Why are Catholic priests called "father"?

[Albion]

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.

Certainly. But that's necessary even if the practice were private confession in a confessional booth. The priest or minister in either case simply pronounces the absolution on behalf of God, trusting that the repentance shown by the person confessing his sins is sincere. What's in the penitent's heart is critical but is known only to God.

 

[Albion]

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!

That line doesn't identify any such traditions, and none of us nor any church is entitled merely to "pencil in" what seems likely.

That and verbal teaching is how truth was passed on, which is the meaning of paradosis.

You cannot pass on that which has not been made known to you! All that's being said in your post about this is that whatever the institutional church wants to make into doctrine at any time can be justified by the church pointing to the word "traditions" in the New Testament.

 

[Mountainmike]

As I keep repeating
You dont understand the word tradition.
Nothing to do with catholicism. All to do with ancient language
Paradosis παράδοσις

That line doesn't identify any such traditions, and none of us nor any church is entitled merely to "pencil in" what seems likely.


You cannot pass on that which has not been made known to you! All that's being said in your post about this is that whatever the institutional church wants to make into doctrine at any time can be justified by the church pointing to the word "traditions" in the New Testament.

 

[Albion]

Paul himself said:

" stay true to tradition we taught you "

Why?

Once again, it's traditions, not tradition. Traditions (for example, Christmas trees, using a seashell in baptism, and the kinds of vestments worn by the priest, are what they are by tradition.) They are good, but that doesn't mean that anyone is inventing doctrine by holding to such traditions. The verse in question could just as well be saying to be faithful in going to synagogue or something else like that.

see what is in Pauls letters! Gospel truth handed on.

If it's in Paul's letters, it's in the Bible! Therefore, there's no need to turn to any extra-Biblical or unscriptural information to find what Paul's saying.

 

[Tangible]

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.

Mostly agree.

We need to be careful, however, not to place too much of a burden on the Christian in order to receive absolution. Who is capable of total, perfect repentance? All of us fail to achieve complete contrition by one degree or another.

Repentance is a gift God graciously gives us. We need not be concerned about whose contrition is sincere enough. It is enough that they acknowledge that they are a sinner and that they have sinned.

The most important thing in confession and absolution is God's word of forgiveness to undeserving sinners for the sake of Christ alone "from the pastor as from God Himself, not doubting, but firmly believing that by it our sins are forgiven before God in heaven."

 

[kepha31]

Once again, it's traditions, not tradition. Traditions (for example, Christmas trees, using a seashell in baptism, and the kinds of vestments worn by the priest, are what they are by tradition.) They are good, but that doesn't mean that anyone is inventing doctrine by holding to such traditions. The verse in question could just as well be saying to be faithful in going to synagogue or something else like that.
If it's in Paul's letters, it's in the Bible! Therefore, there's no need to turn to any extra-Biblical or unscriptural information to find what Paul's saying.

It is IMPOSSIBLE to invent doctrines, with or without Tradition, unless you re-define what doctrine means. And re-defining what Tradition means is just as bad.

This is "Tradition" according to the 2000 year old usage of the term, which is contrary to the re-definitions that appear daily on this forum:

Catechism of the Catholic Church:
75 "Christ the Lord, in whom the entire Revelation of the most high God is summed up, commanded the apostles to preach the Gospel, which had been promised beforehand by the prophets, and which he fulfilled in his own person and promulgated with his own lips. In preaching the Gospel, they were to communicate the gifts of God to all men. This Gospel was to be the source of all saving truth and moral discipline."32
In the apostolic preaching. . .
76 In keeping with the Lord's command, the Gospel was handed on in two ways:
- orally "by the apostles who handed on, by the spoken word of their preaching, by the example they gave, by the institutions they established, what they themselves had received - whether from the lips of Christ, from his way of life and his works, or whether they had learned it at the prompting of the Holy Spirit";33
- in writing "by those apostles and other men associated with the apostles who, under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit, committed the message of salvation to writing".34
. . . continued in apostolic succession

77 "In order that the full and living Gospel might always be preserved in the Church the apostles left bishops as their successors. They gave them their own position of teaching authority."35 Indeed, "the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved in a continuous line of succession until the end of time."36

78 This living transmission, accomplished in the Holy Spirit, is called Tradition, since it is distinct from Sacred Scripture, though closely connected to it. Through Tradition, "the Church, in her doctrine, life and worship, perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes."37 "The sayings of the holy Fathers are a witness to the life-giving presence of this Tradition, showing how its riches are poured out in the practice and life of the Church, in her belief and her prayer."38
Catechism of the Catholic Church - The Transmission of Divine Revelation

Changing the meaning of "Tradition", which the sola scripturist is forced to do, is a straw man fallacy.

Before the canon of the Bible, the Christian Rule of Faith (TRADITION) included belief in the Apostolic succession through the Episcopate, the authority of Tradition itself, the authority of Scripture, the three fold ministry (bishop-priest-deacon), the Eucharist as Sacrifice , belief in baptismal regeneration, prayers for the dead, veneration of the Saints, the Seven sacraments, the evangelical counsels, and others. The historical evidence is there for anyone who wishes to see it.

 

[Tangible]

And re-defining what Tradition means is just as bad.

cough TRENT /cough

 

[Halbhh]

Mostly agree.

We need to be careful, however, not to place too much of a burden on the Christian in order to receive absolution. Who is capable of total, perfect repentance? All of us fail to achieve complete contrition by one degree or another.

Repentance is a gift God graciously gives us. We need not be concerned about whose contrition is sincere enough. It is enough that they acknowledge that they are a sinner and that they have sinned.

The most important thing in confession and absolution is God's word of forgiveness to undeserving sinners for the sake of Christ alone "from the pastor as from God Himself, not doubting, but firmly believing that by it our sins are forgiven before God in heaven."

I bet we agree on 99% of things, but....since you asked (yes, rhetorically, but...) "Who is capable of total, perfect repentance?"

The answer to that is, you, me and anyone when they humble themselves. It's simply about whether you are sincere, or not. Does the person actually want to leave that sin behind, or actually know, even in that moment, that they actually want to continue it? Regardless of whether they stumble later.

But if you mean can I remember every last sin.... Yup, I can't. I have to trust in His mercy on those, and I know I can. He even said "If you forgive, then you will be forgiven" which is such a striking statement. And it is in the Lord's Prayer too, adding powerful emphasis, because only the most important things get repeated I think.

 

[Petros2015]

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

John 20:22-23 ...?

 

[Mountainmike]

Totally wrong again.

Tradition provides correct interpretation for scripture.
Including (for example) your false understanding of tradition itself.
Study the history of the NT and recognise ONLY tradition existed for the first christians. And it doesnt mean what you think. First century christians were not bible christians - as you understand them - the bible didnt exist then as you understand it.

But since you don't seem interested in researching it, here ends the conversation on this.

In short: You cannot use 21st century eyes to read scripture and hope you get the meaning intended. Your use of the word tradition is not what it meant way back when. Paradosis. Handing down (of teaching) the mechanism Christ gave.
Sola scriptura is the doctrine that launched 100000 schisms.

Once again, it's traditions, not tradition. Traditions (for example, Christmas trees, using a seashell in baptism, and the kinds of vestments worn by the priest, are what they are by tradition.) They are good, but that doesn't mean that anyone is inventing doctrine by holding to such traditions. The verse in question could just as well be saying to be faithful in going to synagogue or something else like that.


If it's in Paul's letters, it's in the Bible! Therefore, there's no need to turn to any extra-Biblical or unscriptural information to find what Paul's saying.

 

[Albion]

Totally wrong again.

Tradition provides correct interpretation for scripture.

I appears to me that it's you who aren't familiar with the concept of Holy Tradition, although it's your church that embraces it as a determiner of doctrine in opposition to Scripture Alone. I completely agree that tradition and history help us to comprehend Scripture, but that's not what's under discussion here.

The issue here is the idea that a certain kind of theoretical tradition is the equal of Scripture, that it's another revelation from God which is equally as authoritative as Scripture.

That which is called 'Holy Tradition' is the idea that if some belief, even one with no Scriptural basis, has been believed throughout the universal church and since the beginning of the Church, then it's true.

It is not about valuing customs, folklore, or highly regarded theological opinion through the ages (although that may be useful in itself), and it's not what you appear to be persistently and mistakenly claiming for the term, as in the following: "Tradition provides correct interpretation for scripture."

Worse, the concept of Holy Tradition (AKA "Tradition"--with a capital T) gets applied to beliefs that don't even meet the requirements of the Holy Tradition theory. Any legend from the past that gains a sufficient level of support among Catholics or gains the attention and sympathy of the Papacy has a possibility of being proclaimed as a dogma when these standards are cited--even if they're not met.

 

[HeLeadethMe]

The carnal mind is enmity with God, it can neither perceive the things of the Spirit (truth) nor obey them.

Rom 8:5-9 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.

For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.

Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.

But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

 

[bhayes]

So much has been written on this, it is hardly worthy of more discussion!

On your quote "call no man father" : It is irrelevant to the matter ,
Jesus often talked in Hyperbole.

Or how do your reconcile his simultaneous demands to
"hate your father and mother " Luke 14:26 and
"honour your father and mother" in the commandments!

On practice of use of the title.
It was there from the earliest times. And I mean even OT

God asked Abram to call himself "father"! - which is the meaning of Abraham with reference to his position as leader in faith.

It is there again in Corinthians when Paul said:
“I became your father through the Gospel” (1 Cor 4:14-17).

So affirmed in both OT and NT

And as a result it was the practice for leaders in faith to call themselves father.
Which leads to the early church practice of calling the pope "papa" and indeed some other patriarchs.

Out of frustration I can only comment - It is number 69 on the ill researched "anticatholic myth" playlist, proof texting out of context, with the goal of opposing catholicism! And no matter how many times it is answered, someone else will raise it. Doh!!!

Hope that helps.

Actually Jesus meant what he said. You are distorting what he said and taking things out of context. For context, what was said was "

But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers. 9And do not call anyone on earth your father, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. 10Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one Instructor, the Christ. 11The greatest among you shall be your servant. 12For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted."

The example of Paul you gave was a metaphor. There is only one "Father" in heaven, and that is God the Father. There is no man on earth that can take that title so the pope and anyone who is called that is contradicting scripture and God.

 

[Mountainmike]

Sad, you are not willing to study it but heh!

Start by working out how it was the faith was passed before there was no NT.

Then study the writings of the first fathers - take iraneus - do his writings add meaning to scripture or additional content to it?

I know all the reformationists myths, and straw men used to sideline tradition,
But they are founded on amnesia of early Christianity and the need for authority,

I appears to me that it's you who aren't familiar with the concept of Holy Tradition, although it's your church that embraces it as a determiner of doctrine in opposition to Scripture Alone. I completely agree that tradition and history help us to comprehend Scripture, but that's not what's under discussion here.

The issue here is the idea that a certain kind of theoretical tradition is the equal of Scripture, that it's another revelation from God which is equally as authoritative as Scripture.

That which is called 'Holy Tradition' is the idea that if some belief, even one with no Scriptural basis, has been believed throughout the universal church and since the beginning of the Church, then it's true.

It is not about valuing customs, folklore, or highly regarded theological opinion through the ages (although that may be useful in itself), and it's not what you appear to be persistently and mistakenly claiming for the term, as in the following: "Tradition provides correct interpretation for scripture."

Worse, the concept of Holy Tradition (AKA "Tradition"--with a capital T) gets applied to beliefs that don't even meet the requirements of the Holy Tradition theory. Any legend from the past that gains a sufficient level of support among Catholics or gains the attention and sympathy of the Papacy has a possibility of being proclaimed as a dogma when these standards are cited--even if they're not met.

 

[Albion]

The answers to all of that have been given and explained previously.

 

[Mountainmike]

The answers to all of that have been given and explained previously.

You mean you have given a wholly erroneous interpretation, built into the anticatholic myths.

My suggestion is one day you study tradition (the real version how the faith was actually passed), and also look at the catechism to see what sacred tradition ACTUALLY is, not your straw man version of it. Please read it before comment.

But then I WAS an anglican who had bought into the same myths as you , till I studied history, and saw the anglican position makes no sense.

Does it not concern you that , the real church was ordained by Jesus, to whom he gave the succession office of Peter "the keys".

But the anglican church was built on the whims of an english monarch who wanted more wifes than christianity allows, since which times, the WHOLLY MANMADE tradition of the anglican church (ie the articles) have change in number and content from near calvinism to near catholicism as they blew with the winds as the monarch changed. Check it out - the history of the articles. You will be horrified. Or I hope you will. Because truth is unique and unchanging, the anglican man made tradition is not.

That is the problem. When you lose the anchor of authority , you drift. And now the anglican union is not even a union the fragments of it believe in such wholly different things as it blows with the winds of populism. So Sad. Try as I may, I cannot find in scripture or tradition, a monarch with venereal disease from too many sex partners given authority over the church. Because he was not, except in his own eyes - and it all went downhill from there.

 

[Albion]

See post #131 for the information you're missing.

 

[Mountainmike]

See post #131 for the information you're missing.

See #131 for your misunderstanding.

The reason that protestants have schismed into thousands of pieces is they lost the role of tradition and authority in settling arguments on meaning of scripture.

Anyway , I am out of here. Study anglican man made tradition. Worry about problems in your back yard.

 

[HeLeadethMe]

1 Sam 3:7 Now Samuel did not yet know the LORD, neither was the word of the LORD yet revealed unto him.

Come people, and know the Lord..........this wonderful great and mighty God who scripture says magnifies His word above even His own name! We cannot know Him with our carnal minds....the intellect of man is too weak to perceive and understand the word of God. This is why Jesus said, ye cannot see the kingdom of God unless you are born again.......born of water and the Spirit. It's the reason the gospel seems like foolishness to those who are perishing.

 

[Tangible]

Anyway , I am out of here.