Replies

How about calling priests "father"? What is the scriptural support for this?

This is an excellent challenge, thank you. It is so often misunderstood and is such a focus for so much angst.

The first place to look is in our own families. If we were to take Jesus literally in Matt 23:9 about calling NO MAN FATHER on Earth, we could not refer so to our own biological fathers. That would be absurd, however, as it is through our own earthly fathers that we come to understand our Heavenly Father. The concept of God’s role as Father would be meaningless if we obliterated the concept of earthly fatherhood. Besides, the Bible gives many examples of father-son biological relationships, so that can't be what Christ meant... he would be arguing against His Own Word.

In the Bible, the concept of fatherhood is not just restricted to biological relationships and God. It is also used as a sign of respect to those who have a special relationship. For example, Joseph tells his brothers of a special fatherly relationship God had given him with the king of Egypt: "So it was not you who sent me here, but God; and he has made me a father to Pharaoh, and lord of all his house and ruler over all the land of Egypt" (Gen. 45:8). Job indicates he played a fatherly role with the less fortunate: "I was a father to the poor, and I searched out the cause of him whom I did not know" (Job 29:16). And God himself declares that he will give a fatherly role to Eliakim, the steward of the house of David: "In that day I will call my servant Eliakim, the son of Hilkiah . . . and I will clothe him with [a] robe, and will bind [a] girdle on him, and will commit . . . authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah" (Is. 22:20–21). We'll come back to Eliakim in a moment.

This type of fatherhood not only applies to those who are wise counselors (like Joseph) or benefactors (like Job) or both (like Eliakim), it also applies to those who have a fatherly spiritual relationship with one. For example, Elisha cries, "My father, my father!" to Elijah as the latter is carried up to heaven in a whirlwind (2 Kgs. 2:12). Later, Elisha himself is called a father by the king of Israel (2 Kgs. 6:21).

Those are Old Testament examples. Perhaps the New Testament is different? If it is, it's only because there are far more examples!

First, since the imperative to "call no man father" does not logically apply to biological fatherhood, we can also see it applied to ancestors as is shown in Acts 7:2, where Stephen refers to "our father Abraham," or in Romans 9:10, where Paul speaks of "our father Isaac."

Second, when noting that a biological or ancestral relationship can't be what Christ is referencing, we can assume He is speaking hyperbole. I know, you'll initially recoil at such a suggestion... but let's talk about it. The whole passage in Matthew doesn't just mention fatherhood, it also says, "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."

Christ specifically appointed certain men to be teachers in His Church: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations... teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you." (Matt 28:19-20). Paul speaks of his commission as a teacher: "For this I was appointed a preacher and apostle . . . a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth" (1 Tim. 2:7); "For this gospel I was appointed a preacher and apostle and teacher" (2 Tim. 1:11). He also reminds us that the Church has an office of teacher: "God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers" (1 Cor. 12:28); and "his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers" (Eph. 4:11). There is no doubt that Paul was not violating Christ’s teaching in Matthew 23 by referring so often to others as "teachers."

Did you know that the word "doctor" is actually the Latin word for teacher? Even the simple words "mister" and "mistress" are forms of the word "master"... which was also mentioned by Jesus. If we take Jesus literally, then, we would all be just as guilty for calling men "teacher" or "doctor" or "mister" or "mistress" as we would be for calling them "father." There has to be another answer because such an admonition would be unbiblical and illogical... as I have already shown.

So what did Jesus mean? Jesus had many harsh words for the Jewish leaders who loved "the places of honor at feasts and the best seats in the synagogues, and salutations in the market places, and being called 'rabbi' by men" (Matt 23:6-7). Jesus's admonition in just a few later verses uses hyperbole in demonstrating the sinfulness and pride of the Scribes and Pharasees in not looking to God as the source of all teaching, fatherhood and authority. Rather, they set themselves up as such. Christ used hyperbole often, for example when he declared, "If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell" (Matt. 5:29, cf. 18:9; Mark 9:47). Christ certainly did not intend this to be applied literally, for otherwise all Christians would be blind amputees! (cf. 1 John 1:8; 1 Tim. 1:15). We are all subject to "the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the pride of life" (1 John 2:16).

Throughout the world, some people have been tempted to look upon religious leaders who are mere mortals as if they were an individual’s supreme source of spiritual instruction, nourishment, and protection. The tendency to turn mere men into "gurus" is worldwide.

This was also a temptation in the Jewish world of Jesus’ day, when famous rabbinical leaders, especially those who founded important schools, such as Hillel and Shammai, were highly exalted by their disciples. It is this elevation of an individual man—the formation of a "cult of personality" around him—of which Jesus is speaking when he warns against attributing to someone an undue role as master, father, or teacher. No, this is not what Catholics do with the Pope. The Pope is elevated to an office established by Christ in a commission to "feed [His] sheep." He is not a self-appointed guru nor the center of a cult of personality... despite what outsiders may think.

Let's look at the example of the Apostles. The New Testament is filled with examples of and references to spiritual father-son and father-child relationships. Many people are not aware just how common these are, so it is worth quoting some of them here.

Paul regularly referred to Timothy as his child: "Therefore I sent to you Timothy, my beloved and faithful child in the Lord, to remind you of my ways in Christ" (1 Cor. 4:17); "To Timothy, my true child in the faith: grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord" (1 Tim. 1:2); "To Timothy, my beloved child: Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord" (2 Tim. 1:2).

He also referred to Timothy as his son: "This charge I commit to you, Timothy, my son, in accordance with the prophetic utterances which pointed to you, that inspired by them you may wage the good warfare" (1 Tim 1:18); "You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus" (2 Tim. 2:1); "But Timothy’s worth you know, how as a son with a father he has served with me in the gospel" (Phil. 2:22).

Paul also referred to other of his converts in this way: "To Titus, my true child in a common faith: grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior" (Titus 1:4); "I appeal to you for my child, Onesimus, whose father I have become in my imprisonment" (Philem. 10). None of these men were Paul’s literal, biological sons. Rather, Paul is emphasizing his spiritual fatherhood with them.

Perhaps the most pointed New Testament reference to the theology of the spiritual fatherhood of priests is Paul’s statement, "I do not write this to make you ashamed, but to admonish you as my beloved children. 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" (1 Cor. 4:14–15).

Peter followed the same custom, referring to Mark as his son: "She who is at Babylon, who is likewise chosen, sends you greetings; and so does my son Mark" (1 Pet. 5:13). The apostles sometimes referred to entire churches under their care as their children. Paul writes, "Here for the third time I am ready to come to you. And I will not be a burden, for I seek not what is yours but you; for children ought not to lay up for their parents, but parents for their children" (2 Cor. 12:14); and, "My little children, with whom I am again in travail until Christ be formed in you!" (Gal. 4:19).

John said, "My little children, I am writing this to you so that you may not sin; but if any one does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous" (1 John 2:1); "No greater joy can I have than this, to hear that my children follow the truth" (3 John 4). In fact, John also addresses men in his congregations as "fathers" (1 John 2:13–14).

By referring to these people as their spiritual sons and spiritual children, Peter, Paul, and John imply their own roles as spiritual fathers. Since the Bible frequently speaks of this spiritual fatherhood, we Catholics acknowledge it and follow the custom of the apostles by calling priests "father." Failure to acknowledge this is a failure to recognize and honor a great gift God has bestowed on the Church: the spiritual fatherhood of the priesthood.

So, the next question is... are the Apostles priests? The Jews would have agreed they were. Let's look at the Last Supper. In this narrative, we have all of the elements of the traditional Passover meal... well, almost. You see, there was no lamb mentioned (and it was central) and there was no priest (only the Levitical priests could spill a blood sacrifice). We know, as Christians, that the Lamb was present in Christ... as was the priest (though He was not a Levite). Note what He says next, though... "Do this in remembrance of Me." He is instructing His Apostles to offer this sacrifice as He had done. To the Jews of the time, that would be easily understood as Christ making the Apostles priests.

From there, the Church traces the lineage of its priesthood all the way back to the Apostles and we carry on Christ's Work as His Body present in the world today. Remember the reference to Eliakim above? Well, here's the verse after 21 (which mentioned fatherhood to Israel)... Isaiah 22:22 And I will lay the key of the house of David upon his shoulder: and he shall open, and none shall shut: and he shall shut, and none shall open. That should sound familiar because it's very like what Christ said to St Peter after his confession of faith.

Note: I borrowed heavily from an article posted on Catholic.com (mostly Scripture citations). The article from which I borrowed was found to have no defects of faith by the Bishop of San Diego. I pray that my additions and paraphrases do not alter that assessment. May any failures of mine not cause any reader to stumble. Amen.