I Santi, Priests and popes: common mortal men
![pope-rio-copacaban_2629346b[1]](https://www.veritadellabibbia.net/wp-content/uploads/pope-rio-copacaban_2629346b1-150x150.jpg)
Jesus said,:
“Don't call anyone on earth your father, because only one is your Father, what is in heaven.”
(Matteo 23:9)
Why do we address priests with the word “Father” it's still, because there is the figure of the Pope which means precisely “Father”?
The scriptures say:
“Worship the Lord your God and only worship him”(Matteo 4:10)
Now if we want to climb the mirrors and justify the sin of idolatry that God condemns in the second commandment, deliberately abolished from the Catholic catechism, let's do it as well, but if we want to be sure that we are only serving the Lord we should be careful to justify such practices that go against God's will.
The Second Commandment says:
“Don't make yourself sculpture, nor any image of the things that are up there in heaven or down here on earth or in the waters under the earth. Do not bow down to them and do not serve them, why me, the Sir, your God, I am a jealous God; I punish the iniquity of fathers over their children up to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, and use goodness, up to the thousandth generation, towards those who love me and keep my commandments.”(Exodus 20:4-6)
One day a Roman centurion, immensely grateful to the apostle Peter for having received from him the message of the salvation of the Gospel, she knelt in front of him to thank him, but Peter made him stand up, saying: “Get up, I am also a man” (proceedings 10:25-26).
Ciao,here is a Catholic as he commented on your writing:To answer the questions raised by some JWs and Pentecostals, I use the studies of Nicola Tornese and Gianpaolo Barra A profound knowledge of the Bible is not necessary to highlight how superficial and unscriptural the explanation of the sentence from Matthew is 23, 9 give the Pentecostals and the TDG. In fact, it is enough to pay attention to the context where that sentence is placed and remember how in the Bible the title of "father" is legitimately addressed to men, especially to ministers of worship, without violating any divine command. This is precisely what we want to do now – The context of Matteo 23, 9.We point out once again that the authentic meaning of biblical texts must be derived from their context. JWs often forget or leave out the context and make the Bible say what they want, to the detriment of less and less shrewd people.From the context of Matthew 23, 9 it is clear that Jesus only wanted to correct the abuse that the members of the synagogue made of the title of father; but it was by no means intended to abolish the proper use of that title. The thought of Jesus is the following :The disciples of Christ – contrary to the behavior of the Pharisees – they must not claim honorary titles. They must escape vainglory, pride, arrogance. "The greatest among you be your servant" (Matteo 23, 11). The driving office, that some of them have to exercise (cf.. 1 Tessalonicesi 5, 12; Jews 13, 17), it must be done with humility and with a spirit of service. Jesus speaks of interior disposition, rather than the use of titles. Whether or not they are called with titles, his disciples, unlike the Pharisees, they must cultivate humility. They must not have claims of honors. They must not use authority vainly, but to serve humbly by virtue of the authority received. This and nothing else is the authentic meaning of the words of Jesus: a lesson in humility! He had come to correct what was wrong (Marco 1, 3).The – The scriptural use of the title of "father" Jesus did not at all intend to exclude that the leaders of the ecclesial community harbor the noble sentiment of spiritual fatherhood towards those who must be instructed and directed.1 – Saint Paul exhorts Christians to be imitators of God precisely in goodness and love (Ephesians 5, 1). And what greater imitation of God can there be in those who are called to direct others if not that of divine paternity? Saint Paul was the model of this imitation) Paul's words to the Corinthian faithful are well known:“I am writing these things to you as to dear children. In fact, you could have ten thousand teachers (pedagogues), but certainly not many fathers in Christ, because it is I who generated you in Christ Jesus through the Gospel " (1 Corinthians 5,14-15).Paul considers himself and is called the father of those whom he spiritually generated in Christ. Perhaps the apostle was unaware of the words of Jesus in Matthew 23, 9? Who would dare attribute such ignorance to him?? So why did he have no difficulty in attributing the title of father to himself?b) Nor was it the only time that he – Paolo – manifested this noble feeling of paternity spi- ritual. Writing again to the Corinthians he says:"Here you are, I am ready to come to you for the third time, and I will not be a burden to you; because I'm not looking for your things, I will. Indeed, it is not the duty of children to accumulate treasures for their parents, but parents for their children " (2 Corinthians 12,14).Comment on Salvatore Garofalo's Bible:“Paul does not want to receive from the Corinthians, but he wants to give like a good father. "The apostle also used the same language with the Christians of Galatia: “My children, that I again give birth in pain until Christ is formed in you " (Galati 4, 19).And with the same paternal affection Paul calls the slave Onesimo his son, that he had converted and begotten to Christ in chains (Filèmone 10).c) After so many repeated declarations of a spiritual paternity on the part of Paul, it had to be natural, spontaneous, right and proper that his spiritual children consider him and call him father without thinking in the least of going against the will of the Lord. They did it?We can legitimately assume this. Paul himself exhorts them and wants them to behave like this. He wrote to the Corinthians: “I speak it as to children; return us the exchange, open your heart too " (2 Corinthians 6, 13). And what was the return if not to nurture a sincere feeling of spiritual sonship towards him and to call him father? (cf.. 2 Corinthians 12, 15).d) In a vain attempt to undermine and deny this biblical teaching the JWs write:“Paul compared himself to a parent, but he was never called “father Paolo”".Answer: The JW's objection rests on emptiness, it has no basis, it is inconsistent. In fact, in order to affirm that the apostle was never called "Father Paul", JWs should have and exhibit the documents, that is, any writings of the Christians of Corinth directed to Paul, from which it appears that they never call him "father". But where are these documents? And without documents, without valid evidence, how can one assert a thing? The affirmation of the JWs is pure invention. Quite the contrary, from the Pauline Letters it appears that the relations of Christians towards Paul were based on the feeling of spiritual sonship. 2 – But there is so much more. What the JWs say is unscriptural. In fact, Jesus did not want to abolish Scripture (Matteo 5, 17-18).Now in Scripture the right use of the title father is- widely used, here are some examples: – In the Book of Judges 17, 9-10 e 18-19 we read: “Micha asked him: “Where i come?” “I am a Levite from Bethlehem of Judah” he replied. “I travel to settle where I will find”. “Stay with me”, Micha told him, “be father and priest to me and I will give you ten silver scicli, a set of clothes and food”” (17,9-10).“But the priest told them: “What are you doing?””Remain silent”, they told him, “put your hand over your mouth and come with us. You will be father and priest for us”” (18,19).Twice it is said that some Israelites give the priest the title of father. There is no condemnation of such a way of speaking.- David calls Father Saul because he is the rightful ruler as long as he is alive: “I will not extend my hand to my lord, for he is the anointed of Yahweh and my father " (1 Samuele 24, 11-12).- The kings of Israel also call the prophets fathers, that is, men of God, their spiritual guides: “Now Elisha fell ill with that disease, for which he would die. Josh, king of Israel, she came down from him and burst into tears in his presence, screaming. “My father, my father! Chariot of Israel and its horses " (2 Re 13, 14).
First I specify that I am not JW, I wonder how one can only think of it, let alone Pentecostal. I am simply a Christian and a Christian is not the same as a Catholic, as I said, and it can also be understood from the article you report, Catholics clamber up on mirrors trying to explain their customs and rites by also taking the bible as a reference, but in reality there is nothing in the Bible of what they teach. Exactly, we must take the context of the verses quoted, and this, alas, neither Catholics nor JWs do it, that's why they deviate from true Christian teachings. There is no verse, paragraph, chapter of the Bible that teaches to call father to others who are not God, but as it happens we find instead verses that forbid it. Better to be on the safe side then, no? What not to indulge in imaginative interpretations by saying “Yup… perhaps… Paul meant…” making Paul say what he never said for our convenience.
because you want to point out that you are not Pentecostal?Maybe they don't know the Truth too?Ciao
Simply because they are not 🙂
Because that's the Pentecostal creed:”WE BELIEVE IN BAPTISM IN THE HOLY SPIRIT, AS AN EXPERIENCE SUBSEQUENT TO THAT OF THE NEW BIRTH, THAT MANIFESTS, ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURES, WITH THE INITIAL SIGN OF SPEAKING IN OTHER LANGUAGES AND, PRACTICALLY, WITH A LIFE OF PROGRESSIVE SANCTIFICATION, IN OBEDIENCE TO ALL THE TRUTH OF THE SACRED SCRIPTURES, IN THE POWER OF THE ANNOUNCEMENT OF “ALL THE GOSPEL” IN THE WORLD” (ACTS 2:4; 2:42-46; 8:12-17; 10:44-46; 11:14-16; 15:7-9; 19:2-6; MARCO 16:20; GIOVANNI 16:13; MATTEO 28:19, 20).Where is the Pentecostal error? Precisely in declaring that Baptism in the Holy Spirit is recognizable by the sign of speaking “languages”, and this according to the Scriptures. Let's first clarify what speaking in is “languages” and with this the gift of tongues. The Bible gives two examples: a) Speaking foreign languages without knowing them(which is what happened to the 120 disciples on the day of Pentecost). b) Speak Heavenly Tongues, but incomprehensible to men(as we find written in the First Letter to the Corinthians, chapters 12,13 e 14).Good. In the fundamental episode of the first Baptism on Pentecost, that is that of 120 disciples gathered in the high attic, Scripture tells that the disciples coincide with the Baptism in the Holy Spirit, among other manifestations that took place spoke in “languages”, but on closer inspection they spoke in foreign languages, understandable to all foreigners who listened to them. In an episode similar to this one, which took place in Caesarea in the house of Cornelius, those who were baptized in the Holy Spirit truly spoke in tongues. Peter made it clear that these believers had been baptized in the Holy Spirit exactly as was the case with the 120 disciples gathered in the high attic. Then, if Cornelius and those of his house were baptized in the Holy Spirit in the same way as the 120 disciples, likewise the languages they spoke had to be foreign languages as was the case with the 120 disciples. The same discourse must apply to the believers of Ephesus who spoke in tongues when being filled with the Holy Spirit, which is equivalent to Baptism in the Holy Spirit, where is the Pentecostal error? It lies in the fact that Pentecostal theologians wanted to imitate their Catholic brothers in creating new dogmas, and precisely the dogma that would allow us to recognize whether a believer is baptized with the Holy Spirit or not. The dogma, because that's what it is, categorically affirms that the evidence of having received Baptism in the Holy Spirit is the fact of expressing himself in “languages”, pointing out according to the Scriptures. But according to the Scriptures the former 120 disciples spoke yes in tongues, but foreign languages understandable to the people who listened to them, as well as Cornelius and his people in the same way. Today Pentecostal believers on the basis of this dogma affirm that one receives baptism in the Holy Spirit when the believer manifests the evidence of the sign of “languages”. Then one may wonder: but where is the mistake? Right in the “languages”. It is not a question of the same languages, because while the original Baptism in the Holy Spirit had among other signs the speaking in foreign languages, and this according to the Scriptures, modern Baptism in the Holy Spirit, according to the Pentecostals, it is evidenced by speaking incomprehensible languages. (The Bible speaks to us extensively in the First Letter to the Corinthians, cap. 12, 13 e 14, of the gift of tongues, defining its usefulness and its characteristics, but we speak of heavenly languages that serve the believer for his personal edification and to express his adoration to God in words suggested by the Holy Spirit, but always languages incomprehensible to listeners.) Consequences of an error can only be other errors. Pentecostal dogma has replaced God's Word and claims to make it say what it does not say:”You never spoke in tongues? you haven't received the Holy Spirit yet”. “When you have been baptized with the Holy Spirit, we will notice because you will speak in tongues”. And so the “languages” they have become the stamp of authenticity of having been baptized in the Holy Spirit. But the Bible doesn't say so http://www.biblica.altervista.org