Why are priests called Father?

[SonofMonica]

Oh really. Did the Holy Spirit come to us through YOU to teach us this?

So can you point to the verse in scripture where it says “the Holy Spirit teaches through the Word of the Bible”?

No?

It sounds to me like you want us to listen to you as if you are Pope Dusty rather than through the Church as “the pillar and foundation of truth” like the bible tells us it is.

Maybe you would get more ear here if you can you tell us who ordained you into the apostolic priesthood to be teaching “things hard to understand that lead the ignorant to their own destruction”?

James

I would pull out the popcorn icon, but I think it’s pretty clear that the OP is one of those “Oh I’m here to ask an innocent question and learn” posts that is really only started in order to set up a “Let me shove my anti-Catholic diatribe down your throat” situation. Notice the stark difference between the first post and the second post of the OP’er.

 

[JOL]

This comes from a simple misunderstanding of scripture, and as noted by another poster, is a great reason why people NEED the magisterium (teaching authority) of the church to help them understand verses rather than trying to interpret them by themselves.

The verse you refer to states: Matt 23:9 – 9And call none your father upon earth; for one is your father, who is in heaven.

Okay, at first glance this looks like you’re correct, but there’s a problem… this verse is in ENGLISH, and the scriptures weren’t written in english. They’re a hybrid of hebrew, greek, and aramaic. In hebrew and aramaic, which would commonly have been the spoken language in Israel and was the language of the gospels. As such, THAT is what we need to consider.

In hebrew there are actually three words for “father”. There is Ab, which is the formal use of father, such as father’s day, or “hello, father.” There is also the word Abbi, which is an informal version of the same. While this word translates to “my father,” more accurately applied today it would mean Dad or Daddy.

Finally, there is Abba. The -a is an aramaic suffix which by the time of Christ had come to be used in the hebrew langauge. The root is an honorific. It turns the general noun into a singular proper noun (essentially, a name). It’s also a way of making a word into an honorable title. In other words, Abba is not just “father” or “my father”, it is translated most appropriately as The Father (capitolized because it is a proper name) and could only ever be applied to God.

As such, the verse in Matthew 23:9 states the following (I’ve placed the original hebrew in place of the deceptive use of the word “father” here): 9And call none your ABBA upon earth; for one is your ABBA, who is in heaven.

Priests and the Pope actually would be addressed as Ab, and never as Abba, ergo, the commandment of Christ not to call anyone The Father (aka, call no one on earth your GOD) does not apply to priests who are addressed by an entirely different word.

This is an excellent answer and in my opinion certainly highlights why the Scriptures should NOT be up to private interpretation. As I am not knowledgable in Hebrew or Aramiac, I wouldn’t know these things that you have told us here. I can now see why the church has splintered off uncontrollably for the last 500 years.

 

[JOL]

The Holy Spirit does and continues to teach but not through man. The Holy Spirit teaches through the Word of the Bible.

Why then are there so many people being taught by the Holy Spirit from the same bible creating new churches and denominations everyday?

The Holy Spirit guides the Church in the correct teaching, which is why the Church, the Catholic Church, has remained the same for the last 2,000 years. What has stayed the same since the reformation other than the development of new churches because of differing beliefs? How does all these different denominations harmonize God’s Church?

 

[lookaround]

Would Christ have gone against His own teachings? Didn’t He call Abraham their father?

Mat 3:9 And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham for our father. For I tell you that God is able of these stones to raise up children to Abraham.

umm…
This is a bad example.

 

[lookaround]

1 Peter 5:13 - Peter refers to himself as father by calling Mark his “son.”

I thought the Church teaches that Mark (I think John Mark) was Peters son?

 

[lookaround]

There are none with the Holy Spirit today so there cannot be any who may assume a similar position as the apostles.

What?

 

[fermat]

I thought the Church teaches that Mark (I think John Mark) was Peters son?

I am fairly sure that the Church does not teach that John or Mark were Peters sons. Out of curosity, where did you hear that?

 

[CentralFLJames]

I thought the Church teaches that Mark (I think John Mark) was Peters son?

It’s not even important to discuss since the point stands that the fundamentalist literal view of “call no man father” is proved deficient by dozens of scriptures. Scripture show the apostles and Jesus calling or implicating others as father - either as biological fathers or as predecessor common-faith fathers.

James

 

[lookaround]

I am fairly sure that the Church does not teach that John or Mark were Peters sons. Out of curosity, where did you hear that?

At a Catholic Bible Study

I found this thread forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=211882
If I remember correctly his name was Mark (John Mark) not two people (John or Mark)

 

[JOL]

It’s not even important to discuss since the point stands that the fundamentalist literal view of “call no man father” is proved deficient by dozens of scriptures. Scripture show the apostles and Jesus calling or implicating others as father - either as biological fathers or as predecessor common-faith fathers.

James

This also shows how dangerous it is for fundamentalists to pick out one verse out of the whole bible, and think it proves their point. So much can be learned when reading Scripture in context. Then again, even when reading in context, unless you are able to discern meanings based on the language the Scripture was originally written in, you can’t be completely certain of your ‘private’ interpretation without the Authority of the Church.

Hence, the reason there are so many protestant denominations.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The Holy Spirit does and continues to teach but not through man. The Holy Spirit teaches through the Word of the Bible.

Please provide scriptures that tell us the sole authority is the Bible. (I realize it’s a catch-22 request, as there are no scriptures that tell us this. Sola scriptura is a man-made tradtion.)

Next, I would like to see where scriptures tell us that we should interpret scriptures for ourselves, even if we have several interpretations to discern. Then we’ll need the specific scriptures telling us which of the different private interpretations is correct over the others.

Even in the Old Testament, we are given an example of another authority teaching interpretations of scriptures.

**Nehemiah 8

1And all the people gathered themselves together as one man into the street that was before the water gate; and they spake unto Ezra the scribe to bring the book of the law of Moses, which the LORD had commanded to Israel.

2And Ezra the priest brought the law before the congregation both of men and women, and all that could hear with understanding, upon the first day of the seventh month.

3And he read therein before the street that was before the water gate from the morning until midday, before the men and the women, and those that could understand; and the ears of all the people were attentive unto the book of the law.

4And Ezra the scribe stood upon a pulpit of wood, which they had made for the purpose; and beside him stood Mattithiah, and Shema, and Anaiah, and Urijah, and Hilkiah, and Maaseiah, on his right hand; and on his left hand, Pedaiah, and Mishael, and Malchiah, and Hashum, and Hashbadana, Zechariah, and Meshullam.

5And Ezra opened the book in the sight of all the people; (for he was above all the people) and when he opened it, all the people stood up:

6And Ezra blessed the LORD, the great God. And all the people answered, Amen, Amen, with lifting up their hands: and they bowed their heads, and worshipped the LORD with their faces to the ground.

7Also Jeshua, and Bani, and Sherebiah, Jamin, Akkub, Shabbethai, Hodijah, Maaseiah, Kelita, Azariah, Jozabad, Hanan, Pelaiah, and the Levites, caused the people to understand the law: and the people stood in their place.

8So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading.**

 

[purnapoos_mom]

As per Father Corapi, it is because they confect the Eucharist. They also father spiritual children into the Body of Christ.

 

[Pax]

Sometimes non-Catholic Christians object to the Catholic practice of calling the priest “father.” This is a bit strange since most non-Catholic Christians did the same thing in addressing their ministers until sometime in the early 19th century. This change came about to further distance non-Catholic Christianity from Catholic practice and it was justified by citing Matthew 23:9 which says “Call no man on earth father.” The attempt to use this verse against Catholic practice is contradicted by Paul’s usages as described by other posters above, and can only be explained by a complete misunderstanding of why Jesus made the statement.

The following will help explain what Jesus really meant by the command to call “no man on earth father.”

In Judaism at the time of Jesus there were various sects or houses of religious thought. The most well known of these were the Pharisees, Saducees, Essenes, and Zealots

These sects had houses of teaching within them .

Within the Pharisees there were two famous rival houses. They were the House of Shammai(Beit Shammai) and the House of Hillel (founder of the Beit Hillel school). The individuals that these houses were named after were considered the “father” of the house.

Jesus warns the apostles not to be fathers to “separate” houses for there is but one house of the Lord. In that same conversation found in Matthew 23, Jesus also says to call no man “teacher” or “master.”

–side note:
Paul was taught by Gamaliel[Acts22:3], a pharisee from the house of Hillel. Gamaliel was, in fact, the grandson of Hillel. Gamaliel was known as an elder and had the title of “Rabban” which means “Our Master.” This title explains why Jesus also said call no one “master”, for there is but one house and one master of all.

Again, Jesus wanted unity see John 17], and does not want the apostles to set up separate houses or schools of thought. The corollary of this is clearly expressed in Paul’s complaint in 1 Cor 1:10-15 where some are arguing their superiority by being baptized by, and belonging to, Paul vs. Apollos, or Cephas, etc. Paul goes on elsewhere to further warn against factions and divisions, and stresses the importance of one mind and unity of doctrine.

The meaning of “call no man father, teacher, or master” concerns unity and consistency of doctrine and has nothing to do with the commonly used references that are seen elsewhere in scripture or everyday use. Our Pope and priests are of one house and that house is the apostolic church established by Jesus himself.

I hope this helps.

 

[Ignatius]

Why do you call them father? Does this not go against Christ’s teaching (Matt 23:9)?

No, actually it doesn’t. Many Protestants misunderstand Matt. 23:9.

To understand why the charge does not work, one must first understand the use of the word “father” in reference to our earthly fathers. No one would deny a little girl the opportunity to tell someone that she loves her father. Common sense tells us that Jesus wasn’t forbidding this type of use of the word “father.”

In fact, to forbid it would rob the address “Father” of its meaning when applied to God, for there would no longer be any earthly counterpart for the analogy of divine Fatherhood. The concept of God’s role as Father would be meaningless if we obliterated the concept of earthly fatherhood.

But in the Bible the concept of fatherhood is not restricted to just our earthly fathers and God. It is used to refer to people other than biological or legal fathers, and is used as a sign of respect to those with whom we have a special relationship.

For example, Joseph tells his brothers of a special fatherly relationship God had given him with the king of Egypt: “So it was not you who sent me here, but God; and he has made me a father to Pharaoh, and lord of all his house and ruler over all the land of Egypt” (Gen. 45:8).

Job indicates he played a fatherly role with the less fortunate: “I was a father to the poor, and I searched out the cause of him whom I did not know” (Job 29:16). And God himself declares that he will give a fatherly role to Eliakim, the steward of the house of David: “In that day I will call my servant Eliakim, the son of Hilkiah . . . and I will clothe him with [a] robe, and will bind [a] girdle on him, and will commit . . . authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah” (Is. 22:20–21).

This type of fatherhood not only applies to those who are wise counselors (like Joseph) or benefactors (like Job) or both (like Eliakim), it also applies to those who have a fatherly spiritual relationship with one. For example, Elisha cries, “My father, my father!” to Elijah as the latter is carried up to heaven in a whirlwind (2 Kgs. 2:12). Later, Elisha himself is called a father by the king of Israel (2 Kgs. 6:21).

A Change with the New Testament?

Some Fundamentalists argue that this usage changed with the New Testament—that while it may have been permissible to call certain men “father” in the Old Testament, since the time of Christ, it’s no longer allowed. This argument fails for several reasons.

First, as we’ve seen, the imperative “call no man father” does not apply to one’s biological father. It also doesn’t exclude calling one’s ancestors “father,” as is shown in Acts 7:2, where Stephen refers to “our father Abraham,” or in Romans 9:10, where Paul speaks of “our father Isaac.”

Second, there are numerous examples in the New Testament of the term “father” being used as a form of address and reference, even for men who are not biologically related to the speaker. There are, in fact, so many uses of “father” in the New Testament, that the Fundamentalist interpretation of Matthew 23 (and the objection to Catholics calling priests “father”) must be wrong, as we shall see.

Third, a careful examination of the context of Matthew 23 shows that Jesus didn’t intend for his words here to be understood literally. The whole passage reads, “But you are not to be called ‘rabbi,’ for you have one teacher, and you are all brethren. And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. Neither be called ‘masters,’ for you have one master, the Christ” (Matt. 23:8–10).

(continued)

 

[Ignatius]

(cont)
The first problem is that although Jesus seems to prohibit the use of the term “teacher,” in Matthew 28:19–20, Christ himself appointed certain men to be teachers in his Church: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations . . . teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.” Paul speaks of his commission as a teacher: “For this I was appointed a preacher and apostle . . . a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth” (1 Tim. 2:7); “For this gospel I was appointed a preacher and apostle and teacher” (2 Tim. 1:11). He also reminds us that the Church has an office of teacher: “God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers” (1 Cor. 12:28); and “his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers” (Eph. 4:11). There is no doubt that Paul was not violating Christ’s teaching in Matthew 23 by referring so often to others as “teachers.”

Fundamentalists themselves slip up on this point by calling all sorts of people “doctor,” for example, medical doctors, as well as professors and scientists who have Ph.D. degrees (i.e., doctorates). What they fail to realize is that “doctor” is simply the Latin word for “teacher.” Even “Mister” and “Mistress” (“Mrs.”) are forms of the word “master,” also mentioned by Jesus. So if his words in Matthew 23 were meant to be taken literally, Fundamentalists would be just as guilty for using the word “teacher” and “doctor” and “mister” as Catholics for saying “father.” But clearly, that would be a misunderstanding of Christ’s words.

So What Did Jesus Mean?

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.
(cont).

 

[Ignatius]

The Apostles Show the Way

The New Testament is filled with examples of and references to spiritual father-son and father-child relationships. Many people are not aware just how common these are, so it is worth quoting some of them here.

Paul regularly referred to Timothy as his child: “Therefore I sent to you Timothy, my beloved and faithful child in the Lord, to remind you of my ways in Christ” (1 Cor. 4:17); “To Timothy, my true child in the faith: grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord” (1 Tim. 1:2); “To Timothy, my beloved child: Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord” (2 Tim. 1:2).

He also referred to Timothy as his son: “This charge I commit to you, Timothy, my son, in accordance with the prophetic utterances which pointed to you, that inspired by them you may wage the good warfare” (1 Tim 1:18); “You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus” (2 Tim. 2:1); “But Timothy’s worth you know, how as a son with a father he has served with me in the gospel” (Phil. 2:22).

Paul also referred to other of his converts in this way: “To Titus, my true child in a common faith: grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior” (Titus 1:4); “I appeal to you for my child, Onesimus, whose father I have become in my imprisonment” (Philem. 10). None of these men were Paul’s literal, biological sons. Rather, Paul is emphasizing his spiritual fatherhood with them.

Spiritual Fatherhood

Perhaps the most pointed New Testament reference to the theology of the spiritual fatherhood of priests is Paul’s statement, “I do not write this to make you ashamed, but to admonish you as my beloved children. For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel” (1 Cor. 4:14–15).

Peter followed the same custom, referring to Mark as his son: “She who is at Babylon, who is likewise chosen, sends you greetings; and so does my son Mark” (1 Pet. 5:13). The apostles sometimes referred to entire churches under their care as their children. Paul writes, “Here for the third time I am ready to come to you. And I will not be a burden, for I seek not what is yours but you; for children ought not to lay up for their parents, but parents for their children” (2 Cor. 12:14); and, “My little children, with whom I am again in travail until Christ be formed in you!” (Gal. 4:19).

John said, “My little children, I am writing this to you so that you may not sin; but if any one does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous” (1 John 2:1); “No greater joy can I have than this, to hear that my children follow the truth” (3 John 4). In fact, John also addresses men in his congregations as “fathers” (1 John 2:13–14).

By referring to these people as their spiritual sons and spiritual children, Peter, Paul, and John imply their own roles as spiritual fathers. Since the Bible frequently speaks of this spiritual fatherhood, we Catholics acknowledge it and follow the custom of the apostles by calling priests “father.” Failure to acknowledge this is a failure to recognize and honor a great gift God has bestowed on the Church: the spiritual fatherhood of the priesthood.

Catholics know that as members of a parish, they have been committed to a priest’s spiritual care, thus they have great filial affection for priests and call them “father.” Priests, in turn, follow the apostles’ biblical example by referring to members of their flock as “my son” or “my child” (cf. Gal. 4:19; 1 Tim. 1:18; 2 Tim. 2:1; Philem. 10; 1 Pet. 5:13; 1 John 2:1; 3 John 4).

All of these passages were written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and they express the infallibly recorded truth that Christ’s ministers do have a role as spiritual fathers. Jesus is not against acknowledging that. It is he who gave these men their role as spiritual fathers, and it is his Holy Spirit who recorded this role for us in the pages of Scripture. To acknowledge spiritual fatherhood is to acknowledge the truth, and no amount of anti-Catholic grumbling will change that fact.

(Attribution: catholic.com/library/Call_No_Man_Father.asp)

Your Servant in Christ