If No One Is Pope, Everyone is Pope – A Homily for the 21st Sunday of the Year

Archdiocese of Washington ^ | 8/23/2014 | Msgr. Charles Pope

[metmom]

You can show due respect without defying the clear command of Jesus in the matter.

[CTrent1564]

memom:

And Saint Paul said I became your Father to the Christian community at Corinth. Go tell him that why don’t you because he must have not gotten the memo. And the Apostle John in 1 John 3:18 seems to see himself as a spiritual father as he refers to that Church Community as “his Children”, thus he sees himself as a Spiritual Father. Did he also not get the memo.

[roamer_1]

Nope. Go back and do your homework on rabbi. Means “great one.” Doesn’t mean these “great ones” didn’t do some teaching. But that was not their title.

Y'all are arguing a moot point - 'Rabbi' is an exterior appellation... The people called them 'rabbi'... And the term comes with 'master' type baggage due to the remarkable knowledge it took to become a rabbi, not to mention a 'Great Rabbi'. 'Master' is an interior appellation... A rabbi's disciples called him 'master' and also 'rabbi', but master was the main term of submission. So the two are somewhat interchangeable, interior vs. exterior to the 'assembly' of a rabbi.

'Father', to my knowledge, has no honorific among the Hebrews beyond the normal patriarchal sense, but was very broadly used in pagan circles (PATR, PETR) as an honorific for their priests, as was something like 'master' among their high dignitaries. Pope does derive from this, but the office comes from the universal high priest of the ecumenical hierarchy of the eastern mystery religions... The 'Pontiff Maximus', a title later bestowed upon Roman emperors in their role as priest kings. It was inherited into the Roman church as such, with it's ascension to 'emperor' over the Western Empire.

[CynicalBear]

Exellent analysis!

[Springfield Reformer]

Thanks Roamer. My info suggests “father” did have honorific usage. But I do appreciate your thoughtful input. Always nice to have even more to think about. :)

Peace,

SR

[roamer_1]

My info suggests “father” did have honorific usage.

If y'all get to posting that, please ping me to it, if you would... always appreciate learning...

[CTrent1564]

roamer_1:

Ok but Rabbi as a term would connote a Master/Teacher of Jewish Doctrine, Law, practice and thus one who teaches. So all educators are indeed teachers, but a PHD would be in essence a Master/Teacher of a discipline and thus could teach a subject at a University, and elementary school teacher while still be an educator like the PHD, but not a master teacher.

As for Father, so you do note that it does have usage in a context other than to refer to God the Father, as in Hebrew it had patriarchal links with the likes of Abraham. THe early Church viewed certain sees [Rome being first among them] as patriarchial sees [Antioch and Alexandria also] thus the Bishops of those Churches were seen as Fathers, i.e. Greek Pappas, which would be what a little child would call his or her Father. That word became Papa in Latin is where Pope Comes from. Pater is also used as a title for Father, but that would be not the child’s use of papa, So Pater would be also Father and used in Latin for God and also honorific like Papa for Pope and Pater for a spiritual Father. Now why did the Popes want Papa reserved for them and pater for parish priests, perhaps in the sense that they saw all of the Church as being under their spiritual care taking cue from Christ command to Saint Peter “Feed my Lambs” and only he was given that command. So what type of Man, if is a true man, does not work to provide food to feed his family, so in that sense Saint Peter was given a charge to be a spiritual father to his fellow apostles, not to Lord over them but to serve and strengthen them [which Christ also specifically commanded Saint Peter, and only him, to do in Luke 22].

[CommerceComet]

Commentary for this Catholic Link for the DR translation [9] Call none your father upon earth: Neither be ye called masters. The meaning is that our Father in heaven is incomparably more to be regarded, than any father upon earth: and no master to be followed, who would lead us away from Christ. But this does not hinder but that we are by the law of God to have a due respect both for our parents and spiritual fathers, (1 Cor. 4. 15) and for our masters and teachers.

You're not the author of this comment but because you're using it as your explanation for the text, I'll ask you the question. Where is the highlighted point stated or implied in Matthew 23:9?

[CTrent1564]

CommerceComet:

I have already answered it and I think the commentary is stating don’t follow those who call themselves masters, teachers, or father, if they lead you away from Christ. Who are these masters, teachers, spiritual fathers today that do that, the masters, teachers, and spiritual fathers of secularism, political correctness, excessive materialism, communism, etc, etc, So that is how I apply that to my life situation today, God is the Father Almighty first an foremost, the Church is my spiritual Mother and the Popes and Priests who convey and teach the orthodox Catholic Faith would be my spiritual fathers, teachers, masters that I listen to as I believe that does not lead me away from God the Father. Now that is my personal reflection on it and I dont’t make it with any dogmatic certainty.

[af_vet_1981]

Correction: Cyril instead of Jerome
I don't think that was the reason. Jerome Cyril, who was Fourth Century, explained the ritual washing was from Psalm 26 and he would have been very aware of the story from the gospel.

[boatbums]

Don’t agree totally, we all are called to forgive yes, but all of us are not apostles.

NONE of us iz. They all died and John was the last of 'em.

[CTrent1564]

Here is another user of the term father, as opposed to Father. Note how Saint John is referring to certain men as fathers [spiritual] and for them to lead the flock they are shepherding in accordance with the Doctrine Saint John Taught them. I have both the Catholic NAB and RSV versions

http://usccb.org/bible/1john/2

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+John+2&version=NRSVCE

Note again how Saint John addresses the entire Church as his children then specifically tasks certain men, he calls them father, to in essence guard the flock. One would think these mean or probably presbyters [again, literally elderly men] and he calls them fathers, which is entirely consistent with the usage in the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Church.

[CTrent1564]

boatbums:

I agree I am not an apostle, so the ministry of reconciliation that Saint Paul was talking about was given to the Church and the Apostles and those the Apostles ordained to carry on their apostolic ministry. That was precisely the point I was making.

[af_vet_1981]

'Father', to my knowledge, has no honorific among the Hebrews beyond the normal patriarchal sense,

And Elisha saw it, and he cried, My father, my father, the chariot of Israel, and the horsemen thereof. And he saw him no more: and he took hold of his own clothes, and rent them in two pieces. He took up also the mantle of Elijah that fell from him, and went back, and stood by the bank of Jordan; And he took the mantle of Elijah that fell from him, and smote the waters, and said, Where is the Lord God of Elijah? and when he also had smitten the waters, they parted hither and thither: and Elisha went over.

Elijah was "father" and "master" to Elisha in Hebrew.

[boatbums]

Just a little input:

pope (n.) Old English papa (9c.), from Church Latin papa "bishop, pope" (in classical Latin, "tutor"), from Greek papas "patriarch, bishop," originally "father." Applied to bishops of Asia Minor and taken as a title by the Bishop of Alexandria c.250. In Western Church, applied especially to the Bishop of Rome since the time of Leo the Great (440-461) and claimed exclusively by them from 1073 (usually in English with a capital P-). Popemobile, his car, is from 1979. Papal, papacy, later acquisitions in English, preserve the original vowel. http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=pope

The word pope derives from Greek πάππας meaning "Father". In the early centuries of Christianity, this title was applied, especially in the east, to all bishops and other senior clergy, and later became reserved in the west to the Bishop of Rome, a reservation made official only in the 11th century.[13][14][15][16][17] The earliest record of the use of this title was in regard to the by then deceased Patriarch of Alexandria, Pope Heraclas of Alexandria (232–248).[18] The earliest recorded use of the title "pope" in English dates to the mid-10th century, when it was used in reference to Pope Vitalian in an Old English translation of Bede's Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum.[19]

The title was from the early 3rd century a general term used to refer to all bishops.[20] From the 6th century the title began to be used particularly of the Bishop of Rome, and in the late 11th century Pope Gregory VII issued a declaration that has been widely interpreted as stating this by then established Western convention.[20] By the same 6th century, this was also the normal practice of the imperial chancery of Constantinople. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope

[CTrent1564]

boatbums:

I don’t disagree with anything you posted. It is generally consistent with everything I have been saying. And the term was used in the context of a spiritual father and honorific title and used in the context of how the Apostles used it to describe patriarchs like Abraham, David, Isaac and even themselves, in the case of Saint Paul and it appears presbyters in the case of 1 John, as I noted in an earlier post.

And as I, and others frequently do, we quote from the “Church Fathers” which again is a spiritual and honorary title applied to those orthodox men of the Faith.

[boatbums]

I don’t disagree with anything you posted. It is generally consistent with everything I have been saying. And the term was used in the context of a spiritual father and honorific title and used in the context of how the Apostles used it to describe patriarchs like Abraham, David, Isaac and even themselves, in the case of Saint Paul and it appears presbyters in the case of 1 John, as I noted in an earlier post. And as I, and others frequently do, we quote from the “Church Fathers” which again is a spiritual and honorary title applied to those orthodox men of the Faith.

There must be a distinction, then, between those who "parent" us in the faith - including our acknowledgment of that paternity - and the forbidden act, by Jesus, Himself, of his disciples allowing themselves the TITLE for formal usage. What do you think Jesus meant when he said:

But do not be called Rabbi; for One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers. Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. But the greatest among you shall be your servant. (Matt. 23:8-11)

Gill's Exposition of the Bible says regarding this passage:

And call no man your father upon the earth,.... Not but that children may, and should call their natural parents, fathers; and such who have been instrumental in the conversion of souls, may be rightly called by them their spiritual fathers; as servants and scholars also, may call those that are over them, and instruct them, their masters: our Lord does not mean, by any of these expressions, to set aside all names and titles, of natural and civil distinction among men, but only to reject all such names and titles, as are used to signify an authoritative power over men's consciences, in matters of faith and obedience; in which, God and Christ are only to be attended to. Christ's sense is, that he would have his disciples not fond of any titles of honour at all; and much less assume an authority over men, as if they were to depend on them, as the founders of the Christian religion, the authors of its doctrines and ordinances; and to take that honour to themselves, which did not belong to them; nor even choose to be called by such names, as would lead people to entertain too high an opinion of them, and take off of their dependence on God the Father, and himself, as these titles the Scribes and Pharisees loved to be called by, did: and who were called not only by the name of Rabbi, but Abba, "Father", also: hence we read of Abba Saul, or "Father" Saul (n); Abba Jose ben Jochanan, a man of Jerusalem (o), Abba Chanan (p), Abba Chelphetha, a man of the village of Hananiah (q); Abba Gorion (r), and others; and this name was , "a name of honour, even as Rabbi" (s), and of great authority: the wise men are said to be , "the fathers of all" (t), to whom all gave heed, and upon whom all depended, as so many oracles. There is a whole treatise in their Misna, called Pirke Abot, which contains some of the oracles, and peculiar sayings of these "fathers", the Misnic doctors, and which are preferred to the writings of Moses, and the prophets. In this sense, and upon this score, our Lord inveighs against them, and cautions his disciples against giving or taking all such titles, in such sense. "For one is your Father, which is in heaven"; who is so, both by creation and adoption, and is possessed of all paternal authority; and is to be honoured and obeyed by all; from whom all wisdom and knowledge is derived, and who has the care and government of all in heaven and in earth.

So, rather than Jesus forbidding all uses of the term "father" when speaking of both the physical and spiritual, I think He directs us back to understanding the source of all things - our Father in Heaven. He alone is worthy of the title.

[boatbums]

Yes the centrality of the Bible is the 4 Gospels, not that there is a canon within a canon, but the Person of Christ, all of it, is the key to how everything else is interpreted, including the NT epistles. And of course, as I already have shown, Saint Paul disobeyed it as well, numerous times.

Does he? I don't see anywhere that Paul told those he led in the faith to call him "Father" or "Rabbi".

[CTrent1564]

boatbums:

I agree with you up until your last statement, God is indeed the source of everything...I believe in God the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth and all things visible and invisible.

That is the opening statement of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, which is the normative Creed professed at every Catholic Mass/Liturgy. So I(we) Catholics profess that every Sunday. So by Stating God the Father, we are acknowledging God the Father as the Source of all things, but when we call the Pope, Pope Francis, or Father, Father Mitch, or Saint Augustine a Church Father, etc, that is a spiritual sense of term and in no way does it suggest anything to mean it as God the Father Almighty, creator of heaven and earth, etc, etc. Christ himself was comfortable with referring to Abraham as the patriarch of the Jewish People and the person through which God began to reveal himself to the OT Jewish people. For example in John 8:56 “your father Abraham looked forward to my coming” In a similar text, MT 3:9 Christ again refers to Abraham as father, etc. Of course while referring to Abraham as father and pointing to Abraham and all the patriarchal fathers of the OT were pointing to his coming.

[CTrent1564]

boatbums:

I was using that sarcastically. Of course I don’t think Saint Paul disobeyed, I think the NT writers understood the context of how Christ was using the term Father and when they used it, they were using it in a context that in no way detracted from God as the Father Almighty, creator of Heaven and Earth.

My point is that if Saint Paul and Saint John used the term father to describe themselves and to other men who were pastoring churches, then it is the FR Protestants on this board who are wrong with the charge that Catholics are violating Christ direct command. As I have explained in earlier post, Catholics use the terms Pope and Father with respect to clergy in the context of patriarchal fatherhood and spiritual fatherhood consistent with that usage of the term throughout the New Testament.