Father..."? Part 2
I wrote a paper entitled "Bless me Father..."? It seems to
have caused quite a stir. As usual the opposition never deals with the
text at hand, but rather tries to circumvent the issue by using
secondary sources and opinions of men. This in itself is further proof
that Roman Catholic apologists are simply "ANTl-BIBLE". The
Word of God is not their final authority and certainly not
their only authority. Their authority lies in the traditions of men.
Check and see if an issue is ever answered with just the Word of God
being the final word. You will never see that in this life.
THE ISSUES: # 1. "Call no man your Father" is very clear in Matthew 23:9 to the intellectually honest person. It certainly is not referring to your BIOLOGICAL father. We are to give to no man the office of spiritual father. We have ONE Spiritual Father who is in heaven. Protestants are just as wrong when they use the term "Doctor" when referring to someone in a spiritual role. Does anyone ever refer to anyone in the New Testament as "father _____"? The New Testament does not teach the false dichotomy of "laity" and "clergy." That is a man-made invention. Further, to deny that Catholicism teaches the primacy of their priesthood is an insult to anyone that has been through a basic catechism for children. But let us not be the final word on that, but allow us to quote official Roman Catholic sources.
I would think that would be sufficient proof for anyone that the priest is "sacrosanct" to the average catholic. But if not that, how about the title "HOLY FATHER"! No one ever seems to deal with that issue. How can Karol W. aka JPII be the "HOLY FATHER"? Please explain that from the Word of God.
ISSUE # 2. Do not try and tell any Catholic in the pew that Catholic priests can marry. Their celibacy is not optional. Thousands have left the various orders because they wanted to marry. Of course we are aware that a priest does not break his vow of chastity unless he marries. Simply having sex will not break the vow according to "Catholic" morals. Further to deny the mandate in 1 Timothy 3:2 is childish and ANTI-BIBLE. Jesus declares in John 3 that we "must be...." Then obviously we must be whatever comes after. Paul tells Timothy that the pastor "must be..."! So the prerequisites of the pastor in 1 Timothy "Must be" met! Not just one or two of them, but ALL of them. A husband is a married man! You don’t need to be a Jesuit to figure that out. Paul was not a pastor but an Apostle. It was his option to marry or not. There are no qualifications for Apostles other than
Hence it was not a problem that Peter was married, nor was it required of him since he was not a pastor either. For a real interesting study—why were Catholic priests forbidden to marry?
ISSUE # 3. The Bible clearly does not teach a sacrificing, mediating earthly priesthood of men. It does teach of a mediating High priest who offered one sacrifice, for all, forever and is now our sole mediator, advocate and savior. His name is Jesus the Christ. In the first article I quoted from The Catholic Encyclopedia to prove that the Roman Catholic priesthood was NOT biblical and "cannot be traced back to Christ Himself by analysis of strIct historical testimony." If that were not enough, let us quote some other official catholic sources:
It should now quite clear that there was never a Roman Catholic priesthood established by the Lord Jesus Christ, but rather a priesthood of believers, in which every born again person is a member.
ISSUE # 4. The argument that the word "presbyters" should be translated "priest" because the German matches is laughable. Firstly, the Bible, i.e., the New Testament, was written in Koine Greek not German. Secondly, there was no "German" language at the time the New Testament was written. Thirdly, the Greek language has its own word for priest (Heirus) and that word is never used when referring to a New Testament Believer. One only has to read Hebrews chapter 7 to see clearly that the Lord did not establish such a thing as a sacrificing priesthood. All "veil-menders" must believe that He did in order to keep people under religious bondage and give them job security. Even Peter twenty-five years after the cross of Christ testifies that he is merely a co-elder and nothing more. Nowhere in the New Testament does Peter or Paul or any Christian offer a "Mass" for the sins of the living and the dead. Nowhere in the New Testament does Peter or Paul or any Apostle hear someone’s confession. Nowhere in the New Testament for that matter, does anyone even mention a "sacrament" or even have a clue as to what one is. If you were to give them Romanism’s definition they would surely say that you were ANTI-BIBLE and that you were frustrating the Grace of God.
In closing let me say that a person must not let some secondary source correct a primary source. Never let someone’s opinion be your authority, but only allow God’s word to have the final say in the matter. God Bless.
Reaching Catholics For