Call none 'father'

[Mystophilus]

Todd Easton:

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.

My objection to the reading of the text as hyperbolic was methodological rather than hermeneutic: I am not disagreeing with the possibility that it could be hyperbolic, but I would not like to give up on reading the text merely on the assumption that it is. I agree with your reading regarding God being the archetype of those qualities, but I suspect that the warning against following other teachers is also accurate.

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)

Why do you think that these are not meant literally?

 

[Psalm45_9]

!!!

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

It doesn’t sound quite right.

Read the article in the link I provided. He speaks the truth. In Italy preists are called “Don” not “Father” If the priest’s name is Marco, he would be called, “Don Marco.” Calling priests “Father” is an Irish tradition. In France and French speaking lands all priests are called “monsignor.”

 

[Todd_Easton]

Mystophilus:

Why do you think that these are not meant literally?

I guess I wasn’t clear enough in my presentation… I didn’t mean to imply that St. Paul’s remarks were hyperbole but that the theme of his remarks in the passages quoted was the same as the theme suggested by Jesus’ remarks concerning calling men “father,” "teacher, and “good,” if Jesus’ remarks are taken as hyperbole.

In other words, I believe Jesus meant his remarks about calling men “father,” “teacher,” and “good,” to be taken in a hyperbolic sense, emphasizing that all human fatherhood, teachership and goodness have their origin from God and are subordinate to God’s fatherhood, teachership, and goodness. This is the same theme found in St. Paul’s remarks about human authority and headship, i.e. all human authority and headship have their origin with God and are subordinate to God’s authority and headship.

 

[mlchance]

Mystophilus:

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…

You could also make it a point not to frame your questions in such a way as to assume that the Catholic Church is the one in error. To wit (with emphasis added):

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?

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Mystophilus]

mlchance:

You could also make it a point not to frame your questions in such a way as to assume that the Catholic Church is the one in error.

Yes, I ought to have taken more time about it.

 

[Fuerza]

This has probably already been pointed out, but the linguist in me has to speak up. The passage also states that we are not to call anyone “master” or “teacher”. The word “mister” (mr.) is simply a derivative of the Latin “maestrum”, meaning master. Also, most people with medical degrees or academic doctorates, including protestants (as well as some radical anti-catholics, such as Bob Jones) refer to themselves as “doctor” (ex. Dr. Bob Jones) Doctor is derived from the Latin word “docere” which means “to teach”. A doctor is therefore a teacher. So, if Jesus was speaking literally, then we are all in trouble. I think the others here have answered adequately how this instruction is best interpreted, I just wanted to point out the linguistic facts.

 

[Golf_Nut]

Mystophilus:

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.

There is nothing wrong with asking a question. In this situation the fault lies with the rude answer.