Right. We typically refer to our priest as “my pastor, Father Ben…”I think you would be quite close. No Catholic I know would say, “My Father so and so”, after all.
If you even refuse to accept that “Rabbi” is a title, then you are on your own. Nothing could convince such denials of reality.You say that it is apparent in Matthew 23 that is referring to titles. I say that it isn’t.
Over and over with Scripture and multiple Catholic sources.Considering you haven’t proved your posistion one whit…
I do not cite such a source as the reason for my conclusion, but as very ample evidence that my conclusion is not my own and is thoroughly Catholic as well.So you will only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?
Didn’t you read it?
If you are asking me the theoretical question of 2 “equal” men appearing before God but one disobeyed God in one area while the other did not, then I am surprised that you do not already know the answer.In Other words, there is no difference in their faith, and the way they lived their life in Christ.
Is condemning a man because of the title he used Just?
I am reposting this because I do not believe that a single refutation has been given to this post. 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. Jesus wanted unity in doctrine and belief…He did not want competing houses of teaching. The only other issue He was concerned with was pride vs. humility.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 for there is but one house of the Lord. 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.
Atemi,If you are asking me the theoretical question of 2 “equal” men appearing before God but one disobeyed God in one area while the other did not, then I am surprised that you do not already know the answer.
If your answer is that God will not judge disobedience, then you have a very different view than every other Catholic I know.
If God says no, but we say yes, we know better, then I have no reason to believe He will not hold us accountable for that.
This is utterly basic.
…
I think what he means is that Jesus’ point is not the use of titles per se; after all, as a good Jew, He would still call those religious leaders of His time as “rabbi” out of respect for them. Jesus’ point, however, is that one should not be enamored to such titles so much so that one should seek glory through such means. We can see this in the preceding verses; the context should be drawn there. Those who oppose the use of “Father” often just read verse 9, and try to make the false conclusion that Jesus does not want the use of that title. If that’s the case, then Jesus is in violation of His own rule when He referred to Abraham as “father Abraham”; it is quite commonly used to call Abraham by that title in the Bible, after all. Yet wouldn’t you say that it is a violation of what Jesus said, by your own rule then?If you even refuse to accept that “Rabbi” is a title, then you are on your own. Nothing could convince such denials of reality.
Because you reject the witness of Scripture and I have proved my point from authoritative Catholic sources alone.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?
If you think you are convincing us all that you believe all truth is only to be found in Scripture, then we know better.The fact is you can’t use scripture to prove your point becaue scripture doesn’t say title or not.
They need not be infallible and I never said they were, but you already know that.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 the CE does not understand Catholic interpretations of Scripture, then you are extrememly hard pressed to convince us that you do.What they do show is that the CE is waaaaaay more authoritative than your posts or opinion.
And exactly where can you not see titles?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.
You will find not a single example of Christ ever referring to anyone as Rabbi.I think what he means is that Jesus’ point is not the use of titles per se; after all, as a good Jew, He would still call those religious leaders of His time as “rabbi” out of respect for them.
That is not what Jesus said.Jesus’ point, however, is that one should not be enamored to such titles so much so that one should seek glory through such means.
First of all, “father Abraham” is not “Father Abraham.”We can see this in the preceding verses; the context should be drawn there. Those who oppose the use of “Father” often just read verse 9, and try to make the false conclusion that Jesus does not want the use of that title. If that’s the case, then Jesus is in violation of His own rule when He referred to Abraham as “father Abraham”; it is quite commonly used to call Abraham by that title in the Bible, after all. Yet wouldn’t you say that it is a violation of what Jesus said, by your own rule then?
And this is the problem.Here’s a thing I pray you’ll all do at your next MASS when your saying “Hi **Father **John”
as the word Father leaves your lips as an address to this man, PICTURE our Savior listening in!
I can see it now, “oh good they figured out I didn’t really mean what I said”
I guess charity may not be your strong suit.I love Atemi’s religion:
Religion:
Non-Catholic Christian
haha thats pretty funny.
We’re not doing that at all. We’re exempting ourselves from having to adhere to a johnny-come-lately personal interpretation of the Lord’s words - BIG difference!And this is the problem.
When those exempt themselves from a clear command of their Lord.
Not in the Bible; doesn’t mean He never used the title when dealing with them on a daily basis. Like, for instance, talking to them in a casual way or even just greeting them. Again, you would have to argue against the culture of Jesus’ time, of which He was still a part of, after all, and His culture still dictates that He, as a good Jew, call those leaders as “rabbi”. I see you seem to forget that.You will find not a single example of Christ ever referring to anyone as Rabbi.
That is not what Jesus said.
It’s a point He did make, Atemi:No need to add points He didn’t make…and skip the clear command He did make.
It’s still a title out of respect for Abraham, the father of the nation of Israel, and of all nations as well. Doesn’t matter if it’s with a capital or small “f”; the point is Jesus, as well as in Acts, that title was used.First of all, “father Abraham” is not “Father Abraham.”
Then the Master Himself should be giving the example, right? By your own logic as well, His students seem to have failed, as we see Paul refer to himself as father, and Stephen also used the title of father to Abraham.Secondly, He gave the command to His disciples. The Master gave the command to His students.
Spare me your definition of charity.I guess charity may not be your strong suit.
This assumes the spiritual history of man shows an evolution to perfection.We’re not doing that at all. We’re exempting ourselves from having to adhere to a johnny-come-lately personal interpretation of the Lord’s words - BIG difference!
Yes. We share in the Eucharist and it is wonderful. Thank you.I should expect to see the Eucharist offered in your church the next time you meet
Since Christ is not talking about the Eucharist anywhere in John 6, or anywhere else in that entire Gospel account, that is no problem.in accordance with the very clear command of Our Lord in John 6.
You were saying Atemi about Father being used as a noun and not a title?Secondly, They are forbidden to ascribe such titles to others (v. 9); “Call no man your father upon the earth; constitute no man the father of your religion, that is, the founder, author, director, and governor, of it.” The fathers of our flesh must be called fathers, and as such we must give them reverence; but God only must be allowed as the Father of our spirits, Heb. 12:9. Our religion must not be derived from, or made to depend upon, any man. We are born again to the spiritual and divine life, not of corruptible seed, but by the word of God; not of the will of the flesh, or the will of man, but of God. Now the will of man, not being the rise of our religion, must not be the rule of it. We must not jurare in verba magistri—swear to the dictates of any creature, not the wisest or best, nor pin our faith on any man’s sleeve, because we know not whither he will carry it.** St. Paul calls himself a Father to those whose conversion he had been an instrument of** (1 Co. 4:15; Phil. 10); but he pretends to no dominion over them,** and uses that title to denote, not authority, but affection: therefore he calls them not his obliged, but his beloved, sons, 1 Co. 4:14.**
as do I and probably everyone else.I really think that scripture, history, and **common sense **are against you