Why do we as Catholics call priests 'Father'?

[EdOsiecki]

Posted by onthego4
All the answers given about calling a Roman Catholic priest a Father is just to reason out their action even it is unacceptable. Why can we not just take Jesus’ words and obey it? What is wrong with calling him MR., Pastor, Brother, Elder, etc.? It is not metaphorical or exaggeration to stress a point like “plucking your eyes out” or “cut your hands”, etc.
The comparison of calling your own father (biologically) and the priest is not on the same playing field. The other is your own biological DAD. The other is not. Jesus was not referring to biological DAD instead spiritual. To have another spiritual “Father” other than Heavenly Father is a violation of the the first commandment, “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.”
The Pharisees and priests loved to be called “Rabbi” and “Master”. Jesus rebuked them for that and told His disciples and audience not to call them such in a spiritual sense because their heavenly Father is their “spiritual” Father and Christ is their Master.
Apostle Paul called Timothy and Titus son(s) in faith but never referred to him as spiritual father nor asked them to refer to him with the title.
The RCC is making another dimension of family in a spiritual sense like what Jesus was referring to. The term “holy Father” should be reserved to our heavenly Father alone because He is the one and only perfect and no comparison. Period. We should not even think of equating His position to our position ]To do that is to provoke God in jealousy. He said many times that He is a Jealous God

Very well said my friend. ED O.

 

[EdOsiecki]

Posted by JReduction
But these titles date back to the end of the first century. They are implied in the scriptures when Jesus hands Peter the keys,

To do what with the keys??? And that is to bind and loose, the same bind and loose which Jesus gives to ALL the apostles in Mat 18:18

tells him to feed his sheep

The same that Paul tells the Ephesians to do in Acts 20:28 watch over the flock

and to encourage his brothers

Not to deny Christ like he did

what Jesus is doing is deputizing Peter to do what he had done up to that point.

There was no deputizing of Peter alone , since the Scriptures very clearly state in Eph 2:19-21 that the church is built upon ALL the apostles and Prophets with Jesus being the head.

That’s what the word Vicar means. It’s like the Vice President. Jesus remains the president. Non doubts that.

I already told you that the word “vicar” means the AntiChrist ED O. Jesus loves you"

James 3:1 Teachers who teach wrongly will be punished more severally.

 

[po18guy]

Hi po18Guy
In none of these verses that you quote is the word “father” mentioned. Father is implied. That’s not what Jesus speaks about, Jesus said don’t CALL anyone father. Not to give anyone the title 'Father" Exp. Dr. Phd. etc…-----Why wasn’t Peter called “The Holy Father” or “Vicar of Christ” He calls himself an “Elder” equal to the other elders 1 Peter 5:1 ED. O “Jesus loves You”

James 3:1 Teachers who teach wrongly will be punished more severally

Ed, in all charity and brotherly love, the OP is a Catholic asking for a Catholic answer. She does not need the confusion and conflicting answers of sola scriptura.

 

[Bengoshi]

This is not totally accurate. Jesus was called Rabbi and did not complain about it. He was also called Master. The apostles also referred to the patriarchs as Father: Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, etc.

I’m the superior of my religious house. The brothers call me Father. Why? Because I’m the patriarch of the house, not because I’m God. They know that I’m not God and I know that I’m not God. But it is my job to protect them, govern them and guide them as my sons. That is a duty that I have before God. By the way, I’m not a priest. I’m a friar. When we have election for a new superior on Pentecost Sunday a new Father will be elected. At least I’m hoping it will go that way and that I won’t be re-elected. Pray for that intention please.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Jesus is Lord and God right? So there’s nothing wrong with calling him Rabbi or Master, for indeed He is.

Just an honest question, aren’t friars priests as well?

 

[JReducation]

Jesus is Lord and God right? So there’s nothing wrong with calling him Rabbi or Master, for indeed He is.

Just an honest question, aren’t friars priests as well?

Not all friars are priests. Some are, depending on the order. Some orders of friars allow the friars to be ordained. In my community we only ordain as many friars as we need for our internal needs. But they are always called Brother, unless they are superior. The superior is always called Father, whether he’s a priest or not. He is the sucessor of St. Francis whom we call our Holy Father Francis. However, Francis was not a priest. But he is the founder. Therefore he is the spiritual father of the Franciscan family. Sometimes you’ll hear us refer to him as the Seraphic Father. He is called Seraphic from the word Seraph.

Francis received the stigmata from a seraph that appeared to him two years before he died.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[LilyM]

Jesus is Lord and God right? So there’s nothing wrong with calling him Rabbi or Master, for indeed He is.

Just an honest question, aren’t friars priests as well?

Not all of them.

Priests are those who receive the sacramental anointing and laying on of hands in the sacrament of Holy Orders. They are especially commissioned to celebrate the Mass and administer other sacraments, such as confession, anointing of the sick, marriage and baptism.

Friars make vows of chastity, poverty and obedience (among other things) and live together in communities, headed by superiors who have varying titles from community to community. Or at least are bound into community by shared obedience to a particular rule of life. But they don’t all receive the sacrament of ordination which enables them to do the things I’ve mentioned above.

A friar doesn’t have to be a priest, and a priest, although he promises to obey his bishop and is promised to celibacy, doesn’t have to take a vow of poverty or promise obedience to the head of a particular religious community - bishops don’t head communities of friars, but are responsible for all the Catholics of a geographical area called a diocese instead.

 

[JReducation]

Not all of them.

Priests are those who receive the sacramental anointing and laying on of hands in the sacrament of Holy Orders. They are especially commissioned to celebrate the Mass and administer other sacraments, such as confession, anointing of the sick, marriage and baptism.

Friars make vows of chastity, poverty and obedience (among other things) and live together in communities, headed by superiors who have varying titles from community to community. Or at least are bound into community by shared obedience to a particular rule of life. But they don’t all receive the sacrament of ordination which enables them to do the things I’ve mentioned above.

A friar doesn’t have to be a priest, and a priest, although he promises to obey his bishop and is promised to celibacy, doesn’t have to take a vow of poverty or promise obedience to the head of a particular religious community - bishops don’t head communities of friars, but are responsible for all the Catholics of a geographical area called a diocese instead.

Also friars are not part of any diocese. Therefore, we do not come under the jurisdiction of the local bishop, unless we work for him, In that case, we are bound to obey his policies regarding whatever ministry we do for him. But he may not intervene in the life of the community. For example, a bishop cannot demand that we wear a habit or that we do anything that is in conflict with community life, things like that.

Friars usually belong to orders of Pontifical Right. This frees us from the local bishops. We answer to our major superior who in turn answers to the pope. In some communities of friars, a man is ordained for the good of his community. Even though he is an ordained priest, he is not allowed to serve the laity in that capacity. He serves the laity through the ministry of the order. That can be in soup kitchens, homeless shelters, teaching, counseling, healthcare, social service of any kind.

We have a friar who was a priest before he joined us. That can happen too. A man can be a priest and hear God calling him to religious life as a friar. He joins the order and goes through the formation program which last 7 to 10 years, depending on the order. Until he makes final vows, he is free to return to his diocese if this is not for him. But while he is a friar, he belongs to no diocese.

Not all ordained friars ever leave the house. We have one ordained friar who is a maintenance/handy man. He takes care of everything that is broken and needs maintaining in our pregnancy centers. He has never baptized, witnessed a marriage or celebrated a funeral. He is allowed to celebrate mass for the community. But since he does not go to a parish, he has never celebrated any of the other sacraments. I’m not sure if he’s ever heard a confession. I think he may have heard the confessions of the friars in his house, but I would be lying if I said I know. We don’t live in the same house.

We have an ordained friar in my house who does celebrate mass and hears confessions at the local parish. We call this a “help out” priest. During the week he works as a pregnancy couneslor and on weekends he helps at a nearby parish where they have asked us to help them. I know that he does not do weddings.

You cannot witness weddings in a religious house. That must happen in a church, the same for funerals and baptisms. The Church has very strict regulations about where the sacraments can be celebrated, except in the case of an emergency baptism or confession, which can take place anywhere.

Friars are very different from one community to another. For example, the Carmelite friars are a clerical order. Most of their friars are priests and parish ministry is one of their most important ministries. Dominican friars are a preaching and teaching order. They have more men in those ministries than in parishes. Therefore, they don’t have as many ordained friars as the Carmelites would.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[I_Fortuna]

No, not what you would call new

see here:

clevelandohio.tripod.com/holyfamilyhermitage/

you may want to skip to the footnotes at the bottom.

This is a very beautiful and spiritual website. I would also like to point out that there are several typos that if corrected would make the site better. Thanks for the link.

 

[JReducation]

This is a very beautiful and spiritual website. I would also like to point out that there are several typos that if corrected would make the site better. Thanks for the link.

The Camaldolese are awesome.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[onthego4]

The term “Father” is a sensitive word that connotes relationship more than title. The descendants of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and so forth, called them “Father” out of respect because they were elderly and their patriarchs (meaning head of their descendants). Non-Jewish people would not call Abraham, Father Abraham. They have no relation to him. The rich man in hell called Abraham, father Abraham. That gives us a clue that he was of Jewish descent. (Luke 16:24)

Apostle Paul mention being a “father” is not to ask for a title to be called “Father Paul.” It is to illustrate his feelings and desires.
1Th 2:11 As ye know how we exhorted and comforted and charged every one of you, as a father doth his children,

He called Timothy “my son in the faith.” That is not to say call me, Father Paul. He identify who is our Father - - - GOD.
1Ti 1:2 Unto Timothy, my own son in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord.

He called Timothy, “my dearly beloved son.” Still does not make him a father or earn title father. This like going to a teen group and you have one really obedient, good kid. What do you say? You’re doing good, son! But that doesn’t make you his father nor give you a title Father. Again in this verse, he identify who is the Father. - - - GOD.
2Ti 1:2 To Timothy, my dearly beloved son: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.

He called Titus “my own son in the common faith.” Does not warrant a title for him to be called Father by Titus. Again he identify who is the Father — GOD.
Tit 1:4 To Titus, mine own son after the common faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour.

He instructed Timothy to treat an older person like a father. Still doesn’t bestow a title"Father" to every older person in church.
1Ti 5:1 Rebuke not an elder, but intreat him as a father; and the younger men as brethren;

Aside from the Biblical reasons, it feels awkward to call somebody a “Father” when you are not related to him at all. More so when you just come once in a while in the church and you call him “Father.” You have no relationship to him. Even kids that are adopted takes time to build emotional bonding before they get used to calling their adoptive father, Dad.

Who gives the title to the priest to be called “Father” anyway? When did he earn the title?

A funny irony of this is this. A Mormon came to my door and introduce himself as “Elder So and so.” I almost laughed because he looks like a kid from the neighborhood. I called him on his first name and he keeps on intimating that I called him Elder. I said, “No. I am older than you, you should call me Elder instead.”
If I call him “Elder” then I will be subjected to him. Psychologically, I will be inferior to him and have elevated him in a position of credibility. Same thing with calling somebody your Father.

I call my pastor, Pastor because he is pastoring the church. I cannot call him, Father because he is not the Father of our church nor fathering the church. He leads the church like a shepherd leading sheep. Our Father is in heaven.

Apostle Paul also name the leaders of the church and priest is not one of them.
Eph 4:11 And he gave some,** apostles**; and some, prophets; and some,** evangelists**; and some, pastors and teachers;
Eph 4:12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
Eph 4:13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

 

[JReducation]

I feel that Protestants pay more attention to this than it deserves. Protestants, Catholics and Orthodox know why the title is used and that it is not done to take anything away from God.

If we spent this much energy and paid this much attention to the life of the unborn, infanticide, the threat to the chronically ill and the dying, it would probably be a better use of the time and energy that God has given us and may be more pleasing to him, since these are real moral issues that challeng men of all faiths.

Looking for what unites us is also a much better use of our time and our efforts. Christ wants to see his Church reunited, not splitting hairs over who is called Father and why. If charity is lacking, how can we prove that we are people of faith? Our faith is proven through our unity. Let us explore the things that unite us and try to understand that things that separate us, rather than engage in questions on topics to which we already know the answer.

I remember when the Holy Father came to the USA, the leading Protestant, Muslims, Jews, Orthodox and people of other faiths called him Holy Father. None of them felt that they were taking anything away from God. We all know that Jesus is referring to the Fatherhood of the First Person of the Trinity and that the title Father or Holy Father does not refer to the first person of the Trinity or try to equate the two in any way.

Anyone who believes that Catholics, Anglicans and Orthodox are equating their spiritual leaders to the Second Person of the Trinity, does not understand Catholics, Anglicans and Orthodox Christians. The title is a patriarchal title, just as we refer to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as our Fathers in the faith. This title is a tradition that dates back to the time before Jesus and was continued by the apostles and the Fathers of the Church. Every Protestant theologian whom I have ever worked with has referred to the Patriarchs of Israel as Father and to the early leaders of the Church as the Church Fathers and to the first hermits and monks as the Desert Fathers, just as Protestant countries call the monarch King or Queen. It does not take ways from the Majesty of God.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[adriancombe]

The term “Father” is a sensitive word that connotes relationship more than title. The descendants of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and so forth, called them “Father” out of respect because they were elderly and their patriarchs (meaning head of their descendants). Non-Jewish people would not call Abraham, Father Abraham. They have no relation to him. The rich man in hell called Abraham, father Abraham. That gives us a clue that he was of Jewish descent. (Luke 16:24)

Apostle Paul mention being a “father” is not to ask for a title to be called “Father Paul.” It is to illustrate his feelings and desires.
1Th 2:11 As ye know how we exhorted and comforted and charged every one of you, as a father doth his children,

He called Timothy “my son in the faith.” That is not to say call me, Father Paul. He identify who is our Father - - - GOD.
1Ti 1:2 Unto Timothy, my own son in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord.

He called Timothy, “my dearly beloved son.” Still does not make him a father or earn title father. This like going to a teen group and you have one really obedient, good kid. What do you say? You’re doing good, son! But that doesn’t make you his father nor give you a title Father. Again in this verse, he identify who is the Father. - - - GOD.
2Ti 1:2 To Timothy, my dearly beloved son: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.

He called Titus “my own son in the common faith.” Does not warrant a title for him to be called Father by Titus. Again he identify who is the Father — GOD.

<< 1 Corinthians 4:15 >>

You are cherry picking verses to miss the point. Paul explicitly expressed his understanding of himself as the spiritual father of the believers he led:

King James Bible
For though ye have ten thousand instructers in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.

 

[po18guy]

The term “Father” is a sensitive word that connotes relationship more than title…Apostle Paul mention being a “father” is not to ask for a title to be called “Father Paul.” It is to illustrate his feelings and desires. He called Timothy “my son in the faith.” That is not to say call me, Father Paul. He identify who is our Father - - - GOD. He called Timothy, “my dearly beloved son.” Still does not make him a father or earn title father. This like going to a teen group and you have one really obedient, good kid. What do you say? You’re doing good, son! But that doesn’t make you his father nor give you a title Father. Again in this verse, he identify who is the Father. - - - GOD. He called Titus “my own son in the common faith.” Does not warrant a title for him to be called Father by Titus. Again he identify who is the Father — GOD. He instructed Timothy to treat an older person like a father. Still doesn’t bestow a title"Father" to every older person in church. Aside from the Biblical reasons, it feels awkward to call somebody a “Father” when you are not related to him at all. More so when you just come once in a while in the church and you call him “Father.” You have no relationship to him. Even kids that are adopted takes time to build emotional bonding before they get used to calling their adoptive father, Dad. Who gives the title to the priest to be called “Father” anyway? When did he earn the title? A funny irony of this is this. A Mormon came to my door and introduce himself as “Elder So and so.” I almost laughed because he looks like a kid from the neighborhood. I called him on his first name and he keeps on intimating that I called him Elder. I said, “No. I am older than you, you should call me Elder instead.” If I call him “Elder” then I will be subjected to him. Psychologically, I will be inferior to him and have elevated him in a position of credibility. Same thing with calling somebody your Father. I call my pastor, Pastor because he is pastoring the church. I cannot call him, Father because he is not the Father of our church nor fathering the church. He leads the church like a shepherd leading sheep. Our Father is in heaven. Apostle Paul also name the leaders of the church and priest is not one of them.

I removed the scripture quotes from your post and examined the remainder. What remains is 100% personal opinion, to which you are entitled. Here are some rhetorical questions: What has any pastor given up for the sake of the Gospel? Money? No. Marriage? No. Biological children? No. A permanent home? No. Worldly goods? No. Bless them for all that they do, but I don’t see a whole lot of “deny yourself” here. Sounds much more like a friend or neighbor than a spiritual father. And, just as with your post, this is my personal opinion.

 

[onthego4]

To po18guy
That is a non-sequiteur. Irrelevant argument. Buddhist monks lived in poverty too. They dressed with potato sack clothings and sandals all the time, lived in a cave or monastery and cold weather, have vow of silence, pray almost all the time but that doesn’t make them right and should be called “Father.” Or should we?:nope:
Granted some priest have given a lot. That doesn’t earn them a title to be called “Father”. Or, is that your criteria? Many people sacrifice a lot, like Gandhi but I don’t call him father.
As I said in my previous posts, the term “father” is more than a title. It tells relationship. If a person does not have any kids (biologically or adopted), should he be recognized as a father on Father’s day? But he’s leader of the community, give a lot to charity, help a lot of people and feed the hungry and many more. He must have earn a title of a father, according to your argument. Many philanthropists have done that. Sometimes they are called Father of so and so on things they advocate or started but they never carry a “Father” title on their name.
Jesus said:
Luk 9:23 And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me.
Not earn a title or some sort. If there is a “title” it should be Follower of Christ or Servant.

Somebody said that we should not make a big deal out of it. Well, the catholic church does. They emphatically proclaim their title as “Father” _______.
I met a priest before that will not talk to you if you don’t address him as “father.”
Has any parishioner in RCC address their priest in their first name only? Of course not.
Jesus said it and it should not be ignored. Otherwise, let us just ignore whatever we don’t like in the Scriptures and do whatever we like. That will be the same irony for those who believed in same sex marriage. They can always argue and justify their behavior and emotion and things sounds good but not right.

 

[JReducation]

To po18guy
That is a non-sequiteur. Irrelevant argument. Buddhist monks lived in poverty too. They dressed with potato sack clothings and sandals all the time, lived in a cave or monastery and cold weather, have vow of silence, pray almost all the time but that doesn’t make them right and should be called “Father.” Or should we?:nope:
Granted some priest have given a lot. That doesn’t earn them a title to be called “Father”. Or, is that your criteria? Many people sacrifice a lot, like Gandhi but I don’t call him father.
As I said in my previous posts, the term “father” is more than a title. It tells relationship. If a person does not have any kids (biologically or adopted), should he be recognized as a father on Father’s day? But he’s leader of the community, give a lot to charity, help a lot of people and feed the hungry and many more. He must have earn a title of a father, according to your argument. Many philanthropists have done that. Sometimes they are called Father of so and so on things they advocate or started but they never carry a “Father” title on their name.
Jesus said:
Luk 9:23 And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me.
Not earn a title or some sort. If there is a “title” it should be Follower of Christ or Servant.

Somebody said that we should not make a big deal out of it. Well, the catholic church does. They emphatically proclaim their title as “Father” _______.
I met a priest before that will not talk to you if you don’t address him as “father.”
Has any parishioner in RCC address their priest in their first name only? Of course not.
Jesus said it and it should not be ignored. Otherwise, let us just ignore whatever we don’t like in the Scriptures and do whatever we like. That will be the same irony for those who believed in same sex marriage. They can always argue and justify their behavior and emotion and things sounds good but not right.

When I was a Jew, I always said that if I ever became a Christian I would make a very rebellious Protestant, because they don’t understand how we (Jews) speak and write.

To a Jew, the title Father had three meanings: God the Father, the Patriarchs and the biological father. At the time of Jesus, the Romans were imposing Caesar as god on their provinces, making him equal to God the Father. This is the reference that Jesus is making. Never call anyone Father as in Father God. He was not condemning the patriarchal tradition, which was part of his faith and which he defended.

The Catholics use the title Father the same way that Jews and Muslims use it when referring to the Patriarchs. It is a patriarchal title, not a divine title. We Jews can tell the difference between the two. It’s just like when you Gentiles write history and you write about Adonnai and you wire “God” with an upper case. But when you write about the Greeks and Romans you write “god” with a lower case. You call them both G O D but you can tell the difference.

I don’t think that the problem is with the Catholics. I believe the problem is with people not undestanding how Jews speak or spoke in those days and the issues that they were facing. Some of Jesus’ statements were addressing specific issues that threatened the faith of the people, such as the Roman imposition of an emperor who was a father-god, which is the meaning of the title Caesar.

Even Protestant theologians refer to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, et al, as Patriarchs, which is Latin for Fathers. Even Protestant theologians have written many great boosk on the Fathers of the Church. They call them Father and on the Desert Fathers.

Even great Protesant ministers, such as Billy Graham, addressed the pope as Holy Father when he met him.

The more one understands the history of the Jewish people, the better one understands these disciplinary admonitions that Jesus gives. This falls under the area of discipline, not dogma. Today we do not have Caesar’s but we have other things and people whom we equate to God the Father. Jesus adminition applies to that too. Never equate anything or anyone to God the Father. There is only one divine Father. This is the message here. He’s teaching a dogma and stating a disciplinary admonition to protect the dogma. The dogma is that there is only one dvine Father. The discipline is to avoid equating anyone or anything with Him.

Hence we apply, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and give to God what is God’s.” If a man is a patriarch, give him the title and respect that a patriarch deserves and give to God the title and respect that he deserves… God is the only divine Father. No one in any of the apostolic Churches is call a divine Father. The highest title that the apostolic Churches use is Patriarch from ancient languages and Holy Father for the highest ranking patriarch of each Church. The term Holy is a reference to the holiness of the Church. He is the patriarch of that which is holy, the Church. Therefore, these men in the east and west are called Holy Father. The pope is not the only Holy Father around. The heads of the Eastern Churches and the Eastern Orthodox are also called Holy Father. We have an obligation to be charitable and respectful toward all people by calling them by their appropriate titles.

Notice, a physician is not always a teacher of medicine; but we call them Doctor. Doctor means the same as Rabbi. Doctor is Latin and Rabbi is Hebrew. They both mean Teacher. Jesus was called Rabbi, the Hebrew equivalent to the Latin word, Doctor from docere, to teach. Would you refuse to call a Rabbi by his title or a PhD, M.D. or DO by the title Doctor, because it should be reserved for Jesus alone?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[po18guy]

That is a non-sequiteur. Irrelevant argument. Buddhist monks lived in poverty too. They dressed with potato sack clothings and sandals all the time, lived in a cave or monastery and cold weather, have vow of silence, pray almost all the time but that doesn’t make them right and should be called “Father.” Or should we?:nope: Granted some priest have given a lot. That doesn’t earn them a title to be called “Father”. Or, is that your criteria? Many people sacrifice a lot, like Gandhi but I don’t call him father.

What I pray that you come to realize is that your beliefs are new to Christianity. At Catholic Answers, you are discovering ancient beliefs that appear shocking to you, as they should be. You are encountering authoritative interpretation of scripture, and you find it hard to accept. As to sacrifice, the comparison/contrast with Buddhism is the true non-sequitur. It does not matter one bit that false religions teach poverty. What matters is that Christ preached Apostolic poverty. Spirtual poverty. Physical poverty. I find the often seen “prosperity Gospel” to be a demon-lead man-made concoction.

As I said in my previous posts, the term “father” is more than a title. It tells relationship. If a person does not have any kids (biologically or adopted), should he be recognized as a father on Father’s day? But he’s leader of the community, give a lot to charity, help a lot of people and feed the hungry and many more. He must have earn a title of a father, according to your argument. Many philanthropists have done that. Sometimes they are called Father of so and so on things they advocate or started but they never carry a “Father” title on their name.

They are spiritual fathers, with authority over sin, as given them by the Apostles, who received it from Christ. How can you possibly have a problem with that? Only the Pharisees had trouble with that concept (Mark 2:7). No protestant of any stripe, no Buddhist or Hindu, or Shintoist, or any other on earth has authority over sin. You do not have to believe this, but neither can you describe a more perfect mechanism for the forgiveness of sin and the perpetuation of the faith. It was designed by our Lord. For example, when our Lord forgave sins, what did He say? “Your sins are forgiven”(Matthew 9:2, Mark 2:5, Luke 5:20, Luke 7:48). The very words of our God! What peace and comfort they brought to those whose sins simply evaporated! Have you ever heard those blessed words? I pray that some day you will. Catholics and Orthodox are certain that their sins are forgiven, because they hear Christ’s very words from the mouth of the Priest who has authority over sin. Amazing.

Luke 9:23 And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me.
Not earn a title or some sort. If there is a “title” it should be Follower of Christ or Servant.

They are both followers and servants, as well as spiritual fathers in the model of Paul. You believe the bible. Bishops (Overseers), Presbyters, and Deacons are all titles received by men who were found worthy by the Church (Philippians 1, 1 Timothy 3, Titus 1, 1 Peter 5). Those titles were not taken by themselves and assigned to themselves. Such titles were received from those above. At table, you are not to take the highest seat, lest someone higher cause you to lose your place (Luke 14:7-11). You are to take the lowest place and then rejoice when you are called to a higher position. And, so it is with the clergy.

Somebody said that we should not make a big deal out of it. Well, the catholic church does. They emphatically proclaim their title as “Father” _______. I met a priest before that will not talk to you if you don’t address him as “father.”

“Reverend” is also appropriate. You certainly can live with that term. Here’s one for you: Jesus also said “call no one teacher” (Matthew 23:10). Ooops! Now what? We offer the title of Father out of pure respect toward one having authority to bind or loose our sin. They stand “in persona Christi” - in the place of Christ. I assure you, from the bible, that there is no “right to forgiveness” (Acts 5:1-10).

Has any parishioner in RCC address their priest in their first name only? Of course not.

Oh, someone surely has, but they lack respect.

Jesus said it and it should not be ignored. Otherwise, let us just ignore whatever we don’t like in the Scriptures and do whatever we like.

That is exactly what many bible Christians do. They have taken Holy Scripture out of context and made it mean what it does not mean. 2 Peter 3:16 condemns that.

That will be the same irony for those who believed in same sex marriage. They can always argue and justify their behavior and emotion and things sounds good but not right.

In the 1950s, Episcopalians would have been shocked to hear of same sex “marriage”. Today it is solidly ensconced in their church, and they can justify it from scripture. Why are you right and they are wrong? It’s the same bible - exactly.

 

[onthego4]

What I pray that you come to realize is that your beliefs are new to Christianity. At Catholic Answers, you are discovering ancient beliefs that appear shocking to you, as they should be. You are encountering authoritative interpretation of scripture, and you find it hard to accept. As to sacrifice, the comparison/contrast with Buddhism is the true non-sequitur. It does not matter one bit that false religions teach poverty. What matters is that Christ preached Apostolic poverty. Spirtual poverty. Physical poverty. I find the often seen “prosperity Gospel” to be a demon-lead man-made concoction.

1. • 1
   You are speaking like you are the only authority to interpret the Scriptures. What gives you that authority? Peter says that:
   2Pe 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
   
   I agree. Those prosperity gospel people are just phonies. They just want people’s money. Look at their buildings and properties. Massive. But the RCC is no poor either. Have you heard the millions of dollars they paid for kids molested by priests? Have you seen the cathedrals plaited with gold? The properties owned by the RCC? They are in no way poor.
   
   They are spiritual fathers, with authority over sin, as given them by the Apostles, who received it from Christ. How can you possibly have a problem with that? Only the Pharisees had trouble with that concept (Mark 2:7). No protestant of any stripe, no Buddhist or Hindu, or Shintoist, or any other on earth has authority over sin. You do not have to believe this, but neither can you describe a more perfect mechanism for the forgiveness of sin and the perpetuation of the faith. It was designed by our Lord. For example, when our Lord forgave sins, what did He say? “Your sins are forgiven”(Matthew 9:2, Mark 2:5, Luke 5:20, Luke 7:48). The very words of our God! What peace and comfort they brought to those whose sins simply evaporated! Have you ever heard those blessed words? I pray that some day you will. Catholics and Orthodox are certain that their sins are forgiven, because they hear Christ’s very words from the mouth of the Priest who has authority over sin. Amazing.
   
   1. • 2
      The priest have authority over sins? That ridiculous and absurd! One thing the Pharisees are correct is when they said this: " . . .who can forgive sins but God only?" (Mark 2:7) They did not recognize or acknowledge that Jesus is God, Who can forgive sins.
      The priests have no authority over sins. They themselves are sinners. Haven’t you heard of many priests that have committed atrocious sins for centuries? They have no power over sins. They are made of the same flesh like you and me.
      If I have done something wrong to you and ask for forgiveness, you can say, “I forgive you.” But why should I tell you my sins to others and you will have the power to forgive of my sins to others? Only God can do that. That’s where the Pharisees were correct.
      Heb 10:11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:
      If they are little christs here on earth because some council anointed them with the title and now they have authority to forgive sins, would you not calling that blasphemy? Because God is the only one who can forgive sins. The first commandment says, “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.”
      Then what happen if they themselves fall in sins? Would that invalidate the sins that they have forgiven? You cannot forgive sins if you are doing the same sins. That would be hypocritical.
      Matthew 23: 10 — Same answer from my previous posts. It is spiritual.
      Acts 5:1-10 – Its the story of Annanaias and Sapphira. It actually proves my point. Peter said:
      Act 5:3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?
      Act 5:4 Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.
      Who did they lied to? To God the Holy Spirit. Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is unforgiveable.
      Mat 12:31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.
      Did Peter killed them? No. God did.
      Who has the power over their sins? God.
      
      1. • 3
         In the 1950s, Episcopalians would have been shocked to hear of same sex “marriage”. Today it is solidly ensconced in their church, and they can justify it from scripture. Why are you right and they are wrong? It’s the same bible - exactly.
         Because they try to justify their behavior and practice that is obviously against the Scriptures. Nothing wrong with the Bible. We should let the Bible speaks for itself rather than add some councils and committees interpretations and cannons. That’s were the problems comes in. Those councils and committees are not perfect as they claim.
         As Peter said again:
         2Pe 1:20 Knowing this first, that** no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.**

 

[adriancombe]

What I pray that you come to realize is that your beliefs are new to Christianity. At Catholic Answers, you are discovering ancient beliefs that appear shocking to you, as they should be. You are encountering authoritative interpretation of scripture, and you find it hard to accept. As to sacrifice, the comparison/contrast with Buddhism is the true non-sequitur. It does not matter one bit that false religions teach poverty. What matters is that Christ preached Apostolic poverty. Spirtual poverty. Physical poverty. I find the often seen “prosperity Gospel” to be a demon-lead man-made concoction.

1. • 1
   You are speaking like you are the only authority to interpret the Scriptures. What gives you that authority? Peter says that:
   2Pe 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
   
   I agree. Those prosperity gospel people are just phonies. They just want people’s money. Look at their buildings and properties. Massive. But the RCC is no poor either. Have you heard the millions of dollars they paid for kids molested by priests? Have you seen the cathedrals plaited with gold? The properties owned by the RCC? They are in no way poor.
   
   They are spiritual fathers, with authority over sin, as given them by the Apostles, who received it from Christ. How can you possibly have a problem with that? Only the Pharisees had trouble with that concept (Mark 2:7). No protestant of any stripe, no Buddhist or Hindu, or Shintoist, or any other on earth has authority over sin. You do not have to believe this, but neither can you describe a more perfect mechanism for the forgiveness of sin and the perpetuation of the faith. It was designed by our Lord. For example, when our Lord forgave sins, what did He say? “Your sins are forgiven”(Matthew 9:2, Mark 2:5, Luke 5:20, Luke 7:48). The very words of our God! What peace and comfort they brought to those whose sins simply evaporated! Have you ever heard those blessed words? I pray that some day you will. Catholics and Orthodox are certain that their sins are forgiven, because they hear Christ’s very words from the mouth of the Priest who has authority over sin. Amazing.
   
   1. • 2
      The priest have authority over sins? That ridiculous and absurd! One thing the Pharisees are correct is when they said this: " . . .who can forgive sins but God only?" (Mark 2:7) They did not recognize or acknowledge that Jesus is God, Who can forgive sins.
      The priests have no authority over sins. They themselves are sinners. Haven’t you heard of many priests that have committed atrocious sins for centuries? They have no power over sins. They are made of the same flesh like you and me.
      If I have done something wrong to you and ask for forgiveness, you can say, “I forgive you.” But why should I tell you my sins to others and you will have the power to forgive of my sins to others? Only God can do that. That’s where the Pharisees were correct.
      Heb 10:11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:
      If they are little christs here on earth because some council anointed them with the title and now they have authority to forgive sins, would you not calling that blasphemy? Because God is the only one who can forgive sins. The first commandment says, “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.”
      Then what happen if they themselves fall in sins? Would that invalidate the sins that they have forgiven? You cannot forgive sins if you are doing the same sins. That would be hypocritical.
      Matthew 23: 10 — Same answer from my previous posts. It is spiritual.
      Acts 5:1-10 – Its the story of Annanaias and Sapphira. It actually proves my point. Peter said:
      Act 5:3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?
      Act 5:4 Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.
      Who did they lied to? To God the Holy Spirit. Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is unforgiveable.
      Mat 12:31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.
      Did Peter killed them? No. God did.
      Who has the power over their sins? God.
      
      1. • 3
         In the 1950s, Episcopalians would have been shocked to hear of same sex “marriage”. Today it is solidly ensconced in their church, and they can justify it from scripture. Why are you right and they are wrong? It’s the same bible - exactly.
         Because they try to justify their behavior and practice that is obviously against the Scriptures. Nothing wrong with the Bible. We should let the Bible speaks for itself rather than add some councils and committees interpretations and cannons. That’s were the problems comes in. Those councils and committees are not perfect as they claim.
         As Peter said again:
         2Pe 1:20 Knowing this first, that** no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.**

1. 1. 1. 
         This is getting harder to follow and will become worse until/unless you use the quote function as intended. If you need help with this just ask. Peace

 

[po18guy]

You are speaking like you are the only authority to interpret the Scriptures. What gives you that authority? Peter says that:
2Pe 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

I am delighted that you pay attention to 2 Peter 1:20. If only all Christians would! If I sound confident, that is only because I have the Church to rely on for interpretation. It’s not about me, but the Church. I have learned (from the Church) the authoritative interpretation of scripture, and I have no fear of a passing spirit guiding me.

But the RCC is no poor either. Have you heard the millions of dollars they paid for kids molested by priests? Have you seen the cathedrals plaited with gold? The properties owned by the RCC? They are in no way poor.

The “riches” you see were given to the Church - that means to you and I, since we are the Church. It is the possession of all Christians. It has no worldly value as it cannot be sold.

The priest have authority over sins? That ridiculous and absurd! One thing the Pharisees are correct is when they said this: " . . .who can forgive sins but God only?" (Mark 2:7) They did not recognize or acknowledge that Jesus is God, Who can forgive sins. The priests have no authority over sins. They themselves are sinners. Haven’t you heard of many priests that have committed atrocious sins for centuries? They have no power over sins. They are made of the same flesh like you and me.

Did Jesus give the “sinful” Apostles authority over sin? Yes or no? (Matthew 16:19, 18:18, John 20:22-23).

If I have done something wrong to you and ask for forgiveness, you can say, “I forgive you.” But why should I tell you my sins to others and you will have the power to forgive of my sins to others? Only God can do that. That’s where the Pharisees were correct.

Stick with me here: Jesus gave authority over sin to the Apostles, right? The Apostles gave that authority to their successors. So, you have never heard Jesus’ words “Your sins are forgiven”? Pity. There is much more to Jesus and His Church than just the few week’s worth of notes about him in the bible (John 20:20, 21:25). There are not three years worth of Jesus preaching in the bible. Where’s the rest of it?

Heb 10:11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:

Context! This is speaking of Jewish Old Testament priests and their burnt offerings. Hebrews was written to Christian Jews, who were converting from Old Testament to New. This verse gave them understanding in their conversion.

If they are little christs here on earth because some council anointed them with the title and now they have authority to forgive sins, would you not calling that blasphemy? Because God is the only one who can forgive sins. The first commandment says, “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.”

“He who hears you hears me” “Whatever you hold bound on earth is held bound in heaven” “Whose sins you forgive are forgiven” Did Jesus really say this? Yes, He did. The Apostles, who received it from Christ, passed it on. Simple. Why make it complicated?

Because they try to justify their behavior and practice that is obviously against the Scriptures. Nothing wrong with the Bible. We should let the Bible speaks for itself rather than add some councils and committees interpretations and cannons. That’s were the problems comes in. Those councils and committees are not perfect as they claim.

What you just said is 100% your opinion. I ask: Why should anyone believe you? It’s only your private interpretation. You have yours and the Episcopalians have theirs. Since you both use the bible, you’re both right, aren’t you? Point is, the bible needs proper interpretation. Not yours - not mine, but that of the Church, which is the “pillar and foundation of the truth” according to Paul (1 Timothy 3:15). Again: Not you. Not me. Not the “bible alone”. The Church.

Your disappointment and amazement here is due to the horrible man-made doctrine of “bible alone” (sola scriptura). The bible itself tells you that it needs proper interpretation. Read Nehemiah 8:8 and Acts 8:30-31. Where do you go to get that interpretation? You cannot go to the bible, because it tells you to look elsewhere. The Church. Christ founded a Church to settle all matters (Matthew 18:17). Just as today we have written laws and a judge to interpret them, we also have the written word of God and the Church to interpret it. One Church, one teaching, with authority. Just as Christ intended.

 

[Bengoshi]

When I was a Jew, I always said that if I ever became a Christian I would make a very rebellious Protestant, because they don’t understand how we (Jews) speak and write.

To a Jew, the title Father had three meanings: God the Father, the Patriarchs and the biological father. At the time of Jesus, the Romans were imposing Caesar as god on their provinces, making him equal to God the Father. This is the reference that Jesus is making. Never call anyone Father as in Father God. He was not condemning the patriarchal tradition, which was part of his faith and which he defended.

The Catholics use the title Father the same way that Jews and Muslims use it when referring to the Patriarchs. It is a patriarchal title, not a divine title. We Jews can tell the difference between the two. It’s just like when you Gentiles write history and you write about Adonnai and you wire “God” with an upper case. But when you write about the Greeks and Romans you write “god” with a lower case. You call them both G O D but you can tell the difference.

I don’t think that the problem is with the Catholics. I believe the problem is with people not undestanding how Jews speak or spoke in those days and the issues that they were facing. Some of Jesus’ statements were addressing specific issues that threatened the faith of the people, such as the Roman imposition of an emperor who was a father-god, which is the meaning of the title Caesar.

Even Protestant theologians refer to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, et al, as Patriarchs, which is Latin for Fathers. Even Protestant theologians have written many great boosk on the Fathers of the Church. They call them Father and on the Desert Fathers.

Even great Protesant ministers, such as Billy Graham, addressed the pope as Holy Father when he met him.

The more one understands the history of the Jewish people, the better one understands these disciplinary admonitions that Jesus gives. This falls under the area of discipline, not dogma. Today we do not have Caesar’s but we have other things and people whom we equate to God the Father. Jesus adminition applies to that too. Never equate anything or anyone to God the Father. There is only one divine Father. This is the message here. He’s teaching a dogma and stating a disciplinary admonition to protect the dogma. The dogma is that there is only one dvine Father. The discipline is to avoid equating anyone or anything with Him.

Hence we apply, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and give to God what is God’s.” If a man is a patriarch, give him the title and respect that a patriarch deserves and give to God the title and respect that he deserves… God is the only divine Father. No one in any of the apostolic Churches is call a divine Father. The highest title that the apostolic Churches use is Patriarch from ancient languages and Holy Father for the highest ranking patriarch of each Church. The term Holy is a reference to the holiness of the Church. He is the patriarch of that which is holy, the Church. Therefore, these men in the east and west are called Holy Father. The pope is not the only Holy Father around. The heads of the Eastern Churches and the Eastern Orthodox are also called Holy Father. We have an obligation to be charitable and respectful toward all people by calling them by their appropriate titles.

Notice, a physician is not always a teacher of medicine; but we call them Doctor. Doctor means the same as Rabbi. Doctor is Latin and Rabbi is Hebrew. They both mean Teacher. Jesus was called Rabbi, the Hebrew equivalent to the Latin word, Doctor from docere, to teach. Would you refuse to call a Rabbi by his title or a PhD, M.D. or DO by the title Doctor, because it should be reserved for Jesus alone?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Dear Br. JR,

Your post is very good! You explained it very well. I have a lot of friends who are Catholic priests, both Roman and Eastern, and I don’t have ny problem calling them “Father.”