Priests as Father

[Frankk]

When was the title Father first used when addressing priests? And how did it come about?

 

[uxordepp]

I would say that it was first used in Scripture.

St. Paull was not ordained, but he referred to himself as “Father” several times. Paull was an apostle by extension, and apostles are roughly equivalent to our Bishops today, so I think it is similar to Paul’s being a priest.

In the book of Judges, there are a couple of spots which refer to someone being “priest and father”.

The practice has been around for a while, apparently.

 

[Subrosa]

Certainly it is apostolic in origin. As the above poster mentions, Paul refers to himself as father in 1Corinthians 4:15.

Also John, in chapter 2 of his first letter, begins the chapter by saying, “My dear children,…” which suggests that he sees himself in a parental role, that of father, considering he is a man.

Subrosa

 

[Church_Militant]

This might help some. Call No Man Father?

 

[promethius]

-]When was the title Father first used when addressing priests?/-] And how did it come about?

The first part has been addressed, calling priests and bishops father traces back to biblical roots (as well as being recorded in the writings of the ECFs).

The second part has not, however, been addressed:
The spiritual fatherhood of the clergy, unlike the caesars who wanted people to call them father caesar (in the sense of Caesar being divine on earth), derives itself from the Fatherhood of God and gives glory to God’s Fatherhood (the caesar’s term supplanted the authority and fatherhood of God and sought it’s own glory).

So where does priestly fatherhood come from? God. It is derived directly from God’s fatherhood (just as a good catholic household man derives his fatherhood from God as well, albeit in a physical rather than spiritual sense)

 

[Frankk]

Many thanks. I have seen the link and a similar one by Fr Pacwa, however, they both address the scriptural origins of the title rather than when it first began to be used.

For example, in the first century we didn’t have people referring to Father Matthew, Father John, etc. The title Bishop seemed to be well established early on and, of course, Deacons were on the scene before priests. Similarly, the title Pope wasn’t used in the early days.
Deacons were always addressed as ‘deacon’ and weren’t assigned any other form of address.

When priests were first appointed it isn’t clear what title they were given, Father or otherwise [or, at least, I can’t find i t]

 

[promethius]

Many thanks. I have seen the link and a similar one by Fr Pacwa, however, they both address the scriptural origins of the title rather than when it first began to be used.

For example, in the first century we didn’t have people referring to Father Matthew, Father John, etc. The title Bishop seemed to be well established early on and, of course, Deacons were on the scene before priests. Similarly, the title Pope wasn’t used in the early days.
Deacons were always addressed as ‘deacon’ and weren’t assigned any other form of address.

When priests were first appointed it isn’t clear what title they were given, Father or otherwise [or, at least, I can’t find i t]

In the first century, we have St Paul referring to himself as father, and referring to the fatherhood of the elders. Of course we don’t call the apostles “Father such and such” because their position as saints supercedes that.

The title of a priest is priest. They are addressed as father. That is an important distinction to realize for the following.

Deacon was not a clearly defined position in the early church. I do believe in the book of Timothy that deacons were elected by the people as volunteers to clean the church and serve food. Other deacons were minor or lay ministers.

Priests have been around since the very beginning. The word elder, used so often in the bible, was presbyteros. From this, the word presbyter, shortened to Prestere, became preost, which became the english word priest. It means the same thing.

The title of the Pope is not technically pope. That is our form of address for the Pope. Properly speaking, his title is Bishop of Rome (or Vicar/Steward of Christ).

None of these practices or forms of address, however, are new or novel.

 

[Frankk]

Thanks.

We do, however, call Benedict ‘Pope Benedict’ as we call priests ‘Father Xxxxx’.

Priesthood as we know it in the Catholic church was unheard of during the first generation of Christianity because at that time the priesthood was still associated with animal sacrifices in both the Jewish and pagan religions.

A clearly defined local leadership in the form of elders (prebyteroi) became important when the original apostles and disciples of Jesus died. The chief elder was often called the ‘episkopos’. In English this came to be translated as bishop. It was he who presided over the community’s Eucharistic assembly [and not other elders].

When the Eucharist came to be regarded as sacrifice, the role of the bishop took on a priestly dimension. By the 3rd century bishops were considered priests. Presbyters/elders sometimes substituted for the bishop at the Eucharist. By the end of the 3rd century people all over were using the title ‘priest’ for whoever presided at Eucharist.

Of course deacons had been around since St Stephen and the six ‘good men’ mentioned in Acts.

When Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire the huge increase in converts, and communities/parishes called for more ordained personnel, especially in outlying areas. As presbyters were already available they were an ideal substitutes for the bishop. In this way they came to serve alone in local communities. Soon all presbyters were considered priests because they offered the Eucharistic sacrifice. The distinguish them from bishops, the bishops were called ‘high priests’. For a while the custom was for the bishop to send a piece of consecrated bread from his Mass to the outlying priest who would put it in their chalice at Mass to maintain a symbolic union with the bishop.

Unfortunately, none of this helps me find out when priests were first addressed as ‘Father’.

 

[promethius]

We do, however, call Benedict ‘Pope Benedict’ as we call priests ‘Father Xxxxx’.

That is correct. We address people in various ways. The CEO of Google is addressed as Mr. Such and Such, but his title is Google CEO.

Priesthood as we know it in the Catholic church was unheard of during the first generation of Christianity because at that time the priesthood was still associated with animal sacrifices in both the Jewish and pagan religions.

Incorrect. They are two different words. Jewish priests were known as kohen in Hebrew, or hierus in Greek. Catholic priests were known as presbyteros (the word priest today is the etymological evolution of the word presbyteros. Whereever you see those two terms, they are synonyms).

A clearly defined local leadership in the form of elders (prebyteroi) became important when the original apostles and disciples of Jesus died. The chief elder was often called the ‘episkopos’. In English this came to be translated as bishop. It was he who presided over the community’s Eucharistic assembly [and not other elders].

That is correct. The ability to confect the sacrament of the Eucharist is a delegated authority from the Bishop [episkopos] to the Priests [presbyteros].

When the Eucharist came to be regarded as sacrifice, the role of the bishop took on a priestly dimension.

The Eucharist was ALWAYS regarded as a sacrifice from the first institution. It is the Final Passover Sacrifice. A cursory reading of the early church fathers reveals this. Try taking a look at the works of Justin Martyr.

By the 3rd century bishops were considered priests.

Incorrect. As you noted, they were considered “cheif elders” long before that. The word Elder and the word Priest are synonyms. They are interchangeable.

Presbyters/elders sometimes substituted for the bishop at the Eucharist. By the end of the 3rd century people all over were using the title ‘priest’ for whoever presided at Eucharist.

That is incorrect because English did not exist at the time. People would have used the term prester or presbyter in that time period. The word priest was an as yet unspoken term. By contrast, in the third century, Jewish priests would have been known as sacerdos in Latin areas.

Of course deacons had been around since St Stephen and the six ‘good men’ mentioned in Acts.

Yes, as had the presbyteros (priests)

Soon all presbyters were considered priests because they offered the Eucharistic sacrifice.

Yes, all priests were considered priests. Remember, the word presbyter is latin for priest. They are the SAME WORD. I think that is what is confusing you here.

Unfortunately, none of this helps me find out when priests were first addressed as ‘Father’.

Try reading 1 John 2. John refers to the locals as his children and in 13 and 14 specifically addresses the fathers of the local church.

 

[Frankk]

That is correct. We address people in various ways. The CEO of Google is addressed as Mr. Such and Such, but his title is Google CEO.

Which is precisely the reason for the Thread: When was the title ‘Father’ first used??

Incorrect. They are two different words. Jewish priests were known as kohen in Hebrew, or hierus in Greek. Catholic priests were known as presbyteros (the word priest today is the etymological evolution of the word presbyteros. Whereever you see those two terms, they are synonyms).

This is sidetracking me from the Thread question but you are incorrect. Clement referred to priests but significantly related these terms to the Levitical priesthood [1 Clem. 40.5 -(Bihlmeyer 57)]. In the NT the concept of ‘priest’ referred to the Levites of the OT, now made obsolete, or to the entire church, - not to the ordained ministry of the church [Just. Dial, 116.3 (Goodspeed 234)]

The Eucharist was ALWAYS regarded as a sacrifice from the first institution. It is the Final Passover Sacrifice. A cursory reading of the early church fathers reveals this. Try taking a look at the works of Justin Martyr.

Hebrews 13:15 is not a direct reference to the Eucharist, but the principle certainly applies, for during the Lord’s Supper, Christians praise and thank God for the atoning work of Jesus Christ. Indeed our English term “Eucharist” is derived from the Greek word “eucharistia” which means “gratitude, thanks giving.” Jesus gave thanks (eucharisteo) when he took the bread and the wine (Matthew 26:27, Luke 22:19).

In this sense the Eucharist is a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving. This, however, is altogether different from the “sacrifice of the mass”

Some claim that the early church fathers support the doctrine of the sacrifice of the mass. They list quotations from early church writings that include the word “sacrifice” in connection with the Eucharist. Unaware of the distinction between a propitiatory sacrifice and a sacrifice of praise, many unsuspecting readers fall into the trap. Take this quotation from an early church document as an example:

“But on the Lord’s day, after that ye have assembled together, break bread and give thanks, having in addition confessed your sins, that your sacrifice may be pure. But let not any one who hath a quarrel with his companion join with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be polluted, for it is that which is spoken of by the Lord. In every place and time offer unto me a pure sacrifice, for I am a great King, saith the Lord, and my name is wonderful among the Gentiles” (Didache, chapter 14).

Incorrect. As you noted, they were considered “cheif elders” long before that. The word Elder and the word Priest are synonyms. They are interchangeable.

This is incorrect as mentioned above. The senior elders [episkopos whom we now call bishops] fulfilled the priestly function.

That is incorrect because English did not exist at the time. People would have used the term prester or presbyter in that time period. The word priest was an as yet unspoken term. By contrast, in the third century, Jewish priests would have been known as sacerdos in Latin areas.

Actually, at the time people would not have used presbyter. They would have used Greek, Aramaic or Hebrew terminology - but it is a minor issue.

Yes, all priests were considered priests. Remember, the word presbyter is latin for priest. They are the SAME WORD. I think that is what is confusing you here.

But in the early church it was the bishop who offered Mass. There was no need for ‘help’ from priests. It was only as the church grew that the bishop needed extra help beyond what the deacons could provide. Origen, for example, combined the apostolic and priestly definitions when he said that ‘the apostles and their successors, priests according to the great High Priest…’ He was, of course, referring here to bishops. This was late 2nd/early 3rd century before the explosion in numbers after Constantine approved Christianity as a religion when bishops could no longer cope [Origen. Orat.28.9 (Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahrhunderte. Berlin, 1897 3:381)]

Try reading 1 John 2. John refers to the locals as his children and in 13 and 14 specifically addresses the fathers of the local church.

Yes, and the fathers - the senior elders - were what we now call bishops.

But do you have any idea when the title ‘Father’ was first used??

 

[ESMDHokie77]

This may not add anything good to the conversation since I have no source but hearsay… but I heard that protestants used to refer to their ministers as ‘father’, in 19th century America… and they only stopped because of their noticing the large influx of irish immigrants doing the same with Catholic priests.

take that for what you will.

 

[Frankk]

This may not add anything good to the conversation since I have no source but hearsay… but I heard that protestants used to refer to their ministers as ‘father’, in 19th century America… and they only stopped because of their noticing the large influx of irish immigrants doing the same with Catholic priests.

take that for what you will.

Many thanks. I’ll refocus my search on the 19th Century and see what I come up with (if anything!?)

Thanks again.

 

[ESMDHokie77]

Following up… Wikipedia says that Anglicans and Lutherans still formally do this.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Reverend

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minister_(Christianity

And now… religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1916
This is the page I was trying to remember last night, found it!!

Although, for example, “Mister” (the designation of a gentleman and a college graduate) was the normal title for Puritan clergy in colonial New England, Congregationalists. Baptists, Methodists and German Reformed commonly addressed older ministers as “Father” well into the 19th century.

and

Most significantly, the decline of “Father” in Protestantism coincides with the rise of Irish immigration to the United States in the 1840s. Before that time, Roman Catholic priests in America were usually addressed as “Mister,” for most were secular (nonmonastic) clergy with roots in Europe or England, where Roman Catholic practice restricted “Father” to priests of monastic orders. Secular priests were called “Mister,” “Monsieur,” “Don” or other vernacular equivalents.

 

[Frankk]

Thanks for the time you’re spending on this. More pieces of the jigsaw puzzle!

The full picture is out there somewhere, I’m sure! I’ll keep looking!