Isn’t this something the Bible forbids?

Putting the problem in context

As Paul and Sandra and their children were leaving church one Sunday after Mass, they stopped to say hello to the priest:

“Thank you for the homily, Father Ryan,” said Paul. “It was very convincing”.

“Thank you,” the Father answered with a smile, “I am glad you found it helpful.”

“Changing the subject, Father”, Sandra ventured to ask the priest, “we would like to know whether you would be free to come to our home and join us for dinner this week.”

The Father smiled, “Of course. That would be wonderful! Thank you.” And they settled on a day before leaving.

Nothing about this encounter would seem odd to a Catholic, but many Protestants are horrified by it. Many claim that when Catholics refer to the priest as “father”, they show that the Church stands against the Bible, because Jesus forbade it: “Call none your father upon earth; for one is your father, who is in heaven” (Matt. 23:9).

In his essay 10 Reasons Why I Am Not a Roman Catholic, the anti-Catholic fundamentalist writer Donald Maconaghie cites this passage in support of his charge that “the papacy is a sham.”

Bill Jackson, another fundamentalist who runs a full-time anti-Catholic organization, says in his book, A Christian’s Guide to Roman Catholicism, that a “study of Matthew 23:9 reveals that Jesus was speaking about being called father as a title of religious superiority…[which is] the basis of the [Catholic] hierarchy” (p. 53).

How should we Catholics respond to these accusations?

To understand why the accusation is not valid, one must first consider the use of the word “father” in reference to our earthly fathers. No one would deny a little girl the chance to tell someone that she loves her father. Common sense tells us that Jesus was not forbidding this kind of use of the word “father”.

In fact, to forbid it, one would have to strip the word “Father” of its meaning when applied to God, because there would no longer be the counterpart for the analogy of divine Fatherhood. The concept of God’s role as Father would have no meaning if we destroyed the concept of earthly fatherhood.

But in the Bible the concept of fatherhood is not restricted only to our earthly fathers and to God. It is used to refer to people other than biological or legal fathers, and it is used as a sign of respect toward those with whom we have a special relationship.

For example, Joseph tells his brothers about a special paternal relationship God has given him with the king of Egypt: “Not by your counsel was I sent hither, but by the will of God: who hath made me as it were a father to Pharao, and lord of his whole house, and governor in all the land of Egypt” (Gen. 45:8).

Job indicates that he had a fatherly role toward the less fortunate: “I was the father of the poor: and the cause which I knew not, I searched out most diligently” (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 Eliacim the son of Helcias…and I will clothe him with thy robe, and will strengthen him with thy girdle, and will give…thy power into his hand; and he shall be as a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Juda” (Isa. 22:20)

This kind of fatherhood applies not only to those who are wise counselors (like Joseph) or benefactors (like Job) or both (like Eliakim); it also applies to those who have a paternal 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 father by the king of Israel (2 Kgs. 6:21).

A change with the New Testament?

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 is no longer allowed. This argument fails for several reasons.

First, as we have seen, the imperative “call no man father” does not apply to one’s biological father. Nor does it 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 St. 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 biological fathers 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 mistaken, as we shall see.

Third, a careful examination of the context of Matthew 23 shows that Jesus did not intend his words to be understood literally. The whole passage reads thus, “But be not you called ‘Rabbi,’ for one is your master; and all you are brethren. And call none your father upon earth; for one is your father, who is in heaven. Neither be ye called ‘masters,’ for one is your master, Christ (Matt. 23:8).

The first problem is that although Jesus seemed to forbid the use of the term “teacher”, Christ himself appointed certain men to be teachers in his Church (“Going therefore, teach ye all nations…)

Fundamentalists themselves slip up on this point by calling all sorts of people “Doctor,” for example in the case of physicians, as well as professors and scientists who hold Ph.D. degrees (that is, doctorates). Where they go wrong is that “doctor” is simply the Latin word for “teacher”.

So what did Jesus mean?

Jesus criticized the Jewish leaders who loved “the first places at feasts and the first chairs in the synagogues and salutations in the market place, and to be called ‘Rabbi’ by men (Matt. 23:6).

He was using hyperbole (exaggeration to drive home a point) to show the scribes and Pharisees how sinful and proud they were for not humbly looking to God as the origin of all authority and fatherhood and teaching, and for setting themselves up instead as the ultimate authority, father figures, and teachers.

  Christ used hyperbole often, for example when he declared, “If thy right eye scandalize thee, pluck it out and cast it from thee; it is expedient for thee that one of thy members should perish, rather than that thy whole body be cast into hell” (Matt. 5:28, cf. 18:9, Mark 9:47). Christ certainly did not intend this to be applied literally, for otherwise all we Christians would be deprived of our sight! (cf. 1 John 1:8; 1 Tim. 1:15). We are all subject to the concupiscence of the flesh and the concupiscence of the eyes and the pride of life” (1 John 2:16).

Using strong words as he often did, Jesus condemned the misuse of authority rather than the use of certain terms of position. In referring to the term “father”, Jesus is forbidding us to confuse any relationship of human fatherhood with the spiritual Fatherhood that God alone possesses. We must not forget that we are subject to the authority of God-He is our Master and Teacher and Father. This is why, when we refer to priests as “fathers”, we must always do so recognizing that God is our true Father.

The apostles show us the way

The ancient Christian practice of calling priests “fathers” goes all the way back to the time of the apostles, and the theology behind it is evident in Scripture. During the trial before the Sanhedrin—the Jewish high council of the priests and the elders—the first Christian martyr, Stephen, refers to them as “brethren and fathers” (Acts 7:24).

This is a key passage to consider, since the Scriptures tell us that Stephen was filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke these words under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (cf. Acts 7:55). There is no way the Holy Spirit could have inspired Stephen to refer to the Jewish priests as “fathers” if Christ had in fact literally forbidden Christians to call men by that title. If that were so, there would have to be a direct contradiction between Christ’s command and the action of the Holy Spirit.

The New Testament is full of examples of and references to spiritual father-son and father-child relationships. Many people are not aware of how common these are, so it is worth citing some here.

Paul regularly referred to Timothy as his child: “Therefore I sent to you Timothy, my beloved and faithful son in the Lord: mercy, and peace, from God the Father and Jesus Christ our Lord” (1 Tim 1:2), “To Timothy my dearly beloved son: grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father, and from Christ Jesus our Lord” (2 Tim. 1:2).

He also referred to Timothy as his son: “This precept I commend to thee, O son Timothy; according to the prophecies going before on thee…” (1 Tim 1:18), “Thou therefore, my son, be strong in the grace which is in Christ Jesus” (2 Tim 2:1), “Now know ye the proof of him, that as a son with the father, so hath he served with me in the gospel” (Phil. 2:22).

Paul also referred to others of his converts in this way: “To Titus my beloved son, according to the common faith: grace and peace from God the Father, and from Christ Jesus our Saviour” (Titus 1:4), “I beseech thee for my son Onesimus, whom I have begotten in my bands” (Philem. 10). Clearly, none of these men were literally biological sons. On the contrary, Paul is emphasizing his spiritual fatherhood toward them.

Spiritual Fatherhood

Perhaps the most pointed reference in the Old Testament to the theology of the spiritual fatherhood of priests is Paul’s declaration, “I write not these things to confound you; but I admonish you as my dearest children. For if you have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet not many fathers. For in Christ Jesus, by the gospel, I have begotten you” (1 Cor. 4:14-15).

Peter followed the same custom, referring to Mark as his son: “The church that is in Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you: and so doth my son Mark” (1 Pet. 5:13). The apostles sometimes referred to entire churches under their care as their children. Paul writes, “Behold now the third time I am ready to come to you; and I will not be burthensome unto you. For I seek not the things that are yours, but you; for neither ought the children to lay up for the parents, but the parents for the children” (2 Cor. 12:14); and, “My little children, of whom I am in labour again, until Christ be formed in you!” (Gal. 4:19).

John said, “My little children, these things I write to you, that you may not sin. But if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the just” (1 John 2:1), “I have no greater grace than this, to hear that my children walk in truth” (3 John 4). In fact, John also referred to men of the first communities as “fathers” (1 John 2:13).

By referring to these people as spiritual “children”, Peter, Paul, and John implicitly present themselves as their spiritual “fathers”. Because the Bible frequently speaks of this spiritual fatherhood, we Catholics acknowledge it and keep the custom of calling priests “father”. Not to acknowledge this is in fact to fail to recognize and honor a great gift that God has given in the Church: the spiritual fatherhood of the priesthood”

Catholics have a filial affection for priests and call them “father”, knowing that, as members of their parishes, they are entrusted to their spiritual care and have a filial relationship with them. Priests, on the other hand, follow the biblical examples of the apostles in referring to the members of their congregation as “my son” or “my little one” (cf. Gal. 4:19, 1 Tim. 1:18, 2 Tim. 2:1, Philem. 10, 1 Pet. 5:13, 1 John 2:1, 3 John 4).

Author: Steve Ray.

Source:Catholic-convert.com

Translator: Roberto Linares.