[All Scripture verses are taken from my favorite Bible. By the grace of God, I picked it up from a second-hand store for $2.50. It's in great condition and I reach for it before I reach for any other. I also find the translation a great aid in study. It is The New Catholic Edition of the Holy Bible: The Old Testament - Confraternity-Douay Version and The New Testament Confraternity Edition, 1957, Catholic Book Publishing Company.]
Here are some other wonderful Q&A sites, as well as places full of interesting articles dealing with the basics of Catholicism:
Sometimes, I imagine how much easier my life would be if I was able to take any verse out of the Bible, and claim that it meant whatever it needed to mean at that point in my life to support the particular life-choice I was making at that time. It would be nice since it's often difficult to accept what a verse demands of me whent hat verse is correctly interpreted. For example, if I choose not to believe in the True Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, I will say that the sixth chapter of John's Gospel is just figurative and deals with with the "spirit", not with Jesus' true Body and Blood. Also, if I choose to believe that faith alone without works assures me salvation, then all verses that remotely appear to negate a need to perform good works are literal, and could not mean anything other than faith alone. Whereas, I will take those verses which state specifically that our good and bad works will be judged as mere hyperbole.
Obvuiously, being a Catholic who follows the teachings of the Church, I do not feel this way about Sacred Scripture. But if I was a non-Catholic, or liberal Catholic who needed Scripture to back up the beliefs I choose to believe even before I read Scripture, then I am forced into this kind of rationalization.
But, what if the anti-Catholics are right? What if this verse really does prohibit anyone from calling their religious leaders "Father"? Let's assume, for a moment, that the anti-Catholic is right. We'll say for argument's sake that Jesus is saying that we cannot call anyone "father".
The following verse (Matthew 23:10) says that we should not call anyone Master. As everyone knows, Mister is a derivation of Master. So, should we not call anyone Mister? Also, could this be an injunction against calling our birth father by the title Father? But to get around this, the anti-Catholic will resort to the unScriptural statement that the verse in Matthew has to do with religious leaders and not birth fathers. However, that's not what the verse literally states. "And call no one on earth your father." It does not specify what role the person plays in your life, whether religious or parental. Yes, the previous verses are addressed specifically to the Scribes and the Pharisees in response to their conduct (notice that Jesus tells the disciples to do as they say and not as they do). But to claim that this verse can only apply to someone who is in a religious role undermines the grounds of Protestantism. Since Protestants believe that we are all equally capable of reading and interpreting Scripture on our own (in fact, their belief system demands this much - it requires a total abandonment of religious authority), then they are able to address NO ONE as Father, Mister, Master, or Teacher.
So what exactly has made Jesus so angry? Why does he rail at the Rabbis in this chapter? It is in the verses immediately preceding verse 9 (see what we're doing - taking it in context - hmm, what a concept!). The verses deal with the Pharisees and Scribes being called Rabbi. And we are told not to call anyone Rabbi, either. This is critical. What the Scribes and the Pharisees did was set themselves up as demi-gods. They put themselves at the center of attention, not God. They established laws and customs that blotted out the glory of God and focused it on themselves. So, what Jesus is saying is that we should not address anyone on earth as if we considered them on par with God, or in place of God. Only the honor due to God should go to God. Jesus says as much when he tells the young man that He Himself should not be called good, since only God is good. Would we want to take that verse out of context as well, and say that it is wrong to call Jesus good? Nonsense! Just as this claim against the Church's practice of calling Priests "father" is nonsense.
So, those who want to use this against Catholics have to decide how they want it. Is it literal? Can we understand what's being said on the surface of the text, or is there something else being said here?
Let me go on a tangent for a second. There is a verse in scripture, that, if you allow me the same interpretive (and infallible) powers as some non-Catholics take with Matthew 23:9, I will show you that only women who have borne children will make it to heaven. Read 1 Timothy 2:15 - "Yet women will be saved by childbearing, if they continue in faith and love and holiness with modesty." So, with the same freedom as our separated brethren, I could claim that this verse denies heaven to all women who have not had children. Now, of course that is ludicrous. But this is the kind of thing that happens when you take texts out of context. Tim Staples said it best when he stated that "a text taken out of context is pretext." (Listen to one of Tim's Radio Shows by cliking here, then scrolling down to his name on the left.)
So, what about calling Priests father? Well, in many places, we see Paul referring to himself as the spiritual father of Timothy and others. Also, he refers to those he brought into the faith as his children. So, if we accept what the anti-Catholics say about calling Priests father, then Paul must suffer the same condemnation as Catholics at the hands of our friendly neighborhood (infallible) Catholic bashers. In the same way, we often hear the Apostles call Jesus Rabbi, and yet He never rebukes them for this. These are just two very good examples of the dangers of taking a verse out of context to try to force it to mean what you want it to mean, without first taking into account the whole of Scripture.
|
Catholic Answers' Tract on calling Priest's "Father" |
|
|
"Call no Man Father" by Bob Stanley |
|
|
Celibacy and the Priesthood |
|
|
Clerical Celibacy: The Biblical Rationale Biblical Tract by Dave Armstrong |
|
|
The Office of New Testament Priest by James Akin |
|
|
The Logical and Scriptural Reasons for Confession by Mario Derksen |
|
|
Penance and Indulgences Numerous links on Dave Armstrong's site - Biblical Evidence for Catholicism. |
|
|
Confession Church Fathers |
|
|
Sacrament of Penance in the Early Church by Father William Most |
|
|
The Mass |
|
|
The Sacrifice of the Mass - taken from the Church Fathers |
|
|
The Eucharist and the Sacrifice of the Mass - numerous articles and transcripts explaining the Catholic belief in the Real Presence. Linked from Dave Armstrong's HUGE site - Biblical Evidence for Catholicism. |
|
|
Do Catholics pray to statues? A tract from Catholic Answers. |
|
|
Infant Baptism |
|
|
Baptizing Babies - as understood by the first Christians |
|
|
On Infant Baptism Church Fathers, ed. by Joe Gallegos |
|
|
Merit and Reward- from the perspective of the Church Fathers |
|
|
Justification: "Faith Apart From Works is Barren" A biblical treatise by Dave Armstrong. |
|
|
Justification By Christ Alone by James Akin |
|
|
Does John 3:16 Teach Eternal Security Through Faith Alone? by Steve Ray |
|
|
Did Any Church Fathers Teach Sola Fide? by "Matt1618" |
|
|
Merit: Catholic Doctrine vs. Caricature by Dave Armstrong |
|
|
Tradition, Bible, or both? |
|
|
Proving Inspiration |
|
|
Apostolic Tradition - as understood by the first Christians after the Apostles |
|
|
What's your authority for that? |
Now think about this for a moment. You're standing on a hilltop in Jerusalem during the life of Christ. You know that there are scrolls used in the synagogue for study and prayer. You know that the Holy books are the Pentateuch, the Prophets, the Histories, and the Psalms. But, since there has never been a definitive statement by a unified body of Jews, you do not know for sure what books belong to the entire body of Scripture. Also, you know for certain that there are no books in existence which speak about Jesus. You see, it was not until after Jesus died that anything was written about Him or His Church.
OK, so then you start to hear more and more about this Jesus. Then, one day, you find out He was crucified. Even at this time, you know that there are no scrolls written about this man. In fact, a good friend of yours followed Jesus around and was a good friend of one of the Apostles, and he told you that Jesus never once told any of His Apostles to write anything down. In fact, this Jesus repeatedly told his followers to "DO" things. That is, they were to preach, to heal, to soothe, to teach, to admonish, to save. He gave them many instructions while He was alive, but never to write.
Since the Apostles took off at a pretty good pace with their evangelization after Jesus ascended into heaven, you are pretty sure that none of them sat around just writing. Yet, they were up and about doing things. So, as a point of fact, this Church existed before the books which we have today that chronicle the Church's activities during the few decades after Jesus' death and resurrection. Therefore, the Bible (the collection of books written after Jesus' death, as well as the collection of books that were used in the Greek speaking portion of the Chosen people) was written after the Church began, so it is obvious that the Bible is Church-based and not the other way around. It's illogical to think that the Bible existed before the Church.
|
|
The Marks of the Church |
|
|
The Church of the Apostlesby K.D. Whitehead |
Return to top Return to homepage
|
|
Tradition, Bible, or Both? |
|
|
The Bereans vs. Sola Scripturaby William M. Putnam |
|
|
Cracks on the Solaby Fernando Matro |
|
|
Sola Scriptura: Why It Just Won't Workby Mario Derksen |
Return to top Return to homepage
|
|
A Defense of the Veneration of Saints and Imagesby Mario Derksen |
Return to top Return to homepage
Read what Jesus did in the Garden before he was arrested - he said the SAME prayer three times to God. Either Jesus is breaking His own (supposed) rule, or the fundamentalists are teaching something contrary to Jesus and Scripture.
Return to top Return to homepage
|
|
The Rosary |
|
|
The Woman of Revelation 12edited by Sharon Keegan |
|
|
Mary is the Mother of Godby Mario Derksen and Sean Hyland |
|
|
How Biblical is the Rosary?by Mario Derksen |
|
|
Mary the Mediatrix and Co-Redemptrixby Mario Derksen |
Return to top Return to homepage
Actually, we are all mediators of one kind or another. You are a mediator if you walk up to me and say, "Have you accepted Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior?" (Although this is a nice sentiment, these words are not necessary to utter for salvation. When Jesus was asked directly what must be done for salvation, what did He say? When Peter was asked on Pentecost how to gain what he preached, what does Peter tell the crowd? In neither of these cases does Jesus or Peter mention anything remotely similar to an altar call. Besides, when was the last time you were in a fundamentalist church and actually saw an altar??)
If you ask me to pray for your sick child, then I am being a mediator for you. If your pastor stands before you on stage and tells you that he will conclude your worship service with a blessing, then he is mediating for all of you in your chairs. (Continued later....)
|
|
Praying to Saints |
Return to top Return to homepage
|
|
Who is the Rock? |
|
|
Peter the Rock- from the writings of the Church Fathers |
|
|
The Rock of Matthew 16:18by Frank Jerry |