Blog # 138 FATHER 3

Blog # 138 FATHER 3 In Blog # 136 I tried to show our Catholic theology and practice leaves no doubt about the fact we recognize and worship one God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Only God the single Creator of all other realities deserves our total unconditional love. Blog # 136 was to be a proclamation of the truth about how we as Catholics acknowledge and relate to God the unique Creator of all that exists. In Blog # 137 , in the light of Matthew 23:9 in which Jesus tells us not to call any man on earth father I wanted to recognize and respond to the problem our practice of referring to a priest as Father creates for many of our fellow Christians outside the Catholic Church. Blog # 136 was to show the practice if interpreted correctly and with good will is not in contradiction to our genuine total constant unconditional love of God. Blog # 137 goes further than merely justifying the practice with reason and common sense. Making reference to a man as father was done by holy men in the Bible, as in Romans 4: 11,12 the author refers to Abraham as the father of the uncircumcised as well as the circumcised, and as James in 2:21 asks "Was not our father Abraham justified by his works...? Though these references were made to someone living in the time before Jesus they were made in the references I have given by authors living in our time after Jesus and I think we can presume as authors of the written word of God in the Bible they were aware of what Jesus said about calling anyone on earth our father. Blog # 138 intends to take the Catholic practice further than its mere justification, in other words as merely something that is not sinful or not contrary to God's will. I want to identify the Catholic practice when properly understood as something with positive value, something that helps us rather than hinders us in our quest to discover and live out the Gospel message Jesus brought to earth for all people. The key to understanding and accomplishing this task is the fact we believe the supernatural gift of new birth spoken of by Jesus in His conversation with Nicodemus in Chapter 3 of John's Gospel is given to us individually in the Sacrament of Baptism. Secondly we believe that in a way similar to the way our natural biological fathers can be seen as instruments fulfilling God's plan for bringing natural life so the minister of the Sacrament of Baptism can be seen as an instrument fulfilling God's plan for bringing supernatural life. Thirdly an ordained priest is the ordinary minister of the Sacrament of Baptism. With these three considerations in mind and in the light of Paul's identifying himself as begetting those who came to believe in Jesus by faith through his preaching, we can imagine a custom growing up of referring to the ordinary minister of Baptism as father. I do not know of this practice ever being the object of a law in the Church as for example our laws on fasting and abstinence from meat on Fridays. In the practical order in a way a wedding ring can serve as a reminder of a person's permanent love and commitment to husband or wife so the practice of continuing to refer to all priests as fathers can serve to remind us of our faith and Baptismal sharing in the gift of new life in Jesus, certainly a blessing and a very valuable experience.

Blog # 137 FATHER 2

Blog # 137 FATHER 2 Our Catholic theology does not accept or believe in any competitor for God's glory. Our long standing custom of referring to an ordained priest as Father does not in the least put the priest in competition with the absolute worship we give to the Father in Heaven alone. Yet we do have to take Matthew 23: 9 into account. The King James version has it this way: "And call no man your father on earth; for one is your Father which is in heaven." On face value these words are certainly clear. On face value it would seem clear there is no need or even room for a question as to whether Catholics disobey the Bible in continuing our practice of referring to a priest as "Father" However in the context of the statement in Matthew, we would hardly be fair to ourselves and honest in our pursuit of the truth in the matter if we did not take note of the fact the text we are considering is immediately followed by the additional injunction of Jesus not to call anyone teacher. This seems to be commonly done without a qualm or the batting of an eye even by those who object to our practice . What is the difference? It seems to lie in the objection to our practice rather then in concern for literally carrying out the entire mandate of the Bible. Further, if what we do is wrong, the Bible itself is guilty of the same, and this cannot be true. In the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible) there are more than seven hundred references to the word father. Only ten of these are in reference to Yahweh ( God). In the New Testament there are more than three hundred and fifty references to the word father. Of these only two hundred and twenty-nine are in relation to God. The rest refer to men. Samples; Rom 4: 18; Acts 7: 2; 2: 29; 4: 25; Jame 2: 21. In the early ages of the Church, before and during the time the New Testament was being composed there was no problem. Nor was there a problem as the Church moved through the centuries until on the American scene fundamentalist preachers developed it into a major issue. It is not a Biblical problem among Scripture scholars, nor is it a problem in 0ther parts of the world where the American influence has not prevailed. Certainly the Catholic Church knows the words of the Gospel with regard to Jesus' statement. We know, however, as well, the meaning of the statement. Taken out of context we would no more have taken up the custom of calling the priest Father, let alone tolerate it for centuries than we would have taken up or tolerated a custom of stealing, telling lies, murder, abortion, or gay marriages. The true meaning and value of our custom begins to show in the light of 1 Cor 4: 14 - 17. "I am writing to you in this way not to shame you but to admonish you as my beloved children. Granted you have ten thousand guardians in Christ, you have only one father. It was I who begot you in Christ Jesus through my preaching of the Gospel...This is why I sent you Timothy, my beloved and faithful son in the Lord. For St. Paul, who explicitly in the Bible refers to himself as a father of believers, the use of the term father in reference to himself was a blessing rather than a wedge between himself and God.This is because for him and the first Christians it was a definite reminder and proclamation of the fact a Christian believer through faith and Baptism receives through Jesus a second birth into a new life, becoming children of God and heirs with Christ of eternal life. Our use of the term for the ordinary minister of Baptism is the same. Lack of knowledge, both of the meaning of Scripture in this instance, and in the meaning of our tradition and of the reasons we retain the tradition are the root of any problem a sincere Bible-reading person might have with it. It would apparently be easy to solve the problem by doing away with the custom. But this would seem to be similar to the 'problem' some of the people at the foot of the Cross brought to Jesus when they did not realize or understand the meaning of His suffering and said: "Come down from the Cross and we will believe!" He stayed.