I know this is hard to understand, and I may not be able to explain it real well, but I'll try. It is not wrong for us to say "our forefathers" and it is not wrong to call your biological dad "father" because this context is referring to physicality, not spirituality. We are descendants of Abraham physically, even though it is now through adoption. But in this context God is our only spiritual Father. We all have different roles to play, but we are all on the same level, but God, and only God is above us in matters of importance.
I know this post wasnt directed towards me, so I hope mikeuk and yourself don't mind if I cut in. With taht being said, Jesus was simply teaching (using the common Hebrew method of exaggeration or hyperbole (Mt. 19:24, 23:24; Lk. 6:42, 14:26) that God the Father is the ultimate source of all authority. He said this during the course of rebuking the Pharisees for spiritual pride (Mt. 23:2-10). Those who use this argument neglect to see that it would prohibit
all uses of the word
father whatsoever; even biological fathers. Since that is an absurd outcome, it is clear that the statement cannot be taken in an absolute sense. Beyond that, Jesus Himself uses the term
father many times (Mt. 15:4-6; 19:5,19,29; 21:31; Lk. 16:24,27,30; Jn. 8:56, etc.). Several other passages from others utilize the term, too (sometimes twice), so unless it is believed that they were being disobedient to Jesus, the objection to calling Catholic priests
father must be discarded.
He is the only one to revere, we should never call anyone but God reverend. There is only one verse in the bible that uses the word reverend- Psalm 111:9 and it says holy and reverend is His name. We are MADE holy, but only God IS holy. A so-called priest is a sinner just like the rest of us, yet by being called 'father' he puts himself above us, when in reality any one of God's children are a saint and a priest, but only God is our father. Ephesians 4:12, depending on the translation, uses either God's people/saints. And Revelation calls us priests in verses 1:6, 5:10, and 20:6.
I disagree... The Bible teaches that there is such a thing as clergy, who are set apart from lay members of the Church, and also gives indication of priestly function.
The priesthood as we know it today is not a strong motif in the New Testament. But this can be explained in terms of development of doctrine: some things were understood only in very basic or skeletal terms in the early days of Christianty. This is even true of doctrines accepted by all, such as the Holy Trinity or original sin. The canon of the biblical books was slow to formulate (4 centuries). Also, it has been argued that priesthood was a subdued feature of primitive Christianity because it had not yet finally separated from Judaism; therefore, the authority of Jewish priests was still accepted. Acts 2:46 describes the Jerusalem Christians as "day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes". The Apostle Paul was presenting offerings in the temple around the year 58 (Acts 21:26), acknowledged the authority of the Jewish high priest, described himself as a Pharisee (Acts 23:5-6), and observed Jewish feasts (Acts 20:6).
One can indeed find evidence in the Bible of a Christian priesthood. Jesus entrusts to His disciples a remembrance of the central aspect of the liturgy or Mass (consecration of the bread and wine) at the Last Supper (Lk. 22:19: "Do this in remembrance of me"; Paul may also have presided over a Eucharist – Acts 20:11). These same disciples were (like priests) models of a life wholly devoted to God, as a matter of lifelong calling. Jesus had chosen and "appointed" them, and they had become His "friends" (Jn. 15:15-16). He was their sole master (Mt. 6:24). There was no turning back in their ministry (Lk. 9:62), and they were called to a radical commitment involving even leaving possessions and their entire families (Mt. 4:22, 19:27; Lk. 14:26). The priest-disciple must accept hardships and privations and embrace self-denial (Mt. 8:19-20, 10:38, 16:24, etc.), and (if so called) celibacy, for the sake of undistracted devotion to the Lord (Mt. 19:12; 1 Cor. 7:7-9). They served the Body of Christ (1 Cor. 3:5, 9:19; 2 Cor. 4:5), and dispensed sacraments (1 Cor. 4:1; Jas. 5:14), including baptism (Mt. 28:19; Acts 2:38,41). A universal priesthood of "offering" (sacrifice) extending to "every place" in New Testament times is prophesied in Isaiah 66:18,21 and Malachi 1:11.
I know there are Non-Catholics that at times cite 1 Peter 2:5,9 ( Rev. 1:6, 5:10, 20:6) to the effect that "All" Christians are priests. But Peter was citing Exodus 19:6: "you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation." The problem with this is that the older passage couldn't possibly have meant that there was no priesthood among the ancient Hebrews, since they clearly had a separate class of priests (Leviticus: chapters 4-7, 13-14). This is even seen in the same chapter, since Ex. 19:21-24 ( Josh. 3:6, 4:9) twice contrasts the "priests" with the "people." Thus, it makes much more sense to interpret 1 Pet. 2:5 as meaning a people "specially holy" – like priests; a separate, holy, "chosen" people, as is fairly clear in context, in both parallel passages. The notion of "spiritual sacrifices" (faith, praise, giving to others) applies to all Christians (Phil. 2:17; Heb. 13:15-16).
Pax Christi
"From henceforth, all generations shall call me Blessed." ----Luke 1:48.