Catholic Heresy (for the record)
- Thread starter RoboOp
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
The infant that is born into this world with original sin to be saved must be born again through an understanding of the gospel, what Christ did for him when He shed His blood, was crucified, buried and rose again. Until that infant has a capacity to understand the gospel they are in a safe place but not saved. The practice of water baptism on infants is not the baptism of John or of our Lord Jesus Christ but belongs to the Catholic doctrine and some others. Hannah committed her son to the Lord and kept her commitment by dedicating him in (1Sam 1). We are to teach our children the ways of God and give them instruction and good wisdom. If infant baptism could accomplish these things then perhaps it would be considered a token symbol of raising the child in the fear of the Lord, but that is not in the mind of most that have their infant baptized. Perhaps this should be revisited by the RRC and consider the scriptures to base an action concerning infants along with the parent's commitment to loan their own child to the Lord for as long as he lives as Hannah did.
M
The rosary comes under tradition so the most appropriate verses would be
1 Corinthians 11:2: I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you"
2 Thessalonians 2:15: So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.
2 Thessalonians 3:6:Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us.
Also i think you misunderstand what the rosary is, its a tool for us to focus on certain bible passages, you can by all means pray with the bible without using a rosary, but a rosary makes meditating on the life of Jesus easier. The bible does not tell us to use the scriptures to pray with, but we understand that this is one of the best ways to pray, so i dont see why people have such a problem with it. If it's the hail mary prayers you have a problem with, you can use a decade of any ten prayers you like that would help you focus on the scriptures.
And if you are wondering about Matthew 6:7 "But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking."
Lets just have a look at how christ prayed in Matthew 26:39-44 "And he went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt. And he cometh unto the disciples, and findeth them asleep, and saith unto Peter, What, could ye not watch with me one hour? Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak. He went away again the second time, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done. And he came and found them asleep again: for their eyes were heavy. And he left them, and went away again, and prayed the third time, saying the same words."
So you can see Jesus prayed the same prayer three times, So Jesus must be referring to in Matt 6:7, saying prayers over and over again without the proper disposition is what he doesn't want us to do.
1 Corinthians 11:2: I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you"
2 Thessalonians 2:15: So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.
2 Thessalonians 3:6:Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us.
Also i think you misunderstand what the rosary is, its a tool for us to focus on certain bible passages, you can by all means pray with the bible without using a rosary, but a rosary makes meditating on the life of Jesus easier. The bible does not tell us to use the scriptures to pray with, but we understand that this is one of the best ways to pray, so i dont see why people have such a problem with it. If it's the hail mary prayers you have a problem with, you can use a decade of any ten prayers you like that would help you focus on the scriptures.
And if you are wondering about Matthew 6:7 "But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking."
Lets just have a look at how christ prayed in Matthew 26:39-44 "And he went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt. And he cometh unto the disciples, and findeth them asleep, and saith unto Peter, What, could ye not watch with me one hour? Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak. He went away again the second time, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done. And he came and found them asleep again: for their eyes were heavy. And he left them, and went away again, and prayed the third time, saying the same words."
So you can see Jesus prayed the same prayer three times, So Jesus must be referring to in Matt 6:7, saying prayers over and over again without the proper disposition is what he doesn't want us to do.
S
Also just for your general information, rainacorn, and for others. After Vatican II with the loosening of many restrictions Liberals started to contaminate (especially in America) everything in Church life with things like "Folk Masses" where people gather around an altar, strum on a guitar, and sing awful kumbaiya songs. Also this is famously the time when "womens ordination" came to the forefront. This continued throughout the 60's, 70's, and 80's, but now after two conservative Popes we're finally starting to silence liberal clergymen and enforce stricter liturgical order.
In America at least the 60's, 70's, and 80's was the Dark Ages for Catholicism. Coincidentally it seems (from statistics) that most of the people that leave the Church were born and raised Catholic during this time.
In America at least the 60's, 70's, and 80's was the Dark Ages for Catholicism. Coincidentally it seems (from statistics) that most of the people that leave the Church were born and raised Catholic during this time.
Last edited:
S
The historic Christian Church has always held that Christ’s law applies to infants as well as adults, for Jesus said that no one can enter heaven unless he has been born again of water and the Holy Spirit (John 3:5). His words can be taken to apply to anyone capable of belonging to his kingdom. He asserted such even for children: "Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 19:14).
More detail is given in Luke’s account of this event, which reads: "Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them; and when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to him, saying, ‘Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God’" (Luke 18:15–16).
Now Fundamentalists say this event does not apply to young children or infants since it implies the children to which Christ was referring were able to approach him on their own. (Older translations have, "Suffer the little children to come unto me," which seems to suggest they could do so under their own power.) Fundamentalists conclude the passage refers only to children old enough to walk, and, presumably, capable of sinning. But the text in Luke 18:15 says, "Now they were bringing even infants to him" (Greek, Prosepheron de auto kai ta brepha). The Greek word brepha means "infants"—children who are quite unable to approach Christ on their own and who could not possibly make a conscious
decision to "accept Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior." And that is precisely the problem. Fundamentalists refuse to permit the baptism of infants and young children, because they are not yet capable of making such a conscious act. But notice what Jesus said: "to such as these [referring to the infants and children who had been brought to him by their mothers] belongs the kingdom of heaven." The Lord did not require them to make a conscious decision. He says that they are precisely the kind of people who can come to him and receive the kingdom. So on what basis, Fundamentalists should be asked, can infants and young children be excluded from the sacrament of baptism? If Jesus said "let them come unto me," who are we to say "no," and withhold baptism from them?
Furthermore, Paul notes that baptism has replaced circumcision (Col. 2:11–12). In that passage, he refers to baptism as "the circumcision of Christ" and "the circumcision made without hands." Of course, usually only infants were circumcised under the Old Law; circumcision of adults was rare, since there were few converts to Judaism. If Paul meant to exclude infants, he would not have chosen circumcision as a parallel for baptism.
The present Catholic attitude accords perfectly with early Christian practices. Origen, for instance, wrote in the third century that "according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants" (Holilies on Leviticus, 8:3:11 [A.D. 244]). The Council of Carthage, in 253, condemned the opinion that baptism should be withheld from infants until the eighth day after birth. Later, Augustine taught, "The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned . . . nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except apostolic" (Literal Interpretation of Genesis 10:23:39 [A.D. 408]).
Taken from: Infant Baptism | Catholic Answers but edited for brevity by me.
More detail is given in Luke’s account of this event, which reads: "Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them; and when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to him, saying, ‘Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God’" (Luke 18:15–16).
Now Fundamentalists say this event does not apply to young children or infants since it implies the children to which Christ was referring were able to approach him on their own. (Older translations have, "Suffer the little children to come unto me," which seems to suggest they could do so under their own power.) Fundamentalists conclude the passage refers only to children old enough to walk, and, presumably, capable of sinning. But the text in Luke 18:15 says, "Now they were bringing even infants to him" (Greek, Prosepheron de auto kai ta brepha). The Greek word brepha means "infants"—children who are quite unable to approach Christ on their own and who could not possibly make a conscious
decision to "accept Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior." And that is precisely the problem. Fundamentalists refuse to permit the baptism of infants and young children, because they are not yet capable of making such a conscious act. But notice what Jesus said: "to such as these [referring to the infants and children who had been brought to him by their mothers] belongs the kingdom of heaven." The Lord did not require them to make a conscious decision. He says that they are precisely the kind of people who can come to him and receive the kingdom. So on what basis, Fundamentalists should be asked, can infants and young children be excluded from the sacrament of baptism? If Jesus said "let them come unto me," who are we to say "no," and withhold baptism from them?
Furthermore, Paul notes that baptism has replaced circumcision (Col. 2:11–12). In that passage, he refers to baptism as "the circumcision of Christ" and "the circumcision made without hands." Of course, usually only infants were circumcised under the Old Law; circumcision of adults was rare, since there were few converts to Judaism. If Paul meant to exclude infants, he would not have chosen circumcision as a parallel for baptism.
The present Catholic attitude accords perfectly with early Christian practices. Origen, for instance, wrote in the third century that "according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants" (Holilies on Leviticus, 8:3:11 [A.D. 244]). The Council of Carthage, in 253, condemned the opinion that baptism should be withheld from infants until the eighth day after birth. Later, Augustine taught, "The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned . . . nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except apostolic" (Literal Interpretation of Genesis 10:23:39 [A.D. 408]).
Taken from: Infant Baptism | Catholic Answers but edited for brevity by me.
G
Try properly interpreting yours! 
Every word 'father' in all of these verses is either referring to a fleshly father [/relationship] or is actually referring to God Himself - Who actually IS the - only - valid - 'spiritual' - "father"...
There is no reference here of a spiritual father apart from the aforemention references to God Himself.
More specifically - there is nothing here that tells me that it is approved of God for anyone to call anyone "father" in a spiritual sense.
Therefore --- my assessment stands:
.
Every word 'father' in all of these verses is either referring to a fleshly father [/relationship] or is actually referring to God Himself - Who actually IS the - only - valid - 'spiritual' - "father"...
There is no reference here of a spiritual father apart from the aforemention references to God Himself.
More specifically - there is nothing here that tells me that it is approved of God for anyone to call anyone "father" in a spiritual sense.
Therefore --- my assessment stands:
.
S
Try properly interpreting yours!
Every word 'father' in all of these verses is either referring to a fleshly father [/relationship] or is actually referring to God Himself - Who actually IS the - only - valid - 'spiritual' - "father"...
There is no reference here of a spiritual father apart from the aforemention references to God Himself.
More specifically - there is nothing here that tells me that it is approved of God for anyone to call anyone "father" in a spiritual sense.
Therefore --- my assessment stands:
Every word 'father' in all of these verses is either referring to a fleshly father [/relationship] or is actually referring to God Himself - Who actually IS the - only - valid - 'spiritual' - "father"...
There is no reference here of a spiritual father apart from the aforemention references to God Himself.
More specifically - there is nothing here that tells me that it is approved of God for anyone to call anyone "father" in a spiritual sense.
Therefore --- my assessment stands:
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.
So What Did Jesus Mean?
Jesus criticized Jewish leaders who love "the place of honor at feasts and the best seats in the synagogues, and salutations in the market places, and being called ‘rabbi’ by men" (Matt. 23:6–7). His admonition here is a response to the Pharisees’ proud hearts and their g.asping after marks of status and prestige.
He was using hyperbole (exaggeration to make a point) to show the scribes and Pharisees how sinful and proud they were for not looking humbly to God as the source of all authority and fatherhood and teaching, and instead setting themselves up as the ultimate authorities, father figures, and teachers.
Christ used hyperbole often, for example when he declared, "If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell" (Matt. 5:29, cf. 18:9; Mark 9:47). Christ certainly did not intend this to be applied literally, for otherwise all Christians would be blind amputees! (cf. 1 John 1:8; 1 Tim. 1:15). We are all subject to "the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the pride of life" (1 John 2:16).
Since Jesus is demonstrably using hyperbole when he says not to call anyone our father—else we would not be able to refer to our earthly fathers as such—we must read his words carefully and with sensitivity to the presence of hyperbole if we wish to understand what he is saying.
Jesus is not forbidding us to call men "fathers" who actually are such—either literally or spiritually. (See below on the apostolic example of spiritual fatherhood.) To refer to such people as fathers is only to acknowledge the truth, and Jesus is not against that. He is warning people against inaccurately attributing fatherhood—or a particular kind or degree of fatherhood—to those who do not have it.
As the apostolic example shows, some individuals genuinely do have a spiritual fatherhood, meaning that they can be referred to as spiritual fathers. What must not be done is to confuse their form of spiritual paternity with that of God. Ultimately, God is our supreme protector, provider, and instructor. Correspondingly, it is wrong to view any individual other than God as having these roles.
Throughout the world, some people have been tempted to look upon religious leaders who are mere mortals as if they were an individual’s supreme source of spiritual instruction, nourishment, and protection. The tendency to turn mere men into "gurus" is worldwide.
This was also a temptation in the Jewish world of Jesus’ day, when famous rabbinical leaders, especially those who founded important schools, such as Hillel and Shammai, were highly exalted by their disciples. It is this elevation of an individual man—the formation of a "cult of personality" around him—of which Jesus is speaking when he warns against attributing to someone an undue role as master, father, or teacher.
He is not forbidding the perfunctory use of honorifics nor forbidding us to recognize that the person does have a role as a spiritual father and teacher. The example of his own apostles shows us that.
The Apostles Show the Way
The New Testament is filled with examples of and references to spiritual father-son and father-child relationships. Many people are not aware just how common these are, so it is worth quoting some of them here.
Paul regularly referred to Timothy as his child: "Therefore I sent to you Timothy, my beloved and faithful child in the Lord, to remind you of my ways in Christ" (1 Cor. 4:17); "To Timothy, my true child in the faith: grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord" (1 Tim. 1:2); "To Timothy, my beloved child: Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord" (2 Tim. 1:2).
He also referred to Timothy as his son: "This charge I commit to you, Timothy, my son, in accordance with the prophetic utterances which pointed to you, that inspired by them you may wage the good warfare" (1 Tim 1:18); "You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus" (2 Tim. 2:1); "But Timothy’s worth you know, how as a son with a father he has served with me in the gospel" (Phil. 2:22).
Paul also referred to other of his converts in this way: "To Titus, my true child in a common faith: grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior" (Titus 1:4); "I appeal to you for my child, Onesimus, whose father I have become in my imprisonment" (Philem. 10). None of these men were Paul’s literal, biological sons. Rather, Paul is emphasizing his spiritual fatherhood with them.
Spiritual Fatherhood
Perhaps the most pointed New Testament reference to the theology of the spiritual fatherhood of priests is Paul’s statement, "I do not write this to make you ashamed, but to admonish you as my beloved children. For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel" (1 Cor. 4:14–15).
Peter followed the same custom, referring to Mark as his son: "She who is at Babylon, who is likewise chosen, sends you greetings; and so does my son Mark" (1 Pet. 5:13). The apostles sometimes referred to entire churches under their care as their children. Paul writes, "Here for the third time I am ready to come to you. And I will not be a burden, for I seek not what is yours but you; for children ought not to lay up for their parents, but parents for their children" (2 Cor. 12:14); and, "My little children, with whom I am again in travail until Christ be formed in you!" (Gal. 4:19).
John said, "My little children, I am writing this to you so that you may not sin; but if any one does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous" (1 John 2:1); "No greater joy can I have than this, to hear that my children follow the truth" (3 John 4). In fact, John also addresses men in his congregations as "fathers" (1 John 2:13–14).
By referring to these people as their spiritual sons and spiritual children, Peter, Paul, and John imply their own roles as spiritual fathers. Since the Bible frequently speaks of this spiritual fatherhood, we Catholics acknowledge it and follow the custom of the apostles by calling priests "father." Failure to acknowledge this is a failure to recognize and honor a great gift God has bestowed on the Church: the spiritual fatherhood of the priesthood.
Catholics know that as members of a parish, they have been committed to a priest’s spiritual care, thus they have great filial affection for priests and call them "father." Priests, in turn, follow the apostles’ biblical example by referring to members of their flock as "my son" or "my child" (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).
All of these passages were written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and they express the infallibly recorded truth that Christ’s ministers do have a role as spiritual fathers. Jesus is not against acknowledging that. It is he who gave these men their role as spiritual fathers, and it is his Holy Spirit who recorded this role for us in the pages of Scripture. To acknowledge spiritual fatherhood is to acknowledge the truth, and no amount of anti-Catholic grumbling will change that fact.
M
Try properly interpreting yours!
Every word 'father' in all of these verses is either referring to a fleshly father [/relationship] or is actually referring to God Himself - Who actually IS the - only - valid - 'spiritual' - "father"...
There is no reference here of a spiritual father apart from the aforemention references to God Himself.
More specifically - there is nothing here that tells me that it is approved of God for anyone to call anyone "father" in a spiritual sense.
Therefore --- my assessment stands:
.
Every word 'father' in all of these verses is either referring to a fleshly father [/relationship] or is actually referring to God Himself - Who actually IS the - only - valid - 'spiritual' - "father"...
There is no reference here of a spiritual father apart from the aforemention references to God Himself.
More specifically - there is nothing here that tells me that it is approved of God for anyone to call anyone "father" in a spiritual sense.
Therefore --- my assessment stands:
.
F
It's simple. Call no man Father:
The context:
Jesus in condemning the hypocritical nature of the Pharisees. They loved to be called Father, Rabbi, exalting themselves above others. Jesus teaches the humility a Christian must have, and condemns those who exalt themselves as the Pharisees.
Matt 23:2 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses 'seat:
3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.
5 But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments,
6 And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues,
7 And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi.
8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.
9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.
11 But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.
12 And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted
Jesus cannot be condemning the name Father in all areas of it's use. He uses it himself to describe our biological fathers:
Luk 14:26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple
He is not saying the name is sinful, but how we use the name is the issue.
We as Christians are to call NO MAN "father" in a religious sense. Because we have only one Father, who is heaven.
If a Christian is not to call any man "Father" in a religious sense, then logic would tells us a Christian likewise cannot be called "Father" in a religious sense.
Religious titles are condemned. This does not just stand for "Father and teacher", but for any name added by man to separate him from other Christians.
"Reverend Tom, Pastor Mike, Father Bill," all example of religious titles. I could never understand why anyone would ever call themselves "reverend" when its only found in scripture to describe God. Yet men will add this name to themselves, just as some do with "Father".
We refer to the Apostles as "the Apostle Peter" etc, yet they themselves did not. They said Paul an apostle, which would have been needful to mention considering their epistles were actually writing the Bible that would stand forever.
So the fact that Christ said "call no man Father" cannot be explained away as figurative meaning, its meaning is real and binding upon us all. We are not to call anyone Father in a religious sense, and none should allow themselves to be called Father. But those who bring this up against Catholicism, yet call their preacher, "Pastor whatever", or "Reverend whatever" have missed the point. They should not be called such things either as Christ clearly shows religious titles are not lawful. He did not have to specifically name every name that men could possibly think up, he made it clear with Father that all such titles are sinful.
Some may argue it's only against prideful people who use them to exalt themselves, not everyone does that. Yet to do something that is so plainly condemned by the Lord, is already prideful in itself. Especially when it's just a name that can easily be done away with.
The context:
Jesus in condemning the hypocritical nature of the Pharisees. They loved to be called Father, Rabbi, exalting themselves above others. Jesus teaches the humility a Christian must have, and condemns those who exalt themselves as the Pharisees.
Matt 23:2 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses 'seat:
3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.
5 But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments,
6 And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues,
7 And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi.
8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.
9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.
11 But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.
12 And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted
Jesus cannot be condemning the name Father in all areas of it's use. He uses it himself to describe our biological fathers:
Luk 14:26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple
He is not saying the name is sinful, but how we use the name is the issue.
We as Christians are to call NO MAN "father" in a religious sense. Because we have only one Father, who is heaven.
If a Christian is not to call any man "Father" in a religious sense, then logic would tells us a Christian likewise cannot be called "Father" in a religious sense.
Religious titles are condemned. This does not just stand for "Father and teacher", but for any name added by man to separate him from other Christians.
"Reverend Tom, Pastor Mike, Father Bill," all example of religious titles. I could never understand why anyone would ever call themselves "reverend" when its only found in scripture to describe God. Yet men will add this name to themselves, just as some do with "Father".
We refer to the Apostles as "the Apostle Peter" etc, yet they themselves did not. They said Paul an apostle, which would have been needful to mention considering their epistles were actually writing the Bible that would stand forever.
So the fact that Christ said "call no man Father" cannot be explained away as figurative meaning, its meaning is real and binding upon us all. We are not to call anyone Father in a religious sense, and none should allow themselves to be called Father. But those who bring this up against Catholicism, yet call their preacher, "Pastor whatever", or "Reverend whatever" have missed the point. They should not be called such things either as Christ clearly shows religious titles are not lawful. He did not have to specifically name every name that men could possibly think up, he made it clear with Father that all such titles are sinful.
Some may argue it's only against prideful people who use them to exalt themselves, not everyone does that. Yet to do something that is so plainly condemned by the Lord, is already prideful in itself. Especially when it's just a name that can easily be done away with.
Last edited by a moderator:
S
Your view is somewhat problematic considering "I do not write this to make you ashamed, but to admonish you as my beloved children. For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel" (1 Cor. 4:14–15). and many of the other verses in the last section of my post. But you are at least consistent I'll give you that much.
However, I will say one thing, the Church is supposed to mirror the Kingdom of God and there's a reason it's the Kingdom of God and not the "Direct no-elected-leader democracy of God". A kingdom has a hierarchy with some men in authority over others to manage the kingdom, and so it is in the Church.
However, I will say one thing, the Church is supposed to mirror the Kingdom of God and there's a reason it's the Kingdom of God and not the "Direct no-elected-leader democracy of God". A kingdom has a hierarchy with some men in authority over others to manage the kingdom, and so it is in the Church.
F
As for "our father Abraham" the Jews used this in a sense to recognize their decent, showing they were related to Abraham.
Jn 8:33 They answered him, We be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free
They were still using this in a biological sense, which Jesus also did. This is not what he was condemning.
Jn 8:33 They answered him, We be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free
They were still using this in a biological sense, which Jesus also did. This is not what he was condemning.
M
No he wasn't condemming the entire use of the word father, I agree, but once you have made that step, how far do you take it? My perspective is that people such as the pharisees should not be called father, and this to me means that we as people need to be careful about who is teaching us, to make sure that the people we go to learn from are actually teaching us the truth, he is not condemming calling people father, but telling us to be careful of who we go to learn from, and if anyone resembles a pharisee we should not go to them, thus we do not call them father.
M
My douay-rheims bible actually has a footnote on this,
"The meaning is, that our Father in heaven is incomparably more to be regarded, than any father upon earth: and no master to be followed who would lead us away from Christ. But this does not hinder but that we are by the law of God to have a due respect both for our parents and spiritual fathers, (1 Cor. 4.15,) and for our masters and teachers."
So yes we should not be elevating people to the status of God when we use the term father but we should still show respect to those who guide us and teach us. In other words, It's not what you say but how you say it.
"The meaning is, that our Father in heaven is incomparably more to be regarded, than any father upon earth: and no master to be followed who would lead us away from Christ. But this does not hinder but that we are by the law of God to have a due respect both for our parents and spiritual fathers, (1 Cor. 4.15,) and for our masters and teachers."
So yes we should not be elevating people to the status of God when we use the term father but we should still show respect to those who guide us and teach us. In other words, It's not what you say but how you say it.
S
.
And how is the Catholic usage demonstrated in this portion of my post: Catholics know that as members of a parish, they have been committed to a priest’s spiritual care, thus they have great filial affection for priests and call them "father." Priests, in turn, follow the apostles’ biblical example by referring to members of their flock as "my son" or "my child" (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). inconsistent with that usage?
Meh. We don't have any of the letters written from, say, Timothy to Paul, so we can never actually know how the congregations addressed Paul or how these men who Paul describes as "his sons" addressed him.
Somewhat. The office of Priest comes from the presbyters which performed the same function as priests today (the word priest actual comes directly from presbyter by way of French). The Apostles exercised authority over multiple congregations, which Bishops do today as descendants of the Apostles. Additionally I will say this the words "autonomous" and "kingdom" are diametrically opposed, a region of a kingdom is not autonomous of the kingdom itself which is, by nature, an absolute top down authoritative structure. If each region of a kingdom is autonomous it ceases to be a single kingdom and then becomes a confederation of many individual kingdoms.
And how is the Catholic usage demonstrated in this portion of my post: Catholics know that as members of a parish, they have been committed to a priest’s spiritual care, thus they have great filial affection for priests and call them "father." Priests, in turn, follow the apostles’ biblical example by referring to members of their flock as "my son" or "my child" (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). inconsistent with that usage?
Meh. We don't have any of the letters written from, say, Timothy to Paul, so we can never actually know how the congregations addressed Paul or how these men who Paul describes as "his sons" addressed him.
Somewhat. The office of Priest comes from the presbyters which performed the same function as priests today (the word priest actual comes directly from presbyter by way of French). The Apostles exercised authority over multiple congregations, which Bishops do today as descendants of the Apostles. Additionally I will say this the words "autonomous" and "kingdom" are diametrically opposed, a region of a kingdom is not autonomous of the kingdom itself which is, by nature, an absolute top down authoritative structure. If each region of a kingdom is autonomous it ceases to be a single kingdom and then becomes a confederation of many individual kingdoms.
Last edited: