SPLIT: Opposition: Call no man Father & Confession

[ytee64]

Why should we call a Catholic priest, “father”?
My concern is Matt.23:9. It seems to me that this has to be a different Greek or Hebrew word that Christ was using, as apposed to the use of a word pertaining to an earthly father or a dad.
This seems to me is what Christ was telling us “not to do”…is to call an earthly man Father when we mean to actually intend to confess sin or converse with God our Father in prayer. Especially when it comes to the forgiveness of sins.
I understand the concept and need to confess our sins “one to another” to bring healing, but to physically sit a man in the place of Christ, the Mercy Seat? To absolve sins? In my opinion this is what Lucifer tried to do and was struck to his low estate, where am I wrong here?

ytee64

 

[Spirithound]

Why should we call a Catholic priest, “father”?
My concern is Matt.23:9. It seems to me that this has to be a different Greek or Hebrew word that Christ was using, as apposed to the use of a word pertaining to an earthly father or a dad.
This seems to me is what Christ was telling us “not to do”…is to call an earthly man Father when we mean to actually intend to confess sin or converse with God our Father in prayer. Especially when it comes to the forgiveness of sins.
I understand the concept and need to confess our sins “one to another” to bring healing, but to physically sit a man in the place of Christ, the Mercy Seat? To absolve sins? In my opinion this is what Lucifer tried to do and was struck to his low estate, where am I wrong here?

ytee64

Read the rest of that verse, use the search function for these forums, and then start a new thread.

 

[Church_Militant]

Why should we call a Catholic priest, “father”?
My concern is Matt.23:9. It seems to me that this has to be a different Greek or Hebrew word that Christ was using, as apposed to the use of a word pertaining to an earthly father or a dad.
This seems to me is what Christ was telling us “not to do”…is to call an earthly man Father

Dealt with many many times in the last 500 years when this new wind of doctrines of men was introduced by some of the so-called “Reformers”. Try this.
Call No Man Father?

Especially when it comes to the forgiveness of sins.
I understand the concept and need to confess our sins “one to another” to bring healing, but to physically sit a man in the place of Christ, the Mercy Seat? To absolve sins? In my opinion this is what Lucifer tried to do and was struck to his low estate, where am I wrong here?

ytee64

Gee…I seem to have studied and answered that issue on an article that I posted to my Catholic blog.

Here. Check it out and believe what the New Testament actually says instead of what some errant modern man has taught you.
Catholic Confession and Scriptures About Penance

 

[macroom2]

You brought together two distinct topics, and so I’ll try to answer just the first one. In the beginning of the Gospel of Matthew the genealogy of Jesus is given, and the word “father” is used many times. When my biological father was alive, I called him “Dad” or “Father” depending on the situation. In Luke 15: 11-32 Jesus uses the word “father” several times in the parable of the lost son. Some Protestants and others call George Washington “The Father of our country.” So clearly it is right to call a man “father” in some circumstances.

Some time after Jesus Jews some were calling some rabbis “Father.” The best explanation for the passage in Matthew that you refer to is that the practice must have started in the time of Jesus, and Jesus did not want His priests to be confused with Jewish rabbis. It took several centuries for Christians to start calling a priest “Father” but by that time the Church had emerged from Judaism and there was no confusion.

 

[LilyM]

It took several centuries for Christians to start calling a priest "Father"

Not at all - St Paul in his epistles several times refers to himself as a ‘father’ to those whom he has led to the faith.

 

[macroom2]

Not at all - St Paul in his epistles several times refers to himself as a ‘father’ to those whom he has led to the faith.

That is true. At first the word “father” was used just for spiritual fathers, but it was not used for all priests until much later.

 

[ytee64]

You brought together two distinct topics, and so I’ll try to answer just the first one. In the beginning of the Gospel of Matthew the genealogy of Jesus is given, and the word “father” is used many times. When my biological father was alive, I called him “Dad” or “Father” depending on the situation. In Luke 15: 11-32 Jesus uses the word “father” several times in the parable of the lost son. Some Protestants and others call George Washington “The Father of our country.” So clearly it is right to call a man “father” in some circumstances.

Some time after Jesus Jews some were calling some rabbis “Father.” The best explanation for the passage in Matthew that you refer to is that the practice must have started in the time of Jesus, and Jesus did not want His priests to be confused with Jewish rabbis. It took several centuries for Christians to start calling a priest “Father” but by that time the Church had emerged from Judaism and there was no confusion.

I don’t debate the the honorary use of the title of “father”, per say, but can see a distinct reference to God The Father in Matt.23:9. It is clear that your interpretation speaking of rabbis is not the case here as Christ goes on to speak of “The Father”, meaning God.
Could it be in this verse that Christ wanted no man to be called Father when they intend to replace God Himself and to sit in His seat and forgive sin.
How can a denomination claim exclusivity on the forgiveness of sin and everyone else is excluded from forgiveness.
I understand the deep rooted tradition of mere men in the Catholic church and dare I say “deception”? Yet above in this thread I was accused by the very greeter of following a manly tradition.
I really need an answer as to why Christ would say such a thing in Matt 23:9, not just a stab at it. It would seem to me that a denomination that claims to be the only true church would not be at odds with scripture.

ytee64

 

[JustaServant]

I really need an answer as to why Christ would say such a thing in Matt 23:9, not just a stab at it. It would seem to me that a denomination that claims to be the only true church would not be at odds with scripture.

ytee64

Church Militant linked you the answer which you obviously did not read. Here is a cut and paste from part of the link in question:

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 g.asping 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.

 

[losh14]

ould it be in this verse that Christ wanted no man to be called Father when they intend to replace God Himself and to sit in His seat and forgive sin.

I think you’re imputing your own disagreement with the doctrine of confession into this passage. I context of Mt 23, Jesus decries the Pharisees for several reasons:

Mt 23:3b - they are hypocrites
“But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach”

Mt 23:4 - they exempt themselves from what they preach
“They tie up heavy loads and put them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them”

Mt 23:5-7 - they seek attention and glory for themselves
“Everything they do is done for men to see: They make their phylacteries wide and the tassels on their garments long; they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; they love to be greeted in the marketplaces and to have men call them ‘Rabbi’”

Thus Scripture does not provide evidence that the Pharisees “intend to replace God Himself and to sit in His seat and forgive sin.” as you put it.

They do sit in Moses’ seat (Mt 23:2), which could link to the authority that Moses had to serve as judge (Ex 18:13). However this connotes a legitimate authority, as Jesus tells Jews “you must obey them and do everything they tell you” (Mt 23:3a). Jesus does not decry rabbinic authority but rather abuse of that authority.

Jesus’ admonition in Mt 23:8-11 then is ultimately a call for the Apostles to live humbly and remember their place as servants of God, and not to lord their authority over the faithful. The servant should obey, rather than take the place of, the Master.

Catholic priests do not take the place of God, but rather exercise legitimately the Apostolic authority given by Christ. The power to forgive sins belongs to Christ alone. In Scripture, He provides authority derived from that power in His Name.

Jesus does indeed give the authority to forgive sins to the Apostles in continuance of His ministry of forgiveness and redemption. This is very clear in John 20:21-23
“Again Jesus said, ‘Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.’ And with that he breathed on them and said, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.’” (emphasis mine)

Far from Mt 23:13 “You shut the kingdom of heaven in men’s faces”, the Apostles are given authority by Jesus Christ to open the kingdom of heaven to all mankind in Mt 16:19-20 “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

Likewise, the Apostles are given the authority to deny forgiveness to those who remain at odds with the church in Mt 18:15-18. Especially note 17-18.
“'If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.
I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

How are pagans, tax collectors and pharisees treated? Mt 24:50-51 renders it at the end of the parable of the wise and the foolish servant.
“The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of. He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the hypocrites, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

This is the Scriptural case for Apostolic authority to forgive sins. Likewise, the Apostles had authority (from Christ) to baptize, evangelize, heal the sick, exorcise demons, instruct in the faith and rebuke errors. If they did not, the whole of the NT from Acts to James is in error.

Apostolic authority was transmitted to the overseers (episcopos) and elders (presbyteros) (ie, Acts 14:23) by laying on of hands, an example of which is mentioned in 1 Tim 4:14. Thus we have the episcopate and the presbyterate from the Greek. The English titles of these members are bishops and priests. Thus every priest, bishop and cardinal today was ordained by laying on of hands, so that Apostolic authority was transmitted unbrokenly from the Apostles.

How can a denomination claim exclusivity on the forgiveness of sin and everyone else is excluded from forgiveness.

We don’t claim exclusivity, only that we practice the ordinary way that Christ intended perpetuation of His ministry. The sacramental presence of God’s Mercy in the Catholic Church does not limit God’s Mercy to those outside it.

I understand the deep rooted tradition of mere men in the Catholic church and dare I say “deception”?

“Traditions of men” is one of those polemically-charged phrases that Catholics and Protestants levy at one another, often unjustly. I’ve made the case from Scripture and can make the further case from the post-Apostolic church. Likewise, you look to other passages in Scripture to derive and support your understanding of the role of church in Jesus’s ministry of forgiveness.

The deep-rooted tradition of mere men is attested in Scripture. Jesus didn’t leave angels nor thrones nor seraphim in charge, just us mere men following in the stead of Peter, John, Paul and others.

It would seem to me that a denomination that claims to be the only true church would not be at odds with scripture.

I hope this satisfies your objection. Please, keep posting that we may understand one another better.

 

[losh14]

Now that I’ve given you the long answer, here’s the short one

I don’t debate the the honorary use of the title of “father”, per say, but can see a distinct reference to God The Father in Matt.23:9. It is clear that your interpretation speaking of rabbis is not the case here as Christ goes on to speak of “The Father”, meaning God.
Could it be in this verse that Christ wanted no man to be called Father when they intend to replace God Himself and to sit in His seat and forgive sin.
ytee64

If a man claims to have the authority of the Father but does not, he is in error.
If a man has the legitimate authority from the Father, he should be obeyed.
Likewise, if any priest said that the title “Father” meant that he himself was actually the Almighty, that priest would be removed.
As corollary, anyone who thinks that when we call the priest by the honorific “Father” we are actually mistaking them for the Almighty, they too should be corrected.

There have been times when I’ve been challenged by well-meaning and faithful evangelical Christians to leave the Catholic Church. And I’ve not left, partly because they were not able to prove that their church has Apostolic authority or exercises the substance of Apostolic authority.

Lastly, the objection over calling a priest “Father” in any sense holds no weight with me because it can be overcome by changing the honorific - if say we were to call them something purely descriptive such as “Cleric” or “Magister”. Likewise, I could object to the honorific of Pastor because we have One Shepherd in Christ.

 

[budgie2]

Why should we call a Catholic priest, “father”?
My concern is Matt.23:9. It seems to me that this has to be a different Greek or Hebrew word that Christ was using, as apposed to the use of a word pertaining to an earthly father or a dad.
This seems to me is what Christ was telling us “not to do”…is to call an earthly man Father when we mean to actually intend to confess sin or converse with God our Father in prayer. Especially when it comes to the forgiveness of sins.
I understand the concept and need to confess our sins “one to another” to bring healing, but to physically sit a man in the place of Christ, the Mercy Seat? To absolve sins? In my opinion this is what Lucifer tried to do and was struck to his low estate, where am I wrong here?

ytee64

I think it’s just to make the priests look stupid. Everybody can listen to the Gospel reading and think the Church is acting in disobedience to it. You could at least try to look like you’re living according to the Gospel.

I think St. Paul called others brothers and Christ also says that the apostles are brothers so Brother would be a better term, or nothing. Father may give the priest a sense of authority over parishioners, which he may not deserve. It could also cause false trust and I’m thinking specifically of child abuse scandals and also of a priest’s relationship with female parishioners. If he’s not a blood relative, should a vulnerable child or female parishioner have trust in a priest as his/her* father*? I’m not keen on the name now although I used to like it. Brother could also cause a false sense of trust although it is more in keeping with the Gospel and St. Paul and it also suggests equality.

 

[losh14]

I think St. Paul called others brothers and Christ also says that the apostles are brothers so Brother would be a better term, or nothing.

Paul did use “Brother” (Ac 23:5, 28:15) but also “my beloved children” to refer to the faithful and himself as “your father through the Gospel” (1 Cor 4:14-15). He relates to the Church at Thessaloniki “like a father to his children” (1 Thess 2:11).

Jesus himself used the honorific in Jn 8:53 and Lk 16:24, 30 to refer to Abraham in spiritual fatherhood.

Brother is not incorrect, neither is Father, provided no one thinks they are actually talking to God the Heavenly Father.

Father may give the priest a sense of authority over parishioners, which he may not deserve.

The priest derives his authority from Apostolic succession, transmitted through laying on of hands. Paul had this authority, as did the other Apostles (2 Cor 10:8, 2 Cor 13:10), and it has been transmitted since their day (ie to Timothy in 2 Tim 1:6). Even if you call the priest “Bob” he retains that authority.

It could also cause false trust and I’m thinking specifically of
child abuse scandals and also of a priest’s relationship with female parishioners.

This is contrived. Those who abuse children - whether priest, minister, teacher or even parent - abuse their legitimate authority. It is not the authority itself that is the problem, but the use of it to further illegitimate ends that is the problem. Besides, clerical abuse occurs even in churches that don’t use the honorific.

If he’s not a blood relative, should a vulnerable child or female parishioner have trust in a priest as his/her* father*?

According to a 2006 study by the Department of Health and Human Services, 83% of child abuse cases were perpetrated by one or both parents. Should a vulnerable child have trust in a parent, then?

Brother could also cause a false sense of trust although it is more in keeping with the Gospel and St. Paul and it also suggests equality.

Paul doesn’t suggest equality but rather authority in his epistles.

Is there an underlying cause to your distrust of the clergy?

 

[budgie2]

As a female parishioner I would be careful of using Father for someone else that was not a blood relative. This is not contrived. I’ve got a friend in the priesthood that I stopped calling Father and preferred it. It made him feel like a friend rather than a man carrying out a job. In some respects Father is more distant than just calling a priest by their first name. If you call somebody by their first name then you are their friend. Father as a priest’s job title is a bit formal, less friendly and also less equal. However, sometimes it could cause a false sense of trust as I’ve said before. Try to drop it. You don’t need to gain respect because of your job title.

 

[steve_b]

Why should we call a Catholic priest, “father”?

For the same reason Paul, a celibate man, considered himself a father to Timothy and Timothy a son to him in the faith.[phil 2:22]
y:

My concern is Matt.23:9. It seems to me that this has to be a different Greek or Hebrew word that Christ was using, as apposed to the use of a word pertaining to an earthly father or a dad.

If calling a man father was strictly prohibited, then one should NOT see father mentioned for a man anywhere in the NT.

If you count the times father is used for ordinary men, in the gospels alone, you will see that the Protestant interpretation is wrong
y:

This seems to me is what Christ was telling us “not to do”…is to call an earthly man Father when we mean to actually intend to confess sin or converse with God our Father in prayer.

Jesus, through the ordination process of his priests, gave them the ability to bind and loose sins. In order to do that one who has the power needs to be told what the sin is by confession.

As John says, certain sins can be prayed about and God will forgive them. Those are venial type sins because they are not deadly (mortal). The mortal variety he says are not to be prayed about. Those are to be confessed to a priest who can forgive sins [1 Jn 5:17-20]
y:

I understand the concept and need to confess our sins “one to another” to bring healing, but to physically sit a man in the place of Christ, the Mercy Seat? To absolve sins? In my opinion this is what Lucifer tried to do and was struck to his low estate, where am I wrong here?

ytee64

How then is the following supposed to work?

[Jn 20:]
22And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”

This is the power to forgive or NOT forgive sins of another person. ALL sins. And this power is given to only validly ordained priests

 

[Jimdandy]

I believe what Jesus meant was to honor only God as our Father, and not to idolize man.
God is our Creator and the founder of all humanity and we belong to Him-no other
religious leader can make that claim-

 

[losh14]

As a female parishioner I would be careful of using Father for someone else that was not a blood relative. This is not contrived.

As a male, this is not something I’m sensitive to unless it is pointed out, so I apologize if I’ve offended you and realize I wasn’t quite seeing as you see it.

I can understand it to be intimidating for someone else to lord authority over you, and honestly our priest prefers that we call him Gary when he’s not carrying out his official duties - ie, when he’s socializing after Mass over coffee or when we’re having one of our many discussion nights. It also helps that Fr. Gary is a humble guy who puts his parishoners first and rarely talks about himself.

There’s another parish we sometimes go to when our 2-month old’s feeding schedule dictates, and that priest is much more conservative - always Father Chris, never just Chris. In my mind, he did go through the effort to earn the title just as a PhD who taught me in grad school earned and preferred the title of Professor. But I can understand it getting in the way of relating to the priest because that sense of authority is ever-present.

Thanks for clarifying.

 

[steve_b]

As a female parishioner I would be careful of using Father for someone else that was not a blood relative.

Why?

Timothy wasn’t Paul’s son, or even related, yet Paul considered himself father to Timothy in the faith.
b:

This is not contrived. I’ve got a friend in the priesthood that I stopped calling Father and preferred it. It made him feel like a friend rather than a man carrying out a job.

You’ve blurred the lines and that isn’t good
b:

In some respects Father is more distant than just calling a priest by their first name.

What’s REALLY going on?
b:

If you call somebody by their first name then you are their friend. Father as a priest’s job title is a bit formal, less friendly and also less equal.

There ARE differences in equality. Priests have been set apart.

• Can you or I forgive people all their sins? No
• Can you or I consecrate the Eucharist? No
• Can you or I give sacrament of the sick? No
• Can you or I give the sacrament of confirmation? No

He was sacramentally ordained by God as priest and father. This is his vocation.

Also IMO priests who forget who they are, and wanna become just one of the boys, or parishoners who wanna make him just one of the boys, do a great disservice to the priesthood. Likewise, a priest who does anything to let the flock lose respect for them, or the priesthood.

 

[wisdomseeker]

I don’t debate the the honorary use of the title of “father”, per say, but can see a distinct reference to God The Father in Matt.23:9. It is clear that your interpretation speaking of rabbis is not the case here as Christ goes on to speak of “The Father”, meaning God.
Could it be in this verse that Christ wanted no man to be called Father when they intend to replace God Himself and to sit in His seat and forgive sin.
How can a denomination claim exclusivity on the forgiveness of sin and everyone else is excluded from forgiveness.
I understand the deep rooted tradition of mere men in the Catholic church and dare I say “deception”? Yet above in this thread I was accused by the very greeter of following a manly tradition.
I really need an answer as to why Christ would say such a thing in Matt 23:9, not just a stab at it. It would seem to me that a denomination that claims to be the only true church would not be at odds with scripture.

ytee64

either you are wrong or God is wrong. because he said to Abraham: I will make you a father of many nations. this has not changed. Jesus is not talking about us not to call those whom He made authority in His Church of father. or maybe St Paul is wrong too. because he did say: you have only one father. i am your father, i made you in Christ. or maybe Scriptures is getting confused. you must know what was going on at time when Jesus said that. it could be because the romans wanted the jews to call their emperor father.

 

[JustaServant]

Lets return to the OP.
I think it has been shown that to take a hyper-literal stand gets crazy very quickly - and the fact that Jesus as well as the New Testament writers clearly called men ‘father’ should resolve this fairly easily. So, now, the question becomes one of degrees. Protestants have no trouble with calling their spiritual leaders ‘Pastor’ or ‘Doctor’ - which would also be in violation of a strict interpretation.
We, as Catholics, do give honor to our priests in ways that are much more reverent than what is common among Evangelicals. Part of this is a cultural thing. We Americans are not known for reverencing our leaders, But, the Catholic Church has 2,000 yrs worth of values and traditions. Many of these are Eastern in origin. The Jewish patriarchs would bow before each other in deep respect and reverence, especially to the ‘papa’ of the family or tribe.
Much of Catholic thought has it’s origins in these ancient customs. Since Evangelicalism is largely a Christianity for the culture they live in, they tend to take on the flavor of their surrounding culture, which may have little or no awareness of these customs or practices.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Lets return to the OP.
I think it has been shown that to take a hyper-literal stand gets crazy very quickly - and the fact that Jesus as well as the New Testament writers clearly called men ‘father’ should resolve this fairly easily. So, now, the question becomes one of degrees. Protestants have no trouble with calling their spiritual leaders ‘Pastor’ or ‘Doctor’ - which would also be in violation of a strict interpretation.
We, as Catholics, do give honor to our priests in ways that are much more reverent than what is common among Evangelicals. Part of this is a cultural thing. We Americans are not known for reverencing our leaders, But, the Catholic Church has 2,000 yrs worth of values and traditions. Many of these are Eastern in origin. The Jewish patriarchs would bow before each other in deep respect and reverence, especially to the ‘papa’ of the family or tribe.
Much of Catholic thought has it’s origins in these ancient customs. Since Evangelicalism is largely a Christianity for the culture they live in, they tend to take on the flavor of their surrounding culture, which may have little or no awareness of these customs or practices.

well said brother. our customs derive from the East where people have reverence for one another. modern minds no nothing about it and are desesperatly to shape the Church to their ways. God forbid this ever happened.