Catholic and Enjoying It!
A reader writes:
Several months ago, you kindly helped me answer a question a Protestant co-worker asked me about the book of Baruch. This co-worker and I are still corresponding via email discussing the Catholic faith. He asks me questions, and I do my best to answer. So far, with the help of Catholic Answers, EWTN, and your blog, I have been able to answer his questions accurately, although he does not accept any of the Church’s reasoning.
Bravo to you for bearing witness!
As of late, we have been discussing how Catholics call priests “Father.” My co-worker takes issue with this and I have been sending him links to several articles from Catholic Answers to read on this topic.
Good! Well done!
In response to this article http://www.catholic.com//tracts/call-no-man-father he had this to say:
“The passage that caught my eye the most is near the end so much of this will be on that. It says in one place “By referring to these people as their spiritual sons and spiritual children, Peter, Paul, and John imply their own roles as spiritual fathers”. I fail to see this implication. No where are any of these men called “fathers” or “teachers”.
That’s because it’s an *implication*. Nonetheless, sometimes it *is* clearly said: “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). It doesn’t get much clearer than that. Moreover, Paul calls Abraham “our father Abraham”.
Recall the words of Jesus: “Call *no man* father” (not just priests). If Jesus really means to establish a weird fetish against ever calling anybody “Father”, then not just Paul but a host of biblical luminaries are in trouble, for they call all sorts of people “father”. Matthew does it in his genealogy. Stephen speaks of “our father Abraham”. Mary speaks of “our fathers” in the Magnificat. John addresses the fathers in his flock. Heck, even Jesus himself speaks of “father Abraham”. And since the name “Abraham” means “father of a multitude” it’s pretty hard to take Jesus as laying down a weird demand that nobody ever say the magic word “Father” since you could never speak of Abraham in his language without calling him “Father”. Is Christ really forbidding us to celebrate Father’s Day? If so, why does he tell us to “honor your father and your mother”?
Also, notably, he says “Call no man teacher”. Does he really intend to establish a bizarre fetish about never using the magic word “teacher” to describe somebody? Do you really blaspheme God if you call your third grade teacher “teacher”? If so, Luke breaks this rule by acknowledging that the Church in Antioch had teachers including Barnabas and Saul. Indeed, Paul will tell the Ephesians that God gave some to be teachers. Obviously then, Jesus is not intending to be taken with flat-footed literalism. His point is Paul’s:
“For this reason I kneel before the Father, 15 from whom every family[a] in heaven and on earth derives its name.
Ephesians 3:15 The Greek for family (patria) is derived from the Greek for father (pater).
Your friend continues:
To imply such is to go “beyond what is written” which is forbidden (1 Corinthians 4:6). We all are to be teachers in truth but we not above one another which brings me to my next point.
On the contrary, we are to “Do nothing from selfishness or conceit, but in humility count others better than yourselves. (Php 2:3). So we are to “honor our fathers and mothers”, whether biological or those who are our fathers and mothers in the faith, including priests. If we can do it with Paul, we can do it with our shepherds–and are commanded to:
One part says “Priests, in turn, follow the apostles’ biblical example by referring to members of their flock as “my son” or “my child”. Again no one is called a “priest” in the NT.
They are. The word “priest” is the Englished version of “presbuteros”. You might as well say that nobody calls our Lord “Jesus” in the NT because they call him “Iesous”.
We are all called to this “office” of being priests and teachers of the word (1 Peter 2:5;9) being that Christianity is a taught religion (Matthew 28:19; John 6:45).
The Church recognizes that the baptized are baptized into the office of prophet, priest, and king. Ancient Israel likewise saw the nation as having a priestly office–but also that the nation was given a sacerdotal priesthood in the Levites. The Church repeats this pattern.
No one has any special privileges anymore because we are all one in Christ (Galatians 3:28). Christ actually put an end to the physical priesthood being the last one an fulfilling the law.
Christ put an end to the Levitical priesthood, not the physical priesthood. He founds a new covenant tracing its priestly roots to Melchizedek, not Levi, that, just like Israel, has a common priesthood shared by the people of God and a sacerdotal priesthood shared by those who have received the sacrament of holy orders. That’s what the “laying on of hands” Paul mentions in his letter to Timothy is all about. It’s what the whole letter to the Hebrews is about. Paul ordained Timothy a bishop, just as he himself was ordained in Acts 13. The sacerdotal New Covenant priesthood is rooted in the prayer of consecration Jesus offers for the apostles in John 17. Everywhere the apostles go they ordain presbuteroi (aka episcopoi) to be the priestly leaders of the communities they found (Acts 14:23).
It also talks about the “spiritual fatherhood” which I have stated doesn’t exist in the NT times being that Christ did away with it. I would like to get your response to this please.”
Paul calls himself a father through the gospel. Your friend is wrong.
I hope this helps!
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In