"You shall not call anyone Father"

[IamOdd4God]

A priest gives us eternal life through baptism, the same way a biological father gives us our earthly life.

A priest gives us eternal life? Isn’t that giving the priest a little more credit than they deserve?

 

[myfavoritmartin]

MfM, let me get this straight… Paul makes a claim of spiritual fatherhood, and that’s OK, as long as nobody addresses him as such?

Right on! and that is clear as day in context…

 

[Atemi]

Also entered into evidence is Matthew Henry’s commentary on John 23:9

You were saying Atemi about Father being used as a noun and not a title?

Matthew Henry agrees with me and disagrees with you about Rabbi, Father, and Master as being titles Jesus rejected for His people.

Matthew Henry disagrees with me about his guess that Paul’s usage of the term was a title.

We all know very well that the Pharisees were indeed titled Rabbi, Father and Master…except for you. What we never hear of in anything from the early church is that any Apostle was titled and addressed as “Father.”

Henry agrees with me with what is common knowledge and disagrees with me on a simple guess.

I can accept that.

It is of interest to note that Henry says of this chapter:

“they (Christians) must not be magisterial, nor domineer over their brethren, or over God’s heritage, as if they had dominion over the faith of Christians: what they received of the Lord, all must receive from them; but in other things they must not make their opinions and wills a rule and standard to all other people, to be admitted with an implicit obedience”

Interesting.

Thanks for that reference.

…

 

[Atemi]

You understand the use of “Father” as disobedient, but we do not.

Of course not.

We have given ample examples from scripture and presented the context in which Jesus says, “call no man father, teacher, or master.”

No Scripture was given that contradicts Christ’s command that none of His disciples are to take on the titles of Rabbi, Father, or Master.

Not one.

I really think that scripture, history, and common sense are against you.

Actually, they all stand with me.

If Catholics used the terms in the way the Pharisees were using them, we would then make a case for an abuse.

Christ did not command that we not use these titles as the Pharisses did.

His command was that we were not to sue those titles at all.

Talk about common sense.

Changing the word of our Lord is not wise.

The terms Father and Teacher as used by Christians since the time of Jesus are not against the command given by the Lord.

Christ did not condemn “terms,” he condemned titles…and no, those titles were NOT used by Christians since the time of Christ.

…

 

[HailMary]

catholic.com/library/Call_No_Man_Father.asp
catholic.com/library/Call_No_Man_Father.asp
catholic.com/library/Call_No_Man_Father.asp
catholic.com/library/Call_No_Man_Father.asp
catholic.com/library/Call_No_Man_Father.asp
catholic.com/library/Call_No_Man_Father.asp
catholic.com/library/Call_No_Man_Father.asp
catholic.com/library/Call_No_Man_Father.asp
catholic.com/library/Call_No_Man_Father.asp
catholic.com/library/Call_No_Man_Father.asp
catholic.com/library/Call_No_Man_Father.asp
catholic.com/library/Call_No_Man_Father.asp
catholic.com/library/Call_No_Man_Father.asp
catholic.com/library/Call_No_Man_Father.asp
catholic.com/library/Call_No_Man_Father.asp
catholic.com/library/Call_No_Man_Father.asp
catholic.com/library/Call_No_Man_Father.asp
catholic.com/library/Call_No_Man_Father.asp

Atemi, pick any one of those links and take a gander sometime.

 

[mark_a]

This whole “call no man father” thing just baffles me.

How do the fundies resist calling their ministers father? It must take so much effort and willpower to resist.

And another thing, how do you keep from kneeling before a statue? You guys must be straight up as 6 o’clock.

. . . . .now about that artificial birth control. . . . .

 

[Turtullian]

Matthew Henry agrees with me and disagrees with you about Rabbi, Father, and Master as being titles Jesus rejected for His people.

The Context in question is using these titles that these are mostly about using these titles in the manner of mastership. Infact, Matthew Henry indeed does agree with me.

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. **/QUOTE]
It’s all about context…

Matthew Henry disagrees with me about his guess

that Paul’s usage of the term was a title.

So it’s a title that Paul applied to himself that Matthew Henry is asserting here? Seems to be in line with Gill and Chrysostom.

We all know

very well that the Pharisees were indeed titled Rabbi, Father and Master…except for you. What we never hear of in anything from the early church is that any Apostle was titled and addressed as “Father.”
Matthew Henry believes and asserts Paul was called Father as a title. The Context in which the Pharisees were addressed these titles is talked about in gill and in Chrysostom. The Title of Father as used by the Pharisees was in context different that that of paul’s as Henry notes.

Henry agrees with me with what is common knowledge and disagrees with me on a simple guess.

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.
It seems Henry is saying that Paul is using father as a title in a different context then how Jesus used it in Matthew. QED.

“they (Christians) must not be magisterial, nor domineer over their brethren, or over God’s heritage, as if they had dominion over the faith of Christians: what they received of the Lord, all must receive from them; but in other things they must not make their opinions and wills a rule and standard to all other people, to be admitted with an implicit obedience”
…

The Fact that Henry denies the teaching authority of the Church is of no consequence. What is telling is that prior to the 1800’s, protestants believed that paul used the term Father as a title for himself.

 

[djrakowski]

This assumes the spiritual history of man shows an evolution to perfection.

Not sure what you mean by this, but OK…

My assumption must be that our Lord is correct though every man be a liar, no matter how many believe something for no matter how long.

Sounds like we have the same assumption. However, I would add that the words need to be properly understood, in context of everything else the New Testament says about spiritual fatherhood. The pure silliness of the position that says Paul can call himself a spiritual father as long as nobody calls him one is simply unbelievable. It betrays an agenda to use any possible hook as a reason to portray the Catholic Church as a false church. People have made much more substantive and convincing arguments against Catholicism than you and your anti-calling-priests-father brethren have done here.

Yes. We share in the Eucharist and it is wonderful. Thank you.

Since Christ is not talking about the Eucharist anywhere in John 6, or anywhere else in that entire Gospel account, that is no problem.

Now THIS is a novel argument. If he’s not talking about the Eucharist in John 6, then from which passage(s) of scripture do you and your co-religionists derive the authority to celebrate it?

 

[francesco920]

Right on! and that is clear as day in context…

Hmm,

“I’m a spiritual father but you can’t call me that.”

Simple common sense shows that makes absolutely no sense. This is why you will find no objection to calling spiritual fathers by the title “Father” until many, many centuries after the time of Christ. What you are implying is that all Christians were too stupid too understand this “clear as day” verse until the Reformation and that most Christians still are too stupid. That, in itself, is also illogical.

 

[djrakowski]

Does anyone else see a clear pattern developing amongst those who take the anti-call-priest-father position?

It seems as though they’re willing to take scripture literalistically when doing so opposes Catholic doctrine (such as the “call no man father” issue).

And it also seems as though they’re willing to take scripture figuratively when doing so opposes Catholic doctrine (as is the case with John 6 and the Eucharist).

Interesting, eh?

 

[Atemi]

MfM, let me get this straight… Paul makes a claim of spiritual fatherhood, and that’s OK, as long as nobody addresses him as such?

And nobody did.

We have no records of any Apostles assuming ANY titles, nevermind just “Father.”

They went by “Paul,” “Peter,” Matthew," etc.

(Edited by Moderator)

Anyone familiar with history knows full well that the practice of addressing a pastor or priest as “Father” developed and is not Apostolic in origin.

…

 

[djrakowski]

Hmm,

“I’m a spiritual father but you can’t call me that.”

Simple common sense shows that makes absolutely no sense. This is why you will find no objection to calling spiritual fathers by the title “Father” until many, many centuries after the time of Christ. What you are implying is that all Christians were too stupid too understand this “clear as day” verse until the Reformation and that most Christians still are too stupid. That, in itself, is also illogical.

:yup:

Seems blindingly obvious to me, my fellow Catholics, and to members of the Orthodox and Anglican communions, who also refer to their ministers as ‘Father.’

I wonder why, when these other Christian bodies refer to their minsters as Father, that the Catholic Church is the one singled out for this supposedly unBiblical offense

 

[HailMary]

Does anyone else see a clear pattern developing amongst those who take the anti-call-priest-father position?

It seems as though they’re willing to take scripture literalistically when doing so opposes Catholic doctrine (such as the “call no man father” issue).

And it also seems as though they’re willing to take scripture figuratively when doing so opposes Catholic doctrine (as is the case with John 6 and the Eucharist).

Interesting, eh?

just one of the many hypocrisies in protestantism. The biggest one, in my opinion, is preaching *Sola Scriptura * but not practicing it.

 

[Ceil-1]

A priest gives us eternal life? Isn’t that giving the priest a little more credit than they deserve?

No.

That is the priest’s job. The eternal life is from Jesus Christ, of whom the priest is the instrument. He “stands in” for Christ. He administers the Sacraments, commanded by Christ, without which, there is no salvation. Sacraments confer the grace, freely given. That is accomplished by those consecrated to his service. The priest must be holy and set apart for that specific job. Just like the Old Testament priests. You may not beleive it, but that is the way it has always been for 2,000 years. Are some bad? Yes. There is nothing worse than a bad priest. By the same token, there is nothing like a good and holy priest. It is more precious than gold.

You have spiritual fathers also. They rejected the Church that Jesus formed. They changed things to fit how they felt things should go. I’m sure their intentions were good. They were reacting to bad bishops and poor catechesis and such. But, as they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

My dad is my earthly father. The priests are my spiritual fathers. God’s salvific grace flows through them to me. God bless my priests, and send us more good and holy ones.

 

[djrakowski]

And nobody did.

Correction - it isn’t recorded that anyone did. But that’s simply an illogical objection. If someone refers to himself as a father, there should be an expectation that he would be referred to in the same manner.

We have no records of any Apostles assuming ANY titles, nevermind just “Father.”

Precisely - we have no records. That doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.

They went by “Paul,” “Peter,” Matthew," etc.

(Edited by Moderator)

Anyone familiar with history knows full well that the practice of addressing a pastor or priest as “Father” developed and is not Apostolic in origin.

Aha… so now it’s been implied that anyone who calls their minister ‘father’ isn’t in their right mind? Fascinating - and thank you for revealing precisely what you think of us!

Catholic brothers and sisters, remember that position when discussing doctrine with Atemi. It doesn’t particularly matter what we say, since he’ll reject our arguments (Edited by Moderator).

That pretty much ends the discussion, doesn’t it?

 

[djrakowski]

Anyone familiar with history knows full well that the practice of addressing a pastor or priest as “Father” developed and is not Apostolic in origin.

…

It has also been noted as a Protestant practice (currently, the Anglican communion employs this title, and I believe others used it at some point in history as well).

 

[Turtullian]

And nobody did.

We have no records of any Apostles assuming ANY titles, nevermind just “Father.”

They went by “Paul,” “Peter,” Matthew," etc.

Outside paul no, but this is a Arguement from lack of evidence. But Holy Tradition says otherwise.

(Edited by Moderator)

Anyone familiar with history knows full well that the practice of addressing a pastor or priest as “Father” developed and is not Apostolic in origin.
Which is why Henry, Chrysostom and Gill et all, have affirmed otherwise.

 

[djrakowski]

Is anyone else intrigued by the indignant tone of Atemi’s responses? It’s as if he’s surprised that he’s getting Catholic answers at the Catholic Answers forums.

 

[HailMary]

And nobody did.

We have no records of any Apostles assuming ANY titles, nevermind just “Father.”

They went by “Paul,” “Peter,” Matthew," etc.

Plenty of ancient authors took the names of prophets because they wanted to add more force to their appeals/letters. Not so with the Bishops; they spoke using their own name because they have been given a greater authority then Moses and all the prophets.

just an interesting fact.

 

[Turtullian]

(Edited by Moderator)
He’s under the impression that Catholics HAVE to call thier priests father. Considering in Germany they call thier priests Herr, in France it’s Monsuier, Italy, etc. Infact, the only Title given to the Priest officially is Reverend and this title is given to Bishops, Priests,and deacons. I just got a priest to sign a letter of recomendation and rather than using Fr. he used reverend.