Posted on 09/01/2013 2:10:47 PM PDT by NYer
The other day I received a rather lengthy email from a fellow responding to a chapter in my book, Nuts and Bolts - A Practical How-To Guide for Explaining and Defending the Catholic Faith, specifically responding to my defense of calling priests "father."
Score One Up For the Protestants
I have answered this question hundreds of times over the years, but this fellow's critique caught my attention first of all because he used my own style of argumentation against me. I liked that. "Matthew 23:9," he reminded me, "says, ‘Call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven.’ What would Jesus have to say to you, Tim, to get you to believe you can't call your priest 'father,' other than by saying, 'Call no man your father on earth?'"
I have to believe this fellow has heard me speak before because I have often (too often?) used a similar line, "What else would Jesus have to say..." to argue in favor of various Catholic doctrines. In fact, I used that very approach in my debate with Dr. Peter Barnes on the Eucharist in Sydney, Australia, when we were discussing John 6:53.
Cudos to my interlocutor at this point, but that would be, quite frankly, about the only round he had in his magazine.
An Earthy Argument
In Nuts and Bolts, I point out the fact that notwithstanding Jesus's words in Matthew 23, St. Paul calls people "on the earth" father in Ephesians 6:2-4:
"Honor your father and mother" (this is the first commandment with a promise), "that it may be well with you and that you may live long on the earth." Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.
Is this a contradiction?
Many will respond at this point and claim Jesus is not just condemning calling anyone father; rather, he is condemning calling religious leaders "father." As I explain in my book, this is easily dismissed when we consider the words of our Lord from Luke 16:24:
And he (the rich man) called out, "Father Abraham, have mercy upon me, and send Lazarus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am in anguish in this flame."
Abraham is clearly a "religious leader." And Jesus is not alone in referring to him "father." St. James refers to Abraham as "father" in James 2:21, while St. Paul refers to Abraham as "father" seven times in Romans 4:1-18. If you believe in the inspiration of Sacred Scripture, St. James and St. Paul cannot contradict Jesus in Matthew 23:9.
At this point, my new friend argued something slightly different from what I've heard before. He said words to the effect of: "The key here is found in the words 'on the earth.' Abraham was not on earth. So Jesus was not simply condemning giving the 'title' of 'father' to men, but giving it to religious leaders who are on earth. And that is precisely what Catholics do!"
The Catholic Response
The first problem here is Jesus did not say "give no spiritual leader on earth the title father." He simply said, "Call no man on earth your father." More on that in a moment. For now, let's follow the argument. So now our Protestant friend is saying it is okay to call our dads "father" because they are not "spiritual leaders" in the Church. We can also call our spiritual forefathers like Abraham or Jacob (John 4:12) father because they are no longer "on earth."
Sounds okay so far, but here's the problem. In I John 2:13-14, St. John refers to the leaders of the church in Ephesus to whom he is most likely writing as "fathers" twice. And notice he gives them the title "father."
I am writing to you, fathers, because you know him who is from the beginning. I am writing to you, young men, because you have overcome the evil one. I write to you, children, because you know the Father. I write to you, fathers, because you know him who is from the beginning…
Notice, he does not say they are "fathers" because they are married with children. They are "fathers," spiritually speaking. And they are presumably "on the earth."
In Acts 7:1-2, St. Stephen, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, calls both Abraham and the elders of Jerusalem "father" in the same breath:
And the high priest said, "Is this so?" And Stephen said: "Brethren and fathers, hear me. The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham…"
And in I Corinthians 4:14-15, St. Paul refers to himself as "father":
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.
What Does the Bible Say?
What we need to do is get back to Matthew 23:9 and let the surrounding verses clarify things for us:
(8) But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brethren. (9) And call no man your father... for you have one Father... (10) Neither be called masters, for you have one master, the Christ.
We have "one teacher," and yet, many are called “teacher” in the New Testament (see James 3:1; Ephesians 4:11, etc.). We have "one master," or leader, and yet, we have many "leaders" in the body of Christ to whom we are called to submit (Hebrews 13:17 uses the same Greek root for "leader" when it says, "Obey your leaders and submit to them...").
Ultimately, the key to understanding all of these seemingly contradictory texts is found in a proper understanding of the nature of the Body of Christ.
I am going to call upon the Douay-Rheims translation of Ephesians 3:14-15 to help me out here:
For this cause I bow my knees to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Of whom all paternity (Gr. – paternia – “fatherhood”) in heaven and earth is named.
God, the Father, is our one true Father. All other fatherhood, be it a father "on earth," spiritual leaders in the Church, or our spiritual forefathers in heaven, participates in the Father's unique Fatherhood and represents it to us. They neither take away nor add to this one unique Fatherhood; they establish it on the earth.
The context of Matthew 23 emphasizes the sin of pride among the scribes and Pharisees. They loved to be called “teacher”, “father”, or “Rabbi," but their pride pointed men to themselves rather than to God the Father from whom they received true fatherhood and in whom their fatherhood subsisted. Outside of God the Father, there are no fathers at all in the true sense of the term. But in God, we have all sorts of true "fathers."
Ultimately, Jesus is condemning the usurpation of the fatherhood of God in Matthew's Gospel, not the proper participation in that fatherhood.
As a Catholic, I say, “Who cares?” With all of the important matters in this world and in our individual faiths, arguing over addressing a priest as Father, is as dumb as the old argument over how many angels can fit on the head of a pin.
I am a volunteer chaplain’s assistant in a non-sectarian hospital. The current hospital chaplain happens to be a Catholic priest. His predecessor was a Protestant. The Catholic chaplain’s assistants address him as Father, and the Protestant and Jewish chaplain’s assistants address him as Chaplain. The issue of how to address this priest has never come up.
Whose last name does everyone use???
A priest may be addressed as Reverend or Canon if he happens to be one. Only liberals refuse to use propers, time honored titles.
I always thought that verse was a warning not to lend your allegiances and submit to leadership blindly,especially in the light of the surrounding context of verses. True Christian leaders and preachers would always point to Christ and to the true Father in heaven. Any submission to these men that goes beyond scriptural orthodoxy or any course of action or life style that these men may advocate that goes beyond Christian teaching was to be avoided and these “leaders” shunned...hence “Call no man Father”.
I don’t think Christ was advocating that we do away with “father” type relationships...both spiritual and familial in the sense of the raising of the physical or the spiritually immature, mentoring relationships as well as behavioral and spiritual modeling that the mentally or spiritually immature would be encouraged to emulate.
*********************************
Excellent article, NYer. Thank you.
“The official Catholic bible is the NAB”
Last I checked the Catholic church exists outside of America.
Exactly so. The authority of our fathers here on earth stems from the authority of our Father in heaven. THIS is the radical notion.
“ALL believers are priests after the resurrection of Christ.
“
Then why did Jesus choose disciples?
The article doesn't show any such thing...If it did, there would be multitudes of millions of non Catholic Christians agreeing with you...And they aren't...
God may not be offended, but it's going to tick him off...I won't call any spiritual leader Father...Anytime, anywhere...
Yes, even as the Pharisees used the words of Moses...
I call most Christian ministers...”Reverend”. No one ever gets offended....though some of the more Pentacostal ones might have uttered a “pishaww” a time or two at the perceived ostentatiousness of the title! Baptists or pentacostals...I’ll often use “Pastor” as well as “reverend”....it seems to depend on the formality of the occaision.
"Brother" is a title given to the members of a religious order. It typically implies that the one using it is a person who has taken vows of obedience, celibacy, and poverty, but who has not been ordained to Holy Orders.
"Father" is a title exclusively reserved for those who are ordained to the priesthood.
He knew He wasn’t going to be here so needed them to learn from Him and teach others.
The term "disciple" is derived from the Koine Greek word mathetes (a learner, pupil, disciple). He chose those twelve to be the initial “pupils” of what He taught. Then He made them Apostles.
Apostle or the Greek word Apostolos simply means a delegate, messenger, one sent forth
So you see, the RCC is once again lying to it’s followers in that we all are disciples and all of us are to be apostles because we are sent forth to spread the word and be a messenger for Christ.
Followers of the RCC need to understand that the RCC has deceived them.
Wrong. The USCCB (actually, the CCD) has the copyright on the NAB. It is approved for use in the U.S. only. The Lectionary is taken from the NAB.
But the USCCB has approved 10-12 different translations, plus there is a blanket approval for every translation that was approved by a local ordinary or the Apostolic See before 1983, or since 1983 by the bishops' conference.
So that includes the Douay, as well as the RSV (Catholic edition). Also the Knox Bible, which is my current favorite.
The NAB is a typical product of the seventies . . . it is neither euphonious nor a particularly accurate translation. They have tried revising it several times, but it's still pretty clunky -- it's what is sometimes called a "dynamic translation" but it is not one in the strictest sense of the word. The Knox Bible is a true "dynamic translation"; if you want to see the difference, compare the two.
“He knew He wasn’t going to be here so needed them to learn from Him and teach others.”
Sounds like a teaching magisterium to me.
You mean other than all Christians are given those same tasks? Are Christians not “sent forth” to proclaim God’s word? Are Christians today not disciples in that they are learners or pupils?
“You mean other than all Christians are given those same tasks?”
I’m saying that Jesus handpicked some of his followers to be the big D Disciples and the big A Apostles. Precisely so that they had authority to teach others. This is exactly what the magisterium is.
“Reverend” is an adjective, but many people mistakenly use it as a title. For example, a popular commentator calls a well-known cleric “the Reverend Jackson,” when it should be the Reverend Jesse Jackson or the Reverend Mr. Jackson.
I still call them by their last names only. Just wanted to see what some would post.
Mr. Obama, nothing more.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.