Jesus: No Magisteriums!

[Theoketos]

Jesus Christ is the Truth is the Teacher (Jn 14:6). He is ABSOLUTELY unique and unparalled, so that no other authority can or should claim to be his authority.


"Accordingly, the whole of Christ's life was a continual teaching: His silences, His miracles, His gestures, His prayer, His love for people, His special affection for the little and the poor, His acceptance of the total sacrifice on the cross for the redemption of the world, and His resurrection are the actualization of His word and the fulfillment of revelation. Hence for Christians the crucifix is one of the most sublime and popular images of Christ the Teacher."

Further, "These considerations follow in the wake of the great traditions of the Church and they all strengthen our fervor with regard to Christ, the Teacher who reveals God to man and man to himself, the Teacher who saves, sanctifies and guides, who lives, who speaks, rouses, moves, redresses, judges, forgives, and goes with us day by day on the path of history, the Teacher who comes and will come in glory." Catechesi Tradendi 9


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).

So the magesterium does not call it self the one teacher, but a teacher.

Thanks Budge for trying to teach the truth with love and Charity. May we all come to the Truth.

[cmotherofpirl]

St Paul also uses the concept of "father"
1 Cor 4
14 I write not these things to shame you, but as my beloved sons I warn you.

15 For though ye have ten thousand instructers in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.

16 Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me.

[Theoketos]

Jesus Christ is the Truth is the Teacher (Jn 14:6). He is ABSOLUTELY unique and unparalled, so that no other authority can or should claim to be his authority.


"Accordingly, the whole of Christ's life was a continual teaching: His silences, His miracles, His gestures, His prayer, His love for people, His special affection for the little and the poor, His acceptance of the total sacrifice on the cross for the redemption of the world, and His resurrection are the actualization of His word and the fulfillment of revelation. Hence for Christians the crucifix is one of the most sublime and popular images of Christ the Teacher."

Further, "These considerations follow in the wake of the great traditions of the Church and they all strengthen our fervor with regard to Christ, the Teacher who reveals God to man and man to himself, the Teacher who saves, sanctifies and guides, who lives, who speaks, rouses, moves, redresses, judges, forgives, and goes with us day by day on the path of history, the Teacher who comes and will come in glory." Catechesi Tradendi 9


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).

So the magesterium does not call it self the one teacher, but a teacher.

Thanks Budge for trying to teach the truth with love and Charity. May we all come to the Truth.

[Eutychus]

[quote]But if you want to take the Bible really literally you have to hold that this only applies to the original language Christ was speaking so your latin translation is irrelevant. [/quote]

Well, that one takes the cake as the MOST ORIGINAL version of WHY a Catholic can disregard what the bible teaches.

If you ain't doing it in GREEK, it is FINE WITH GOD!

A classic!

[homeschoolmom]

[quote name='Raphael' post='1063368' date='Sep 15 2006, 09:56 AM']
I just want to say...the plural is "magisteria." Please learn Latin.
[/quote]
I sooooo knew that you were going to post that.

[quote name='Eutychus' post='1063604' date='Sep 15 2006, 04:04 PM']
Well, that one takes the cake as the MOST ORIGINAL version of WHY a Catholic can disregard what the bible teaches.

If you ain't doing it in GREEK, it is FINE WITH GOD!

A classic!
[/quote]
If it's original how can it be a classic?

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Eutychus' post='1063604' date='Sep 15 2006, 05:04 PM']
Well, that one takes the cake as the MOST ORIGINAL version of WHY a Catholic can disregard what the bible teaches.

If you ain't doing it in GREEK, it is FINE WITH GOD!

A classic!
[/quote]
Actually, Christ was probably speaking Aramaic at the time, considering that He was addressing an all Jewish audience.

[quote name='homeschoolmom' post='1063635' date='Sep 15 2006, 05:46 PM']
I sooooo knew that you were going to post that.
[/quote]

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Eutychus' post='1063604' date='Sep 15 2006, 03:04 PM']
Well, that one takes the cake as the MOST ORIGINAL version of WHY a Catholic can disregard what the bible teaches.

If you ain't doing it in GREEK, it is FINE WITH GOD!

A classic!
[/quote]
I hope you aren't serious. My "response" in this thread was intended as sarcasm. I was attempting to be as naive and absurd as the "argument" presented in this thread. I suppose that this simple bit of discernment was too much to expect from an adherent to a religious tradition which thrives on nonsense.

[Eutychus]

[quote] I suppose that this simple bit of discernment was too much to expect from an adherent to a religious tradition which thrives on nonsense.[/quote]

From the man with Padre Pio's picture in his sig tag? .... hmmm.

Demons in his chamber, fellow monks and bishops sought to have him banned, bilocation, stigmata....just about everything but the Padre Pio on a Grilled coagulated milk sandwich....but give that one some time...

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Eutychus' post='1063907' date='Sep 15 2006, 10:59 PM']
From the man with Padre Pio's picture in his sig tag? .... hmmm.

Demons in his chamber, fellow monks and bishops sought to have him banned, bilocation, stigmata....just about everything but the Padre Pio on a Grilled coagulated milk sandwich....but give that one some time...
[/quote]
Normally I would ignore such a silly and off topic diversion, but in this case I'll take it as an opportunity to talk about St. Padre Pio.

I have personal friends who knew the saint while he was still alive and I've been to the friary where he lived and met some of the monks who knew him. Actually the time I spent in prayer at the tomb of St. Padre Pio was incredible.
Padre Pio is much more than some lofty, far away, abstract figure to me. I suppose attacking one of God’s saints comes easy enough to you since you probably don’t see a good man who was and is a friend of God, but rather a collection of supernatural stories that you can pick on. For me the miracles are kind of peripheral because I’ve always been more interested in the man. I don't expect you to care about Padre Pio outside of the fact that he is one of your punching bags, but the Universal Church has known supernatural phenomenon throughout its 2000 year history so unlike the more bland popular heretical traditions we don't have such an aversion to these things.

Anyway, I'd rather just talk about Padre Pio:

[i]One of the friars who knew him well, Fr Eusebio Notte, said that the most precise description of Padre Pio was that he was "a man become prayer", just as was said of St Francis of Assisi. He was at every moment in intimate union with God - he lived in the supernatural. It was for his holiness, not his extraordinary gifts, that he has been canonized.

It is only his union with God which can explain these gifts - his reported ability to read souls, his knowledge of the future, bilocations, appearances in many parts of the world, the perfumes by which he signals his presence and his innumerable cures. Of these, many continue to the present day.

It is the cures obtained through his intercession which compel attention. Shortly after Padre Pio was beatified, in May 1999, the miracle required for his canonisation occurred, in Febuary 2000. A seven-year-old boy, Matteo Pio Collela, in a coma and hopelessly near death from meningitis, recovered and told his mother he had seen Padre Pio, who told him he would be cured.

One might ask - what is the real purpose of these miracles? Surely it is the same as it was with the miracles Our Lord performed. As Jesus told Martha: "Have I not told you that if you have faith, you will see God glorified?" (Jn: 11.40). The prayer which millions of people have prayed for the canonisation of Padre Pio recalls that he "laboured so faithfully for the glory of Your heavenly Father and for the good of souls".

For Pope John Paul II, who met Padre Pio personally while he was a student in Rome, ("Our dear Padre Pio", as he referred to him) the canonisation ceremony must have recalled his own experience of the saint's intercession. In 1962 he wrote to Padre Pio on behalf of a friend in Poland, Dr Wanda Poltawska, a concentration camp survivor, who was to be operated on for throat cancer. In the operating theatre, it was found the cancer had vanished. Dr Poltawska has since been a close associate of the Pope, and was appointed by him to the Pontifical Commission on the Family.

[In this context, it is perhaps worth noting that in 1980, a six-year- old boy from Naples, Paolo Feliciano, was presented by his parents to Pope John Paul at an audience in St Peter's Square. The boy was gravely ill with leukemia, with not long to live. The Pope took the boy's hand and, according to his mother, said: "É guarito" ("He is cured"). Back in Naples, hospital tests confirmed that the leukemia was gone. The boy, now 28, is leading a normal life as a teacher.]

In the secularised, materialistic and often nihilistic world of the 21st century, Padre Pio's miracles reaffirm the spiritual. And the stigmata which he received as a young priest and bore for 50 years had the effect of identifying him as an image of Christ. This is how the Pope described him at his beatification.[/i]

I truly hope that you do not see this saint as merely an object of ridicule and hatred. That would be most sad indeed. He is a friend of God and a true son of Our Lady. And I don't say this simply because I've read about him or something, but from personal experience.

[Laudate_Dominum]

I feel like getting back on topic for a second just for kicks.

The heart of Budge's argument is phrased thus: [i]"It [the Catholic Church] reads Jesus' statement that Christians are not to call anyone MAGISTER and creates a caste of men called a MAGISTERIUM!"[/i]

Here is the pericope, albeit out of context:
[i]But you, do not be called "Rabbi"; for One is your Teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren. Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. And do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, the Christ.[/i] - Matthew 23:8-10, NKJV

First, it is asserted that Jesus has commanded Christians to never call anyone "magister". Second, it is implied that using a word which is etymologically related to the word "magister" in reference to the teaching office of the Church is a violation of Jesus' alleged command to expunge that word from the Christian vocabulary.
Ergo, the Catholic Church is in blatant violation of Christ's command and this constitutes 'antichristian' status.

Even though I am convinced that any reasonable mind would perceive the absurdity of this line of reasoning I will humor Budge and attempt to forge a serious response.

The first obvious error is that the passage does not say that the word "magister" can never be used. The passage reads: "But you, do not be called "Teacher"; for One is your Teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren" [Mt 23:x]. Even assuming the superficial hermeneutic implicit to Budge's analysis it is quite obvious that Christ is not referring to a general use of the term "Teacher" (Latin: "Magistra"), but is rather saying that his disciples ought not be called "Teacher".

This passage hardly serves as the basis for a claim that the Church has erred in using a term related to the latin form of the word "teacher" to describe its teaching office. A supposed command to not take on the title of teacher is hardly a command to not teach, indeed teaching is essential to the mission of the Church as indicated in the Scriptures, and it is no sin to describe this teaching capacity in human language.


But I suspect Budge was confused for a moment and had in mind a subsequent passage, which, according to the apparent exegetical method of Budge, would seem to forbid calling anyone "father".

[Mt 23:9] "Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven."

Before I continue let me just say that anyone who has really studied Scripture, and who understands the conventions and idioms of Rabbinic discourse, would no doubt understand the hyperbolic nature of this preaching. The superficial reading that Budge gives to this passage actually completely misses the message and wisdom that is being conveyed by Christ. The basic point is that the apostles of Christ ought not imitate the Pharisees. The discourse in its totality is intended to highlight the hypocrisy and pride of the Pharisees and the fact that they've strayed from the true Biblical faith and have instead set themselves up as the source of wisdom and law. The leaders of Christ's Church are exhorted to be first and foremost humble servants, and ought to be ever faithful to the true traditions and not distort God's religion with their own egos. Their ministry must always be centered on God and lead others to God. I could elucidate this all for you according to a legitimate exegetical method and could even substantiate it with quotations from Protestant biblical scholars if you like? It's really not that staggering an insight and it is the way the Apostles themselves no doubt understood Christ's words. Oh, this is also how it has been understood by historical Christianity and this is why the Church down to this day has rightly used the words "teacher" and "father" in good faith.


You might be wondering how I could suggest that even the Apostles themselves understood this discourse more in line with my presentation than that of Budge?
It's simple, and there is no need to get into the nature of Rabbinic preaching (which was the context or idiom in which Christ preached), exegetical method, the Greek text, or any of that more scholarly stuff; it should be pretty obvious to anyone who has even a cursory grasp of the Biblical text.

Just to be on the safe side I'll spell it out:

If Budge's apparent reading of the text is authentic then:

1. The Bible is blatantly incoherent and contradictory including Christ's preaching itself.
2. The Apostles, the first Christians, and Christianity prior to the new revelation we call the Protestant heresy failed to grasp the meaning of Christ's preaching.


I believe a simple illustration will adequately substantiate this claim. I will use two basic scenarios to make the point:

[b]Scenario I[/b]: [i]the dishonest anti-Catholic interpretation[/i]

[b]Claim:[/b] Jesus commanded his followers to call no one by the terms "teacher" or "father".

[b]Problematics:[/b]
1. Jesus commands his apostles to teach and they do so.
[quote]
[Mat 5:19] Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but [b]whosoever shall do and teach [/b] [them], the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

[Mat 28:19] [b]Go ye therefore, and teach all nations[/b], baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

[Acts 5:42] And daily in the temple, and in every house, [b]they ceased not to teach [/b] and preach Jesus Christ.

[1Cor 4:17] For this cause have I sent unto you Timotheus, who is my beloved son, and faithful in the Lord, who shall bring you into remembrance of my ways which be in Christ, [b]as I teach every where[/b] in every church.

[1Cor 14:19] Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, [b]that [by my voice] I might teach others[/b] also, than ten thousand words in an [unknown] tongue.

[1Ti 4:11] [b]These things command and teach[/b].
[/quote]
Obviously there are many more passages that would illustrate this point. But why is this a problem? It isn't an insurmountable problem as no doubt some round about explanation could be made to try and resolve the tension, but it is still silly. By definition someone who teaches is a teacher, and yet supposedly Christians are not allowed to use that word. No logical reason is given to really explain why this is so, just a superficial and obviously false assertion regarding a passage that allegedly forbids the use of this term. If this were a true interpretation it would no doubt mean that some of Christ's teachings are pretty goofy and seemingly arbitrary.

2. Jesus continues to use the term "father" in reference to human beings.
[quote]
[Mat 10:21] And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the [b]father [/b] the child: and the children shall rise up against [their] parents, and cause them to be put to death.

[Mat 10:35] For I am come to set a man at variance against his [b]father[/b], and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

[Mat 15:4] For God commanded, saying, Honour thy [b]father [/b] and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.

[Mat 19:5] And said, For this cause shall a man leave [b]father [/b] and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

[Mat 19:19] Honour thy [b]father [/b] and [thy] mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

[Mat 10:21] And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the [b]father [/b] the child: and the children shall rise up against [their] parents, and cause them to be put to death.

[Mat 10:35] For I am come to set a man at variance against his [b]father[/b], and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

etc...
[/quote]
At the very least this would mean that Christ wasn't setting a very good example for his followers. But if we pay attention it seems as though Christ has no problem whatsoever with the use of the term "father". There are plenty of instances of people calling men "father" in the presence of Jesus and he never once corrects them or informs them of the command to avoid that term. Perhaps he is contradicting himself? Perhaps he forgot about his command? One could try and read into this and come up with some outlandish explanation to resolve the tension, but it is still a very silly claim. Hmm.. Or perhaps the anti-Catholic interpretation of the passage in question is missing something?


3. The Gospel writers (who were followers of Christ) apply both terms ("father" and "teacher") to men.
[quote]
[Mat 4:21] And going on from thence, he saw other two brethren, James [the son] of Zebedee, and John his brother, in a ship with Zebedee [b]their father[/b], mending their nets; and he called them.

[Mat 4:22] And they immediately left the ship and [b]their father[/b], and followed him.

[Mar 1:20] And straightway he called them: and they left [b]their father [/b] Zebedee in the ship with the hired servants, and went after him.

[Act 16:3] Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and took and circumcised him because of the Jews which were in those quarters: for they knew all that his father was a Greek.

etc...
[/quote]
There are too many verses that prove this point. The strict anti-Catholic interpretation of Mt 23:8-10 would imply that the Gospel writers were violating a commandment by apply these terms to men.


I admit this is getting tiresome so I'll stop there. We all know that such an interpretation of Christ's discourse is utterly insensible and unfounded.


[b]Scenario II[/b]: [i]the ignorant fundamentalist interpretation[/i]

[b]Claim:[/b] Jesus prohibited the use of the title "teacher" amongst his followers and forbade the use of the term "father" in reference to any man on earth. Perhaps with the exception of one's actual father; we'll make this exception for the sake of liberality on this matter.

[b]Problematics:[/b]
1. Jesus and the apostles repeatedly use the term "father" as a title and there is no indication that this is in any way wrong (apart from the fundamentalist interpretation of Mt 23:x).
[quote]
[John 8:56] Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw [it], and was glad.

[John 4:12] Art thou greater than our father Jacob, which gave us the well, and drank thereof himself, and his children, and his cattle?


[Jam 2:21] Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?

[Acts 7:44] [b]Our fathers [/b] had the tabernacle of witness in the wilderness, as he had appointed, speaking unto Moses, that he should make it according to the fashion that he had seen.

[Act 7:12] But when Jacob heard that there was corn in Egypt, he sent out [b]our fathers [/b] first.

[Act 7:11] Now there came a dearth over all the land of Egypt and Canaan, and great affliction: and our [b]fathers [/b] found no sustenance.

[Act 5:30] The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree.

[Rom 9:10] And not only [this]; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, [even] by[b] our father Isaac[/b];

[Rom 4:16] Therefore [it is] of faith, that [it might be] by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; [b]who is the father of us all[/b] (me: [b]including gentile converts[/b]).
[/quote]
There are dozens more passages of this kind, but you no doubt get the point. One could try to argue this away by suggesting that somehow calling an ancestor or true biological father by this word is acceptable and it is merely the use of this term as a title (spiritual fatherhood) which is condemned. But there is the fact that there were gentile converts who called the patriarchs "father" acceptably. Hmm.. Perhaps this is ok because they are spiritual Semites now? By this point one would have to resort to some pretty elaborate explanations to justify the fundamentalist interpretation of Mt 23:8-10, but it wouldn't be entirely unreasonable, just somewhat uncomfortable.


2. The apostles are explicitly called teachers (latin: "magistra").
[quote]
[1 Tim 2:7] Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, [and] lie not;)[b] a teacher of the Gentiles [/b] in faith and verity.

[2 Tim 1:11] Whereunto I am appointed a preacher, and an apostle, [b]and a teacher [/b] of the Gentiles.

[Acts 13:1] Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets [b]and teachers[/b]; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.

[1 Cor 12:28] And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, [b]thirdly teachers[/b], after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.

[1 Cor 12:29] Are all apostles? are all prophets? [b]are all teachers?[/b] are all workers of miracles?

[Eph 4:11] And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors [b]and teachers[/b].

[Heb 5:12] For when for the time [b]ye ought to be teachers[/b], ye have need that one teach you again which [be] the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.
[/quote]
If Christ had indeed forbid the use of the word "teacher" among his followers they obviously didn't get the message because the Apostles themselves, and all true Christians since them, have had no qualms with this term.


3. The Apostles and Christian leaders are seen as spiritual fathers and are even described with this term.
[quote]
[Acts 7:2] And he said, Men, brethren, [b]and fathers[/b], hearken; The God of glory appeared unto our father Abraham, when he was in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Charran.

[Phil 2:22] But ye know the proof of him, that, [b]as a son with the father[/b], he hath served with me in the gospel.

[1 Thess 2:11] As ye know how we exhorted and comforted and charged every one of you, [b]as a father [/b] doth his children.

[1 Tim 5:1] Rebuke not an elder, but entreat him [b]as a father[/b]; [and] the younger men as brethren.

[Acts 22:1] Men, brethren, [b]and fathers[/b], hear ye my defense which I make now unto you.

[1 Cor 4:14] I do not write these things to shame you, but [b]as my beloved children [/b] I warn you.

[1 Cor 4:14b] For [b]I became your father [/b] in Christ Jesus through the gospel.

[Titus 1:4] To Titus, [b]my true son [/b] in a common faith.

[Philemon 10] I appeal to you for [b]my child[/b], Onesimus, [b]whose father I have become [/b] in my imprisonment.

[1 John 2:1] [b]My little children[/b]... etc..

[/quote]
There is much more that could be quoted but you get the idea. The apostles and early Christians obviously have no problem with the word father and there is even a concept of spiritual fatherhood that can be discerned in their writings. We could then look to the earliest post-biblical Christian writings (some by men who knew apostles) and clearly see that this use of the word father, and the notion of spiritual fatherhood was constant.

My point is that any reasonable person ought to question the extreme anti-Catholic (Budge) or fundamentalist reading of Matthew 23:8-10 because these understandings introduce glaring contradictions and tensions in the Bible itself, and are radically inconsistent with the practice and belief of historical Christianity.

Realizing these points does not require knowledge of Greek or advanced Scriptural knowledge, however, if you would like a more advanced treatment of those passages I'd be happy to do what I can.

[Laudate_Dominum]

Here is an article which is simple, clear and to the point. I hope this helps explain some things:

[quote]Many Protestants claim that when Catholics address priests as "father," they are engaging in an unbiblical practice that Jesus forbade: "Call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven" (Matt. 23:9).

In his tract 10 Reasons Why I Am Not a Roman Catholic, Fundamentalist anti-Catholic writer Donald Maconaghie quotes this passage as support for his charge that "the papacy is a hoax."

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

...

To understand why the charge does not work, one must first understand the use of the word "father" in reference to our earthly fathers. No one would deny a little girl the opportunity to tell someone that she loves her father. Common sense tells us that Jesus wasn’t forbidding this type of use of the word "father."

In fact, to forbid it would rob the address "Father" of its meaning when applied to God, for there would no longer be any earthly counterpart for the analogy of divine Fatherhood. The concept of God’s role as Father would be meaningless if we obliterated the concept of earthly fatherhood.

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

For example, Joseph tells his brothers of a special fatherly relationship God had given him with the king of Egypt: "So it was not you who sent me here, but God; and he has made me a father to Pharaoh, and lord of all his house and ruler over all the land of Egypt" (Gen. 45:8).

Job indicates he played a fatherly role with the less fortunate: "I was a father to the poor, and I searched out the cause of him whom I did not know" (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 Eliakim, the son of Hilkiah . . . and I will clothe him with [a] robe, and will bind [a] girdle on him, and will commit . . . authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah" (Is. 22:20–21).

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

[b]A Change with the New Testament?[/b]

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.

[b]So What Did Jesus Mean?[/b]

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 grasping 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.

[b]The Apostles Show the Way[/b]

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.

[b]Spiritual Fatherhood[/b]

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. [/quote]

[Laudate_Dominum]

And lastly a related article from an Eastern Orthodox perspective:

[quote]Call No Man Father
By Fr. Richard Ballew

Several decades have passed since Bing Crosby donned clerical garb and portrayed on the screen a role which would endear him to many even to this day-Father O'Malley. Somewhat earlier in our century, one of the great humanitarians of our time, Father Flanagan, founded Boys Town in Nebraska. The home became a nationally known refuge for homeless boys. In many ways, Mother Teresa of India is his contemporary female counterpart in caring for the poor and downtrodden of her adopted land. But what are we to make of these titles? We admire the work and character of these people, but does not the Bible issue the command to call no man "father"? Certain statements made by Jesus have often been the basis of great controversy, both inside and outside the Church. His saying, "Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven",' has proven to be no exception.

AT ISSUE IS INTERPRETATION
Some Protestant interpreters are sure that Jesus is warning here against addressing Church leaders as "father". They, of course, are interpreting "father" in this Scripture to mean, "spiritual father". Therefore, they refuse to call their clergymen "father", preferring instead such titles as "pastor", "reverend", or perhaps even "brother". At the outset, therefore, let me point out that "spiritual father" is an interpretation of the Lord's statement rather than what He actually said. Mind you, I am not denying the need for interpretation of Scripture. Instead, I am pointing out that the Lord said "father", not "spiritual father". What is at issue here? Simply this: taken at face value, Jesus' warning against calling any man "father" would not only seem to rule out calling a clergyman "father" , it would also keep us from using that title for earthly fathers and grandfathers, ancient Church fathers, or even city fathers, would it not? For in reality, the Lord's statement, as it appears in the text, is that only one Person is ever to be called "father", namely, our Father who is in heaven. But is Christ's saying to be taken at face value? If so, several other passages in the Bible are immediately in conflict, including some statements by the Apostle Paul in the New Testament. To the church at Corinth he wrote, "For if you were to have countless tutors in Christ, yet you would not have many fathers; for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel".2 Does not Paul claim to be the spiritual father of the Corinthians--"Father Paul", if you please? Furthermore, he boldly refers to his spiritual ancestry as "our fathers".3 And he did address earthly fathers in Colosse in this way: "Fathers, do not provoke your children, lest they become discouraged".4 It would appear the Apostle Paul certainly did not interpret the Lord Jesus Christ's words to mean only One was to be called "father", that is, the heavenly Father. In addition to this, when the rich man saw Abraham in heaven with Lazarus in his bosom, and addressed him as "Father Abraham", Abraham's response was not, "Do you not realize that only God the Father is to be called `father?" Rather, he replied, "Son, remember..".5 Instances like the above could be multiplied from Scripture to show that a great many people are acknowledged to be "fathers".

OTHER TITLES
But let us not stop here. For after saying only "One is your Father", Jesus proceeded to declare, "And do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, the Christ".6 Yet He Himself acknowledged Nicodemus to be a "teacher of Israel".7 And in the church at Antioch certain men were called "prophets and teachers".8 Then again, the Apostle Paul not only recognized teachers as gifts of God to the Church,9 but he also did not hesitate to call himself "a teacher of the Gentiles".10 Furthermore, in this present day, almost all of us have at one time or another called certain people Sunday School teachers. The discussion thus goes far beyond any Protestant-Catholic lines. Therefore, in saying we should call no one "father" and "teacher", except God the Father and Christ Himself, the Lord Jesus appears not to be taking issue with the use of these particular titles in and of themselves. The context of the passage gives us the interpretive key we are looking for. In this "call no man father" passage, our Lord is contending with certain rabbis of His day who were using these specific titles to accomplish their own ends. And had these same apostate rabbis been using other titles, such as "reverend" and "pastor", Jesus, it seems to me, would have said of these as well, "Call no one reverend or pastor".

WHAT DID THE RABBIS MEAN?
To what ends, therefore, were the rabbis using the titles "father" and "teacher"? The answer revolves around at least two critical areas of leadership: teaching and personal character. Consider first the teaching of these particular rabbis. They had begun their teaching at the right place, the Law of Moses. Said Jesus, "The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat".11 Moses' Law was the true tradition. God had given it to Israel through Moses. The rabbis' responsibility was to preserve that tradition and faithfully pass it on to the next generation. All too often, however, a rabbi would add his own grain of wisdom to the true tradition, thereby clouding it. Instead of passing down the sacred deposit along with the true interpretations of that deposit, he would add his own private interpretation. In turn his disciples, like their teacher, would, after becoming rabbis, do the same thing. (Some things never change, do they!) The final outcome of all this was a tradition of men that made the true Mosaic tradition of no effect. To these very rabbis Jesus said, "For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men",12 and again, "All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition . . . making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down".13 The summation of their private interpretations did in fact "shut up the kingdom of heaven against men".14

JESUS' CASE FOR TRUE TRADITION
In order to cut through all this tradition of men that had made the Mosaic tradition of no effect, and to bring people back to the truth, Jesus told His disciples, "But you, do not be called 'Rabbi.'"15 In other words, He was telling them not to use their positions as fathers and teachers as an opportunity to build disciples around their own private opinions. For to do so would only serve to "shut up the kingdom of heaven against men".16 Instead, with the coming of Christ, these rabbis-and indeed all who would teach God's Word-are to hand down faithfully the true tradition of only one Rabbi: Christ Himself. The Bible, through the pen of the Apostle John, calls this particular tradition "the doctrine of Christ".17 In fact, this is why the specific teaching of the Twelve became known as "the apostles' doctrine".18 Since their time, successive generations of fathers and teachers in the Church have handed down and guarded the apostolic doctrine concerning Christ very carefully, for it represents the true interpretation of Holy Scripture. This faithfulness to true Christian doctrine, by the way, can especially be seen in the Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Church, held between the fourth and eighth centuries. It behooves anyone who claims to be a teacher of Christ's doctrine to be faithful to the apostles' doctrine handed down in those Councils. Otherwise he runs the risk of inserting his own "private interpretation".19 While it is true that all teachers of Christ's doctrine must begin at the right place, namely, the Holy Scriptures, it is also true that they should give the correct and true interpretation of Holy Scripture as passed down by holy and godly teachers and fathers of the Church, especially in the Seven Councils. Why are the Seven Ecumenical Councils so important? Because they point out what the Church universally held to be the true teaching concerning the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Trinity. They are faithful to what the Holy Scriptures teach concerning the one true Rabbi and Teacher, Jesus Christ. Teachers and fathers who teach private interpretations contrary to the doctrine of Christ as taught in the Seven Ecumenical Councils should not, I believe, be recognized as true teachers and fathers.

THE RABBIS AND PERSONAL CHARACTER
A second critical area of rabbinic leadership with which Jesus was concerned was personal character. He had detected a major flaw in the character of the scribes and Pharisees, a sin that might be called self-exaltation. They were using their position as fathers and teachers among God's people to exalt themselves. They wanted to be sure they received appropriate recognition. In light of this lack of character, Jesus said, "But he who is greatest among you shall be your servant. And whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted".20 Their self-exalting spirit had manifested itself in several ways. First, in hypocrisy: "for they say", said Jesus, "and do not do."21 All talk and no walk. Their talk was cheap because it was totally contradicted by their behavior. In pretense they would make long prayers, but in behavior devour widows' houses.22 They would make oaths, swearing by the gold of the temple rather than by the temple that sanctified the gold, thereby revealing their secret love of money.23 Although they paid tithes of mint, anise, and cummin, which they should have done gladly, they neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice, mercy, and faith.24 Because they were hypocrites in these and numerous other ways, the Lord summed up His critique by saying, "Even so you also outwardly appear righteous to men, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.25 Plainly, their "insides" did not match their "outsides" because they were filled up with a self-exalting and self-serving spirit. A second manifestation of their selfexalting spirit was the noticeable lack of actual service on their part. "For", said Jesus, "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."26 No dirt was to be found under their fingernails. They were simply a group of lazy leaders who wanted to be served rather than to serve. No wonder, then, Jesus said not to be like them, for from God's standpoint, "he who is greatest among you shall be your servant."27 A third manifestation of their self-exalting spirit was self-love, demonstrated by a desire to be seen by men,28 by their love for the best seats at the feasts and in the synagogues,29 and by their love of greetings in the marketplaces, being called by men, "Rabbi, Rabbi."30 This self-love was a clear transgression of the Mosaic Law, which they professed to be keeping. For Moses' entire law could be summed up in the two great commandments, the greatest of which is, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind."31 The second greatest is, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself."32 Thus, these fathers and teachers were not leading their people into the love of God and neighbor. Quite to the contrary, they were exhibiting a self-exalting, self-serving spirit, filled up with a love for self.

THE VERDICT OF CHRIST
In the face of the stench and shame of the apostasy of these religious leaders, therefore, Jesus commanded His disciples, "Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven."33 While Father Abraham by his faithfulness deserved the title, as did others of Israel's greats in history, these men had forfeited their role as fathers. They were to cease and desist in their use of the term and, in turn, bow to God Himself as the fountainhead of all fatherhood. And in issuing His warning, Jesus addresses us today with the greatest of all commandments, pointing the fathers and teachers in His Church and those they lead to a primacy of love for God the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ, and to a love for one's neighbor.

AND WHAT ARE WE TO DO?
From the beginning of Church history, as was true throughout Israel, those anointed by God for service were called by certain names: "prophet", "teacher" (rabbi in Israel), and "father." In that same spirit, other titles have emerged, such as "reverend", "pastor", "professor" (teacher), or "brother" (for some evangelical pastors and Catholic monks). These designations speak of both warmth and dignity. Just as in our family units there is one who with love is called "father", so in God's household we have honored and will continue to honor those who have brought us to the new birth through our Lord Jesus Christ. Indeed, what better term for them than "father"? Jesus warned against calling men "father" or "teacher" in order that the leadership of His holy nation would remain pure. Whether bishop, father, teacher, deacon, or pastor, all leaders must remain faithful to the true doctrine of Christ and manifest a personal character befitting godly humility, a humility that leads the Church into the love of God the Holy Trinity and of one's neighbor.

May the Lord have mercy on all of us who lead the flock, regardless of the title we are given.
[/quote]

[Fulton Sheen Warrior]

+JMJ+

Excellent posts LD! Very thourough.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Fulton Sheen Warrior' post='1064255' date='Sep 16 2006, 12:15 PM']
+JMJ+

Excellent posts LD! Very thourough.
[/quote]
Thank you sir! There are a many more points that could be made in refutation of Budge's pseudo-argument, but I'd hate to beat this thing to death.

[Laudate_Dominum]

why is it that whenever I actually give a serious answer on these kinds of theads the thread dies?

I realize that Budge and Euty haven't been around lately, but this thread died when they were still here posting tons of new threads.

My theory is that it is because they are not really interested in have a real discussion.