a careful examination of the context of Matthew 23 shows that Jesus didn’t intend for his words here to be understood literally. The whole passage reads, “But you are not to be called ‘rabbi,’ for you have one teacher, and you are all brethren. And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. Neither be called ‘masters,’ for you have one master, the Christ” (Matt. 23:8–10).
The first problem is that although Jesus seems to prohibit the use of the term “teacher,” in Matthew 28:19–20, Christ himself appointed certain men to be teachers in his Church: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations . . . teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.” Paul speaks of his commission as a teacher: “For this I was appointed a preacher and apostle . . . a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth” (1 Tim. 2:7); “For this gospel I was appointed a preacher and apostle and teacher” (2 Tim. 1:11). He also reminds us that the Church has an office of teacher: “God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers” (1 Cor. 12:28); and “his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers” (Eph. 4:11). There is no doubt that Paul was not violating Christ’s teaching in Matthew 23 by referring so often to others as “teachers.”
Why do you believe that when Jesus stated “that His Body and Blood was food and drink for eternal life” were not to be taken literally?
You may wish to read the following article.
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-real-presence
The first problem is that although Jesus seems to prohibit the use of the term “teacher,” in Matthew 28:19–20, Christ himself appointed certain men to be teachers in his Church: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations . . . teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you
I see no problem there at all, the Jews were fond of being called Master, teacher or Rabi and obviously father they were teaching nobody but was enjoying the title and living style of some one important.
Jesus told his apostles to go out and preach the gospel with out attaching titles to them selves, they were to preach the gospel not build up their own names.
That is most likely why most of them are not heard from again but the gospel was preached.
Paul, that may be a different story as far as I am concerned.
Another example of the Catholic doctrine coming from Paul while Peter is just a figure head.
The objection in Matthew 23 is not the function of teaching or the function of having the role of a father, either biologically or spiritually. The prohibition in view is ecclesiastical titles. *Call* no man father." The context clearly refers us to an existing practice of title-giving which the disciples were to avoid. Jesus expanded it from just Rabbi to Father, Teacher, etc., because 1) only the heavenly Father should be called by that title, and 2) the giving of such titles tends to reinforce human pride, a corrupting influence Jesus wants His disciples to be free of.
So basically, functioning as a teacher or father is fine. Imposing that as a title is still prohibited.
As for in what manner the body and blood are food, the burden of proof is on those who would claim the saying is literal, because in each passage where it is discussed there is abundant evidence for metaphor.
John 6 for example. In John's Gospel we see that Jesus has repeatedly resorted to metaphors about Himself (Door, Vine, Bread of Life, Way, etc.). This is necessary because He is a one-of-a-kind experience for those who encounter Him. Metaphor is precisely what one uses when one wishes to teach about something new and unfamiliar using analogy to something familiar.
In John 6, we are given clue after clue that this too is metaphorical teaching. For just one prominent example, see verse 35:
And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
(John 6:35)
You see here how Jesus satisfies hunger to those who come to Him, thirst to those who believe in Him. Here you have a perfect example of the classic two-domain comparison that is the hallmark of metaphor. For example, thirst is a physical primitive, universal to the human experience. It is the known domain. Believing on Jesus is the unknown domain, something new to human experience. A metaphor sets up a comparative relationship between these two distinct domains, such that we can learn about the one from the other. A teaches us about B.
And if you have all that, the human mind automatically looks for the lesson of the metaphor. Romeo says of Juliet that she is lovely as a summer day. Almost anyone instantly gets what Romeo is saying, that Juliet brings to him a kind of comfort and loveliness we associate with pleasant summer weather, clear blue skies, warming sunlight, a cool breeze, all the richness of it, and all in such a small and elegant passage. A well chosen metaphor is a powerful way to communicate complex truth.
In John 6, the crowd is stuck on the rumbly in their tummy (to quote Winnie the Pooh). But Jesus, as steady as a drum, has been directing them to faith in Him, a spiritual exercise. Back in chapter 3 Jesus directs Nicodemas to not look at physical birth, but spiritual. In chapter 4, Jesus tells the woman at the well to look past the physical location of the temple to the worship that flows from spirit and truth. John 6 is a continuation of that theme. It drives the whole of John's Gospel.
And here in chapter 6, verse 35 (see above) makes it unmistakable. The subject is food, and so hunger, but hunger that is satisfied by an act of belief in Jesus, in receiving Him as the Messiah, the Son of God. Clear, unambiguous, elegant metaphor, teaching us the benefits and necessity of faith in Christ.
But the crowd was not disposed to learn that lesson, and cognitive science informs us that when the mind is resistant to the lesson of the metaphor, the metaphor can be misunderstood, just as it was here.
And as if that were not enough, Jesus spells it out in verse 63. He's working in the category of spirit, not flesh.
And at the end of the passage, Peter brings it home one more time. He doesn't ask Jesus how he may eat His body and so gain eternal life. He says, to whom else can we go, because you (Jesus) have the words of eternal life, and we do have faith in you as the Messiah, the Son of God. Peter gets the metaphor.
So the preponderance of the evidence weighs heavily in favor of metaphor, both here and in each of the other relevant passages. To escape the weight of that evidence, it is you who must come up with a reason why this passage should be understood as describing a form of crypto-cannibalism, in defiance of divine law. Occam's razor, FRiend. The explanation requiring the least gymnastics that gives a full account of the facts has the better claim to being the truth. Here, that explanation is metaphor.
Peace,
SR