"You shall not call anyone Father"

[Turtullian]

If the difference cannot be undertood between a TITLE and a common noun, then anything more complicated cannot be entertained.

…

Show me where it says in scripture taht Jesus is referring to titles only? You are reading that into the text in order to justify the fact that Paul called himself teacher.

 

[mtr01]

Show me where it says in scripture taht Jesus is referring to titles only? You are reading that into the text in order to justify the fact that Paul called himself teacher.

Not to mention he still hasn’t addressed the fact that Protestant ministers were called “Father” in this country until about 100 years ago (in fact, some leading women in Protestant communities were called “Mother”). To re-quote from the article I posted:

This change clearly influenced Protestant usage. Catholic priests called “Mister” and protestant clergy called “Father” had lived side by side in America. Following the Irish immigrations, however, Protestants began to see the title as redolent of priestcraft and popery.

 

[Atemi]

Show me where it says in scripture taht Jesus is referring to titles only? You are reading that into the text in order to justify the fact that Paul called himself teacher.

The context of the text demands that our Lord is speaking of titles. You also speak as if this understanding of the text is my own making.

LOL, no.

This understanding is ancient.

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

Now if anyone here knows better than the entire USCCB, then I for one would like to hear them.

Titles. Not common nouns.

…

 

[Atemi]

Not to mention he still hasn’t addressed the fact that Protestant ministers were called “Father” in this country until about 100 years ago

I have been addressing this the whole time.

Have you not even been reading my posts?

Christ’s commands apply to all His disciples.

 

[Turtullian]

The context of the text demands that our Lord is speaking of titles. You also speak as if this understanding of the text is my own making.

LOL, no.

Oh so no scriptures eh? And you appeal to the footnotes of a Catholic Bible to back up your claim? Is this how protestants exegete scripture, they latch onto other peoples footnotes and use it justify thier stance? How original.

This understanding is ancient.

If this understanding is ancient then why do the Orthodox call thier priests father and have done so for nearly two millenia? Ancient? Hardly.

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

You do know that the NAB has been rejected by the Holy see because of inclusive language and footnotes right? You also know that the only NAB that is allowed by the holy see is only used in the liturgy without any footnotes right?

Now if anyone here knows better than the entire USCCB, then I for one would like to hear them.

Titles. Not common nouns.

…

So no scripture eh to back up your claim that this is in regards only to titles? Your concession is accepted.

 

[mtr01]

I have been addressing this the whole time.

Have you not even been reading my posts?

Christ’s commands apply to all His disciples.

So, let me get this straight…the Protestants are wrong because they called their clergy “Father”. The Catholics are wrong because they call their clergy “Father”. The Eastern Orthodox are wrong because they call their clergy “Father”. The Oriental Orthodox are wrong because they call their clergy “Father”. I guess the only one who is right in all of Christendom is Atemi

 

[mtr01]

You do know that the NAB has been rejected by the Holy see because of inclusive language and footnotes right? You also know that the only NAB that is allowed by the holy see is only used in the liturgy without any footnotes right?

Here is the footnote from the Haydock Douay-Rheims version:

Ver. 9-10. Call none your father … Neither be ye called masters, &c. The meaning is, that our Father in heaven is incomparably more to be regarded, than any father upon earth: and no master is to be followed, who would lead us away from Christ. But this does not hinder but that we are by the law of God to have a due respect both for our parents and spiritual fathers, (1 Corinthians iv. 15,) and for our masters and teachers. (Challoner) — This name was a title of dignity: the presidents of the assembly of twenty-three judges where so called; the second judge of the sanhedrim, &c. (Bible de Vence) — Nothing is here forbidden but the contentious divisions, and self-assumed authority, of such as make themselves leaders and favourers of schisms and sects; as Donatus, Arius, Luther, Calvin, and innumerable other of very modern date. But by no means the title of father, attributed by the faith, piety, and confidence of good people, to their directors; for, St. Paul tells the Corinthians, that he is their only spiritual Father: If you have 10,000 instructors in Christ, yet not many Fathers. (1 Corinthians iv. 15.)

haydock1859.tripod.com/id41.html

 

[Turtullian]

Here is the footnote from the Haydock Douay-Rheims version:

Indeed, while the footnote from the Bible de vence takes the posistion it was a title it by no means says this was the reason why Jesus said what he said, unlike the nab. The Challoner goes on to say Jesus was teaching against the self-assumed authority of the pharisees et al.

 

[Atemi]

So, let me get this straight…the Protestants are wrong because they called their clergy “Father”. The Catholics are wrong because they call their clergy “Father”. The Eastern Orthodox are wrong because they call their clergy “Father”. The Oriental Orthodox are wrong because they call their clergy “Father”. I guess the only one who is right in all of Christendom is Atemi

“Protestants”… “Catholics”… “Eastern Orthodox”… “Oriental Orthodox”…are all arbitrary groupings that are irrelevant to the topic at hand.

It is not groups that obey the Lord, but individuals.

Groups will not be there to hold our hand and give an account during Judgment.

 

[Atemi]

Oh so no scriptures eh?

If the very text of Matt 23 is insufficient for you, are to we all assume another text would be?

And you appeal to the footnotes of a Catholic Bible to back up your claim?

Of course.

I have the support of the USCCB and you offered nothing more than your own opinion.

You make it sound as if I invented the understanding.

No.

It is throughly Catholic.

You can now make the claim that the bishops of the USCCB are not thoroughly Catholic, but such argumentation would not be strange to me either.

Is this how protestants exegete scripture, they latch onto other peoples footnotes and use it justify thier stance? How original.

“Other peoples”?

You mean a Conference of Catholic Bishops?

Yes.

If this understanding is ancient then why do the Orthodox call thier priests father and have done so for nearly two millenia?

Not for two millenia.

As for why they may disobey the Lord, that is something that they will answer for.

You do know that the NAB has been rejected by the Holy see because of inclusive language and footnotes right? You also know that the only NAB that is allowed by the holy see is only used in the liturgy without any footnotes right?

**Are you saying that the NAB I quoted from has been rejected as a reliable Catholic bible by the Vatican and thus not to be used by Catholics? **

Yes or no would suffice.

So no scripture eh to back up your claim that this is in regards only to titles?

If one refuses to believe even their own bishops, than what can any of us do?

I then do not have any reason to think you would actually ever believe me.

…

 

[LumenGentium]

My Evangelical friend has posed the question of the Catholic ( & other Christian) Church’s plethora of titles e.g. father, teacher, bishop, pope etc. He quotes Jesus’ teaching that there is only one Father/Teacher.

How does one respond to this?

i would let your friend know that you don’t accept any teaching as authoritative other than that of the pope and vatican.

keep the following in the back of your mind, but don’t mention it to your protestant friend, jesus was only talking to his own apostles. he did not want them to think they owed allegiance to the jewish teaching schools. if they were to refer to them as fathers or rabbis, then they would psychologically reduce their own status as fathers and teachers of the kingdom of God. it was important not to acknowledge or validate the rabbis because they really weren’t doing their jobs to begin with, who were about to get fired.

 

[Turtullian]

If the very text of Matt 23 is insufficient for you, are to we all assume another text would be?

I specifically asked for scripture saying that titles are prohibited. All I have is one verse that says “call no man…” with no verse indicating titleship or not. Since you can’t provide it, your concession in regards to saying that matthew 23 is regards to titles is accepted.

Of course.

I have the support of the USCCB and you offered nothing more than your own opinion.

The haydock has also been offered as evidence.

You make it sound as if I invented the understanding.

No.

It is throughly Catholic.

You can now make the claim that the bishops of the USCCB are not thoroughly Catholic, but such argumentation would not be strange to me either.

Considering I asked for scripture not footnotes, it’s not suprising that you would avoid my request. infact, I knew that was where you would go in the first place. When you are in a hole, rather than standing on your feet, you rather would have somebody else present the evidence for you.

[qute]
“Other peoples”?

You mean a Conference of Catholic Bishops?

Yes.
Proving you can’t stand on your own two feet and must resort to pulling out the work of others.

Not for two millenia.

As for why they may disobey the Lord, that is something that they will answer for.

Right and your interpretation of mathew 23 is infallible correct?

Are you saying that the NAB I quoted from has been rejected as a reliable Catholic bible by the Vatican and thus not to be used by Catholics?

Yes or no would suffice.

Yes, the current version out for publication has not been approved by Rome and has been rejected.

[uote]
If one refuses to believe even their own bishops, than what can any of us do?
The USSCB is not the Magisterium. simple as that.

I then do not have any reason to think you would actually ever believe me.
…

Fact is that you can’t prove from scripture jesus is referring to titles, so you must use extra biblical sources. Since you can not provide those scriptures, your concession is accepted.

 

[Atemi]

Fact is that you can’t prove from scripture jesus is referring to titles, so you must use extra biblical sources. Since you can not provide those scriptures, your concession is accepted.

It is interesting that a Catholic of all people would not accept any facts presented outside of the explicit mention in the Scriptures…yet the first thing every Catholic will tell me is that not all truth is in Scripture.

And they say I am Sola Scriptura!

It is also interesting to note that I have the support of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops behind my contention. I have no reason to think the entire Conference of American RC bishops is untrustworthy in their understanding of this text but you somehow are.

Are you a Catholic bishop?

BTW, any source you can provide (beside your personal opinion) that the NAB I quoted is not to be read by Catholics and is not an acceptable RC Bible would be great.

…

 

[Atemi]

Fact is that you can’t prove from scripture jesus is referring to titles, so you must use extra biblical sources. Since you can not provide those scriptures, your concession is accepted.

Oh…

And before I conceed that Christ was not referring to the well known titles of the Pharisees as testified by your bishops, here is New Advent’s testimony as well:

“He told His disciples not to be called Rabbi, Father, or Master, like the Pharisees”

newadvent.org/cathen/07462a.htm

Again, more TITLES as witnessed by even more credible and authoritative Catholic sources.

And seeing the Catholic Encylopedia has the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur of the Catholic Church, I would necessarily expect your posts to have the same if you would also like to deny this as well.

If a Catholic insists that Catholic bishops cannot be trusted to know, and a Catholic bible cannot be trusted to know, and the Catholic Encyclopedia cannot be trusted to know…then a bad case of denial is readily apparent.

I suppose if I got the Pope himself to mention the well known fact that these were titles of the Pharisees, you would still propose you know better. Wait…I even have a Pope confirming the same…and a Doctor of the Church…

But what do they all know?

…

 

[NotWorthy]

Christ commanded that none of His are to be called a Magister.

Christ commanded that none of His are to be called Father.

** Obey or not.**

No one will stand before me thankfully.

Obedience?!? Coming from you, Atemi?

Ironic, eh?

 

[NotWorthy]

You do know that the NAB has been rejected by the Holy see because of inclusive language and footnotes right? You also know that the only NAB that is allowed by the holy see is only used in the liturgy without any footnotes right?

I didn’t know that!!! :clapping:

And that makes me feel so much better!!! Anyone who knows me, knows what I feel about the footnotes of the NAB. The Translation is OK (there are better out there), but the footnotes… sometimes I think the footnotes were written by Protestants.

 

[Milliardo]

Because a priest’s title is “Father.”

Not so with Paul.

A title is waaaaay different than just using an analogy or figurative language.

Yet Paul isn’t merely using something that is figurative, since in a very real sense he is a father in faith to them.

Are you a child of God or a child of your priest?

Funny, but this has not been asked of Paul’s audience, has it now? Yet the understanding is that since, through the Gospel, Paul has become a father unto them, then he is there to represent Christ. The same that a priest, through the Gospel is there to represent Christ. So the objections against the use of the title doesn’t hold water, or else we should also accuse Paul for not obeying Christ. Yet Paul pleaded that he is a father through the Gospel of Christ, which means that he has Divine Authority to take up that title. So, you can see that if this is true for Paul, wouldn’t it then be true for those who are His servants as well? After all, we also say there is one Shepherd, yet Protestants have pastors; by that analogy, wouldn’t it be reasonable that Protestant pastors also disobey this very notion of a one Shepherd who cares for one flock?

 

[Lampo]

Deceased! use to call him POPE Simon JK Dad…
Jesus is addressing Priest and spiritual leaders and followers, not kids and fathers…

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?

 

[Turtullian]

Oh…

And before I conceed that Christ was not referring to the well known titles of the Pharisees as testified by your bishops, here is New Advent’s testimony as well:

“He told His disciples not to be called Rabbi, Father, or Master, like the Pharisees”

newadvent.org/cathen/07462a.htm

Again, more TITLES as witnessed by even more credible and authoritative Catholic sources.

The Ce doesn’t also give us the interpretation of this passge. Are you REALLY going to use this to prove your point? Why are you using the CE when you should have scripture proving your point? The fact is you can’t use scripture to prove your point becaue scripture doesn’t say title or not.

And seeing the Catholic Encylopedia has the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur of the Catholic Church, I would necessarily expect your posts to have the same if you would also like to deny this as well.

Imprimatuers ans Nihil obstats are not infallible unless you would like to sit here and claim the CE was given both by the Pope…

If a Catholic insists that Catholic bishops cannot be trusted to know, and a Catholic bible cannot be trusted to know, and the Catholic Encyclopedia cannot be trusted to know…then a bad case of denial is readily apparent.

I can sit here and say that the CE does not give interpretation period and if thats all you have, then you are woefully mistaken that you are proving your point.

I suppose if I got the Pope himself to mention the well known fact that these were titles of the Pharisees, you would still propose you know better. Wait…I even have a Pope confirming the same…and a Doctor of the Church…

Then by all means lets see it.

 

[Turtullian]

It is interesting that a Catholic of all people would not accept any facts presented outside of the explicit mention in the Scriptures…yet the first thing every Catholic will tell me is that not all truth is in Scripture.

You say that it is apparent in Matthew 23 that is referring to titles. I say that it isn’t. You have not proven your case one white by showing us scripture that proves your point. So why should I believe your interpretion over the Haydocks?

And they say I am Sola Scriptura!

Considering you haven’t proved your posistion one whit…

It is also interesting to note that I have the support of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops behind my contention. I have no reason to think the entire Conference of American RC bishops is untrustworthy in their understanding of this text

but you somehow are.
So you will only use what american bishops say in this one instance over say the USCCB’s affirmation of say transubstantiation or the communion of the saints?

Are you a Catholic bishop?

no.

BTW, any source you can provide (beside your personal opinion) that the NAB I quoted is not to be read by Catholics and is not an acceptable RC Bible would be great.

adoremus.org/297-CardsVat.html

But the dispute over translation of biblical texts is not just an American problem. A similar dispute involving the Canadian Lectionary came to light in 1994 when the Vatican rejected both the American Revised NAB and the New Revised Standard Version for liturgical use.