Fathers on earth?

[deftarchangel]

Let me preface my question by saying that I'm not a Catholic, nor was I ever one.  I ask this question because I have Catholic friends, and this is a question I've never been able to pose properly because the Catholic defence for it is pretty adequate.  However, I know that there is something wrong with this Catholic practice, but I don't know how to prove it.

The Lord Christ stated in Matt 23:9:

"And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and He is in heaven. "

Now obviously Catholics have, apparently, grossly violated this command, with priests and higher-ups in the Catholic hierarchy being addressed (and addressing themselves) as Father Someone (Father Michael, Father Tim, Father Eric, etc.), with the Pope even going so far as to take the title of HOLY Father (which, I have to say, takes a lot of brass to go and do).  But whenever you point out this apparent violation, the obvious argument comes up:

"Well, what do you call your biological father?  If you follow that command to the letter, then you can't call your dad 'father' or address any male with a child as 'father.' 

Which is fair enough.  But to extend that even further (and perhaps play devil's advocate here  ), even after Christ gave this command, the apostles still addressed Abraham as "our father" (Acts 7:2) and stating that he "is the father of us all." (Rom 4:16).     The verse prior to the one provided above states that you cannot call anyone "Rabbi" (or in English – "teacher"), or call anyone "Master."  And yet, in societies all over the world, this is exactly what we do.  It's very much commonplace to address a Jewish teacher as "Rabbi."  We address our instructors in school as "teacher."  In the martial arts, it's commonplace to address a high ranking practitioner as Master, or even Grandmaster.  No one makes a big huff over it.  So, can we really come down so hard on the Catholics for adopting this practice?

Consider also that Christ said this to the masses.  According to Ray's teachings, all of Christ's words to the masses were parables or spiritual words (unless I'm misinterpreting something in Ray's teachings), and that they weren't necessarily to be taken literally.  Therefore, are Catholics justified by this?  Are they committing no sin by calling themselves Father?

As I said, something inside me says that you cannot go around using the title of "father" like the Catholics are doing.  And yet, I don't know how to prove it.  Keep in mind that I'm not going to be going out of my way to go and debate with anyone about this.  It's merely to settle it in my own mind, and provide some peace to me should the topic ever come up.

Thanks for your time.

Kind regards,

Rob   

[judith collier]

Falconn, wanted to answer you the last time I was on but logged out before I did(something came up) and couldn't even get back on this site because it was the first time I ever logged out, aargh! Then had to find out about my password. Anyway, liked your description of spiritual to spiritual and spiritual to physical, didn't quite get that before and now understand why non-Catholics are offended. We could call the priests by their first names though, they even preferred it, at least the young uns'. First, what is the name of the discussion about "can we forgive other's sins" can't find it and I'm about read out and wanted to see your answer. (I haven't even learned to post yet) You asked me why I left the Catholic Church and what did I love about it. Never in all my wanderings have I experienced the Holiness of God and reverance to God as I did there. And the most important is the CROSS. The Cross has always been a foundation for me, the reality of persucution and suffering for a Christian is taught and taught well. Now, why did I leave, like so many other churches, questions against their dogma are not wanted, purgutory, birth control,women in the church,power,infallibility of the pope, there are others  but when God called me He called me Israel and nobody could answer that(at least the ones I talked with(2) and I knew the priests were not above me in regard to God but they wouldn't consider what I was trying to say. For some being a Catholic is loving your religion and I too loved it sometimes more than God. They wanted me to speak to a Bishop at the time but I was terrified God was going to make me a martyr or something and I didn't go as I didn't know God very well then. I learned much from the protestants and more from the evangelicals and more from the mystics but was still searching for good grounded truth as to what is the bottom line. Judy

[hillsbororiver]

Hi Rob,

Rodger provided a very good response to your question, this is a spiritual command. One of the core problems with the churches is they supplant the spiritual with the earthly, physical and literal.

Paul makes the distinction here;

Heb 12:5  And ye have forgotten the exhortation which speaketh unto you as unto children, My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked of him:

Heb 12:6  For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.

Heb 12:7  If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?

Heb 12:8  But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye ********, and not sons.

Heb 12:9  Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits and live?

Heb 12:10  For they verily for a few days chastened us after their own pleasure; but he for our profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness.

No man is yours or our spiritual Father!

Peace,

Joe

[Falconn003]

Falconn, wanted to answer you the last time I was on but logged out before I did(something came up) and couldn't even get back on this site because it was the first time I ever logged out, aargh! Then had to find out about my password. Anyway, liked your description of spiritual to spiritual and spiritual to physical, didn't quite get that before and now understand why non-Catholics are offended. We could call the priests by their first names though, they even preferred it, at least the young uns'. First, what is the name of the discussion about "can we forgive other's sins" can't find it and I'm about read out and wanted to see your answer. (I haven't even learned to post yet) You asked me why I left the Catholic Church and what did I love about it. Never in all my wanderings have I experienced the Holiness of God and reverance to God as I did there. And the most important is the CROSS. The Cross has always been a foundation for me, the reality of persucution and suffering for a Christian is taught and taught well. Now, why did I leave, like so many other churches, questions against their dogma are not wanted, purgutory, birth control,women in the church,power,infallibility of the pope, there are others  but when God called me He called me Israel and nobody could answer that(at least the ones I talked with(2) and I knew the priests were not above me in regard to God but they wouldn't consider what I was trying to say. For some being a Catholic is loving your religion and I too loved it sometimes more than God. They wanted me to speak to a Bishop at the time but I was terrified God was going to make me a martyr or something and I didn't go as I didn't know God very well then. I learned much from the protestants and more from the evangelicals and more from the mystics but was still searching for good grounded truth as to what is the bottom line. Judy

I blieve that htread may have been moved or deletted altoghter, atm i am not feeling to well (under benodryl atm), and hope we can pick up on this later on

Peace and Grace
Rodger

[deftarchangel]

Thanks for the responses.  I understand a bit better the idea of matching spiritual with spiritual.

Having said that, however, I looked up the question on a Catholic website, because I wanted to know how they viewed the practice and how they defended it.  They too acknowledge that God is our "Spiritual" Father, but claim that the Apostles themselves ALSO viewed themselves as spiritual fathers to members of the church.

For example, the website points out that Paul, at various times, addressed individual members of the faith as his child, most often Timothy (1 Cor 4:17; 1 Tim 1:18; 2 Tim 2:1; Phil 2:22; Philemon 10; Titus 1:4).  Mind you, depending on the translation you read, some of these verses don't necessarily put a possessive before the word "child," but merely refer to the individual as "a child."  But Paul does explicitly regard Timothy as his "beloved and faithful child in the Lord," and regarded the church in Galatia as his "little children." 

The website also forwards other passages of other Apostles regarding followers the same way.  Peter regarding Mark as his son (1 Peter 5:13).  John addressing his readers as his children (1 John 2:1; 3 John 4).  The website claims John addresses men as 'fathers' in 1 John 2:13-14, and therefore approved the practice of men assuming the spiritual father mantle.  Are these men John is addressing as 'fathers' men who merely have children, or are these, in fact, 'spiritual' fathers?
 
Another verse that is regarded as final proof that Paul saw himself as a spiritual father is 1 Cor. 4:14-15:

"Even though you have ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel."

Now once again, it may just be a translation issue, since a Concordant Version states the passage like this:

"For if you should be having ten thousand escorts in Christ, nevertheless not many fathers, for in Christ Jesus, through the evangel, I beget you."

With all the above, I understand now why Catholic priests always refer to their congregation members as "my children" or "my child."  That always sounded a little off to me, but how do you argue that point considering the Apostles also regarded their followers as their children as well?

Again, I know I'm playing devil's advocate here, but I want to make sure this issue is put to rest in my mind.  I realize that my own understanding (or lack thereof) of the Scriptures may be a hindrance to that, so I'd appreciate any more insights to this question.

Thanks.

Rob. 

[aqrinc]

Rob,

Why play devils advocate; that is a dangerous game, the devil does not need your help to create
havoc with the flock. These are some of the scriptures you quoted. What is wrong with any of the
word usage here; no one is expressing reverence for the person being addressed here. More the
expression is one of someone guarding weaker ones as opposed to demanding Worship.

I Samuel 7:3:
And Samuel said to all the house of Israel, saying, If you are returning to Jehovah with all your heart,
put aside the alien gods from among you, and the Ashtoreths. And prepare your heart to Jehovah,
and serve Him only, and He will deliver you out of the hand of the Philistines.

Matthew 4:10:
Then Jesus said to him, Go, Satan! For it has been written: "You shall worship the Lord your God,
and you shall serve Him only." Deut. 6:13

Luke 4:8:
And answering, to him, Jesus said, Get behind Me, Satan! For it has been written: "You shall worship
the Lord your God, and Him only you shall serve."

Are the Scriptures saying not to use the word Father; or Admonishing not to reverence any human
rather To Worship Only God. Nowhere in these Scriptures are the Apostles saying to worship them.
Quite to the contrary; they are exhorting the brethren, to focus on The Lord Jesus Christ

1 John: 13-17
13-Fathers, I write to you because you have known Him from the beginning. I write to you, young men,
because you overcome the evil one. I write to you, young ones, because you have known the Father.

14-Fathers, I have written to you because you have known Him from the beginning. I have written to you,
young men, because you are strong, and the word of God abides in you, and you have overcome the evil one.

15-Do not love the world nor the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him,

16-because all that which is in the world: the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life,
is not of the Father, but is of the world.

17-And the world is passing away, and its lust. But the one doing the will of God abides forever.

1Cor: 4: 14-16
14-I do not write these things shaming you, but warning you as my beloved children.

15-For if you should have myriads of teachers in Christ, yet not many fathers; for I fathered you in Christ Jesus through the gospel.

16-Because of this, I urge you, be imitators of me.

Just my 2 cents, hope it helps.

george.

[hillsbororiver]

I believe we are able to discern the difference between addressing an elder (whether it be in age or position) with a term of respect or at least acknowledgement that the person being addressed is senior to the addressee.

Haven't we all called someone who is a mentor or older or more experienced "sir" does that mean we revere them or only that we respect their wisdom? Haven't we (men at least) been addressed as "son" when being instructed or advised by an elder or someone who is in a postion of authority?

Kneeling before a priest, kissing the ring of a bishop or pope is quite a different story though as Peter demonstrated in Acts;

Act 10:25  And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him.

Act 10:26  But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man.

There are many other things that the Catholics teach that are blatently unbiblical, too many to list but here is one;

The Catholic church forbids priests to marry, on what authority? Peter (whom they claim is the first pope) was married.

Mat 8:14 And when Jesus was come into Peter's house, he saw his wife's mother laid, and sick of a fever.

Mar 1:30 But Simon's wife's mother lay sick of a fever, and anon they tell him of her.

Luk 4:38 And he arose out of the synagogue, and entered into Simon's house. And Simon's wife's mother was taken with a great fever; and they besought him for her.

What does Paul say about the freedom to marry?

1 Cor 9:5 Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?

As well as;

1Ti 3:2  A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

The part above about "one wife" I am sure means not to have more than one rather than meaning a bishop, teacher or leader must have one. Look at the following verses for even more clarity on this;

1Ti 4:1  Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils;

1Ti 4:2  Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;

1Ti 4:3  Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

Peace,

Joe

P.S. This post was not intended to denigrate all Catholics, I grew up a Catholic and there were many sincere folks I knew who did their best with the knowledge they were given, that includes quite a few family members as well. I do have serious problems with their doctrines and traditions though.

[judith collier]

Hillsborovov,1st Cor.7,8  I believe this is where the Catholic Church got the idea. And most likely that "forbidden to marry" was meant for all, men and women, it doesn't say specifically who an not especially for the apostles. And the meat thing, well, we used to give up meat on Fridays but no more and it was taught as a little sacrifice for God. Just for the record. Judy

[hillsbororiver]

Hi Judy,

I grew up a Catholic and am old enough to remember the no meat on Friday command, unfortunately I did not like fish until I was a teen and by that time this command had been rescinded.

Let's read 1Cor 7 and look carefully at the words;

1 Corinthians 7

6But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.

7For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.

8I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I.

There are couple things to take note of here, first Paul writes "I speak this by permission, and not of commandment." Could it be that Paul was speaking through a multi experienced observation? Taking note of the difficulty involved in balancing family commitments with doing the work of the Lord?

Apparently he felt strongly that it was less conflicting to devote oneself to total servitude to the Lord if one did not have family concerns, it was better, not a commandment that must be followed.

The bottom line is that the Catholic church forbids marriage, it is not merely a suggestion from an experienced evangelist but a direct command that is in direct conflict with His Word.

The early church had no such directive or tradition, it was not until they started amassing fortune and property that the hierarchies did not want "their" fortunes to be diluted and lost through inheritance. It was greed that motivated this directive from Rome.   

Peace,

Joe 

[deftarchangel]

Are the Scriptures saying not to use the word Father; or Admonishing not to reverence any human
rather To Worship Only God. Nowhere in these Scriptures are the Apostles saying to worship them.
Quite to the contrary; they are exhorting the brethren, to focus on The Lord Jesus Christ


You hit the nail on the head, George, question-wise.  That's basically what I want to know.  Did Christ forbid calling anyone 'father,' or did He merely forbid regarding someone as taking the role of 'spiritual father' in one's life?  Is it the act itself, or is it merely about attitude, or both?

See, the thing is, I'm just not comfortable addressing someone as 'father' if they aren't my biological father, or God.  And even then, I still call my biological father "dad."  Not because of Christ's command, but just because that's how it worked out.  I don't even call Christ 'Father,' because that isn't appropriate either.  But I don't know how to react should I ever come across someone who prefers being addressed as Father.  Actually, looking a few months down the line, I may be put into a situation where this issue may come up.  What do I say?  Even in the military, chaplains are commonly referred to as "padre" (which is just Spanish for 'father').   It's not an official title, but it's how they are commonly addressed.   

I suppose there are quite a number of priests and chaplains who don't make that big of a deal about it and won't insist on it, and therefore in a lot of cases, it is perhaps a non-issue.  But I guess it's the principle of the thing for me.  Why do I feel so weird for doing it?  Why is it such an issue for me?  Am I making a mountain out of a molehill here?  It's not like I worship the priest/chaplain and see him as a replacement for God, or even acknowledge his spiritual superiority to me.  I can respect his knowledge and experience, but he's human, and a sinner.....just like me.  At the same time, I don't want to appear disrespectful and rude for not addressing him properly.  And why don't I feel weird about addressing a Jewish teacher as 'rabbi,' or a martial arts instructor as 'master'?  I feel almost duplicitous or hypocritical in that case.

I don't know.....this one's hurting my brain just thinking about it.     Does anyone else out there run into this problem in regards to addressing someone as 'father'?  How do you get around it, or do you just acquiesce and go along with it, knowing in your heart and mind that you don't regard them as your spiritual father?  I know God won't strike me down for doing it, but there is something within me that bothers me about it.

Anyways, I don't know where to go with this one.  Any help/advice would be appreciated. 

Thanks.

Rob         

[judith collier]

hillsborovive, yes, I do believe Paul was trying to get across the fact it was difficult balancing the work of the Lord and ministry. Just for the record I did call this an idea and not a commandment. One place I differ with you unless you show me the truth is motivation of the heart. Do you have proof that the Church FORBADE marriage due to riches and inheritance. I personally don't care one way or the other just always VERY careful making statements WHERE people are coming from. Actually, that was a good idea too, only a wrong motive if true but then again one does have to protect their property. I would hate to think my children's inheritance was going out to the masses. In all good objective thought and love, Judy

[judith collier]

Deftarchangel, if I might say you are rather troubled over something that is minor(to me) but most assuredly not to you. I can't nor can most people get across to someone else WHAT to do. Here's what (I) would do, just tell the person" I am not comfortable calling you FATHER" period(!) because of beliefs you have. If you want to present the FACTS about why and they ask, then tell them. Most people, ministers, priests, etv. will respect you. Don't worry so much!! with love, Judy

[aqrinc]

Hi Rob,

Check out this Thread, different subject but similar type of questions and counsel.

http://forums.bible-truths.com/index.php/topic,9031.msg75396.html#msg75396

george.

[hillsbororiver]

Do you have proof that the Church FORBADE marriage due to riches and inheritance.

Hi Judy,

It is always good to question, search and seek and not accept everything we hear or read. Actually you can find references to this particular matter all over the Internet or at your library. The sins of the church(es) are plentiful and certainly not limited to only Catholics.

The following is from a former nun, Mary Ann Collins;

http://www.catholicconcerns.com/index.html

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/robin.brace/1papal.htm

"Pope Gregory VII reigned from 1073 to 1085. At that time, many Catholic priests were married. Kings and noblemen donated property to the Roman Catholic Church in exchange for the faithful service of priests. Some priests tried to leave this property to their heirs. In addition they had loyalty to the noblemen who provided them with homes. In order to protect Church property, and to ensure that the loyalty of the priests went to the Pope, and not to secular rulers, Pope Gregory abolished clerical marriage. He passed laws requiring that priests be celibate, and he got rid of married priests.

In 1089, by passing a decree, the Synod of Melfi (under Pope Urban II) turned the wives of married priests into church property. The priests were put into prison, and their wives were sold into slavery. Their children were sold into slavery, or else abandoned."


Peace,

Joe     

[judith collier]

hey Joe, it's all Jesus's fault, he picked men as apostles!! (kidding) Yes, I knew some (but not that many) popes were rascals. I can believe they instituted the forbidden marriage ban for their own power and wealth. I think the kind of person I am doesn't help me at times. I tend to overlook the bad and focus on the good. Consequently I appear naive' and missing the whole scenario. There is one question though, just because Jesus or someone else(forgot who) said the bishop should have one wife doesn't translate for me, "you HAVE to have a wife. You're a nice guy Joe!!!! Easy to discuss things with.  Judy

[Dave in Tenn]

Hi Deftarchangel.  It seems that your concience is weak on this issue.  I'd encourage you when this comes up to do what you think is right.  Whether or not it is a sin in the flesh against God to say the word, you can sin against your concience as well.  Blessed is he who does not condemn himself for what he allows, but to act against what you think in your heart is wrong as well.

I will say this, though.  If a man (or woman) of the 'clergy' were offended by you using their name rather than their title, then the problem is THEIRS and not yours.  That's what I think, anyway.

The Right Reverend Father Master Dave (Rabbi on the Sabbath)  

[hillsbororiver]

hey Joe, it's all Jesus's fault, he picked men as apostles!! (kidding) Yes, I knew some (but not that many) popes were rascals. I can believe they instituted the forbidden marriage ban for their own power and wealth. I think the kind of person I am doesn't help me at times. I tend to overlook the bad and focus on the good. Consequently I appear naive' and missing the whole scenario. There is one question though, just because Jesus or someone else(forgot who) said the bishop should have one wife doesn't translate for me, "you HAVE to have a wife. You're a nice guy Joe!!!! Easy to discuss things with.  Judy

Hi Judy,

I believe we are in agreement about the "bishop requirement." 

1Ti 3:2  A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

The part above about "one wife" I am sure means not to have more than one rather than meaning a bishop, teacher or leader must have one.

Thanks for the kind words!

Peace,

Joe

[hillsbororiver]

I will say this, though.  If a man (or woman) of the 'clergy' were offended by you using their name rather than their title, then the problem is THEIRS and not yours.  That's what I think, anyway.

The Right Reverend Father Master Dave (Rabbi on the Sabbath)  

Very good Dave!

Joe