Why Call Priests "Father"?

Matthew 23:9 is cited as contrary to the Catholic practice of calling priests "father". This is not a good understanding of the text. First, this would exclude calling even our biological fathers "father" and clearly Jesus didn't mean that (Matt 15:4-6). Nor does he mean this in a spiritual sense as he also warns us to not call other people teachers (v. 8 & 10), but clearly we have hundreds of well accredited and trained theological professors at seminaries all across the world. So what does Jesus mean? As indicated in v. 11, he means that we do not take these titles so that they supplant the place of God, because that is pride. The preceding two paragraphs starting at the beginning of the chapter make this evident that this is the issue with those whom Jesus is criticizing and why.

With that in mind, consider the second problem with this understanding of the text, which is that it is actually done with approval elsewhere in the Bible. In the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man (Luke 16:24, 27, 30), the rich man refers to Abraham as "father". There are multiple times in scripture where Abraham is referred to as "father" (James 2:21) Clearly Abraham was not his biological father, so what did he mean? It cannot mean genetic father for Romans 4:16 tells us to understand Abraham in the spiritual sense. The spiritual meaning of "father", one that does not supplant God, is used explicitly in 1 Corinthians 4:15, which reads (NIV), "Even if you had ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel." This is all Catholics mean when we call a priest "father."

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Milo

Image
So I decided to go see Milo Yiannopoulos at UCSB yesterday. I was really hesitant to do so, and decided not to go, but a few of my friends wanted to go, and they're all losers who don't drive, so, I had to take everyone. I didn't know much about Milo, and I still don't, but I did learn some things. In some of the more, ahem, colorfully conservative pages of facebook that I follow, Milo has been something of an iconoclast, destroying the feminist narratives left and right. But I also know that he is an active homosexual and he is a rabid Trump supporter (even calling him "Daddy"). So, for those reasons, I was never interested in what he had to say. He was, to take a phrase from Lenin, a useful idiot. That was my impression. But I was wrong. A few days before the event, I had read somewhere on these pages I follow but wont name, that Milo believed himself to be a Christian, and a Catholic at that. I dismissed this immediately, and my opinion of him stoppe
Read more

What Does The Bible Say About Birth Control?

From the early church up to 1930, virtually every church believed contraception was a sin. That fact alone should have us induce that contraception is in fact a sin. Yet, there are many Christians today, even in my own congregation, that will never entertain the possibility of contraception being a sin.
Read more

Is Canon 28 Binding?

In my previous post , I discussed Canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon (you'll find the full text of the canon there). But I should have put an asterisk on the conversation because Canon 28 isn't properly part of the council. You'll remember from an earlier post , that what makes a council ecumenical is ratification from the Roman Pontiff. Canons are part of councils. And naturally, canons also have to be ratified. However, Canon 28 was not ratified by Pope Leo (Roman Pontiff at the time). So Canon 28 isn't part of the council and thus isn't binding.  If you are Orthodox, this may sound too convenient. I've already suggested why Roman Ratification is the correct theory in the previous link. However, I want to add two things. First, even Saints in the East agree with the Roman position, and second, a case can be made for Canon 28 not being problematic for Catholicism.  First, there are the sayings of Pope St. Gelasius (about 490 AD), and Pope St. Gelasius is
Read more