Replies

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:

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.

boatbums:

You are perfectly welcome to understand the passage within your protestant theological framework. Since I reject much of the protestant theological, framework, I will accept the Catholic [and Eastern Orthodox] theological framework for the use of the word Father in a spiritual and patriarchal sense for Bishops and priests.

And of course Gill’s commentary is constructed in such a way that spiritual father is acceptable, which then negates the way that most of the protestants here are interpreting it. Gill’s commentary does indicate that Christ’s statements in MT 23:9 did contain some hyperbole and was not a Universal rejection of the use of the term father. It is just you Protestants don’t like the distinction of the Title Pope for the Bishop of Rome vs. the use of the term Father for parish clergy, I guess.

Nobody here wants to address the uses of the term spiritual father by Saint Paul and Saint John, which as I said before, is entirely in line with the Catholic use of father.