Posted on 09/01/2013 2:10:47 PM PDT by NYer
The other day I received a rather lengthy email from a fellow responding to a chapter in my book, Nuts and Bolts - A Practical How-To Guide for Explaining and Defending the Catholic Faith, specifically responding to my defense of calling priests "father."
Score One Up For the Protestants
I have answered this question hundreds of times over the years, but this fellow's critique caught my attention first of all because he used my own style of argumentation against me. I liked that. "Matthew 23:9," he reminded me, "says, ‘Call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven.’ What would Jesus have to say to you, Tim, to get you to believe you can't call your priest 'father,' other than by saying, 'Call no man your father on earth?'"
I have to believe this fellow has heard me speak before because I have often (too often?) used a similar line, "What else would Jesus have to say..." to argue in favor of various Catholic doctrines. In fact, I used that very approach in my debate with Dr. Peter Barnes on the Eucharist in Sydney, Australia, when we were discussing John 6:53.
Cudos to my interlocutor at this point, but that would be, quite frankly, about the only round he had in his magazine.
An Earthy Argument
In Nuts and Bolts, I point out the fact that notwithstanding Jesus's words in Matthew 23, St. Paul calls people "on the earth" father in Ephesians 6:2-4:
"Honor your father and mother" (this is the first commandment with a promise), "that it may be well with you and that you may live long on the earth." Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.
Is this a contradiction?
Many will respond at this point and claim Jesus is not just condemning calling anyone father; rather, he is condemning calling religious leaders "father." As I explain in my book, this is easily dismissed when we consider the words of our Lord from Luke 16:24:
And he (the rich man) called out, "Father Abraham, have mercy upon me, and send Lazarus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am in anguish in this flame."
Abraham is clearly a "religious leader." And Jesus is not alone in referring to him "father." St. James refers to Abraham as "father" in James 2:21, while St. Paul refers to Abraham as "father" seven times in Romans 4:1-18. If you believe in the inspiration of Sacred Scripture, St. James and St. Paul cannot contradict Jesus in Matthew 23:9.
At this point, my new friend argued something slightly different from what I've heard before. He said words to the effect of: "The key here is found in the words 'on the earth.' Abraham was not on earth. So Jesus was not simply condemning giving the 'title' of 'father' to men, but giving it to religious leaders who are on earth. And that is precisely what Catholics do!"
The Catholic Response
The first problem here is Jesus did not say "give no spiritual leader on earth the title father." He simply said, "Call no man on earth your father." More on that in a moment. For now, let's follow the argument. So now our Protestant friend is saying it is okay to call our dads "father" because they are not "spiritual leaders" in the Church. We can also call our spiritual forefathers like Abraham or Jacob (John 4:12) father because they are no longer "on earth."
Sounds okay so far, but here's the problem. In I John 2:13-14, St. John refers to the leaders of the church in Ephesus to whom he is most likely writing as "fathers" twice. And notice he gives them the title "father."
I am writing to you, fathers, because you know him who is from the beginning. I am writing to you, young men, because you have overcome the evil one. I write to you, children, because you know the Father. I write to you, fathers, because you know him who is from the beginning…
Notice, he does not say they are "fathers" because they are married with children. They are "fathers," spiritually speaking. And they are presumably "on the earth."
In Acts 7:1-2, St. Stephen, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, calls both Abraham and the elders of Jerusalem "father" in the same breath:
And the high priest said, "Is this so?" And Stephen said: "Brethren and fathers, hear me. The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham…"
And in I Corinthians 4:14-15, St. Paul refers to himself as "father":
I do not write this to make you ashamed, but to admonish you as my beloved children. For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel.
What Does the Bible Say?
What we need to do is get back to Matthew 23:9 and let the surrounding verses clarify things for us:
(8) But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brethren. (9) And call no man your father... for you have one Father... (10) Neither be called masters, for you have one master, the Christ.
We have "one teacher," and yet, many are called “teacher” in the New Testament (see James 3:1; Ephesians 4:11, etc.). We have "one master," or leader, and yet, we have many "leaders" in the body of Christ to whom we are called to submit (Hebrews 13:17 uses the same Greek root for "leader" when it says, "Obey your leaders and submit to them...").
Ultimately, the key to understanding all of these seemingly contradictory texts is found in a proper understanding of the nature of the Body of Christ.
I am going to call upon the Douay-Rheims translation of Ephesians 3:14-15 to help me out here:
For this cause I bow my knees to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Of whom all paternity (Gr. – paternia – “fatherhood”) in heaven and earth is named.
God, the Father, is our one true Father. All other fatherhood, be it a father "on earth," spiritual leaders in the Church, or our spiritual forefathers in heaven, participates in the Father's unique Fatherhood and represents it to us. They neither take away nor add to this one unique Fatherhood; they establish it on the earth.
The context of Matthew 23 emphasizes the sin of pride among the scribes and Pharisees. They loved to be called “teacher”, “father”, or “Rabbi," but their pride pointed men to themselves rather than to God the Father from whom they received true fatherhood and in whom their fatherhood subsisted. Outside of God the Father, there are no fathers at all in the true sense of the term. But in God, we have all sorts of true "fathers."
Ultimately, Jesus is condemning the usurpation of the fatherhood of God in Matthew's Gospel, not the proper participation in that fatherhood.
If nuns are called “sisters” why not call priests “brothers”?
Avoiding social awkwardness seems to be “the easy way” of which we have been warned not to pursue. We are also properly admonished to make no oaths, none at all. I know that most would consider such a formality to be harmless, but God takes it very seriously, nevertheless.
HAHAHA. I’m sorry - I used to be tolerant, but after Hasan’s sudden Jihadi syndrome here in Ft Hood, I had enough.
I have near and dear friends who mean the world to me working at the bases. It could have very easily been them who were killed.
Let’s also remember, not everything done today in the Church was done in the first century Church. I mean that’s just a fact. I don’t know why that fact isn’t used more often as an apologetic. There’s nothing wrong with admitting the Church today doesn’t exactly resemble the Church from the first century.
So, when Jesus was saying these words, it’s not like He was describing priests. He wasn’t and even couldn’t have been, as the Church wasn’t even set up yet. And even after Pentecost, when it was set up, I don’t think the first priests back then were called “father” in a spiritual sense. Those first priests were probably married if anything.
So it’s absolutely rediculous to apply this passage to the title of a modern day Catholic priest. It wasn’t speaking about that kind of use of the term “father” at all.
The male equivalent of a Nun is a Monk.
The male analogue of a nun is not a priest, but a monk, and in the Latin West, monks are called “brother” just as nuns are called “sister”.
In the Orthodox East, both priests and monks are addressed as “Father”, and nuns are addressed as “Mother”. Deacons are addressed as “Father Deacon [Christian name]”, but written of simply as “Deacon [Christian name]”.
I do not think there is anything wrong with being polite as long as Truth is not sacrificed for politeness.
And as I do believe, this article and/or what I posted above clearly shows how, even if one does not wish to be Catholic, you aren’t going to offend God if you call a priest “father”.
Let's expand the question: "Even if someone did not vote for Obama, must that person call him "President"?
both are titles of respect for the office, regardless of the faith one practices or the party to which one belongs. Should a christian call a rabbi, "Rabbi"?
As with many practical Truths in scripture, it all depends on what is known. Certainly, someone ignorant of scripture and Christian principles will not be called to account by violating such a specific command to "call no man on earth father," but those cognizant of such an admonition are committing a sin of doubtfulness if they violate their consciences, no matter what YOU may think of the issue.
Because they take different vows.
Just to take a quote at random:
“Sounds okay so far, but here's the problem. In I John 2:13-14, St. John refers to the leaders of the church in Ephesus to whom he is most likely writing as “fathers” twice. And notice he gives them the title “father.””
Uhhh...No, John isn't using “father” as a title. John also addresses his letter to young men and young/little children in the same sense as to “fathers”. John speaks to their level of spiritual maturity and experience in vss. 13, 14 and even calls all them “my children” in vs.1 of chap. 2.
In no way does John use “father” as a title anymore than “young men, little children” is used as a title.
The rest of the article is even worse.
**For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel.**
One nail in the coffin.
**Ultimately, Jesus is condemning the usurpation of the fatherhood of God in Matthew’s Gospel, not the proper participation in that fatherhood.**
Secon nail in the coffin lid.
Case closed.
And thus the words of Yeshua are made null. Just as the word of YHWH was made null in the past.
Teaching as Gospel the traditions of men.
I guess you missed that I used the words of Jesus! Along with the words of St. Paul.
Did you miss that?
Second nail
I call my biological father “Daddy.” I call my pastor “Father Gary.” (That’s his surname. When we had an African pastor, I called him “Father Paul” and didn’t attempt to pronounce his last name.)
I don’t think Jesus wanted us to be in a fuss over this. If we are, we’ve misunderstood Him. We use family titles for all sorts of people. My boss in Hispanic Ministry is the children’s Abuela. Asuncion is “la hermana de mi alma” and Kathleen’s Tia. The cute guitarist with Grupo Kerygma is “Brother Francisco.”
The Catholic Church is about making everyone into one family.
Of all the objections to Catholicism, this is the Charlie Browniest.
1 Peter 2:5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
The veil was torn and there is now only one High Priest, the Lord Jesus Christ, and all believers are priests.
The RCC has set up a false, unscriptural, hierarchy so the debate of calling a false office holder by any name is moot.
That doesn't make any sense...The official Catholic bible is the NAB...If it was any good, your religion would have stuck with it...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.