"You shall not call anyone Father"

[HailMary]

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

Sorry, I, unlike some people, am willing to deal with reality and admit that their are more learned people out there than myself. And that their apologetics are much stronger and coherent than my own. But if you want to know my own thoughts, feel free to check out:

members.cox.net/humurabi/Catholic_Apologia.pdf
members.cox.net/humurabi/AreYouSaved.pdf

My own thoughts: I have no problem with calling another man father since I have my heavenly Father, my spiritual fathers in Christ, and my biological father; and I’m capable of recognizing that.

“You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus” (2 Tim. 2:1)

 

[Pax]

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.

Of course they didn’t think they were doing that. However, the Pharisees themselves and those that continued to follow them did reject Jesus who is one in being with the Father and the Holy Spirit. None of us is rejecting Jesus and neither did Stephen, Paul, and others in the NT that used the title Father and Teacher for someone other than God.

 

[Atemi]

Your refutation of my view of “call no man father” leaves me unimpressed.

LOL. I did not expect anything less.

In any event, no one is here to impress you, but to talk about the Truth and the Word.

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.

He didn’t even imply it.

The intent of what Jesus is saying and why he said it is what I was explaining in my post.

Why not just obey what He said instead of inventing an intent He never gave?

Our job is to obey our Master, not figure out His intent…that He never even implied.

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.

Yes. Another of our friends here sought to discredit the Catholic bible because of that as well. Even a conference of Catholic bishops cannot move a layperson to accept something they do not want to.

If you can accept that the Catholic Chuch would somehow distract Catholics with the "red herring" of titles in Matt 23, then peace be with you.

I happen to be in agreement with the Catholic bible in this case and it clearly goes to show that my position is no red herring at all.

Are you aware that other Catholic bibles do not share the exact same explanation as the footnote written in the NAB?

Yup. But that is not the point.

Are you aware that highly respected Catholic biblical commentaries do not share that “exact” understanding?

Yup. But that is not the point.

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.

That is not what our Lord said.

He did not say anything like “do not be called in the same fashion, but you still can take these titles for yourself…”

No.

He is emphatically clear.

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.

Nowhere in any translations will you find the Apostles being addressed by titles…not anywhere.

The Catholic church has never taken the verse to be as restrictive as you attempt to make it.

Of course not. That’s why we are talking about it now.

Likewise, scripture is the witness to the Catholic church. There were titles such as apostles, “teachers”, elders, presbyters, and deacons.

Those are not titles, but common nouns. Those are positions, not titles.

You will find no RC translation that translates those lists as titles.

These titles could not exist in the NT scriptures if your understanding of the prohibition were correct.

That is because they are plainly not titles.

It seems we need a refresher on what a title is.

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.

If you find our Lord’s command to be restrictive, then I am sorry.

I don’t find it to be difficult at all.

…

 

[rtconstant]

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.

…

Yes it is so is:

This is my body…

This is my blood…

and

Faith without works is dead…

I bet you qualify those though don’t you?

What’s really hilarious is that you qualify this chapter too (oh and btw there is an entire chapter revolving around the three verses you’ve picked out here). You say its very simple and yet earlier you state that the prohibition against father only applies to titles. Yet the verse doesn’t say that does it? No it says:

8But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.

9And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

10Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.

There are no qualifications for relationship or titles here Atemi. If you’re going to pick three verses out of the Bible with no thought to what they are relating to then you have to accept them as they are. If this is the measure by which you wish to be judged then man up to it! If you’ve ever referred to your father as father then you’re in violation. Done. End of story. If your children refer to you as their father they have sinned as well. Indeed every child in the history of man has broken this teaching of Christ.

OR

You could actually read chapter 23 and see that Jesus is speaking about pride and that he’s speaking specifically to the pharisees and rabbis with whom has been debating with since chapter 22. Jesus didn’t start a subject in chapter 23 speaking about the boasting of the scribes and Pharisees stop at verses 8 throug 10 speak randomly about a general prohibition and then pick right back up at 11 admonishing the scribes and Pharisees.

Seriously, if you’re going to study the Bible and base your life on it at least try to understand what its saying. Don’t just skim over it until your eyes light upon a verse that when taken by itself supports your personal theology.

 

[Atemi]

There are no qualifications for relationship or titles here Atemi. .

Et tu, constant?

I already have supplied Catholic evidence that these are indeed titles.

I supplied a Roman Catholic bible with the support of the entire conference of American Catholic bishops.

I also supplied the Catholic Encyclopedia as evidence.

I also have the testimony of a Catholic pope and Doctor of the Church.

Yet the denial continues as if the idea that these are indeed titles in Matt 23 is some anti-Catholic conspiracy.

Amazing.

…

 

[rtconstant]

Et tu, constant?

I already have supplied Catholic evidence that these are indeed titles.

I supplied a Roman Catholic bible with the support of the entire conference of American Catholic bishops.

I also supplied the Catholic Encyclopedia as evidence.

I also have the testimony of a Catholic pope and Doctor of the Church.

Yet the denial continues as if the idea that these are indeed titles in Matt 23 is some anti-Catholic conspiracy.

Amazing.

…

Ah, and yet none of that actually take the heat off of you Atemi. Yes we Catholics understand that they are meant as titles. We understand that based on the context of the chapter. No one is arguing that Atemi.

The reason we keep bringing it up is that the natural conclusion of your unnatural interpretation is that if those three verse are not in relation to the other 36 verses within that chapter and are interpreted as literal and stand alone. It is then by default that ceases to be an issue of relationship and/or title. The three verses on their own do not qualify.

To qualify the verses one must read the whole chapter. When one reads the whole chapter then one sees that not only do these verses not apply to relationship but are in fact applying directly to the scribes and Pharisees.

You can’t have it both ways Atemi. Either the verses are in context and titular or they stand alone and have no qualification.

P.S. I notice that even after the context of the chapter has been pointed out to you, you still ignore the rest of the chapter. Why is that?

 

[Pax]

Atemi,

I am not at all concerned with whether or not someone is here to impress me. I am, however, impressed by the truth.

I accept what Jesus says and I do look for his intent. Without that you will misunderstand a great deal in scripture. Otherwise, we might all be plucking out our eyes and cutting off our hands.

Your comment that I and someone else on this thread attempted to discredit the Catholic bible is an egregious and ridiculous thing to even suggest. Moreover, you did not answer the point I made about the brevity of footnotes along with the fact that the people that wrote the footnote are called fathers and teachers and that they also refer to others by those titles. That fact alone demolishes your case concerning the footnote. You then blew off a couple of points concerning footnotes in other Catholic bibles and commentaries without a refutation because you apparently have no substantive rebuttal.

And please remember that we do not disagree with Jesus…we disagree with your mistaken and misplaced application of the scriptures. There is a huge difference between the two.

Lastly, your attempted distinction between titles and positions simply doesn’t get it. Moreover, I believe this was refuted earlier by several other posters.

 

[cascherman]

Wow, this thread has blown up, 11 pages. okay, and i havent even checked it out until now.

well, i saw throughout the thread alot of rebuttals like this… “just because Paul calls himself father doesn’t he was telling you to call him that.”

well personally, i trust Paul. if he tells me he is my father and i am his child then he better expect me to think of him like that. of course this relationship is not to be even mildly compared with ‘Our Father’, God.

now if i am to think of him as my father, and me as his child, then what harm is it to refer to him as such?

I don’t understand the argument “just because he is our father, don’t call him that.”

if he is, he is, and shall be called such.

*edit- i very much think Jesus’ words prior to the ‘verse-in-question’ should be remembered; about the jewish leaders loving the spotlight. Jesus was essentially calling them hypocrites, i feel this should be remembered when reading this verse because the aforementioned titles were commonly desired/used titles by these same hypocritical jewish leaders.

 

[Pax]

Jesus says "call no man father."

Are the following references violations of the instruction?

Acts 7:2
And Stephen said: "Brethren and fathers, hear me. The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham, when he was in Mesopotamia…

Acts 4:24-25
And when they heard it, they lifted their voices together to God and said, "Sovereign Lord, who didst make the heaven and the earth and the sea and everything in them, who by the mouth of our father David,

Acts 22:1
“Brethren and fathers, hear the defense which I now make before you.”

Romans 4:12
…and likewise the **father **of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but also follow the example of the faith which our **father Abraham **had before he was circumcised.

James 2:25
Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar?

Now it seems pretty obvious that the apostles referred to Abraham and others as father. It is also clear that Stephen clearly called some people father. This common reference to Abraham is an expression that the Jews and early Christians would use in a very direct sense toward Abraham. This is evidenced quite clearly in the dialogue between the rich man and Abraham. When the rich man asked Abraham to send Lazarus to speak to his brothers he addresses Abraham two different times saying, “Father Abraham”[see Luke 16:24-30]. Jesus himself relates this story and he does not indicate that this was improper. Likewise, the other references quoted above show that the apostles were still calling Abraham father and the Jewish way of addressing Abraham was unchanged from the way it was explicitly used in the exchange between rich man and Abraham. Abraham has a title as “the father of us all”[Rom 4:16]

Atemi, if your understanding and strict interpretation of the passage were correct, then none of this would be in scripture.

 

[RevDrNorth]

This is one of the most ridiculous and easily defeated Protestant arguments (as Fr. Pacwa easily dispatched it).

i) To take is as these Protestants do is really stupid literalism.

ii) Read on as Jesus also says to call no man “teacher”.

iii) As noted Paul calls himself himself a spiritual father.

iv) Look beyond it to what Jesus was really talking about in terms of Principle.

I cannot believe how niave some fundamentalists are :banghead:
Sad…very sad… You John the 23rd have the ability to help your friend have an aha moment and clarify what really is anti Catholic bigotry that has no scriptural basis. Thank you for taking the time to discuss with your friend. You may be the best witness for the faith.

Someone being called “Father” can be done so in the humble sense as with Paul.

Heck…I have known some very arrogant “Pastors” who insist that is the only correct title (Pastor) and they use it for puffing themselves up. I remember one insisting he should call his parishioners by their first name but they must call him “Pastor” as he was in spiritual authority over them (this guy was part of the seeker sensitive movement). He bristled at the idea of calling any of his congregation by their title. Only he was entitled to that

Rev North

 

[djrakowski]

Et tu, constant?

I already have supplied Catholic evidence that these are indeed titles.

I supplied a Roman Catholic bible with the support of the entire conference of American Catholic bishops.

I also supplied the Catholic Encyclopedia as evidence.

I also have the testimony of a Catholic pope and Doctor of the Church.

Yet the denial continues as if the idea that these are indeed titles in Matt 23 is some anti-Catholic conspiracy.

Amazing.

…

The evidence you supplied from the footnotes of a Catholic Bible are the opinions of its editors, and not dogma that binds the conscience of Catholics. Whether they’re bishops makes absolutely no difference as they’re not speaking in a position that binds our behavior. Surely you’ve been looking into these issues long enough to realize that.

 

[Atemi]

The evidence you supplied from the footnotes of a Catholic Bible are the opinions of its editors, and not dogma that binds the conscience of Catholics. Whether they’re bishops makes absolutely no difference as they’re not speaking in a position that binds our behavior. Surely you’ve been looking into these issues long enough to realize that.

Yes, yes.

I already know the “if it’s not dogma it is not worthy for me to even consider” argument.

It is one of the worst arguments, and very arbitrary, but it is popular.

…

 

[Atemi]

Yes we Catholics understand that they are meant as titles. We understand that based on the context of the chapter. No one is arguing that Atemi.

Actually, just about everyone is!

LOL.

Another RC poster has spent the entire thread demanding I prove it and Catholic reference after Catholic reference is worthless to that end.

And if Catholics understand they are indeed TITLES Christ is forbidding, then why still all the “we-can’t-call-even-our-fathers-“father”-anymore” talk?

If these were recognized for the very titles they are, that whole argument about not using the word “father” anymore totally disintegrates. Since that will not happen any time soon, that means most Catholics still will not acknowledge that these are indeed titles Christ is specifically addressing.

The reason we keep bringing it up is that the natural conclusion of your unnatural interpretation is that if those three verse are not in relation to the other 36 verses within that chapter and are interpreted as literal and stand alone. It is then by default that ceases to be an issue of relationship and/or title. The three verses on their own do not qualify.

They command is even more emphatic when one undertsands the context.

Nowhere in the context of the rest of the chapter can you get the slightest understanding that the Apostles indeed are welcome to employ the title of “Father” after what Christ said to them.

Impossible.

To qualify the verses one must read the whole chapter.

Agreed. It makes the case that much stronger.

Nothing in the rest of the chapter contradicts what our Lord clearly commanded.

When one reads the whole chapter then one sees that not only do these verses not apply to relationship but are in fact applying directly to the scribes and Pharisees.

Did Christ command the Pharisees to not use the titles of Father, Master, or Rabbi?

No.

He said specifically to His disciples (vs 1):

“you are not…”

P.S. I notice that even after the context of the chapter has been pointed out to you, you still ignore the rest of the chapter. Why is that?

I have ignored nothing.

If you can find anywhere in the rest of the chapter where Christ’s command to not be called Father, Master, or Rabbi is nullified, let me know.

…

 

[Atemi]

I am not at all concerned with whether or not someone is here to impress me. I am, however, impressed by the truth.

Then keep telling me where I am wrong instead of how impressed I make you…

I accept what Jesus says and I do look for his intent.

That is fine. Intent is good.

But you don’t even have the slightest implication to support your theory, and Christ Himself seems to eliminate that option.

Your comment that I and someone else on this thread attempted to discredit the Catholic bible is an egregious and ridiculous thing to even suggest.

Well that is exactly what happened.

Call it what you will. I didn’t lay the charges.

Moreover, you did not answer the point I made about the brevity of footnotes

What does the brevity have to do with anything?

If anything, it is even more influential a point because they had limited space to comment and they specifically chose what they wanted to say.

Secondly, the mere fact that I must defend that Christ is referring to titles in Matt 23 is utterly amazing. Almost everyone knows this already and it attested to by respected and authoritative Catholic sources as well.

along with the fact that the people that wrote the footnote are called fathers and teachers and that they also refer to others by those titles.

Yes. Sure.

I am not quoting them because of internal consistency, but to show that the idea that Christ was specifically speaking of titles in Matt 23 is thoroughly Catholic and orthodox.

That fact alone demolishes your case concerning the footnote.

It demolishes something, but not my case.

You then blew off a couple of points concerning footnotes in other Catholic bibles and commentaries without a refutation because you apparently have no substantive rebuttal.

They were irrelevant for my point.

Don’t I already know there are others who disagree with me?

And please remember that we do not disagree with Jesus…we disagree with your mistaken and misplaced application of the scriptures. There is a huge difference between the two.

“Appliucation” of Scriptures?

It’s easy enough just to read them. I don’t need to say anything.

Lastly, your attempted distinction between titles and positions simply doesn’t get it.

You say the lists of apostle, teacher, evangelist, bishop, deacon etc. were TITLES.

They are not used as titles in Scripture…even in Catholic bibles. See Eph 4:11 to start.

Please look up what a title is.

…

 

[rtconstant]

Judging by your last reply to my post I have no choice to but to assume that you are either not ready posts or just strait up don’t understand them even a little.

I explained to you Atemi why that some are using the relationship defence against you. It is because it is a natural consequence of your non-contextual and irrational interpretation of scripture. Your belief that the three verses from chapter 23 must stand on their own dictates that familiar designations must also be sins.

It is only through a contextual understanding of those verses that any qualification can be made. So if you understand the chapter well enough to be able to apply any qualification to the verses you must also understand it well enough to know that verses are directed towards the Pharisees and scribes and the particular scenarios that Christ is quiet specifically noting throughout the chapter.

There. Explained once more I wonder if it will sink in this time. If not then I’ll have to ask are you truly not understanding chapter and the explanation being given or are you trolling?

 

[Turtullian]

Paul was not given the title father.

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

Not like a father but father.

[15] For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel.

That is not a title, Turtullian.

Broken record syndrome. Simply repeating yourself make it so.

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.
While that’s true, that does not mean that Paul’s Fathership does not extend to anybody else for indeed St. John affectionately adresses the Bishops as fathers becuase take care and do nurture the spiritual well being of thier parshioners.

He implied of himself “like a father.” Open the Scriptures and read for yourself.
No like or as here.

[15] For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel.

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

I’ll start with the protestant/catholic RSV

[15] For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel.

NAB:

15
Even if you should have countless guides to Christ, yet you do not have many fathers, for I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel.

NJB:
You still have no more than one father, and it was I who fathered you in Christ Jesus.

Other Translations use beget, but taht’s not a problem while we are born by women, we are begotten by our fathers. So indeed Paul has a fathership with timothy.

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

Just looking a my bookshelf I know this is a false statement.

Why the subtle changes to the text, Turtullian?

Why is that necessary?

Subtle changes? okay… right…

You will find nowhere in the Scriptures or the early Church where Paul is referred to as "Father Paul."
No where huh? It seems that what we do have from Jerome does indeed defend the use and chrysostom as I noted earlier notes Matt 23:9 is dealing with a specific context and nothing else.

Why claim what is verifiably not so?

Noting Gill, Henry, Chrysostom, and St. Jerome, I have entered into as circumstantial evidence. All you have is repeating yourself ad nauseum.

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.

Which I had conceded by the time I looked at Gill, Chrysostom, Henry and St. Jerome.

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 don’t discount them. The USSCB has not attached any such directives where we are not free to disagree with the footnotes in the NAB or criticise the text itself.

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.

Considering that I looked at the CE (wich is not a magisterial document in any way) i neither proves your hypothesis we are not to call my Father nor does it back up my assertion that these were not titles that were used. However, I have moved away and conceded here and am looking more or less at the context. That is why I am going to the fathers and both Jerome and chrysostom bear me out here.

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!

Backed up by already uses of Jerome, Gill, Chrysostom, taht this literalist interpretation of Matthew 23:9 is a johnny come lately interpretation.
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?
A) There is no forbiddance to disagree on the text of the NAB or the footnotes by NAB scholars. B) it’s not an infallible edition, C) the Catholic encyclopedia is not magisterial and D) the CE neither proves you correct nor my original assertion.

 

[Turtullian]

And that’s all.

Henry called it (erroneously, IMO) a title.

He showed that at one time this was the protestant apologetic, but whatever.

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

Really? Then why does Henry cite 1 cor 4:15 as the reason why Paul’s title was father?

15] For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel.

 

[fellowChristian]

1. Matthew 19:19
   Jesus replied, " ‘Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, **honor your father **and mother,’ and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’ "

2.Mark 10:7
'For this reason a man will leave his **father **and mother and be united to his wife,

3.Mark 11:10
“Blessed is the coming kingdom of our father David!” “Hosanna in the highest!”

4.Luke 1:32
He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David,

5.Acts 3:13
The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his servant Jesus. You handed him over to be killed, and you disowned him before Pilate, though he had decided to let him go.

6.Acts 4:25
You spoke by the Holy Spirit through the mouth of your servant, our** father David**: " 'Why do the nations rage and the peoples plot in vain?

7.Acts 5:30
The God of **our fathers **raised Jesus from the dead—whom you had killed by hanging him on a tree.

**The word still appears in scripture? **

This is in reference
davidmacd.com/catholic/priests_forgive_sins_call_no_man_father.htm

 

[Atemi]

So if you understand the chapter well enough to be able to apply any qualification to the verses you must also understand it well enough to know that verses are directed towards the Pharisees and scribes and the particular scenarios that Christ is quiet specifically noting throughout the chapter.

Christ’s commands are directed only at His disciples.

The text says as much.

 

[Milliardo]

Atemi, I am also interested in how you address Jewish clergy; after all, they are referred as “rabbi”. So, how would you address them? How do you address your doctor, since you also seem to, at least by the plain reading of the text, object the term? Do you address Jewish clergy as “rabbi”? Do you address those in the medical profession (apart from nurses and interns) as “doctor”?