Use of the title 'Father' for clergy

[Mark]

Recently a Protestant claimed that the Orthodox use of the title "Father" for its monks and priests is against he Gospel, since the Lord said "call no man your father..."

I am wondering if anyone knows of traditional exegesis on this point by the Church Fathers.

Many thanks!

Mark

[Alex Haig]

"Call no man your father" (Matthew 23:9)

Ask this Protestant if he calls his own father 'Father' (or 'Dad'): Christ's words, interpreted this way, say this is wrong too. Extending this, we can't call our own mothers 'Mother', brothers 'Brother' &c.

Sorry that I don't have anything from the Fathers on this but it seems that Christ is warning against giving honour where it is not due, to hypocrites. Reading the whole of Matthew 23 this comes out as the major theme.

[Herman Blaydoe]

Such are the dangers of proof texting, taking a tiny piece of Scripture without examining the context. Text without context is pretext. Some Protestant interpreters are sure that Jesus is warning here against addressing Church leaders as "father." They are basically interpreting "father" in this Scripture to mean, "spiritual father." So, they refuse to call their clergymen "father," but use instead titles like "pastor," "reverend," or sometimes "brother."

Think about it. Taken at face value, Jesus' warning against calling any man "father" would not only seem to rule out calling a clergyman "father," it would also keep us from using that title for earthly fathers and grandfathers, ancient Church fathers, or even city fathers, wouldn't it? I mean, His statement, as it appears in the text, is that only one Person is ever to be called "father," namely, our Father who is in heaven.

I think it is fair to say that "spiritual father" is an interpretation of the Lord's statement rather than what He actually said. Remember that that the Lord said "father," not "spiritual father."

After Jesus states; “Only One is your Father," He Himself went on to also say, "And do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, the Christ." But then He called Nicodemus a "Teacher of Israel".

In Luke 16:24 Jesus tells us that the rich man cries out; “Father Abraham, have mercy on me.” Abraham's didn't say: "Do you not realize that only God the Father is to be called 'father'?" Rather, he replied, "Son, remember. . ."

St. Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 4:15. "For if you were to have countless instructors in Christ, yet you would not have many fathers; for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel." Isn't St. Paul claiming to be the ‘Spiritual Father' of the Corinthians? Do you think that St. Paul, an Apostle of Christ Jesus, would interpret our Lords words to mean only our Heavenly Father was to be called "Father”?

Did the Apostles ignore Jesus? Did our Lord Jesus Christ contradict Himself and violate his own laws, or could it be that many people are really misinterpreting the Gospels?

Furthermore, he goes on to refer to his spiritual ancestry as "our fathers." (1 Corinthians 10:1). Oh and he addressed earthly fathers in Colosse like this: "Fathers, do not provoke your children, lest they become discouraged," (Colossians 3:21). It would appear the Apostle Paul definitely did not interpret the Lord Jesus Christ's words to mean only One was to be called "father," that is, the heavenly Father.

In the church at Antioch certain men were called "prophets and teachers" (Acts 13:1). Then again, the Apostle Paul not only recognized teachers as gifts of God to the Church, (1 Corinthians 12:28 and Ephesians 4:11)… but he also did not hesitate to call himself "a teacher of the Gentiles," (2 Timothy 1:11). Furthermore, in this present day, almost all of us have at one time or another called certain people Sunday School teachers. The discussion thus goes far beyond any Protestant-Catholic lines. Therefore, in saying we should call no one "father" and "teacher," except God the Father and Christ Himself, the Lord Jesus appears not to be taking issue with the use of these particular titles in and of themselves.

Here, I think is the context of the passage to give us the interpretive key we are looking for.

In this "call no man father" passage, our Lord is contending with certain rabbis of His day who were using these specific titles to accomplish their own ends. And had these same apostate rabbis been using other titles, such as "reverend" and "pastor," Jesus, it seems to me, would have said of these as well, "Call no one reverend or pastor."

WHY were the rabbis using the titles "father" and "teacher"? The answer revolves around at least two critical areas of leadership: teaching and personal character.

Consider first the teaching of these particular rabbis. They had begun their teaching at the right place, the Law of Moses. Said Jesus, "The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat," (Matthew 23:2). Moses' Law was the true tradition. God had given it to Israel through Moses. The rabbis' responsibility was to preserve that tradition and faithfully pass it on to the next generation.

All too often, however, a rabbi would add his own grain of wisdom to the true tradition, clouding it. Instead of passing down the sacred deposit along with the true interpretations of that deposit, he would add his own private interpretation. In turn his disciples, like their teacher, would, after becoming rabbis, do the same thing. The final outcome of all this was a tradition of men that made the true Mosaic tradition of no effect. To these rabbis Jesus said, "For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men," (Mark 7:8)… and again, "All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition . . . making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down," (Mark 7:9, 13). The whole of their private interpretations did in fact "shut up the kingdom of heaven against men,” (Matthew 23:13).

In order to cut through all this tradition of men that had made the Mosaic tradition of no effect, and to bring people back to the truth, Jesus told His disciples, "But you, do not be called 'Rabbi.' "(Matthew 23:8). In other words, He was telling them not to use their positions as fa thers and teachers as an opportunity to build disciples around their own private opinions.

Instead, with the coming of Christ, these rabbis—and indeed all who teach God's Word—are to hand down faithfully the true tradition of only one Rabbi: Christ Himself. The Apostle John, calls this particular tradition "the doctrine of Christ,"(2 John 9). In fact, this is why the specific teaching of the Twelve became known as "the apostles' doctrine," (Acts 2:42).

Since their time, successive generations of fathers and teachers in the Church have handed down and guarded the apostolic doctrine concerning Christ very carefully, and represents the true interpretation of Holy Scripture. This faithfulness to true Christian doctrine, by the way, can especially be seen in the Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Church, held between the fourth and eighth centuries.

It behooves anyone who claims to be a teacher of Christ's doctrine to be faithful to the apostles' doctrine handed down in those Councils. Otherwise he runs the risk of inserting his own "private interpretation," (2 Peter 1:20).

While it is true that all teachers of Christ's doctrine must begin at the right place, namely, the Holy Scriptures, it is also true that they should give the correct and true interpretation of Holy Scripture as passed down by holy and godly teachers and fathers of the Church, especially in the Seven Councils.

Why are the Seven Ecumenical Councils so important? Because they point out what the Church universally held to be the true teaching concerning the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Trinity. They are faithful to what the Holy Scriptures teach concerning the one true Rabbi and Teacher, Jesus Christ. Teachers and fathers who teach private interpretations contrary to the doctrine of Christ as taught in the Seven Ecumenical Councils should not, I believe, be recognized as true teachers and fathers.

A second critical area of rabbinic leadership with which Jesus was concerned was personal character. He had detected a major flaw in the character of the scribes and Pharisees, a sin that might be called self-exaltation. They were using their position as fathers and teachers among God's people to exalt themselves. They wanted to be sure they received appropriate recognition. In light of this lack of character, Jesus said, "But he who is greatest among you shall be your servant. And whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted," (Matthew 23:11, 12).

Their self-exalting spirit had manifested in several ways. First, in hypocrisy: "for they say," said Jesus, "and do not do," (Matthew 23:3). All talk and no walk. Their talk was cheap because it was totally contradicted by their behavior. In pretense they would make long prayers, but in behavior devour widows' houses, (Matthew 23:14).

They would make oaths, swearing by the gold of the temple rather than by the temple that sanctified the gold, thereby revealing their secret love of money, (Matthew 23:16, 17). Although they paid tithes of mint, anise, and cummin, which they should have done gladly, they neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice, mercy, and faith, (Matthew 23:23).

Because they were hypocrites in these and numerous other ways, the Lord summed up His critique by saying, "Even so you also outwardly appear righteous to men, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness," (Matthew 23:28). Obviously, their "insides" did not match their "outsides" because they were filled up with a self-exalting and self-serving spirit.

A second manifestation of their self-exalting spirit was the noticeable lack of actual service on their part. "For," said Jesus, "they bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers," (Matthew 23:4).

No dirt was to be found under their fingernails. They were simply a group of lazy leaders who wanted to be served rather than to serve. No wonder, then, Jesus said not to be like them, for from God's standpoint, "he who is greatest among you shall be your servant," (Matthew 23:11). A third manifestation of their self-exalting spirit was self-love, demonstrated by a desire to be seen by men (Matthew 23:5), by their love for the best seats at the feasts and in the synagogues (Matthew 23:6), and by their love of greetings in the marketplaces, being called by men, "Rabbi, Rabbi," (Matthew 23:7).

This self-love was a clear transgression of the Mosaic Law, which they professed to be keeping. For Moses' entire law could be summed up in the two great commandments, the greatest of which is, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind," (Matthew 22:37). The second greatest is, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself," (Matthew 22:39).

Thus, these fathers and teachers were not leading their people into the love of God and neighbor. Quite to the contrary, they were exhibiting a self-exalting, self-serving spirit, filled up with a love for self.

In the face of the stench and shame of the apostasy of these religious leaders, therefore, Jesus commanded His disciples, "Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven,". Father Abraham deserved the title, as did others of Israel's greats in history, but these men had forfeited their role as fathers. They were to cease and desist in their use of the term and, in turn, bow to God Himself as the fountainhead of all fatherhood.

[Paul Cowan]

Herman,

This is an excellent reply and well thought out. However I got to the end and was still not grasping the answer. Can you restate this even after 3 years in a succinct way? I want to understand this well as this comes up often for me. I think I understand the concept of the rabbis being called (father) in a way that made them exalted above other men, but do we not hold our clergy up in the same way? Or is the word father an interior state of mind of the rabbis/clergy one that is not humble?

If this is the case, at what point today would we stop calling our clergy father? or am I way off base? Thanks

Paul

[Owen Jones]

I ran across a very good explication of this by an RC bishop on Jesus' use of hyperbole to make a point. There are, of course, numerous examples of this. Am I to literally hate my parents?

[Herman Blaydoe]

Herman,

This is an excellent reply and well thought out. However I got to the end and was still not grasping the answer. Can you restate this even after 3 years in a succinct way? I want to understand this well as this comes up often for me. I think I understand the concept of the rabbis being called (father) in a way that made them exalted above other men, but do we not hold our clergy up in the same way? Or is the word father an interior state of mind of the rabbis/clergy one that is not humble?

If this is the case, at what point today would we stop calling our clergy father? or am I way off base? Thanks

Paul

Many Jews in that day considered themselves "righteous" because they had Abraham as their "father"—because they were his descendants. We do not inherit salvation from Abraham. We are children of God and heirs of His promise, not children and heirs of Abraham, so we don't call any "man" "father" (in terms of patronal inheritance), because we have God as our Father, lest there be divisions among us. I think this is indicated in what the Apostle Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 4:15, and more explicitly in I Corinthians 3:4 For when one says, “I am of Paul,” and another, “I am of Apollos,” are you not carnal? It goes along with "put not your trust, in princes, in sons of men, in whom there is no salvation..."

I think it becomes a problem at the point where someone says "because I am a spiritual child of Fr. Holypersonovich, I am saved and you are not." If you are called a "Matthewite" or "Panteleimonite" before you are a "Christian", you might want to re-evaluate your situation.

Or so it seems to this bear of little brain.

Herman the Pooh

[Paul Cowan]

ok, so if I were to say I attend church under the direction of Fr. Pooh, I am using the word Fr. as a title. But if I were to say Fr. Pooh is a great luminary in the church and many people receive spiritual benefit from him because of his humility, meekness and spiritual gifts from God, this is no longer his title, but his "position" as a leader; "Father to the people", in the church.

Is this a closer understanding?

My poor grasping of english definitions of the same word having different meanings stinks.

We use the word "f"ather as a title as the PC uses pastor or reverend. There are many of this category of the use of the word.

We reserve the word "F"ather for the few great teachers of the church, not as disciples through salvation through them, but as those that rightly divide the word of truth.

So would St. Chrysostom and St. Basil be "F"athers? or is this reserved for the apostles who would be higher up the rung on the ladder such as Peter and Paul?

Would our current bishops and senior heirarchs fall under the "F" or "f" category?

Paul

[Evan]

Many Jews in that day considered themselves "righteous" because they had Abraham as their "father"—because they were his descendants. We do not inherit salvation from Abraham. We are children of God and heirs of His promise, not children and heirs of Abraham, so we don't call any "man" "father" (in terms of patronal inheritance), because we have God as our Father, lest there be divisions among us. I think this is indicated in what the Apostle Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 4:15, and more explicitly in I Corinthians 3:4 For when one says, “I am of Paul,” and another, “I am of Apollos,” are you not carnal? It goes along with "put not your trust, in princes, in sons of men, in whom there is no salvation..."

I think it becomes a problem at the point where someone says "because I am a spiritual child of Fr. Holypersonovich, I am saved and you are not." If you are called a "Matthewite" or "Panteleimonite" before you are a "Christian", you might want to re-evaluate your situation.

Or so it seems to this bear of little brain.




Herman the Pooh

From John Chrysostom's 72nd homily on Matthew:

For what says He? But be not ye called Rabbi. Then follows the cause also; For one is your master, and all you are brethren; Matthew 23:8 (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/mat023.htm#verse8) and one has nothing more than another, in respect of his knowing nothing from himself. Wherefore Paul also says, For who is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers? 1 Corinthians 3:5 (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/1co003.htm#verse5) He said not masters. And again, Call not, father, Matthew 23:9 (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/mat023.htm#verse9) not that they should not call, but they may know whom they ought to call Father, in the highest sense. For like as the master is not a master principally; so neither is the father. For He is cause of all, both of the masters, and of the fathers.

When you side with Chrysostom, you're in good company.

[Jonathan Hayward]

One thing though...

From when I was a Protestant, the argument presented at most length by Herman was presented to me, sometimes at greater length from more Scriptural examples, and it never quite satisfied.

So far as I recall, as it struck me then the New Testament may have texts like St. Stephen calling his Jewish audience "fathers and brothers," but it seemed exceptional, or at least occasional. The only human who is consistently called by a title is Christ, called "Jesus Christ" or "Christ Jesus" or "Christ" but in the Gospels, most often simply "Jesus". St. Paul may have once claimed to be an audience's Father in Christ; but he does not refer to himself as "Fr. Paul" at any place, let alone every place he refers to himself as "Paul".

Whereas in the Orthodox Church as the practice is today, it is expected that I refer to this forum's founder as "Fr. Dcn. Matthew" (or "Fr. Matthew" or "Dcn. Matthew" or something like that), and even if he and I were to become good friends, it would be a bit strange for me to call him just "Matthew" (even if he might choose not to press the point with Protestant interlocutors). I can still remember my surprise about hearing a priest tell a story about His Eminence PHILIP(?) and His Grace ANTOON(?), who are relatives and have been very close from boyhood, and at the time the story took place they were a bishop and priest respectively. His Grace Philip had been waiting a long time in the hospital for the other, and when he finally came (after multiple attempts to circumvent airports being closed due to weather), the bishop said, "Fr. Antoon..."--and this was not the point of the story, and I'm not sure whether it was just another detail of the telling.

When I was a Protestant, perhaps without enough appreciation for hyperbole, I was never really satisfied by the inference of "The New Testament at times refers to mere mortals as fathers outside of the strict biological relationship, so expecting a person's name to be prefaced by 'Fr.' on pain of possible rudeness is fully justified." And when I became Orthodox I submitted more than finding a way to be satisfied with it.

I now know through trust and experience that it is right to address men as "Fr.", but I am not sure how to respond to the Protestant concern from the Bible. The argument seems thin, at least on Protestant assumptions furnished for its reception, and I personally would be very wary of saying, "The Scripture calls mere mortals Father, and we're just continuing as things are in the Bible."

I don't know if I have something better. But it is my usual preference to rather not know, and say I don't know, than claim whatever I can (shoddy or not) so that I can say I know.

Christos Jonathan

[Anthony Stokes]

It's been a while since I read it, but Fr. Peter Gillquist's book "Becoming Orthodox" has a whole chapter on the subject. You might see if you can find a copy and read that chapter, aptly titled "Call no man father." It's not too long.

Sbdn. Anthony

[Fabio Lins]

I think the real issue is the mistaken Protestant assumption that everything that is Church should be in the Bible. Of course, the very name of what we today see as one book means "books" and these were not the only books around for centuries. In fact the Bible mentions as authoritative a number of books that are not in this collection.

The reason Sola Scriptura is so "strong" is precisely its fragility. One instinctively understands that "one cannot witness to oneself", so the Bible cannot be the proof of its own validity. Something exterior to it, Holy Spirit inspired discerning, through the holos of the Church is what witnessed to which book would enter the "Books", the Bible. But because this is so self-evident, for one to hold to this belief, one has to do it with all the strength of an intellect or emotion that refuses to acknowledge one fundamental information.

Once one understands that the Scriptures are just the core written register of the Transmission of the Church, all these text-chip based analysis stop making sense.

The NT is about Jesus Christ and His salvific work. Period. It is not about the Virgin Mary, it is not about those special ministers of the Church, clergy among the royal clergy, iti is not about prayer to the departed saints, it is not about anything that was rather obvious and honestly transmitted orally. The Bible *does* acknowledge each of these subjects more or less clearly, but none is the central theme they are just touched upon.

In the case of using "father", the simple fact that St. Stephan, the most blessed and inspired of the deacons, uses "fathers" rather casually to refer even to non-Christian spiritual authorities just strengthens the case that the use of the word for spiritual ministers is not forbidden. Or was not he enlightened by the Holy Spirit when uttering those words that were to become Scripture? For in fact, according to Protestant interpretation, in that passage, through St. Stephan, the the Holy Spirit was blaspheming against the Father by disobeying the Son, and that to honour Christ-hating pharisees.

This the kind of contradiction that taking the Scripture out of its originating context - the Church - causes.

In Christ,
Fabio L. Leite

[Jonathan Hayward]

I can see this as a good argument in dealing with Orthodox and it may well be the right direction to argue. But how would you present it to Protestants?

I did not experience Sola Scriptura as fragile. I may have given it youthful rebellion, and maybe it is logical nonsense. Orthodox discuss it as manifestly absurd, but it never seemed that way to me even when I rebelled against Sola Scriptura or 66 books only.

Christos Jonathan

[Paul Cowan]

I can see this as a good argument in dealing with Orthodox and it may well be the right direction to argue. But how would you present it to Protestants?


Christos Jonathan

The first thing I get them to understand is who compiled the book they call the Bible. Believe it or not, many PC including myself when younger thought the NT was what was being taught in Jesus' day. When I realized there was a few hundred years between Jesus and the compilation of the books, I was dumbfounded. ANd to think that only the rich and elite were literate only brought home the fact that 99% of the populace could not have read it anyway. So; enter holy Tradition.

Once these two points are made, they either have way too much to now think about and walk away or start giving examples to prove themselves correct on specific versus. This is where we need to be able to know the whole scripture and not just proof texting. Even the devil used proof texting when he tempted Jesus in the desert. WE need to understand the fullness of scripture before getting into discussions with them. If they can get us to the point of saying "I don't know"; in their minds, they win. And we will not have another opportunity that is not jaded to reapproach the subject with them.

Watch your pearls

Paul

[Jonathan Hayward]

I was talking with a missionary once, who had worked in East Asia, and he talked about how, in his opinion, you couldn't reach Hindus and Buddhists until you understand why people would contentedly want to keep Hinduism or Buddhism as their home. He found reaching that understnading to be difficult, and said it took him several years.

Protecting the faithful may be one thing, but if you are going to reach people who have made ______ their home, you are really missing something if you present ______ as something ludicrous that not even its adherents could stomach.

This goes, not only for Orthodoxy, Protestantism, Hinduism, and Buddhism, but feminism and queer theory, for instance, or civil war re-enacting. If you're asking if it applies even to addictions, which are Hell, I would recall a friend whom I will hold anonymous who told a counselor how much trouble he was having breaking free of what he was addicted to, and the counselor said, "Maybe you don't want to stop ______." In other words, "There is something you are unwilling to leave in making this addiction your home." (Or, as the blessed Augustine put it: "Lord, give me chastity, but not yet.") Religions, cultures, virtues, vices, and other things can all become a home that people do not will to leave: hence the patristic view that God does not exactly literally send people to Hell; rather, Hell is what people have when they choose to experience Heaven through the only joy there is to be, namely Christ, and the gates of Hell are bolted and barred from the inside.

Maybe the faithful may need to be warned about problems with Protestantism, but you are making an error if you assume that Protestantism (or anything else held by people we try to reach) is this ugly, absolutely unappealing thing that its adherents need only the gentlest push to run away from. You make an even bigger mistake if you use this as the basis for apologetics and expect, with a few sharply worded comments, to assume Protestants will naturally agree with you that there is no way anyone could regard Protestantism as a comfortable home.

In apologetics, I am very cautious until I can understand why someone's "home", whatever it may be and even however painful it may be, would be regarded, and experienced, as home. You don't appeal to an eagle's fear of heights or pity a fish for being wet all the time, nor do you remind a Protestant that he finds Protestantism bizarre.

Christos Jonathan

P.S.

In An Orthodox Looks at a Calvinist Looking at Orthodoxy (http://jonathanscorner.com/calvinist/), I give a response to a Calvinist offering critiques of Orthodoxy (or, to put it less gently, kvetching) after getting a D.Min. at an Orthodox seminary. The underlying message--you got a D.Min at an Orthodox seminary and you still miss some very basic things about Orthodoxy--may really be more intended for onlookers than for the addressee himself, but it is meant to address some basic issues in Protestantism and understanding Orthodoxy.

There are some things it does not do, and prominent among the things I do not do is remind him that he finds his beliefs strange. It is pretty clear to me that he does not find his beliefs strange. It is alse clear to me that he finds our beliefs bizarre and inexplicable, and this perception of our beliefs provides the basic starting point for an explanation of why our beliefs are not bizarre and inexplicable.

His essay, which I quoted in full, falls pretty flat because it tries to remind Orthodox how bizarre their worldview seems even to them. I tried to respond without "reminding" him that he finds his beliefs strange.

[Jonathan Hayward]

When I realized there was a few hundred years between Jesus and the compilation of the books, I was dumbfounded.
Um, I'd rather say that the New Testament "autographs" (first manuscripts) date to the first century, partial manuscripts available today were available by the second century and possibly the first, and the Church Council ratifying the canon and not starting it occured by 325. (Irenaeos in the 100's was said to be the first theologian working with an OT+NT Bible as we would understand it.) To say that a few hundred years passed is more years off than saying that the New Testament was available in the times it narrates.

Christos Jonathan

[Paul Cowan]

Um, I'd rather say that the New Testament "autographs" (first manuscripts) date to the first century, partial manuscripts available today were available by the second century and possibly the first, and the Church Council ratifying the canon and not starting it occured by 325. (Irenaeos in the 100's was said to be the first theologian working with an OT+NT Bible as we would understand it.) To say that a few hundred years passed is more years off than saying that the New Testament was available in the times it narrates.

Christos Jonathan

Yes, you are right of course. I was speaking more of the completed book as a whole, not just an epistle here and there. I think it was St. Luke who kept a copy of St. Matthew's gospel with him. So yes, they were availbale that far back, but for a person "of the day" to say turn to, say, Jude chapter X, did not happen for a few hundred years after the church decided which books were to be canonical and then bound together. Mass distribution did not happen for a long time even after this since thr printing press was not yet invented.

Paul

[Jonathan Hayward]

Yes, you are right of course. I was speaking more of the completed book as a whole, not just an epistle here and there. I think it was St. Luke who kept a copy of St. Matthew's gospel with him. So yes, they were availbale that far back, but for a person "of the day" to say turn to, say, Jude chapter X, did not happen for a few hundred years after the church decided which books were to be canonical and then bound together. Mass distribution did not happen for a long time even after this since thr printing press was not yet invented.

Paul
I wonder if I've had an itchy trigger finger; I expected "compilation of the books" to mean "compilation of the books of the Bible" instead of "compilation of the anthology/collection".

Part of why I wrote--questionably and in this case ironically--is that I have a particular concern for accuracy when it comes to apologetics.

Overstatements and mischaracterizations leave a Protestant in a position to think our message has been discredited when someone of an opposing view rebuts an overgeneralization. For instance, the Reformation has been painted as intertwined with occult forces, and Melanchthon, who partly "finalized" Luther as Beza "finalized" Calvin, has been reported to have been a bit of an occult figure. And the more liberal you go among Protestants today, the more porous the distinction is between "Christianity" and New Age.

But conservative Protestantism is staunchly low on occult sin, even if there may not be any group with no occult sin whatsoever. I haven't heard this issue brought up as far as apologetics go, but saying the Reformation intermingled with occult currents is a statement that can be backed up; saying that liberal Protestantism is intermingled with the occult is a statement that either can be backed up or does not need to be backed up; saying that Protestantism, period, is occult takes on a needless difficulty and would make us look discredited when someone points out that conservative Protestantism is quite pure of occult sin.

And that is not a generalization I've heard, but it is something of a dubious parable for something I'm concerned about: sweeping generalizations which may portray Protestantism as something its adherents find bizarre and which take on liabilities when someone clarifies that Protestantism makes perfect sense from the inside.

And this is an ironic point for me to make after misreading you...

But it was simmering, and I appreciate your gentle reply.

Christos Jonathan

[Paul Cowan]

Misunderstandings abound when we can't see or hear others. AND, we each have our circles of influence or maybe network of acquaintances is a better word that we all travel in. There are people like me, then there are smart people, then there are the "professionals" ie clergy and we all talk in a way that makes sence to us and to those we interact with.

When I read your post Jonathan, I said to myself, Beza Who? Melanchtwhat? so much of my participation and understanding is much lower and consequently my network of people I interact with is also much lower than other esteemed folk on this forum.

So I guess what I am saying, is accuracy is ideal, but getting the point across is more important in most regards, but not all of course where accuracy then overshadows all. Unless the other person is just totally lost like I am feeling at the moment and then just to show love to the other person I think outweighs who is right and who needs to buy the field next to mine where I found the most valuable treasure.

That said, I am still somewhat confused on the whole Father father reverend pastor priest rabbi thingy.

Paul

[Herman Blaydoe]

If you don't want to be convinced, you won't be. Our words will not change hearts or minds, that is the job of the Holy Spirit. If a Protestant does not want to believe what we say, he won't. One can always find a way around an inconvenient truth if one tries hard enough.

You answer the question as best you can. As the Apostle Paul tells us, you stand ready to defend the hope that is in you. You plant the seed. You sow and mayhaps, the Holy Spirit willing, another reaps.

If we are looking for the ultimate logical or irrefutable explanation suitable for all occasions and all Protestants, good hunting, and if you come across a snipe or two along the way, cook one up for me.

Herman the Pooh who likes his snipes with hunny

[Jonathan Hayward]

If you don't want to be convinced, you won't be. Our words will not change hearts or minds, that is the job of the Holy Spirit. If a Protestant does not want to believe what we say, he won't. One can always find a way around an inconvenient truth if one tries hard enough.

You answer the question as best you can. As the Apostle Paul tells us, you stand ready to defend the hope that is in you. You plant the seed. You sow and mayhaps, the Holy Spirit willing, another reaps.

If we are looking for the ultimate logical or irrefutable explanation suitable for all occasions and all Protestants, good hunting, and if you come across a snipe or two along the way, cook one up for me.

Herman the Pooh who likes his snipes with hunny
That is probably the best we can do.

Christos Jonathan

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Jonathan, you wrote:


Um, I'd rather say that the New Testament "autographs" (first manuscripts) date to the first century, partial manuscripts available today were available by the second century and possibly the first, and the Church Council ratifying the canon and not starting it occured by 325. (Irenaeos in the 100's was said to be the first theologian working with an OT+NT Bible as we would understand it.) To say that a few hundred years passed is more years off than saying that the New Testament was available in the times it narrates.

This is partially correct, partially incorrect.

Firstly, the autographs were of course written in the first century, which was the century spanning the lifetimes of all its various authors (St John living right to its close). It is also true that these autographs, together with copies, circulated widely. However, this was far from universally; and in any case, the light in which they were viewed (e.g. when compared with the Scriptures [the Septuagint] and other writings of the period) was extremely varied.

Secondly, St Irenaeus did not work with an OT+NT bible as conceived today. He worked with the Septuagint, which was for him 'the Scriptures', as well as the writings of the evangelists and various epistles and other texts. He is the first to delineate a 'closed canon', but of Gospels only: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John -- but that is the extent to which he delineates any of the 'new writings' (i.e. Christian documents) as formally enshrined in a set collection (and this is primarily because he wishes to cut off the influence of the growing number of 'new Gospels' being written by the Valentinians and others). Elsewhere he is extremely fluid with which texts he views as having authority equal to the Scriptures (=LXX), which include many of the epistles in our NT, the Apocalypse, but also the epistles of Clement and Ignatius, the Shepherd of Hermas, etc.

Thirdly, the council of 325 (i.e. Nicaea) was not really concerned with the matter of authoritatively ratifying scriptural collections - so I am not sure where this assertion comes from. The first major conciliar considerations of the question came in 393 in Hippo, then in 397 and 419 in Carthage. Both of these confirm as authoritative a collection of 27 books which St Athanasius had already referred to as 'canonised' (i.e. made the standard of measure) in a Paschal epistle to his flock in AD 393. (As an aside, Origen in the early third century had also made mention to the principal new books read by Christians, as this listing of 27.)

That said, one must stand back and ask broader questions than just of dates. It is clear (and profoundly obvious) that the books contained in our NT were written in the first century, and also that they were in circulation and read. But this is quite different from saying that a 'New Testament' existed then. The NT is not simply the existence of a given set of literature: it is the very concept that Christians possess a set collection of defined, delineated literature that is its source of documentary testimony and authority. This simply does not exist at all in the first two centuries; and in the third is sporadic, and itself fluid. It is only really in the fourth that anything approximating a New Testament, in the full sense of its meaning, comes to have real existence and bearing on Christian life.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[L. Allen]

Dear Jonathan, you wrote:



This is partially correct, partially incorrect.

Firstly, the autographs were of course written in the first century, which was the century spanning the lifetimes of all its various authors (St John living right to its close). It is also true that these autographs, together with copies, circulated widely. However, this was far from universally; and in any case, the light in which they were viewed (e.g. when compared with the Scriptures [the Septuagint] and other writings of the period) was extremely varied.

Secondly, St Irenaeus did not work with an OT+NT bible as conceived today. He worked with the Septuagint, which was for him 'the Scriptures', as well as the writings of the evangelists and various epistles and other texts. He is the first to delineate a 'closed canon', but of Gospels only: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John -- but that is the extent to which he delineates any of the 'new writings' (i.e. Christian documents) as formally enshrined in a set collection (and this is primarily because he wishes to cut off the influence of the growing number of 'new Gospels' being written by the Valentinians and others). Elsewhere he is extremely fluid with which texts he views as having authority equal to the Scriptures (=LXX), which include many of the epistles in our NT, the Apocalypse, but also the epistles of Clement and Ignatius, the Shepherd of Hermas, etc.

Thirdly, the council of 325 (i.e. Nicaea) was not really concerned with the matter of authoritatively ratifying scriptural collections - so I am not sure where this assertion comes from. The first major conciliar considerations of the question came in 393 in Hippo, then in 397 and 419 in Carthage. Both of these confirm as authoritative a collection of 27 books which St Athanasius had already referred to as 'canonised' (i.e. made the standard of measure) in a Paschal epistle to his flock in AD 393. (As an aside, Origen in the early third century had also made mention to the principal new books read by Christians, as this listing of 27.)

That said, one must stand back and ask broader questions than just of dates. It is clear (and profoundly obvious) that the books contained in our NT were written in the first century, and also that they were in circulation and read. But this is quite different from saying that a 'New Testament' existed then. The NT is not simply the existence of a given set of literature: it is the very concept that Christians possess a set collection of defined, delineated literature that is its source of documentary testimony and authority. This simply does not exist at all in the first two centuries; and in the third is sporadic, and itself fluid. It is only really in the fourth that anything approximating a New Testament, in the full sense of its meaning, comes to have real existence and bearing on Christian life.

INXC, Dcn Matthew


This is maybe a very minor point, but it is worth thinking about what these texts we now call the 'New Testament' looked like. If a text is made up of, say, six separate scrolls or maybe four books, then we will inevitably see and think about it in a different way from the way in which we'd see a single codex. It seems to me that this is relevant when we talk about The New Testament as an entity, because although the content may have changed little, the presentation has changed a great deal.

For my tuppence worth, I think Christ's words warn against constructing one's identity as a faithful person in terms of blood kinship links, as a member of the OT 'tribe of Israel'. The blood of Christ's sacrifice makes us all part of one kinship, and faith is therefore not defined in terms of the race to which we belong. Calling a priest father' is a recognition of this wider spiritual kinship, since we do not suggest by doing so that our relationship to a priest is in any way exclusive or proof of our superior faith. I don't think it contradicts Christ's words at all, as long as it is not done out of pride.

[Benjamin Amis]

Conciliar Press has a wonderful little pamphlet out that's simply titled "Call No Man Father" that addresses this issue quite well. It essentially says that Christ is speaking out against the use of titles by the Jewish religious leaders to force their opinions and laws upon the people. Essentially saying, "Do not bow to these people for their titles, but recognize your religious leaders if they are righteous people." Essentially restating that God is the first authority, and that the Rabbis of first century Judaism were unworthy of their titles, being corrupt.

It's a really good pamphlet in a set of really good pamphlets that Conciliar has put out (there are some that I don't particularly care for, but most of them have been quite helpful in my coming to Orthodoxy). They're all written by different people, including Heirmonk (now Metropolitan) Jonah and Metropolitan Kallistos Ware.

And sorry if this was already brought up...I only skimmed the thread. heh.

[Cyprian (Humphrey)]

A lot of good points brought up. Especially about recognizing real righteousness in religious leaders rather than just being in awe of titles.

It reminds me that all of Christ's condemnations of the Pharisees can (if we're not careful!) be rather easily applied to Orthodox monastics. The thought gives me pause.

Your mileage may vary.

[Mary]

It reminds me that all of Christ's condemnations of the Pharisees can (if we're not careful!) be rather easily applied to Orthodox monastics. The thought gives me pause.

Your mileage may vary.

Not just to monastics. To all of us. We're the ones who have all the Traditions, and work hard to hold on to them, and teach them to the children. It is very easy to turn our Christian lives into a mechanical observation of the Traditions, and lose sight of the fact that the purpose of the Traditions is to draw us closer to Christ, and not to just give us something to do, till our time on earth is over.

in Christ,
Mary.

[Grace Singh]

I ran across a very good explication of this by an RC bishop on Jesus' use of hyperbole to make a point. There are, of course, numerous examples of this. Am I to literally hate my parents?

well again, it's a matter of context. the verse about hating parents is found within the context of "the cost of discipleship". it takes a lot to follow Christ, and we are to love Him above all else, even more than family.

the issue of the term "Father" for a priest or elder in the church is one i truly do grapple with. the Catholic term "Holy Father" to refer to the Pontiff strikes me as absurdly honorable, and excessive, and this is an aversion i carry over to the title in general.

the context of Christ's words in Matthew 23 relates back to the Pharisees, their titles, and their hypocricy. so Christ does seem to be speaking about titles to be used respectfully (or not used, rather) by Christians in reference to one another within the Church.

another poster here mentioned Paul writing about "teachers" in his Epistles, but it could be argued that this refers to a description of that person's activity (as a teacher of the Gospel), and not to a respectful title (as in "Teacher Barnabas").

does anyone know how long the title has been used by Christians, how soon after the Apostles this term was used? i know it's a very ancient title of respect, but i'm wondering when it came into common usage.

[Mary]

the issue of the term "Father" for a priest or elder in the church is one i truly do grapple with. the Catholic term "Holy Father" to refer to the Pontiff strikes me as absurdly honorable, and excessive, and this is an aversion i carry over to the title in general.

the context of Christ's words in Matthew 23 relates back to the Pharisees, their titles, and their hypocricy. so Christ does seem to be speaking about titles to be used respectfully (or not used, rather) by Christians in reference to one another within the Church.

I used to have an aversion for the title of 'Father' too. When I was protestant. But I see it differently now. It isn't a 'title' in the same way as titles are used in the world. It is a word of love. We love our priests. They pray for us every day. They know us by name. They listen to our every confession, and their hearts grieve for us. They bear a great burden - the salvation of our souls. God will call them to account one day, because they have been given charge of His sheep and lambs. It's not easy to be a priest. The expectations placed on them are high. They have to set aside their own personal needs to be there for us at any time. I don't know how they do it.

I am glad I can call them 'father'. With one simple word, I can show them honor and respect, and also gratitude and love. Of course, when there isn't such a good relationship, then it turns into just an empty title. And that is sad.

mary

[Herman Blaydoe]

the context of Christ's words in Matthew 23 relates back to the Pharisees, their titles, and their hypocricy. so Christ does seem to be speaking about titles to be used respectfully (or not used, rather) by Christians in reference to one another within the Church.

Perhaps not so much. Our Lord was specifically talking about them calling Abraham their father, He is pointing out to them that simply being a descendent of Abraham does not save. God is our true Father, the Father of us all, not Abraham, therefore we should call no man "Father" in the way God is our Father. We are not to count on our inheritance from any human father, but only on God.


does anyone know how long the title has been used by Christians, how soon after the Apostles this term was used? i know it's a very ancient title of respect, but i'm wondering when it came into common usage.

"For though you might have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet you do not have many fathers; for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel." (1 Corinthians 4:15) Reads to me that St. Paul is referring to himself as a "father".

[Grace Singh]

"For though you might have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet you do not have many fathers; for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel." (1 Corinthians 4:15) Reads to me that St. Paul is referring to himself as a "father".

that's possible, from what i've read the earliest titles in use were πρεσβύτερος, ἐπίσκοπος and ἱερεύς.

historically, and as a title within the Church, do we know when, thereabouts, the title "father" came about?

[Father David Moser]

that's possible, from what i've read the earliest titles in use were πρεσβύτερος, ἐπίσκοπος and ἱερεύς.

historically, and as a title within the Church, do we know when, thereabouts, the title "father" came about?

Technically, "Father" is not a title within the Church. Although we use the term "father" to refer to members of the clergy informally, none of us were ordained "Father" but we were all ordained either as bishops (episcopos), others priests (presbyter) and others deacons. "Father" is an informal title.

In formal church situations - for example when I receive the Holy Mysteries - I am not addressed as "Father David" but rather as "Archpriest David" which is my actual title. In the third person, I might be referred to as the "Very Reverend David" or some variation on that - but the "Father" is only an informal term of endearment and respect given to one who has been vouchsafed the grace of ordination by his flock and others in the Church.

Thus, since this is an informal title, you will find only passing references (such as that in Corinthians) to its use.

Fr David Moser
(btw this is the only forum in which I regularly sign myself as Fr David and that is because of the closeness of those in the community - other places I tend to sign myself as "ArchPr David" or some variation on that theme)

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

This too is my experience. For many years now I have been a monk. This was my first identity within the church after being received as one of the faithful ( which is how we think of it: the Church is made up of the faithful; deacons; priests; bishops). Then I was ordained and I was a deacon and then a priest. In each of these I found my real identity within the Church. When I think of me even before my parents who are not Orthodox I think of monk/priest Raphael.

But I was referred to as Father since I was a monk; and now as a priest I am either Father to my people or Batushka (the Russian- it means 'little father' and is a term of endearment). This to me is who I really am to my people, to those whom I am closest to (even my next door non-Orthodox neighbours call me Father). So this also is who I am and thus rarely use my official award rank as a title- although I personally also deeply appreciate the title since to me it basically designates the Church's recognition of your having struggled in the arena for a certain period of time.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Grace Singh]

Fathers David and Raphael ~

that is really interesting, thank you. so it's more of a respectful, traditional address than an actual title or rank. that helps, and makes more sense.

[Anna Stickles]

Even before I became Orthodox I was used to calling the pastors of my church "Pastor so and so" rather then simply using their first name. For me this was an expression of appreciation for who they were and the work they did in relation to the rest of us in the congregation. If Christ was speaking against titles in general this should also be dropped, since Christ is our Shepherd. But we don't do that and I don't see any real difference between the use of the term 'pastor' and 'father'.

In Orthodoxy, because of the much closer relationship of the priest with his flock in giving spiritual direction and really helping Christ to be born in us, it has seemed quite appropriate to me to use the more intimate term father.

As far as official titles go archpriest or igumen isn't so bad, but I admit to having problems with titles like "the very reverend..." It has always seemed somewhat ostentatious to me.

[Olga]

As far as official titles go archpriest or igumen isn't so bad, but I admit to having problems with titles like "the very reverend..." It has always seemed somewhat ostentatious to me.

Probably no more ostentatious than Your Worship used for various public officials. :)

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear all,

To respond to Grace's question above: 'Father' as a term of respect for those holding the clerical ranks dates to at least the second century, though probably also to the first (see the scriptural reference offered by Herman). It is certainly widespread in the early second.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[Father David Moser]

Something else to consider in this discussion of whether it is appropriate to call the priest "father" or if that is in opposition to the Gospel. Many people who make the argument that one should not call the priest "father" do not have any problem using the titles "Mr." or "Sir" and yet those are simply words for "master" and "lord". The same gospel injunction about "call no man father" also directs us to call no man master or lord and yet we do this frequently with no problem. This at least demonstrates that one cannot generally take a "literal" application of the scripture at this point, but must interpret it correctly.

Fr David Moser

[Father David Moser]

As far as official titles go archpriest or igumen isn't so bad, but I admit to having problems with titles like "the very reverend..." It has always seemed somewhat ostentatious to me.

Or ... the "very most reverend" - not only could it be considered ostentatious, but it is bad English to boot.

Fr David Moser (who favors the terms "extremely reverend" or "surpassingly reverend")

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Fr David Moser (who favors the terms "extremely reverend" or "surpassingly reverend")

I remember going through the archives at St Tikhon's monastery and finding a letter addressed to Abp Kyprian:

Ego Preosviaschenstvo Archiepiskop Kyprian
this was all nicely hand written in western characters and took more than a line of the small envelope that it was written on

I often wondered what the post man thought as he delivered this.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Cyprian (Humphrey)]

The same gospel injunction about "call no man father" also directs us to call no man master or lord and yet we do this frequently with no problem.

Also, it's interesting to note that, at least in Canada and the UK, the proper form of address for a higher court judge is "My Lord" (often abbreviated as "M'Lord") rather than "Your Honour".

I'm not 100% sure about Australia and other Commonwealth countries.

[John Sennett]

I know this is a little out of context for this particular thread, but I did not want to start a new thread for such a simple question. How does one address a Bishop-Elect?

[Father David Moser]

I know this is a little out of context for this particular thread, but I did not want to start a new thread for such a simple question. How does one address a Bishop-Elect?

You would address him by his current proper title - if he is an Archimandrite then "Father" .

[Grace Singh]

friends, if it hasn't been mentioned already, there is another Biblical verse refering to older men (of not bishops) in the early Church as "father" : 1 John 2:12-14.

is this indeed what the verse refers to?

[Anna Stickles]

friends, if it hasn't been mentioned already, there is another Biblical verse refering to older men (of not bishops) in the early Church as "father" : 1 John 2:12-14.

is this indeed what the verse refers to?

It has seemed to me that this refers to the stages of our spiritual growth. Children in Christ are learning to receive forgiveness and mercy from God and learning to trust him. Young men/women are engaged more directly in spiritual warfare - battling the passions and Satan, and the fathers are those who have fully matured in their faith and know God and walk and talk with Him.

[Grace Singh]

It has seemed to me that this refers to the stages of our spiritual growth. Children in Christ are learning to receive forgiveness and mercy from God and learning to trust him. Young men/women are engaged more directly in spiritual warfare - battling the passions and Satan, and the fathers are those who have fully matured in their faith and know God and walk and talk with Him.

perhaps, yet John also refers to the "fathers" as those who have known "Him who is from the beginning" meaning, i take it, Christ. would this imply seniority and age, as those "little children" would be younger, and not old enough to have witnessed Christ's ministry?

[Anna Stickles]

perhaps, yet John also refers to the "fathers" as those who have known "Him who is from the beginning" meaning, i take it, Christ. would this imply seniority and age, as those "little children" would be younger, and not old enough to have witnessed Christ's ministry?

There is a consistent theme in patristic literature that we must grow up in Christ and I believe here that St John is talking about spiritual maturity.
This is for all times in the Church, not just for the Apostles who saw Christ before his death. When we read the lives of the saints, then we see that they have a relationship with God that is conscious and intimate in a way that we who are not there yet cannot really understand. Whether we reach it before we die, or not till after, this conscious communion with God is the goal for all of us, for this is what God made man for in the first place, and this is what spiritual maturity consists of.

The Fathers know God as Adam knew God in the garden, as the Apostles knew God after the resurrection, this is what Christ promised them - "Now we know in part, then we shall no fully, even as we are fully known.", "it is no longer I who live but Christ who lives in me" "For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God,"

When we talk about the fact that this forum is dedicated to discussion of the teaching of the Church Fathers, this is the Fathers we are talking about, not simply those who have been ordained as priests, but rather those who have died with Christ and been raised with Him and regained in some degree an intimacy of communion with God that enables them to speak more accurately about the things of God.

[Angelos]

Many Protestants claim that when Catholics and Orthodox address priests as "father," they are engaging in an unbiblical practice that Jesus forbade: "Call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven" (Matt. 23:9).

The New Testament is filled with examples of and references to spiritual father-son and father-child relationships.

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, Catholics and Orthodox 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 and Orthodox 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).

All of these passages were written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and they express the infallibly recorded truth that Christ’s ministers do have a role as spiritual fathers. Jesus is not against acknowledging that. It is he who gave these men their role as spiritual fathers, and it is his Holy Spirit who recorded this role for us in the pages of Scripture. To acknowledge spiritual fatherhood is to acknowledge the truth.