ChristiansUnite Forums

http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=2762 (http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=2762)

"and why the term "father" is appropriate when referring to priests, and the term "Holy Father" when referring to the Pope."  ???

Can someone please explain to me why the pope would be referred to as "The Holy Father"?
 :-X

Because Not everyone calls him “Yo, JP.” Try calling him that... Those Bishops have staffs for a reason ;D As you know, "Father" is a proper title for a priest. The Pope is still a Priest, he doesn’t lose his Priesthood when he becomes a Bishop or the Pope. But, they need a title so people will know they are not just talking about any Priest, but the Pope himself. And bam, another meaningless title is created.

Also, the "Dalia Lama" was already taken ;D

But, they need a title so people will know they are not just talking about any Priest, but the Pope himself

Now see, I'm still confused. You just referred to him and I understood who you were referring to and you didn't use that title.  ;)

Seriously, I do appreciate your taking the time to answer. But when Scripture refers to 'Holy Father'; is it the pope being referenced?  ???


John 17:11  And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

No, in that case, it would be God the Father being referenced.

But, I understand your question. Why so many names? I have wondered this as well. Never really looked into it, but wondered. If I had to venture a geuss, I would say it is simply because we humans love our titles. But, I'll ask a around, see what I can some up with, and get back to you, ok?

It is all about humbleness and humility and not being puffed up in oneself, ones own knowledge, and ones own way instead of God's. The church at Rome became more imvolved in the ways of the world and the power of the empire and had to have titles that are not God's to suit its purpose.

 Matthew 23:1.  Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,
 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.
 4.  For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.
 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.

These verses could almost be applied to the church at Rome, but especially the one about who is to be called "Father".


 

Yeah, the Order was a good movie, wasn't it, Ollie ::)

I asked one of the Preist, the only one I could find tonight. He said different names for different times, and they all just added up. You know, over time, someone called him the Pope, then someone said "Holy Father" and it stuck for a time, and so on, and over time, you look back, there are all these different names for the pope.

I'm going to ask some more guys, but that is what I have so far.

Sincereheart:

For those who take the Word of God as the very words of the Lord God Almighty, the appropriation of the titles "father" and "holy father" by Catholic priests and the pope are an abomination forbidden by Christ.  The New Testament clearly teaches the PRIESTHOOD OF ALL BELIEVERS as well as UNACCEPTABILY OF TITLES TO ELEVATE SOME BRETHREN OVER OTHERS.

It is not just "father", and "holy father" that are unacceptable to God, but "doctor" "reverend", "right reverend"  "rabbi",
"master",  "monsigneur", and any other title whatsoever.  The apostles maintained no titles (and saint refers to every believer sanctified by the Holy Spirit).

Christ very specifically says: "But this thou hast, that thou hatest the DEEDS OF THE NICOLAINTANES, which I also hate.... So hast thou also them that hold THE DOCTRINE OF THE NICOLAITANES, WHICH THING I HATE" (Rev. 2:6,15).

This sect is believed to have introduced idolatrous worship into the churches within the apostolic period, and the Church of Rome adopted such idolatry (Mariolatry etc.).  The Nicolaitans are also believed to have introduced the distinction between "clergy" and "laity", and thus arose the high titles of the priests, bishops, and ultimately the pope. Don't expect Roman Catholics to concur.

::)

No, in that case, it would be God the Father being referenced.

And that would make sense to use the term "Holy Father" then. But as far as the pope goes.... ummmm.... to have a 'title' that is the same as God's seems an awful lot like calling the pope 'God'.


Why so many names?

Or better yet, why any names that are the same as those for God?

But thank you for checking, Tibby. I don't think I'll ever be able to reconcile that one.... :(

eh, it is just a name. :-\ I'm still waiting for replies, so if they say anything worth the trouble of letting you know, I'll PM you.

And that would make sense to use the term "Holy Father" then. But as far as the pope goes.... ummmm.... to have a 'title' that is the same as God's seems an awful lot like calling the pope 'God'.


Yes, and then I guess we'll be told "Well, it may look that way, but that's not really what is happening."


  *sigh*

No, you will be told not to box everyone else into your weak Gnostic definitions of the World. :P ;) ;D Comprehension of one doesn’t make it fact for all. :)

(http://www.beautifulclipart.com/clipart/angels/anangel.gif)

???  "the order"?? What does a movie have to do with anything?  ???

Yes, why is it man must adulterate the way of God and His Christ?

Ephesians 4:11.  And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
 12.  For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
 13.  Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
 14.  That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;
 15.  But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:
 

Nevermind, the Order comment was a sarcastic reply to the comment about the Roman Church and the Roman Empire. To quote another movie charater: Fuget about it ;)

What does that verrse have to do with anything?

It is the order that christ set in His church.

Take notice there are no priests, no cardinals, no popes, no vatican, no Mary, etc., etc..

Why do people need all these additions to God's word? Isn't Christ and His order of things enough? Why must man place him self above God to think they can make it better than god gives us?  

Mary isn't in your bible?  You must have quite a few pages missing - I'd take it back and complain if I were you.

ebia, You're not behaving today!  ;)



Though I still don't understand calling ANY man a name used in Scripture for God!  :-\

How about the thousands of 'Lords' in Britain? Or the thousands of men named 'Jesus' in the Spanish-speaking world?

Or calling your father, father (or papa, daddy, or whatever your cultural version of abba is)?

Or calling your teacher teacher (rabbi)?

etc, etc.

You choose to pick on a couple of examples that are alien to your tradition, but ignore all the examples that are not.

You choose to pick on a couple of examples that are alien to your tradition, but ignore all the examples that are not.

I've picked ONE example that I don't understand. And that is because I ran across it on the site of the vatican. And I didn't ask why they would be called 'father' - I questioned why the pope is called 'The Holy Father'. And I picked that ONE example because Scripture says:

John 17:11  And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

OK, so Holy Father is one of the ways we refer to God.  Likewise Father, teacher, Lord, etc, etc.  Yet none of these is reserved exclusively for God, so where is your precedent for reserving "Holy Father" exclusively for God.

OK, so Holy Father is one of the ways we refer to God.  Likewise Father, teacher, Lord, etc, etc.  Yet none of these is reserved exclusively for God, so where is your precedent for reserving "Holy Father" exclusively for God.

I dunno, ebia. "Holy" and "Father" together just sound like it's referring to God. So I searched and found that it is when it's in Scripture. And it just seems, well, wrong somehow.  :-\ Following your reasoning, would it then be ok to call the pope "God"? Or is that one that IS reserved exclusively for God? Or maybe the question is: Which names for God are okay to use on man?

Kinda like the "Jesus" name. Yes, there are those with the name in the Spanish-speaking world and there was another "Jesus" in Scripture. But only ONE "Jesus Christ"...

Its just a question of what you are used to.  I'm pretty uncomfortable with many of the protestant 'job titles' and phrases, but not for any good reason - its just what I'm used to, and what I understand by those phrases.


No, because that is a word we do reserve exclusively for God.   If we used toe word "god" for the pope, we would be intending to imply that he is God, or we would be redefining the word.   If a group of people understood the word "God" to mean something different than the currently accepted English usage, then that would be a different matter.  Ultimately, when push comes to shove, words are just that - labels we give to things.  Sometimes different groups of people use the labels in different ways.  It's what's meant by them that matters.  When people who are not part of a discourse community come along, if they don't take the trouble to understand how language is used within that discourse community, they are going to misunderstand a lot of things.

That would depend on what you meant by the name, and how your intended audience were going to understand it.  I can't invisage a context in which god would be an acceptable or reasonable title to apply to someone, because I can't imagine a context in which it would not imply that the recipient was divine.


It's a good analogy, I think.  I'd feel pretty uncomfortable naming my son Jesus, but what's actually wrong with it?  Those who do call their children Jesus aren't implying that their children are Jesus Christ, or putting them on a par with Christ, they are just naming their son after the most important person ever to have lived, which is pretty reasonable thing to do.   It's really just a question of what you are used to, and what you mean by it.

"Mary isn't in your bible?"
Get real! Of course Mary is in my Bible and you know it. You must not read well.

Go back and reread my reply and know that I am refering to the order Christ set in His church and Mary was not part of it. Mary is only refered to in the Bible as the mother of Jesus.

I ask another question:

Why do people defend false teachings? Why can't they just accept the simple truth of God , His Christ, and His plan of redeeming them back to Him?

I suggest you learn to spot sarcasm when you see it.


 ::)  Possibly the most important thing any person has ever been called to do, and you describe it as "only". :'(


If they agreed that they were false teachings, then they wouldn't defend them.

SIGH!

"Possibly the most important thing any person has ever been called to do, and you describe it as "only".
'

"ONLY" as in one and only. This is how Mary is refered to in the Bible. It is the "ONLY" way she is identified.
The most important thing any one has been called to do is lay down His life and shed His blood for the sins of the people of the world.

Matthew 23:9.  And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

Not a precedent for "Holy Father", but father period.
The Holy is an infered given.
Why does Rome title their priests, the pope, etc. "father" when God's word says no?

That's debatable, but even within that, she is given honour for that role.

Typing "... any person except God ..." get's tedious.  I thought you'd have the sense to realise that was implied, but I guess that if people had the sense to realise the implicit meaning instead of jumping to conclusions, we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place.

What do you call your dad?

I take it you don't call anyone a teacher either?

To take those verses literally is absurd, if not impossible.

ebia,

But would it make a difference if they named their child "Jesus el Christo" as opposed to "Jesus"?  :-\

My problem is with the grouping of the word "Holy" and "Father" for a man.  :-X

*sigh*

Nobody is asking you to call the Pope 'Holy Father'. If it's a problem for you that Catholics sometimes do it, well you just need to work through it somehow  :)

Nobody is asking you to call the Pope 'Holy Father'.

Did I say anyone was?  ??? My apologies if I ever gave that impression.  :)

If it's a problem for you that Catholics sometimes do it, well you just need to work through it somehow  

Or.... I could just ask questions to try and understand it. Somehow, I thought my idea was kinder.... :)

~Just a little helpful hint - if you notice at the top of my post that you responded to is this:
"ebia,"
which is usually a pretty good signal that the post was referring to a previous conversation with ebia and therefore my post was a response to ebia.  ;) ~

Yes thanks I read the thread and I knew the context of your remark.

Seems to me that this is just such a minor thing and you have beaten it way past death :)

Yes thanks I read the thread and I knew the context of your remark.

And yet you responded and in a rather snide way. Hmmm....

Seems to me that this is just such a minor thing and you have beaten it way past death

Sorry you see it that way. You could always ignore it and go on to something that you find worthy of your time.  :)

I was debating between saying:

Yeah, around hear, we call it anti-Catholicism.

or

Yeah, welcome to CU Forums.

Um... it appears I said both, I said both. Oh well. ;D

Even though I am not a Catholic, I find this Catholic-bashing kind of upsetting and really kind of un-Christian, so I choose not to ignore it.

Don't call the Pope 'Holy Father' if it bugs you so much.

No, I don't think it would - provided it was clear in context that they were being named after Christ, and that no-one was putting them on a par with Christ.  Of course, to an outside it might appear to be the latter, when it was really the former...

That's because you associate that phrase solely with God, not being used to hearing it used in another way.  So for you,  it does appear out of order.  In a society where "holy father" does not necessarly imply God, however, it isn't.  It's all a question of what is meant by the phrase, and what you mean by it is not the same as what a Catholic means by it when applying it to the Bishop of Rome.

In fairness, Sincereheart does seem to be asking a genuine question and making a genuine attempt to understand here.

There's more than enough real Catholic-bashing going on on this forum, without calling it when someone is genuinely engaging with the responses.

It is not Catholic bashing or anti catholic, but just asking questions and trying to understand why it is necessary to have these additions that at times seem to conflict with what God has revealed through the Holy Spirit.

Why is this always seen as "anti" or "bashing"?

ebia,
That's because you associate that phrase solely with God, not being used to hearing it used in another way.  So for you,  it does appear out of order.  In a society where "holy father" does not necessarly imply God, however, it isn't.  It's all a question of what is meant by the phrase, and what you mean by it is not the same as what a Catholic means by it when applying it to the Bishop of Rome.

Thanks for taking the time to answer. More mulling to do... :-\


Tibby,
I was debating between saying:
Yeah, around hear, we call it anti-Catholicism.
or
Yeah, welcome to CU Forums.
Um... it appears I said both, I said both. Oh well.  

So now asking questions about a specific topic is bashing? Yet, earlier you said: But, I understand your question. Why so many names? I have wondered this as well. Never really looked into it, but wondered. Was it also 'bashing' when you said this?

And I take it that this:
I'm going to ask some more guys, but that is what I have so far.
is no longer true?


Dyskolos,
Even though I am not a Catholic, I find this Catholic-bashing kind of upsetting and really kind of un-Christian, so I choose not to ignore it.

I would appreciate it if you could show me where the 'bashing' is. Again though, if you find it 'upsetting' (like I find it 'upsetting' to call a man "THE Holy Father") then maybe
you might want to consider taking your own advice:

Nobody is asking you to call the Pope 'Holy Father'. If it's a problem for you that Catholics sometimes do it, well you just need to work through it somehow
Nobody is asking you to respond to me. If my questions are a problem for you, well you just need to work through it somehow....

Don't call the Pope 'Holy Father' if it bugs you so much.
Don't respond if it bugs you so much....



The irony of this would be amusing if it weren't so sad. If I ask questions and listen to the answers, it's bashing. Yet, Protestants are accused of ignorance because they don't take the time to find out more.

Chill, sincereheart. I wasn't referring to you. I was referring to some of the other posts on this thread, posts that were little more then troll spam.

You asked why they made the name. This question could be anwered without Cathabashing. There was no need to get into a fight over how biblical it is. ::) Not everything is a battle ground. I don't see why it is so hard for some people to just answer the question as best and as objectively as they can, without plugging all the emotion and personal theology into it.

"To take those verses literally is absurd, if not impossible."

Why is it absurd and impossible.  It is the word of God given through His Holy Spirt. SIGH!

Christians do it 365/24/7

I believe the scripture is in reference to spiritual heavenly father, not physical. Calling priests and pope father seems to be in the spiritual mode.

All christians are priests with Christ the high priest.

But not all are Apostles, teachers, preachers, etc. etc. in the order that Christ set in His church.

Well yes, even Catholic Believe in the Priesthood of believer. But on top of that Priesthood of Believers, there is a clergy. This clergy that choose to use the same name as the temple clergy of the old Testament. The fact that the Priest call themselves priests in no way negates anyone else from being a priest. If a Catholic father (the male parent, in this case) wants to have a mass in his house with just his family, he can, because he is the Head of his house, and one of the jobs of that goes with this title is the head priest of his house.

So you're not taking it completely literally - your assuming it refers to spiritual fathers and not physical ones, something the text doesn't say.

The word priest when applied to the clergy is actually a contraction of Presbyter, as apposed to priest applied to the levitical priests, the high priest (Christ), priesthood of all believers, etc.   That's why RCC priests generally live in a presbytary.
http://www.antiochian.org/theology/Priest.htm (http://www.antiochian.org/theology/Priest.htm)
Confusing, I know, but that's English for you.

I'm pretty sure you're wrong about this one, but feel free to prove me wrong.

Are you telling me you don't think Catholic believe in a Priesthood of Believers?


Sorry, that is my group.

No, I'm telling you that being a priest, in the sense of priesthood of all belivers, doesn't enable one to celebrate mass.    For that, one should be a bishop.  Failing that, it can be done by the bishop's representative with the bishop's authority - a presbyter (priest).   Of course, diocese are now so large, that the bishop is almost never there in person, so it is virtually always delegated to the presbyter (priest).

Well, that well and truly distances you from any other major Church that thinks of itself as Catholic.  Messing with the three-fold order and their respective roles is one of the big no-no's of catholicity.   The fact that no-one has known what to do with deacons for years not withstanding.

 ???

Which bit don't you understand?

Yes, the Catholic church teaches the priesthood of all believers (though I don't think it exactly shouts about it).

However, the word priest applied to the clergy doesn't mean that sort of priest - it isn't that word at all, its a shortening in English of presbyter.  For the rest of this post I'll use presbyter when I mean this sort of priest, and priest as in the priesthood of all believers (poab).

Being a priest (poab) isn't a sufficient qualification to celebrate mass.   The mass should be celebrated by a bishop - its quite clear in the writings of the church fathers that communion was always led by the bishop.

However, since diocese are immensely larger than they were back then, the bishops have delegated their authority to celebrate mass to the presbyters within their diocese.  Nevertheless, the presbyters are doing so vicariously - on behalf of the bishop.  If the bishop is there, he should ALWAYS be the one presiding over the mass.

No Priesthood today only you two could even talk about it. ;D

Why don't you make some attempt to actually understand what I've said?

First of all I do understand. Secon I dont believe a thing you say.

Well, it certainly doesn't look like it from your previous post.

I guess that's less effort than thinking about it.

Like I said above, I dont believe a thing you say.

Ssshhh.... Don't tell Dyskolos, but I still have a question-

Still with my 'universal' ignorance.... :-[
Matthew 23 is talking about calling a religious leader "father", isn't it? As opposed to the "honoring your father and mother" kind of father...
So wouldn't that negate the comparison of the 'dad', 'pa', 'daddy', etc. kind that we use for our male parent?

And then wouldn't it be more offensive to add 'Holy' in front of it when referring to someone other than our earthly father?  :-X

Jesus warns us not to call anyone on the earth "father" because we only have one father. He doesn't worhsip His earthly mother or father because He's been born from above. When we Christians are born from above, we now only have one Father. The Catholic church glorifies earthly fathers and mothers which is one reason why they glorify Mary. If Catholics were born again from above, they wouldn't do that because they know their only Father. As a Christian, I would be mortified if someone called me "Holy Father". I would see it as sacreligious. If the pope had a personal relationship with His Father, he would know that there is only one Father. He would then also be mortified to consider himself the "Holy Father." The pope is glorifying himself, not God when he allows himself to be addressed that way.  

No assuming.
All things of God are spiritual not natural and no it does not refer to spiritual fathers, but God the Father. God is Spirit.

"your assuming it refers to spiritual fathers and not physical ones, something the text doesn't say."

Are you suggesting it refers to our Father in Heaven as being physical or natural?
 Since God is spirit and all things of him are spiritual what else could the text be saying?

When we are reborn of the spirit, our ONLY Father is God. "Flesh gives birth to flesh and spirit gives birth to spirit."

But Heidi, what about honoring your father and mother?

"Flesh gives birth to flesh, spirit gives birth to spirit." I honor only one Father. I give my earthly parents respect for being more experienced than me and for sacrificing their lives for me when I was a child. But I could not give them the respect they deserve without the love from God in me. It is from God that real love for others comes. That is why Jesus says we have to leave our earthly parents, sisters, sons, daughters, etc. for Him. Therefore honoring our real Father has to be first. He is not in the same category as my earthly father.

The text says "call no-one father".  If you call your earthly father "father" then you are either:
a.  making an assumption about what the text means
b.  not taking it literally
or
c.  disobaying.

Which is it to be?

So, you saying Saved Christians are the only ones who love? The only one who Respect? You are saying Christians are the only ones to obey there parents?

I don't think Jesus is as shallow as to hold it against me if I call Tibby Senior "Dad." ::)

First of all, the only kind of Christian, according to Christ, is one who is born again. We cannot enter heaven unless we are "born of water and the spirit".

When addressed by the rich man as "Good sir", Jesus repled, "No one is good but God alone." Jesus did not even include Himself. He claims all through the gospel of John that the only way we can be good is to have the spirit of God in us who gives us that power. Without God's love in us, we only live to glorify ourselves. Real love is not proud and does not boast. The ones who claim to love without God's love in them see that love as coming from themselves. They therefore love to gain honor for themselves. That is not real love because it is self-serving. Human love is conditional and depends on if people please us enough to love them. The minute people don't do what we want, we're gone, and that includes love for our parents. People then feel guilty and try to "muster up" love for their parents because they think they "should". But genuine love comes from God because since we have been forgiven, we can then forgive anyone no matter what they do. So no, we cannot have genuine love in us without being saved.

Ya think? Thank you, I’m glad to see all that bible reading has paid off. ::)


You actually think non-Christians don't love? Even the little kids? Most childern raised in Christian homes claim to be saved when they are teenagers. Are you saying they didn't like anyone before then? ::) I know many kids who have been saved later in their teen years, and loved their folks just as much before as they do after.

As I said before, human love is conditional. It is dependant on people doing what we want them to do. Love quickly turns to hate when people offend us, Tibby. Genuine love never goes away. It isn't up and down like human love. It is easy to love people when they please us. It is more difficult to love others who hate us. It is easy to love our parents because they have first loved us. It is harder to love them if they have abused us. God's love makes it possible to love others who hate us despite how they treat us. When children love their parents, most of it comes from dependancy. Children don't think they can survive without their parents so they are desperate to love their parents, hoping their parents will love them back. This is why we all grow up trying to please our parents. It is a dependant love, and understandable so, but it is not genuine love. Human love is given to get back which is why people do not love their enemies. Only God's love in us gives us the power to do so.

So Non-Christians can love then. And when Christians are saved, we have the love of God. And this love of God allows us to properly love our Earthly Father. So what you are saying is that as Christians, we lvoe our earthly parents more then non-christians?

I'm saying, Tibby, that genuine love comes from God, not man. Again, human love is condtional. I believe i have already explained why.

Matthew 23:8.  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.

You are right,  Call no one father upon the earth for one is our father in Heaven, Jesus Christ makes it very clear.

So why is the word of Jesus Christ violated by the church headquartered in Rome?

The word of Jesus Christ isn't violated by the church. We have already explained this more then once. If you don’t accept the answers we give, fine, but don’t keep bringing it up. It only mongers up trouble that the board doesn’t need.

I disagree with that and so do many others. But I will not debate it.

 :)

There is one problem with this that no one can answer. Why? If this was a sin, WHY with the church do this? If this verse is referring directly to calling someone your father, what motive would the church have for blatantly disobeying? It seems kind of… counterproductive. This is the same question I have for a lot of the Anti-Catholic attacks. WHY? What is the point? What purpose would the RCC have for putting gapping holes in there doctrine? Ollie brought up a good point: Why is the word of Jesus Christ violated by the church headquartered in Rome? Why indeed. There is no reason for them.

Now, keep thinking about that Sincere, as I continue. Jesus used a lot of Hyperboles when to spoke, as well as a lot of parables. Jesus once said if he didn’t wash his disciples’ feet, those disciples would not be able to enter the kingdom of heaven. Jesus also told us to cut off parts of our body that caused us to sin. Do you think he meant these things literally? Of course not. I have sinned with my hands in many ways, but I still have them, and I’m sure you have, too. These are exaggerated phrases he used to emphasize the fact. He does this a lot, why after death would he all of a sudden make one phrase that is literal, after a life time of hyperboles? "Call no man father" is one of his hyperboles.

Hope that answers your question.

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.

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).

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."

So no trying to apply a literal legalistic interpretation to this verse is as wrong for us as it was for the Israelites who tried to merit their salvation through a legalistic adherance to the letter of the law.

It does answer the "Father" part, but not "Holy Father".
 :)

This is easy too.

Webster has the following for Holy.

Holy
HO'LY, a.

1. Properly, whole, entire or perfect, in a moral sense. Hence, pure in heart, temper or dispositions; free from sin and sinful affections. Applied to the Supreme Being, holy signifies perfectly pure, immaculate and complete in moral character; and man is more or less holy, as his heart is more or less sanctified, or purified from evil dispositions. We call a man holy,when his heart is conformed in some degree to the image of God, and his life is regulated by the divine precepts. Hence, holy is used as nearly synonymous with good, pious, godly.

Sounds like the Pope qualifies to me.

Sounds like the Pope qualifies to me.

I'm sure it does sound like it to you.  :)

I'm glad we helped you with that part.

I don't see anything wrong with "Holy Father." I don't find it offensive, and I doubt Micheal does, either. dictionary.com says:

1. Belonging to, derived from, or associated with a divine power; sacred.
3. Living according to a strict or highly moral religious or spiritual system; saintly: a holy person.
4. Specified or set apart for a religious purpose: a holy place.
Solemnly undertaken; sacrosanct: a holy pledge.
5.Regarded as deserving special respect or reverence: The pursuit of peace is our holiest quest.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=HOly (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=HOly)

THere are 7 different versions, but 1, 3, 4, and 5 are ALL things we as christian, weither you are the Pope or a 5 year old in sunday school, should strive to me. Belonging to the Divine, living by the divine moral code of the Bible, set apart for the work of the lord, and for some, to be respected as might men and women of God.

In short, I honestly don't see a thing wrong with calling him "Holy Father."

Michael, your thoughts?

So we could call you Holy Tibby going by the definitions? It's not a special title that only holds for the pope?

Holy is only a problem if you think holy is a word reserved for talking about God, and never a word for talking about that which is dedicated to God.

Holy is only a problem if you think holy is a word reserved for talking about God, and never a word for talking about that which is dedicated to God.

Since I've dedicated my children to God, then it could follow that I could/should call them 'Holy Jane' and 'Holy Joe'?  :)

You can call them anything you want.

But Catholics do not judge other peoples status with God.  We rely on the Church's guidance in this matter.  That is why the Church decides occassionally to canonize saints so we know if their life was worthy of emulation.

The Pope is deemed Holy by the Church because of the office he holds.  In his personal life he still sins and falls short of holiness, but within his office he is protected from error in matters of doctrine and dogma by the Holy Spirit so more closely approaches holiness in that regard.

um, an adjective.

your the School Teacher.

One becomes holy or sanctified when washed by the blood of Jesus. All who are called in to Christ by the word of God are made Holy and sanctified. There is no respecting of persons. One person in Christ is not holier than another person in Christ.
They are not set apart with titles.

So you shouldn't have any problem calling any of them holy.

What sets out the Pope for special treatment isn't the person (although JPII is clearly a very Godly man) but the office he holds.  The title of Holy Father is given to the Pope, not to Karol Wojtyla.

By, George, I think his got it! ;)



Ok, maybe he hasn't gotten it all. Are you saying you have as much respect for an Abortion Doctor who was recently saved as I do for a Pastor who has spent his live saving the whole Area where he preaches? :-\ Do you have same respect for the Apostle Peter as you do for Tom?

Some are set apart for greater things then others.