The title Father used for priests

[everlastingthur]

I’d like to add something to what Sir Knight provided. Thanks for the verses. When Jesus said “Call no man father.” He did not mean it is forbidden to use the word “father” in reference to people. As you can tell from the passages Sir Knight listed, there are many times when people are called “father”. Abraham is called our father. Paul calls himself a father to his flock. If Jesus meant it the way the original poster suggests then Paul is contradicting scripture. This is impossible. Paul wrote under the divine inspiration of the Holy Spirit. He cannot contradict the words of Christ.

It’s odd, though, that those who criticize Catholics for calling our priests “father” do not hesitate to send their own fathers cards and gifts on Father’s Day. Ask the members of your bible study who plans to give their dad a Father’s Day card. Send him a Mother’s Day card instead. In that same passage Jesus also says call no man “teacher” some versions say “master” or “rabbi.” These all mean the same thing. Yet, who abstains from calling school teachers “teachers” because of this passage? Would anyone avoid a parent-teacher conference because it somehow puts the “educator” above God? This teaching of Jesus is misused by anti-Catholics when it is convenient. Ironically, some of the most anti-catholics who criticize us for using the word “father” teach that the Gospels aren’t even meant for the Church. These are mainly premillenialist-dispensationalists.

Finally, I would like to add that priests are our fathers. They are our spiritual care takers. They give us direction, and advise us. Who better to call “father” than someone who teaches you the ways of the Lord? Holy Writ also tells us to obey those who have authority over us. How is this unlike our own fathers, who we are to “honor.” This is a good example of why we need spiritual fathers. People read the scriptures without guidance and come up with all kinds of interpretations. This is the cause of nearly every heresy, schism, and division in the Church. I would advise the original poster to find a more reputable, sound Bible study with a leader who can answer such questions. At the very least find a good Catholic commentary or two to use as a guide.

 

[timothy2]

Fidelis:

Methinks you are are completely redefining the “literal” meaning of “Father” to fit your argument. Very creative , but still misguided.

I suggest that you read the context of the text in question before assuming that I’m “misguided”. But, if you think I am… I’d like you to show me from Scripture rather than throwing out darts.

Thanks,

MARANATHA!

 

[RyanL]

Tim2,

Did you read the thread?!? The full chapter was posted to ensure context was provided!

Is this what MARANATHA Bible College is producing these days?

RyanL

 

[everlastingthur]

Tim2 is correct that Jesus means that we are not supposed to give men glory that is due to God alone. I’m not sure if that’s what the word “father” itself means. I’m also not sure that it is so obvious. If it were so obvious there would be no disagreement over it. However, he does not say whether it is wrong to call an earthly person “father.” If this is what he means that would be incorrect. It is NOT obvious that the word “father” itself applies to God alone. What’s obvious is that God is the supreme example of a father. He is our heavenly father. All earthly fathers have Him as an example. If the word itself applies to God alone then Paul and other biblical writers are guilty of an egregious heresy by calling themselves “father” to their respective flocks. They are also guilty of calling Abraham our father. The Holy Spirit who inspired them would also be quilty of contradicting Jesus. Jesus isn’t discussing the semantics of using the word “father.” He is saying put no man above God.

Before calling people “misguided” it’s a good idea to ask them for clarification. Unfortunately, the anonymity we have on the internet promotes a sense of false bravado without consequences. Overvaluing our opinions, and our importance is exactly what Jesus is condemning when he says “call no man father.” He also said to call no man a fool, but that’s much harder to live up to.

 

[gardenswithkids]

jim w:

In doing our Bible Study of Matthew . In Matthew 23 is says to call no other Father yet it is the term we use when we address our priests. There was much discussion about it. Is it appropriate? what is the explainatiom for this?

Jim, I’m sure the friends in your Bible study mean well, but they appear to have an anti-Catholic bias. This scripture verse is often sighted to try to pull Catholics out of the Catholic Church. I think you are wise to look for a response here on Catholic Answers to share with your friends. But, please be cautious with that Bible study group.

I recommend you pick up a copy and read Where’s That in the Bible?, (I think it’s by Patrick Madrid.) The book goes over some of the most common objections to Catholic Church by Protestants and points to scripture to defend the Church teachings. It’s small, so you can easily carry it in the inside pocket of a cover with your Bible. Then you can quickly find the scripture to answer the questions they may continue to throw at you. If you find this group is not interested in listening to the Catholic explaination and understanding of scripture, it might be best find another Bible Study.

 

[Fidelis]

timothy2:

I suggest that you read the context of the text in question before assuming that I’m “misguided”. But, if you think I am… I’d like you to show me from Scripture rather than throwing out darts.

Thanks,

MARANATHA!

I am quite familiar with the context, thank you .The context, of course, is what I referred to in the second point of my original post.

My quible is not with the context, but with your definition of “Father.” Starting with that defintion, you can go on to mold the context into any form you like. Perhaps you’d like to fefend your definition of “Father”?

 

[Fidelis]

Just for the record, here’s the passage again. It is abundantly clear that the WHOLE context (not that verse taken in isolation)concerns the striving after *worldly honor * and not worship or the usurping of God’s perogatives:

1 Then said Jesus to the crowds and to his disciples, 2 "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; 3 so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice. 4 They bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with their finger. 5 They do all their deeds to be seen by men; for they make their phylacteries broad and their fringes long, 6 and they love the place of honor at feasts and the best seats in the synagogues, 7 and salutations in the market places, and being called rabbi by men. 8 But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brethren. 9 And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. 10 Neither be called masters, for you have one master, the Christ. 11 He who is greatest among you shall be your servant; 12 whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

From Strongs, here’s the lexicon entry on “Father” (Greek: pater):

1.generator or male ancestor
a. either the nearest ancestor: father of the corporeal nature, natural fathers, both parents
b. a more remote ancestor, the founder of a family or tribe, progenitor of a people, forefather: so Abraham is called, Jacob and David
1. fathers i.e. ancestors, forefathers, founders of a nation c. one advanced in years, a senior
2. metaph. a. the originator and transmitter of anything 1. the authors of a family or society of persons animated by the same spirit as himself

1. one who has infused his own spirit into others, who actuates and governs their minds
   b. one who stands in a father’s place and looks after another in a paternal way
   c. a title of honour
   1. teachers, as those to whom pupils trace back the knowledge and training they have received
   2. the members of the Sanhedrin, whose prerogative it was by virtue of the wisdom and experience in which they excelled, to take charge of the interests of others
      3. God is called the Father
      a. of the stars, the heavenly luminaries, because he is their creator, upholder, ruler
      b. of all rational and intelligent beings, whether angels or men, because he is their creator, preserver, guardian and protector
      1. of spiritual beings and of all men
      c. of Christians, as those who through Christ have been exalted to a specially close and intimate relationship with God, and who no longer dread him as a stern judge of sinners, but revere him as their reconciled and loving Father
      d. the Father of Jesus Christ, as one whom God has united to himself in the closest bond of love and intimacy, made acquainted with his purposes, appointed to explain and carry out among men the plan of salvation, and made to share also in his own divine nature
      1. by Jesus Christ himself
      2. by the apostles

While the word *may * be used to refer to God the Father, the placement of that definition low on the list indicates it is an uncommon use of the word. *In the context of the passage in question * (concerning wordly honor), as I pointed out above, that definition doesn’t fit here.

 

[Fidelis]

everlastingthur:

Before calling people “misguided” it’s a good idea to ask them for clarification. Unfortunately, the anonymity we have on the internet promotes a sense of false bravado without consequences. Overvaluing our opinions, and our importance is exactly what Jesus is condemning when he says “call no man father.” He also said to call no man a fool, but that’s much harder to live up to.

Another thing the anonymity of the internet provides is the opportunity for unsolicited advice and and smug correction. If addressing the errors of others is “false bravado, overvaluation of my own opinions and my own importance,” so be it. I’ll address the errors and you can make excuses for those who make them. Deal?

 

[everlastingthur]

Fidelis:

Another thing the anonymity of the internet provides is the opportunity for unsolicited advice and and smug correction. If addressing the errors of others is “false bravado, overvaluation of my own opinions and my own importance,” so be it. I’ll address the errors and you can make excuses for those who make them. Deal?

So be it.

 

[mercygate]

Lay-deeez and GENTlemen!

We have a pattern: OP has 3 posts to his name. Opened thread. Disappeared.

No way is OP Catholic, notwithstanding profile.

We’re just troll bait!

 

[everlastingthur]

I actually agreed with your point, comment not withstanding. I wrote that it is not obvious that the word “father” always refers the the Heavenly Father. No excuse making here. Thanks for that list from Strongs. I apologize for sounding rude.

 

[gardenswithkids]

mercygate:

Lay-deeez and GENTlemen!

We have a pattern: OP has 3 posts to his name. Opened thread. Disappeared.

No way is OP Catholic, notwithstanding profile.

We’re just troll bait!

Even if he’s a troll, I still stand by my earlier recommendation that he watch out for anti-Catholic Bible studies and read Where’s That in the Bible?.

 

[Fidelis]

everlastingthur:

I actually agreed with your point, comment not withstanding. I wrote that it is not obvious that the word “father” always refers the the Heavenly Father. No excuse making here. Thanks for that list from Strongs. I apologize for sounding rude.

I apologize as well if I offended. Thank you for being gracious.