"You shall not call anyone Father"

[djrakowski]

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.

I’m not sure that’s why he’s raising such strong objections. I don’t think that’s what he’s arguing at all.

However, the second part of this response is right-on. The fact that we call our priests ‘father’ has nothing to do with a requirement to do so, but rather a desire to show them respect for the office they occupy and appreciation for the blessing they are to our communities. We’re not calling them ‘father’ to supplant the title as it refers to our Heavenly Father. Catholics are quite aware that Our Father in Heaven is the source of all earthly fatherhood, whether biological or ecclesiastical.

And such a usage of the term doesn’t violate the scriptural principle in the least, unless your preconceived biases against Catholicism (and by extension, Orthodoxy and Anglicanism) force you into that illogical position. But what do I know? According to Atemi, I’m not in my right mind anyways

 

[Techno2000]

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”

Picture Jesus eyeballing ya’ll while you are munching down on
Crakers and Grape Juice.

 

[Atemi]

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).

And how exactly is this fact relevant?

Are we to think that Christ is somehow only addressing Catholics in Matt 23?

No.

If you are His disciple, you are under His command.

…

 

[Milliardo]

And how exactly is this fact relevant?

Are we to think that Christ is somehow only addressing Catholics in Matt 23?

No.

If you are His disciple, you are under His command.

…

The point there is that if there are Protestants who do not see any objection to the use of the title, then the Protestant position isn’t uniform, and so there is much ground to hold that position untenable. But we can go further, since I see you have not addressed the fact that most Protestants use the term “pastor”. Now, taking your logic again, this shouldn’t be so as well, since there is but one Shepherd, and thus, only one Pastor. The principle then should not be limited in the use of the term “father”; indeed, if we will only limited ourselves to verse 9, then that principle should also extend to the use of the term “pastor”. As Jesus stated, there is but one Father in heaven; so then, if we go by the literal sense of that, there is also one Shepherd in Jesus, and the use of the term “pastor” should then be rightly objected to as well.

 

[drforjc]

The fact that Atemi is interpreting the text to refer to “spiritual leaders only” despite the fact that that phrase does not appear in the text means that it all boils down to a confrontation between his (Atemi’s) interpretation vs. the Church’s interpretation which is manifested by its longstanding tradition of using “Father” to refer to clergy.
In that case, I will side with the Church’s interpretation rather than a private interpretation (e.g. Atemi’s)

 

[djrakowski]

And how exactly is this fact relevant?

Are we to think that Christ is somehow only addressing Catholics in Matt 23?

No.

If you are His disciple, you are under His command.

The fact is relevant because this issue is only used as a cudgel against Catholicism. In other words, if you’re going to offer criticism on this point, there are others besides Catholics who deserve it, as well. That includes at least the various Orthodox churches as well as the churches of the Anglican communion.

Furthermore, of course we all believe that a disciple of Jesus is under His command - properly understood, in the entire context of the New Testament as opposed to anti-Catholic proof-texting, and in union with how the Church throughout the ages has thought about it and come to understand it.

The point there is that if there are Protestants who do not see any objection to the use of the title, then the Protestant position isn’t uniform, and so there is much ground to hold that position untenable. But we can go further, since I see you have not addressed the fact that most Protestants use the term “pastor”. Now, taking your logic again, this shouldn’t be so as well, since there is but one Shepherd, and thus, only one Pastor. The principle then should not be limited in the use of the term “father”; indeed, if we will only limited ourselves to verse 9, then that principle should also extend to the use of the term “pastor”. As Jesus stated, there is but one Father in heaven; so then, if we go by the literal sense of that, there is also one Shepherd in Jesus, and the use of the term “pastor” should then be rightly objected to as well.

Precisely. Since there’s at least two positions coming from Protestants on this matter, then one wonders why the criticism isn’t being levelled by Atemi and myfavoritmartin against their brethren who participate in this supposedly objectionable and un-Biblical practice. I find it quite interesting that folks with this objection choose to seek out Catholics for criticism on this matter, when they often need look no further than their own Protestant backyards.

Furthermore, if the title of ‘father’ is objectionable, then any title used to identify the person who occupies the position of teacher and/or shepherd in the church should be equally objectionable. Otherwise, it displays naked bias against the Catholic Church on the part of the one raising the objection.

So, are those of you who object to our use of the term ‘Father’ as a way to show respect and appreciation to our priests going to immediately stop using the term ‘pastor’ to refer to the person who teaches in your churches?

 

[djrakowski]

I’d like to offer the following quote from the Wikipedia page on Martin Luther:

The negotiations were successfully concluded on February 17, 1546. After 8:00 p.m., he experienced chest pains. When he went to his bed, he prayed, “Into your hand I commit my spirit; you have redeemed me, O Lord, faithful God” (Ps. 31:5), the common prayer of the dying. At 1:00 a.m. he awoke with more chest pain and was warmed with hot towels. He thanked God for revealing his son to him in whom he had believed. His companions, Justus Jonas and Michael Coelius, shouted loudly, “Reverend father, are you ready to die trusting in your Lord Jesus Christ and to confess the doctrine which you have taught in his name?” A distinct “Yes” was Luther’s reply.

Curious… disciples of one of the key figures of the Reformation called Martin Luther ‘Father,’ and he didn’t object.

It seems that the further a Church’s origin is from the Reformation, the more likely they are to raise this objection.

 

[Pax]

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.

…

Not true at all. Peter called himself an elder and Paul called himself an apostle. Sorry but these are titles. Please be advised that I can easily find other examples.

 

[Pax]

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.

Sorry, but numerous examples were given to the contrary. You simply will not accept them even though they clearly contradict your view.

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. This is simply not true. Check the context of the passage. The passage says: "THEN SAID Jesus to the crowds and to his disciples, "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice. They bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with their finger. They do all their deeds to be seen by men; for they make their phylacteries broad and their fringes long, and they 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. 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. He who is greatest among you shall be your servant; whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted. “But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because you shut the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither enter yourselves, nor allow those who would enter to go in. Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you traverse sea and land to make a single proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves.”

The entire context is about the Pharisees and their behavior. The subsequent passages to the above quote shows Jesus ripping them even further. The whole idea is for the apostles to behave differently from the Pharisees and that includes the way in which the Pharisees used and desired to have titles. Read my post explaining the divisive schools within the various sects of Judaism and you will see exactly what Jesus was talking about and why.

Changing the word of our Lord is not wise.No one is changing Jesus words. Our efforts have been directed toward helping you properly undertstand what Jesus was saying.

Christ did not condemn “terms,” he condemned titles…and no, those titles were NOT used by Christians since the time of Christ.You are clearly wrong about this. If Jesus was condemning titles the apostles would not call themselves apostles, teachers, or fathers and they would not refer to anyone else as an elder, teacher, or bishop.

…

 

[Atemi]

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.

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

Matthew Henry believes and asserts Paul was called Father as a title.

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.

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.

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

 

[Atemi]

Not true at all. Peter called himself an elder and Paul called himself an apostle. Sorry but these are titles. Please be advised that I can easily find other examples.

Then we are lucky that Christ never commanded His people to not be called apostles or elders.

He specifically and clearly commanded, however, that they not be called Rabbi, Father, or Master.

We can obey or not. He will not make us.

…

 

[Atemi]

The point there is that if there are Protestants who do not see any objection to the use of the title, then the Protestant position isn’t uniform, and so there is much ground to hold that position untenable.

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

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

But we can go further, since I see you have not addressed the fact that most Protestants use the term “pastor”. Now, taking your logic again, this shouldn’t be so as well, since there is but one Shepherd, and thus, only one Pastor.

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

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.

There is no need to insert commands where Christ did not make them.

The principle then should not be limited in the use of the term “father”;

Why not at least start there as that is the title specifically and purposely chosen by our Lord?

Why would one want to seek to obey what He did not explicitly command, but not obey what He did?

That makes no sense to me.

…

 

[Atemi]

The fact is relevant because this issue is only used as a cudgel against Catholicism.

Not by me, that is for sure.

In other words, if you’re going to offer criticism on this point, there are others besides Catholics who deserve it, as well.

Of course. We are all called to obedience.

This is all irrelevent to the point of this thread, however.

Since there’s at least two positions coming from Protestants on this matter, then one wonders why the criticism isn’t being levelled by Atemi and myfavoritmartin against their brethren who participate in this supposedly objectionable and un-Biblical practice.

I have said it again and again, but that obviously does not matter.

LOL.

I find it quite interesting that folks with this objection choose to seek out Catholics for criticism on this matter, when they often need look no further than their own Protestant backyards.

No one went “seeking out” Catholics.

My goodness.

So, are those of you who object to our use of the term ‘Father’ as a way to show respect and appreciation to our priests going to immediately stop using the term ‘pastor’ to refer to the person who teaches in your churches?

God Himself calls His elders in His church shepherds (pastors).

You will find nowhere in the entire NT God commanding that none of His people be called a “shepherd.”

What we do find is that God does command that none of His disciples be called “Father.”

Saying it is OK because others do it is not a good aplogetic at all.

…

 

[Atemi]

He’s under the impression that Catholics HAVE to call thier priests father.

No I am not, and I never even implied such a thing, nevermind said it.

I was a Catholic for the majority of my life and I know better than that.

…

 

[Atemi]

Picture Jesus eyeballing ya’ll while you are munching down on
Crakers and Grape Juice.

So is the term “wafer” or “cracker” used about the Catholic Eucharist considered “offensive” and “uncharitable” here…but the use of “crackers and grape juice” in reference to other Christians’ Eucharist is somehow OK?

 

[rtconstant]

Once again Atemi thanks for your encouragement that my conversion to Catholicism was in fact the correct one.

It says a lot when someone has to START with a desperation argument.

 

[rtconstant]

So is the term “wafer” or “cracker” used about the Catholic Eucharist considered “offensive” and “uncharitable” here…but the use of “crackers and grape juice” in reference to other Christians’ Eucharist is somehow OK?

Ummm that phrase is used by Protestants we got it from you guys. Don’t even act like you’re offended. I remember growing up in Evangelical communities and watching kids racing each other to the alter after the Lord’s Supper to be first to finish off the bread and grape juice.

If this sort of thing does indeed bother you then you need to talk to your bretheren and encourage them to see the Communion as something more than a symbolic meal arbitrarily performed. Remember we WANT Protestants to take Eucharist seriously.

 

[Atemi]

Ummm that phrase is used by Protestants we got it from you guys. Don’t even act like you’re offended.

I will take that as a “yes.”

I just want to be clear where the posters here stand.

 

[Michael_Francis]

Off topic posts have been deleted…
MF

 

[djrakowski]

Not by me, that is for sure.

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.

Have you made this same argument against others who hold this practice? If not, you’re singling out Catholic (after all, this IS a Catholic forum).

God Himself calls His elders in His church shepherds (pastors).

You will find nowhere in the entire NT God commanding that none of His people be called a “shepherd.”

What we do find is that God does command that none of His disciples be called “Father.”

Saying it is OK because others do it is not a good aplogetic at all.

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

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

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. And unless you’re consistent, it could be concluded that you’re making this argument from a deep-seated bias against Catholicism.

In other words, you ought to consider being consistent in condemning those who use this title. They may be interested to learn that, despite the witness of scripture, history and tradition, that the practice is sinful.