Another question from RCIA: the old Protestant challenge: “Jesus says, ‘Call no man Father.’ Why do Catholics call their priest ‘father’ and the Pope ‘the Holy Father.’
This challenge usually flummoxes the ordinary Catholic. Sometimes he’s bewildered because he really doesn’t know his Bible that well and he’s confused. But he’s also bewildered because he hasn’t been taught to read the Bible in such a literal way.
Now we can give this a serious answer, and perhaps we should. We can find passages of Scripture where St Paul refers to himself as the father of his audience and the spiritual father of Timothy. We can give explanations about the Jewish context of the time, where the ‘father’ was a spiritual master who had semi divine status and the devotees bowed down to him.
Instead of arguing with the non Catholic, let’s try to get him to understand how a Catholic views his objection. The typical Catholic has heard Jesus saying ‘Call no man Father’ and honestly never connected this with his own habit of calling the priest ‘father.’ That’s because he’s not used to taking verses totally out of context. He suspects that Jesus’ admonition was spoken to the Jews of the first century to a particular historical context, and finds it strange to have that verse taken out of context and thrown at him as a rebuke in the twenty first century.
He’s bewildered that his Protestant brother has lifted the verse out to argue with him, and is not quite sure whether it is a joke or not.
Here’s how it seems to the Catholic: Let’s say some sincere person pulled up the verse, “Judas went out and hanged himself.” and then the verse, “Go thou and do likewise.” Then he said in all seriousness, “So you see, the Bible says we should all go and hang ourselves!” Any sane person says, “What! are you crazy! That’s not what Jesus meant! That’s not who he was talking to. That’s taking the verses totally out of context. You can’t do that and be serious.”
Nevertheless, the Bible Christian is deadly serious, and perhaps that is his greatest fault: not that he takes the Bible and his faith seriously, but that he takes his interpretation seriously, and if he takes his interpretation seriously it is a seriously serious probability that he takes himself too seriously.
He needs to have the hermeneutic of humor. In other words, he needs to see that if we must take Jesus’ words, “Call no man ‘father'” out of context and totally literally, then we can (and perhaps must) do the same with countless other snippets and gobbets of Scripture.
Shall we pull out the verses that tell us not to eat shellfish or pork chops, to have our sons circumcised in a religious ritual, for our women to be silent in church and not to cut their hair and keep their heads covered? Shall we prohibit them from wearing trousers and shall we men grow curly locks on the corners of our head and grow our beards long?
Shall we take all of Our Lord’s injunctions with the same serious literalism? Let us tell our parents that we hate them, then pluck out our eye and cut off our hands to enter the kingdom. Indeed, let us have ritual amputation.
“Bless me Father, I have sinned. I have stolen five dollars.”
“Your penance is to have your hand cut off. It is better to enter life maimed…The deacon is performing amputations every second Saturday at ten in the church courtyard. Be there early the lines are long.”
In the end, the discussion comes down to the question of authority. All Christian groups have to decide which Scriptures are to be taken literally, which are for this time and which are not, and how to apply the word of God in our day to our times and to our present needs. By what authority do we do this?
The Catholic says the Church that gave us the Scriptures must interpret those Scriptures. The Evangelical Protestant really believes that it’s every man for himself.
Hi,Having seen you on EWTN the other night I thought I’d look you up and say ‘Hi!’ I read “Call No Man Father” with interest. You are correct when you state that the “ordinary catholic” is easily confused – this reflects my experience –“because he hasn’t been taught to read the Bible in such a literal way.”You then go on to mention quite a number of significant, and well known scripture verses, both Old and New Testament that you imply we should not take too seriously, or literally. “The Catholic says the Church that gave us the Scriptures must interpret those Scriptures.” The question I would like to ask is when reading the Bible in the comfort of their own home, how does the “ordinary catholic” know which verses should be taken seriously (or literally) and which can be cast aside as irrelevant and out-dated. How do they know?One final question; you say “the Evangelical Protestant really believes that it’s every man for himself.” Do you have any evidence to substantiate this assertion?Regards,Steve (Worcester, UK)
I guess most people, Catholic and non Catholic use their common sense when reading the Bible on their own.What I said about the Evangelical Protestant is just a simplification of the Protestant doctrine: sola Scriptura–which denies the necessary authority of any church for interpretation of the Bible. It also references the Protestant belief in the ‘perpescuity of Scripture’ that the Scriptures are easy enough for ‘any ploughboy to understand’I see you live in Worcester in England. My brother in law–John Inge–is the Anglican bishop there.
What I wonder does the questioner call his male progenitor, Bob, Mike or whatever his Christian name perhaps. Point the questioner to the next verse first explaining that the word master is equivalent to Rabbi or as we know teacher.23:10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your master, Christ.Then ask what was the job of the person who stood at the front of the class when he/she was in 8th grade?Better still read the whole Chapter and see that Jesus was admonishing the people to follow good doctrine, not the bad example of the scribes and Pharisees. He warns his disciples not to imitate their ambition and denounces numerous charges against them for their hypocrisy and blindness. The phrase then becomes simple to understand, call God your Father, not your father God, get it!
I just wanted to leave a comment as an evangelical protestant christian. Not all of us take Bible verse out of context and use them as weapons to prove others wrong. Might is suggest that next time someone engages you in a debate over the use of the term “father” simply point them to Matthew Henry’s commentary on the Bible, which clearly puts into context that verse and the meaning behind it. There is nothing unBiblical in calling a priest “father” anymore than it is unBiblical to call your dad your father. I will leave you with a link to the commentary on Matthew which you can review and then aid in your dialogs with protestants.http://www.apostolic-churches.net/bible/mhc/MHC40023.HTMI also ask that you do not paint all of us as people who take verses out of context and twist scripture to suit our purposes, it is something that sadly occurs all too often, but it is not true of us all.God bless you.Tracy
Perhaps we ought to call our priests “Mother” since St.Paul said “My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you”.
While Fr. L was teaching RCIA, we covered Church authority in 6th grade last night by reading from Mark 16:”They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.”Then I showed the kids pictures from a recent book about snake-handlers, “Salvation on Sand Mountain,” and asked them since the Bible is the Word of God, how do we know that we shouldn’t take up serpents when some people clearly think we should?And the answer was: the Church that gave us the Scriptures must interpret those Scriptures.
Our parish Priest once had a gentleman who had left the Catholic Church for Evanglicalism and came back into it later. He refused to call Father Father, and started calling him Pastor, Elder, Preacher, Evangelist, and all kinds of other names. Eventually, Father told him “Just call me Bill!”
So what are we doing to better inform the Catholic laity about scripture? At St. Mary’s there is a paucity of Bible studies and educational classes, while blocks away every Protestant church is loaded to the gills with Sunday school classes and Bible studies. Why is this the case?
obpoet, there is a Bible study every Sunday at St Mary’s, Women of Grace Fellowship and Bible study group, Pillars of Christ fellowship and Bible study for Men, Disciples of Christ and every Wednesday evening RCIA is run with invitation for all parishioners to have a refresher in their faith, and at the same time there is religious ed for all age groups. What do you mean there is a paucity? Are you talking about another St Mary’sHowever, there could, arguable be more on offer, but in my experience, when Catholic priests lay on such things the enthusiasm and support the laity is very poor.
Tracy, you make a good point that not all Protestants take Scripture out of context like this, but my post was about those who do.
Father, I think it is also worth pointing out the crossover between this and your previous RCIA post.A major biblical concept that most Protestants miss is the concept of “partaking” or participation.Just as Mary, and saints, and all Christians who pray for one another are partaking in the one Mediation of Christ (without which their mediation would be impossible), so also priests are partaking in the Fatherhood of God, “Of whom all paternity in heaven and earth is named.” (Eph 3:15)In general, it isn’t just literal vs. not-literal that divides Catholics and Protestants – the verse interpretation is a symptom of the overall hermeneutic.And the Protestant hermeneutic isn’t really literalism – there are plenty of Bible verses Protestants don’t take literally (e.g. John 6). In general, I think Catholics are more literal than Protestants on most major Biblical points.The Protestant hermeneutic is generally vicariousness, what might be summed up as “either/or.” For the Protestant, Jesus is a substitute – He paid the price of our sins, He covers us with His alien righteousness, etc. In general, the Protestant model is “Jesus did it, and therefore we can’t and don’t need to” (generally also carrying the subtext of “Jesus did it, and therefore saying anyone else did anything remotely like it is taking away from Him”).The Catholic, by contrast, tends to view Our Lord not as a substitute, but as an institutionary model – He became the Son of Man so that we might become the sons of God, He redeems us by suffering so that our suffering might become redemptive, etc. In general, the Catholic model is, “Christ did it first, and therefore we can do it also, if He does it in us.”I think that this question: “who is Jesus Christ and what did He do for us?” is the largest division between Catholics and Protestants today, and is at the root of most of these debates.
how does the “ordinary catholic” know which verses should be taken seriously (or literally) and which can be cast aside as irrelevant and out-dated. How do they know?1. I would say (for whatever that’s worth) that all verses s/b taken seriously.None of the Bible is “irrelevant” and the only part that is “out-dated” is the Law of Moses in its literal interpretation (the typological interpretation of the Law is still very relevant).2. A good indication of whether a verse s/b taken literally is if you can do so while also taking it seriously.For example, taking this Fatherhood verse literally would mean you couldn’t call the guy who impregnated your mother, “father” – which is dumb.Taking the rest of the context of the same verse literally would mean you couldn’t call anyone who teaches you a teacher. But wait, would that mean you can’t teach people? Clearly not, since the importance of teaching is all over the Bible. So you can have teachers, you’re just never allowed to call them what they are. Again, dumb.3. But the final and best rule is this: if any verse of the Bible seems to contradict the teaching of the Catholic Church, rest assured that St. Augustine, St. Thomas, et al would have noticed it if it really did.So if all the interpretations of a verse that you can think of seem strange, or don’t mesh with any Christian practice that you’re aware of, or flatly contradict the teaching of the Church, just assume you don’t get that verse right now, and come back to it later.
“Shall we pull out the verses that tell us…for our women to be silent in church and not to cut their hair and keep their heads covered? Shall we prohibit them from wearing trousers….?”Seems like a good idea to me…church attendance will skyrocket and congregations can actually pray once again. Those of us who are subject to having women wear trousers at mass especially so-called Eucharistic Ministers up in the sanctuary…know the adage of putting ten pounds of anything into an eight pound bag presents visual and intestinal difficulties.
No, it is the same St. Mary’s. The point is, almost to a universal truth, the Church laity is failing at learning scripture, and until this failing is corrected, our three-legged stool will teeter on a broken leg and the Protestants will always view us as under-informed and misguided. If St. Jerome was right, we do not know Christ.
If you look in “Moby Dick” by Melville, the character “Ismael” goes to a protestant chapel before setting sail on a whaler and listens to a sermon by “Father Maple”. This clergyman is no Catholic priest. At one time it was not uncommon for protestant groups to call their leader “Father” or “Mother”. In Europe, Catholics usually only called priests in religious orders by the title “Father”. Other priest were “Mr”, or “Sir” or “Don”. The Irish tended to use the title “Father” for all priests and they brought that usage to America. When Catholics began to call all their priests “Father”, the protestants dropped it and discovered the Bible verse which, according to them, forbade what they themselves did before all those papists showed up.
GOOD ONE!
Typos and spelling corrections. In “Moby Dick” it’s Ishmael (not Ismael)and the clergyman is “Father Mapple” (not Maple).
Hello and thanks for your contributions to the ‘blogosphere’. Two points I wish to make in regard to the old, very old, ad nauseum old argument of ‘call no man father’:Was Christ wrong when He spoke these words? “Lk 16:19-31Jesus said to the Pharisees:”There was a rich man who dressed in purple garments and fine linenand dined sumptuously each day.And lying at his door was a poor man named Lazarus, covered with sores,who would gladly have eaten his fill of the scrapsthat fell from the rich man’s table.Dogs even used to come and lick his sores.When the poor man died,he was carried away by angels to the bosom of Abraham.The rich man also died and was buried,and from the netherworld, where he was in torment,he raised his eyes and saw Abraham far offand Lazarus at his side.And he cried out, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me. Second, read this article from a non-Catholic sources points out that protestants of yesteryear frequently referred to the person leading their congregations as ‘Mother’ or ‘Father’.http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1916
Father, the Judas comparison in your original post doesn’t seem to hold up very well. The Protestant here isn’t splicing two unrelated verses together. Mt 23 is talking explicitly about religious teachers, so applying it to priests is not remotely like applying “go and do likewise” to “Judas hanged himself”. As for the hard verses you mention. Obviously the old dietary rules and circumcision have gone by the wayside; scripture itself makes that clear. I’m really very curious about what you make of Paul’s admonitions to women. I sure don’t see anything in the context to suggest that it’s not meant to be taken seriously. That’s in pretty obvious contrast to Jesus’s use of hyperbole that you point out (cutting off hands, plucking out eyes). As for authority. I don’t understand how, on a practical level, it helps matters to recognize that the Catholic church is the institution that can authoritatively interpret scripture. The problem is, the church has issued authoritative interpretations on almost no scriptures. I can’t think of any, offhand. So interpretation is still left at pretty much an “every man for himself” level. I guess the Catholic can pass his interpretation through a Catechism filter. But short of an interpretation flat-out contradicting the Catechism, how does church authority really help us? Thanks!
Literalists, then, would have to not call their own parent a parent. Obviously Christ is depicted in the book of Matthew confronting clericalism on the part of the Rabbis and that is how this ought to be read.You should contemplate linking this sort of common protestant dialog from RCIA discussions as articles on your website or as article-blogs linked to this blog.Jepethah’s (sp?) daughter is a favorite thorny issue of mine for literalists. Thank goodness Thomas Aquinas thought it through, but that one still confuses many a good catholic as well.
Fr. D,(Look, I refer to your title and I am still an Evangelical Bible Thumper at present) :DNow, one thing is for sure, more lay Catholics need heaver instruction in the old B I B L E. Just as many Evangelicals need a journey down old History Lane!I am still somewhere on History Lane… I’ve crossed St. Ignatius Blvd. and Justin Martyr Beltway and a handful of others… not to mention a helping hand from F.D.L.S. More Christianity Road Signs ;)-g-
Then what is the correct interpretation of Matthew 23:9?Perhaps you should make it your mission to make ‘ordinary catholics’ more biblically savvy instead of relying on the church for answers, as stated in Vatican 2