Call No One Your Father

“Call no one on earth your father; you have but one Father in heaven.” (Matthew 23:9) Some evangelicals point to this saying of Jesus as an argument against Catholics calling their priests “Father.”

If we take this saying literally, we see it broken a number of times in the Bible, including by Jesus himself:

Paul tells the Corinthians: “Even if you should have countless guides to Christ, yet you do not have many fathers, for I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel.” (1 Corinthians 4:15)

In Romans 9:10 Paul speaks of “our father Isaac,” and in Romans 4:12 he speaks of “father Abraham.” Jesus himself calls Abraham “your father” in John 8:56, and has the rich man in his parable call to “father Abraham” in Luke 16:24.  Zechariah calls Abraham “our father” in Luke 1:73, as does Stephen in Acts 7:2. Paul says that people who have faith are “children of Abraham” in Galatians 3:7. He tells the Thessalonians: “As you know, we treated each one of you as a father treats his children.” (1 Thessalonians 2:11)

It seems there are a lot more people to take to task over this issue before approaching one’s Catholic friends and neighbors.

Hard Answers From a Good Catholic

Mike Gendron composed something called “Hard Questions For Good Catholics.” I’ll take a crack at some of them here.

“Where do you go to find the truth about life’s most critical issues?”

I go to Jesus, the eternal Word of God, who always was and who will always be. I go to Jesus who never taught that he, the eternal Word, can be constrained or limited to what is written on the finite pages of inspired Scripture. I go to Jesus who established a Church upon Peter, calling him the rock, not Scripture. (I haven’t yet found a translation that reads “You are Peter, but Scripture is the rock upon which I will build my church.”) I go to Jesus, who declared the Church, not Scripture, to be the court of final appeal in Matthew 18:18. I go to Jesus, whose Church—not Scripture—Paul declared to be “the pillar and ground of the truth.” (1 Timothy 3:15)

I go to Jesus the eternal Word of God, who speaks through both inspired Scripture and through His inspired Church, with the Church being primary, as the Scripture clearly shows.

I have articles on the multiple fallacies of Sola Scriptura elsewhere on this blog if you’d like to read more.

“Possibly the most important question the Son of God ever asked was addressed to Peter: “Who do you say that I am?”

Peter’s answer did not come from himself—Jesus clearly says that God spoke the answer through Peter:  “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.” (Matthew 16: 17). God the Father Himself revealed an essential truth directly through Simon; he did not get this insight through Scripture. If someone can read this, and the verses that immediately follow, and still proclaim that the Word of God is revealed no place else other than the printed pages of Scripture,  that person is impeded by  serious blockage. (Even the book where we read this, the Gospel of Matthew, is not declared by Scripture to be Scripture, but by divinely inspired men outside of Scripture.)

For more commentary on Peter’s answer to Jesus’ question, read “One True Church: What the Bible Tells Us” elsewhere on this blog.

“The apostles had only two successors—Matthias who was chosen by the apostles and Paul who was chosen by Christ. Catholic bishops do not meet the qualifications for apostleship given in Acts 1:21-26.”

I address the multiple fallacies of this argument in “The Truth About Apostolic Succession,” posted elsewhere on this blog.

“Do you really believe Catholic priests have the power to call the Lord down from heaven every day?”

No. Jesus does this himself through a human instrument who has no such power of his own. The wording of the Mass makes this point explicit when responses are directed not to the priest personally, but to his spirit, whom Jesus is working through.

I have three articles about the Biblical truth of the Eucharist elsewhere on this blog if you’d like to read in more detail a response to this question.

One True Church: What the Bible Tells Us

Jesus clearly wills that all believers be one, not divided into many factions:

“And now I will no longer be in the world, but they are in the world, while I am coming to you. Holy Father, keep them in your name that you have given me, so that they may be one just as we are…. As you sent me into the world, so I sent them into the world. And I consecrate myself for them, so that they also may be consecrated in truth. I pray not only for them, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, so that they may all be one, as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they also may be in us, that the world may believe that you sent me. And I have given them the glory you gave me, so that they may be one, as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may be brought to perfection as one.” (John 17:11, 18-23)

Disrupting this unity and causing division among believers is contrary to the will of Christ. Paul warned the Corinthians about such divisions:

"I urge you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree in what you say, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and in the same purpose. For it has been reported to me about you, my brothers, by Chloe’s people, that there are rivalries among you. I mean that each of you is saying, 'I belong to Paul,' or 'I belong to Apollos,' or 'I belong to Cephas,' or 'I belong to Christ.' Is Christ divided?" (1 Corinthians 1:10-13)

Because Christ wants all believers to be one, he founded one Church to which he wants all to belong.

In founding this one Church, Jesus distinguished between those who hold conflicting human interpretations of who he is, and those to whom God reveals the truth, and who pass along divine revelation rather than human interpretation. From Matthew 16:17-19:

"Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” They replied, “Some say John the Baptist,^* others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” [This is human interpretation, and grasps part of the truth, but not all.]

He said to [the Apostles—from the Greek apostolos, meaning one who is sent with the full authority of the one who sent them], “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, [i.e., this is not human interpretation] but my heavenly Father. [Rather, it is divine revelation.]

Because Simon Peter has proven to be an instrument capable of receiving divine revelation and passing it on instead of human interpretation, Jesus continues:

And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, [singular, not plural—“that they be one”] and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Peter will bind and loose as a divine instrument—not of his own human whim, for Jesus established earlier in this passage the limits of human reason and interpretation. Rather, Jesus is establishing Peter as his instrument on earth. He later commissions the rest of the Apostles as his instrument by sending his very presence into them:

“As the Father has sent me, so I send you.” And when he had said this he breathed on them and said to them: “Receive the Holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained.” (John 20:21-23)

Since only God can forgive sins, Jesus has established Peter and the Apostles as his instruments on earth, the one body through whom he will teach, govern and sanctify, through whom all his grace will flow to those on earth.

Early in the life of the Church Peter demonstrates that he truly is the instrument of divine instruction, during the circumcision controversy in Acts 15. Here this uneducated fisherman overturns a 1500 year-old law given by God through Moses—and everyone accepts the teaching, even if it clashes with their interpretation, because they understand that Jesus speaks through his instrument, Peter:

After much debate had taken place, Peter got up and said to them, “My brothers, you are well aware that from early days God made his choice among you that through my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe.”… The whole assembly fell silent. (Acts 15:7, 12)

Jesus promised he would always work through Peter and the Apostles and their successors until the end of time…

Behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age. (Matthew 28:20)

…and so we are obligated to listen to them and obey.

“You should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.” (1 Timothy 3:15)

The Decree on Ecumenism from the Second Vatican Council said this:

“The restoration of unity among all Christians is one of the principal concerns of the Second Vatican Council. Christ the Lord founded one Church and one Church only. However, many Christian communities present themselves to men as the true inheritors of Jesus Christ; all indeed profess to be followers of the Lord but they differ in mind and go their different ways, as if Christ himself were divided. Certainly, such division openly contradicts the will of Christ, scandalizes the world, and damages that most holy cause, the preaching of the Gospel to every creature.”

Joan of Arc put it this way:

“About Jesus Christ and the Church, I simply know they are just one thing, and we shouldn’t complicate the matter.”

From this we can draw the following conclusions:

Jesus Christ is the only Savior, the only one who can reconcile all humanity to God the Father. (If he is not, he went through Good Friday for nothing. To accept that there are other ways to the Father would be to call Jesus a fool for submitting to death on the cross.)

He established one Church to be his presence on earth—through which he himself governs, teaches, sends his grace and saves.

This one Church—Jesus’ instrument on earth—subsists in the one Church he established upon Peter and the Apostles, what is called today the Catholic Church. It is in this Church which Jesus wills that all shall be one.

We are not one. Believers are divided among many denominations. This is opposed to the will of Christ as expressed in John 17 and the teaching of Paul in 1 Corinthians 1. We are called to continually work towards the unity Christ wills by inviting all people into the fullness of communion in his Church.

In the meantime, while the fullness of what Jesus wills for all people is found only in full communion with his one Church, elements of his truth and grace can be found elsewhere—in other Christian denominations, in other religions which seek true goodness, and in the hearts of non-believers who seek true goodness. Anyone seeking true goodness is actually seeking Christ—however they may name it—and Christ can ensure they eventually find him and enjoy full communion with him.

But the fullness of that communion, and the fullest way to live on this earth, subsists in communion with the Catholic Church.

Why enjoy partial life in Jesus during our earthly life when we can have his fullness?!

Mike Gendron Gets It Wrong...Again

When someone is so full of contempt for a certain group of people it often clouds their vision, causing them to see things that aren’t there and to miss what is right in front of them. Such is the case with Mike Gendron’s contempt for the Roman Catholic Church, and it is evident in everything he writes.

A case in point is a brief article in the recent newsletter from his “Proclaiming the Gospel” ministry. The article reads as follows:

“In an article published by Catholic News Agency entitled Mary, Mother of Saints, Mother of All, the author declares that both Mary and her iconography are omnipresent. The author writes: ‘While Mary gives unfailing sustenance, it is precisely her gentle omnipresence in our lives that can make us take her for granted.’ In another paragraph the author says, ‘Our heavenly mother listens and speaks to us, and comforts us in many guises. She is present to us under many names, such as Mother of Mercy, Mother of Help, Mother of Divine Grace, and many more. Her splendid iconography is omnipresent like the crucifix, her love shining forth through the radiance of her face. Yet her loving presence is always gentle. We know that she is always our last resort.’

Mike's comment: Catholics continue to distort their version of Mary by giving her attributes of God including: omnipresence, sinlessness, co-mediator and advocate. This is what happens when an apostate church denies the supreme authority of God's Word.”

To his credit, Gendron included a link to the article, so readers can see exactly what he misinterpreted and presented out of context.

The article was about abortion, and argued that the discussion on this topic focuses almost exclusively on the child, and does not also consider the mother. The first paragraph concludes with “However, maternal love seen as an absolute value must not be absent when addressing the tragedy of killing the unborn. For children to be safe from harm, nothing must come between mothers and their children.”

The next paragraph begins: “As Catholics, we have a special knowledge of what having a mother means.” It is in that context that the paragraph flows, ending with “We know that [Mary] is always our last resort.” The author is saying that Mary is our last resort in knowing what it means to be a mother, not that she is our last resort in all things.

Gendron writes: “Catholics continue to distort their version of Mary by giving her attributes of God including: omnipresence, sinlessness, co-mediator and advocate.”

Really?

To misconstrue this author’s meaning of “omnipresence” takes a very narrow and biased mind. “Her splendid iconography is omnipresent like the crucifix.” Does Gendron really think the author is attributing literal omnipresence to physical objects? The author is simply saying we can find icons of Mary almost everywhere, just as we can find crucifixes almost everywhere. To claim the author is using the word “omnipresence” in the same context we use it for God is ridiculous, grasping desperately for something to criticize.

To revisit that sentence in its entirety: “Her splendid iconography is omnipresent like the crucifix, her love shining forth through the radiance of her face.” Have you ever looked at a picture of a loved one and felt their love shining through their face? If so, are you raising the loved one to the level of an omnipresent deity, or are you claiming the picture is actually that person, or that it has some supernatural power to channel them? Or do you simply experience their love when reminded of them by an image?

Have you ever felt the presence of a loved one when they are not physically present to you? By looking at a picture of them, or by a gift they gave you, or anything else that reminds them of you?

If so, don’t let Mike Gendron find out, for he will accuse you of giving them attributes of God, such as omnipresence.

He thinks the sinlessness Catholics attribute to Mary is on the same level of God’s sinlessness. The difference is that God cannot sin; Mary could have, but never chose sin. She was created in the same state of original justice as Eve, with the same free will and the same choices, but did not abuse her gift of free will. (For more perspective on this, read my article “Immaculate Conception and Perpetual Virginity: Why Do They Strike Such a Nerve?”)

The Catholic Church does not teach that Mary is a co-mediator. For more on that read my article “Mary: Not Just an Ovum Donor.”

Does the Catholic Church call Mary “Advocate?” Yes. If you find that objectionable, read John 2:1-5, and come up with a better word.