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.

Crucifix or Plain Cross?

Even the difference between a crucifix and a plain cross can, incredibly, become a source of division among Christians. Extreme anti-Catholics like to say a crucifix “keeps Jesus on the cross forever,” a sign that his death is really not complete because—according to them—Catholics crucify Christ over and over again at every Mass.

Anyone with even a basic knowledge of Catholic sacramental theology knows this isn’t true. And while both a crucifix and a cross are worthy symbols to direct the attention of a Christian to the Savior, a crucifix is a richer symbol. I would like to simply share my own perspective when I look at each, a perspective informed by the historical fact that Jesus Christ was not the only person to be crucified—but his crucifixion was unique among the many, many thousands of others who were killed by this procedure.

When I look at a plain cross with nobody depicted on it, I see an instrument of terrorism, torture and execution upon which many thousands of people were grotesquely slaughtered at the hands of the Roman government (as well as others) over a period of about a thousand years. Looking at a plain cross I see an instrument devised by cold-hearted human beings to deliberately inflict terror and unspeakable cruelty upon other human beings, horrifying cruelty unimaginable in the civilized mind. I see the evil of those that conceived such a device, and the inhumanity of those who were involved in nailing fellow-human beings to their death.

Looking at only the instrument minus a victim (for these things had thousands of victims), numerous adjectives come to mind: horrendous, loathsome, abominable, gruesome, appalling, heinous, shameful, revolting, sickening.

When I look at a crucifix depicting Jesus on one of these crosses, I see only one of the many thousands of executions that took place through crucifixion—one that was extraordinarily unique. Here God’s own Son willingly succumbed to this humiliating and awful torture out of total, selfless love for sinners. In this unique crucifixion Jesus Christ took on humanity’s most vile enemy and conquered it for all time. This was a unique crucifixion, vastly different from all the others taking place on this same instrument, and some adjectives that come to mind are: wonderful, glorious, loving, devoted, generous, passionate, wondrous, awesome, heroic, magnificent, triumphant, sacred.

On a crucifix I see an image of the total, self-sacrificing and self-giving love and mercy of the God who laid down his life for us; a plain cross suggests that potential, a crucifix displays it. While both are valid and worthy symbols of Jesus Christ, a crucifix is a much more powerful and accurate reminder of who he is and what he did for us.

Why Pray for the Dead, and Why Ask Them to Pray for Us?

Why would anyone pray for the dead? And why would we try to ask people in Heaven to pray for us? Before we can address these questions we first need to understand the answers to two others: Why do we pray for anyone, especially a fellow believer, who is alive on earth with us? And why do we ask others on earth to pray for us?

A simple answer might be that the Bible tells us to in a number of places, perhaps most notably Ephesians 6:18-19, in which Paul tells the Ephesians they should be “praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, being watchful to this end with all perseverance and supplication for all the saints—and for me, that utterance may be given to me.”

But how does this make any sense in light of the clear Biblical teaching that Jesus Christ is our only Mediator?

I can pray to Jesus directly; I don’t need anybody else to do that for me. If you agree with that, then why would I ask anyone else to pray for me? And why would I pray for anyone else when they can also pray directly without me? And why would Paul, of all people, ask for prayers—he had a direct supernatural encounter with Jesus, a clear, unobstructed path.

It would seem that anyone who puts forth this reasoning to argue that we have no business asking Mary or other saints in Heaven to pray for us had better stop asking anyone on earth to pray for them as well. You have only one Mediator between you and God, so you’d better stop asking your pastor or your neighbor or your brother to pray for you.

And you’d better stop praying for other people, stop trying to be another mediator, because by doing so you’re trying to usurp the role of Christ.

Does that sound silly? Of course it does—especially to someone who understands the real reason we pray for others and ask their prayers for us.

We are not mediators for each other, that’s Jesus’ unique role. Jesus is the one Mediator between God and all of humanity. And we really don’t need anybody else to intercede for us, because we can all pray directly ourselves. Jesus taught this clearly in Matthew 6:6 where he says:

“When you pray, go into your room, and when you have shut your door, pray to your Father who is in the secret place; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you openly.”

But what we do need is an intimate connection to the other members of the Body of Christ to which we are all joined as one. We cannot live as individual members of the Body without a powerful connection to each other. (1 Corinthians 12)

Prayer is that connection, for when we pray for each other we enter intimately into each other’s spiritual life—not just physical, emotional and mental life, but spiritual life, in which we are ultimately one Body. Prayer is the blood that circulates throughout the entire Body of Christ, much like the blood in my physical body establishes a bond between my right hand and my left ankle, for the same blood flows through both. Our prayer for each other draws us into a closer bond with each other and with Jesus the true Mediator.

So we pray for others, and we ask them to pray for us, not because we need their mediation or even intercession for God to hear us (as if God won’t listen to me unless someone more influential speaks on my behalf), but so that we can be a stronger, complete Body.

And if it is true that the Body of Christ is one, not divided, then it is true that we are part of the same Body as all the other members, including those who have preceded us in death. So we continue to pray for them, and they pray for us, because we are still one Body in Christ and need to maintain that connection through prayer, the life blood of the Body.

What Pope Francis Really Said About Homosexuality

It’s been seven months since Pope Francis made his famous “who am I to judge” remark in answer to a question about a “gay lobby” in the Curia, and its waves continue to wash ashore—bringing both cleansing waters and dead fish. To those who understand Catholic teaching on homosexuality it’s a refreshing reminder of the love Jesus commands us to have for all people. For those who don’t—and particularly those who don’t want to—it’s misconstrued as a blessing on homosexual activity.

A notable case of the latter occurred in November when the Illinois legislature passed a bill making the state the sixteenth in the nation to legalize “homosexual marriage.” Several Catholic lawmakers who were initially undecided about the bill cited Pope Francis’ remarks as the deciding factor that led them to vote in favor. Rep. Linda Chapa LaVia told the Chicago Tribune: “As a Catholic follower of Jesus and the pope, Pope Francis, I am clear that our Catholic religious doctrine has at its core love, compassion and justice for all people.” Catholic Speaker of the House Michael Madigan told the Tribune: “For those that just happen to be gay—living in a very harmonious, productive relationship but illegal—who am I to judge that they should be illegal?”

This despite the fact that Pope Francis and the Roman Catholic Church consider homosexual acts to be “intrinsically disordered,” are “contrary to the natural law,” and “under no circumstances can they be approved.” (The Catechism of the Catholic Church, #2357)

So what did Pope Francis really say? Let’s take the radical approach of reading his entire quote in its context.

Pope Francis fielded questions from reporters aboard his airplane on the way back to Rome from World Youth Day activities in July. For nearly an hour and a half he took questions on any topic, refusing to answer none. His answers to the final two questions have drawn the most attention.

The first of these concerned claims that Msgr. Battista Ricca, whom Pope Francis had chosen to head the Institute for the Works of Religion (more commonly known as the Vatican Bank) had engaged in homosexual activity years ago. According to a transcript by Andrea Tornielli of Vatican Insider, this was the Pope’s answer:

“I have acted in accordance with Canon Law and ordered an investigation. None of the accusations against him have proved to be true. We haven’t found anything! It is often the case in the Church that people try to dig up sins committed during a person’s youth and then publish them. We are not talking about crimes or offenses such as child abuse which is a whole different matter, we are talking about sins. If a lay person, a priest or a nun commits a sin and then repents of it and confesses, the Lord forgives and forgets. And we have no right not to forget, because then we risk the Lord not forgetting our own sins. I often think of St. Peter who committed the biggest sin of all, he denied Jesus. And yet he was appointed Pope. But I repeat, we have found no evidence against Msgr. Ricca.”

The final question concerned the Pope’s earlier confirmation of the presence of a “gay lobby” in the Curia. This was his response (emphasis added):

“There is so much written about the gay lobby. I haven’t met anyone in the Vatican who has ‘gay’ written on their identity cards. There is a distinction between being gay, being this way inclined and lobbying. Lobbies are not good. If a gay person is in eager search of God, who am I to judge them? The Catholic Church teaches that gay people should not be discriminated against; they should be made to feel welcome. Being gay is not the problem, lobbying is the problem and this goes for any type of lobby, business lobbies, political lobbies and Masonic lobbies.”

Pope Francis first of all made a clear distinction between merely having a same-sex attraction, which the Church acknowledges is beyond one’s control, and a “lobby,” which is an organized effort to pursue homosexual activity and agendas. Note the sentence I underlined, where he is clear that when he says “being gay” he is referring merely to having same-sex attraction, and “lobbying” as promoting homosexual activity. He clearly condemned the latter: “Lobbies are not good…. Being gay [simply having the attraction] is not the problem, lobbying [acting upon the attraction in various ways] is the problem.”

Regarding those he says he should not judge, it is a gay person (meaning one having same-sex attraction) who is “in eager search of God,” meaning they are trying to live according to the Gospel by, among other things, resisting the temptation to act on their unnatural sexual impulses.

In other words, Pope Francis said that he will not judge someone to be a member of a gay lobby simply because that person has a same-sex attraction. That would be stereotyping all persons with same-sex attraction as gay lobbyists, which would be unjust.

(Note also in his answer to the first question, about alleged homosexual activity by Msgr. Ricca, that he refers to such activity as “sin.” The issue was not whether or not Msgr. Ricca’s alleged homosexual activity was sin, but whether it actually occurred and, if it did, had he repented of this sin.)

Of course all of this is basic Catholic teaching, as spelled out plainly in The Catechism of the Catholic Church:

“The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. They do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

“Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.” (#2358-2359)”

Reporting on the media frenzy these remarks caused last summer, Scott P. Richert made this astute observation:

“The most ridiculous part of this media frenzy is that Pope Francis’s remarks are no different than remarks that Pope Benedict himself made many times during his pontificate, remarks that simply reflect (as the Holy Father noted) the teachings of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Like the media circus in 2010 over Pope Benedict’s remarks on condoms, this sudden ‘controversy’ tells us more about the sexual obsessions of modern man—and the willingness of the media, both secular and Catholic, to play to those obsessions—than it does about Pope Francis.”