YUKON! You're Back! Question For Ya.......

[AVG-JOE]

God only speaks through the Holy Father Pope Benedict. He communicates to man through him. By following the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church you will follow God's ways.

What happened to Matthew 23:9 "And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven."?

Those are red-letter words from Jesus during one of his most plainly recorded speeches. How does the Roman Catholic Faith spin that one Yukon?

-Joe

I'd be interested to hear that as well!

Soooooooo..... Inquiring minds want to know!

-Joe

 

[RadiomanATL]

What happened to Matthew 23:9 "And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven."?

Those are red-letter words from Jesus during one of his most plainly recorded speeches. How does the Roman Catholic Faith spin that one Yukon?

-Joe

I'd be interested to hear that as well!

Soooooooo..... Inquiring minds want to know!

-Joe

I'm not Yukon, so I can't answer for him. But in my view Jesus is really using the word "father" to mean "God". I mean, I don't know anyone who doesn't call their own father... well... father at some point. Or a variation thereof (Dad, Daddy, Pop etc). SOOOoooo in my view the Catholic church is fine in calling their priests and the pope-erooni "father" because they are not referring to him as God, but rather as the leader of their church or the leader of THE church in the pope's sense. Hardcore catholics believe that God speaks through the pope and that makes him infallible, but God is the one that gives him that power. The pope himself is not infallible without God's help.

 

[JBeukema]

The blame lies with the Irish, says Holmes. Until the great wave of Irish immigration in the 1840s, most Catholic priests in America were addressed as "Mister," "Monsieur," or "Don," not "Father." This was the Continental usage. The title "Father" was restricted to monks, and few priests in America were monks.

But the Irish had a different custom. They referred to all priests, whether religious or secular (that is, monastic or diocesan) as "Father." By the late nineteenth century "the Irish had influenced English-speaking Roman Catholicism to call every priest 'Father.'"

This bothered Protestants. So long as Catholic priests had been called "Mister," Protestants were comfortable calling their ministers "Father." But when Catholics changed their usage, Protestants, in order to distinguish their position from "priestcraft" and "popery," changed their usage too.

Matthew 23:9 now began to be used in a polemical sense. Protestants discovered in it a warning against the Catholic usage, a warning they had not seen when their own clergy were titled "Father."

"As more and more Irish Catholic priests moved into the United States, Protestants began to assert that 'Father' was unbiblical," says Holmes. "The literalist interpretation of Matthew 23:9 became a standard weapon in the arsenal of anti-Catholicism. ... As a result of this reaction, the twentieth century brought generations of American Protestants who knew nothing of ministers addressed as 'Father.'"

I look forward to using this information the next time a Fundamentalist or Evangelical refers to Matthew 23:9. It should make for an interesting discussion.

Catholic Answers: Karl's E-Letter

Some Fundamentalists argue that this usage changed with the New Testament—that while it may have been permissible to call certain men "father" in the Old Testament, since the time of Christ, it’s no longer allowed. This argument fails for several reasons.

First, as we’ve seen, the imperative "call no man father" does not apply to one’s biological father. It also doesn’t exclude calling one’s ancestors "father," 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, there are numerous examples in the New Testament of the term "father" being used as a form of address and reference, even for men who are not biologically related to the speaker. There are, in fact, so many uses of "father" in the New Testament, that the Fundamentalist interpretation of Matthew 23 (and the objection to Catholics calling priests "father") must be wrong, as we shall see.

Third, a careful examination of the context of Matthew 23 shows that Jesus didn’t intend for his words here to be understood literally. The whole passage reads, "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" (Matt. 23:8–10).

The first problem is that although Jesus seems to prohibit the use of the term "teacher," in Matthew 28:19–20, Christ himself 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." 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."

Fundamentalists themselves slip up on this point by calling all sorts of people "doctor," for example, medical doctors, as well as professors and scientists who have Ph.D. degrees (i.e., doctorates). What they fail to realize is that "doctor" is simply the Latin word for "teacher." Even "Mister" and "Mistress" ("Mrs.") are forms of the word "master," also mentioned by Jesus. So if his words in Matthew 23 were meant to be taken literally, Fundamentalists would be just as guilty for using the word "teacher" and "doctor" and "mister" as Catholics for saying "father." But clearly, that would be a misunderstanding of Christ’s words.

Call No Man "Father"?

Call No Man Father: Understanding Matthew 23:9

 

[AVG-JOE]

That very thought was hypothesized in the original post... that and the simple "lost in translation".

I don't buy that. I don't believe that Jesus would tell anyone not to call a parent Father or daddy, but when the Catholics used it as a title for their leadership, and then went on to embellish the title with "Holy" for the man with the biggest hat in the club, I think the congregation missed a golden opportunity to call 'bullshit' on the bullshitters.

I wonder if it would have made a difference if the Catholic Congregation had not been denied access to the scriptures by their leadership back when the title was first adopted?

-Joe

 

[AVG-JOE]

The blame lies with the Irish, says Holmes. Until the great wave of Irish immigration in the 1840s, most Catholic priests in America were addressed as "Mister," "Monsieur," or "Don," not "Father." This was the Continental usage. The title "Father" was restricted to monks, and few priests in America were monks.

But the Irish had a different custom. They referred to all priests, whether religious or secular (that is, monastic or diocesan) as "Father." By the late nineteenth century "the Irish had influenced English-speaking Roman Catholicism to call every priest 'Father.'"

This bothered Protestants. So long as Catholic priests had been called "Mister," Protestants were comfortable calling their ministers "Father." But when Catholics changed their usage, Protestants, in order to distinguish their position from "priestcraft" and "popery," changed their usage too.

Matthew 23:9 now began to be used in a polemical sense. Protestants discovered in it a warning against the Catholic usage, a warning they had not seen when their own clergy were titled "Father."

"As more and more Irish Catholic priests moved into the United States, Protestants began to assert that 'Father' was unbiblical," says Holmes. "The literalist interpretation of Matthew 23:9 became a standard weapon in the arsenal of anti-Catholicism. ... As a result of this reaction, the twentieth century brought generations of American Protestants who knew nothing of ministers addressed as 'Father.'"

I look forward to using this information the next time a Fundamentalist or Evangelical refers to Matthew 23:9. It should make for an interesting discussion.

Catholic Answers: Karl's E-Letter

Some Fundamentalists argue that this usage changed with the New Testament—that while it may have been permissible to call certain men "father" in the Old Testament, since the time of Christ, it’s no longer allowed. This argument fails for several reasons.

First, as we’ve seen, the imperative "call no man father" does not apply to one’s biological father. It also doesn’t exclude calling one’s ancestors "father," 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, there are numerous examples in the New Testament of the term "father" being used as a form of address and reference, even for men who are not biologically related to the speaker. There are, in fact, so many uses of "father" in the New Testament, that the Fundamentalist interpretation of Matthew 23 (and the objection to Catholics calling priests "father") must be wrong, as we shall see.

Third, a careful examination of the context of Matthew 23 shows that Jesus didn’t intend for his words here to be understood literally. The whole passage reads, "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" (Matt. 23:8–10).

The first problem is that although Jesus seems to prohibit the use of the term "teacher," in Matthew 28:19–20, Christ himself 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." 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."

Fundamentalists themselves slip up on this point by calling all sorts of people "doctor," for example, medical doctors, as well as professors and scientists who have Ph.D. degrees (i.e., doctorates). What they fail to realize is that "doctor" is simply the Latin word for "teacher." Even "Mister" and "Mistress" ("Mrs.") are forms of the word "master," also mentioned by Jesus. So if his words in Matthew 23 were meant to be taken literally, Fundamentalists would be just as guilty for using the word "teacher" and "doctor" and "mister" as Catholics for saying "father." But clearly, that would be a misunderstanding of Christ’s words.

Call No Man "Father"?

Call No Man Father: Understanding Matthew 23:9

Interesting. Good research, James. Still leaves the question of the Pope hanging with the title 'Holy' Father.

And as with most good research, it raises at least one more question... Where did Jesus intend for his words to be understood literally, exactly?

-Joe

 

[JBeukema]

Interesting. Good research, James. Still leaves the question of the Pope hanging with the title 'Holy' Father.

we'll just set that alongside indulgences, the sacrifice of the mass, the neo-roman power structure, the anathema against 'faith only' salvation...

And as with most good research, it raises at least one more question... Where did Jesus intend for his words to be understood literally, exactly?

take it in context: Call no man your father or master.