calling priests "Father"

[JED8643]

.

I was wondering if any of you guy’s know any of the history around the practice of calling our Priest’s “Father”?

A Church of Christ acquaintance of mine is always objecting to this practice, although I have shown all the biblical examples and reasons Catholic’s do this. The Catholic Answers tracts are great, as well as other online sources.

His main problem is the use of a “title” and what he thinks that leads to when referring to clergy. (He believes Jesus was against the use of any “titles” that put men above other men) His pastors are all referred to as “brother” to ensure they are all equals in the congregation.

This is what he E-mailed me;

In order to understand why it is wrong for religious leaders to take the name of ‘father’, we need to put that statement in context. Jesus said to not call anyone ‘father’ (Matt 23:9) at the same time as He condemned the scribes and Pharisees for loving the praise and honor of men (Matt 23:4-6). When ‘father, ‘rabbi’, and ‘master’ are given as titles of prestige and honor, this is exactly what Jesus was condemning. The titles you mentioned are often used in exactly the same manner – ‘reverend’ especially. The word ‘reverend’ is never even found in the Bible. The only one who deserves our reverence is God (Heb 12:28). Anytime that religious leaders take on titles like these, it is a sign that they are seeking to distinguish themselves from other christians. This is the exact opposite of what the apostles did (Acts 10:25-26).

I am trying to go deeper into the history behind the Catholic practice but cannot seem to find any online info around when the practice of calling clergy “father” began and why.

Thanks,

Jed

 

[mdcpensive1]

JED8643,

The best answer I found is that in the time of Christ there were two pharasaical schools. One was shemi and the other hilel. Hilel was the one that St. Paul attended and that they didn’t write things down but had to memorize all they learned. Gamaliel was head of the school at the time of St. Paul. Gamaliel was the grandson of Hilel, the founder and one of the greatest rabbis.

The head of the school was called a “father” so it makes perfect sense that St. Paul says call no one father except the Lord Jesus Christ, but goes on later to say that he (Paul) is a father to them. St. Paul is teaching about Jesus and can say he is a “father” as was his teacher at Hilel who taught Paul. The tradition is carried on.

 

[Monica4316]

This is a good article
catholic.com/library/Call_No_Man_Father.asp

 

[guanophore]

I was wondering if any of you guy’s know any of the history around the practice of calling our Priest’s “Father”?

In the Jewish milieu in which Jesus was born and raised, there were several “schools” of religious instruction and throught. The students or disciples would identify themselves by the name of the pre-eminent teacher of their sect. For example, Paul brags about being a student of Gamaliel. Paul also makes reference to this tendency to affiliate later in his letter when he says:

1 Cor 1:12-13
12 What I mean is that each of you says, “I belong to Paul,” or “I belong to Apollos,” or “I belong to Cephas,” or “I belong to Christ.” 13 Has Christ been divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

When Jesus told them “call no man your father”, He was teaching them not to divide themselves in this manner.

His main problem is the use of a “title” and what he thinks that leads to when referring to clergy. (He believes Jesus was against the use of any “titles” that put men above other men) His pastors are all referred to as “brother” to ensure they are all equals in the congregation.

We are all equal in dignity, but not in function. In fact, the Apostles taught this clearly. The early Fathers also reinforce this concept (hierarchy).

This is what he E-mailed me;

In order to understand why it is wrong for religious leaders to take the name of ‘father’, we need to put that statement in context. Jesus said to not call anyone ‘father’ (Matt 23:9) at the same time as He condemned the scribes and Pharisees for loving the praise and honor of men (Matt 23:4-6). When ‘father, ‘rabbi’, and ‘master’ are given as titles of prestige and honor, this is exactly what Jesus was condemning.

I agree that Jesus was condemning the worldy minded leadership (that Lord it over others). however, there is nothing in heritnly wrong with honor.

Phil 2:29-3:1
29 Welcome him then in the Lord with all joy, and honor such people, 30 because he came close to death for the work of Christ, risking his life to make up for those services that you could not give me.

Who are the “such people” that should be honored? It is those who give themselves in service.

1 Tim 5:17

17 Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching;

The modern word for “priest” is a contraction of the Gk “presbyter” (elder). We regardthe priests in “double honor” because they have consecrated their lives to the labor of preaching and teaching.

The titles you mentioned are often used in exactly the same manner – ‘reverend’ especially. The word ‘reverend’ is never even found in the Bible.

Neither is the word “Trinity” but the concept certainly is.

1 Peter 2:17
17 Honor everyone.

The Gk word here is timao (tim-ah’-o); to prize, i.e. fix a valuation upon; by implication, to revere:

And when we give “double honor” we are giving reverence.

The only one who deserves our reverence is God (Heb 12:28).

Such a position is contradictory to Scripture.

Rom 13:6-7
7 Pay to all what is due them — taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.

Those who are honored by the faithful are so because their lives are hidden with Christ in God.

(Ignatius of Antioch Letter to the Magnesians 2 [A.D. 110]).

“Take care to do all things in harmony with God, with the bishop presiding in the place of God, and with the presbyters in the place of the council of the apostles, and with the deacons, who are most dear to me, entrusted with the business of Jesus Christ, who was with the Father from the beginning and is at last made manifest” (ibid., 6:1).

The appointess of the Aposltes (first bishops) taught that the bishop presides “in the place of God,”

Anytime that religious leaders take on titles like these, it is a sign that they are seeking to distinguish themselves from other christians.

Well, I agree. However, none of the bishops, priests, or deacons “took on titles”. They were called by the Church, and committed their lives in service to the Kingdom. They were given these titles by Jesus, through the Apostles. They are distinquished from others by their duties.

This is the exact opposite of what the apostles did

Let us examine a passage written by an Apostle:

Eph 4:11-13
11 The gifts he gave were that some would be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, 12 to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, 13 until all of us come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to maturity, to the measure of the full stature of Christ.

Clearly the gifts (offices or “titles” if you will) were given to the Church by Christ. They are gifts from Him. These gifts are not given to everyone. That does not mean that those who have them are “better” than others. They just have different roles.

  I am trying to go deeper into the history behind the Catholic practice but cannot seem to find any online info around when the practice of calling clergy "father" began and why.

The best place to start, especially with a bible christian, is the Scripture itself. In it, Paul refers to himself as becoming a father of his spiritual children. St. John writes to the “fathers” within the congregation.

 

[JonathonofOhio]

Your friend doesnt see the forest for the trees…Jesus is teaching the importance of being humble. We are not to appoint ourselves to positions of leadership and we are not to seek out honor. Whoever humbles himself is exaulted and who exaults himself is humbled…no one should seek the titles and places of honor, they are given to those who are deserving of it (notice that Jesus states that some who are humble ARE exaulted-- they are given the positions of honor). That is the lesson. Sadly it is the people your friend follow who are in violation of this teaching because they have appointed themselves leaders and teachers outside of the church which is the body of Christ given to us by God our Father. They dwell on ‘call no one father’, because if they aknowledged the true meaning of that passage they would be admitting that they exaulted themselves to positions of authority and are at odds with Christs teaching.

 

[puzzleannie]

.

I was wondering if any of you guy’s know any of the history around the practice of calling our Priest’s “Father”?

Jed

the history begins with St Paul who referred to himself that way in the context of the priests he ordained such as Timothy and hence to the practice from the earliest days of the Church as referring to spiritual leaders as fathers in the faith.

 

[guanophore]

the history begins with St Paul who referred to himself that way in the context of the priests he ordained such as Timothy and hence to the practice from the earliest days of the Church as referring to spiritual leaders as fathers in the faith.

I noticed that both Paul and Stephen, when making their defense against the Sanhedrin, addressed them as “fathers and brothers”. I think it was customary to call one’s spiritual elder “father”, even before the foundation of the Church.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

JED8643, they are failing to follow the Biblical practice. The apostles called themselves fathers to their flocks. As guanophore has noted, the Jews before the Christians also had the practice of calling the rabbis and members of the Sanhedrin fathers. Jesus did not change this practice. He opposed people seeking titles or flaunting their titles out of pride. But He did not oppose the practice of having religious authorities and spiritual fathers.

Your friend is not following the Bible properly. He is failing to understand the context of the verse he is discussing, and based upon that one verse, is coming up with a theology that contradicts numerous other parts of the Bible. A few references for you are below.

I noticed that both Paul and Stephen, when making their defense against the Sanhedrin, addressed them as “fathers and brothers”. I think it was customary to call one’s spiritual elder “father”, even before the foundation of the Church.

That is a good point!

Furthermore, Paul refers to Timothy as “my child,” which puts Paul in the position of father, not brother. In Philemon 1:10, he refers to Onesimus as his spiritual son, and in Gal. 4:19, he refers to all his readers as “my dear children.” It is plain that he sees himself as a spiritual father to them all.

Paul makes this explicit in 1 Cor. 4:15:

“Even though you have ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel.”

In 2 Cor. 12:14, he also refers to himself a spiritual parent for his flock:

“Now I am ready to visit you for the third time, and I will not be a burden to you, because what I want is not your possessions but you. After all, children should not have to save up for their parents, but parents for their children.”

 

[steve_b]

.

I was wondering if any of you guy’s know any of the history around the practice of calling our Priest’s “Father”?

A Church of Christ acquaintance of mine is always objecting to this practice, although I have shown all the biblical examples and reasons Catholic’s do this. The Catholic Answers tracts are great, as well as other online sources.

His main problem is the use of a "title" and what he thinks that leads to when referring to clergy. (He believes Jesus was against the use of any "titles" that put men above other men) His pastors are all referred to as “brother” to ensure they are all equals in the congregation.

This is what he E-mailed me;

In order to understand why it is wrong for religious leaders to take the name of ‘father’, we need to put that statement in context. Jesus said to not call anyone ‘father’ (Matt 23:9) at the same time as He condemned the scribes and Pharisees for loving the praise and honor of men (Matt 23:4-6). When ‘father, ‘rabbi’, and ‘master’ are given as titles of prestige and honor, this is exactly what Jesus was condemning. The titles you mentioned are often used in exactly the same manner – ‘reverend’ especially. The word ‘reverend’ is never even found in the Bible. The only one who deserves our reverence is God (Heb 12:28). Anytime that religious leaders take on titles like these, it is a sign that they are seeking to distinguish themselves from other christians. This is the exact opposite of what the apostles did (Acts 10:25-26).

I am trying to*** go deeper into the history behind the Catholic practice*** but cannot seem to find any online info around when the practice of calling clergy “father” began and why.

regarding historical usage,

• I suppose one could bring up the ECF’s ccel.org/fathers.html notice it is a Protestant site. Count the number of times “father” in any derivative form is used either as title for THEM, or using “father” outside of God the Father, within their writings
• also you’ve no doubt seen the following connection in scripture, (Paul calls Timothy his son, which he is NOT, since Paul is not married, but in context Paul is Timothy’s father in faith spiritually, as Timothy is Paul’s son in faith spiritually.) I don’t think for ONE minute, that Paul did anything against what Jesus commanded. Priests are our fathers in faith spiritually also. Nothing out of line here.
• catholic.com/thisrock/2006/0601btb.asp

catholic.com/library/Call_No_Man_Father.asp

catholic.com/thisrock/1998/9806qq.asp