"You shall not call anyone Father"

[Atemi]

Not like a father but father.

Not quite.

Broken record syndrome. Simply repeating yourself make it so.

I repeat myself because it is so.

Of course, you believe you are doing the same so the criticism is moot.

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

Not so much to anybody else, but more for any other reason.

He does not refer to himself as a father because he is a Catholic priest. That alone is plain. So this eliminates the argument for priests from Paul.

for indeed St. John affectionately adresses the Bishops as fathers becuase take care and do nurture the spiritual well being of thier parshioners.

Please cite the Scriptures where John addresses the overseers as fathers.

Please note: not "Fathers."

Why would that be? All titles are capitalized, by definition.

[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.

Sorry. No go.

"Father" is not in the Greek text.

This is where Henry was wrong.

You cannot have a title when that title is not even in the text to begin with.

You are pleading a “title” that does not exist in the text and never did.

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.

So you have a refernce to “Father Paul”?

When?

All the way, centuries later, during Jerome’s day?

Do you have a citation for that later (many centuries) “Father Paul”?

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.

Of course, but it meant my first claim that Jesus was speaking specifically of titles was orthodox and very reasonable.

Now if only all Catholics I speak to from now on can trust just Jerome, Gill, and Chrysostom. If experience is any guide, I will be out of luck there and just be spouting “anti-Catholic” propaganda that Jesus was speaking of specific titles.

…

 

[Milliardo]

I repeat myself because it is so.

We’ve gone 13 pages of this, and all we have from you still is, “it is so”? Like I said, this isn’t going to cut it. Imagine talking to a Muslim about the Trinity, and they ask you to defend it; will you answer them, “It is so”? You know as well as I do that it won’t work on them.

**

He does not refer to himself as a father because he is a Catholic priest

.That alone is plain. So this eliminates the argument for priests from Paul.**He does not refer to himself as a father because he is [not] a priest? Where did you get this notion? Since you ask for passages, may we also ask you what specific passage did you get this from?

 

[KofC660]

14 pages of this???

This topic was cleared up in the first few responses!

Like I’ve said before: debating with the Protestants is a waste of time - the illogic of Sola Scriptura has blinded them from seeing it’s own illogical nature! No debating will help, the only thing that will is prayers to the Holy Spirit, through the Intercession of the Mother of God, that their hearts be turned away from heresies, and they come to love the One True Faith. Amen.

 

[Turtullian]

Not quite.

Already shown.

I repeat myself because it is so.

Of course, you believe you are doing the same so the criticism is moot.
I have at least shown sources, all you have is your say so and the NAB’s footnotes.

Not so much to anybody else, but more for any other reason.

So Paul calls himself father for this reason alone yet St. john refers his fellow bishops as father? No sense here.

He does not refer to himself as a father because he is a Catholic priest. That alone is plain. So this eliminates the argument for priests from Paul.

This is simply a Reductio ad absurdum.

Please cite the Scriptures where John addresses the overseers as fathers.

1 john 2:13:
13 I write unto you, fathers, because you have known him, who is from the beginning. I write unto you, young men, because you have overcome the wicked one.

Please note: not "Fathers."

Oh boy, this kind of a silly arguement for a reason as greek is in all capitilizations.

Why would that be? All titles are capitalized, by definition.

Which only works in english. Not in greek.

Sorry. No go.

"Father" is not in the Greek text.

Neither is johnanine comma nor the longer ending of Mark. Not only that but it can be translated this way becuase if I beget someone, I am logically thier father. That’s how one becomes a father.

This is where Henry was wrong.

Henry wasn’t wrong at all. Begotten works the same as Became your Father because it is only males who beget and those who beget are fathers. Gasp!

You are pleading a “title” that does not exist in the text and never did.

Broken Record syndrome.

So you have a refernce to “Father Paul”?

No, but Jerome notes that the use of titles in regards to spiritual fathership were long since used.Chrysostom who predates Jerome notes that the verse in question is in regards to using it in a divine or ultimate sense.

Do you have a citation for that later (many centuries) “Father Paul”?
Strawman as that was not what I claimed.

Of course, but it meant my first claim that Jesus was speaking specifically of titles was orthodox and very reasonable.

Which which was a totally new and invented harmuenetic anyhow.

[quoute]
Now if only all Catholics I speak to from now on can trust just Jerome, Gill, and Chrysostom. If experience is any guide, I will be out of luck there and just be spouting “anti-Catholic” propaganda that Jesus was speaking of specific titles.

If you don’t want to deal with the facts, why don’t you go troll somewhere else?

 

[Theresa65]

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 wonder what your evangelical friend calls his father? Dad I suppose!

 

[Theresa65]

We’ve gone 13 pages of this, and all we have from you still is, “it is so”? Like I said, this isn’t going to cut it. Imagine talking to a Muslim about the Trinity, and they ask you to defend it; will you answer them, “It is so”? You know as well as I do that it won’t work on them.

He does not refer to himself as a father because he is [not] a priest? Where did you get this notion? Since you ask for passages, may we also ask you what specific passage did you get this from?

If what Jesus said was taken literally then no man (or woman for that matter) could be called “father”. What Christ was saying is that our original true father was and is God and let us have “No gods before Him”, e.g. riches, the world and all its vanities. The Evangelicals should remember that the Bible was written down almost two hundred years after Christ and what Christians believe was handed down through tradition, which is handed down only through the Roman Catholic Church, built by Christ on the rock of Peter. Complaining about calling a priest “Father” or an educator “Teacher” is just hairsplitting when you consider that some evangelicals reject many of the truths of the Church handed down from the Apostles - how long have the evangelicals been in existence? Not even 100 years. Their forms of worship change and wax and wane according to the personality of their latest “preacher” many of whom grow rick on the spoils of their television and radio shows, hardling living the life recommended by Christ, including celibacy, the highest form of calling as He said. Remembering that people are only entitled to be called “Christian” if they adhere to the Nicene Creed at the Council of Nicea which defined what you have to believe to be Christian (a follower of Christ). That is: "I believe in God the Father, Almighty, creator of heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ, His only son, Our Lord, who was conceived of the Holy Ghost, born of the Virigin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate was crucified, died and was buried, He descended into hell. The third day He rose again from the dead, He ascended into heave and is seated at the right hand of God the Father Almighty. He shall come again to judge the living and the dead. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church, the Communion of Saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body and life everlasting, amen. If your evangelical friend doesn’t believe any of that, then he is not entitled to call himself a Christian, a follower of Christ - what is in the creed is much more important than what he calls his dad!

 

[Theresa65]

We’ve gone 13 pages of this, and all we have from you still is, “it is so”? Like I said, this isn’t going to cut it. Imagine talking to a Muslim about the Trinity, and they ask you to defend it; will you answer them, “It is so”? You know as well as I do that it won’t work on them.

He does not refer to himself as a father because he is [not] a priest? Where did you get this notion? Since you ask for passages, may we also ask you what specific passage did you get this from?

If what Jesus said was taken literally then no man (or woman for that matter) could be called “father”. What Christ was saying is that our original true father was and is God and let us have “No gods before Him”, e.g. riches, the world and all its vanities. The Evangelicals should remember that the Bible was written down almost two hundred years after Christ and what Christians believe was handed down through tradition, which is handed down only through the Roman Catholic Church, built by Christ on the rock of Peter. Complaining about calling a priest “Father” or an educator “Teacher” is just hairsplitting when you consider that some evangelicals reject many of the truths of the Church handed down from the Apostles - how long have the evangelicals been in existence? Not even 100 years. Their forms of worship change and wax and wane according to the personality of their latest “preacher” many of whom grow rick on the spoils of their television and radio shows, hardling living the life recommended by Christ, including celibacy, the highest form of calling as He said. Remembering that people are only entitled to be called “Christian” if they adhere to the Nicene Creed at the Council of Nicea which defined what you have to believe to be Christian (a follower of Christ). That is: "I believe in God the Father, Almighty, creator of heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ, His only son, Our Lord, who was conceived of the Holy Ghost, born of the Virigin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate was crucified, died and was buried, He descended into hell. The third day He rose again from the dead, He ascended into heave and is seated at the right hand of God the Father Almighty. He shall come again to judge the living and the dead. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church, the Communion of Saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body and life everlasting, amen. If your evangelical friend doesn’t believe any of that, then he is not entitled to call himself a Christian, a follower of Christ - what is in the creed is much more important than what he calls his dad!

 

[Theresa65]

Do Evangelicals not have leaders? Preachers? Interesting article this:

Ted Arthur Haggard (born June 27, 1956) is a former American evangelical preacher. Known as Pastor Ted to the congregations he has served, he is the founder and disgraced former pastor of the New Life Church in Colorado Springs, Colorado; a founder of the Association of Life-Giving Churches; and was **leader **of the National Association of Evangelicals from 2003[1] until November 2006.

In November 2006, he resigned or was removed from all of his leadership positions after allegations of homosexual sex and drug abuse were made by whistleblower Mike Jones, a former male prostitute. Initially Haggard denied even knowing Mike Jones, but as a media investigation proceeded he acknowledged that some allegations, such as his purchase of methamphetamine, were true. He later added “sexual immorality” to his list of confessions.[2]

After the scandal was publicized, Haggard entered three weeks of intensive counseling, overseen by four ministers. On February 6, 2007, one of those ministers, Tim Ralph stated that Haggard “is completely heterosexual.”[3] Ralph later said he meant to say that therapy “gave Ted the tools to help to embrace his heterosexual side.”[4]

He is known as a PASTOR, a LEADER, etc. What does your evangelical friend think of that? If according to him he can have no leader, no father, no preacher, no teacher, then he has been living a lie all his life because he no doubt had a father, he no doubt had a teacher, he probably has a preacher who is his leader - but what path is his pastor/leader leading him down?

 

[Atemi]

**Please cite the Scriptures where John addresses the overseers as fathers. **

1 john 2:13:
13 I write unto you, fathers, because you have known him, who is from the beginning. I write unto you, young men, because you have overcome the wicked one.

You have got to be kidding me.

First of all, where in the text does John mention any bishops?

Nowhere.

Second of all, where is the title in this text? Titles, by definition, are capped. This is irrefutable.

Do any of the Catholic translations capitalize “fathers” to show that it is a title?

Surely the Catholic translators would know a title when they see it because you insist it is there. I would like to think you did not just make that up.

So far you have nothing. You have presented no titles, nevermind addressing bishops.

Please note: not "Fathers."

Oh boy, this kind of a silly arguement for a reason as greek is in all capitilizations.

Why would that be? All titles are capitalized, by definition.

Which only works in english. Not in greek.

Exactly…and Catholic translators should know a title in the text when they see one. They do everywhere else.

Why on earth can they not see what you insist is there?

Are we to believe your claim or the actual Catholic translations forwarded by your church?

**Sorry. No go.

“Father” is not in the Greek text.**

Neither is johnanine comma nor the longer ending of Mark. Not only that but it can be translated this way becuase if I beget someone, I am logically thier father. That’s how one becomes a father.

Wrong.

If you are going to claim an actual TITLE is in the text, you need to show that Paul employed an actual TITLE. All you have forwarded here is an empty space where you would like the title of “Father” to appear.

Amazing.

This is where Henry was wrong.

Henry wasn’t wrong at all. Begotten works the same as Became your Father because it is only males who beget and those who beget are fathers. Gasp!

A “title” that is not even present is not a title.

You are using a MISSING “title” you wish was there as evidence that Paul was addressed as “Father.”

This is incredible. And you are serious…

**So you have a refernce to “Father Paul”? **

No

That is what I thought.

Chrysostom who predates Jerome notes that the verse in question is in regards to using it in a divine or ultimate sense.

And we all know the zealous Jews were using those titles in the divine or ultimate sense.

No way.

Do you have a citation for that later (many centuries) “Father Paul”?

Strawman as that was not what I claimed.

Let’s play the tape:

Me: You will find nowhere in the Scriptures or the early Church where Paul is referred to as "Father Paul."

You: No where huh? It seems that what we do have from Jerome does indeed defend the use

Yes, Turtullian…nowhere.

…

 

[rtconstant]

Christ’s commands are directed only at His disciples.

The text says as much.

So when he’s saying “you scibes, Pharisees, Hypocrites!” He’s talking to His disciples? There just happen to be scribes and Pharisees there?

Yes he draws in His follower’s attention as He speaks because there is an important lesson in what He’s about the relate. Yet it is clear that He is speaking to and for the benefit of the Pharisees.

He points out the flaws of many of the scribes and pharisees’ approach to life. He points out to them where that they are themselves servants. They should be concerned with serving their community and not with flashy clothes and important titles. They should be about the work of the Kingdom.

 

[Milliardo]

You have got to be kidding me.

First of all, where in the text does John mention any bishops?

This is almost funny–Atemi now wants to see where it’s actually spelled as “bishops”. It’s actually known, I would think even in some Protestant circles, that John was addressing the elders of the community–practically the bishops. This has time and again already been proven. I think you want to have everything spelled out in a literal sense, which isn’t how the Bible is actually understood.

Second of all, where is the title in this text? Titles, by definition, are capped. This is irrefutable.

Even if we should go by the plain meaning of the text, the title is already shown by John calling them as “fathers” of the community. That is the title itself–again, you seem to sidestep this one and refuse to acknowledge it. The evidence is irrefutable here in favour of the Catholic position, even in its plain reading.

It seems, though, that Atemi has not addressed any of the points I raised. I still await the answers. Please do not forget what I also asked: how do you address Jewish clergy, since they are after all called as “rabbi”. Also, how do you address your doctor–again, that’s a title of his profession. By the very plain reading of what Jesus said, those should also be found objectionable.

 

[Turtullian]

You have got to be kidding me.

First of all, where in the text does John mention any bishops?

Context. Fathers refer to bishops here otherwise it doesn’t make much sense to say that natural fathers that natural fathers ahve known him from the beginning.

Nowhere.

14 Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.

Second of all, where is the title in this text? Titles, by definition, are capped. This is irrefutable.

No and here’s why. If I say i’m going to the doctor’s tomorrow. Does that mean my particular doctor doesn’t have a title of doctor? Or if I say that there are many doctors in the world, have i just denied that doctors don’t havea title? No

Atemi, you have just engaged in the Logicall fallcy of Affirming the consequent.

Do any of the Catholic translations capitalize “fathers” to show that it is a title?

Affirming the Consequent.

So far you have nothing. You have presented no titles, nevermind addressing bishops.

I don’t have too. Linguistics bear me out. If I say doctor, do I deny that a doctor doesn’t also have a title?

Exactly…and Catholic translators should know a title in the text when they see one. They do everywhere else.

Don’t need too as Gill noted this is what is known as a natural title.

Why on earth can they not see what you insist is there?

Apparently everybody but you can see.

If you are going to claim an actual TITLE is in the text, you need to show that Paul employed an actual TITLE. All you have forwarded here is an empty space where you would like the title of “Father” to appear.

Afiirming the Consequent.

Amazing.

Indeed.

A “title” that is not even present is not a title.

Affirming the Consequent.

You are using a MISSING “title” you wish was there as evidence that Paul was addressed as "Father.

"
Affirming the Consequent.

And we all know the zealous Jews were using those titles in the divine or ultimate sense.

In which our was warning against. Thank you for admitting that at the very least.

Yes, Turtullian…nowhere.

I misread you, I was referring to the fact that both Jerome and Chrysostom note that there is nothing wrong with

Also you say that Jesus’s spoke against titles and thier appeletion to men? Jesus himself as a man has a specific title, “the Father of the world to come”. If Jesus said call no man Father really, then he would have disclaimed this title and would not be our messiah.

 

[Pax]

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.

…

That is not the argument that was made and you know that.

 

[Atemi]

So when he’s saying “you scibes, Pharisees, Hypocrites!” He’s talking to His disciples? There just happen to be scribes and Pharisees there?

Too bad that is not the text we are specifically addressing in the thread.

 

[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.

Atemi,

Please answer this post.

 

[Janet_S]

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’d start by telling him that we Catholics are aware of everything written in the Bible because it is a Catholic book. We Catholics know about Matthew 23:9, and we read this verse at our Masses during the liturgy of the Word. I’d tell him that there is nothing in the Bible that, properly understood, goes against the teaching of the Catholic Church since the NT was written by Catholics. I’d also tell him that we’re glad he loves our Bible, we love it too, and if it weren’t for the Catholic Church, he wouldn’t have the Bible he is now trying to use against us.

Historically, the Church did not understand Jesus was forbidding all use of the word “father” in this verse. We have Jerome’s (from the 4th century) commentary:

JEROME; It is a difficulty that the Apostle against this command calls himself the teacher of the Gentiles; and that in monasteries in their common conversation, they call one another, Father. It is to be cleared thus. It is one thing to be father or master by nature, another by sufferance. Thus when we call any man our father, we do it to show respect to his age, not as regarding him as the author of our being. We also call men ‘Master,’ from resemblance to a real master; and, not to use tedious repetition, as the One God and One Son, who are by nature, do not preclude us from calling others gods and sons by adoption, so the One Father and One Master, do not preclude us from speaking of other fathers and masters by an abuse of the terms.

Of course, most non-Catholics are aware Jerome is a Scripture scholar who had expert knowledge of Latin, Greek, and Hebrew. I’m sure his understanding of Scripture is more accurate than any non-Catholic pastors alive today. I’ve often seen non-Catholics cite Jerome when he supports what they want to believe (for example the exclusion of the deuterocanonical books from the OT). If they accept his word about the canon of Scripture, they should surely accept his word on the correct understanding Matthew 23:9.

 

[Pax]

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

…
…

This is an example of just how far off you are in terms of how you read and apply things.

You have been told over and over why you are wrong by me and others.

Not even once have I said that you or anyone else “impresses me.”

I said that I am impressed by the truth. Self glorification particularly at the expense of the facts does not become you.

I also said this:

**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. **

You then responded with this:

***Well that is exactly what happened.

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

Now your logic and charity have both been trashed by your own remarks. You first claim that what I said is exactly what happened which is indeed egregious and uncharitable, and then you claim that you didn’t lay the charges.

Excuse me, but you did lay the charges and you need to think about this and apologize for your statement.

Please be advised that the Catholic bible is the scriptures. Footnotes are not the Catholic bible. No one has discredited the Catholic bible.

If this is the sort of logic you are employing as you respond to us and as you study scripture, then I will excuse myself from corresponding further. Moreover, everytime you have no ammo for a comment you have simply claimed it to be irrelevant without making an argument for it being irrelevant.

Likewise, your point concerning titles is irrelevant. I have just shown you in a prior post where the apostles and Jesus, himself, use the term father as a title. In doing this they either broke Jesus command or you simply do not understand the command. Our understanding is compatible with what is found concerning the use of the word father whether it is a title or not. Yours conforms to neither.

 

[Pax]

Janet S,

Thanks for posting the quote from Jerome. He is always succinct and to the point.

 

[DebCWil]

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 recently read the best answer to this in Practical Discipleship by Fr. Mueller, a Jesuit.
The priest, presbyter, is called father because he is responsible for nourishing the faithful through the liturgy with the word of God and for administering the Sacraments on behalf of the people. We are family.
We can look at the example of a monastery. The Abbot, from the word Abba, is the spiritual father for the community. He is responsible for the welfare of the men under his charge. Each brother must be equipped with what he needs physically as well as spiritually. Each brother, accepts in humility, everything he needs from the Abbot. This can be difficult for somebody who is used to taking care of himself–minimum age for entry into a monastery is 25. It involves a poverty of spirit and of trust not only to God but to the person who has been given this responsibility to provide him even with the clothes he wears like a father would provide for his children.

 

[Pax]

…
…
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.

…
…

…

Internal consistency is very important Atemi. You should take this into consideration so that you “fully” understand things. In this case as in others on this thread, you have made it clear that you really aren’t concerned about it. This is a serious problem.

The brevity of the footnote and the practice of those that wrote it need to be considered for someone to understand what is going on and what is meant by the passage and the footnote. Footnotes are not a complete exegesis of scripture and they do not necessarily explain a common Christian practice which seems to you to be inconsistent with the passage. This is a problem of your own making because you are deliberately taking everything in the strictest possible sense when that is simply not what was intended.