Why do Catholics call priests “father” when Jesus said not to?


Why do Catholics call priests “father” when Jesus said not to?

Full Question

Jesus says to call no man father. Yet Catholics use the title Father to refer to the priests. Why is this?


Jesus indeed said: “And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven” (Matt. 23:9). But if you read the entire passage, you will understand the context. If this was meant literally, then no one could call their own dads “father” without going against the word of Jesus. But we know this was not what Christ had in mind. The very concept of calling God “Father”, draws from our earthly understanding of the term. Removing this will make the use of the term for the First Person of the Trinity a little meaningless.

In the Bible, the concept of fatherhood is not just applied to earthly fathers and to God. It is most times used to talk about people held in high esteem and with whom a special relationship is shared.

 “So it was not you who sent me here, but God; and he has made me a father to Pharaoh, and lord of all his house and ruler over all the land of Egypt” (Gen. 45:8).

“I was a father to the poor, and I searched out the cause of him whom I did not know” (Job 29:16). 

“In that day I will call my servant Eliakim, the son of Hilkiah . . . and I will clothe him with [a] robe, and will bind [a] girdle on him, and will commit . . . authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah” (Isa. 22:20–21).

And Elisha called Elijah “My father, my father!” to Elijah as the latter is carried up to heaven in a whirlwind (2 Kgs. 2:12). 

The real meaning of the text

Jesus was known to criticize Jewish leaders for their love of earth honors and for always choosing the choicest places in synagogues. They loved to be saluted and recognized everywhere and be called “rabbi”. (Matt. 23:6-7). He used hyperbole to show how ridiculous they were for not looking up to God and conducting themselves humbly. Hyperbole is used as a means of showing how absurd something is employing exaggeration. Just like he said:  

“If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell” (Matt. 5:29, cf. 18:9; Mark 9:47). 


Jesus clearly did not mean either of these literally but was trying to show his followers a better, humbler way to conduct themselves. And in the second part, the seriousness of sin. 

Spiritual Fatherhood

St Paul considered himself a father to all the people he evangelized to. And this was not against the words of Jesus.

“Therefore I sent to you Timothy, my beloved and faithful child in the Lord, to remind you of my ways in Christ” (1 Cor. 4:17); 

“To Timothy, my true child in the faith: grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord” (1 Tim. 1:2); 

“To Timothy, my beloved child: Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord” (2 Tim. 1:2).


“This charge I commit to you, Timothy, my son, in accordance with the prophetic utterances which pointed to you, that inspired by them you may wage the good warfare” (1 Tim 1:18)

 “You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus” (2 Tim. 2:1)

“But Timothy’s worth you know, how as a son with a father he has served with me in the gospel” (Phil. 2:22).

“To Titus, my true child in a common faith: Grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior” (Titus 1:4)

“I appeal to you for my child, Onesimus, whose father I have become in my imprisonment” (Philem. 10). 

For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel” (1 Cor. 4:14–15).

“Here for the third time I am ready to come to you. And I will not be a burden, for I seek not what is yours but you; for children ought not to lay up for their parents, but parents for their children” (2 Cor. 12:14)

“My little children, with whom I am again in travail until Christ be formed in you!” (Gal. 4:19).

St Peter:

 “She who is at Babylon, who is likewise chosen, sends you greetings; and so does my son Mark” (1 Pet. 5:13). 

St John

 “My little children, I am writing this to you so that you may not sin; but if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous” (1 John 2:1)

“No greater joy can I have than this, to hear that my children follow the truth” (3 John 4).

Paul was referring to his spiritual fatherhood with them, not biological. So, in the same way, the priests who feed the flocks of Christ are rightly called “father”. This is in keeping with the apostolic custom as seen above. 


Why do Catholics call priests “father” when Jesus said not to?

Read More



  1. Well done Chad. I am a catholic and to read all your comments and the way you dealt with Tony has been very interesting. He seems (and so do other individuals who read the KJV Bible) to have his perception on the interpretation of the passages in the bible. The interesting thing is that those individuals all seems to have their own interpretations, which make them argue amongst themselves. I’m very impressed by your knowledge on the RC faith and I guess( if you’re not doing this) you could teach and guide those who want to mount the RC Church. God bless you.

  2. This is very interesting and amazing, Mr.Tony welldone, I pray that Holy Spirit will open your eyes one day and Mr.Chad u made my day, thank u so much for your enlightenment. God bless u both.

  3. to God be the Glory..good job chad well done..good luck for tony i hope that one day the Holy spirit will enlighten your mind and understand only whole truth..have a blessed day everyone..

  4. Chad, I will admit that I have a fundamental ignorance of the Catholic version of Passover, but I do know about the sacrificial lamb of the of the original Jewish Passover or “Pesah” as the Jews called it. The sacrificial lamb was meant to save the Jewish “firstborn” in much the same way we (Christians, the firstborn of Jesus) are saved by the blood of our sacrificial lamb, Jesus Christ. The first Passover have to be done in EXACTLY the manner as God prescribed or there would be no salvation (from death) for the firstborn of that household. In like manner, we must conform to the Exact instructions (Acts 2:38) of Jesus or our salvation will be in vain. In the first Passover, the lamb had to be eaten and the blood spread on the door post and the salvation that was received was not eternal, it was a one time thing. The O.T. Jews never had nothing more than a one year remission of sin. Here is where the truth is hidden from you. Like you said, “DURING THE LAST SUPPER”, you had that part very right for Jesus implied that there would be no more “Passover meals with literal food eaten.” Then in Luke 22:19, Jesus said, “………..This IS my body………” He did not say, “this represents my body (there is no substitution for the Bible tells us what the flesh is).” So, we are back to, How does one eat Jesus’s flesh? The answer is, through “spiritual communion.” The Word of God IS Jesus Christ. John 1:14 says, “ And the “ WORD WAS MADE FLESH”….” Consuming the Word of God (that was made flesh) by reading, studying, and OBEYING is in essence, eating the flesh of Jesus. we are spiritually nourished by consuming the Word. If this is done properly, you will obtain “ETERNAL SALVATION.” Now, you say by prayer the wafer of the Eucharist becomes the “real flesh” of Jesus. When you place that wafer in your mouth and chew it up, you can not say that it taste like “raw flesh.” If it does not taste like raw flesh, then I must make you aware of the fact that it is not the flesh of Jesus or the flesh of any other person. The flesh of Jesus is now “spiritual,” thus the need for “spiritual communion.” You gave proof of a Communion service by quoting Acts 2: 42 which says, “And they continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and IN PRAYERS.” If you had read ahead through verse 44, you would have understood the context of that portion of Acts chapter 2. Here is what verse 44 says, “ And all that believed were together, and had all things common;” At that time the Apostle held everything in common and took their daily meals together, these meals were referred to as “the breaking of bread.” By the way, your Bible changed verse 42 to say in THE PRAYERS instead of IN PRAYERS so that it would be consistent with Catholic doctrine. You quoted St.Ignatius and St. Justin as proof of the Eucharist service being authentic and approved of (implied) by the Apostles. You, yourself agreed that you had popes that were fallible. With that record of fallibility, why would you accept the word of Justin and Ignatius instead of God’s printed Word (the New Testament)? You say that the Catholic Church has taught the same thing for 2000 years. You know that is not so. One thing comes to mind is the doctrine of “purgatory”. It was first taught about 1160 A.D.. And also the popes have changed the church’s doctrine many times over those years. I have some scriptures that I want you to tell me what they mean to you(please do this). 1 Cor. 11:17,19-20 says, “17 Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse.19 For there must be also HERESIES among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is NOT TO EAT THE LORD’S SUPPER.” Next,1 Cor. 11:34 says, “ And if any man hunger, LET HIM EAT AT HOME; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come.”(please give your meaning of this) I believe a 100% in John 6:60 & 66 (the Bread of Life), I just believe that Jesus does not want a substitution (the wafer) for his flesh (or for his blood) and you believe substitution is O.K.. I guess time will tell which of us was right.

    1. Tony, I realize that I’ve wasted too much of my time trying to help you to understand the true history of Christian theology. Your view and interpretations of the “Word” being the thing consumed, and “true born again Christians” being the only ones that scripture applies to, and your convenient doctrine of accepting what you want, and then dismissing anything that you don’t like because people were just confused about Jesus’ teachings, is the newer and novel doctrines of the Protestant Reformers starting in the 1500’s. Catholic teaching’s have been the same for 2000 years, even if you don’t understand them, and believe me….you do NOT understand them. And these teachings are knowable because of 2000 years of Christian writings, but you choose to ignore those because they clearly refute your doctrines. All Catholic doctrine is in complete agreement with all scripture and history, period. My church is responsible for there being a Bible to begin with. Understand that you would not have the Bible if not for the Bishop’s of Christ’s Church, collecting and canonizing the Bible. Its your Protestant forefathers who chose to remove 7 entire books from the Bible, 1500 years A.D. And Martin Luther wanted Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation removed!
      I’ll leave you with this scripture verse from 2 Peter 3:15….”as our beloved Paul, according to the wisdom given him, also wrote to you, speaking of these things as he does in all his letters. In them there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures”
      Jesus established and left us a Church as a means to help us know him, and help us get to heaven. That church gives us the scriptures and helps us to understand them correctly. Jesus plan for our salvation didn’t rest on the need to pass out a book and hope everyone figures out the right things. Good luck Tony, I hope you realize the truth someday.

      1. Chad, you conveniently omitted answering my questions from my previous post. I assume you had no answers, but I will repost them incase you accidentally overlooked them.————-. I have some scriptures that I want you to tell me what they mean to you(please explain these).(#1) 1 Cor. 11:17,19-20 says, “17 Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse.19 For there must be also HERESIES among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is NOT TO EAT THE LORD’S SUPPER.” (#2) 1 Cor. 11:34 says, “ And if any man hunger, LET HIM EAT AT HOME; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come.”——- I feel the opposite of you, I do not think I wasted my time explaining God’s Word to you. As an ambassador of God, that is my duty. One day when wisdom matures in you, you will remember our discussion and you will start doubting the doctrine of your church. Then, take out your KJV Bible and start with reading Acts 2:38 which describes the only way TO RECEIVE REMISSION OF YOUR SINS & BE FILLED WITH THE HOLY GHOST. Your sins is the only thing that will keep you out of heaven. When you receive TRUE remission of your sins and are filled with the Holy Ghost, your eyes will be opened, just as Paul’s were opened after his meeting Jesus on his way to Damascus. Everything you need to know will be revealed to you from that time forward. I would like for you to explain 1 & 2 above if you can. If you can not, lots of luck to you and may God be with you always. (THIS WAS WRITTEN SHORTLY AFTER YOUR LAST REPLY BUT THIS SITE BLOCKED ME AND WAS UNABLE TO POST. ALWAYS KEEP AN OPEN MIND AND LOTS OF LUCK ———-TONY

        1. Ok, I’ll bite again. *I sure hope this counts for some graces!
          1 Corinthian’s 11:17-34, is Paul reprimanding the Corinthian’s for their abuses of the Lord’s Supper. He’s telling them that they’re doing it all wrong. Some are just eating as if it’s a regular meal and others are just getting drunk. He’s informing them that what they’re doing can’t be considered the “Lords Supper”, and they should just do their eating and drinking at home instead of showing contempt for the church. Paul then goes on to explain how Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper…”This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me” and “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me”. Paul then warn’s them that whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup unworthily will bring judgment on himself, and says that’s why many of them are sick and dying.
          So, I’d recommend you go back to your KJV and read the whole passage again, and not just cherry pick a few verses that you think supports your view. I’m afraid you’ve only proved once again that you don’t really understand many scripture passages.
          I don’t want to come across as harsh or disrespectful, because I really only want to engage in constructive dialogue. But I can’t help but feel, in most of your posts, a condescending tone. I’m still holding out hope that I managed to plant a kernel of doubt somewhere in your thoughts, that may someday grow into a fuller understanding of the truth!

          1. Chad, in 1 Cor. 11:19 Paul says, “that the Corinthians were teaching HERESIES (Paul’s word, not mine) and he goes on to explain (in verses 19-34 ) what those heresies were. The heresies that they were teaching was the substitution of real bread and wine for the spiritual flesh and blood of Jesus. That is why Paul told them in verse 34 “if they hungered (for real food) to eat at home.” The Corinthians were the only church that taught such a doctrine and the Apostles never did. Again, the best of luck to you—Tony

          2. Afraid not Tony. You are misunderstanding the entire point of Paul’s admonishment. And while you claim the Corinthian’s were the only church doing this, you also stubbornly refuse to accept any historical writings that plainly refute this. Your arguments are not intellectually honest if you refuse to consider early church writings. It’s like a stubborn, spoiled adolescent who refuses to hear what he doesn’t want to hear.

          3. The heresy was that they were not treating the bread and wine as the body and blood of Jesus, therefore they were doing more harm than good and bringing judgement on themselves. Seriously Tony, you’re misunderstanding the context of the whole passage.

          4. Again, 1 Corinthian’s 11:29,30…”for anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many among you are ill and infirm, and a considerable number are dying.”

        2. Tony,
          I wanted to touch, once again, on your view of the Baptismal formula that should be used. We have several writings that have survived down through the centuries, and I’ll give you some text from 2 of the earliest regarding baptism.
          The first is from the “Didache” or “Teaching of the Twelve Apostles”. This is believed to have been used as a work of instruction for Jewish catechumens, from about 140 AD.
          In regard to baptism – baptized thus: after the foregoing instruction, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. If you have no living water, then baptize in other water; and if you are not able in cold, then in warm. If you have neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.
          The second is taken from St Justin the Martyr’s writing called First Apology, from about 155 AD. The word “apology” is from a Greek word that means to defend or explain. Many modern day people aren’t aware of that. “Then they are led by us to a place where there is water; and there they are reborn in the same kind of rebirth in which we our selves were reborn: in the name of God, the Lord and Father of all, and of our Savior, Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they receive the washing with water.”
          So, as we can clearly see, the Trinitarian formula has been used from the beginning, and you reject it at your own peril!

          1. Chad, there is an old saying, ” You are not seeing the forest because of the trees.” Chad, the answer to the proper formula for a proper baptism is right before you in Matt. 28:19 which uses the phrase “IN THE NAME OF.” When you acknowledge what the meaning of that phrase is, then you will realize that the NAME OF Jesus is the proper name that means the same as the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. In the Acts of the Apostles, you will find that the “Jesus name” formula is all that they used. The Catholic Church developed the “trinity formula” gradually between the years 325 A.D.(Nicene Council ) and 381 A.D. (First Council of Constantinople). The first emperor to be baptized in the Nicene faith being Theodosius the Great, emperor from 379 to 395 A.D.. There is no record of the Apostles ever using the trinity formula and they always immersed under water those being baptized. Baptize comes from the greek word “baptizó” which means, “to dip, submerge”. You have the freedom to base your religious beliefs on writings of historians (or anybody else), but I chose to stick with the Apostles.

          2. Tony, I think you take obstinancy to a whole new level. I also wonder if you even recognize the fundamental contradiction from your last post? For the last several weeks you have glibly discounted any writings from the 1st few centuries as nothing but the fallible writings of men. But now you’re trying to lecture me about how and when various Catholic doctrines were developed over those first few centuries? I’m confused, I thought if it wasn’t specifically in the New Testament we weren’t supposed to believe it? So, on what basis do you accept whatever historical writings you used to draw those conclusions? And for you to state that there is “no record of the Apostles using the Trinity formula”, after I gave you 2 examples from 140 & 155 AD, that both state this is how the Apostles taught us, is remarkable. Yet again, another example of the intellectual dishonesty of your arguments.
            I’m also going to try to clear up your confusion about church councils and church doctrine. Just because a specific doctrine/practice was defined at some church council, does NOT mean that doctrine was INVENTED at that council. The purpose of the church councils was to clear up any confusion in regards to church practices and doctrines, that had slowly arisen between the various dioceses. So when someone claims the Catholic Church didn’t start this doctrine or that dogma until (fill in the blank) AD, at a certain Church Council, they are speaking out of ignorance. Again, best of luck to you Tony, may God bless you and open your mind to see the truth someday.

  5. Chad, I want to share some verses with you.1 Cor. 3:16-20…..16 Know ye not that YE ARE THE TEMPLE OF GOD, and that THE SPIRIT OF GOD DWELLETH IN YOU?
    17 If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.
    18 Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you SEEMETH TO BE WISE IN THIS WORLD, LET HIM BECOME A FOOL, that he may be wise.19 FOR THE WISDOM OF THIS WORLD IS FOOLISHNESS WITH GOD. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.
    20 And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain.——— Logic and intellect don’t always translate into a true understanding of the scriptures. Sometimes God’s Word defies a wise man’s logic such as in the Bread of Life passages in John chapter 6. The intellectually wise men are still using a literal physical substance (bread) in substitution for Jesus body. —John 6:51 -“I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of THIS BREAD, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give IS MY FLESH, which I will give for the life of the world.” Jesus was speaking of a particular bread (THIS bread), not a substitute, not a wafer or cracker. He goes on to say, “the bread that I will give IS MY FLESH.” We all know that Jesus was was the WORD THAT WAS MADE FLESH.” By obeying and using the WORD as spiritual guidance, we are spiritually consuming the FLESH of Jesus, the bread of life, and we are spiritually nourished by that Word. Since I am on the bread of life, I will give my opinion of HOLY COMMUNION. There was never a literal communion or Lord’s Supper instituted by the Apostles (or Jesus). Matt. 26:26 says, “And AS THE WERE EATING, Jesus took bread, and blessed it…..” What was Jesus and the Apostles eating, if it was not the Holy Communion? Matt. 26:9 says, “And the disciples did as Jesus had appointed them; and they made ready THE PASSOVER.” At the time, Jesus and the Apostles were still UNDER THE LAWS OF THE OLD COVENANT and could not change the law because that it had not been fulfilled. That is why it always seemed that Jesus was speaking in riddles, he could not give direct commands because of the old law. The reason for sending the Comforter to the Apostles was so that they would have spiritual understanding of all Jesus had told them. Also, if we read 1 Cor. 11:19-20 it says, “19 For there must be also HERESIES (false teachings)among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.
    20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this IS NOT TO EAT the Lord’s supper.” Paul sums up 1 Cor. chapter 11 by saying in verse 34. “And if any man hunger, (need literal or real food) let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come.” It is clear that Paul did not approve of a literal communion. I will give another scripture before I go. Romans 9:27 says, “27 Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, A REMNANT SHALL BE SAVED.” We as Christians are grafted in Jews, therefore we are also the children of Israel. Romans 9:27 implies that a very few will be saved. If the Catholic doctrine was correct, then there would be hundreds of millions in heaven and I don’t believe that to be the case. Remember, the first time, only Noah and his family was saved, it is not going to be much better this time around. That is why I strictly adhere to the teachings of the Apostles.

    1. I figured that would be your answer. I’m currently out of town for a few days, so I don’t have time to give you the correct doctrine right now. So stay tuned….

    2. Ok, I’m back. I’ll attempt to give you some things to think about, though you seem unwilling to consider anything outside of what you think you know. I suspect you have a fundamental ignorance of what a Passover sacrifice entailed. Remember, all the first Christian’s were Jews.
      1st, John’s “Bread of Life” discourse, the Last Supper and Jesus crucifixtion are all closely related. They all took place during the Passover, and it’s not a coincidence. John refer’s to Jesus in John 1:29….”Behold, the Lamb of God….”. St Paul in 1 Cor 5:7 says….”For our paschal lamb, Christ, has been sacrificed”. And the book of Revelation refer’s to Jesus as a “Lamb” many times. So what is the importance of a lamb during the Passover. An unblemished lamb had to be killed and EATEN in order for it to be a valid sacrifice. (Exodus 12:1-12) So in John 6, Jesus said he is the “Bread of Life”, and you have to eat his body and drink his blood to have eternal life. Then during the Last Supper: he took the bread, said the blessing, broke it and gave it to them saying “This is my body, which will be given for you. Do this in memory of me. And likewise the cup after….” These events are essentially one event, and is Jesus instituting the new Covenant/Passover/Exodus.
      Let’s consider Paul in 1 Cor 11:27….Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. (29) For anyone who eats or drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself.” This is a very serious warning and serious consequences for something that is supposedly just a piece of bread, according to you. But if you believe as the Catholics do, that the bread & wine truly become the Body & Blood of Christ, then that warning makes perfect sense. Also, Acts 2:42 says….”they devoted themselves to the teaching’s of the Apostles, to the BREAKING OF THE BREAD and the prayers.” This is a reference to a Communion service. And note that it says THE prayers.
      Now, how did the earliest Christians understand the Eucharist? Let’s consider St Ignatius of Antioch (follower of the Apostle John and the 3rd Bishop of Antioch, after Evodius and St Peter) wrote in 110 AD: They abstain from the Eucharist and prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, Flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again. We also have St Justin the Martyr, writing in 155 AD: For not as common bread or common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by Him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus. This is absolutely proof positive that Christians from the very beginning believed in the Real Presence in the Eucharist. But in order for you to continue in your ignorance, you just conveniently ignore historical writings. You also conveniently subscribe to a doctrine of interpreting the Bible that allows you to believe what you want, and then just discount what you don’t.
      In closing, let’s reflect on John 6:60…..”Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard, who can accept it?….(66) As a result of this, many of his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.” The Catholic Church has accepted and taught the same doctrine for 2000 years, even though it was hard. Many Christian’s were persecuted and martyred by the Roman’s for cannibalism, because they believed the words of Jesus. I believe that Protestants also turn their back on Jesus because, “the saying is hard” and they refuse to accept it.

    3. Tony, I’m not following you on 1 Cor. 4:14-15, especially if you consider verse 17 “For this reason I sent you Timothy, who is my beloved and faithful child in the Lord, to remind you of my ways in Christ Jesus, as I teach them everywhere in every church.” Paul calls Timothy his child “in the Lord”. I don’t see this as different than me being a child of my local Priest “in the Lord”.
      Read Ephesians 3:14-15 (KJV) – “For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named.” Here family is translated from the Greek, paternia, which can also be translated as paternity. So Paul is saying here and in 1 Cor. 4:17 that all paternity comes from the Father through Jesus Christ. The Father, is our one true Father. I think you and I can agree on that point. All other fatherhood, be it a biological father “on earth,” spiritual leaders in the Church, or our spiritual forefathers in heaven, participates in the Father’s unique Fatherhood and represents it to us. They neither take away nor add to this one unique Fatherhood; they establish it on the earth.
      Let’s go back to Matthew 23. Jesus, in Matthew 23, focuses on the sin of pride among the scribes and Pharisees. They loved to be called “teacher”, “father”, or “Rabbi,” but their pride pointed men to themselves rather than to God the Father from whom they received true fatherhood and in whom their fatherhood subsisted. Outside of God the Father, there are no fathers at all in the true sense of the term. But in God, we have all sorts of true “fathers.” Jesus is condemning the usurpation of the fatherhood of God in Matthew’s Gospel, not the proper participation in that fatherhood.
      This is why Holy Orders is a sacrament in the Catholic Church. Sacraments are a visible sign of an invisible reality. Catholic Priests are not pointing to themselves when they are called father. They are our earthly “signs” of the true Fatherhood of the Father in Heaven. If a Priest would say to me that I need to do something that contradicts the Commandments, then I would be wrong to call him father since he is pointing me away from The Father and to himself (I would say the same thing even about my biological father). Now you may argue that all Priests, and Catholics in general, do this because we do not follow scripture alone, but also go back to the Apostolic Traditions. My answer would be that you don’t understand Apostolic Succession and we could spin off into a lot longer and longer posts and replies which neither of us have time to do.
      With that said, It would be great if you did try to at least look into and understand what Catholics mean by Apostolic Succession. I came into the Catholic Church 7 years ago. I was baptised and received all the Catholic sacraments when I was younger, but I was basically out of the Church from ages 17-39. My parents were not practicing Catholics either. I did not have any real tie to Catholism. When I decided to come back, I spent a good bit of time looking at and researching a number of things about the Catholic Church and other Christian denominations. After looking at Apostolic Succession and what this really means, I was convinced that the teachings of the Catholic Church were truely tied to what the Apostles taught. Now, you may not feel the same way after doing this but, at the very least, you would have a better, more thorough understanding of where Catholics are coming from.
      To save you a ton of time, I’d recommend Mark Shea’s book, “By What Authority”. I didn’t read this until recently, but found it a good, quick reference for most of what I researched myself. I wish I would have had it 7 years ago.
      May Our Father continue to bless you!

  6. Chad, I will number your questions to keep better track of the answers. #1. Did Jesus command his followers to write a book? Answer #1. No, he did not. While the Apostles were with Jesus, he spoke to the Apostles in what some would call spiritual riddles. Most of the time, they ( and his followers) did not know what he was talking about. For example, when Jesus said in John 3:5 “—-I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” Nicodemus replied, “—how can these things be?” The reason that they did not understand Jesus is that he had not yet given the Holy Ghost to them. It was given on the day of Pentecost. After the Holy Ghost was given, the Apostles started organizing churches in the different cities. As God reveled the meaning of his teaching to the Apostles, by the Holy Ghost, they then wrote papers and letters explaining those teaching to all those new churches. It become necessary to organize those papers and letters in a formal way. The Codex was the logical instrument of choice, for it was used in the 1st. century and was replacing the scroll. So, like I said, the book (Bible) was not started by commandment but by necessity. Nowhere does Jesus command the Apostles not to write down his Word in a book. #2- Why do I accept Mark , Luke and Paul’s writings as authentic? Answer #2. All Apostles were appointed by Jesus both directly and indirectly. Mark by Peter, Jesus appointed Paul on his way to Damascus, Paul chose and taught Luke. They are all chosen by God and inspired by God through the power of the Holy Ghost. #3. What happens when we have a Baptist and a Catholic brother (who settles their spiritual disputes)? Answer #3. First of all, we are all not spiritual brothers. Only true born-again Christians are brothers for they are the only sons of God. Now, the Baptist has to be taken before his church and the Catholic has to be taken before his. Paul by himself established over 14 churches and each one had the control over their own day to day operations with guidance from time to time by the Apostles. Chad as I said before, we each are responsible for our spiritual choices. We all must stand before God and give account for those choices one day. We will be judged by God’s Word, not by some church’s traditions or some historian’s commentary. Being a born-again Christian, I have had enough spiritual experience to know what I have is real. I will briefly describe a few of those experiences. I had a tumor in my thyroid gland and the biopsy indicated that it was malignant. I went to surgery and after its removal they preformed 2 more biopsies and both were negative. Next, my prostate gland was giving a PSA reading of 7.8 which is very high and it had been gradually going up for about 2 years. They did a biopsy and it come back negative. A few months later, they did another PSA test and the reading was 0.02 and has be reading low ever since. Next, while doing a MRI to check on my thyroid gland, they detected a small tumor in my lung. They watched it for about year by doing scans and it finally shrunk up and disappeared. During each of these times, I and my wife prayed to Jesus for my healing and he did not let me down. Things like these builds my faith in God’s Word and makes me know that what I read in the Bible is indeed God’s true Word. Have you had any experiences like those? I could tell you more, but it is midnight and must go to bed.—–Good night—-Tony

    1. Tony,
      None of your answers make sense on a basic level using logic and intellect. Jesus and the Apostles walked the earth 2000 years ago, and started the church of the New Covenant. This was a fulfillment of the Old Covenant, and continued God’s relationship with his chosen people. That church is still alive and well today in the Catholic Church. Your version of Christianity has a 1500 year gap, that you basically choose to ignore. You like to try to write off the “traditions of men”, while apparently not even realizing that you are just following different traditions started by different men. You’ve stated a few times about how things only apply to “true born again Christians”. Again, where specifically does this come from? You’re very rigid in your doctrine on Baptism, because of a very literal interpretation of one scripture passage. So where does this explicit belief in the “true born again Christian” doctrine come from?
      I’m also still waiting for any kind of explanation on Holy Communion? We’ve already established how rigid and literal you are regarding the scriptures. So how do you view Communion?
      As far as Paul establishing several different churches, that’s true. And they all accepted the authority of the Bishops, who possessed Apostolic succession. These churches were in communion with each other, not fragmented. This is evidenced by the historical record passed down through the earliest Christians. But of course you don’t accept these historical documents because they’re not “inspired”. That is quite frankly an absurd argument. Nobody is even claiming they should be viewed as Holy Scripture. But they should be given tremendous weight as historical documents, to help us see how the church evolved after the Apostles. Of course the church isn’t gonna look exactly the same after 200 or 2000 years. It was meant to grow and expand in size and scope. Perhaps you’ve heard the parable about the mustard seed? It starts out tiny and then grows into a large bush with many branches.
      I hope I haven’t wasted all this time over the last week or so, and something I’ve said will cause you to think and reconsider your view on theology. Regardless of your beliefs, we are both members of the Household of God. You just happen to be currently separated from the church that Christ established. Just keep seeking the truth with an open mind and heart.

  7. Chad, when John in the Book of Revelations warned against adding or taking away from this book, he was speaking of all God’s Word. Why would he single out only one book of the Bible for that warning? When John made that warning he done so because a precedence had be set much earlier in biblical history concerning altering God’s Word. Deuteronomy 4:2 says,”Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.”Sounds a lot like what John said in Revelations, doesn’t it? As for John 21:25 it said, “…..if they should be written….” Jesus truly did a multitude of things other than those of the Bible and most certainly, THEY WERE NOT WRITTEN, therefore, we shall never know what they were. The Apostles did not pass down oral doctrine for there would have been no proof that the teaching would have remained word for word as originally spoken by the Apostles. Thus, they relied upon their written word of papers and letters to preserve their records. As for knowing the Bible to be the inspired Word of God, well, wouldn’t you say the word of the Apostles saying that it is should be proof enough for anybody. Everything the Apostles has promised me through God’s Word,I have found to be true. For example, In Acts 2:38 where Peter says, “…to be baptized in Jesus name and I shall receive remission of my sins and RECEIVE THE HOLY GHOST…..” I followed Peter’s command to the letter and now I am filled with the Holy Ghost. How do I know? Before, I was not a nice man. I had a very nasty mouth, cursing about every breath and committing sins that I am ashamed to even speak of. Since I come up out of the water, I have never said a curse word of any type nor have I committed a sin of any type (was baptized in 1992). You would say that is impossible. It may be considered impossible for the Catholics by that is what my Apostolic religion teaches. When you truly receive the Holy Ghost, it will GUIDE YOU INTO ALL TRUTH (John 16:13). Also, 1 John 3:9 says, “Whosoever is born of God DOTH NOT COMMIT SIN; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.” If you are still committing sin, try doing exactly as Paul commanded (in Acts 2:38), you may be pleasantly surprised. Acts 2:38 is not a general instruction from Paul to be baptized in the name of Jesus. In Acts 10:48, Peter went so far as COMMANDING Cornelius to be BAPTIZED IN THE NAME OF THE LORD. As for popes being infallible while “in the chair of Peter”, there were only two chairs to begin with, one was in the baptismal chapel in St. Peter’s Basilica and the other in the catacomb of Priscilla, neither of which survives today. It is an abstract understanding of the chair. So is the popes never infallible since there is no real chair? You said you never prayed to statues but you did not deny praying to Mary. If you pray the rosary, you pray to Mary. Of the 59 beads, 53 are “hail Marys” and 6 are “our Father”. As for Jesus’s promise, why would he make a promise to anyone that did not “preach the truth?” That is elementary. As for different dominations using the same book but coming up with different answers, well that is why that there will be a JUDGEMENT DAY when everybody will stand before God and account for everything they did in this life including TEACHING FALSE DOCTRINES AND OBEYING FALSE DOCTRINES.Jesus promised to be with all true born-a-again Christians always including Apostles and the gates of hell will not prevail against any of us. The keys to the Kingdom of Heaven that Jesus gave Peter was the “Word of God” that saves us all. That why that they are call the keys TO heaven. Its been a pleasure talking with you, but we will hear of each other again. You know when we stand before God in judgement and he will open 2 books that tell everything that ever happened in our lives. What I said to you will be heard again and what you said to me, I will hear again. Then we will find out who was right for God will open the third book, the BOOK OF LIFE, then we will see whose name is written in it. Good Day——Tony

    1. OK. This should be my last reply, because no matter how many scripture verses I use to refute your points, or just basic logic, you seem incapable of accepting anything that falls outside your interpretation of Christian doctrine. You don’t consider yourself Protestant, while using a Protestant Bible and parroting all Protestant doctrines? Tony, that makes you a Protestant. So anyway, here’s some final points:
      (1) Again, the “Book of Revelation” was not actually a book in the Bible when it was written. There was no “Bible”, as we know it today, until the 4th century. Many of the writings were being copied and passed around for use by the churches being established. But not all churches had all the writings we now consider to be the inspired Word of God, for a long time. And not all churches accepted all the writings, until it was finally canonized by the council of Bishops. So again, John’s warning to not add or take away anything from the book, only applied to the book that he had written.
      (2) Your statement of “the Apostles did not pass down oral doctrine”, is just flat out wrong and goes directly against scripture and history. 2 Thes 2:15 (KJV)…”Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by WORD, or our epistle.” I know this passage is very difficult for you, which is probably why Protestants ignore it.
      (3) You still haven’t answered how you can be certain that the Bible is authentic, without accepting the authority of the original church council (Catholic Bishops) that collected, ratified and canonized the Bible? Simply saying you accept the Apostles word as the truth, does not stand up to any intellectual scrutiny.
      (4) The Chair of Peter. When we say that the Pope speaks from the “Chair of Peter”, it doesn’t mean that you have to literally sit in the actual physical chair of St. Peter. It means that he holds the same office of Peter, and therefore has the same authority that was given to Peter, from Jesus. I’ll give you an example….Matt 23:1 “Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to his disciples, saying “The scribes and Pharisees have taken their seat on the CHAIR OF MOSES. Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you. But do not follow their example, for they preach but do not practice”. So, the authority of the Chair of Moses applied to the Jews in the Old Covenant, and then transferred to the Chair of Peter for Christians in the New Covenant. Thus Jesus giving Peter the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, and promising to bind in Heaven, what Peter has bound on earth. (Matt 16:13)
      (5) Praying to Mary. Yes, we believe that we can pray to Angels and Saints to intercede on our behalf. We believe that we are all members of the “Household of God” (1 Tim 3:15)(Eph 2:19) and can therefore ask them to put in a good word on our behalf, since we believe them to be in Heaven with God. You don’t have to pray to Angels or Saints, but you can if you want.
      (6) I still don’t understand how you’ve determined that Jesus promise to “be with them always” only applies to “true born again Christians”? This is another example of a doctrine created by the interpretations of the Reformers.
      (7) Despite me asking several times, you still haven’t given me your “Apostolic” beliefs regarding Communion? I really would like to hear it, if you’re willing to enlighten me.
      Well, that’s all I have today. I’m still praying for God to open your heart and mind to the truth of his Church.

    2. Tony, I forgot a couple more points I wanted you to ponder. Did Jesus promise or command his followers to write a book? Jesus commanded the Apostles to “Go make disciples of all nations, baptizing them…. TEACHING them to observe all that I have commanded. And behold I am with you always until the end of the ages”. (Matt 28:18) There is no command for the disciples to go write a book and pass them out to the masses. Which is good, because most of mankind has been illiterate or too poor to have their own Bible for most of the last 2000 years. Also, Mark, Luke and Paul were not part of the original 12 Apostles. Why do you accept their writings as authentic?
      One more scripture passage to consider. Matt 18:15….”If your brother sins against you…..If he refuses to listen to them, tell THE church. If he refuses to listen to even THE church, treat him as you would a Gentile”. Obviously Jesus intended for THE Church to be the final authority on matters between Christians. It says THE church, not A church. What happens if we have a Baptist and a Catholic as brothers? The Baptist doesn’t accept the Catholic ruling and the Catholic wouldn’t accept the Baptist ruling. So we have a Bible verse instructing us how to resolve problems, that would absolutely not work with our current situation of 30,000 separate Christian churches.

  8. Chad, you ignored everything that I said I my last post concerning baptism in the trinity.The word phrase “IN THE NAME OF ” definition is—“bearing or using the name of a specified person or organization.” Definition of FATHER is—“a man in relation to his natural child or children” (Father is not a name) Definition of Son is—“a boy or man in relation to either or both of his parents.” (Son is not a name) Now, we know that the Holy Ghost is differentiating between God’s Spirit and common man’s spirit. QUESTION 1. Why did Peter in Acts 2:38 command the people to be baptized IN JESUS CHRIST’S NAME? (Please answer this)The Old Testament was written by the Jews, the New Testament was written by the Apostles, they were inspired to write God’s Word. The Old Covenant was replaced by the New Covenant when the Old Testament was fulfilled by Christ dying on the cross. Therefore, you are supposed to be using the same Bible for instruction as I use. You may not think that God and the Apostle are good authenticators of the scriptures but I don’t need some (maybe corrupt) men approving the Bible that I read. You ask about the millions of humans and what they did before Gutensburg’s printing press. They used the scrolls and parchment letters of the Jews and the Apostles until about 325 A.D. when the priest and bishops locked away the written Word.Here are 2 passages that proves that the Bible is the sole source of truth and Authority. Rev. 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
    19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. 2 Timothy 3:16(KJV)says,
    16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: You quoted 1 Tim. 3:15 and it says, that the household of God, WHICH IS THE CHURCH OF THE LIVING GOD, the pillar and foundation of truth.– In that scripture it says nothing about the Roman Catholic Church being the church of THE LIVING GOD. With the corrupt leadership that the R.C.C. has had in the past, how could you believe such and keep a straight face. Every church will claim that they are the church of the living God. Time will tell who is right. As for TRADITIONS, they are long held generational customs. The customs the Apostles were talking about HAD TO BE THE FEW JEWISH CUSTOMS that was brought forth from the O.T. into the N.T. such as the 10 Commandments. The Apostles ministry was not generations old so nothing at that time was considered as custom.You quoted 1 Cor. 1:10 – I and my church agrees that we should all know the scriptures well enough to speak as one voice and that there be no divisions among us. You quoted Acts 16:4 and it is concerning a Greek man that the Jews was wanting him to be circumcised so the Apostles felt it necessary to pass on information about circumcision. That is normal guidance expected from any church leader.You quoted Luke 10:16 and it applies to any preacher, pastor or church leader that is bringing forth THE TRUE WORD OF GOD. I don’t know what argument you are referring to but Jesus did not lie when he spoke to the Apostles in Luke 10:16. Jesus’s promise is directed only TO THEM THAT PREACH THE TRUE WORD OF GOD and not for those that think they are the only possessor’s of God’s true Word. As for as church morality, your church is the one that claims their popes are infallible. Comparing a church to a secular government is a bad comparison. The church is spiritual and is held to a higher standard. QUESTION 2. Do you think your Catholic popes are INFALLIBLE? (Please answer) If our government leaders were guilty of the same sandals and corruption as some of the church leaders, they would be arrested and thrown in prison. As for your third post about your church leaders writing documents that I dismiss. You are right, I do dismiss those writings (except for that the Apostles wrote) as not being inspired by God nor would I accept the writings of my church leaders if it contradicted the scriptures. Yes, I get the picture that you are willing to accept any man’s word even if it contradicts the scriptures as long as the R.C.C. authorizes it. Man, thank for yourself. QUESTION 3. Have you ever prayed to a statue of Mary? (Please answer)

    1. Tony, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what the Bible is supposed to be. It is NOT meant to be a comprehensive A-Z guide on everything pertaining to Christianity. It is meant to be used as a tool for instruction and inspiration etc, but it’s not the SOLE source of authority. Your 2 examples proving your point about this, doesn’t actually prove that point. First, the passage in Revelation is referring only to the Book of Revelation. When John wrote the book of revelation, there was no “Bible”. So his warning about adding or taking away from the “book”, only pertained to the book he was inspired to write. The Book of Revelation eventually became part of the canonized scriptures, but that wasn’t for many, many years. So sorry, but this is another example of how you don’t understand the scriptures and it’s history. Second, 2 Tim 3:16….says that the scripture is profitable for doctrine, teaching, etc. But that does NOT say that it’s the ONLY source for teaching. You’re trying to read that into the passage, but it’s simply not there. Let’s consider John 21:25….There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written. So what if the Apostles passed down some of these unwritten things in the oral traditions that St Paul spoke about? And you still can’t explain how you KNOW for sure that the Bible is truly the inspired word of God? If some non-believer asks you why you believe it, do you just say: “because I just do”? That’s not an intellectually satisfying answer to anyone. If I give you an old looking baseball with a Babe Ruth autograph on it, do you just accept that it’s genuine? I would hope not. In order to accept the authenticity of something, you have to accept the authority of its source. I accept the Bible as the inspired word of God because I trust the authority of the Bishops who canonized it.
      Now, as far as the Acts 2:38 instruction for baptism. This is another instance where you’re being so rigid in the passage that you can’t understand that it’s a just meant as a general instruction. Are the Popes infallible? Yes, when they are speaking on matters of faith and morals, from the Chair of Peter. That’s the only instance when they are infallible. It doesn’t mean they are correct in everything they say, and it doesn’t mean they don’t sin. These are just misconceptions that non-Catholics have, and things you would learn if you actually read the book I recommended. Along with your misconceptions about praying to statues (we don’t), and about the Bibles being “locked away”.
      On what do you base the opinion that Jesus’ promise is only directed at TO THEM THAT PREACH THE TRUE WORD OF GOD? What scripture is this from? Who decides what is the true word of God? We have a thousand different Christian denominations all reading the same book, and yet coming up with different answers. So how do we know who’s getting it right? Jesus very clearly promised to be with his Apostles always, and promised the gates of hell would not prevail against them. He told them that those whose sins they forgive are forgiven, and those whose sins they retain are retained. Jesus told Peter that he would give him the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, and that whatever he bound on earth, would be bound in Heaven. Once again, the Apostles started many churches and they accepted the authority of the Bishops that had the Apostolic succession. Those churches eventually collected and canonized the books of the Bible. That’s how and why we have a Bible. It’s amusing that you ask me to think for myself. I already told you I’m an adult convert to Catholicism. I NEVER planned on being a Catholic, but I studied the subject with an open mind and heart and came to the conclusion that the Catholic Church is the church started by Christ. Good luck to you Tony! I pray that the Lord will open your mind to the truth of the 2000 year history of Christ’s church.
      “To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant”……Former Anglican Bishop, converted to Catholicism…Cardinal John Henry Newman

    2. To Tony Stevenson:
      Acts 8:15-16 (KJV) Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:
      (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)
      Those verses explain why the Catholic Church baptizing in the Name of Holy Trinity. Period.
      Here, I use your own bible version.

  9. Chad, Yes I have considered Matthew 28:19 and it is correct in it’s instruction. it say, “………baptizing them in THE NAME OF the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.” Do you know what the word phrase ” in the name of” means. The phrase is asking you to supply a single name, not names. If you go to a bank to make a deposit in the “name of your father,” the first thing the teller will ask is “what is his name.” If you say “father” she will tell you that is not a name. If you tell her “Son,” she will say that is not a name either. Next, you say “Holy Ghost” and you and I both know the the term “Holy Ghost” differentiates God’s Spirit from common mans spirit. The only singular name that means the same as the Father, Son and Holy Ghost is Jesus Christ, he is all three(1 John 5:7). That is why your Saint-Peter commanded the people to be baptized in Jesus’s name (Acts 2:38) and that will be the only name that is used in N. T. baptisms. There are two places in the N.T. where households were baptized but the makeup of those households were not fully described, so there is no proof of infant baptism. Whenever the R.C.C. were doing things such as infant baptisms that were not approved by the scriptures, then they fall back on a thing that they call “church tradition.” The written word by early historians is not the inspired Word of God. We will not be judged by the words of church tradition but by God’s Word alone. As for knowing if the Bible I use is the Word of God, well your New Testament is the same as mine. It contains the same number of books and was translated from the same documents as yours. Your O.T. contains 46 books, mine contains 39 books. Apostolics does not use the O.T. for church doctrine, it is only used for reference. Then, if my Bible is not the Word of God, neither is yours. The Apostles did establish churches and none was called the Roman Catholic Church. They were usually named for the area that they were located in such as the Corinthian church located in Corinth. The R.C.C. is named the ROMAN Catholic Church for a good reason, it was founded by a ROMAN emperor Constantine in about 313 A.D. If you are implying that the R.C.C. is the only true Christian church, those scriptures you quoted could apply to any church CLAIMING to be based on the teachings of the Apostles such as my Apostolic church or yours. I have proven that your churches leadership has been just as/or more corrupt as any other church. If your church is guided into all truth by the Holy Ghost like you would claim, how do you explain all the corruption that has been its leadership?

    1. Tony, yes I understand the word phrase “in the name of”. Do you understand the word “AND”? In this case it means, also or in addition to. Jesus said to baptize them in the name of the Father, AND the Son, AND the Holy Spirit. Apparently Jesus wanted us baptized in all 3 names of the Holy Trinity. This seems obvious enough, but shows just another example of how you have to do some interesting grammatical contorting to explain your doctrine.
      And I am fully aware of the books of the Bible. My point is trying to understand how you know that the Bible is actually the inspired word of God? The Bible didn’t fall from the heavens, and it doesn’t come with an official stamp of authenticity, guaranteeing it’s infallibility. So how can you be assured your Bible is the real deal? You have to accept the authority of someone to have faith that an item is genuine. I accept the authority of the church that originally collected, ratified and canonized the Bible. You apparently accept the authority of the reformers who produced your KJV about 1300 years later. You still didn’t give me a reply as to what all the millions of humans did before the printing press was invented? And the Bible itself never claims to be the SOLE source of truth and authority. I’ll continue this subject in the next post…..

    2. OK, so what does the Bible say about the source of truth? Paul says in 1 Tim 3:15….”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.” And what about the subject of tradition? Well, St Paul says in 2 Thess 2:15….”Therefore brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.” How about the subject of unity? 1 Cor 1:10….”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 that there are rivalries among you……..Is Christ divided?” And we have Acts 16:4…”As they traveled from city to city, they handed on to the people for observance the decisions reached by the Apostles and presbyters in Jerusalem.” This is clearly demonstrating that the people were expected to accept the authority of the church leaders. Jesus told his disciples in Luke 10:16….”Whoever listens to you, listens to me. Whoever rejects you, rejects me” And as I’ve already established earlier, Jesus promised to be with them always and the gates of Hell would not prevail against them. If we are to accept your argument, it means Jesus was mistaken or lying when he told them that. Once again, just because some in the church have sinned, it doesn’t mean the whole church is corrupt. If our U.S. President and some Senators were found to be corrupt, would it nullify the authority of the entire federal government? No, it would just mean that those individuals didn’t live up to their oath of office.

    3. Alright, the Constantine argument. Constantine making Christianity a legally recognized religion is not him creating the Catholic Church. For some non-Catholic’s to dismiss the writings of the early church fathers, and then make an argument such as this is very convenient. How can one adequately defend the church against this argument if you just refuse to consider the early writings? So with that in mind, let’s consider what the early church fathers wrote back in the first few centuries. St Clement of Rome wrote a letter to the Corinthians in 96 A.D., affirming the Apostolic authority of the clergy. St Ignatius of Antioch wrote a letter in 107 AD, using the word “Katholikos” to describe the church. (Katholikos is the Greek word for universal) Also St Ignatius in @ 110 AD….”so that by means of his resurrection He might raise aloft a banner for his Saints and believers in every age, whether among the Jews or Gentiles, united in a single body in his Church”. St Cyprian of Carthage, writing in 255 AD about Peter…..”Indeed the other Apostles were that also which Peter was, being endowed with an equal portion of dignity and power; but the origin is grounded in unity, so that it may be made clear that unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he desert the chair of Peter upon whom the church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” There is plenty more where that came from, but you get the picture.

  10. Chad, My point is Peter said (in Acts 2:38) “to repent and be baptized in JESUS’S name”. The Catholic church baptizes using the words of the trinity and baptized babies. You can not give examples where the Apostles did either. A true born-again preacher is supposed to deliver his sermons based on God’s will. The Bible that I use is God’s written Word. Yes, I can trace my Church back to the Apostles, for we believe and live that which the Apostles taught. that is why we are called Apostolics. We accept the authority of Jesus as delivered through the words (God’s Word) of the Apostles. As knowing about Catholicism, i have attended Catholic services many time, have known priest personally, have had over 50 Catholic friends on first name bases. I know that the R.C.C. tortured & murdered thousand during 3 Inquisitions, had at least 8 popes that committed everything from adultery to murder, and was guilty of a massive sex scandal involving 100s of young boys and priest. How is that for knowing the Catholic church? That last statement was not meant to offend you just stating some facts. thanks for your reading recommendations, but I prefer the Bible for I know it is the inspired Word of God.

    1. As far as the words of Baptism goes, have you considered Jesus’ instructions to the Apostles in Matthew 28;19…Go therefore and make disciples of all nations,baptizing them in the name of the Father, and the Son and of the Holy Spirit. That seems pretty clear to me. Now, the baptizing of infants. The Bible is not explicit about this, one way or the other. However, we do have these examples in Acts from Paul….16:15 “after she and her household had been baptized” and 16:33 “then he and all his family were baptized at once”. This is a very strong implication that small children and/or infants were included in the baptism’s. We do have the writing’s of the early church fathers to consider. St Hippolytus of Rome wrote in 215 A.D., in his writing’s called “The Apostolic Tradition”…”Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves, let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them.” Or there’s Origen in his “Commentaries on Romans” in 244 AD, wrote: “The church received from the Apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants.”

    2. Tony, On what authority do you KNOW that your Bible is the true word of God? The KJV that you refer to wasn’t around until 1611? That’s 1600 years after Jesus was around on earth. So how can you be so sure about it’s infallibility? Have you really given any deep thought about how and who originally assembled the Bible? Jesus never promised us a library or a book, but he did give us a church. Jesus told the Apostles to: Go and make disciples of all nations, and promised to be with them always. He instructed his followers to be like a shining city on a hill (Matt 5:14). He told them that the Holy Spirit would be with them, and guide them to the spirit of truth. (John 14:16) Jesus prayed for their unity in John 17:11….”Holy Father, keep them in your name that you have given me, so that they may be one just as we are.” Paul states in Eph 4:4…”one body and one spirit….one Lord, one faith, one baptism”. I could go on, but the point is is that Jesus founded a church and intended for his followers to be united. And his Apostles did go out and start churches, and those churches recognized the authority of the Apostles and the appointed Bishops. And it was those churches and Bishops that eventually collected and canonized the books of the Bible in the 4th century, based on their traditions and teachings that had been passed down from the original Apostles. So we can see that Jesus founded a church and promised to be with them always, and we believe him. Yes, their have been times when some Popes and clergy haven’t lived up to the churches standards, but that doesn’t nullify the whole church. You are essentially saying that Jesus was a liar or mistaken when he promised to be with them always. We have a saying about not leaving Peter because of Judas.

    3. Tony, it’s always interesting to me that people who criticize the Catholic Church, and assume that they know what we believe, are almost never willing to actually read or watch material that really explains our faith. They’re just convinced of the truth of what they believe, and aren’t interested in seeking out anything that may upset that. Personally knowing some catholics, and attending some Catholic services, doesn’t begin to help someone really understand Catholic doctrine. Sadly enough, most Catholics can’t adequately explain our faith and beliefs. I also find it interesting how many non-catholic Christians can be remarkably literal when reading some passages from the Bible, and then do back flips trying to explain away other seemingly obvious passages that don’t fit their “interpretations”. For example, the Bibles teaching about the Eucharist and the authority given to Peter. These same Christians will stubbornly refuse to accept the writings of the early church fathers, but have no problems adopting the teachings and biblical interpretations of Reformers who came around 1500 years after Jesus. Have you ever considered what the Christians did in the year 500 or 1000, before the printing press made Bibles available to the masses? Or how about the millions around the world who are illiterate and can’t read a Bible for themselves? According to your version of Christianity, are these people just doomed to hell? The answer is no. These people can today, and have for 2000 years, came to know the word of God by going to the church he founded.

  11. Mr. Wickman, Jesus referred to Abraham as “father” because God made him father of the Jewish nation by a covenant.Genesis 17:5-6 KJV says, “Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a FATHER of many nations have I made thee.
    And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and kings SHALL COME OUT OF THEE.” Thus, Jesus was clearly speaking of Abraham in a biological sense. Why Jesus use a capital F instead a small f is beyond me. But he was not referring to him as a priest for in Luke 16:25, the rich man was referred to as Son with a capital S and we know the rich man was not Jesus. The rich man was a Jewish offspring of Abraham thus being a “son”. As for as your reference to 1 Corinthians 4:14-15 (KJV) it says,
    14 “I write not these things to shame you, but as my beloved sons I warn you.
    15 For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.”- Have you heard of the term “born-again Christian”? Well, this is what Paul was speaking of. He said he loved them like sons and he instructed them in God’s Word that enabled them to be Spiritual reborn thus, figuratively speaking, he was their father, small f. Keep in mind that the scriptures never conflict with one another, the conflict is in the mind of man. Pray to God and Only God and you will receive your answer.

    1. It seems to me that this is another example of how Protestants have to do some interesting contortions in trying to explain away things in scripture that don’t fit with their Protestant interpretation. Just like the Bread of Life discourse in John, being baptized by water, and Jesus building the church on Peter, just to name a few. Catholics do today and have for 2000 years, accept the scriptures for what they say.

    2. The reason that we call Priests “Father” is the same reason that St Paul referred to himself as a father to the Corinthian’s. They help lead us to Christ, through the Gospels!

        1. I did read your contorted small “f” & capital “F” explanation, and found it lacking. Paul clearly refers to himself as a father to the Corinthian’s, and they are like his children, in that he leads them to Christ. This is the theological basis for referring to Priests as Father. It seems pretty straightforward to understand, unless you view things through a Protestant lens.

        2. And as far as your question about being “born again”. Yes, we are born again in baptism, through water and spirit. Not by simply making a proclamation of accepting Jesus as our “personal Lord and Savior” and reciting some “sinners prayer”. These are Protestant traditions, not found in the Bible.

          1. Chad, — I am not Protestant, I am Apostolic which believes as the Apostles first taught God’s Word. Chad, you would surely believe that also, right? You are born-again if you are a new man without sin (your “old man” was with sin). Read Acts 2:38 and let Paul tell you how to be born-again. If I tell you, you will not believe but surely you will believe Paul, I hope. Your are right, sinners prayer and personal Lord and Savior acceptance salvation is not in the Bible. Again, read Acts 2:38 KJV, I am sure your priest have never read it to you.

          2. Not sure what your point is? “Repent and be baptized” is what Paul tells us to do. That’s what Catholics teach and believe. And I’m not sure where you got the idea that our Priests wouldn’t read any particular scripture passage. If a Catholic attends Mass every Sunday, he will have heard the entire New Testament AND most of the Old in about 3 years. Catholic Priests don’t get to pick and choose their favorite scriptures to preach on every week, as do the Protestant preachers. Every week we read an Old Testament passage, a passage from the epistles and a Gospel reading. Every single week, 3 separate scripture passages.

          3. And it’s interesting that you don’t consider yourself to be a Protestant, while you apparently prefer a Protestant Bible. The Catholic Bible was around for 1300 years before the KJV. And what exactly makes your church/denomination Apostolic? Can you trace it’s history back to the Apostles? The answer is no. Only the Catholics and Eastern Orthodox church can. The churches that were founded by the Apostles were in union together and accepted the authority of Peter.
            As a side note, I have a KJV Bible since I was raised Baptist/ non-denominational. I converted to Catholicism as an adult after becoming convinced that it is the church founded by Jesus and the Apostles.

          4. Tony, I’m not sure as to the extent of your actual knowledge about Catholicism. But it’s been my experience that what most non Catholics think they know about Catholicism, is usually a gross misrepresentation of our faith. There are some great books available to anyone who sincerely wants to learn more about it. And don’t read outside sources and think you’re gonna get an accurate portrayal. That’d be like reading a book about conservatism, written by a liberal college professor. Catholicism & Fundamentalism, by Karl Keating, is a pretty comprehensive study on the doctrines and differences between Catholics and Protestants.

        3. What do you call the man who got together with your Mother to produce you Tony? We call Priests Father because they are our spiritual Fathers. I’ve learned so much from the wonderful Priests at my Parish. It is you who is making scripture fit your belief. I’m sorry you hate Catholics so much, we all are brothers in Christ.

  12. Ms. Abare–All the scriptures you referred to are using the term “father” in a biological sense thus the little “f”. When Christ said, call no man “Father” he was referring to a spiritual Father, thus the capitol “F”. The R.C.C. uses a capitol “F” in the word father before a priest’s name, that is wrong according to the scriptures. Get yourself a KJV Bible and I think you will get more understanding from God’s Word.

    1. Tony Stephenson….How about Luke 16:24, where Jesus refers to “Father Abraham” in his parable of a rich man and Lazarus? This isn’t a reference to a biological father. Or how about 1 Cor.4:14-15….when St Paul says..”I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel”
      Tony, the Protestant objections to the title of Father don’t hold up to a serious biblical analyzation. Like you claimed earlier, it’s basically a case of twisting the scriptures to fit your beliefs.

    2. I’m sorry, but it is known that the Protestant Church left 7 of the original books out of the bible, therefore it is not the bible for reference. The best reference bible to get is the RSV OR NRSV

    3. Just gonna say–and you can take it or leave it–that the KJV is one of the worst English Language translations we have of the Bible, beginning with the fact that it’s a translation of a translation, with no almost no original-language manuscripts being consulted. In this respect, even the NIV is a much, much better translation.

    4. Also the point regarding capital “F” versus lowercase “f” is moot considering the fact that Koine Greek, which is the language the New Testament was written in, makes no distinction between lowercase and capital letters. Another example of this is when we capitalize “Him” or “He” to talk about God–it’s a great and respectful gesture, but it has no basis in the way the original languages of the Bible were written.

  13. When Christ said call no man “father” He is actually warning against looking to any man as a father in the way God alone is our Father. Christ also warns about calling men teachers and master in a way proper to God alone. See Matthew 2:1-12 and what about St. Stephan deacon and first martyr. When he directly addresses the Pharisees themselves as “father”. Clearly, the Holy Spirit would not have inspired this if Christ had expressly forbidden a literal use of the terms “father” It’s striking to see the word “father” appear several times in passages from Acts. See Acts 7:2, Acts 7:38-39, Acts 7:44-45, Acts 7:51-53 . Not to mention St. Paul in Titus 1:4 though Paul des not directly refer to himself as “father he makes that connection by reminding us of his spiritual fatherhood.

  14. That’s what I call,”twisting the scriptures” to get the results that you want. Matt. 23:32 is being totally taken out of context. If we read Matt. 23:30-31 it says,”30 And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.
    31 Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets.” —As you can see, those scriptures are clearly speaking about biological fathers.

    1. Jesus Christ is God even from the beginning, He did not become God after His death.
      John: 1. 1. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2. The same was in the beginning with God. 3. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. – Bible Offline

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Back to top button