God as Father

[JuniorRausch]

I had a conversation this morning with a priest in the area who uses inclusive language in place of what I’m used to hearing at Mass–I assume this stuff is in the rubrics, though I frankly know next to nothing about how Mass is said, how the Sacramentary is laid out, etc. All I know is that things like “It is right to give Him thanks and praise” and other places we’d use a patristic title, the priest replaces with “Creator” or “God”.

I’m 98% certain this is illicit. However, I’m not so interested in whether or not it is condoned, I am more interested in chatting with him about why he does it. I asked and got an answer:

He opened with the statement that God is neither male, nor female, and that God as Father is only one concept we use to bridge our experiences to Him. He says that the language we use was born out of response to the paganism of the culture when the church was formed, that they were exceedingly matristic, and the Church as a result of trying to move away from paganism became exceedingly patristic. He mentions that we must broaden our concept of God beyond a male perspective. He also mentioned that it is slightly scary at first to give up the traditional place males are held in the Church, but that it broadens our horizons. He also says that he was enlightened by a parishioner in the past.

Now, there’s a couple parts of my reaction to this. I know that God is neither female nor male, and that we have images of Him both as mother and father…that’s right in the Catechism. I do see that it is important not to limit ourselves to seeing God as a man. However, I don’t believe I’ve ever had a problem with that. I know that I can never completely understand God, know everything about Him, and that man will never measure up to his awesomeness and greatness. I don’t see that changing the words in Mass is going to change how we perceive God.

Also, there’s a separate issue at hand here. Just because we see God as a man doesn’t mean all men are superior to women. Why does everything have to be neutralized?

It also seems like a terrible idea to allow changes in culture to change the Church to break with historical continuity. That’s where the idealist in me comes out, I’m afraid…

Okay, I’m getting a bit off-topic here. The questions I’m actually interested in discussing…

Why do we traditionally call God…Father? Why is that so deeply woven into our worship? Was it a result of the culture at the time, and now we are evolving past that image, as this priest suggests, or is there a deeper reason? I was surprised to find very little on this in the Catechism and I don’t feel quite knowledgeable enough to know where else to look. Obviously it was written that way in a lot of the original language in scripture (and probably goes way before the Church was formed, as Old Testament language was as patristic) but…why?

Maybe this is an issue of faith, but I would love to see an actual historical reason for this. Have there been other discussions of this here? I wasn’t able to find them easily.

 

[Waiting]

Jesus called God Father. What better authority is there? When He taught us to pray, He said, “Our Father…” What more do we need to convince us that God is our Father?

 

[FCEGM]

I had a conversation this morning with a priest in the area who uses inclusive language in place of what I’m used to hearing at Mass–I assume this stuff is in the rubrics, though I frankly know next to nothing about how Mass is said, how the Sacramentary is laid out, etc. All I know is that things like “It is right to give Him thanks and praise” and other places we’d use a patristic title, the priest replaces with “Creator” or “God”.

I’m 98% certain this is illicit. However, I’m not so interested in whether or not it is condoned, I am more interested in chatting with him about why he does it. I asked and got an answer:

He opened with the statement that God is neither male, nor female, and that God as Father is only one concept we use to bridge our experiences to Him. He says that the language we use was born out of response to the paganism of the culture when the church was formed, that they were exceedingly matristic, and the Church as a result of trying to move away from paganism became exceedingly patristic. He mentions that we must broaden our concept of God beyond a male perspective. He also mentioned that it is slightly scary at first to give up the traditional place males are held in the Church, but that it broadens our horizons. He also says that he was enlightened by a parishioner in the past.

Now, there’s a couple parts of my reaction to this. I know that God is neither female nor male, and that we have images of Him both as mother and father…that’s right in the Catechism. I do see that it is important not to limit ourselves to seeing God as a man. However, I don’t believe I’ve ever had a problem with that. I know that I can never completely understand God, know everything about Him, and that man will never measure up to his awesomeness and greatness. I don’t see that changing the words in Mass is going to change how we perceive God.

Also, there’s a separate issue at hand here. Just because we see God as a man doesn’t mean all men are superior to women. Why does everything have to be neutralized?

It also seems like a terrible idea to allow changes in culture to change the Church to break with historical continuity. That’s where the idealist in me comes out, I’m afraid…

Okay, I’m getting a bit off-topic here. The questions I’m actually interested in discussing…

Why do we traditionally call God…Father? Why is that so deeply woven into our worship? Was it a result of the culture at the time, and now we are evolving past that image, as this priest suggests, or is there a deeper reason? I was surprised to find very little on this in the Catechism and I don’t feel quite knowledgeable enough to know where else to look. Obviously it was written that way in a lot of the original language in scripture (and probably goes way before the Church was formed, as Old Testament language was as patristic) but…why?

Maybe this is an issue of faith, but I would love to see an actual historical reason for this. Have there been other discussions of this here? I wasn’t able to find them easily.

First, whatever his “enlightenmen” he has absolutely no authority to change the texts of the Mass; remind him of this. If he persists then you must contact your bishop.

Second, Our Lord telling us to call God our Father lets us know the depth of the personal relationship we are to have with Him. Through our baptism into Christ we have been called into a deeply personal communion with the Father through the power of the Holy Spirit Who conforms us to the image of Christ Whose intent is always toward the Father - do we call our earthly fathers our “creators”?

Third, fatherhood indicates the initiator, while motherhood indicates the receptor. It is by the Father’s initiative that all that came to be is.

This might help:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8007956&postcount=11

 

[Edward_H]

Talk to him about it. Listen. Failing a sufficient answer, letter to the Bishop.

 

[Fink]

Another reason for calling the Father “Father”:
God the Son is God the Father`s Selfknowledge.
The Father generates the Son (in eternity).

In marriage, the generating principle is in the father; and thats a reflection of God the Father, Who is the Generating Principle within the Godhead. In other words, "Father" comes from the very inner Life of God; and you cant go any deeper than that!
In his letter to the Ephesians, Saint Paul writes:
“…I bend my knee to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, from Whom (the Father) all fatherhood in heaven and on earth receives its name.”. Eph 3:14-15.

We know that God isn`t masculine or feminine, as such, but: radical feminism detests male terms!
The priest has been badly misled. He might need a bit of catechesis.

While searching for the exact location of the above quote in Scripture, i came across this short article by Tim Staples. Not so relevant to this thread; but it does touch on it; and it`s worth reading for other reasons:

catholic.com/thisrock/2006/0601btb.asp

 

[JuniorRausch]

Thank you, everyone.

As tempting as it is to walk in with a copy of Redemptionis Sacramentum and point out where it says that what he’s doing is an abuse and that he needs to stop or I’ll be writing the Bishop, I think I’ll at least initially keep it aimed at discussion of gender roles and such.

Of course, if he brushes me off I may be writing the Bishop, and I’ve got no problem doing it. I just don’t want to directly attack someone…that isn’t going to help anyone.

 

[GloriousOrder]

St. Anselm, the great and holy archbishop of Canterbury in the late 11th and early 12th centuries, wrote a treatise called the Monologion. It is essentially a huge meditation on the meaning of God’s existence. You can call it a sort of soliloquy, an early scholastic reason-based and faith-led piece of proofs. The school-men were all influenced heavily by it. In order to get the whole context of his passage proving that the Creator and Word are properly called Father and Son, you really have to read the preceding chapters, but it can be read alone:

Chapter 42:

"I should certainly be glad, and perhaps able, now to reach the conclusion that He (Wisdom) is most truly the Father, while this Word is most truly His Son; but, I think that even this question should not be neglected: whether it is more fitting to call them Father and Son, rather than mother and daughter, since in them there is no distinction of sex.

For, if it is consistent with the nature of the one to be the Father, and of His offspring to be the Son, because both are Spirit (spiritus; masculine); why is it not, with equal reason, consistent with the nature of the one to be the mother, and the other the daughter, since both are truth and wisdom (veritas et sapientia; feminine)?

Or, is it because in these natures that have a difference of sex, it belongs to the superior sex to be the father or son, and to the inferior to be the mother or daughte? This is certainly a nature fact in most instances, but in some the contrary is true, as among certain kinds of birds, among which the female is always larger and stronger, while the male is smaller and weaker.

At any rate, it is consistent to call the supreme Spirit ‘father’ rather than ‘mother’, for this reason: that the first and principle cause of offspring is always in the father. For if the maternal cause is ever in some way preceded by the paternal, it is exceedingly inconsistent that the name ‘mother’ should be attached to that parent with which, for the generation of offspring, no other cause is associated, and which no other precedes. It is, therefore, most true that the supreme Spirit is Father of His offspring; but, if a son is always more like his father than is a daughter, while nothing is more like the supreme Father than His offspring, then it is most true that this offspring is not a daughter, but a Son.

Hence, just as it is the property of the one most truly to beget, and of the other to be begotten, so it is the property of the one to be most truly progenitor, and of the other to be most truly begotten. As the one is most truly the parent, and the other His offspring, so the one is most truly Father, and the other most truly Son."

God is the generative faculty in total, simple perfection. This belongs to the masculine in universality, and to the man in humanity. All this fiddling about between Father/Mother/Creator/God is just a bad attempt to fiddle with the natural way of things.

 

[Paxvobis]

Why do we traditionally call God…Father? Why is that so deeply woven into our worship? Was it a result of the culture at the time, and now we are evolving past that image, as this priest suggests, or is there a deeper reason? I was surprised to find very little on this in the Catechism and I don’t feel quite knowledgeable enough to know where else to look. Obviously it was written that way in a lot of the original language in scripture (and probably goes way before the Church was formed, as Old Testament language was as patristic) but…why?

Maybe this is an issue of faith, but I would love to see an actual historical reason for this. Have there been other discussions of this here? I wasn’t able to find them easily.

We call the first person of the Blessed Trinity God the Father because Jesus called him father in his own prayer (“Abba Father”, “Our Father”, etc) and commanded us to do the same (Before articulating the Pater Noster for the first time in Matthew 6, he said “In this manner, therefore, thou shalt pray.”)

I know an inclusive language advocate, and yesterday at Mass a girl behind me was changing all of the terms (“It is right to give God thanks and praise”, etc). I also saw her grabbing on to her friends hands and literally forcing them to hold her hands during the Our Father. Regardless of what they may say, this isn’t “the Church becoming more modern.” The Church does not encourage the use of inclusive language and I doubt it ever will. For the priest to do this is illicit. Also, any baptisms performed “In the name of the creator, the redeemer, and the sanctifier” are invalid as the correct form, instituted by Christ in Matthew 28, is “In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”

To use inclusive language denotes a lack of understanding or perhaps confusion as to why we pray the way we do. Far from being intellectual, smart, and progressive, it is actually theologically inconsistent and rooted in feelings and not in facts, and stinks of modernism.

 

[Edward_H]

We call the first person of the Blessed Trinity God the Father because Jesus called him father in his own prayer (“Abba Father”, “Our Father”, etc) and commanded us to do the same (Before articulating the Pater Noster for the first time in Matthew 6, he said “In this manner, therefore, thou shalt pray.”)

I know an inclusive language advocate, and yesterday at Mass a girl behind me was changing all of the terms (“It is right to give God thanks and praise”, etc). I also saw her grabbing on to her friends hands and literally forcing them to hold her hands during the Our Father. Regardless of what they may say, this isn’t “the Church becoming more modern.” The Church does not encourage the use of inclusive language and I doubt it ever will. For the priest to do this is illicit. Also, any baptisms performed “In the name of the creator, the redeemer, and the sanctifier” are invalid as the correct form, instituted by Christ in Matthew 28, is “In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”

To use inclusive language denotes a lack of understanding or perhaps confusion as to why we pray the way we do. Far from being intellectual, smart, and progressive, it is actually theologically inconsistent and rooted in feelings and not in facts, and stinks of modernism.

Wow…great answer.