What's new
  • Do not use Chrome Incognito when registering as it freezes the registration page.
  • Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
  • No longer will OSAS vx OSNAS be allowed to be debated, argued, or discussed in theology forum. Too much time is required to monitor and rescources used to debate this subject which hasn't been definitively decided in 3,000 years.

Father?

WIP

Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Dec 11, 2010
Messages
10,361
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
I thought this might be the best forum to post this question.

This morning on my way to work I was listening to an open forum program called, "Seize The Day" hosted by Gus Lloyd on The Catholic Channel on Sirius radio. I listen in quite often as I find it interesting, even though I do find disagreement with much of the Catholic teaching. Gus Lloyd is actually a former Protestant converted to Catholicism.

The topic this morning was about one of the Catholic Cardinals calling into question the practice of referring to the Catholic priests as "Father." This Cardinal, whose name eludes me at the moment, is supposedly raising questions about whether or not this is truly right. Gus Lloyd made it quite clear that he is adamantly not open to considering changing the practice, which made it difficult for anyone siding with the Cardinal to have a reasonable discussion with him.

At any rate, I thought it would be interesting to understand where or when the CC began using this term when referring to the priests. As I understand it and I personally believe most Protestants will cite Matthew 23:9 where Jesus instructed that we should call no man on earth our father. But when I review the text in context, it seems that there may be more to it than that for He also gave other instructions that I never noticed before. Here's the text from the NKJV, chapter 23, v1-10.

1 Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, 2 saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do. 4 For they bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers. 5 But all their works they do to be seen by men. They make their phylacteries broad and enlarge the borders of their garments. 6 They love the best places at feasts, the best seats in the synagogues, 7 greetings in the marketplaces, and to be called by men, ‘Rabbi, Rabbi.’ 8 But you, do not be called ‘Rabbi’; for One is your Teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren. 9 Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. 10 And do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, the Christ."

It's interesting that He also instructs that we are not to be called teachers. When I was leading the high school Bible study at our church, I personally did not feel comfortable when someone referred to me as teacher or the teacher. I would tell them that I was not qualified to claim that title and that I looked at our class as a shared learning experience. In other words, God's word was our teacher and we were learning together. For some reason, until I looked up the Scripture I posted above, I hadn't notice it before that Jesus says we are not to be called teachers. Maybe this is why I felt so uncomfortable when it happened.

So what do you all think about this? I would also like to hear from our Catholic brothers and/or sisters.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JLB

HeIsRisen2018

Straight out of Hufflepuff house :D
Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2017
Messages
14,378
Gender
Female
That is a very good question,.. I'm not Catholic so I can't really tell you their perspective but I feel like when Jesus says no,.. He means NO. I don't call anybody on earth Father (not even my earthly father I just call him Dad but I'm not sure if Jesus means him too) and I never called any of my teachers "teacher." I just called them Mr., Ms., or Mrs. and then their surname because it would be rather strange if I called them that.




I also don't confess my sins to anybody but the Lord (I think that just simply stating what you did wrong is a bit different in this case as well) and pray to Mary and statues (false gods) and stuff like that either though because it's unbiblical and goes against God so I really wonder how Catholics can claim to follow the Bible when they go against scripture and The Ten Commandments and have completely written out the "Thou Shall Not Have Any Graven Images" command. Please don't think that I'm bashing the Catholic religion because I'm not, Catholics aren't any less saved or loved by the Lord than we are,.. it's just a simple question that I'm really curious to know the answer to.
 

Nathan12

Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2019
Messages
544
Gender
Male
So what do you all think about this? I would also like to hear from our Catholic brothers and/or sisters.
The key to this teaching is "all ye are brethren". Which meant that Christ was forbidding His disciples (and all Christians) [1] from taking any clerical titles (father, rabbi, doctor, reverend, right reverend, monsigneur, holy father, whatever) or [2] setting up any distinction between clergy and laity. Peter speaks of Paul as "our brother Paul", and Peter was never the pope of Rome.

The RCC has gone well beyond that. Not only are their priests called "fathers", but they have been given special religious powers and privileges, above and beyond what is permissible in the Bible (e.g. the absolution of sins).

However, the distinction between clergy and laity arose quite early among the churches, and instead of all elders being at the same level, bishops were appointed over the elders, and after that the entire clerical hierarchy was set up, both in the Catholic and Orthodox churches. So if this cardinal is serious, he should divest himself of that title altogether.
 

WIP

Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Dec 11, 2010
Messages
10,361
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
The key to this teaching is "all ye are brethren". Which meant that Christ was forbidding His disciples (and all Christians) [1] from taking any clerical titles (father, rabbi, doctor, reverend, right reverend, monsigneur, holy father, whatever) or [2] setting up any distinction between clergy and laity. Peter speaks of Paul as "our brother Paul", and Peter was never the pope of Rome.

The RCC has gone well beyond that. Not only are their priests called "fathers", but they have been given special religious powers and privileges, above and beyond what is permissible in the Bible (e.g. the absolution of sins).

However, the distinction between clergy and laity arose quite early among the churches, and instead of all elders being at the same level, bishops were appointed over the elders, and after that the entire clerical hierarchy was set up, both in the Catholic and Orthodox churches. So if this cardinal is serious, he should divest himself of that title altogether.
From your understanding, would you also include pastor, preacher, elder, deacon?

When I read the text I posted in my OP, there seems to be an underlying purpose. Jesus seemed to be addressing the haughtiness of the Pharisees and Scribes. Is it possible Jesus was addressing this along with the titles?

Just trying to look at this from multiple angles to better understand what the text is saying.
 

Nathan12

Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2019
Messages
544
Gender
Male
From your understanding, would you also include pastor, preacher, elder, deacon?
Ideally addressing them as "Brother______" should suffice. But if people are used to saying "pastor" or "preacher" I don't believe that would be an issue, provided they all understand that these are spiritual gifts and callings, while all are brethren. Elders are delegated by Christ to be both shepherds (pastors) and overseers (bishops) and must take full responsibility for the spiritual welfare of the flock. But they cannot taken titles to themselves. As you will note evangelists, pastors, and teachers are the gifts given to the churches for the edification of the saints, and ideally should be found among the elders (presbyters). But apostles and prophets are now found in the complete Bible, and modern day apostles and prophets are not necessary (though some are making such claims).
 

WIP

Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Dec 11, 2010
Messages
10,361
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
Ideally addressing them as "Brother______" should suffice. But if people are used to saying "pastor" or "preacher" I don't believe that would be an issue, provided they all understand that these are spiritual gifts and callings, while all are brethren. Elders are delegated by Christ to be both shepherds (pastors) and overseers (bishops) and must take full responsibility for the spiritual welfare of the flock. But they cannot taken titles to themselves. As you will note evangelists, pastors, and teachers are the gifts given to the churches for the edification of the saints, and ideally should be found among the elders (presbyters). But apostles and prophets are now found in the complete Bible, and modern day apostles and prophets are not necessary (though some are making such claims).
I am in agreement that we are not to take these titles for ourselves. That is what Jesus said in the text I posted in my OP from Matthew 23. It's interesting that He said that but also made a distinction not to call anyone on earth our father.

So how does that work when speaking of my dad?
 

ezra

 
Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2012
Messages
6,179
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
pastor, preacher, elder, deacon
all BIBLE based offices /titles ..i dont agree calling a man of God father.. the better name would be BROTHER i dont us reverend either
 

JohnDB

Staff member
Administrator
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
7,212
Gender
Male
I thought this might be the best forum to post this question.

This morning on my way to work I was listening to an open forum program called, "Seize The Day" hosted by Gus Lloyd on The Catholic Channel on Sirius radio. I listen in quite often as I find it interesting, even though I do find disagreement with much of the Catholic teaching. Gus Lloyd is actually a former Protestant converted to Catholicism.

The topic this morning was about one of the Catholic Cardinals calling into question the practice of referring to the Catholic priests as "Father." This Cardinal, whose name eludes me at the moment, is supposedly raising questions about whether or not this is truly right. Gus Lloyd made it quite clear that he is adamantly not open to considering changing the practice, which made it difficult for anyone siding with the Cardinal to have a reasonable discussion with him.

At any rate, I thought it would be interesting to understand where or when the CC began using this term when referring to the priests. As I understand it and I personally believe most Protestants will cite Matthew 23:9 where Jesus instructed that we should call no man on earth our father. But when I review the text in context, it seems that there may be more to it than that for He also gave other instructions that I never noticed before. Here's the text from the NKJV, chapter 23, v1-10.

1 Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, 2 saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do. 4 For they bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers. 5 But all their works they do to be seen by men. They make their phylacteries broad and enlarge the borders of their garments. 6 They love the best places at feasts, the best seats in the synagogues, 7 greetings in the marketplaces, and to be called by men, ‘Rabbi, Rabbi.’ 8 But you, do not be called ‘Rabbi’; for One is your Teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren. 9 Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. 10 And do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, the Christ."

It's interesting that He also instructs that we are not to be called teachers. When I was leading the high school Bible study at our church, I personally did not feel comfortable when someone referred to me as teacher or the teacher. I would tell them that I was not qualified to claim that title and that I looked at our class as a shared learning experience. In other words, God's word was our teacher and we were learning together. For some reason, until I looked up the Scripture I posted above, I hadn't notice it before that Jesus says we are not to be called teachers. Maybe this is why I felt so uncomfortable when it happened.

So what do you all think about this? I would also like to hear from our Catholic brothers and/or sisters.
Jesus was setting up a new system completely different from the established hiarchy of Judaism.
Also was going on about their pride...as in don't grab it. Staying humble.

Notice later Paul talked about "super apostles" vx regular apostles and deacons/bishops in his letters. Paul had Timothy as an apprentice. So they had a structure of leadership. But Paul had equal footing with Peter.
Peter definitely was the lead apostle as he carried a staff.

Judaism has a bad habit of creating those who feel and act "self righteous". Christianity does as well when people claim they have the "Holy Spirit".
And Jesus makes it clear that this is not to be true for them.
It's not the title as much as the meaning behind it.
Pope is Latin for "Pappa"...but it's supposed to be a replacement for Peter's position.

The Catholic Church is a huge organization today. Much bigger than when the 200+ were hiding out.
200 people are not a sect...they are a cult. But it became the dominant religion based on 12 ordinary people in leadership following the Messiah. They weren't trained speakers. They weren't taught navigation of politics. They had no clue about church finance. They prayed to remain humble...not to show off their eloquence or continue preaching.

Huge difference... Catholics and Protestants alike are guilty of doing exactly what Jesus said not to do. The precise title is nothing...the intent is everything.
 

JLB

Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life
Supporter
Joined
Jul 13, 2012
Messages
22,087
Gender
Male
I thought this might be the best forum to post this question.

This morning on my way to work I was listening to an open forum program called, "Seize The Day" hosted by Gus Lloyd on The Catholic Channel on Sirius radio. I listen in quite often as I find it interesting, even though I do find disagreement with much of the Catholic teaching. Gus Lloyd is actually a former Protestant converted to Catholicism.

The topic this morning was about one of the Catholic Cardinals calling into question the practice of referring to the Catholic priests as "Father." This Cardinal, whose name eludes me at the moment, is supposedly raising questions about whether or not this is truly right. Gus Lloyd made it quite clear that he is adamantly not open to considering changing the practice, which made it difficult for anyone siding with the Cardinal to have a reasonable discussion with him.

At any rate, I thought it would be interesting to understand where or when the CC began using this term when referring to the priests. As I understand it and I personally believe most Protestants will cite Matthew 23:9 where Jesus instructed that we should call no man on earth our father. But when I review the text in context, it seems that there may be more to it than that for He also gave other instructions that I never noticed before. Here's the text from the NKJV, chapter 23, v1-10.

1 Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, 2 saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do. 4 For they bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers. 5 But all their works they do to be seen by men. They make their phylacteries broad and enlarge the borders of their garments. 6 They love the best places at feasts, the best seats in the synagogues, 7 greetings in the marketplaces, and to be called by men, ‘Rabbi, Rabbi.’ 8 But you, do not be called ‘Rabbi’; for One is your Teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren. 9 Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. 10 And do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, the Christ."

It's interesting that He also instructs that we are not to be called teachers. When I was leading the high school Bible study at our church, I personally did not feel comfortable when someone referred to me as teacher or the teacher. I would tell them that I was not qualified to claim that title and that I looked at our class as a shared learning experience. In other words, God's word was our teacher and we were learning together. For some reason, until I looked up the Scripture I posted above, I hadn't notice it before that Jesus says we are not to be called teachers. Maybe this is why I felt so uncomfortable when it happened.

So what do you all think about this? I would also like to hear from our Catholic brothers and/or sisters.

Good topic.


Although the body of Christ does have teachers and pastors and so on, maybe we should consider them in the light of what Jesus said in Matthew 23:10



And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting, but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him who is the head—Christ— from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by what every joint supplies, according to the effective working by which every part does its share, causes growth of the body for the edifying of itself in love. Ephesians 4:11-16



Speaking for myself personally, I don’t like it when people are constantly referring to themselves by one of these titles.



JLB
 

HeIsRisen2018

Straight out of Hufflepuff house :D
Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2017
Messages
14,378
Gender
Female
I am in agreement that we are not to take these titles for ourselves. That is what Jesus said in the text I posted in my OP from Matthew 23. It's interesting that He said that but also made a distinction not to call anyone on earth our father.

So how does that work when speaking of my dad?


Once again I'm pretty sure that that's not what Jesus means. Why would God tell us to honor thy mother and thy father if that was the case?
 

WIP

Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Dec 11, 2010
Messages
10,361
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
Good topic.


Although the body of Christ does have teachers and pastors and so on, maybe we should consider them in the light of what Jesus said in Matthew 23:10



And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting, but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him who is the head—Christ— from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by what every joint supplies, according to the effective working by which every part does its share, causes growth of the body for the edifying of itself in love. Ephesians 4:11-16



Speaking for myself personally, I don’t like it when people are constantly referring to themselves by one of these titles.



JLB
Once again I'm pretty sure that that's not what Jesus means. Why would God tell us to honor thy mother and thy father if that was the case?
I think both of you are touching on similar points as I see it. It's one thing to be a preacher, teacher, pastor, evangelist, and so on but it is entirely something else to identify one's self as such when doing so is for personal stature or pride.

HeIsRisen2018,
What do you think Jesus does mean then? That's really the whole point of this discussion. To understand.
 

HeIsRisen2018

Straight out of Hufflepuff house :D
Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2017
Messages
14,378
Gender
Female
I think both of you are touching on similar points as I see it. It's one thing to be a preacher, teacher, pastor, evangelist, and so on but it is entirely something else to identify one's self as such when doing so is for personal stature or pride.

HeIsRisen2018,
What do you think Jesus does mean then? That's really the whole point of this discussion. To understand.


I think that believe it or not you just answered your own question. If you're using one of those things as a name, that's different than using it as a title.
 

JLB

Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life
Supporter
Joined
Jul 13, 2012
Messages
22,087
Gender
Male
It's one thing to be a preacher, teacher, pastor, evangelist, and so on but it is entirely something else to identify one's self as such when doing so is for personal stature or pride.

Amen.
 

JLB

Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life
Supporter
Joined
Jul 13, 2012
Messages
22,087
Gender
Male
What do you think Jesus does mean then? That's really the whole point of this discussion. To understand.

One thing I see here is Jesus wants to change our thinking, that we would begin to have the same mindset as Christ.


That we would now think of God as our Father, and Jesus as our Teacher, that we would turn to Him for our instruction and doctrine as our Teacher, rather than man.


This is the promise of the New Covenant.




That we would confide in God as our Father.




JLB
 

WIP

Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Dec 11, 2010
Messages
10,361
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
This is where I was hoping that one of our Catholic friends would chime in. The argument that Gus Lloyd used with regard to calling the priests "father" was that it was a title and nothing more. Having grown up in the Catholic church I don't agree with Mr. Lloyd's assertion. When we referred to the priest as "father" it meant more than just a title.

Even Mr. Lloyd in his broadcast, while claiming it was a title, also said the priests earned the title and it carries a level of reverence. This hit me as directly opposing what Jesus was saying.
 

Nathan12

Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2019
Messages
544
Gender
Male
Even Mr. Lloyd in his broadcast, while claiming it was a title, also said the priests earned the title and it carries a level of reverence. This hit me as directly opposing what Jesus was saying.
As we all know Catholics use "Jesuitical casuistry" to justify their false beliefs. Nothing new.
casuistry
noun
ca·su·ist·ry | \ ˈkazh-wə-strē , ˈka-zhə-\
plural casuistries
Definition of casuistry
1: a resolving of specific cases of conscience, duty, or conduct through interpretation of ethical principles or religious doctrine

2: specious argument : RATIONALIZATION
 

Nathan12

Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2019
Messages
544
Gender
Male
Catholics and Protestants alike are guilty of doing exactly what Jesus said not to do.
Unfortunately, the Protestant Reformers did not divest themselves entirely of their Catholic baggage. Scholasticism was an integral part of the Catholic Church, and Protestants failed to insist that there be no such thing among evangelical Christians, nor any clerical titles, nor any special clothing to distinguish clergy from laity.

"Following the Reformation, Calvinists largely adopted the scholastic method of theology, while differing regarding sources of authority and content of theology" -- Wikipedia.
 

HeIsRisen2018

Straight out of Hufflepuff house :D
Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2017
Messages
14,378
Gender
Female
I think that the problem is that a lot of things in the Bible aren't black and white and it's up to us to figure out what they mean. For example tomorrow is Good Friday and I was just wondering how could that be the day when Jesus was crucified if three days later would make it Easter Monday and not Sunday.




Then I realized two things. First of all the Bible could have meant that Jesus was crucified early Friday morning and rose again on Sunday morning,.. but just because we recognize Friday as Good Friday and Sunday as Easter Sunday, it could have been on different days altogether. Sorry if I'm getting off topic a bit but the point I'm trying to make is how the Bible is sort of like a puzzle that we have to put together so I think that still makes it on topic.
 

JLB

Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life
Supporter
Joined
Jul 13, 2012
Messages
22,087
Gender
Male
This is where I was hoping that one of our Catholic friends would chime in. The argument that Gus Lloyd used with regard to calling the priests "father" was that it was a title and nothing more. Having grown up in the Catholic church I don't agree with Mr. Lloyd's assertion. When we referred to the priest as "father" it meant more than just a title.

Even Mr. Lloyd in his broadcast, while claiming it was a title, also said the priests earned the title and it carries a level of reverence. This hit me as directly opposing what Jesus was saying.

Born again Christians are priests.

We are all equal in that regard.



JLB
 

2020 Hosting Fee

Total amount
$150.00
Goal
$667.40
Top