Call none 'father'

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mystophilus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Mystophilus

Guest
But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have only one Master and you are all brothers. And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. Nor are you to be called ‘teacher,’ for you have one Teacher, the Christ. The greatest among you will be your servant. For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted (Mt 23:8-12).I am just curious as to how the Catholic Church got to the position of its congregants calling its priests ‘father’, when that is in direct contravention of this instruction by Jesus. When did it start, and why?
 
40.png
Mystophilus:
But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have only one Master and you are all brothers. And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. Nor are you to be called ‘teacher,’ for you have one Teacher, the Christ. The greatest among you will be your servant. For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted (Mt 23:8-12).I am just curious as to how the Catholic Church got to the position of its congregants calling its priests ‘father’, when that is in direct contravention of this instruction by Jesus. When did it start, and why?
Jesus often talked in hyperbole to make his point. Think about it, none of us are cutting off our arms or gouging out our eyes to avoid sin. We realize that Jesus was making a point.

Do you call your male parent, dad? Isn’t this just another form of Father?
 
40.png
Mystophilus:
But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have only one Master and you are all brothers. And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. Nor are you to be called ‘teacher,’ for you have one Teacher, the Christ. The greatest among you will be your servant. For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted (Mt 23:8-12).I am just curious as to how the Catholic Church got to the position of its congregants calling its priests ‘father’, **when that is in direct contravention of this instruction by Jesus. ** When did it start, and why?
Everything you need to know.
Call No Man “Father”?
catholic.com/library/Call_No_Man_Father.asp
 
40.png
Fidelis:
Boy, is this a tired old chestnut. :yawn:
They come to the forums instead of Ask the Apologist where they know they are in over their heads.

That’s reassuring to me. It means they’re just blowing smoke and even THEY know it.
 
It never ceases to amaze me that these posters are so unfamiliar with the scripture that they don’t do a double take, not at Catholics calling priests “father”, but at ST. PAUL calling himself Timothy’s father, and telling his congregations that he is like a father to them.

Not to mention that every single child in the world calls his male parent his “father” (or a derivation like vater, pere, daddy, pop, pater, etc. etc.)

Yes, we have One Father in heaven, we have one biological father on earth, we have fathers-in-law, step-fathers, father-figures, grandfathers. . .

And why is there no fuss about all the men (and women) in the world who are RABBIS? Not to mention TEACHERS? If I had a nickel for every time I heard a man or woman called “teacher” or “rabbi”, I’d be a gazillionaire.

It seems some people are AWFULLY selective about a “title”. The same people who gleefully yell “pagan goddess = Easter” and ignore the fact that in every language but English and some Germanic forms the feast of “Pasch” is the PASSOVER of the Risen Lord. . .not a whiff of any putative goddess to be found. . .
 
40.png
Mystophilus:
I am just curious as to how the Catholic Church got to the position of its congregants calling its priests ‘father’, when that is in direct contravention of this instruction by Jesus. When did it start, and why?
Asked and answered many times in many places in the forum:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=67886&highlight=call+father
Ask An Apologist

KARL KEATING’S E-LETTER
September 6, 2005

Just a suggestion but sometimes a quick search of the forums will provide the answers to something you are looking into before you have to post the question. 🙂
 
40.png
adnauseum:
They come to the forums instead of Ask the Apologist where they know they are in over their heads.

That’s reassuring to me. It means they’re just blowing smoke and even THEY know it.
I apologise for boring you with my inane search for knowledge. However, I feel that you could, perhaps, try not to leap to the incorrect assumption that someone who asks a question is actually out to attack your faith in some way, and you could then have the mere politeness to respond to it as a question.

Just a thought.
 
40.png
HagiaSophia:
Asked and answered many times in many places in the forum:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=67886&highlight=call+father
Ask An Apologist

KARL KEATING’S E-LETTER
September 6, 2005

Just a suggestion but sometimes a quick search of the forums will provide the answers to something you are looking into before you have to post the question. 🙂
Thank you: I ran across the verse while researching something else, and I never even thought about the Ask the Apologist forum. 👍
 
Hey Mystophilus, please don’t be offended if people wrongly assumed you had anti-Catholic intentions.

Using this verse “against” Catholics is a very common tactic of “scripture scholars” who really should know better. So to us Catholics, we saw your question and had a knee-jerk reaction of “Oy, not this verse out of context again.”

It wasn’t right to assume that you were doing this, as I confess I did when I read the original post.

God bless you. Keep asking questions.
 
Also is an interesting point to make.

Until about the mid to late 1800s, American priests were called “Mister” and Protestant ministers were called father. Then somehow Catholics started calling their priests father (maybe they heard the Protestants and thought it was a touching idea). So naturally, the Protestants decided they had better stop calling their ministers father because it’s a “Catholic thing!”
 
Thomas More:
Hey Mystophilus, please don’t be offended if people wrongly assumed you had anti-Catholic intentions.

Using this verse “against” Catholics is a very common tactic of “scripture scholars” who really should know better. So to us Catholics, we saw your question and had a knee-jerk reaction of “Oy, not this verse out of context again.”

It wasn’t right to assume that you were doing this, as I confess I did when I read the original post.
Thank you for your frankness. 🙂

What irked was not so much the assumption as the impoliteness of its expression. I have seen far too much of that in these fora, it is unnecessary and it is a constant disappointment. :mad:

Having said that, you all have my word that I will never ever try to bait you into an argument. My purpose in being here is to learn, and I have yet to see any value in ‘apologetic’ arguments.

I asked the question because the verse does seem very simple, and I have wondered about it before. The source that Fidelis linked was very useful in that it showed multiple locations in the NT in which the term “father” is used for a spiritual leader, in the letters of Paul and Peter and John. Thus, I suspect that the apostles themselves must have regarded the injunction as being specific to Jesus’ own time among them.
 
40.png
Mystophilus:
I never even thought about the Ask the Apologist forum. 👍
I’m sorry myst, I trashed you in an earlier post. I was wrong and I jumped the gun.

Fortunately, you received a lot of good, supportive comments from others and I hope those are the comments you take as reflecting the true spirit of Catholicism.
 
40.png
Mystophilus:
Thank you for your frankness. 🙂

What irked was not so much the assumption as the impoliteness of its expression. I have seen far too much of that in these fora, it is unnecessary and it is a constant disappointment. :mad:

Having said that, you all have my word that I will never ever try to bait you into an argument. My purpose in being here is to learn, and I have yet to see any value in ‘apologetic’ arguments.

I asked the question because the verse does seem very simple, and I have wondered about it before. The source that Fidelis linked was very useful in that it showed multiple locations in the NT in which the term “father” is used for a spiritual leader, in the letters of Paul and Peter and John. Thus, I suspect that the apostles themselves must have regarded the injunction as being specific to Jesus’ own time among them.
I don’t think that the apostles thought Jesus was just saying something that applied only to their own time. Instead they understood that Jesus occasionally used hyperbole to make a point.

You need to read the entire chapter of Mathew 23 in order to understand it. Then it becomes clear that Jesus is discussing the leaders’ hypocrisy. Apparently the Jewish leaders were putting rules on their followers that they themselves didn’t always practice.

If we took Jesus literally, then their are many terms that we could no longer use. For example the hebrew word for Father can translate into…Daddy, dad, pappa, pop. Another word for Rabbi is teacher, or professor.

I think that we should all remember also that there are many lurkers who never post. Some of these are actually curious about Catholics but haven’t yet posted their questions. What we write on this board has an effect on them. Even if the OP was a jack chick wannabe(I don’t think that he/she is), answering him/her seriously could have a positive result on someone who might simply be reading the thread.
 
In one of Karl Keating’s recent e-letters, he talked about the history of this subject. At one point all non-Catholic denominations adressed their ministers as “Father” until the Irish Catholics came to this country.

You can find the link to this article on this thread discussing it:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=73702
 
40.png
adnauseum:
I’m sorry myst, I trashed you in an earlier post. I was wrong and I jumped the gun.
To err is human, to admit it saintly.
Fortunately, you received a lot of good, supportive comments from others and I hope those are the comments you take as reflecting the true spirit of Catholicism.
I will take your apology, and the moral courage which it exemplifies, as the true spirit of Godliness.

Thank you. 🙂
 
40.png
deb1:
I don’t think that the apostles thought Jesus was just saying something that applied only to their own time. Instead they understood that Jesus occasionally used hyperbole to make a point.

You need to read the entire chapter of Mathew 23 in order to understand it. Then it becomes clear that Jesus is discussing the leaders’ hypocrisy. Apparently the Jewish leaders were putting rules on their followers that they themselves didn’t always practice.

If we took Jesus literally, then their are many terms that we could no longer use. For example the hebrew word for Father can translate into…Daddy, dad, pappa, pop. Another word for Rabbi is teacher, or professor.
My reason for saying that it only applied to his time among them was the context. As you note, the comment occurs amidst a censure of the religious leaders. Jesus instructs his disciples not to use the terms “rabbi”, “father” or “teacher”. It is therefore reasonable to assume that the intended meaning of “father” is the one which is related to the two terms by which it is bracketed: not a parent, but a mentor.

That this term is later used in this way by some of the people thus instructed suggests that either they fell quickly into disobedience, or they believed that the meaning of the instruction was somehow limited. Were we to say that the usage of the term is limited by being purely hyperbolic, we would risk effectively dismissing Jesus’ comment without further consideration, and thus missing any greater depth that it may hold. However, should we work from the premise that the limitation was temporal, we then find certain interesting results.

Jesus forbids his disciples to call anyone but God by the title of “father”. In so doing, he excludes himself from being called father: the Son demonstrates his subordination to the Father.

Jesus forbids his disciples to call anyone but him by the title of “rabbi” or “teacher”. * Thus, Jesus is forbidding his disciples to follow anyone else. He probably felt that this was necessary because it was quite common at the time for disciples to leave one teacher in order to follow another, as we see with a couple of John the Baptist’s disciples:

The next day John was there again with two of his disciples. When he saw Jesus passing by, he said, “Look, the Lamb of God!”
When the two disciples heard him say this, they followed Jesus. Turning around, Jesus saw them following and asked, “What do you want?”
They said, “Rabbi” (which means Teacher), “where are you staying?” (John 1:35-8)
Thus, I think that the intention of this comment is not to forbid people from using “father” for their own parents, because the context says nothing about parents and a great deal about religious leaders. Instead, I would contend that the comment was meant to prevent the disciples from wandering to another source of teaching, who might mislead them.

After Jesus’ return to Heaven, the disciples would have to take up the role of teachers and guides, or spiritual “fathers” to the flock, but they would also have to emulate Jesus’ example in placing themselves firmly below both their Teacher and their Father in Heaven.

Having now looked at the “Ask the Apologist” forum, I can now say that it was better to post here (omnia Deus uult). In that forum, the apologists pronounce; they do not discuss. Had I gone there, I would not have been led to the hypotheses which I now maintain.*
 
40.png
Mystophilus:
Thus, I think that the intention of this comment is not to forbid people from using “father” for their own parents, because the context says nothing about parents and a great deal about religious leaders. Instead, I would contend that the comment was meant to prevent the disciples from wandering to another source of teaching, who might mislead them.
I agree that was Jesus’ intention here, in addition to being a warning about clamoring after exalted titles of authority for their own sake. I would further say, however, that it was NOT his intention in this discourse to forbid the specific title “father” to the leaders of his Church. As you noted another poster noting, the comment occurs amidst a censure of the religious leaders.The issue at hand was humilty in leadership, and care in the following men, not about titles, per se.
After Jesus’ return to Heaven, the disciples would have to take up the role of teachers and guides, or spiritual “fathers” to the flock, but they would also have to emulate Jesus’ example in placing themselves firmly below both their Teacher and their Father in Heaven.
 
40.png
Mystophilus:
After Jesus’ return to Heaven, the disciples would have to take up the role of teachers and guides, or spiritual “fathers” to the flock, but they would also have to emulate Jesus’ example in placing themselves firmly below both their Teacher and their Father in Heaven.
The idea that Jesus commanded some things only for the time he was with his disciples is not without support; Jesus commanded his disciples to “practice and observe whatever” the scribes and Pharisees told them (Matthew 23:3) but almost immediately after Jesus’ Ascension and the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost the disciples began to take exception to the scribes’ commands. (Acts 4:18-20) However, though what you said might be possible, I think it more probable that Jesus’ remarks were simply hyperbole. Consider the exchange between a rich ruler and Jesus in Luke 18:18-19 over the use of the word “good”:
18And a ruler asked him, “Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” 19And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.

This is clearly a command of Jesus not to use the word “good” to describe anyone but God alone and very similar to Jesus’ remarks about the use of the titles “father” and “teacher.” Yet, a few chapters later in Luke 23:49, Joseph of Arimathea is described as “a good and righteous man” and, in Luke’s Acts of the Apostles 11:24, Stephen is described as “a good man.” This apparent disobedience to the command of Jesus is not so easily dismissed as a restriction to the time of Jesus’ public ministry, as you suggest for similar restrictions on use of the words “father” and “teacher.” I think it more consistant to say that in each of these instances Jesus was using hyperbole and the point he was trying to emphasis was that all goodness, all fatherhood, and all teachership on earth originate with and is subordinate to the goodness and fatherhood of God and the teachership of Christ. The last part of your statement (quoted above), that the teachership of the Apostles is subordinate to the teachership of Christ, actually supports the hyperbolic interpretation.

This hyperbolic interpretation is also in line with similar remarks by Paul on authority and headship:
“Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.” (Romans 13:1)

“But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.” (1 Corinthians 11:3)
 
40.png
Lazerlike42:
Also is an interesting point to make.

Until about the mid to late 1800s, American priests were called “Mister” and Protestant ministers were called father. Then somehow Catholics started calling their priests father (maybe they heard the Protestants and thought it was a touching idea). So naturally, the Protestants decided they had better stop calling their ministers father because it’s a “Catholic thing!”
!!!

Really? Do you have a source for this information? This is interesting…

It doesn’t sound quite right.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top