The Holy Father

[Tibby]

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.

[michael_legna]

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?  

 

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.

[sincereheart]

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.

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

[michael_legna]

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.

[sincereheart]

Sounds like the Pope qualifies to me.

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

[Tibby]

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

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?

[sincereheart]

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

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."

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

[ebia]

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

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.

[sincereheart]

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'?  

[Tibby]

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

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."

So we could call you Holy Tibby going by the definitions?

Give me a few more years to work on that... I am in college after all

It's not a special title that only holds for the pope?

Well, I’ve never heard someone call the Pope 'holy Tibby' but if he wants... Well, went I become... um... I mean, if I was the Pope, I would be called Holy Tibby.

 

Ok, ok, for real, yes, we can all be "holy" if we want. Holy is a verb, not a noun.

[michael_legna]

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.

[ebia]

Ok, ok, for real, yes, we can all be "holy" if we want. Holy is a verb, not a noun.

um, an adjective.

[Tibby]

your the School Teacher.

[ollie]

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.

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.

[ebia]

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.

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

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.

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.