=============================================================
Jesus sometimes spoke literally, and sometimes He spoke figuratively, or simply non-literally in some other way. We have to learn how to discern between when He was speaking literally, and when He was speaking figuratively, and when he was using such speaking tools as hyperbole, and other forms of speaking to make a point.
That is one of the reasons that Jesus began to build His Holy Spirit guided Church, in order to faithfully and authoritatively teach His unchanging truths, even before the first word in the New Testament was actually written.
Those who take that discerning task upon themselves apart from the "pillar and ground of the truth", often get their conflicting and contradictory interpretations completely wrong, and those are two good examples of that.
Jesus was not talking literally when discussing calling men "fathers", and He was talking literally when He spoke about the Sacrament of Holy Eucharist.
Let me give you some helpful sources to clearly and thoroughly explain why taking a literal view of "call no man father" really makes no sense.
Call No Man "Father"?
("http://www.catholic.com/tracts/call-no- man-father")
Many Protestants claim that when Catholics address priests as "father," they are engaging in an unbiblical practice that Jesus forbade: "Call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven" (Matt. 23:9).
In his tract 10 Reasons Why I Am Not a Roman Catholic, Fundamentalist anti-Catholic writer Donald Maconaghie quotes this passage as support for his charge that "the papacy is a hoax."
Bill Jackson, another Fundamentalist who runs a full-time anti-Catholic organization, says in his book Christian’s Guide To Roman Catholicism that a "study of Matthew 23:9 reveals that Jesus was talking about being called father as a title of religious superiority . . . [which is] the basis for the [Catholic] hierarchy" (53).
How should Catholics respond to such objections?
The Answer
To understand why the charge does not work, one must first understand the use of the word "father" in reference to our earthly fathers. No one would deny a little girl the opportunity to tell someone that she loves her father. Common sense tells us that Jesus wasn’t forbidding this type of use of the word "father."
In fact, to forbid it would rob the address "Father" of its meaning when applied to God, for there would no longer be any earthly counterpart for the analogy of divine Fatherhood. The concept of God’s role as Father would be meaningless if we obliterated the concept of earthly fatherhood.
But in the Bible the concept of fatherhood is not restricted to just our earthly fathers and God. It is used to refer to people other than biological or legal fathers, and is used as a sign of respect to those with whom we have a special relationship.
For example, Joseph tells his brothers of a special fatherly relationship God had given him with the king of Egypt: "So it was not you who sent me here, but God; and he has made me a father to Pharaoh, and lord of all his house and ruler over all the land of Egypt" (Gen. 45:8).
Job indicates he played a fatherly role with the less fortunate: "I was a father to the poor, and I searched out the cause of him whom I did not know" (Job 29:16). And God himself declares that he will give a fatherly role to Eliakim, the steward of the house of David: "In that day I will call my servant Eliakim, the son of Hilkiah . . . and I will clothe him with [a] robe, and will bind [a] girdle on him, and will commit . . . authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah" (Is. 22:20–21).
This type of fatherhood not only applies to those who are wise counselors (like Joseph) or benefactors (like Job) or both (like Eliakim), it also applies to those who have a fatherly spiritual relationship with one. For example, Elisha cries, "My father, my father!" to Elijah as the latter is carried up to heaven in a whirlwind (2 Kgs. 2:12). Later, Elisha himself is called a father by the king of Israel (2 Kgs. 6:21).
A Change with the New Testament?
Some Fundamentalists argue that this usage changed with the New Testament—that while it may have been permissible to call certain men "father" in the Old Testament, since the time of Christ, it’s no longer allowed. This argument fails for several reasons.
First, as we’ve seen, the imperative "call no man father" does not apply to one’s biological father. It also doesn’t exclude calling one’s ancestors "father," as is shown in Acts 7:2, where Stephen refers to "our father Abraham," or in Romans 9:10, where Paul speaks of "our father Isaac."
Second, there are numerous examples in the New Testament of the term "father" being used as a form of address and reference, even for men who are not biologically related to the speaker. There are, in fact, so many uses of "father" in the New Testament, that the Fundamentalist interpretation of Matthew 23 (and the objection to Catholics calling priests "father") must be wrong, as we shall see.
Third, 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."
Fundamentalists themselves slip up on this point by calling all sorts of people "doctor," for example, medical doctors, as well as professors and scientists who have Ph.D. degrees (i.e., doctorates). What they fail to realize is that "doctor" is simply the Latin word for "teacher." Even "Mister" and "Mistress" ("Mrs.") are forms of the word "master," also mentioned by Jesus. So if his words in Matthew 23 were meant to be taken literally, Fundamentalists would be just as guilty for using the word "teacher" and "doctor" and "mister" as Catholics for saying "father." But clearly, that would be a misunderstanding of Christ’s words.
So What Did Jesus Mean?
Jesus criticized Jewish leaders who love "the place of honor at feasts and the best seats in the synagogues, and salutations in the market places, and being called ‘rabbi’ by men" (Matt. 23:6–7). His admonition here is a response to the Pharisees’ proud hearts and their grasping after marks of status and prestige.
He was using hyperbole (exaggeration to make a point) to show the scribes and Pharisees how sinful and proud they were for not looking humbly to God as the source of all authority and fatherhood and teaching, and instead setting themselves up as the ultimate authorities, father figures, and teachers.
Christ used hyperbole often, for example when he declared, "If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell" (Matt. 5:29, cf. 18:9; Mark 9:47). Christ certainly did not intend this to be applied literally, for otherwise all Christians would be blind amputees! (cf. 1 John 1:8; 1 Tim. 1:15). We are all subject to "the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the pride of life" (1 John 2:16).
Since Jesus is demonstrably using hyperbole when he says not to call anyone our father—else we would not be able to refer to our earthly fathers as such—we must read his words carefully and with sensitivity to the presence of hyperbole if we wish to understand what he is saying.
Jesus is not forbidding us to call men "fathers" who actually are such—either literally or spiritually. (See below on the apostolic example of spiritual fatherhood.) To refer to such people as fathers is only to acknowledge the truth, and Jesus is not against that. He is warning people against inaccurately attributing fatherhood—or a particular kind or degree of fatherhood—to those who do not have it.
As the apostolic example shows, some individuals genuinely do have a spiritual fatherhood, meaning that they can be referred to as spiritual fathers. What must not be done is to confuse their form of spiritual paternity with that of God. Ultimately, God is our supreme protector, provider, and instructor. Correspondingly, it is wrong to view any individual other than God as having these roles.
Throughout the world, some people have been tempted to look upon religious leaders who are mere mortals as if they were an individual’s supreme source of spiritual instruction, nourishment, and protection. The tendency to turn mere men into "gurus" is worldwide.
This was also a temptation in the Jewish world of Jesus’ day, when famous rabbinical leaders, especially those who founded important schools, such as Hillel and Shammai, were highly exalted by their disciples. It is this elevation of an individual man—the formation of a "cult of personality" around him—of which Jesus is speaking when he warns against attributing to someone an undue role as master, father, or teacher.
He is not forbidding the perfunctory use of honorifics nor forbidding us to recognize that the person does have a role as a spiritual father and teacher. The example of his own apostles shows us that.
The Apostles Show the Way
The New Testament is filled with examples of and references to spiritual father-son and father-child relationships. Many people are not aware just how common these are, so it is worth quoting some of them here.
Paul regularly referred to Timothy as his child: "Therefore I sent to you Timothy, my beloved and faithful child in the Lord, to remind you of my ways in Christ" (1 Cor. 4:17); "To Timothy, my true child in the faith: grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord" (1 Tim. 1:2); "To Timothy, my beloved child: Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord" (2 Tim. 1:2).
He also referred to Timothy as his son: "This charge I commit to you, Timothy, my son, in accordance with the prophetic utterances which pointed to you, that inspired by them you may wage the good warfare" (1 Tim 1:18); "You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus" (2 Tim. 2:1); "But Timothy’s worth you know, how as a son with a father he has served with me in the gospel" (Phil. 2:22).
Paul also referred to other of his converts in this way: "To Titus, my true child in a common faith: grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior" (Titus 1:4); "I appeal to you for my child, Onesimus, whose father I have become in my imprisonment" (Philem. 10). None of these men were Paul’s literal, biological sons. Rather, Paul is emphasizing his spiritual fatherhood with them.
Spiritual Fatherhood
Perhaps the most pointed New Testament reference to the theology of the spiritual fatherhood of priests is Paul’s statement, "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" (1 Cor. 4:14–15).
Peter followed the same custom, referring to Mark as his son: "She who is at Babylon, who is likewise chosen, sends you greetings; and so does my son Mark" (1 Pet. 5:13). The apostles sometimes referred to entire churches under their care as their children. Paul writes, "Here for the third time I am ready to come to you. And I will not be a burden, for I seek not what is yours but you; for children ought not to lay up for their parents, but parents for their children" (2 Cor. 12:14); and, "My little children, with whom I am again in travail until Christ be formed in you!" (Gal. 4:19).
John said, "My little children, I am writing this to you so that you may not sin; but if any one does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous" (1 John 2:1); "No greater joy can I have than this, to hear that my children follow the truth" (3 John 4). In fact, John also addresses men in his congregations as "fathers" (1 John 2:13–14).
By referring to these people as their spiritual sons and spiritual children, Peter, Paul, and John imply their own roles as spiritual fathers. Since the Bible frequently speaks of this spiritual fatherhood, we Catholics acknowledge it and follow the custom of the apostles by calling priests "father." Failure to acknowledge this is a failure to recognize and honor a great gift God has bestowed on the Church: the spiritual fatherhood of the priesthood.
Catholics know that as members of a parish, they have been committed to a priest’s spiritual care, thus they have great filial affection for priests and call them "father." Priests, in turn, follow the apostles’ biblical example by referring to members of their flock as "my son" or "my child" (cf. Gal. 4:19; 1 Tim. 1:18; 2 Tim. 2:1; Philem. 10; 1 Pet. 5:13; 1 John 2:1; 3 John 4).
All of these passages were written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and they express the infallibly recorded truth that Christ’s ministers do have a role as spiritual fathers. Jesus is not against acknowledging that. It is he who gave these men their role as spiritual fathers, and it is his Holy Spirit who recorded this role for us in the pages of Scripture. To acknowledge spiritual fatherhood is to acknowledge the truth, and no amount of anti-Catholic grumbling will change that fact.
Here are some more links to help you out there metmom.
- "http://www.catholicbasictraining.com/apologetics/coursetexts/1y.htm" - "Call No Man Father"
- "http://www.staycatholic.com/call_no_man_father.htm" - "Call No Man Father"
- "http://www.catholicdoors.com/misc/apologetics/father.htm" - "CATHOLIC TEACHINGS REGARDING CALL NO ONE 'FATHER'"
- "http://www .askacatholic.com/_WebPostings/Answers/2008_07JULY/2008JulyWhyPrayToMaryCallPriestsFather.cfm" - "AskACatholic.com"
- "http://www.antiochian.org/node/19193" - "Call No Man Father?" - (Orthodox explanation for this question)
- "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I- sOgcUOt8E" - "Call No Man Father?" - (Jimmy Akin youtube explanation)
- "http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/apologetics/two_minute#16" - "The Bible says to call no man Father, so why do we call our priests 'Father'?"
✝============================================================✝
It continues to amaze me how far men can go to rationalize away disobedience to the clear, direct, plainly stated commands of God.
For clarity's sake, Matthew 23:8-10 again;
8 But you, do not be called ‘Rabbi’; for One is your Teacher, the Christ,[a] and you are all brethren. 9 Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. 10 And do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, the Christ.Footnotes:
a. Matthew 23:8 NU-Text omits the Christ.
Do not be called "Rabbi" for you are all brethren.
How then to call one whom is as a brother among brethren, all whom have hopefully(?) been born of the same Father, then also "father" --- of his own brothers?
Perhaps other birthing terms could be brought in to this mix, and compare the elder brethren to being like unto midwives, assisting in bringing about the initial re-birth, and then further raising up, strengthening and establishing in the faith those persons, illuminating further the depths of their own faith to those of whom as it was written in the last written sentence of Acts 2 -- And the Lord added to the church[h] daily those who were being saved.
Or course the texts do not say "midwives", but neither do they suggest that Christians (as those would later come to be known), of whatever standing within the Church --- go beyond or break the limitations of what the Christ is attributed to having said, seen in Matthew 23:8-10.
And though there is (and always was within the Church) the need for there to be teachers, and also that those whom were being taught to submit themselves to the teachings themselves, the solid support for view toward concepts of hierarchy are for Elders as elder brethren, for Christ said that you are all brethren, with it being He himself who was doing the teaching.
There also can be positions of deacon, (and elders, of course) presbyter and bishop, but not one bishop singularly in unilateral manner ranked over and above all others --- or as how today those of Rome would seem to prefer to have it, their own bishops and top bishop be either -- all that there is, or else if not, then those together in aggregate be collectively over all others, regardless of all other considerations.
I do understand how centuries later (if not even sooner?) men began to slide towards seeing themselves, as they served in role of "teacher", much as Christ Himself was teacher to his disciples, to then further take that type of *thinking* to further yet apply to what is called Eucharist --- with the so-called priests for a brief moment (in the course of the liturgy) making it out to be that they themselves were 'alter Christus'.
Compare that type of attitude or posturing towards others, with the Apostle Peter's own posture towards the centurion Cornelius, when that the man knelt to worship at Peter's feet Acts 10:25-26;
25 As Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him and fell down at his feet and worshiped him. 26 But Peter lifted him up, saying, “Stand up; I myself am also a man.”
Then compare yet again with how a Roman Church prelate, Pope Gregory VII, near to the beginning of the 2nd millennia wrote that "all princes must kiss his feet".
Being as the Church of Rome asserts that Peter was the foremost Apostle, and that bishopric alone among any and all others upon earth is Peter's "chair", much as the Sanhedrin once occupied 'seat of Moses', then it is painfully clear that by time of Gregory VII there had been (theologically speaking) significant enough accumulated genetic drift copy error for that bishopric to have evolved or morphed into being not "chair of Peter", much at all, for it had become in spirit (and letter too?) something else yet again other than simple carrying on of earliest apostolic teaching. Each are called according to that which was passed on to the Apostles, and then bishops collectively there further, for each bishop in the earliest ages, although not all of them made so by Peter, or by Paul, or yet some other Apostle, were not at that time so entirely independent they not need unity with one another, but rather, down to the last congregant, were all collectively called to unity under Christ --- even Christ alone. If otherwise Peter was to be seen as "head" and the intent was for some lineage of bishopric flowing allegedly from Peter alone be where ultimate authority rested, then Paul would have told us all, in writing, such as 1 Corinthians 1).
Of some passing, possible interest, the bishopric of Rome was once famed, in part, after a couple of full centuries had gone by since Christ had risen from the tomb -- the high esteem was due only to Peter having once spent some number of years there, near the end of his life, but that Paul also had been present among the early opening years of the church there at Rome --- but --- somewhere alone the line -- I do not at the moment precisely recall, a much later Bishop of Rome (thus--"pope") declared that Paul was and always had been of lesser status or rank than Peter.
The truth is more that although Peter ws seen as "first" by many, in the beginning centuries of the Church all in authority, all bishops as it were, each held some measure of equality, even as each was to have conceptually, in themselves, had as their own inherited authority --- collectively all of the original Apostle's authority, each holding as it were equality with one another as brethren --- not sons of this Apostle, or that other one, for Paul himself wrote squarely against that sort of notion FROM THE VERY BEGINNINGS.
The so-called "Protestants" of this world had long attempted to point these things out to Roman Catholics, but the latter had in times past, and even so now, adamantly refused to allow themselves (again, theologically speaking) to be corrected.
After several or more centuries, most have given up the effort to point things like this out, so much --- that they came to not hardly thinking about or talking about [Roman] Catholicisms among themselves hardly at all.
There are notable exceptions for this of course, but I can honestly say to any and all I here -- that I myself would most likely have never come to study the issues if it not for here on the pages of FreeRepublic seeing such things as the comment to which I now reply being published here daily.
So I could thank those whom by their own efforts to assert and yet again re-assert portions of RCC apologetic, provide always opportunity to demonstrate just how over-inflated (or distorted, as compared to as Scripture reveals spirit of NT Church) that it be often as metmom once said, the RC arguments "seemingly solid until one pokes at it" which then can result in the apologetic "deflating".
Altogether, if this forum has not made a theologian out of myself --- it certainly has made a polemicist out of me, in response to the ever-present but occasionally well-camouflaged polemics of Romanists. I was nothing of the sort some 15 years ormore ago --- but have been driven to it by having read the daily dosage of Romish distortions of even the Gospel itself. If it not be such an important subject -- then I would not care. But I do care, for I would hope for everyone to know the truth, with that not being that the RCC all-in-all is terrible or something, but rather that God is good, and that the written word, the Scriptures themselves are true.
If not for this forum, and having needed to have been myself continually studying and researching, sifting and searching yet further as for confirmation or falsification of hosts of items of discussion, I doubt that I would know the details as well as I now do.
Thank you for again showing just how weak official, high level RC apologetic can be.
It appears like The Spin to me...
"This is my body..."
"This is my body..."