This is addressed to onthego4. I was once (a year ago, in fact) exactly like you. I went to the local RCC and started taking RCIA classes, but not with the best of intentions. While there, I learned a few things that really humbled me before my Lord. Here are a few:
The “Bible” that I quoted, carried around, and used to argue wasn’t assembled as such until 394 A.D. by the Catholic Church. If they had the authority to make this decision, isn’t it incumbent upon us to learn more of these men and read their thoughts and practices of the time? The Church had been in existence for over 350 years without knowing what “the holy scriptures” were. There was already a succession of Pope (from Peter to Linus) before the first gospel had been written! There had already been 5 popes by the time the last book of the Bible was written. If people waited until there was a Bible, there wouldn’t be a Church! Jesus was literate. If he wanted a book, he could have written a book. He instead instilled his message into people, specifically the 12 apostles. He gave them the authority to “bind and loose”. Did the 12 have authority to forgive sin? Yes, the Bible is clear that is what they did. Were they without sin? No, they weren’t. Paul mentions often that he was a sinner. But that didn’t stop him.
The Bible that we use is made up mostly of letters written to the early church. We have more letters available, written at that same time, if you care to read them. They are quite informative and quite catholic. The earliest usage I could find of the term “Holy Father” being applied to the Pope (the Bishop of Rome) was around 210 A.D. This was 180 years before “The Holy Scriptures” had been named. At that time, they were just letters from the apostles. We can’t think we could possibly use only these letters written to the church confirming their faith and correcting improper doctrine and practices as the sole means to get to know our Lord. Jesus was here to teach of a personal experience with God. If it could be acquired by reading a book, He wouldn’t have suffered and died on the cross. He asked the Father for another way to make this work. They couldn’t come up with one. It took Martin Luther to think of another way.
Why do we need priests? Well, Jesus still went to the temple as any good Jew did. His problem was with those in the leadership. We must see the Old and New Testaments together to understand either. The Ten Commandment, the Ark of the Covenant, the Staff of Aaron, Manna from Heaven, these are all types of that which is to come. As a protestant, I understood that Jesus was the Word of God, as the tablets were the Word of God in the Old Testament. I just never continued to try to understand what the other significant things mentioned were types of. The priesthood was established in the Old Testament and was never overturned by our Lord. Jesus was the high priest that offered the perfect sacrifice, Himself. The apostles began ordaining priests immediately, they themselves being the Bishops. They immediately recognized Peter as the head of them. Only by reading these early writings can one see the practical application of the Gospel. We can’t possibly take something that was written by man, assembled by man, copied multiple times (by hand) by man, and translated from languages no longer in existence by man and expect to understand it to the point of starting a religion that would please our Lord. The Lord established one Church. If you are baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, you are a member of that Church. You can continue to kick against that to which you belong, but that’s not what Jesus wants you to do. He prayed to the Father for us to have unity.
Short answer: After reading Jreducation’s answer above, we call priests father because we want to. We find it respectful and respectfully ask others to do so. They have sacrificed much for us, the laity of the Church. If calling them “father” makes you think that they are God, that’s something you need to pray about. Quoting verses back at the people who protected the holy scriptures and delivered them into your hands at the expense of their own lives is not respectful.
Yes, Peter said that the scriptures weren’t open to private interpretation. Want a shocker?!? Peter meant that HE and the apostles were the ones to interpret them. Do you know what he was referring to? THE OLD TESTAMENT writings. There was no new testament. All they had was the “the law and the prophets”. Peter, Paul and all the rest had no way of knowing that their letters would one day be considered “the Bible”. They actually wrote very little, because they still didn’t understand that Jesus wasn’t coming “right back”. They spent all their time preaching and teaching that the kingdom was at hand. It wasn’t until the apostles all died and the ones they personally taught and anointed were getting old that people started writing things down. Remember, being a Christian was illegal and being ordained as a bishop (the Pope is simply the Bishop of Rome) was a death sentence. Look sometime at how many Popes the early church had. This wasn’t so everyone had a turn. This was because they were used as lion food.
I strongly encourage you to read the writing of the early church which are freely available online or go to an apologetics class or an RCIA class at a local catholic church. Ask questions. Challenge them. They love it. Just do so with charity and respect, for Peter was clear that we are to answer with “gentleness and reverence”. You seem to know your way around the Bible, and once you learn “the rest of the story”, I feel you will be a great asset to the Church.
In His name,
ARM
P.S. I am very new to being Catholic and to this forum. If I made any factual errors, please be gentle in your correction. There is so much to learn…
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.”
