Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It seems clear from reading the passage in that chapter of Matthew that Jesus was referring not to the biological father because it is in that passage that that he is speaking about how some have the custom of rendering honor via titles to religious leaders. So Father used in Matthew 23:9 is in line with the use of Father in Matthew 6:9 when Jesus taught his disciples the "Our Father" prayer. The point he was making was to establish a limit in rendering honor to others. The title Father (when used in the spiritual sense) is really reserved for our heavenly Father.
You can still render due respect to men of the cloth but what is gained by calling them Father if in fact Jesus says not to?
No, he wasn't. Talking about the practices of those who sought the fawning of men was only the background and major reason to abjure the practice. The fact that those who enforce the practice today do it to bolster their usurped authority is only good reason not to allow it, Catholic or not, and that applies to "Reverend" or anything else.
It's false doctrine to pic and choose passages out of the bible and take them out of context in an attempt to discredit another Christian.
If that were the case you would have a point. The passage speaks for itself in regard to the subject to those who do not have a program. The idea is to point out the fact without pointing fingers specifically and let the Spirit convict.
Members of the Sanhedrin were often called "father's" (Acts 7:2; 22:1) according to my study Bible. This practice was not to be observed by Christian's as Jesus plainly ended it. 1 Cor. 4:15 uses the term to describe one who converts through the gospel so this is not the meaning Jesus condemns.
The fathers of Matt. 23:9 were the HYPOCRITES who lorded it over others (mostly the ignorant masses) solely because of their "religious" positions and the power that they held. The 'title' father and a few others was at the root of their hypocrisy and religious PRIDE.
We could draw a parallel to many of the titles given to people of power in government and politics today. Titles and the power it wields have the ability to corrupt the weak.
Most priests are very humble and take vows of poverty. A charismatic priest in search of fame is a rarity. Not even Fulton Sheen got there.
Quote:
It only convicts those that are pious or righteous for show. IN other words sanctimonious behavior. The thread is ironic!
I would certainly agree that this thread was painting a bullseye on the RCC and I don't agree with that sort of thing.
I do think it's a valid conversation topic. It's a dangerous game to use titles like "master" or "your lordship" or "your excellency" or "father" etc. Ultimately, it creates an unequal relationship where one person is essentially better and more holy than the other. If I called the leader of the congregation I attend, "Master" or "father" as a general habit it is a continual reminder that I am beneath them, less than them, smaller than them, etc. It also tends to stroke the ego the title-bearer and can lead to arrogance and self-righteousness by degrees. The fact that God is no respecter of persons tends to get lost in there.
As far as it related to the Catholic Church, I think you are right. Most clergymen are humble just as you said. For the RCC I think it's insignificant compared to a lot of the bigger problems facing the Church. There's a lot bigger problems facing all of Christianity. Still, in a perfect world, the RCC ought to cease usage of titles that reinforce notions of inequality in the eyes of God. I don't think it is canon law that Catholics must call their priest or other clergyman "father." Am I right?
If it ain't chiseled in stone, the RCC can change it if they choose to.
I would certainly agree that this thread was painting a bullseye on the RCC and I don't agree with that sort of thing.
I do think it's a valid conversation topic. It's a dangerous game to use titles like "master" or "your lordship" or "your excellency" or "father" etc. Ultimately, it creates an unequal relationship where one person is essentially better and more holy than the other. If I called the leader of the congregation I attend, "Master" or "father" as a general habit it is a continual reminder that I am beneath them, less than them, smaller than them, etc. It also tends to stroke the ego the title-bearer and can lead to arrogance and self-righteousness by degrees. The fact that God is no respecter of persons tends to get lost in there.
As far as it related to the Catholic Church, I think you are right. Most clergymen are humble just as you said. For the RCC I think it's insignificant compared to a lot of the bigger problems facing the Church. There's a lot bigger problems facing all of Christianity. Still, in a perfect world, the RCC ought to cease usage of titles that reinforce notions of inequality in the eyes of God. I don't think it is canon law that Catholics must call their priest or other clergyman "father." Am I right?
If it ain't chiseled in stone, the RCC can change it if they choose to.
Well done. To me it is more a matter of calling someone by such titles than the arrogating of such by people who claim authority. As for the RCC it is symptomatic of a problem that has plagued them for centuries and is at the root of the cover ups of various sorts of the behavior of priests: making them into a special class whose "problems" are only to be addressed by the hierarchy of the church.
Well done. To me it is more a matter of calling someone by such titles than the arrogating of such by people who claim authority. As for the RCC it is symptomatic of a problem that has plagued them for centuries and is at the root of the cover ups of various sorts of the behavior of priests: making them into a special class whose "problems" are only to be addressed by the hierarchy of the church.
How about if the bible says not to call anyone Father on earth, we just follow it. Not religious leader should be called Father "XYZ". It seems anything the RCC does that goes against scriptures, folks have to find a way to justify it. Just call the man Pastor XYZ or just their name. No one needs to be refereed to a FATHER "XYZ".
At the same time no female should be referred to a prophetess.
If we aren't supposed to call any man on earth father, why do some religions practice this? They are called "Father such and such." This scripture does not mean biological father, as I think we can all agree on that. What is your understanding of Matt 23:9? And callnoman your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
Why do some religions call their pastor, bishop, etc "father".
Roman Catholicism does it because it's NOT biblical Christianity. I know that ruffles some people's feathers but it's true. It goes completely against the scriptures and doing what the scriptures condemn is the very definition of not being a true, biblical Christian.
Matthew 23:9 is Jesus rebuking and denouncing the scribes and Pharisees for their love of elevating themselves higher than others with their titles. They did this because they wanted to be seen by everyone as the source, a father, who forms and molds others. Someone that other people look up to.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
