabbis who accepted them as something which gave them undue superiority. So perhaps it was a statement by Jesus about the mind of the rabbi in his time more than about the use of the word "father" for all times. The rabbi thought that God considered the rabbi to be a superior soul because he occupied that teaching office. So the words of Jesus were a statement to oppose that situation.

Any title I pick up later in life is apt to make me arrogant. The devil will see to that. I suppose our birth name is the safest but even that could give us a fat ego if we come from a prominent family. Maybe that is why members of religious orders get new saints names, the confirmed get new saints names etc. We might get spiritual pride from these saints names too but that might be safer than worldly pride? Superiors of orders are called "superior", that could feed the ego.

The church does teach that we are entitled to just honors that our positions give us. From the Catholic Encyclopedia on Honor :

QUOTE "Honour may be defined as the deferential recognition by word or sign of another's worth or station. Thus I show honour to another by giving him his title if he have one, and by raising my hat to him, or by yielding to him a place of precedence. I thereby give expression to my sense of his worth, and at the same time I profess my own inferiority to him."

"We have also seen that, according to Catholic doctrine, all are bound in justice to give honour to whom honour is due. It follows from this that it is not morally wrong to seek honour in due moderation and with the proper motive. And yet Christ severely blamed the Pharisees for loving the first places at feasts, the first chairs in the synagogues, salutations in the marketplace, and titles of honour. He told His disciples not to be called Rabbi, Father, or Master, like the Pharisees; the greatest among His disciples should be the servant of all; and whosoever exalteth himself shall be humbled, and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.

Here we touch upon the distinctive characteristic of Christian morality as distinguished from pagan ethics. The ideal type of manhood in the system of Aristotle is drawn for us in that philosopher's celebrated description of the magnanimous man. The magnanimous man is described as one who, being really worthy of great things, holds himself worthy of them. For he who holds himself thus worthy beyond his real deserts is a fool, and no man possessed of any virtue whatsoever can ever be a fool or show want of understanding. He, on the other hand who holds himself worthy of less than his merits is little-minded, no matter whether the merits which he thus underrates be great, or moderate, or small." END QUOTE

Therefore, we see that titles are a matter of Justice which gets little consideration in the excessively liberal world of today.

Jesus' message also is, do whatever it takes so you don't get a fat ego from your title. If a priest is getting this effect from "father" he might push another term among his parish if he chooses. But that might not correct the situation either. Jesus may have been speaking to wean his disciples off of allegiance to rabbi ways.

I think a name is better than a number. At the Massachusetts Institute of Technology they name buildings with numbers only. I hope we never have to greet one another as, "Good morning #284!".

Jesus also mentioned "teacher" as an improper title which is used heavily today. When I "taught" school some students accused me that "teachers" were on a power trip. If that is true for a teacher than they ought to humble themself somehow.

I also read a Catholic commentary that the term "father" for a priest was not always used in the history of the Church. They said it "slipped back in" during the rise of monasticism. But the commentator never said it was a weakness on the Churchs' part to let this happen.

-- Mike H (michael.hitzelberger@vscc.cc.tn.us), March 13, 2002.

Thank You for your responses. However, Eugene in many of the different threads I have read, you appear to be extremely defensive. It appears as though if someone sounds non-catholic with the questions they are seeking answers to, and you don't like it, I must say your responses are not very Christian like. Were you not taught by anyone that if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all? Are you in this forum looking for an argument? Do you enjoy mud slinging? It seems to me that most of the questions posed in this forum are genuine. Yes, there may be a few who are looking to bash, but others are truly looking for answers. Whether it comes from a Catholic or not, it is nice to have more than one view point. Furthermore, it shows ignorance, ugliness and hatred.

Kathy

-- Kathy (Curious @aol.com), March 13, 2002.

You are almost correct, Kathy:
Not defensive, aggressive is the word you're looking for.

You are close-- ''If someone sounds non-Catholic with the questions they are seeking answers to, and you don't like it--'' --

But??? Look back at these posts. No one came asking ''questions''. Bob provoked us:

''. . . Obvious contradiction to the gospel that it attracts the attention of anti-Catholics, who in turn say that it is evidence that Catholicism is a false religion.---.''

''At the very least, it points out the arrogance of the old exalted clerical culture that is now imploding.''

When an explanation of our religion has to begin with, "Jesus said not to call men Father, but he didn't mean it; in fact he wants us to the opposite. Well, what can I say?''

Bob is a devil's advocate against our faith. He, a ''recovered Catholic'', sees fit to lecture the Church of his fathers; as if he were judge and jury; and we (I) must treat him with deference?

When every phrase directed against the faith of Catholics is inflammatory, we can't react with some negative reply?

No wonder all is upside-down!

The men of our age are being feminized in the name of charity!

Kathy, forgive me; but Bob has NO spiritual authority from heaven OR earth, to criticize the Church of Jesus Christ and His holy apostles! NONE! All I said to him is, ''Keep your opinion to yourself.''

I did it because my whiskers give me that right as a Catholic. If I were a girl like you, I wouldn't dare. There's a real difference between you and me. We each have the grace of God. But it operates differently in men and women. --God bless you /

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), March 14, 2002.

Eugene,

I just have to interject something briefly. Kathy has mentioned how enraged you seem to be at times and many times you use something like the following for your justification.

Kathy, forgive me; but Bob has NO spiritual authority from heaven OR earth, to criticize the Church of Jesus Christ and His holy apostles! NONE! All I said to him is, ''Keep your opinion to yourself.''

The problem is that your premise is false. You have failed to convince many of the questioners on this forum that the Catholic church is indeed this one and only church of Jesus Christ. So, to those who are not convinced of this point, your logic based on this premise means nothing. If you are going to be able to convince questioners, perhaps like Bob, you will have to use something that both of you can agree on as an absolute standard. In many cases it comes down to sola scriptura.

A fellow Catholic who doesn't want to stir the pot would be satisfied with this answer that you gave above. Because (open your eyes and SEE) if it did take something away, the Church would NOT allow it! The Catholic Church, with her ultimate authority from Christ is perfectly capable of knowing what is properly God's and what is for the world. She doesn't need Bob Hennessy to ''cocka-doodle-doo'' about what he thinks.

However, the precise nature of Kathy's question is the issue that the church DOES contradict plain scripture. Your answer above simply states your dogmatic opinion that the church can not do anything wrong. It does not prove a stitch about what Kathy is asking because she is wondering just the opposite: The church IS allowing something that is against the scriptures

The ultimate conclusion is that the word of the church supercedes EVERYTHING. Even the scriptures that it is suppose to be based on. Dogmatism is only going to look less credible. You will need something more than it to properly defend your position.

-- Joe (namodi@hotmail.com), March 14, 2002.

Well, Joe...do you ignore the passage just before, in the gospel of Matthew, chapter 23, verse 8, which reads thus:

"As for you, do not be called 'Rabbi.' You have but one teacher, and you are al brothers."

If your judgement is to be embraced, we should never call our educators by the title of teacher...further, we should not refer to our male donator of our genetic material as father.

Easily explainable...Jesus was telling his listeners that they should place their full faith in their God, and not the over-stuffed Pharasaical shirts. Holy cow, a little background knowledge would serve many very well.

-- Melissa (holy_rhodes@earthlink.net), March 14, 2002.

Thank you Joe for your view point.

Melissa, that does not answer my questions. Secondly, we do not actually call a "teacher" teacher. We call them Mr./Mrs. "so & so". And we do not call our biological "father", father, we call him dad.

And third, If there is a Jewish person in this forum, I would be interested in knowing the answer to the Rabbi question.

Moreover, if you were answering my question, I would have to assume that your saying because we call a "teacher" teacher, it is okay to call a priest Father. And, that two wrongs make a right.

I was with all sincerity, asking a question, to which I was curiously seeking an answer too.

Kathy

-- Kathy (Curious@aol.com), March 14, 2002.

JOE "And we do not call our biological "father", father, we call him dad."

Well Joe, you have made the most stupidest boner I have yet to see on this forum from a fundalmentalist. For you information, many of us remember "Father Knows Best" a popular TV show of the 50's thru the 60's. All of us kids always mentioned of our paternal parent as "FATHER." In our family We all did. so for your information to make such a poor judgement of words needs careful consideration and thought. Common sense is quite prevalent here and you have none of that. I still to this day refer to my father as FATHER. If you have a problem with that then you better throw that soa scriptura Bible out the window and listen to US well for you have clearly shown me the words of the DEVIL.

-- Fred Bishop (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), March 14, 2002.

Joe

Also for your infoemation, we call a Priest father for the express reason as his role is a teacher and if you knew anything at all the role of the Paternal male is to be the teacher of his children. So the Priest who also is a minister of our faith, stands before GOD and teaches us our faith and we call him FATHER because of his annoited role of Teacher, Rabbi, Father, or Padre. What in the world is your problem? You read in the words of GOD the wrong values just like the rest of the fundalmentalists. Father in the earthly role is TEACHER and in the heavenly role is the creator and teacher of all things. They are two distinct roles and they compliment each other. PERIOD.

-- Fred Bishop (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), March 14, 2002.

Joe,Your literal slant is clearly of anti-Catholic origin, and never amounted to anything.

If Kathy failed to see this truth, she is now witnessing the Catholic view, and it's NOT a false premise. It's the sole valid premise for interpreting Our Saviour's true intent; the APOSTLES. They are who taught the Holy Catholic Church. The Holy Spirit in the Church validates all Church teaching on faith and morals. He alone illumines all controversy over Holy Scripture as well. For the Church.

The Holy Bible can be employed for upholding truth; which is God's Word. But the DEVIL clearly loved misconstruing the words of Scripture to Christ's face! If he could do it, the enemies of Christ's Holy Church can do it as well; since YOU are interested mainly in discrediting the Church!

In the case of poor Kathy, her inquiry has to do with a seeming (to her mind) reverse interpretation by the Church of Call no man Father -- the result of seeking a Sola Scriptural understanding. WHY???

If you are able to find a place in the Bible stating Sola Scriptura is the ONLY rule of faith without the Church, show it to Kathy, will you?

YOU are fused like a limpet to every literal meaning, as long as it fights the Church's authority. But what authority for Sola Scriptura IS there in the Bible? None. I can show Kathy several basic statements by Christ Himself, giving clear and complete authority to His Church. You say we haven't proved this? Read the Bible again, Joe. Christ speaks of His Church many times in the gospels. He speaks to Saint Peter about the keys to the kingdom of heaven, and the power of the Holy Spirit to guide His Church. When Jesus speaks, Christians ought to listen. Don't ignore His most important words and gloat over the word ''father''. You've been penny wise and pound foolish

I'm busy, or I'd send you all the chapter-verse proof-texts. If you're sincerely interested in the truth, go find them yourself. Kathy is quite adult enough to do that too.
I found them for myself.


-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), March 14, 2002.

Fred,

You misattributed this quote to me above to me: And we do not call our biological "father", father, we call him dad.

Calling an earthly father "Father" is no problem. This is not what Jesus is referring to. He is referring to the custom to call their Rabbis and teachers "Father" as though they were some kind of spiritual father to them. Jesus says "NO" you have ONE father and he's in heaven. We should not call earthly sinful men our spiritual Fathers as they did with the Rabbis. This is my point.

Eugene, Yes, the Word of God is not the end. Jesus said that the Holy Spirit will lead us and guide us into all truth. We agree on this. I believe, that the Catholic church has lost the Holy Spirit centuries ago and thus is being lead by doctrines of demons. My proof of this is all of its contradictions with the Word of God and all of its occultic roots. This is where we disagree.

-- Joe (namodi@hotmail.com), March 14, 2002.

But, Joe My Friend:
The Holy Spirit is gone from Christ's Church???

OK, you said, I believe --I believe, that the Catholic Church lost the Holy Spirit centuries ago--. YOU are the only proof of this; and you contradict the words of Jesus Christ. He said to His apostles, - - - - ''I am with you ALL DAYS; even to the end of the world.'' (Matt, 28 :20)

''I have chosen you, and have appointed you, that you should go and bear fruit, and that your fruit should REMAIN,'' (Jn 15, :16)

''Even as thou --Father, has sent me into the world, so I also have sent them into the world; for them I sanctify myself, that they also may be sanctified in TRUTH. Yet not for these only do I pray; but for those who through their word are to believe in me--(Jn, 17, :18 through 20).

''Father, I will that where I am, they also whom thou hast given me (HIS CHURCH) may be with me, (verse :24) --Then, in :26, ''I have made known to them thy name, and WILL MAKE IT KNOWN, in order that the love with which thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them.''

+ + +
Sure doesn't sound like the Catholic Church was destined to ''lose'' the holy Spirit any time between THEN and the second coming of Jesus Christ! --How do you suppose you ever got that idea? It sure isn't prophesied by Christ; not at ALL!

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), March 14, 2002.

Joe

You have a fully corrupted mind and it shows clearly. For if a priest is to stand in for the Father Almighty is he not also speaking in his place? You need to learn the scriptures from when they were written, not in todays english. You have been mislead by words not by faith. Yo have faith you need to stop this sola scriptura baloney and listen to what we say. IS IT NOT THE PRIEST WHO IS SPEAKING FOR GOD. The answer is clearly, YES he is. He is guiding us to GOD and that is all I need to know and you have no right to come in here to question that. We Catholics have a clear understanding of this role, so leave it alone.

-- Fred Bishop (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), March 14, 2002.

Hey, Kathy....

As you can see, you are not really welcome to ask questions or participate in pleasant conversation here unless you have done some advanced studies in patristics and homiletics.

Also, you misspelled "priest" as "Preist", so you are not as smart as Eugene. Eugene has made a clear and convincing case that you have to be really, really smart to understand Jesus.

Bless you & bless me & bless, bless, bless; but good luck in hell, if you insist on a simple answer to a simple question about a simple statement by your Savior.

-- bob (bobhenn@hotmail.com), March 14, 2002.

Hi Fred,

First let me just say that I am the one who said "we do not call our father "father", we call him dad." Not Joe. Yes, I have seen the popular TV series "Father Knowes Best". I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I think it is safe to say that most of us refer to our father's as "father" in conversation. But to call on him, I would speak to him as "dad". I hope this clears up what you thought came from Joe.

I am a bit insulted by your response to that, for it came from me not Joe. Even if it had come from Joe, I am still dissappointed in your response. Please do not judge that way, (MATTHEW 7:6).

Eugene,

If you do have the time I would appreciate it if you could tell me what chapter and verse you are speaking of. If it helps at all, I am looking in the NIV of the Bible. Thanking you in advance.

I have read all of MATTHEW 23, am I missing something?

God Bless All,

-- Kathy (Kathy@curious.com), March 14, 2002.

Dear JOE:

a ''Ask questions or participate in pleasant conversation?''

Not actually what you tried to do. You said the Church has been preaching false doctrine. You also said in another thread that the Church lost the Holy Spirit, centuries ago.

These are inflammatory remarks, not questions or pleasant conversation. I quote you:

The ultimate conclusion is that the word of the Church supercedes EVERYTHING. Even the scriptures that it is suppose to be based on. Dogmatism is only going to look less credible. You will need something more than it to properly defend your position.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), March 14, 2002.

Kathy,

1Cor.4:14-17 14-I am writing you this not to shame you, but to admonish you as my beloved children. 15-Even if you have countless guides to Christ, yet you do not have many fathers, for I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel. 16- Therefore, I urge you, be imitators of me. 17-For this reason I am sending you Timothy, who is my beloved and faithful son in the Lord; he will remind you of my ways in Christ (Jesus), just as I teach them everywhere in the Church.

Now Kathy, this clearly alludes the it being ok to use the term " father " in the context of the Church. As we have fathers of families, so, we have fathers in the Church. The empasis of Christ is our calling no one else "Father" is directly related to our Father in Heaven. This did notmean we were to abolish the word from our vocabulary.

David S

-- David S (asdzxc8176@aol.com), March 14, 2002.

Kathy

If you look at the direct comment to me by Joe just a few letters above this one, you will see that Joe did indeed make a query or statement directed directly to me and I did answer him. So what is your problem?

-- Fred Bishop (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), March 14, 2002.

Submitted by accident, sorry!

--The ultimate conclusion is that the word of the church supercedes EVERYTHING. Even the scriptures that it is suppose to be based on. Dogmatism is only going to look less credible. You will need something more than it to properly defend your position.

+

You will need something more before you dispute with the Church. The Church was not based on the scriptures. The scriptures came to us through the Church. The Church founded by Christ; we are told in the scriptures. (BTW-- I know it was BOB, not Joe-- I got you mixed up)

You say:

The ultimate conclusion is that the word of the church supercedes EVERYTHING. Even the scriptures--? NO-- the Church supercedes YOUR renditions of Holy Scripture, Bob. YOURS. Not the actual scriptures; the Church is altogether scriptural --You have no authority to second-guess her authority. PERIOD!

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), March 14, 2002.

David,

Thank you for your response. Would you tell me what Bible you are quoting from? I don't know if you saw my earlier thread, but I am reading from the NIV. Thanks.

P.S. My reason for asking is because in 1 CORINTHIANS 4:17 in my (NIV) Bible says; ....which agrees with what I teach everywhere in "every" church. Thank you again for your responses. God Bless You,

-- Kathy (Curious@aol.com), March 14, 2002.

Fred,

In response to "what is your problem", I just don't like the hostility.

As I said earlier, I came here with a sincere question, looking for a sincere answer.

People learn something new everyday. I seek to learn new things on a daily basis in every aspect of life. The internet has such a broad range of information. That is why I chose this site to pose this particular question in.

-- Kathy (curious@aol.com), March 14, 2002.

Kathy

We as Catholics use only 3 versions of the Bible The New American Standard, the Jerusalem Bible and the Old Douay Rheims. All other versions of the Bible are not approved by the Church. If it does not have the Imprimatur and the Nilhil Ostate and the Names of the Priests that have approved them then they are nor OFFICIAL BIBLES. The NAB is the most commonly used in the USA and it is most widely used in the Liturgy of the Mass.

-- Fred Bishop (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), March 14, 2002.

Dear Fred,

Thank you for that information.

Your knowledge about your religeon is impressive. I wonder, would you mind sharing your personal backround as to how you've gained so much? Curious again. I wouldn't be offended if you chose not to.

God Bless You Fred,

-- Kathy (Curious@aol.com), March 14, 2002.

Kathy

Lots of Bible study in RCIA, Sharing the Word sessions with ohers weekly, lots of reading from Church newsletters, The Catechism of the Church, Parish Bible study group classes and EWTN televison to name a few. It is from lots of prayer and meditation. Just simply a fond curiosity of wanting to learn more about holiness. The history of our faith and how it became what it is has always kept me curious. I used to work as a technical Analyst for Lucent Technologies for 25 years and that helps me too. I have always searhed for new knowledge. Prayer is the best of all. It sets the mind at ease at all times.

-- Fred Bishop (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), March 14, 2002.

Dear Fred,

What can I say, Thank you for sharing. And yes, Prayer is the best of all. May God watch over you always.

God Bless,

-- Kathy (Curious@aol.com), March 14, 2002.

Fred,

Now I know why LU stock went from 80 bucks a shares all the way down to 4.50 a share. The company almost went under.:)

Kathy, I can see Fred, helped you with question.

God bless.

David S

-- David S (asdzxc8176@aol.com), March 14, 2002.

Where did I hear that before?

John Gecick, Chris B. or Eugene: Why don't you make a list of questions being asked time and again, and again, and again .. ad boredom, by non Catholics on this forum? You have the ability and know how to place side by side the questions and the the places where the answers that have been given can be found time and again, and again....This way the forum will not be plagued with the same repetitious questions that result in useles threads time and again, and again, and again...

Enrique

-- Enrique Ortiz (eaortiz@yahoo.com), March 14, 2002.

Hi, Enrique,
I think the Moderator installed an archived list of subjects, didn't he? No one seems to visit them. I think I know why.

We're not plagued with repetitious questions so much as plagued with a swarm of Sola Scriptura Bible scholars; anxious to belittle the Catholic faith. They come to ''give'' us lessons in Bible truth. I wish some of them would leave here with the truth more often. But they usually reject it from a Catholic source.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), March 14, 2002.

David

"Now I know why LU stock went from 80 bucks a shares all the way down to 4.50 a share. The company almost went under.:)"

Would you please elaborate on the meaning of your remark for me? You have absolutely no idea what I or anyone who had worked their went through during these troubling times or even before this. The whole telecommunications field has been adversely affected by the greed of other companies trying to outdo a company with some very hard working people trying to make a living building the Best telecommunication equipment in the world. It has no equal in quality.

-- Fred Bishop (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), March 14, 2002.

Hi, Fred.

I won't get to far out there with you, because you will get mad if I tell you what I think about Lucent. So I will just tell you where they went wrong. They are no match for CISCO. (employees, or management).

God bless you.

David S

-- David S (asdzxcCISCO@aol.com), March 14, 2002.

David

You are no match for me and I refuse to let pride get in my way. OK, I will not and do not care for arrogant behavior. Cisco exists today only because of Lucent /AT&T. That is all I am going to say on that subject. THANK YOU.

-- Fred Bishop (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), March 14, 2002.

Hi, Fred.

Lucent is losing TONS of money. They WERE a good company at one time, but they are losing too much money Fred. Cisco is going to put Lucent out of bussiness, or Lucent will be bought out for about 3 dollars a share. They come out with BAD news every quarter, even before this technology recession hit. The quality of Lucent's products can't hold a candle to Cisco's.

I will not take up more of this Catholic space teaching you about Telecommunication Company's. I will save the forum for our great relegion. So, if you want me to teach you anything else, it will have to be somewhere else.

Sorry, Kathy! I went off your question there. But you did get your answers.

God bless you.

David S

-- David S (asdzxc8176@aol.com), March 14, 2002.

Kathy,

The NIV is online. The passage David is referring to is in the NIV:

I am not writing this to shame you, but to warn you, as my dear children. 15 Even though you have ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel. 16 Therefore I urge you to imitate me

Think about it a bit Kathy.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), March 14, 2002.

Hi David,

Although I appreciate all of the responses, I am not quite sure what I think of them yet. I will need to do some more reading on my own. However, I think I have an understanding of why Catholics refer to priests as "father". And I respect their reason for believing.

To Enrigue and Eugene,

I have looked through several threads, not all, but I did not see the same question that I have asked. Did my question offend you somehow? Did I appear to be "anxious to belittle the catholic faith"? What lesson in "Bible truth" did I try to bestow upon you? Again boys, not very christian like. You are giving the good, sincere catholics in here a bad rap.

I apologize if my question was "boring" for you. But, looking through some past threads, as you boldly say I didn't do, I noticed that you enjoy answering those "anti-catholic" bashing questions more than you do sincere ones. Maybe you would have found more enjoyment and excitment if I had been insulting instead of sincere. I am sorry but I will not stoop to that level for your enjoyment.

Behave like a proper christian ought to.

God Bless You All,

-- Kathy (Curious@aol.com), March 14, 2002.

Jmj

Hi, Kathy.
Though you are right in what you tell Eugene, you might as well forget about it (except to pray hard). He is the "same Eugene" as he was when I started posting here about 26 months ago. Even though I have fought the same fight with him a dozen times that you have just tried to fight, it makes no difference to him.

And even though a hundred people, both men and women, have basically said the same thing to him as you and I have, it makes no difference to him. Utterly, utterly amazing! He will be his super-macho self until the day he dies. The rest of us are a bunch of sissies, regardless of our sex, because we want him not to fly off the handle at the slightest provocation. If we are men, we must be "feminized" if we want him to be kind to non-Catholics (and Catholics who disagree with him). To Gene, we are gutless if we insist that anti-Catholics follow the Moderator's rules and if we recommend breaking off debate after a reasonable number of exchanges.

Kathy, Gene could not be persuaded that he is wrong unless perhaps Jesus himself appeared to him and gave him a verbal thrashing for his misbehavior. (Even then, I can really picture Gene arguing his case with Our Lord, so hard it is for our Chavez to admit error [both factual and behavioral].)

Fred, there have been some changes in Catholic Church approval of Bible versions. You wrote: "We as Catholics use only 3 versions of the Bible: The New American Standard, the Jerusalem Bible, and the Old Douay Rheims. All other versions of the Bible are not approved by the Church."
Actually, the first one you intended to mention was the "New American Bible." ("Standard" does not appear in the name.) First published in 1970, the NAB now has a revised New Testament (from around 1985) that has been approved. The 1970 NAB was the source of the readings in most U.S. lectionaries for almost 30 years. (It still is the source for the Old Testament readings.) The new lectionary, which (I think) became mandatory in the U.S. a few years ago, has NT readings from the revised NAB.

You are right about the Jerusalem Bible, but I thought I'd mention that the JB now also has an approved revised edition. (I think it's called the New Jerusalem Bible.

You are right about the Douay Rheims Version. (If I recall correctly, one can come across a "Confraternity Edition" of this, and the name "Challoner" also come up -- but I am rusty on this specific subject right now.) I believe that the Douay Rheims Version was first published in English around 1605 -- even before the King James (partial) Version of the Bible. The reason it has French names in the title is that English Catholics were banned from practicing their faith in their homeland, so they did their work in France (except for those who snuck back across the channel to be missionaries and become martyrs for the faith).

There is another approved Bible version that you did not mention -- the one that is more widely recommended by scholars, theologians, and various other kinds of guests on EWTN, etc., than any other version: the "Revised Standard Version -- Catholic Edition" [RSV-CE]. This has been published for about the last ten years by Ignatius Press as "The Ignatius Bible." Although it is basically the work of Protestant scholars who translated from the original Greek and Hebrew in the 1940s and 1950s, it is a complete Catholic Bible, because the deuterocanonical books are present, some key explanatory notes are present, and disputed passages have been "cleaned up" and documented in an appendix. In fact, when the new rite of the Mass began to be used around 1970s, the Vatican approved three lectionaries for the English-speaking world -- one based on the NAB (as I mentioned earlier), one based on the JB, and one based on the RSV-CE.

Oh, I just remembered another one (or more). I believe that I have read that at least one of the popular "paraphrased" Bibles (very free "translations") that became popular in the 1970s or 1980s has come out in an approved Catholic edition. [Maybe someone can help us out with the name of this/these version(s).]

God bless you.
-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), March 15, 2002.

John

My error is corrected. I DO have the New Jerusalem Bible on hand. I forgot that there were 2 versions and the NAB is correct. For some reason I got it wrong, Cobwebs are sometimes nasty stuff to see through. I never did say I was perfect. I can only tell what I know about to the best of my ability. GOD is the PERFECT ONE, not me. DID you know that there was another Version of the Bible that was later dropped from the approved list by the Church due to errors in translation in it were found? It is "THE WAY" published by the Tyndale House Publishers. It was a living bible version by the Sunday Visitor. It was later removed from the approved list due to it formatt and was not considered Biblically correct due to its written content. It was to easily read and in fact tended to be misleading in the way it reads. I have one here and i do not use it at all due to its lack of seriousness to keep my attention ina proper manner as other biblical books do. What I am saying is it is written too much in the vernacular and cannot hold the attention of the reader. Another problem I had with it refers to GOD as Jehovah frequently in the Old Testament. That name leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I have had in my family a bad time with the JW's 25 years ago.

-- Fred Bishop (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), March 15, 2002.

Dear Kathy:
I wasn't referring to your posts saying they were belittling the Catholic faith; it was the instant approval you received from an unfaithful Catholic which I reacted to. AND, If you don't think you tried to present the ''correct'' Bible truth here when you say ''Explain to me why a priest is called Father.
As I understand it, the BIBLE SAYS that NO ONE shall be called Father, for there is only one Father, Jesus Christ,'' ~~ how innocent was your intent? You came here to CORRECT Catholics?

At this point, Bob interjects his own anti-clerical bias, saying ''YES!''

First, your question might have been innocent. But it stated just what the Bible has to say to YOU. Sola Scriptura! --Which itself is, 1.)Not in the Bible-- and 2.) Anti-Catholic.

Even so, I never addressed you. I addressed the Catholic turncoat, Mr. Hennessy. I did it logically enough, reminding him he is no authority on Catholic tenets or faith. That is not a narrow-minded attack.

Later, you stated my words were too mean; and I replied they're only the way MEN communicate (ordinarily). John doesn't like this either; and so what? I don't tell John what to say in this forum! We often conflict on theological points of view, and THAT is permitted in this forum. He has clashed with me directly for my opinions on censorship and proper function of a forum Moderator; but since John has a chip on his own shoulder half the time, he is often spiteful. May God help him, he needs counselling.

Kathy: You say, ''Looking through some past threads, I noticed that you (Eugene) enjoy answering those "anti-catholic" bashing questions more than you do sincere ones. Maybe you would have found more enjoyment and excitment if I had been insulting?''

I understand what you're saying; but it's a value judgment you formed without asking me first. Go ahead and believe this, if it makes you feel happy about yourself.

I've stated emphatically that my plan is to defend the Catholic Church, the faith of Catholics, the priesthood, and also the Mother of God and His saints. I am confrontational ordinarily when any of these are spoken of disrespectfully, or demeaned by a visitor to our forum. It isintended for those types, and yet, it won't give me ''enjoyment'' or ''fun''. It gives me an opportunity to serve God in the way any ardent Catholic should. I said a long time ago; God wants FIRE-- not lukewarmness. I provide fire, if the ocassion calls for it. I can be just as sweet as John Gecik, if a person seems to deserve my respect. Ask any number of my friends here.

You don't like fire, then stay out of the kitchen. But don't take my enthusiasm as ''KICKS'' which is what John called it once, unjustly. I am VERY serious about the Catholic faith.

Bob Hennessy said on another thread he would rather not come in contact with those who take Catholicism too seriously. Well, he ought to stay away from the forum, then. You, on the other hand --should STAY. Because you can still learn what the Catholic Church is really about, Kathy. Bob already has other plans. His fault; not mine.

God bless you.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), March 15, 2002.

off i

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), March 15, 2002.

Eugene, John, Fred and Kathy,

I am glad all four of you are on the forum. I get clarity and virtue development through all of your posts. I think we all could use counseling until we have been graced with heroic virtues and are ready to cross the threshold into heaven.

Eugene, I like your fire. It is needed, I agree. You must agree that even those gifted with fire and knowledge can get impatient with others and start name calling when it might be better not to at times. St. Paul was like this. In Cor 13 he starts "love is patient love is kind..." I read a commentary on this passage which said that Paul was half preaching to himself on that one. In Acts of the Apostles he started a brawl or huge argument or something like that in court between the Sanhedrin and the Pharisees (if I remember correctly),perhaps in order to take the focus off himself in court. He ended up going to prison for a long time. So his methods backfired in this one case even though he did a lot of good with his preaching and fire most of the time. I think you are "right on" most days but sometimes cross a danger line in the effort. You are human...and I too.

This "father" issue makes me think of the "bread of life discouse" in The Gospel of John (I think), when many of his disciples (not the apostles) leave him because his "eat my flesh" statement was too hard for them to see. It weeds out people with superficial faith. It is right that someone who does not agree with the Catholic interpretation of scripture ought to leave the Church. That is upright and honest. We know of one who did not, Judas Iscariot. I am glad non-Catholic people openly object to the Catholic use of "father", I expect it. All has been said about it in this thread, if anyone who has read this thread still disagrees with the Catholic Church, just stay out of the Church.

John and Fred,

On bibles. I want to add that the U.S. Catechism of the Catholic Church quotes from the RSV-CE. Also, I would not "flip out" too much over translations if it is scholarly as much as interpretations of the scripture. I saw Bishop Fulton Sheen in one of his talks quote all the time from the "New English Bible" which is a Protestant translation if I remember right. He said it was the most beautiful of all translations and so he used it. I am sure he understood all of the Catholic interpretations before he used it in public.

Thanks for reading and God Bless

-- Mike H (michael.hitzelberger@vscc.cc.tn.us), March 15, 2002.

Mike

Bishop Sheen may have used the Protestant Bible only to show that he can prove Catholic ideals can be proven from it too. Remember, a large portion of his audience were non-Catholics too. He may have used the Bible as a source of proving his teachings were in fact verifiable through the Scriptures tha Protestants were familiar with at the time and to prove that we also were well versed in the Scriptures too.

-- Fred Bishop (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), March 15, 2002.

Dear Mike H,
Thanks for the kind word. OK-- I know that on occasion, my words are less than gentlemanly. In one or two posts, I ask the pardon of some one offended. You have a fair analogy in Saint Paul.

I can get impatient with others and start name calling when it might be better not to at times. St. Paul was like this. ''--In Cor 13 he starts "love is patient love is kind..." I read a commentary on this passage which said that Paul was half preaching to himself on that one.'' --If he's speaking about LOVE, that's the mesage. When he reacts to the unworthy person, it's more: ''God will strike you, you white-washed wall!''

In a way, he's right. We must stand up for our faith. Then again, love is definitely a cardinal virtue, and I should let love temper my arguments more.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), March 15, 2002.

Frank, Thanks for putting up that link, that I was talking about. God bless you. David S

-- David S (asdzxc8176@aol.com), March 15, 2002.

Fred,

You mentioned a possible additional motive which makes sense too.

"Bishop Sheen may have used the Protestant Bible only to show that he can prove Catholic ideals can be proven from it too."

However, I watched several of his taped talks recently and in at least one video he says he quotes from "The New English Bible" in his talks because it is the "most beautiful" translation of all. His exact words in bold. That sounds like Archbishop Sheen because he quotes poets and writers too. I heard he had many artistic talents. Of couse he did his talks which were performances in a way, if you see him, he gets dramatic for effect in spreading the Good News.

I have a copy of "The New English Bible, The New Testament, Second Edition, Oxford University and Cambridge University Presses". It is next to me now, I just got it off the shelf in the library where I work. It says it is a

"New English translation Planned and Directed by Representatives of The Baptist Union Of Great Britain and Ireland, The Churches of England and Scotland, The Congregational Church in England and Wales, The Council of Churches For Wales, The Irish Council Of Churches, The London Yearly Meeting Of The Society Of Friends, The Methodist Church Of Great Britain, The Presbyterian Church Of England, The British And Foreigh Bible Society, The National Bible Society Of Scotland."

Sounds certainly Protestant to me. I'm sure it is almost the same as our own Catholic translation, otherwise the Bishop would not have used it. Point being, that Protestants arn't stupid. They have accurate bibles to read, just no grace to interpret it rightly all the time. Let me know if you want a quote from it.

Blessings

-- Mike H (michael.hitzelberger@vscc.cc.tn.us), March 15, 2002.

Mike

I remember Bishop Sheen and his shows as a young lad. Only regret I have is that I really did not understand all that he spoke of. I was about 8-10 years old at the time and today at fifty eight, I still have a vision of him that keep me spell bound of the things he spoke of. I have thought on many occasions of trying to find a tape or two at a video store just to hear the strength of his voice again. He did have a way with words that soothed the soul which were just the opposite of what Billy Graham had at the time. He spoke from Grace, not from hellfire and comdemnation as Billy and others did at the time.

-- Fred Bishop (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), March 15, 2002.

Fred,

I have one of Bishop Sheen's tapes, I borrowed it from a Church. They were ordered through "Keep The Faith" in New Jersey. There are addresses on the net to order from:

marianland.com, 3350-A Highway 6 South, Suite 412, Sugar Land, Texas 77478 USA Catholic Family Catalog, P O Box 2487, San Angelo, Tx 76902

-- Mike H (michael.hitzelberger@vscc.cc.tn.us), March 15, 2002.

Eugene,

Thanks for the reply. What I meant was, sometimes St. Paul may not have been as loving as he could have been, which was sometimes seen in a lack of patience on his part and so he spoke to himself and others when he said, "love is patient, love is kind..."

The "whitewashed wall" retort is in Acts, in the same story I talked about, Chapter 23, you probably knew that, I didn't!

I mentioned the story in Acts slightly wrong in its details but my point is the same. Instead, the fight St. Paul started, after he was struck, was between the Sadducees and the Pharisees. Also I didn't mention the unexpectedly bad and more immediate result that St. Paul could have "gotten torn to pieces" in the court room. That would have been a little more problematic than just prison! New American Bible, Go to Acts 23

When you mentioned,''God will strike you, you white-washed wall!'' It made me think of Galatians 3,

"O stupid Galatians! Who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified?"

Every time I glance at, "O stupid Galatians!", I laugh, I wouldn't want to have St. Paul on my rear all the time! Even though I need it sometimes...Thanks again Gene.

-- Mike H (michael.hitzelberger@vscc.cc.tn.us), March 15, 2002.

Fred, Just so we are clear, I "do not openly object to the catholic use of father". Others may, but I do not.

While everyone is one the subject of Bibles. I stated earlier that I was looking in the NIV. That Bible is my young son's. It was within arms reach so that is why I was reading from that one. My own personal Bible is the RSV.

My first question is, what is the difference between the two that I have stated above, and secondly, what is the difference between my RSV and your RSV-CE. And what are your thoughts and opinions on these two particular Bibles?

Thanking you in advance.

-- Kathy (Curious@aol.com), March 15, 2002.

Kathy I do not have any RSV bibles- The catholic versions all have the deterocanonical books in them which are not in the Protestant versions. The books that you will not find in Protestant Bibles are Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiaticus, Baruch, and 1 and 2 Maccabees.

-- Fred Bishop (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), March 15, 2002.

Fred

Thank you again! I went to the Bible Gateway on-line there are several versions of the Bible there, but I am not sure which one has the books you mentioned RSV does not have. I would like to read them. If you could point me in the right direction, the RSV-CE isn't listed in that site. Also, would you happen to know the difference between NIV and RSV? Fred, thank you for your wisdom. If my questions get tiring I understand.

-- Kathy (Curious@aol.com), March 15, 2002.

You will have to look up the Catholic Bibles to find the Books I have mentioned befroe. The New American Bible and the New Jerusalem Bible are the ones I use. The ones you referred to are not Catholic Bibles and will not have the books in them at all.

-- Fred Bishop (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), March 15, 2002.

You will have to look up the Catholic Bibles to find the Books I have mentioned befroe. The New American Bible and the New Jerusalem Bible are the ones I use. The ones you referred to are not Catholic Bibles and will not have the books in them at all. I forgot to mention this too. you can find these bibles at the Barnes and Noble stores. The New American Bible is available in soft copy for around 6-7 bucks in the St Joseph Edition. It has a Red cove and easy to identify

-- Fred Bishop (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), March 15, 2002.

Thanks Fred,

All your time put into your responses have been greatly appreciated.

God be with you always,

-- Kathy (Curious@aol.com), March 15, 2002.

Hi, Kathy.

Just wanted to let you know that if money is a little tight right now, you can go to amazon and but the New American bible for three dollars. They are used but in excellent shape.

A dollar saved is a dollar gained. If you don't mind a previously read one, that is.

God bless you.

David S

-- David S (asdzxc8176@aol.com), March 15, 2002.

Thank you david, your input has been appreciated as well.

God be with you always,

-- Kathy (Curious@aol.com), March 15, 2002.

Jmj

Hi, Kathy.

Fred listed the deuterocanonical books as follows: "Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiaticus, Baruch, and 1 and 2 Maccabees."
He is right. However, in some Catholic versions of the Bible -- including the RSV-CE and NAB -- one of these books has an alternate name. The "Ecclesiasticus" is called "Sirach." (In fact, I think that the name "Ecclesiasticus" can be found only in the Douay-Rheims version.) The "Wisdom of Solomon" is sometimes just called "Wisdom."

Kathy, if you would like to refer online to the full RSV, including the seven books missing from Protestant Bibles, I can help you get to it on the Internet. We have a subject folder at this forum ("Online/Offline Catholic Resources") that contains threads with links to helpful Internet sites, etc.. I created this brief thread, which I recommend that you read today.

Gene, just a little correction in one of your comments (about me) to Kathy. You wrote: "You don't like fire, then stay out of the kitchen. But don't take my enthusiasm as 'KICKS,' which is what John called it once, unjustly. I am VERY serious about the Catholic faith."

Very significantly, Gene, it was not your "enthusiasm" that I called "kicks." (I praise your "enthusiasm" and don't want you to lose it.) If you could locate that other thread (in which I mentioned "kicks"), you would find that what I actually criticized was the fact that you (twice) had just made offensive expressions -- telling people what a high it gave you to trounce and humiliate anti-Catholics with your argumentation. THAT is what I decried -- your coming here, in part, for "kicks" and then getting them at the expense of those ignorant souls. Now, Gene, how do you think it makes me feel to find out today that you did not even understand what I told you on that thread (or remembered it faultily)? (Oh, and also, it's really ironic that you could recommend "counselling" to someone.)

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), March 17, 2002.

John,

Thank you for taking the time to direct me to those links. I will surely look into it.

May God always be with you,

P.S. There are so many links out there, it is hard to figure out which ones are reliable, I am truly greatful.

-- Kathy (Curious@aol.com), March 17, 2002.

John,

I have saved that site under "my favorites". I wish I had known the difference alot sooner. I have had my RSV since I was a child, at the time I was going to a Methodist Church. Then, as I got older "junior high school years" I started attending MASS with my cousins, I never really felt like I belonged there since I wasn't catholic and didn't know the (for lack of a better word) rituals. But, I have always wanted and needed God in my life. I then started going to a Congregational Church who uses the KJV. I didn't know untill now that there was a difference between the two! I think there are too many Bibles out there, very confusing.

Do you have an opinion on the two? Also, my son's Bible is NIV, and those books you listed are not in there either.

Again, thank you for your time. God Bless You,

-- Kathy (Curious@aol.com), March 17, 2002.

Kathy I in my early RCIA training and afterwards used to read the book "THE WORD AMONG US." It is formatted to the weekly readings we have during each Sunday. It showed us what the readings and then it expained how the readings and the Psalm were related to each other to arrive to the central message that is the Homily (sermon) for the Mass. The book shows you the first reading which comes from the Old Testament, the Psalm, the second reading from the New Testament books, Acts- Revelations, then lastly the Gospel. The goal is to then create the homily from the central message that is common between all of those readings to teach us what GOD's word for the week is.

You yourself can do this simply on the internet by looking up "www.wau.org" or "www.togetherinchrist.org". They both have reading help aids built in on the sites. Give them a try. It may help you to understand how the readings are used in the Mass and Yes you will see the daily readings too. We have daily Mass 6 days a week (Monday-Saturday). The daily readings are readings from the Old Testament, Psalms, and the Gospel. None from the Epistles and Revelations. Give it a try. Blessed be GOD in his Holy Trinity.

-- Fred Bishop (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), March 17, 2002.

A word for John Gecik:
There is no way to reach a rapprochement with someone who makes mountains out of molehills. We have been friends, John. In no way did we have disagreements enough to make a real friction; except that you will NOT accept constructive criticism, --even the most charitable. Add to that your constant need to correct all others, for the most picayune detail. It's become your trademark.

I say you could use counselling not for your present theological views, with which I've rarely had problems. I think it would help you stave off the persistent impulse to retaliate at the shallowest excuse. You go to such great pains to spell out all your grievances, instead of being diplomatic. Why the repeated opposition? I'll back off. Does everything have to represent an insult to you? The most minor disagreement?

A man of your age and of your excellent religious preparation should have overcome these weaknesses by now. I wish you serenity, not pain. Take my advice; just ask yourself what use is all this carping and worrying? Wouldn't you rather be friends? Let God bless the both of us, John! PEACE!

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), March 18, 2002.

Fred,

Thank you for your insight and knowledge. I am truly learning alot here. I will look into that site that you listed.

God Bless You,

-- Kathy (Curious@aol.com), March 18, 2002.

Kathy

I thought I would let you also know that the sites are on the YAHOO network. This is in case you have a problem logging on to the sites. I did have some difficulty last night. A search engine will find them easily for you in case you have a problem. Enjoy. May GOD Bless.

-- Fred Bishop (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), March 18, 2002.

Kathy

Another thing too you can request on-line free copies of both booklets too for your own examination if using the website is too difficult. GOD LOVES ALL OF US.

-- Fred Bishop (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), March 18, 2002.

Eugene,

With all do respect, don't be a bigot. It is only natural to defend ones self. Let it go.

I'd also like to mention here that Fred and John have been more than kind, informative and generous with their time in answering my questions. As I am sure you already know as well as John and Fred, that I am not Catholic, and with great respect they still continue to help me with my quest for knowledge.

It is very disheartning to see the bitter lack of harmony in some of these post by several people. Ignorance can only bring out the ugliness in people when used with prejudice.

In the U.S.A we have freedom of religeon. Ignorance is not knowing the difference between them all. Being prejudice will restrain us from wanting to know. You do not need to defend your religeon against people who are ignorant, prejudice or who are just down right hateful. Knowledge feeds the brain and I don't need to tell you how many people are starving.

My hope is that this site will continue to be a learning experience as well as a joy to visit.

In the world we live in today, everyone needs the Lord by their side just to get through a day.

God Bless All who visit this forum.

-- Kathy (Curious@aol.com), March 18, 2002.

Well, Kathy Dear:
I most certainly hope I may never be a bigot. Thank you for the warning. God be with you; and thanks for your visit!

Saint Catherine of Siena,
Saint Catherine Laboure,
Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich;

Three Holy Catherines;

Pray for your daughter Kathy! --Amen /

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), March 18, 2002.

You bring up a good question Kathy. It's never wrong to ask questions especially if you are seeking a clarification to a seeming contradiction. Priests are called "father" because through their ministry they give spiritual life to people by admnisitering the sacraments. Of course, priests are merely the tool used by Christ to touch His people. However, in a certain sense, they become spiritual fathers insofar as through their instrumentality they are giving spiritual life to the body of Christ. Additionally, there is a passage in one of St. Paul's epistles stating something like," You may have many fathers but you only have one spiritual father in Christ" Ok I've butchered this paraphrase substantially. Perhaps someone could directly quote the scripture I'm referring to? The passage gives direct reference to this tradition of calling priests father.

-- Mark Robert (mstevens@runner.csub.edu), March 30, 2002.

Hi Mark,

David S. quoted the verse that you mention earlier in this thread. Here it is again:

1 Corinthians 4:14-16, This is St. Paul speaking:

"I do not write this to make you ashamed, but to admonish you as my beloved children. 15 For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I [Paul] became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel. 16 I urge you, then, be imitators of me."

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), March 31, 2002.

Thank you Mateo!

-- Mark Robert (mstevens@runner.csub.edu), April 01, 2002.

Forgive me, as this is a tad off topic in this thread, but something caught my eye and I thought I'd ask.

Why is the Catholic church referred to as "she" or "Mother"? Shouldn't it be "He" for God and Jesus or "Father"?

Just curious.

And before you go to thinking the wrong thing~it isn't just the church I wonder about. It's ships, planes, etc. "She's a tough old bird" or "She's a beaut".

:)

-- Jackiea (sorry@dontlikespam.com), April 01, 2002.

The Holy Catholic Church is referred to by the Apostles themselves as the Bride; and her Holy Bridegroom is Jesus Christ. He makes His Bride pure and without wrinkle or stain, by His Precious Blood. She makes us her own children in Christ. Without her, our way on earth is as Orphans. She instills in us grace, through faith in Jesus Christ. We have come to see her as Holy Mother Church. But if it will make you feel less uncomfortable, go ahead and call her IT. The Church, an ''IT.''

You only rob her of what small splendor a man can give. Men give splendor in such meager amounts anyway. She will lose practically nothing, don't you see?

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 02, 2002.

Hi, Jackiea,

" Why is the Catholic Church refered to as " she " or Mother "?

I think the answer would be, that because the Church is the bride of Christ, in a spirtual, not physical sense (1 Co 10, 18) that is why the Church is refered to as " She ". She is a purchased people- purchased by the blood of Christ (Ac 20,28; 1 P 2,9f;E 1,14) and also taken from among the heathen (Ac 15,14). She is the bride, the one without flaw (E 5,27), no longer the adulterous spouse ( Ho; Jr2-3;Ez 16). She is the vine, no longer wild but fruitful (Jn 15, 1-8). She is the holy remnant (Is 4,2f). She is the flock, not to be called together once and later dispersed (Ze 13,7ff), but the flock of her immolated and resurected shepherd (Jn 10). She is the Jerusalem from on high, free now from slavery (G 4,24f). She is the people of the new covenant predicted by the prophets (Jr 31,31 ff; Ez 37,26ff).

Take Care.

David

-- David S (asdzxc8176@aol.com), April 02, 2002.

Eugene, I don't recall saying it made me feel uncomfortable. I simply asked a question that I didn't have an answer to. You have no reason to be defensive.

Thank you both, though, for your answer regarding bride. David, I appreciate the scriptures you gave.

-- Jackiea (sorry@dontlikespam.com), April 02, 2002.

Yes-- and the mark of the Catholic is willingness to make the Church a mother. No one forces him. We don't have a notion of her as divine of herself.

We know the Church is Christ's own plan for continuing His work in the world of men. --So perfect is Jesus Christ's plan, His Wisdom, that our Church is His splendorous Presence in the world. Without her, Jesus would be remote. In her, Jesus is Emmanuel; our God with us!

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 02, 2002.

Gene, you wrote (to Kathy):
"Saint Catherine of Siena,
Saint Catherine Laboure,
Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich ...

I know that you lover her, my good man, but only the pope can beatify folks! The virtuous woman Anne Catherine has not been beatified. God has not chosen to work a (known) miracle through her intercession.
She is still known as "Venerable."
God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 05, 2002.

I beg your pardon for the typographical error. I meant ...
"I know that you love her ..."

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 05, 2002.

Well, blow me down!
Good detective work, John. You want to know what I think?

(Leaving out the matter of required miracles,)

Anna Catherina Emmerich was very well-known in the 19th and early 20th century, because of the great devotion of her amenuensis, the poet Brentano.

But I've wondered if later on events in which Germany launched and lost two world wars made a cause for her canonization-- coming from her country --simply unpopular to other European nations. Let's assume that those who knew her, and of her, in Germany probably had other things pressing besides bringing her cause before Rome, or persevering with it. Like simply surviving. It won't appear unusual then that she's not even ''Blessed'', except in the hearts of those like myself. Those who have read her remarkable story.

Even if a number of real miracles could have been credited to her intercession, those whom they benefited are probably dead today. In my heart, I feel she was a true saint. Not just for her mystical visions and what they show us. But her life itself, of enormous spiritual depth, and all her sufferings; well-documented. Testified to in the stigmata she bore, and other great mysteries attributed to her days on earth. Is she Venerable? Not only, as far as I'm concerned.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 05, 2002.

voila

-- bumper (top@to.the), December 20, 2003.

I've noticed that people who object to calling priest father, often have no problem calling their pastor doctor (assuming he has a doctorate, real or imagined). But what does doctor mean? Doctor is latin for teacher and the Bible clearly states not to call anyone teacher. Actually, I think the way in which some people use the title doctor violates the spirit of what the bible teaches. For example, I work in a university and those of us who have doctorates often use it as a way to classify ourselves above those who don't have them. Especially among those who teach, those who teach in a university without doctorates are clearly treated as second class citizens. Many protestant pastors use the title doctor in the same way, to try and put themselves above everyone. It's a subtle way of trying to gain authority. The bible passage in question tries to teach the value of humility, which today as in Jesus's day is in short supply.

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), December 20, 2003.