"You shall not call anyone Father"

[Milliardo]

What interest would I have in holding any “Protestant position” (as if there is such a thing)?

There is much interest, because then that would remove any bias on your part about it, since there are Protestants who also use the term; so it is not only a Catholic thing, but a Protestant as well.

I am interested in holding Christ’s position which cannot be made any plainer than He made it.

But, as already pointed out, Jesus’ position isn’t that such titles shouldn’t be used; read the context by which He said it. Again, you would still have to explain why the title is used by Paul and in reference as well to Abraham.

For one, the Holy Spirit Himself addressed elders as shepherds, so you can take that up with Him.

We’re going by the principle here, Atemi. You know that doesn’t cut it.

Secondly, Christ did not command that His people not to be called shepherds, but He did command that they not be called Father or Master.

Again, we’re going by the principle of your point; if there is but one Father in heaven, so too there is but one Shepherd and one Pastor; yet, we see that Jesus does not have any problem with that. We see then the defect of the Protestant position in this one, as it would not be consistent at all. Wouldn’t you say the position then is merely because of anti-Catholic sentiment rather than an actual Biblical position? You say that why not use one said by the Lord–but where is the actual condemnation in the use of the title “father”? As noted, Jesus would be in violation of it Himself by applying it to Abraham–something that you have not adequately explained. Nor have you any other point to make in relation to Paul referring himself as a father through the Gospel. Again, I would point out that the Catholic position follows that of Paul, in that the priest is a father through the Gospel, and hence the term “Father”. So, if you say that the Catholic position is in error, then you must at least be consistent in saying that Paul is in error on this one.

 

[Lampo]

myfavoritemartin…When filling out a form that asks for your “father’s” name, what do you put? Jesus or God? Do you mark out the word “father” on the form and insert “dad”? Aren’t you calling your dad “father” by filling out the form?

 

[ltravis]

Atemi, Martin, etc., may I ask a question? For arguments sake, let’s assume your understanding of the issue is correct. Now ***why ***do you think Christ made that prohibition exactly as you understand it? Can you provide a reason other than “because God said so”? If such interpretation was sufficient, wouldn’t we all be plucking out our sinful eyes and literally turning our cheeks, and worshipping on Saturday rather than Sunday?

LT

 

[Turtullian]

All Henry asserted was that is qualified as a title to him.

So? Point being? We have Henry pretty much saying that it was orthodox to for Paul to be regarded as Father.

Wrong.

Henry never said or asserted that Paul was called “Father.” He has no way of knowing any such thing because there is no such record of that.

No need to manipulate what he did say.

So If Paul was given the title father, then We can say that Paul called himself Father. Therefore Paul was called Father. Therefore, Henry agrees with me!

I thought you said earlier that those were not titles used in Matt 23…

Looking further at the issue, it’s in regards to context of those titles not to the titles themselves as Henry, Gill, Jerome and Chrysostom note.

 

[Pax]

I am still waiting for a rebuttal of my post #104 which was a restatement of #6. No refutation of this has been given, and no non-Catholic explanation of the passage and subject of this thread has provided a better understanding or explanation.

 

[VociMike]

I am still waiting for a rebuttal of my post #104 which was a restatement of #6. No refutation of this has been given, and no non-Catholic explanation of the passage and subject of this thread has provided a better understanding or explanation.

I’ll admit I somehow missed that post, but I went back and read it. Very interesting idea, and one which makes Christ’s words a lot more comprehendable.

 

[Atemi]

So? Point being? We have Henry pretty much saying that it was orthodox to for Paul to be regarded as Father.

And that’s all.

Henry called it (erroneously, IMO) a title.

Please note that Henry’s references never say Paul was anyone’s “father” at all, nevermind that would be his title.

So If Paul was given the title father

Paul was not given the title father.

He merely said he was like a father to Timothy. That is all.

That is not a title, Turtullian.

Also, Paul only referred to himself as a father for those whose conversion he was responsible for, NOT as any priest or anything like that.

then We can say that Paul called himself Father.

Yet that is not what we read in every translation, including Catholic ones.

LOL.

He implied of himself “like a father.” Open the Scriptures and read for yourself.

Please cite the Catholic translations where Paul called himself “Father.”

You cannot because even the RC translators know better, along with all other translators.

Why the subtle changes to the text, Turtullian?

Why is that necessary?

Therefore Paul was called Father.

Wrong.

You will find nowhere in the Scriptures or the early Church where Paul is referred to as "Father Paul."

Why claim what is verifiably not so?

Therefore, Henry agrees with me!

It is so interesting that you will not remain consistent at all here.

I tell you that Jesus is speaking about the titles the Pharisees had and you say you don’t believe me.

I then show you where I have the support from the USCCB and an accepted Catholic bible, and you discount any authority of your bishops and proceed to explain how the Catholic bible is untrustworthy.

I then show you where the Catholic Encyclopedia shows this same text to be speaking of titles and you still say you will not believe it.

LOL.

But you find one little snippet from Protestant Matthew Henry that says that the word “father” in Paul’s epistles is a title and you totally believe him!

Wow.

Why would you not hold Matthew Henry to the same standard you hold me, your own bishops, a Catholic bible, and the Catholic encyclopedia?

…

 

[Atemi]

Really? In every post you’ve made in this thread, you’ve been arguing against a commonly-held Catholic practice, calling it un-Biblical. I’d say you’re using it as a cudgel against the Catholic Church.

So any criticism of anything remotely Catholic is now a “cudgel”?

I am sorry if you find it necessary to feel that way.

Have you made this same argument against others who hold this practice?

Many times.

But again, that is irrelevant.

Let me see if I understand you. Titles are fine, as long as they’re not “Father.”

This thread is not about just any titles, it specifically addresses Matt 23 and “Father.”

I wish everyone could stay on topic.

Then, what is the logic in permitting these other titles - for example, pastor - and not “Father?”

God commands that none of His are to be called “Father” because all Christians have only one Father in Heaven.

God never commands that we never call our elders pastors just as He did.

Furthermore, I didn’t use “others do it” as an apologetic. I used it to suggest that you’re singling out Catholics in a Catholic forum, publically wondering if you’ve done the same in non-Catholic forums against people who hold to this practice.

Again, that is irrelevant.

What does it matter where I have discussed this topic?

It doesn’t.

Either we obey Christ or we do not. It doesn’t matter who else obeys Christ.

…

 

[Atemi]

What interest would I have in holding any “Protestant position” (as if there is such a thing)?

There is much interest, because then that would remove any bias on your part about it, since there are Protestants who also use the term; so it is not only a Catholic thing, but a Protestant as well.

LOL. I never denied otherwise.

All this is irrelevant to this thread.

This thread is not about Atemi, but about Christ’s command that none of His be called “Father.”

The more we can stay on topic, the better.

I am interested in holding Christ’s position which cannot be made any plainer than He made it.

But, as already pointed out, Jesus’ position isn’t that such titles shouldn’t be used; read the context by which He said it.

Jesus’ position is that His direct command to not be called Father, Master, or Rabbi was not to be obeyed?

So after Christ directly and clearly commanded His disciples to not be called “Father,” they immediately got from that that it is OK with Christ if they be called “Father”??

Again, you would still have to explain why the title is used by Paul and in reference as well to Abraham.

First of all, it is not used as a title, but as a descriptor.

Secondly, Christ gave this command to His disciples in Matt 23, not before.

For one, the Holy Spirit Himself addressed elders as shepherds, so you can take that up with Him.

We’re going by the principle here, Atemi. You know that doesn’t cut it.

If what the Holy Spirit clearly says does not “cut it” with you, then you are on your own.

Secondly, Christ did not command that His people not to be called shepherds, but He did command that they not be called Father or Master.

Again, we’re going by the principle of your point

Christ did not say “generally follow this principle.”

No.

Our Lord commanded to not be called Rabbi, Master, Father.

…

 

[water]

Our Lord commanded to not be called Rabbi, Master, Father.

Saint Paul called himself Father.

 

[Atemi]

At the time of Jesus there were various sects within Judaism. These sects 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

No He did not.

We all can see what our Lord said and He said nothing about the Apostles not being “fathers to separate houses.”

Why insert words into our Lord’s mouth?

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.

Yes.

One Magister, not any Magisterium.

Again, Jesus wanted unity see John 17], and does not want the apostles to set up separate houses or schools of thought.

That is not what He said or commanded.

Why not simply obey what He did say instead of what He plainly did not?

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.

Irrelevant to Matt 23.

The meaning of “call no man father, teacher, or master” concerns unity and consistency of doctrine

No. It means what our Lord says.

It is as simple as it gets.

I am reposting this because I do not believe that a single refutation has been given to this post.

Well here you go then.

Only one non-Catholic commented on it, but it was not a refutation. Please consider what I’ve said here. The context of scripture is important and non-Catholics are clearly ignoring what’s going on in the text especially in light of the lack of unity and competition among the Jewish sects at that time.

The whole text addresses NOTHING about “unity” or infighting amongst the Jewish leadership.

Read it.

It is all about seeking honor, and prestige, and the placing of oneself on a pedastal as a leader of God’s people.

Absolutely nothing, nada, zilch about “lack of unity” and infighting amongst the Jews.

If scripture allows for apostles and disciples of Jesus to be referred to as father or teacher in any fashion whatsoever subsequent to his statement to the apostles, then the argument is over and the Catholic position is supported.

Wrong.

That is your assumption.

That is not what our Lord said.

Every argument I’ve read on this thread fails to overcome this point. The whole argument about “titles” is a red herring.

Red herring??

In the very footnotes of the Catholic Church approved New American Bible, teaching on ***the very text ***in question:

"These verses, warning against the use of various titles, are addressed to the disciples alone. While only the title "Rabbi’ has been said to be used in addressing the scribes and Pharisees (Matthew 23:7), the implication is that Father and “Master’ also were. The prohibition of these titles to the disciples suggests that their use was present in Matthew’s church. The Matthean Jesus forbids not only the titles but the spirit of superiority and pride that is shown by their acceptance.”

nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew23.htm

If you know better about what is a red herring than the translators and the Catholic bishops who promoted this Catholic Bible, then I would like to hear what your qualifications are.

Why on earth would this Catholic bible teach Catholics a red herring?

Referring to someone as a Father or as a Teacher is allowed in some sense or it is not allowed at all. Scripture makes it clear that it is allowed. Game over!

Scripture is “clear” that Christians couls take upon themselves and accept the titles of Rabbi, Master, and Father…in direct contradiction to the explicit prohibition of our Lord Jesus Christ?

Is that what you have gathered thus far?

…

 

[djrakowski]

God commands that none of His are to be called “Father” because all Christians have only one Father in Heaven.

Great - then we’re fine, since we know that we have only one Father in Heaven, and we also know that we’re not replacing God by calling priests ‘Father.’ It seems you’re seeing our position a bit more clearly now

 

[rtconstant]

So here is what I’ve learned over all:

1. If a literal interpretation of the text would lead one to a Catholic conclusion then the text should be assumed to not be literal.
2. If a literal interpretation would lead one to believe that an Evangelical out look is correct then yes proceed with the literal interpretation.
3. If context or subject at hand from which the text is derived would lead one to a Catholic conclusion then one may safely ignore it.

3a. if context or the subject at hand is inconvenient for one as an Evangelical then it can be safely ignored.

1. One may refer to themself as any title they wish and this is not accounted as sin.
2. One must never be called Father or Rabbi by relatives and students. Though the principle party may as stated in 4 call themself these things. If the Student says it then this is sin.

5a. also by connection one must also be careful of the terms Elder, teacher, professor and Reverend they may also be forbidden as they carry the same essential meanings.

5b. certain writers of Sacred Scripture may themselves be in trouble since they used and approved of terms like Pastor which has similar connotations to the above forbidden titles as its meaning implies ownership, leadership and wisdom.

 

[Atemi]

So here is what I’ve learned over all:

1. If a literal interpretation of the text would lead one to a Catholic conclusion then the text should be assumed to not be literal.
2. If a literal interpretation would lead one to believe that an Evangelical out look is correct then yes proceed with the literal interpretation.
3. If context or subject at hand from which the text is derived would lead one to a Catholic conclusion then one may safely ignore it.

3a. if context or the subject at hand is inconvenient for one as an Evangelical then it can be safely ignored.

1. One may refer to themself as any title they wish and this is not accounted as sin.
2. One must never be called Father or Rabbi by relatives and students. Though the principle party may as stated in 4 call themself these things. If the Student says it then this is sin.

5a. also by connection one must also be careful of the terms Elder, teacher, professor and Reverend they may also be forbidden as they carry the same essential meanings.

5b. certain writers of Sacred Scripture may themselves be in trouble since they used and approved of terms like Pastor which has similar connotations to the above forbidden titles as its meaning implies ownership, leadership and wisdom.

Wow.

All of that and all we really need to get at the end of the day is:

1. Don’t ever let anyone call you `Rabbi,’ for you have only one teacher, and all of you are on the same level as brothers and sisters.
2. And don’t address anyone here on earth as `Father,’ for only God in heaven is your spiritual Father.
3. And don’t let anyone call you `Master,’ for there is only one master, the Messiah.

Very simple, really.

…

 

[Atemi]

Great - then we’re fine, since we know that we have only one Father in Heaven, and we also know that we’re not replacing God by calling priests ‘Father.’ It seems you’re seeing our position a bit more clearly now

The ancient Jews did not believe, when they called their elders “Father,” that they were “replacing” their Heavenly Father either.

That did not stop Christ from correcting them.

 

[Milliardo]

LOL. I never denied otherwise.

All this is irrelevant to this thread.

I will repeat again: this is relevant. Sidestepping the issue does not make it go away, nor will it make it irrelevant. Since you cannot properly defend it, I will then assume that this position of yours is rendered untenable until you can defend otherwise.

Jesus’ position is that His direct command to not be called Father, Master, or Rabbi was not to be obeyed?

Again, Atemi, you’re not seeing it; read the above passages before to get what He is saying. If we go by its literal term, then we should also call any person as father, even our biological fathers. That is the plain reading of the text. It is funny how you go by the plain reading, yet could not give a proper account as to why we should still call our biological fathers as such. So, does that mean Jesus made an exemption? That cannot be garnered in the text, after all, by plainly reading them.

First of all, it is not used as a title, but as a descriptor.

Nice; now you avoid it by saying it’s a “descriptor”, but reading the text we see that Abraham is not “described” merely as father, but called in title as such. Ditto for Paul–Paul did not merely “describe” himself as a father through the Gospel–he is plainly saying he is as such. So, your excuse is not working, and everyone here knows it.

Secondly, Christ gave this command to His disciples in Matt 23, not before.

Doesn’t matter; Stephen called Abraham as father in Acts, after Jesus. Paul said he is a father through the Gospel after Jesus as well.

If what the Holy Spirit clearly says does not “cut it” with you, then you are on your own.

Still not working, Atemi. No explanation again, I gather?

Christ did not say “generally follow this principle.”

No.

Again, no explanation, Atemi? Since Christ is the only Shepherd of His flock, why do Protestants call their pastors as such, when that would mean taking away from Christ His place as the only Pastor? The Holy Spirit said so? Doesn’t make sense, does it now? So we do not call someone as “Father” as such because there is one Father, but we can call someone Pastor because there is one Pastor? See, no logic at all.

So, what else is there, Atemi? I still await your answer apart from, “the Bible said so.”

 

[HailMary]

The ancient Jews did not believe, when they called their elders “Father,” that they were “replacing” their Heavenly Father either.

That did not stop Christ from correcting them.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2511907&postcount=124

 

[Pax]

Atemi,

Your refutation of my view of “call no man father” leaves me unimpressed. Please be advised that I did not quote Jesus when I indicated what “Jesus was saying to the disciples.” I am not claiming that Jesus literally said X,Y, & Z.

The intent of what Jesus is saying and why he said it is what I was explaining in my post. You have therefore put out another red herring. You complained that my reference to a “red herring” concerning the “use of titles” was no such thing because of a footnote in the NAB. Please be advised that I am not under an obligation to accept those footnotes as “the end all and be all of on the topic.” Moreover, footnotes are generally very brief and do not always contain a full analysis.

Are you aware that other Catholic bibles do not share the exact same explanation as the footnote written in the NAB? Are you aware that highly respected Catholic biblical commentaries do not share that “exact” understanding?

What you fail to appreciate is that Jesus was alive and teaching the apostles himself. Moreover, he is one in being with the Father. Likewise, he would also send them the Holy Spirit. The Pharisees held the positions of authority in Judaism but not in Christianity. The disciples were not to call them father or to be called father in the same fashion as the Pharisees. This is abundantly clear from the text. The titles teacher and father etc. as used elsewhere in the NT do not conform to that of the Pharisees.

The Catholic church has never taken the verse to be as restrictive as you attempt to make it. Likewise, scripture is the witness to the Catholic church. There were titles such as apostles, “teachers”, elders, presbyters, and deacons. These titles could not exist in the NT scriptures if your understanding of the prohibition were correct. Your problem is one of context and you are simply ripping the verse out of that context and attempting to apply it in the most restrictive and “literalist” sense that you can.

The NT scriptures disagree with you and so has the bulk of Christianity since the day of Pentecost. Please consider the possiblility that you are mistaken.

 

[Atemi]

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2511907&postcount=124

Feel free to post any of your own thoughts, Mary, instead of link after link after link.

 

[Pax]

Oh by the way Atemi…since you are so fired up and sold on your perception of the text and especially on the footnote explanation in the NAB, you now have something else to explain. If the authors of the NAB footnote are Catholics and are bishops that call people “Father” and “Teacher,” then you need to explain how and why they not only recognize the practice but also participate in it. These people are not schizophrenic, stupid, or in the business of contradicting themselves. They get it just like we do.