Why are Catholic priests called "father"?

[Tangible]

In those minds that wish to see it.

The scriptural basis for the non-existence of Original Sin is also well-established in those minds that do not.

I myself do not see it in Scripture at all. Nor do I see baptism in Scripture presented as the solution to original sin in babies.

I see these things as unrevealed and vain disputations of men.

Paul said "All have sinned." And that is not true. Babies have not sinned. Unborn ones above all.

Romans 5
Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned— for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.

But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. And the free gift is not like the result of that one man's sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. For if, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.

Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous. Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

 

[HeLeadethMe]

Bless all.....hope I'm not repeating what somebody else said, I haven't been able to keep up with everything. Just want to say that Jesus wasn't talking about family relationships, so what He said doesn't apply to our families.....it applies to ekklesia/church relationships. So feel free to call our earthly fathers, father, Dad, Abba, or Papa......as long as we don't love them or any family member more than the Lord.

Where He said in those passages, to call nobody by these titles.....He said it is because we are all brethren. So from that we glean that all are equal and serve in whatever capacity we are called to in simplicity and as servants to all, as Jesus also said, rather than as superiors. Also where He said to call nobody on earth Father, He said it is because we have one Father who is in heaven. From that I believe we are to glean that nobody on earth is to replace or come between us and the heavenly Father. I believe we can consider these things to be hyperbole but only up to a point. Example, to call nobody on earth Teacher, of course it also says elsewhere in scripture that some are teachers.........and call nobody Father, yet it says we have not many fathers (in the faith)........but in general avoid Titles, either feeling obligated to call anybody by a Title, nor should anyone make anybody obligated to........going by these scriptures, that's what it seems to be saying........why, because it can easily cause us to stumble and miss the mark.......one way or the other.

 

[Mountainmike]

I am aware of what lutherans think,
It does not make it so.

Taking one father - tell me - where in irenaus is sola scriptura? since he did not have NT , only what John the apostle handed down to him and polycarp. Sola scriptura in the context of NT would be alien to him.

Stay true to tradition said apostle Paul.

Later - the collection of inspired writings, covered some of tradition, and tradition defined the meaning of much of the rest. And that is where my gripe is with sola scriptura adherents. You cannot divorce scripture and meaning or choose any meaning consistent with the words,

You continue - and wrongly think that tradition is separate, or lower or optional.

And as for Lutheran confession - a manmade tradition from mediaeval times, compared to binding and loosing, which is the teaching authority of magisterium - no contest. One is divinely appointed, the other is not.

And if scripture was enough, why do you need a confession to interpret it?

We will not agree.

And this hijacks the thread.

So peace be with you. I do not doubt for a minute that lutherans are Christian , and good Christians many, I cannot agree.with some of their dogma.

Lutherans were the first to formally confess sola scriptura, even though the principle of sola scriptura is found all over the writings of the early fathers.

Perhaps you are confusing sola scriptura with a later development from the Radical Reformation commonly known as "solo scriptura". You might want to use google to explore the significant differences.

Oh, Lutherans like it very well. Truths like the principal behind the correct understanding of sola scriptura exist independent of our recognition of them, and, as you say above, whether anyone likes them or not.

I'm assuming you mean the NT scriptures. First, Scripture IS Tradition, at least that's what the other Roman Catholics here have said. Secondly, just like Truth, the inspired scriptures were written by the Holy Spirit through godly men. These writings were circulated among the ancient churches and recognized as Holy Scripture long before any church councils codified and canonized them as such. Their status as Scripture exists independently of the Church's imprimatur by the word of God.

In your opinion.
Congrats, you just contradicted yourself. "Tradition came first. Scripture was later."

The Lutheran Confessions not only are a correct exposition of Holy Scripture, but the doctrines contained in them can be amply demonstrated to have been present in the writings of the doctors of the Church since ancient times. There are no novel doctrines, though perhaps there are developments in how they are expressed.

There is always a personal element in trusting the interpretation of scripture that a person embraces. Just as I have personally chosen to trust the interpretation of the scriptures taught and explained in the Lutheran Confessions, so also you have personally chosen to trust the interpretation of the scriptures taught and explained by the Magisterium.

 

[Albion]

I am aware of what lutherans think,
It does not make it so.

Taking one father - tell me - where in irenaus is sola scriptura? since he did not have NT , only what John the apostle handed down to him and polycarp. Sola scriptura in the context of NT would be alien to him.

A number of the Fathers cited Scripture when making a doctrinal declaration. So does the Nicene Creed. I am not aware of any early church leader who even mentioned "Holy Tradition." Sola Scriptura it is, then.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

A number of the Fathers cited Scripture when making a doctrinal declaration. So does the Nicene Creed. I am not aware of any early church leader who even mentioned "Holy Tradition." Sola Scriptura it is, then.

Do Saint Iraneaus and Saint Basil the great count? Sola Scriptura as a formal principle is not established in the patristics simply because the individual appeals to the reliability of scripture or it's authority (I do that as well when necessary) but more so due to a specific attitude regarding the ability to perceive what scripture says and that perception is what trumps all other authorities, tradition, people around you, etc. The Church fathers operated in a world where sola scriptura would make little sense, since it was only the educated and a small part of the Church which had access to the bible (the resources to print and study it).

 

[ViaCrucis]

No man, no matter what title you give them, can forgive any other human from their sins or their own.

John 20:23

You're right that no human can, by their own power or authority, forgive sins. But Christ specifically gave His apostles this commission; but neither they nor their successors forgive by their own power or authority but in the name and stead of Jesus Christ our Lord.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Albion]

Do Saint Iraneaus and Saint Basil the great count?

Well, Ignatius would, but Basil is much too late--over three centuries after the start of the Church.

Sola Scriptura as a formal principle is not established in the patristics simply because the individual appeals to the reliability of scripture or it's authority (I do that as well when necessary) but more so due to a specific attitude regarding the ability to perceive what scripture says and that perception is what trumps all other authorities, tradition, people around you, etc. The Church fathers operated in a world where sola scriptura would make little sense, since it was only the educated and a small part of the Church which had access to the bible (the resources to print and study it).

But the Fathers DID refer to Scripture when arguing for the true faith or the validity of some teaching or other.

 

[Original Happy Camper]

Read this entire thread and have not found an answer as to why RCC priests are called father. Is there a reason or is it just tradition?

 

[ViaCrucis]

Read this entire thread and have not found an answer as to why RCC priests are called father. Is there a reason or is it just tradition?

It's been addressed:

1) It's not unique to the RCC, but is nearly universal in Christianity.
2) It is a term of endearment, not a title or rank.
3) It has antecedent in Scripture,

"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 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)

St. Paul calls himself a spiritual father by referring to Timothy, Titus, and Onesimus as his son/child; and directly calls himself a father to Onesimus.

And also,

"For though you might have ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers. Indeed, in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel." - 1 Corinthians 4:15-16

Thus we have a father/child dynamic in Paul's relation to his disciples as well as to congregations as a whole.

Thus a pastor being regarded as a father in a spiritual sense--as one who protects, loves, and serves the faithful--goes all the way back to the apostles, and has been standard and normative in Christian thinking throughout the last two thousand years.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[GingerBeer]

Isn't this a contradiction of what Jesus states in Matthew?

I wonder ... Paul wrote "For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel." 1Cor 4:15. How quickly he forgot what Jesus said, right? Or maybe what Jesus said does not mean exactly what you say it means?

 

[Mountainmike]

A number of the Fathers cited Scripture when making a doctrinal declaration. So does the Nicene Creed. I am not aware of any early church leader who even mentioned "Holy Tradition." Sola Scriptura it is, then.

Paul himself said:

" stay true to tradition we taught you "

Why?

Because paradosis - handing down of faith
( translated as tradition but wholly misunderstood by evangelicals because of the contemporary usage of that word )

WAS the means Jesus gave to pass on the word, he didn't give us a book a - New Testament - nor did he ask apostles to write, most did not, he gave us apostles with the power to " bind and loose "doctrine, and hand the faith down. Handing faith down is the meaning of the word tradition.

That's why scripture says " the foundation of truth is the church"( it does not say scripture), and it says " how can they teach if they are not sent?" Because that was the process Jesus gave us.

Indeed, the canon of the New Testament - was a later by product of the church, the church acting as divinely inspired councils much later.

Sola scriptura adherents do not understand the early church or history of the bible or they would not hold that dogma - indeed sola scriptura IS a mediaeval man made tradition, as are the "confessions" that substitute divine authority with man made authority of the reformationists.

Sola scriptura is easily disproved, logically and historically. Where in the bible does it say it has to be there to be truth?

I suggest you study history.

And discover that the fathers and council who chose your New Testament, had views wholly opposing reformationists. Some vociferous in intercession of Mary, others using the entire chain of popes as proof of authority for a doctrine, such as Augustine, because successors of Peter were given the power to bind and loose, which is why Augustine quotes them and ONLY them in some doctrinal discourse.

Anyway this is way off topic, so let others come back to discussing the false use of " call no man father" as a poor and illinformed attempt to undermine Catholicism.

 

[Alithis]

. Where in the bible does it say it has to be there to be truth?

Look at this cunning little sentance snuck in the middle of a longer post...

Such reasoning is deviant to say the least...
It holdd to the same reasoning as the serpant in the garden.."did god reeealy say it" of course the oroblem with saying it doesnt have to be in the bible to be truth is they can go and make up any Fairy tale and title truth because they say so.
But truth can never contradict himself.
So if it does not agree with scripture its not truth at all.

Nice try but.

 

[Jeepneytravel]

Isn't this a contradiction of what Jesus states in Matthew?

Matthew 23:9

"And call no man your 'Father' upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven."

?

Definitely the Roman church does not follow Jesus teachings in many instances, and place themselves equal with God...as evidenced by the pope want to be known as "holy father'..that is total blasphemy.

 

[Mountainmike]

I notice you failed to challenge the post regarding the ACTUAL meaning of tradition, and method of passage of truth!

And your logic is faulty.

Nowhere did I say the truth could contradict scripture - The proviso is you understand scripture: and in this case - in the case of the OP - "do not call anyone father" is clearly hyperbole.

And the proviso of understanding scripture is accepting the authority on interpretation - the scriptural authority to bind interpretation clearly there given to the apostolic succession in councils, and separately to successors of Peter.
It is there in the OT world, Jesus acknowledges moses seat, as source of veracity.

Those who think since reformation they can make up any version (they think) consistent with scripture are the fathers of 10000 or even 100000 schisms. You cannot interpret without authority.

Nowhere does it say all truth given by Jesus and passed down from the apostles is in scripture. Indeed even the gospels say so: I remind you of John 21:25.

I can only suggest you study the history of scripture, how the new testament came to be, how truth was passed in the early church before there was a new testament. And the role of the catholic church acting through councils in taking those decisions.

Look at this cunning little sentance snuck in the middle of a longer post...

Such reasoning is deviant to say the least...
It holdd to the same reasoning as the serpant in the garden.."did god reeealy say it" of course the oroblem with saying it doesnt have to be in the bible to be truth is they can go and make up any Fairy tale and title truth because they say so.
But truth can never contradict himself.
So if it does not agree with scripture its not truth at all.

Nice try but.

 

[Albion]

Paul himself said:

" stay true to tradition we taught you "

I believe he said to hold fast to the traditions that the people he was addressing had known. The way you put it changes the meaning in several ways.

I suggest you study history.

The PhD isn't good enough, huh?

 

[Mountainmike]

I believe he said to hold fast to the traditions that the people he was addressing had known.

Hardly
"Traditions" doesnt mean what you think.
Which is why some versions translate that word as "teachings"
And from the previous verse in thessalonians we know he was speaking of the "truth"

People in this century need to get their heads round
1/ There were no books.
2/ Even if there had been most could not read.
3/ It was only in very recent history that the printing press reduced cost, and even more recently (last century) that most could afford to buy or own a bible.
4/ The canon was a moveable feast for centuries. The first (marcions) declared heretical. There were lots of books floating, only a few made it to the divine canon chosen by a catholic council, and only then, it was centuries on.
And so
5/ The "sola scriptura" bible christian is a very very recent phenomenon.

All teaching for most of christian history was tradition in its true meaning , that is "handing down of truth" primarily by "word of mouth"
The process of teaching was called "handing down" in ancient language the word "paradosis"
The problem is the more recent colloquial usage of "tradition" has clouded the meaning.

Anyway. Enough on this (at least for me)
Let others have a say.

 

[Albion]

Hardly
"Traditions" doesnt mean what you think.
Which is why some versions translate that word as "teachings"
And from the previous verse in thessalonians we know he was speaking of the "truth"

It looks to me that you've missed the point of all of this. That verse is referring to traditions or customs that those people had known before. It does not refer to any new doctrines that might be invented in the future, or refer to any particular traditions/customs that we might emulate ourselves, or identify which traditions those people should be holding onto themselves.

It cannot refer, therefore, to what the church decided to call--many years later-- Holy Tradition or Sacred Tradition.

And it certainly does not support the idea of a so-called Holy Tradition theory about a consensus of opinion in the church being as much a revelation from God as his holy word given in Scripture is.

It isn't spelled the same, and doesn't mean the same.

 

[kepha31]

Definitely the Roman church does not follow Jesus teachings in many instances, and place themselves equal with God...as evidenced by the pope want to be known as "holy father'..that is total blasphemy.

The writer of Hebrews calls the recipients of his epistle “holy brethren” (Heb 3:1). Peter refers to a “holy priesthood” (1 Pet 2:5) and “holy women” such as Sarah (1 Pet 3:5) and “holy prophets” (2 Pet 3:2; cf. Acts 3:21; Zechariah’s prophecy in Luke 1:70). John the Baptist is referred to as a “righteous and holy man” in Mark 6:20. Jesus refers to a “righteous man” in Matthew 10:41. Therefore, men can be called “holy” in Scripture. That solves half of this “pseudo-problem.” Can men also be called “father”? Of course they can:
Acts 7:2 (RSV) And Stephen said: “Brethren and fathers, hear me. The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham, . . .”

Romans 4:12 . . . the father of the circumcised . . . our father Abraham . . .

Romans 4:16-17 . . . Abraham, for he is the father of us all, as it is written, “I have made you the father of many nations . . .” (cf. 9:10; Phil 2:22; Jas 2:21)

1 Corinthians 4:15 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.

That solves the other half of the weak, insubstantial objection. If you can call a man “holy” and also (spiritual) “father”, then you can call a person both together (both being biblical), and the “problem” vanishes into thin air.

This betrays the usual fundamentalist inability to properly understand biblical language and its parameters.

 

[Halbhh]

John 20
Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I am sending you.” And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you withhold forgiveness from any, it is withheld.”

Just the right passage. More clear than the "bound" passage for this. Now....this looks to show that very specifically, in order for that forgiveness to be the real thing, that the pastor *must* have the holy spirit, and for instance immediately we might remember something like the 'fruits of the spirit' for example, which is similar to Christ's "by their fruits you will know them". But a more common problem that can happen, in my view (which is only trying to figure it out), is whether an almost anonymous mass confession is what it takes on the side of the congregant. I think likely not, except only if they are truly repenting in their heart.

 

[Mountainmike]

It refers to handing on what Jesus taught them. That is the problem. Your ( latter day) meaning for tradition is not what it meant then or to them.

The correct interpretation is amply evidenced by Paul himself. When it says " stay true to tradition we taught you by word of mouth and letter" and see what is in Pauls letters! Gospel truth handed on. And study the letters of the first generation after the apostles such as clement, iraneus, polycarp and so on.

That and verbal teaching is how truth was passed on, which is the meaning of paradosis, the canon would not be finalised till hundreds of years later

Sadly reformers and evangelicals totally miss the point.
The obsession with sola scriptura , manages to lose history, and worse, they impose modern day meanings for words which were not what they meant at the time.

It looks to me that you've missed the point of all of this. That verse is referring to traditions or customs that those people had known before. It does not refer to any new doctrines that might be invented in the future, or refer to any particular traditions/customs that we might emulate ourselves, or identify which traditions those people should be holding onto themselves.

It cannot refer, therefore, to what the church decided to call--many years later-- Holy Tradition or Sacred Tradition.

And it certainly does not support the idea of a so-called Holy Tradition theory about a consensus of opinion in the church being as much a revelation from God as his holy word given in Scripture is.

It isn't spelled the same, and doesn't mean the same.