Home Forums Miscellaneous Topics Christ at the Campfire The Pope as Holy Father

It sounds as if I need to expand a bit on the original post. First, let's be very clear. I am not intending to belittle the recently deceased Pope. He was loved by many thoughout the world, and did nothing but good for everyone he touched or came into contact with.

My question was intended to focus on the organization that has created a "Holy Father" rather than the man in the robe that we call "Pope". Perhaps Ken said it best in his original post and as at least one follow-up post added. Ken states that my question was ill-timed. Along with that, I'll admit that it was also probably, poorly worded. In that I am not as gifted as Ken, I know that criticism would be correct. If both of the above are correct, and in hind-sight, I think they are, I owe an apology to the Camp Fire for asking the questions. Consider an apology offered. I hope it is received. I really didn't mean to offend anyone with my questions. I guess didn't realize fully that asking religious questions would offend other Christians.

My questions stand as asked, however, as it is too late to take them back because of either my poor timing or poorly worded sentences.

How do you feel about someone being elevated by a church organization to a position of the "Holy Father". Is it OK with you? Is it biblical, or perhaps even blastphemy (sp) to you? What is your take on it from a biblical perspective?

I also would like to see the forum stay. I've learned a lot and it is nice to see people join in prayer for others. If egos and tempers are controlled I see no reason why it and the discussions cannot continue.

Qtip
Soli Deo Gloria!
To God Alone Be The GLory!

"How do you feel about someone being elevated by a church organization to a position of the "Holy Father". Is it OK with you? Is it biblical, or perhaps even blastphemy (sp) to you? What is your take on it from a biblical perspective?"

I have no problem with it. Let the Catholics believe that "thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church," and let them believe that this means that whoever succeeds as the bishop of Rome gets to interpret the religion, being called "Holy" because Jesus selected Peter. That reference is Biblical.

I may not agree with this interepretation, but do not object if others believe it.

Similarly, let the fundamentalists believe that every word in the Bible is literally true, etc. That does not harm me any.

It does not even bother me when the Episcopals make a homosexual priest a bishop. I am not an Episcopalian.

The only thing I object to is when any particular side attempts to make their particular views, especially if they are contradicted by known scientific findings, a standard that is forced on the rest of us, either in school or by (in the case of atheists) attempting to remove all mention of God from places where it has existed for 200 years. Or by trying to make us accept homosexuality as an alternate life style.

Other than that, I have no heartburn about what anyone chooses to believe.

IndyCA35, thanks for your comments. I personally believe pretty much the same as your post stated. I appreciate your reply.

If you come to a post already loaded and cocked to get mad, waiting and expecting to be offended, anything in that post that is less than 100% reflection of your pet feelings is almost certain to bother you.

A good Campfire friend is mad at me for hatred that he sees coming from me but which really comes from his own bucket and brush. I appreciate the thoughtfulness that he has shown in airing his resentment privately rather than openly here, but I have to answer more than him � in case others here have taken similar offense and think therefore that in an earlier post I revealed an animus that's no part of my being or my attitude.

Good Buddy took offense from my use of Karol Wojtyla's life-time name instead of his Catholic title. Karol Wojtyla is who he was, from late 1920 into 2005. "Pope John Paul the Second" is his Roman Catholic title of office for less than a third of his life. The man was whom I've long admired, which is the fact that underlies my use of his life-long name when with love, respect, and admiration I speak of him.

The Bible (chiefly the New Testament) as originally written is my standard of belief. Wherever Karol Wojtyla spoke and acted in accord with that standard, I agreed with him � more, in fact, than many thousands of Roman Catholics. Wherever he spoke or acted at odds with that standard, I did not � do not � go along.

But I do not judge him negatively on the basis of what he and I disagreed on. I admire and honor him for who he was, for what he spoke and did that agreed with my own spiritual standard, and I earnestly desire for his spirit all the blessings of eternity in Heaven with God the Father, the Son, and The Holy Spirit. Animosity? No way, Jos�!

Yes, I spoke briefly and mildly of the fact of our disagreements, which I did not specify or detail. I spoke thus (a) to show that I'm no apologist for or blind adherent of Karol Wojtyla as the Christ's replacement and (b) to provide contrast, background, perspective, and emphasis to my expressions of admiration for him and my deep spiritual concern for his eternity.

For none of this do I apologize or beg forgiveness.

If you choose to misunderstand it, to "see" animus in me that isn't in me, to get offended, your problem does not lie at my feet or arise from my attitude toward a man whom I admire but do not worship or consider correct in all his ways.

.

Well done, Mr. Howell.

aye.

FYI - all parish priests are called "Father" whatever their first name is. For example, our current priest is known as "Father Mel". The term is no different than calling someone "Brother..." or "Reverend....". I'm not sure how the term originally came into use, but when I use it I think of it as just a term of respect acknowledging the "head" or leader of our particulr parish. Reference to the pope as the "Holy Father" in my opinion just references him as the head of the Church. It is meant as a title of respect, not worship. No Catholics pray to the Pope or any other priest. Practically all of that is very misunderstood.

Ken,

As always after reading one of your posts, I feel as if i've been schooled. I mean that as a compliment.

Your last comment, "I admire but do not worship or consider correct in all his ways.", is exactly how I feel and probably a good many Catholics as well.

I come to the Campfire to learn and hear about other's opinions and ideas. What gets my boat is when the animosity and intolerance rears its ugly head in the name of Christ.

I am who(what) I am, as Popeye always said, and knowing that, my faith has played a major role in that regard. I would not begrudge another man his right to worship as he(she) believes nor would I condemn them for doing so. Which seems to happen all to often on this forum anymore.

Rick, I say keep the forum around, even it gets a little hot in here once in a while.


Mac

chambero,



Let's take a look at What Jesus' opinoin is about "Father", "Brother", or "Reverend".

"'But do not be called Rabbi, for One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers. And do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He Who is in heaven.'" Mathew 23:8-9

Are you going to follow the traditions of men or follow the teachings of Jesus? Jesus continues in His sermon and says,

"'Therefore every one who hears These Words of Mine, and does them, will be compared to a wise man...'" Matthew 7:24

Ringman,

Do you ever call your biological father, father? Is Dad OK? Dad's probably not in the Bible, but Father probably isn't either, at least not the Bible in Hebrew and Greek. What do you think Jesus was really getting at in that passage? What words we are/are not allowed to say? I wonder what that sentence sounds like in Aramaic? I wonder what it meant, when said in Aramaic, to a close group of followers, 2000 years ago?

Does anyone here, who considers themselves a true Christian, ever call their own father, father? If you do, how do you square that with the Bible verse just quoted?

I'm very intrigued by this discussion.

Sycamore

Sycamore,



When I first became a Christian I purchased many books. Among them were comentaries. Greek and Hebrew inerlinars and Greek dictionaries. Within about four years, I concluded they were telling me the same thing the New American Standard Bible, the King James Version, The New World Translation ot the Holy Scriptures, and later the New King James Version were telling me in English without a lot of work.

There is One Who is Father. My male parent is "Dad" or "Daddy"; always. There is One authority in my house above allothers. It is the Word of God.

You may or may not rationalize about what Jesus ment 2,000 years ago. According to His Word, He is the same yesterday, today and forever.

Rolly,
Nothing wrong with asking the question. Historically the Church Fathers were the first generation of leaders who were pupils of the apostles. Father refers to a teacher of the faith. Christ passed the leadership of his church to Peter and the apostles. They in turn passed it to the next generation and so on. This is known as Apostlic Succession. The title of Holy Father for the pope refers to his position as successor to Peter and to the fact that the Holy Spirit works through him.

Jeff

FWIW, Catholics don't worship the Pope.

Paul says: "...in Christ Jesus, I became your father through the Gospel." (1 Cor. 4:15)

He goes on to refer to Timothy as: "...my beloved and faithful son in the Lord." (1 Cor. 4:17)

Jesus says: "As for you, do not be called 'Rabbi' (Teacher). You have but one teacher and you are all brothers." (Mathew. 23:8)

Are good Christians ever called "teacher"? Are other titles of office and respect (i.e., Reverend) also proscribed?

Do any true Christians ever refer to Jefferson, Madison, Washington, et al, as the "Founding Fathers" of our nation? Do they sin when they do so? Does all the rhetorical hair-splitting ever give anyone else a headache?

My great grandmother used to say: "The devil can cite Scripture with the best of them. 'Cept he does it to divide the Body of Christ. Lucifer has an easy time seducing people into fornication, gambling, and drunkeness. His greatest triumph--and pleasure--is to stir trouble among the faithful." I wonder what she meant by that.

wuzza:
your great-grandmother was wise.

It all gives me tired head. I was merely trying to provide an answer to the initial question on the thread as to why. Didn't want to argue whether it was right or not. I didn't question anyone else's beliefs. I was just trying to provide information. Anyone can pretty much find quotes anywhere in the bible to contradict anything somebody wants to. I suspect (and believe) that intent is a lot more important to God than semantics.

I liked great grandmothers quote also.

So......

Is this forum closed to new Christ at the Campfire posting? It seems that I can't make a new post.

We could change the name to "Religious Debate", or something similar if that makes a few members here feel better.

I don't agree with Roman Catholic teachings but I respect their right to believe it and practice it; as I hope they would mine. We should be "in Christ" and Him alone-all of us. The only thing that I was against (IMHO) was the flag at half-mast. Only because I believe it should only be done for Americans and nobody else.

Qtip
Soli Deo Gloria!
To God Alone Be The Glory!

sad....

Bonzi, The goofies that can't get a platform at their local church
for obvious reasons flock here to turn this into their personal soap
box. They only fool themselves into thinking they are going to convert somebody to their way of thinking.

There were some good discussions but a lot of fod or smoking flax to put up with as well.

I enjoyed you, Dixie, and the Shootist along with Dr. Howells postings, of course we did not always agree but it sure brought me to a greater understanding and broadend my theological understanding.

Wazzagrunt, I greatly appreciated you sharing your son's experience with us and your insight as well.

I'm a little confused as to why Christ at the Campfire is getting nixed? Was it that someone was offended at someones opinions of the Pope and Catholicism? Is it because Ken Howell thinks it should? Much more offensive things have been said in the past on any of the different parts of this forum.......

I'm thinking that the loons had pretty much left, with a few exceptions? I thought this was a good forum for a rumble that was separate from those who didn't want to hear the "religious" point of view on things. And I can't see how anybody couldn't learn something from the knowledgable different perspectives and denominations that are represented here.......

But, it's Ricks site, and everybody has the right and ability to find a new site if they don't agree with him. I think the topic of Religion might show a little bit more often on the Hunters Campfire where the response might be a little bit more crass and offensive.

BTW... SU35, the local A of G gave me the entire morning service this next sunday........ It's my first preaching experience in a charismatic church.