phat catholic apologetics

Happy Father's Day, Priests!

noreply@blogger.com (Nicholas Hardesty) — Sun, 16 Jun 2013 22:30:00 +0000

On this day when we thank God for our earthly fathers and grandfathers, let us not forget to also thank Him for our priests! They are our spiritual fathers, participating in the supreme Fatherhood of God. Let's also pray for our priests, that God will give them the grace and strength to be faithful to their calling to be great shepherds for His people.

As I'm sure you know, some Protestants have great disdain for our priests. They think we shouldn't have a ministerial priesthood, we shouldn't call priests "father," and these priests certainly shouldn't be celibate! In honor of our priests on Father's Day, I offer the following resources in response to those claims.

"And I will give you shepherds after my own heart, who will feed you with knowledge and understanding" (Jer 3:15).

Praise be to God!

Pax Christi,
phatcatholic

- - - - - - - - - -

Celibacy

Ministerial Priesthood

Priest As Spiritual Father

I have a few blog posts on the priesthood as well:

Defending Priestly Celibacy: Parts One -- Two -- Three -- Four -- Five -- Six -- Seven
Must Bishops Be Married?
Q&A Potpourri [two questions are about celibacy and women priests]
Eight Key Points, Part 3: Ministerial Priesthood
Wheat and Weeds in the Catholic Church (On the sexual abuse scandal)
Does the Bible Say Anything about Having Priests in the Church?
Where Are Deacons Found in Scripture?
"Salutations in the Marketplaces" and Calling Priests "Father"
Debate with "Russell" on Calling Priests "Father": Parts One -- Two -- Three -- Four
Debate on the Office of New Testament Priest: Parts One and Two

Father's Day Q&A

noreply@blogger.com (Nicholas Hardesty) — Sun, 16 Jun 2013 21:30:00 +0000

Since today is Father’s Day, I have provided the following collection of Q&A’s on fathers and fatherhood. Do you have a question about Catholicism? If so, send me an email and I will try my best to answer it.

Why do we call God our “father”?

We call God “father” first of all because He was revealed to us as such. When Jesus taught His disciples how to pray, He told them to begin by saying, “Our Father, who art in heaven …”. The Catechism gives us other reasons: “By calling God ‘Father’, the language of faith indicates two main things: that God is the first origin of everything and transcendent authority; and that he is at the same time goodness and loving care for all his children” (no. 239).

But, this does not mean that God is a man. The same paragraph in the Catechism goes on to clarify: “We ought therefore to recall that God transcends the human distinction between the sexes. He is neither man nor woman: he is God. He also transcends human fatherhood and motherhood, although he is their origin and standard: no one is father as God is Father.”

Are there any patron saints for fathers?

For the fathers themselves, there are only two: St. Joachim, the father of Mary; and St. Joseph, Mary’s most chaste spouse and Jesus’ foster-father. For those who have lost a father, there are 33 different patron saints. Some of the more popular among these are St. Angelica Merici, St. Elizabeth Ann Seton, St. Margaret Mary Alacoque, St. Maria Goretti, St. Teresa of Avila, and St. Therese of Lisieux.

How come we don’t know more about St. Joseph?

That is a very good question, and all we can really do to provide an answer is speculate. There is a tradition which says that Joseph was an elderly widower when he took Mary to be his wife. If this is true, then he likely died when Jesus was very young and so not much would be known about him by the followers of Jesus.

The last we see of St. Joseph in Scripture is at the temple, where he and Mary finally find Jesus, who had become separated from their traveling party. After this, there is a 12-year silence about the life of Christ. Joseph resides within this silence. Perhaps this is fitting. After all, the little information we have about Jesus’ earthly father causes his Heavenly
Father to come into greater view. Scripture tells us a great many things about that Father!

Pax Christi,
phatcatholic

St. Joseph for Father's Day

noreply@blogger.com (Nicholas Hardesty) — Sun, 16 Jun 2013 20:35:00 +0000

Since today is Father’s Day, it seemed fitting to provide for you a quick biographical sketch of St. Joseph, one of the greatest fathers who ever lived.

The most reliable sources of information on the life of Joseph come from the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. There we read that Joseph was a descendant of David (cf. Lk 2:4), from the tribe of Judah. He was probably born in Bethlehem, since he had to go there for the census (cf. Lk 2:1-5). At some point he moved to Nazareth in Galilee, where he was betrothed to Mary. He was a “carpenter” by trade (cf. Mt 13:55); the Greek word describes a craftsman skilled in all kinds of woodwork and masonry. Jesus was later referred to as a carpenter as well (cf. Mk 6:3), which means that Joseph must have passed on his trade to his son.

While Joseph and Mary were betrothed, Mary was found to be with child (cf. Mt 1:18). At first Joseph decided to quietly break off the engagement, so as not to subject Mary to ridicule. But, then he had a dream of an angel who told him that the child was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and not to fear to take Mary as his wife (cf. Mt 1:20-21). He did as the angel of the Lord commanded him (cf. Mt 1:24).

Later, because of the census, Joseph took Mary with him to Bethlehem and it was there where Jesus was born. After the visit of the Magi, Joseph was warned in a dream that Herod sought to kill the child. He fled with his family to Egypt and remained there until Herod’s death (cf. Mt 2:13-15). After this, Joseph settled his family back in Nazareth (cf. Mt 2:23).

Many years later, when Jesus was twelve, Joseph and Mary “looked for Him anxiously” when they lost Jesus on the trip home from Jerusalem, where they were celebrating the Passover. Eventually they found him in the Jerusalem Temple (cf. Lk 2:41-50). When they returned to Nazareth, Jesus was obedient to both his parents, and “increased in wisdom and in stature” under their care (cf. Lk 2:51-52).

What can we learn about Joseph’s character based on all of this? Well, Matthew describes him as a “just man” (Mt 1:19). From his immediate obedience to his many dreams (four in all; cf. Mt 1:20-21; 2:13, 19-20, 22), we can see that Joseph was a man of great faith who possessed a heart open to the slightest promptings of the Lord. In the gospels, Joseph thinks and acts but never speaks. We can take from this that Joseph leads more by example than by words. Also, to guide and protect his family through their various travels must have taken great strength and courage. In anxious moments, Joseph never faltered. Finally, from our belief in Mary’s perpetual virginity, we can deduce that Joseph was a chaste man and a master over his sexual impulses.

On this Father’s Day, let us pray that more fathers will heed the example of St. Joseph. He is everything that every man and father could ever hope to be.

Pax Christi,
phatcatholic

Sacred Heart of Jesus, Have Mercy on Us!

noreply@blogger.com (Nicholas Hardesty) — Fri, 07 Jun 2013 13:00:00 +0000

Today is the Solemnity of the Sacred Heart of Jesus. Reserve some time on this day for Eucharistic Adoration and for praying the novena to the Sacred Heart of Jesus. I also recommend the following for spiritual reading, as you contemplate the Heart that is enflamed with love for sinners.

"Set me as a seal upon your heart, as a seal upon your arm; for love is strong as death, jealousy is cruel as the grave. Its flashes are flashes of fire, a most vehement flame"
(So 8:6).

"For our God is a consuming fire"
(Heb 12:29).

Pax Christi,
phatcatholic

For the Solemnity of the Most Holy Body and Blood of Christ

noreply@blogger.com (Nicholas Hardesty) — Sun, 02 Jun 2013 16:10:00 +0000

In honor of today's Solemnity, I have decided to repost the portion from the "Sacraments" Topical Index Page on the Eucharist and the Sacrifice of the Mass.

Jesus, Living Bread which came down from heaven ... have mercy on us.

Holy Eucharist and the Sacrifice of the Mass

Faith and the Eucharist
The Makeup of the Eucharist in Other Catholic Rites
Symbolism in Jn 6
What's This "Holy Communion" that You Speak Of?
"Unless You Become Like Children...."
"Bread" and "Wine" or Something More?
Profaning Communion for the Sake of "Communion": Parts One -- Two
The Experience of the Lord's Supper in Protestant Churches
Real Presence vs. "Do This in Memory of Me"
On Proper Behavior in an Adoration Chapel
What Are the Effects of the Eucharist?
On Transubstantiation and the Real Presence: Parts One -- Two
Debate with "Briguy" on the Real Presence: Parts One -- Two -- Three
The "Once for All" Sacrifice of Christ
The Mass and the Forgiveness of Sins
What Is Transubstantiation?
What Does the Eucharist Have to Do with Thanksgiving?
Adoring Our Eucharistic Lord
Christ: The One Who Satisfies (on Jn 6:24-35)
Christ: The Source of Eternal Life (on Jn 6:41-51)

Pax Christi,
phatcatholic

Catholic Q&A: Part 32

noreply@blogger.com (Nicholas Hardesty) — Sat, 01 Jun 2013 14:53:00 +0000

This post continues my series of short answers to common questions about Catholicism. For the previous parts in the series, see the "Catholic Q-A Series" blog label.

Is Clement and Linus in the Bible the same men that would later become popes?

It's difficult to say for sure, but traditionally these are considered to be references to future popes. Clement is mentioned in Phil 4:3. He became the fourth pope. Linus is mentioned in 2 Tim 4:21. He became the second pope.

In Mark 6:48-49, it says that Jesus meant to pass by them, but the apostles saw Him anyway. Does this mean that Jesus failed in what He was trying to do?

First of all, here is the passage in question:

And he saw that they were distressed in rowing, for the wind was against them. And about the fourth watch of the night he came to them, walking on the sea. He meant to pass by them, 49but when they saw him walking on the sea they thought it was a ghost, and cried out;

Now, when it says, “He meant to pass by them”, this could mean that He wished to go undetected, or it could mean that He wished to walk in their direction. He “passed by them” as in, alongside them.

Now, if Jesus wanted to be undetected, then He would have been undetected. I think Mark meant that Jesus wanted to walk toward them or alongside them. This is confirmed by the parallel passages in Matthew and John, where we read that “he came to them” (Mt 14:25) and “they saw Jesus … walking near to the boat” (Jn 6:19).

Somewhere in 2 Chronicles it says that if you turn your back on God then He will turn His back on you. I have trouble believing that God would do that. Can you explain this for me?

The closest thing I could find to the passage you are referring to is 2 Chron 30:9, “He will not turn his face from you if you return to him.” The opposite of this is basically what you have in mind. If you do not return to Him, then He will turn his face from you.

When God turns away from His people, it is a punishment for sin. This does not mean that he completely abandons them. Instead, He withdraws His blessing and His protection from them because with their lives they refuse Him ... but He will never forsake them. As St. Paul said, “What if some were unfaithful? Does their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God? By no means! Let God be true though every man be false” (Rom 3:3-4). "He will not fail you or forsake you" (Deut 31:6).

God is always waiting for us to return to Him and to take us back and shower us with His blessing. Sometimes He even blesses us when we don’t deserve it!

Pax Christi,
phatcatholic

How a DRE Can Put the "Logos" to Good Use

noreply@blogger.com (Nicholas Hardesty) — Wed, 08 May 2013 01:29:00 +0000

A while back, many popular Catholic bloggers, theologians, and apologists wrote reviews about the usefulness of Logos 4, with the Catholic Scholars Library. Well, recently, I was fortunate enough to receive a review copy of the new and updated version called Verbum, which is the Catholic version of Logos 5.

Besides being blown away by how truly epic this bible software is, I was also at somewhat of a loss as to how to review it without just parroting what other people have already said. Yes, I could review the new features that come with Logos 5, but I also want to say something unique about its usefulness or its effectiveness as a tool for bible study. After reading previous reviews and giving it a good deal of thought, I finally came upon a way to put my own spin on it.

I would like to tell you how a Director of Religious Education can benefit from this software.

LOGOS 5, VERBUM, and RCIA

Handouts

One of the things that surprised me about the Logos Bible Software is that there are pictures and even ready-made handouts that are connected to the Bible passages that they illustrate. So, let's say you're doing a lesson on the Last Supper. If you search for a passage from one of the Institution Narratives (for example, Lk 22:19 "Do this in memory of me"), it will appear in the middle column, and in the left column a Passage Guide and an Exegetical Guide will appear with all of the resources from the Logos Bible Software that are connected to that passage. One of these is a Handout which shows what yeast does to bread and includes various images of the types of bread that were eaten in biblical times and during the Passover.

How neat! This type of thing is great in RCIA because you're always looking for ways to mix up the presentation with various forms of media so as to accommodate different learning styles and to generally make the presentation more engaging. To be able to learn about and even see the types of bread that Jesus and the Apostles would have eaten really helps to make this important moment come alive for them and feel more real.

Studying the Greek

So, they've seen the bread. Now you want to talk about how this meal is actually a sacrifice. One way to do this is to point out that the Greek word for "Do" in "Do this in memory of me" (poieo) is used in many places in the Septuagint to refer to the sacrificial offering upon the altar in the temple. But, how do you figure out which passages from the Septuagint use poieo in a sacrifical context? I've read this argument before in various apologetical works, but I've never been able to discover these passages that are referenced. Unless you have a Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint (which is a rare book, and expensive) there's really no way to do it.

Trust me, I've tried. In fact, just after I received Logos 5 I was confronted by this problem in a debate. I scoured the internet for a resource that would help me to find what I needed. There are online bibles that have the Septuagint as a translation you can use. The Septuagint itself is online, and some sites allow you to search for specific Greek words. But, none of these allow you to search for a Greek lemma, or every instance in which a base word appears in all of its forms. I wanted to know where I could find poieo used in a sacrificial context in the Septuagint. Nothing online was quite what I needed. Finally, I realized I had what I was looking for the whole time.

Morris Proctor explains how to do it (his instructions also work for Logos 5), and when I found his article it was a revelation to me! Of course, in RCIA, I'm not going to dive into the minutae of Greek lemmas, Hebrew equivalents, Brenton's English translation of the Septuagint (which is also available from Logos), and all that. But, it would be nice to be able to read four or five passages from the Old Testament that mention the offering of a sacrifice with the very same word that Jesus used. That's quite an eye-opener, and in RCIA, you more or less live for that moment when the light bulb comes on and they learn something interesting and new for the first time. Logos 5 gave me all the examples I could ever want or need to make my point.

I didn't even know, until recently, that my Logos Bible Software could do that. It makes me wonder what else this thing can do that I haven't discovered yet.

Liturgy of the Word

Another way in which Verbum helps in RCIA is with the construction of a Liturgy of the Word. Once the candidates and catechumens proceed to the Catechumenate stage, it is good to introduce more liturgical elements into the process. One way to do this is to begin each lesson with a Liturgy of the Word. Typically, you'll want to construct the Liturgy of the Word so that the readings correspond with your topic, but during the Easter Season, I like to use the reading for the day. By this point, they are in the Mystagogy stage, where all the topics pertain to how to live according to the Easter sacraments, and so the readings for the season are instructive.

Of course, you can go to the USCCB website and get the readings for the day. For example, let's take April 29, the Memorial of St. Catherine of Siena, Virgin and Doctor of the Church. The USCCB website gives you the readings for Monday of the Fifth Week of Easter. It gives you the First Reading, the Responsorial Psalm, and the Gospel. But, the Catholic Lectionary that comes with Verbum gives you more. For example, it gives you the readings for Monday of the Fifth Week of Easter, but it also includes the Gospel Acclamation. It also gives you the readings from the Proper of Saints, since April 29 is the memorial of a saint. Now, I could have walked over to the sacristy, flipped through the lectionary, and figured all of this out for myself. But, it was very nice to have it here all in one place.

Breaking Open the Word

One final way that this software is helpful for RCIA is when it comes time to "Break Open the Word." I'm not even sure if that is the official title for it, but that's what we always called it on the RCIA team at FUS. At any rate, this is the time when you leave the Mass with the catechumens (some will include the candidates as well) and you spend the rest of the time discussing the Mass readings. The idea is to help them feed off of the Word until that day comes when they can feed off of the Eucharist.

But, let's say you're just a volunteer. You don't have a theology degree. Often times, you feel like you need someone to break open the Word for you! Yet, now you are being tasked with trying to bring out the meaning of the Mass readings for others. Verbum is abundantly helpful.

Depending on the package you have, there are potentially hundreds of Catholic bibles, commentaries, dictionaries, and other resource aids at your disposal. I was given the Master package, which contains ... well ... all of THIS! (go to "Compare & Buy" and see the second to the last column of dots). Here is just a very small sampling of the works that I was particularly appreciative to receive:

Bible: Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition
Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition New Testament Reverse Interlinear
Lexham Greek-English Interlinear New Testament
Brenton's Septuagint English Translation
A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, by Bernard Orchard (1953)
A Practical Commentary on Holy Scripture, by Frederick Jusus Kneck
Catena Aurea, by St. Thomas Aquinas
Douay-Rheims Bible Commentary, by Leo Haydock
The Great Commentary, by Cornelius a Lapide
A Catholic Dictionary, by William E. Addis and Thomas Arnold
A Dictionary of Canon Law, by P. Trudel
The Ante-Nicene, Nicene, and Post-Nicene Fathers
99 Homilies of St. Thomas Aquinas
Parochial and Plain Sermons (vols. 1-8), by John Henry Newman
almost all of Dave Armstrong's books
Kingship by Covenant, by Scott Hahn
Pontifical Biblical Institute New Testament Studies Collection (11 vols.)
more Church documents then you could wave a stick at

You get the idea. When I said this software was epic, I meant it. And the next time I sit down to prepare for Breaking Open the Word, I'm going to have all of the information I need.

Summary

So far, I've only focused on how Verbum could be very useful in various facets of the RCIA process. But, from this it should be easy to see how the DRE could utilize Verbum and Logos 5 in his other tasks and responsibilities.

It goes without saying that this software would be essential to any bible study one was leading. The handouts I previously mentioned would work great as part of a sacramental prep program. I use Dave Armstrong's various works of apologetics quite often when I'm writing my Catholic Q&A for the parish bulletin. Now they are all digitized and searchable and cross-referenced! The various Catholic catechisms available could be put to good use in the Religious Ed program. You get the idea. For any type of parish catechetical leader or volunteer, Verbum and Logos 5 is a goldmine.

Oh, One More Thing ...

What's the catch? Well, it's pretty expensive. The Verbum Master package costs $117.50/month or $1,349.95. But, when you consider that it would cost $13,500 to by all of these books individually, the asking price for the software appears more reasonable. Also, once it's yours, you can download it to as many computers and digital devices as you own, which increases the value of your purchase.

There are ways you can make this yours. Your parish could pay for it (some of you DRE's are probably laughing at me right now, but there are parishes where this would be doable). You could have a fundraiser. You could have several staff members pitch in on it. You could tell all of your family and friends, "Go in on this and you don't have to get me anything for the next five years." Put a little money aside from each paycheck until you save enough to get it. Basically, do whatever you can do (reasonably and morally) to make it happen. You'll be glad you did.

Pax Christi,
phatcatholic

Hearing and Praying to God

noreply@blogger.com (Nicholas Hardesty) — Mon, 06 May 2013 15:16:00 +0000

How do we recognize the voice of God in prayer? Who are we to pray to, the Father, the Son, or the Holy Spirit?

Regarding your first question, it is difficult to say. This is one of those things where, when you hear it, you just know. I can say that it helps to get acquainted with God's voice in Scripture. Scripture is, after all, where we hear Him speaking. God speaks through the Law. He speaks through the prophets. He speaks His final word in Jesus.

Once you familiarize yourself with His words, then when you hear that “small, still voice” (1 Ki 19:12) in prayer, you'll know it is God. Scripture has already shown you how He speaks, how He likes to operate, what He usually says and does not say, and so you will know His voice when you hear it. “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me” (Jn 10:27).

Of course, any message you receive in prayer that does not coincide with Scripture or with the teaching of the Church is not from God. Any message that is not loving is not from God. Any message that attempts to belittle you or fill you with shame is not from God.

Praying more will help you too. It is through prayer that God communicates to us and us to Him. When you first meet a person, you may not recognize his voice if he calls you on the phone. But, as you get to know him better, as your relationship with him grows, his voice becomes easier to recognize. So it is with God. The more you pray the more you will come to know God's voice when you hear it.

As for your second question, prayer is primarily to the Father so we should always pray to Him first. But, we are also invited to pray to the Son and to the Holy Spirit, and this is a very good and important thing to do.

As the Catechism of the Catholic Church says:

2665 The prayer of the Church, nourished by the Word of God and the celebration of the liturgy, teaches us to pray to the Lord Jesus. Even though her prayer is addressed above all to the Father, it includes in all the liturgical traditions forms of prayer addressed to Christ.

2670 "No one can say 'Jesus is Lord' except by the Holy Spirit." [. . .] Since he teaches us to pray by recalling Christ, how could we not pray to the Spirit too? That is why the Church invites us to call upon the Holy Spirit every day, especially at the beginning and the end of every important action.

I hope that helps.

Pax Christi,
phatcatholic

St. Joseph the Worker

noreply@blogger.com (Nicholas Hardesty) — Wed, 01 May 2013 15:31:00 +0000

May 1st is the optional memorial of St. Joseph the Worker. It is interesting that the "most chaste spouse" of Mary is distinguished from the many other "St. Joseph's" by his reputation as a worker. He is the symbol of the "hard-working man," the man who does his job well and with diligence because he hopes to serve the Lord and to support his family with it. Pope Pius XII created this feast day for the very purpose of emphasizing this noble purpose of work and to place all who labor under the patronage of St. Joseph.

For more on St. Joseph and this feast day, see the Catholic Culture Liturgical Calendar for May 1st, or see my previous post, In the Hands of St. Joseph, which is an extensive compilation of articles on this wonderful husband, father, and saint.

Also, check out the following video. It's a homily by Fr. Liam Cary, Pastor of Sacred Heart Catholic Church in Medord, OR:

St. Joseph: Devoted Father, Man of Pure Faith

St. Joseph the Worker and Mary's Most Chaste Spouse ... ora pro nobis.

Pax Christi,
phatcatholic

Debate on the Office of New Testament Priest: Part 2

noreply@blogger.com (Nicholas Hardesty) — Mon, 22 Apr 2013 22:12:00 +0000

Here is my point-by-point rebuttal to Russell's latest comment on the presence of a ministerial priesthood in Scripture and the Church. Also see Part 1. His words will be indented and italicized.

Thanks for your kind remarks and for the three links you provided on the priesthood. I did read them, but I have to say that I still disagree with those articles, mainly because they still do not sufficiently address the core issues which I had shared in my previous response… namely, 1) that the ministerial priesthood is a glaring omission in the New Testament, and 2) the fact that “elder” does not equal “priest”.

I will try my best to respond to the concerns of yours that those articles did not address.

You indicated that the very reason that “elder” and “priest” mean the same thing was because today’s priests serve the “same function” as the early presbyters did. But one could argue that many of today’s Protestant pastors / ministers ALSO serve the same function as the New Testament elders did, because they also preach the gospel and administer communion, baptism, etc. So this proves nothing.

You forgot one thing. It is not enough to preach the gospel and administer sacraments. Protestant pastors may serve some of the same functions as priests, but they are not for that reason rightly considered priests.

For one, at the heart of what it means to be a priest is the offering of a sacrifice. In the Old Testament, the high priest offers his sacrifice (cf. Heb 5:1; 8:3; 13:11), the ministers offer theirs (cf. Lev 1:4-9), and the people have theirs (cf. Psa 50:23; 51:17; 141:2; Hos 14:2). Similarly, in the New Testament, the high priest has his sacrifice (cf. Heb 2:17), the ministers have theirs (cf. Rom 15:15-16; 1 Cor 10:16-21; Heb 9:23; 13:10), and the people have theirs (cf. Rom 12:1; Phil 4:18; Heb 13:15-16; 1 Pet 2:5). I will elaborate more on the sacrifice of the NT ministerial priest in response to your concluding paragraph. My point is, Protestants don't understand their pastors as offering a sacrifice when they celebrate Communion. There are no altars in Protestant churches.

Secondly, they have not received apostolic authority through the laying on of hands, which is the sacrament that makes one a priest (cf. Acts 6:6; 13:3; 1 Tim 4:14; 5:22; 2 Tim 1:6). So, to compare Protestant pastors with Catholic priests is really apples and oranges.

Another thing… if Catholic priests (especially those of the Latin rite) are the same as New Testament “elders,” then why are they not allowed (required?) to be the “husband of [but] one wife” (Titus 1:5)? I know that there are exceptions in the RCC, but Paul is speaking of the NORM for elders, here. And the norm is to be married. (I am not debating the virtues of celibacy here, but my point is simply that, according to Titus, a Roman Catholic priest cannot be a biblical “elder”).

First, I think you mean 1 Tim 3:2, not Titus 1:5. That said, this passage does not require priests to have a wife. Instead, it is saying that IF they have one, they should remain faithful to her alone, instead of having other wives as well. At any rate, a Catholic priest of the Eastern rites is allowed to have a wife. This is only a discipline in the Latin rite. Note, clerical celibacy is a discipline, not a dogma. While I wouldn't agree, the most you could say is that priests of the Latin rite don't follow the biblical model. That wouldn't disqualify the priests of the Eastern rites, nor would it disprove that a ministerial priesthood is present in Scripture.

You said that “hiereus” refers to the priests of the Old Covenant. It certainly does, but not just to the Old Testament priests. It ALSO refers to the New Testament universal priesthood of believers (Revelation 1:6; 5:10; 20:6). I think that this is further evidence that the priesthood has changed from a “ministerial” form (OT) to a “universal” form (NT).

I never said it referred "just" to them. I was simply pointing out that the word used for the OT ministerial priesthood is hierus and the word for the NT ministerial priesthood is presbyteros. That hierus also refers to the priesthood of believers does not prove a change "from a 'ministerial' form (OT) to a 'universal' form (NT)." Both forms remain. If there is a parallel between the high priest of the OT (Aaron) and the high priest of the NT (Jesus), and there is a parallel between the priesthood of believers in the OT (Israel) and the priesthood of believers in the NT (the Church), then there is also a parallel between the ministerial priesthood of the OT (Aaron's sons) and the ministerial priesthood of the NT (the presbyteros). You have cut off the parallel between the Old and the New without allowing it's full implications to be realized.

You also considered the fact that the terms “presbuteros” and “hiereus” were never used interchangeably, as a “non-issue”, but if one is asserting the existence of a ministerial priesthood (IN SPITE OF any clear biblical evidence), it certainly must be an issue. Furthermore, assuming that presbuteros is the “new” term for priest is simply begging the question.

I'm not reading into the term something that isn't there. There is an equivalence between the presbyteros of the NT and the ministerial priests of the Catholic Church b/c they perform the same duties and receive their office in the same manner. That is why we use an English word derived from presbyteros to refer to these men. They are the same.

Look at the history of Christianity. The very existence of bishops and priests in the Church grew out of the practice of "appointing elders in every church" (Acts 14:23; cf. Titus 1:5) and entrusting the deposit of faith (cf. 1 Tim 6:20; 2 Tim 2:2) by the laying on of hands (cf. Acts 6:6; 13:3; 1 Tim 4:14; 5:22; 2 Tim 1:6). That is how we have priests in the first place. To say that there is no correspondence between the two is ultimately ahistorical.

But, let's assume for a moment that Catholic priests are different from the presbyteros that are present in the NT. This does not prove that the presbyteros were of the same rank as the laity, or that a ministerial priesthood does not exist in Scripture. It would just prove that the Catholic priesthood is not that priesthood.

We know in fact that the presbyteros were not of the same rank as the laity because they are seen in Scripture doing things that not just anyone can do. In fact, they are doing priestly things, such as:

receiving tithes: presbyteros (cf. Acts 11:29-30) and priests (cf. Heb 7:4-5)
laying on hands: presbyteros (cf. 1 Tim 4:14) and priests (cf. Gen 48:14; Num 27:18-20)
preaching and teaching with authority: presbyteros (cf. 1 Tim 5:17) and priests (cf. Mal 2:7)
shepherding the people: presbyteros (cf. 1 Pet 5:1-3) and priests (cf. Isa 63:11; Jer 3:15)
wearing special garments and crowns during worship: presbyteros (cf. Rev 4:4) and priests (cf. Lev 8:6-9)
offering incense: presbyteros (cf. Rev 5:8) and priests (cf. Num 16:40; 1 Sam 2:28)

Priests are a people set apart (or "consecrated") to perform a special service to the Lord. We see this both with the priests from the OT and with the presbyteros of the NT.

The main function of a ministerial priest is to offer sacrifices (repeatedly) to God in order to atone for sin. But Hebrews 10:18 tells us that the price has already been paid and there is “NO MORE offering [sacrifice] for sin”. Therefore, no more atoning sacrifices are needed. We now have a PERFECT atonement to embrace, once for all. No ministerial priests are needed now to offer sacrifice to God. Their “job” is cancelled out, and all believers have access to God, since the veil is rent (Matthew 27:51).

I've heard this argument before, and I don't think it takes into account all of the biblical data. I would like to look closer now at the passages I provided earlier of the sacrifices of the NT priesthood. The first is from Romans:

Rom 15:15-16 But on some points I have written to you very boldly by way of reminder, because of the grace given me by God 16 to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in the priestly service of the gospel of God, so that the offering of the Gentiles may be acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit.

First of all, notice that Paul considers himself a minister fulfilling a priestly service. He is describing his office in priestly terms. His sacrificial offering is the Gentiles. He is the priest making the offering. They are the offering. The two parties are not on equal footing here. It is the minister, not the congregation, that is pictured here as the priest. Yes, there is a priesthood of all believers, but they are not priests as Paul is a priest.

The second passage is from 1st Corinthians:

1 Cor 10:16-21 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? 17 Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread. 18 Consider the practice of Israel; are not those who eat the sacrifices partners in the altar? 19 What do I imply then? That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? 20 No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be partners with demons. 21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons.

In this passage, Paul is comparing the "table of the Lord" with the "table of demons." He says, "what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God" (vs. 20). The implication is that our sacrifice IS to God, whereas theirs isn't. Of course, it would make no sense to say this unless the Church actually had a sacrifice of their own that they celebrated and that could be compared to the pagan or the Jewish sacrifice.

"Are not those who eat the sacrifices partners in the altar?" Paul asks (vs. 18). The pagan sacrifice makes one "partners with demons" (vs. 20), whereas the cup of blessing and the bread we break -- the Christian sacrifice -- makes us partners with the blood and the body of Christ (vs. 16). "The table of the Lord" is a phrase that is used to refer to the altar where the sacrifice to God takes place (cf. Ezek 41:22; 44:16; Mal 1:7, 12). All of this reveals that Paul is talking about the sacrifice of the New Testament ministerial priesthood.

But what exactly is this sacrifice? When Jesus told the Apostles at the Last Supper to "Do this in memory of me" (Lk 22:19; 1 Cor 11:24), He charged them to make His Body and Blood present to the people. Since in the Eucharistic meal you have Body broken and Blood poured out and Body separate from Blood, you have here a sacrifice. Consequently, the Apostles who make this sacrificial offering become priests.

The remaining passages are from the Letter to the Hebrews:

Heb 9:23 Thus it was necessary for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these rites, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.

Heb 13:10 We have an altar from which those who serve the tent have no right to eat.

What could the "heavenly sacrifices" (note the plural) be that are far better than the Jewish sacrifices? In a mysterious way, this sacrifice is one and multiple at the same time. The key here is to understand that while Jesus died once, this offering of His life is offered perpetually to the Father. Not many times, but always. This is why Jesus continues to appear in heaven as a lamb that is slain (cf. Rev 5:6, 12; 13:8). As Heb 9 goes on to say, Christ has entered into heaven itself "now to appear" in the presence of God on our behalf. Not one time a long time ago, but now. "Consequently he is able FOR ALL TIME to save those who draw near to God through him, since HE ALWAYS LIVES to make intercession for them" (Heb 7:25). This is how one makes sense of the NT priesthood and the sacrifice that these priests offer in the Mass.

As for Heb 13:10, note that we have an altar. But altars are for sacrifice, otherwise there is no point in even having one. Note that some people are not allowed to eat from it. This echoes Paul in 1 Cor 11:27-31 when he says that only those who discern the Body and Blood of Christ in the bread and wine are allowed to consume it.

You said, "The main function of a ministerial priest is to offer sacrifices." You think that the sacrifice of Christ has done away with these priests, but the passages I have provided here prove that a sacrifice remains for the NT priest to offer. And so, the priest remains.

I would like to conclude with a passage that I think is difficult to understand if Scripture has no notion of a ministerial priesthood in the Church:

Jude 1:11 Woe to them! For they walk in the way of Cain, and abandon themselves for the sake of gain to Balaam’s error, and perish in Korah’s rebellion.

"The way of Cain", "Balaam's error", "Korah's rebellion", all three of these refer to priestly service. Cain offered a sacrifice to God that was displeasing to Him (cf. Heb 11:4). Three times Balaam set up altars with which to offer a sacrifice of cursing upon Israel (cf. Num 23). What did Korah do? Well, he did the very thing you are doing, even said the very things you have said:

Now Korah the son of Izhar, son of Kohath, son of Levi, and Dathan and Abi'ram the sons of Eli'ab, and On the son of Peleth, sons of Reuben, 2 took men; and they rose up before Moses, with a number of the people of Israel, two hundred and fifty leaders of the congregation, chosen from the assembly, well-known men; 3 and they assembled themselves together against Moses and against Aaron, and said to them, "You have gone too far! For all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the LORD is among them; why then do you exalt yourselves above the assembly of the LORD?" (Num 16:1-4)

Do you know what happened to them for doing this?

And as he finished speaking all these words, the ground under them split asunder; 32 and the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them up, with their households and all the men that belonged to Korah and all their goods. 33 So they and all that belonged to them went down alive into Sheol; and the earth closed over them, and they perished from the midst of the assembly. 34 And all Israel that were round about them fled at their cry; for they said, "Lest the earth swallow us up!" 35 And fire came forth from the LORD, and consumed the two hundred and fifty men offering the incense. (Num 16:31-35)

What's interesting is that this is not an artifact from the annals of history. According to Jude, people in the NT Church are perishing in Korah's rebellion. Yet, how could people rebel against God's ministerial priesthood (or usurp it for themselves, as Korah also seemed to be doing) if there was no ministerial priesthood? In Jude's day it was important to observe the distinction between the priesthood of all believers and the ministerial priesthood, and "woe to them" who didn't! Yet none of this makes sense if there were no ministerial priesthood in the bible or in the early Church.

Peace of Christ to you,
phatcatholic

Debate on the Office of New Testament Priest: Part 1

noreply@blogger.com (Nicholas Hardesty) — Mon, 22 Apr 2013 20:31:00 +0000

Recently, I have been posting here my debate with Russell on calling priests "father." After I posted Part 4, he said that he did not want to continue the debate (you can read his comment on that post for the reasons why), so I suggested we pick up again an earlier debate of ours on the presence of ministerial priests in the bible.

This debate began in the comment section of my post, "Does the Bible Say Anything about Having Priests in the Church?". The last word was his, so he said I was welcome to respond, but he wasn't sure how much time he would be able to devote to it. I'll be posting here what has transpired so far, and if this goes anywhere, I'll share that too.

Russel began the debate with the following remarks. His words will be indented and italicized.

I just read your article “Does the Bible Say Anything about Having Priests in the Church?”, and I’d like to comment, if I may.

You said yes to the question, but while we are able to find Jewish and pagan priests in the New Testament, we don’t see any Christian “ministerial” priests to mediate between God and man (as we saw in the Old Testament). I agree with you concerning the High Priesthood of Jesus Christ and the “universal priesthood” of all believers, but a ministerial office of “priest” seems to be strangely absent. If that priesthood were valid for today, one would think that such a critical position should be evident in the New Testament. But it isn’t. The apostle Paul mentions the functions and offices of the New Testament church in chapters 3 and 5 of I Timothy, and Titus chapter 1. He also gives specific instructions for ministry, church order, gifts and service in I Corinthians chapters 11-14, and in Ephesians chapter 4, and yet, there is not a single mention of an office of “priest”. I think there’s a reason for that.

You mentioned New Testament “elders” (Greek, “presbuteros”) as though they were equivalent to modern-day priests, but the New Testament ALREADY has a word for priest, (Greek, “hiereus”), and the two words are never used interchangeably. While it is true that our modern word “priest” is a DERIVATIVE of the word “presbuteros”, it does not mean that they are the same. The modern word “Presbyterian” is ALSO a derivative of “presbuteros”, but I don’t think you would try to say that the New Testament “elders” were Presbyterians. So, this in no way proves that elders were priests.

Thanks for taking the time to hear me out. I am looking forward to your response.

Since this was taking place in the comments section, I didn't bother w/ a point-by-point rebuttal. Instead, I simply said:

Thank you for your comment. I appreciate any correspondence that is charitably and articulately presented, as yours was.

Regarding your presbuteros argument, note that the very reason why English speakers refer to the ordained ministry with a word that is derived from presbuteros is because these ministers serve the same function as the presbyters did. There is a clear hierarchy of bishops, priests, and deacons in the NT, and while, in the beginning, these three offices performed some of the same functions, they were clearly distinct from the rest of the Church. In fact, they held positions of authority in the Church, and we are instructed to respect and abide by that authority.

Also, the fact that hiereus and presbuteros are not used interchangeably is to me a non-issue. Hiereus refers to the priests of the Old Covenant. A separate word, presbuteros is used to refer to the priests of the New. While I believe that the New Covenant priesthood certainly parallels the Old Covenant one, there is still distinctiveness and uniqueness to the New Covenant priesthood that warrants the use of a different word.

For the Scriptural evidence in support of what I have said here, I highly suggest the following articles:
The Ministerial Priesthood

Office of New Testament Priest

The Biblical Evidence for Priests

He responded with the following comment:

Hello again Nicholas,

Thanks for your kind remarks and for the three links you provided on the priesthood. I did read them, but I have to say that I still disagree with those articles, mainly because they still do not sufficiently address the core issues which I had shared in my previous response… namely, 1) that the ministerial priesthood is a glaring omission in the New Testament, and 2) the fact that “elder” does not equal “priest”.

You indicated that the very reason that “elder” and “priest” mean the same thing was because today’s priests serve the “same function” as the early presbyters did. But one could argue that many of today’s Protestant pastors / ministers ALSO serve the same function as the New Testament elders did, because they also preach the gospel and administer communion, baptism, etc. So this proves nothing. Another thing… if Catholic priests (especially those of the Latin rite) are the same as New Testament “elders,” then why are they not allowed (required?) to be the “husband of [but] one wife” (Titus 1:5)? I know that there are exceptions in the RCC, but Paul is speaking of the NORM for elders, here. And the norm is to be married. (I am not debating the virtues of celibacy here, but my point is simply that, according to Titus, a Roman Catholic priest cannot be a biblical “elder”).

You said that “hiereus” refers to the priests of the Old Covenant. It certainly does, but not just to the Old Testament priests. It ALSO refers to the New Testament universal priesthood of believers (Revelation 1:6; 5:10; 20:6). I think that this is further evidence that the priesthood has changed from a “ministerial” form (OT) to a “universal” form (NT). You also considered the fact that the terms “presbuteros” and “hiereus” were never used interchangeably, as a “non-issue”, but if one is asserting the existence of a ministerial priesthood (IN SPITE OF any clear biblical evidence), it certainly must be an issue. Furthermore, assuming that presbuteros is the “new” term for priest is simply begging the question.

The main function of a ministerial priest is to offer sacrifices (repeatedly) to God in order to atone for sin. But Hebrews 10:18 tells us that the price has already been paid and there is “NO MORE offering [sacrifice] for sin”. Therefore, no more atoning sacrifices are needed. We now have a PERFECT atonement to embrace, once for all. No ministerial priests are needed now to offer sacrifice to God. Their “job” is cancelled out, and all believers have access to God, since the veil is rent (Matthew 27:51).

Thanks again, and looking forward to your response.

In my next post I will respond to this with a point-by-point rebuttal.

Pax Christi,
phatcatholic

On Calling Priests "Father": Part 4

noreply@blogger.com (Nicholas Hardesty) — Tue, 09 Apr 2013 05:36:00 +0000

Here is Part 4 in my debate with Russell on calling priests "father." Also see Parts One, Two, and Three. His words will be indented and italicized.

Hi Nicholas,

Ok, concerning your argument that “King” is a spiritual title, this is still extremely weak and not convincing at all.

Care to explain why? The title of "King" takes on it's spiritual nature once you realize the importance of the covenant relationship between God and man and consider that the Davidic King was the mediator of this covenant.

The King is God's annointed one (cf. 1 Sam 16:13; 1 Ki 1:39). The security and prosperity of the people depended upon the fidelity of the King to God. When the King was a good and faithful servant of God, then this compelled the people to be good and faithful. King Solomon was the one who built God's holy temple and provided for the worship of His people. King David and his descendants are types of the coming Messiah! The Davidic King was a man of great spiritual influence. I don't see how there's any way around that.

You said that I didn’t address the fact that Jesus told a parable where servants refer to their owner as “Master” (Matthew 25:14-30). Again, this is not a SPIRITUAL title, but a worldly, secular one. It is about a physical slave and his physical master.

I stand corrected.

As for as the rich man referring to Abraham as ‘Father Abraham’ (Luke 16:24, 30), neither is this a spiritual title, but it is an “ancestral” or genealogical title. Abraham was the “father,” the ancestor, of all Jews.

According to Paul, Abraham was more than a mere ancestor:

"What then shall we say about Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh? [...] He received circumcision as a sign or seal of the righteousness which he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised and who thus have righteousness reckoned to them, and likewise the father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but also follow the example of the faith which our father Abraham had before he was circumcised. [...] That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his descendants--not only to the adherents of the law but also to those who share the faith of Abraham, for he is the father of us all" (Rom 4:1, 12-13, 16).

Abraham could not be "the father of us all" if by "Father" we mean only a geneological relationship. Abraham's is a spiritual fatherhood, just as Sarah's is a spiritual motherhood (cf. 1 Pet 3:5-6). This means that Lk 16:24, 30 very much applies to our debate and is very damaging to your position.

And as for as Paul addressing the crowd as “brethren and fathers” in Acts 7:2 (not 7:22), I don’t think you can prove that he’s using it as a personal spiritual title here, as it is used in Matthew 23.

Thank you for correcting my citation. I really don't see how Acts 7:2 would not apply. The members of the council are called "fathers" by Stephen. He didn't say, "You who hold a position of fatherhood among us," he said "fathers." "Brethren and fathers, hear me." He called them fathers, even though Jesus said, "Call no man father". There's no way around it, unless you would say that Paul is the biological son of a room full of people.

You just said:

“I never said that it was ok to have a formal title as long as the person is deserving. As you rightly conclude, that would not square with Catholic practice.”

Then it appears that you’re not squaring with Catholic practice, because you also said:

1) “Instead, He is speaking out against those who seek the position of father for the honor that it brings and who, once having the position, DON'T LIVE IT HUMBLY AND AUTHENTICALLY."

2) “He is using hyperbole in order to emphasize the Fatherhood of God above the fatherhood of any man and TO HIGHLIGHT THE UNWORTHINESS OF THE SCRIBES AND PHARISEES TO RECEIVE THE TITLES their position affords them.”

3) “Jesus' issue was with people who seek certain positions because of the title that it affords them, or WHO DO NOT LIVE UP TO THE TITLE THAT THEY HAVE RECEIVED. That interpretation is really the only way to reconcile Mt 23 with the biblical data.”

4) “Do you really think Jesus is concerned with titles, or is He concerned with the fact that the scribes and pharisees "LOVE" such titles AND DON'T LIVE UP THE THEM?”

5) “Jesus' whole point is that the scribes and Pharisees exhibit a dastardly conduct that should not be imitated AND THEY DO NOT LIVE UP TO THE HONOR THAT THEY RECEIVE.”

6) “1. The Pharisees DO NOT DESERVE THE HONOR THAT THEY RECEIVE. -- Consequently, respect their authority but do not abide by their example.”

7) “Jesus does not want to do away with this honor,HE WANTS THE SCRIBES AND PHARISEES TO LIVE UP TO IT."

8) “Or, could it be more likely that He did this so as to expose their failure to be the fathers, rabbis, and teachers THAT THEY SHOULD BE?”

9) “Instead of getting rid of the title, perhaps IT WOULD BE BETTER TO MAKE SURE THAT ONLY THE BEST MEN RECEIVE IT. This is what the Church strives to do.”

10) “Do you really think that Jesus went through such great lengths to catalogue their many sins so as to do away with titles? Or, could it be more likely that He did this so as to expose THEIR FAILURE TO BE THE FATHERS, RABBIS, AND TEACHERS THAT THEY SHOULD BE?” [All Emphasis mine]

These are all direct quotes from you. But in all of these things (these 10 examples) you are implying that IT IS INDEED ok to have these formal spiritual titles “as long as the person is deserving.” On the one hand, you denounced this idea, but on the other hand, you continue to use this concept in our dialogue, as though you actually accept it.

You are very thorough here. I appreciate that. I also think you have missed my point. Jesus' purpose with Mt 23:8-10, as with much of the chapter as a whole, is to denounce the Pharisees, not to denounce titles. That's all I'm trying to say with the words that you quoted.

The Pharisees didn't deserve the honor they received. That doesn't mean "do away with the honor." I specifically said, "But even when wretched men become priests, they still remain fathers through the exercise of their priestly ministry." I'm not contradicting myself. I know what my words mean. Let me be clear: I think the title is important and justified whether the person receiving it deserves the title or not. That's the whole reason why I bothered to explain the title's catechetical value. The implication you think is there is simply not there. I hope you will take my word for it and move on to some other line of argumentation.

As I said before, this “as-long-as-the-person-is-deserving” argument is faulty, since NO ONE is deserving of these titles, except Jesus / God. You have yet to show me that you agree with Jesus on this. In fact, I don’t think that you do.

Well, I did say, "God is the ultimate Father, Rabbi, and Master", and again, "In a sense, I agree with you. No one is a Father like God is a Father." I just don't think Jesus means what you think He means. If Abraham deserved to be called "Father" (Lk 16:24, 30), and John the Baptist deserved to be called "Rabbi" (Jn 3:36), then it follows from this that these titles are not exclusively the Lords, they are just preeminently His.

This is how it works with many of God's titles. God and Peter were both called "Rock" (Hab 1:12; Mt 16:18). In case you think Peter's new name means "Stone", God was called that too (cf. Gen 49:24, NASB). In 1 Cor. 3:11, Jesus is called the only foundation of the Church, and yet in Eph. 2:20, the apostles and prophets are called the foundation of the Church. In 1 Peter 2:25, Jesus is called the Shepherd of the flock, but in Acts 20:28 (NASB), the apostles are called the shepherds of the flock. In 1 Tim 6:15, Jesus is called the King of Kings, yet so was Ar-ta-xerx'es (cf. Ezra 7:12) and Nebuchadrez'zar (cf. Ezek 26:7). Even Jesus and the king of Babylon are both called the "morning star" (Isaiah 14:12; Rev 22:16, NASB).

My position has the advantage of being consistent with how titles for God are used throughout Scripture. Yours does not.

You summed up Matthew 23 in only two points: That the Pharisees don’t deserve the honor they were being given; and that God is the ultimate Father / Rabbi / Master. And you said that this was pretty much all that this chapter is teaching, and that we Protestants take it too far to suggest that Jesus wants us to avoid titles.

But I respectfully disagree. There are certainly OTHER points that Jesus was making, as well. I think that what Jesus said (concerning our topic) is very plain and simple (“…call no man ‘Father’”), and that the context supports this. But Jesus gave us several things that He wants us to do or not do in this chapter, for example ...

DO:
…observe the Law that they preached (v. 3)
…act toward each other as BROTHERS (v. 8)
…be a servant to others, no matter your role in the church (v. 11)
…be humble; let God exalt you (v. 12)

DON’T:
…do what the Pharisees (and scribes) did (v. 3)
…load heavy burdens on people (v. 4)
…do your works just to be seen of men (v. 5)
…love the special attention of men (v. 6)
…love the special greetings of men (v. 7)
…be called “Father” / “Teacher” / “Rabbi” / “Master” (v. 8, 9, 10)
…etc., etc.

So, your two points are valid, but they are not the only lessons to learn in this chapter.

Well, obviously. I wasn't trying to exhaust the meaning of the whole chapter. All I meant was, as far as Mt 23:8-10 is concerned, this is what the context tells us.

The “title command” should not be ignored. By the way, Jesus was not just denying personal spiritual titles to the undeserving Pharisees, but to all men (v. 8-10). All these “do’s and don’ts” are given to every believer. Nothing in here suggests hyperbole (exaggeration). These are all straightforward commands. So, we can’t just pick some of these commands to obey and ignore the others.

First of all, I'm not ignoring anything. You think Catholics have never read this chapter before? We have. We even heard it proclaimed during Mass on Tuesday of the Second Week of Lent. We don't hide from Scripture and we don't ignore it. We just don't think it means what you think it means.

Secondly, you said that vs. 8-10 are in no way hyperbolic. But, if, as you say, Jesus was only referring to spiritual fathers (not biological fathers or ancestors), then doesn't that mean He was speaking hyperbolically? The only way to derive your meaning for Jesus' words is to say that He was not speaking literally. After all, Jesus didn't say, "Don't call spiritual leaders 'father'". He said, "Call NO MAN father", as you have repeatedly emphasized. So, we either take Him literally, in which case he was referring to every instance in which someone is called "father", or we understand that he was using exaggerated language and really only intended to refer to spiritual leaders. See what I mean? You can't have it both ways. The only way to come to your conclusion is to affirm that He was speaking hyperbolically.

The difference between you and I is not in how we understand the nature of Jesus' words, it's in how we understand their meaning. We are both forced to declare that Jesus was using extreme language. You explain this language by saying, "But Jesus wasn't referring to all positions of fatherhood, just spiritual positions of fatherhood." I explain it by saying, "But Jesus wasn't getting rid of titles for persons in positions of fatherhood, spiritual or otherwise. He was simply speaking strongly against any position of fatherhood that would set itself in opposition to God's fatherhood.

When I said that it is not “disrespect” to avoid what the Ultimate Teacher said to avoid (i.e., calling someone “Father”), you responded:

“You're obviously begging the question here. This argument only holds if Jesus actually spoke against using spiritual titles. But, you haven't proven that yet.”

Nicholas, the burden of proof is not on me. I’m just taking what He said at face value and demonstrating that the context agrees with this simple interpretation. I would say that it is you who is begging the question, because you’re the one assuming that He really didn’t mean what He plainly said, so the burden is on you to prove that.

First of all, as I understand it, the burden of proof in a debate lies either with the instigator or with the person who challenges the status quo. In either scenario, the burden is on you. Since you came to my blog, where calling priests "father" is assumed to be true, and asserted a contrary belief, you are the instigator. Since the majority of Christians -- and from the earliest days of Christianity -- have been in the practice of calling bishops and priests "father", you are the one challenging the status quo.

Secondly, you don't seem to know what "begging the question" means. You said I was begging the question because I am the one "assuming that He really didn't mean what He plainly said." But, just because I disagree with you that doesn't mean I'm the one engaged in a logical fallacy. Begging the question is when an argument you use to defend your conclusion assumes that your conclusion is true. You are the one at fault here. Look at your line of reasoning:

1. Jesus told us to respect the role of teacher
2. Jesus spoke against using titles
3. Therefore, it is not disrespect to refrain from addressing them with titles

See what's wrong here? #3 rests on #2 being true, but you haven't proven #2 yet. That's the whole reason why we're engaged in this debate. For more on this, see "Fallacy: Begging the Question".

That said, I would like to add that, since it was the common practice of the Jews to refer to the scribes and Pharisees as "fathers," to suddenly refuse to do so would indeed be disrespectful.

You seem to be saying that His words here fall under some type of “exception” in this context. I invite you to demonstrate how that follows.

On the contrary, I admit no exception here. Instead, I see Jesus' words in Mt 23 as being perfectly consistent with His typical use of hyperbolic language and with the way in which Scripture shows man sharing in the titles and roles (or functions) of God. As Paul says, "For this reason I bow my knees before the Father, from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named" (Eph 3:14-15). It is because God is father that we have fathers on earth.

Finally, you appealed to a set of beliefs that was supposedly “ancient practice” which was always believed in the church throughout its history. But “being around for a long” time doesn’t prove that something is right. Many practices in the history of the church have certainly been questionable, including some long-time practices.

This is about more than a practice simply being around for a long time. This is about Jesus supposedly allowing all of Christendom to confuse and betray one of His explicit commands for over 1500 years. This is about every great defender of the faith against heresy somehow remaining silent about a supposedly rampant disregard for Jesus' teaching.

In the early Church, when someone came around with a novel doctrine, something different from what the Church had always said and done, they were labeled a heretic and dismissed from fellowship in the Church community. Yet you would have me accept your novelty, your aberration, and abandon 2000 years of Church history. I realize that, for you, the bible is the final authority, but you also acknowledge that "there are indeed other legitimate authorities, or rules of faith, in the church. For example, church leaders, theologians, the writings of the early church fathers, Bible commentaries, traditions, creeds, councils, catechisms, etc." (source). These are legitimate authorities, at least look at them.

There are only two possible reasons for why Christian tradition does not square with your interpretation of Mt 23:

Jesus allowed error and false practice to creep into His Church, uncorrected and unabated, and infect all of Christendom for over 1500 years, or
Your interpretation of Scripture is incorrect.

Seriously, which one do you think is more likely?

Nicholas, what would really make your case is if we could find in the New Testament some genuine cases of the faithful using the titles “Father Paul,” “Father John,” or “Holy Father Peter.” But we see none of these.

I look forward to your rebuttal of the examples I have provided in this post.

In fact, the honest reader will admit that we don’t even see a ministerial “priesthood” in the New Testament. (But that’s a whole ‘nother topic.) See here for more on that:
http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2010/03/priesthood.html

When I looked up my blog post from back in '09 on the ministerial priesthood in order to share the link with my readers, I was surprised to find some comments from you on that post too. It seems you've had your eye on me for a while now. We started a short exchange in the combox, but for whatever reason I never responded to your last comment. Maybe once we find some conclusion to our current debate, we can pick that one back up again.

Yes, I agree that it does all boil down to authority. Perhaps someday we can discuss that also.

I see you posted the first part in a series on Sola Scriptura on your blog. Will the next installment be arriving shortly? It is helpful for me in gaining insight on how you approach that debate. If you would like to see how I approach it, see my previous debates:

Is Scripture Self-Interpreting? Parts One -- Two -- Three
Debate with "eve" on Sola Scriptura: Parts One -- Two
Debate with "Ricky" on Sola Scriptura: Parts One -- Two -- Three -- Four

That should help both you and the reader a great deal.

Nicholas, I still stand by everything I said, and I will just say, let’s let the reader decide which side is more reasonable.

Thanks for the discussion.

Also, for anyone interested, here is an article that I did on calling a man “Father” about a year ago:

http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2012/06/dont-call-me-father.html

In His Name,
Russell

Like you, I am thus far unconvinced. This is how most debates on the internet turn out, I'm afraid. I pray that the silent reader, who is watching this debate unfold and still trying to make up his mind, will be convinced by the truth of the Catholic practice. If anyone has any questions or comments, you know where to leave them.

Pax Christi,
phatcatholic

PS: This is the last installment in our debate.

What Is the Divine Mercy? How Can We Honor It?

noreply@blogger.com (Nicholas Hardesty) — Sun, 07 Apr 2013 16:00:00 +0000

The “Divine Mercy” is the kindness, and forbearance, and forgiveness of God towards men. It is His readiness to assist sinners with His loving grace. It is an essential attribute of God, perfectly embodied in the Person of Jesus.

The message and devotion to Jesus as “The Divine Mercy” is based on the writings of St. Faustina Kowalksa, a Polish nun from the 1930’s who received many revelations from Christ about His mercy and His desire that mankind be devoted to it. She wrote the content of these revelations in a diary over 600-pages long. Pope John Paul II, being from Poland, had a strong devotion to the Divine Mercy, and when he made Sr. Faustina a saint in the year 2000 he also declared that the second Sunday of Easter would be a feast day dedicated to the Divine Mercy for the Universal Church.

The Congregation of Marians of the Immaculate Conception have developed an acronym you can use to remember the message of the Divine Mercy and how to live out a devotion to this Mercy. Just remember your “ABC’s”:

A — Ask for His Mercy. God wants us to approach Him in prayer constantly, repenting of our sins and asking Him to pour His mercy out upon us and upon the whole world.
B — Be merciful. God wants us to receive His mercy and let it flow through us to others. He wants us to extend love and forgiveness to others just as He does to us.
C — Completely trust in Jesus. God wants us to know that the graces of His mercy are dependent upon our trust. The more we trust in Jesus, the more we will receive His grace and mercy.

A devotion to the Divine Mercy typically also entails daily praying of the Divine Mercy Chaplet at 3 PM (the hour of Jesus’ death), displaying the image of the Divine Mercy in one’s home, and receiving the Eucharist on the second Sunday of Easter, “Divine Mercy Sunday.”

I can tell you that praying the Divine Mercy Chaplet has helped me tremendously in finding more peace in my life and in overcoming sin. It is a very simple yet beautiful prayer, and also an excellent first step for anyone who is just beginning to use rosary beads when he prays.

For more on the Divine Mercy, see my previous post: Is the Divine Mercy Chaplet a Cop-Out? (short answer: No!)

Pax Christi,
phatcatholic

Resurrection Poem for Easter

noreply@blogger.com (Nicholas Hardesty) — Sun, 31 Mar 2013 13:33:00 +0000

The following poem is from the compilation Garlands of Grace, selected and introduced by Dr. Regis Martin. It is especially pertinent on this wonderful Easter Sunday.

Resurrection
by Leonard Feeney

In crocus fashion, sunlight-wise,
The body of Our Lord
Slipped through the stone-bound sepulchre,
Streamed through the soldier's sword.

Though stripped and whipped and spat upon,
Sundered by nail and spear,
Thus did our dust in Him prevail
At the robin-time of the year.

Albeit our interval under earth
Must needs much longer last,
Let there be always ready the roll
Of drums and the trumpet blast.

With bones ablaze and flesh aflash
And hair set flying free,
So shall I come to you, loved ones,
So shall you come to me.

Quick Defense of the Resurrection of Jesus

noreply@blogger.com (Nicholas Hardesty) — Sun, 31 Mar 2013 12:33:00 +0000

Here is my Q&A for the Easter Sunday bulletin at my church. I thought it fitting on this day to answer a question about the resurrection of Jesus. Please note that, with only the space of a column to work within, I had to cut out a lot of information (for example, why the NT is trustworthy as proof of the resurrection) and additional proofs. I would expand upon it here but honestly, I'm enjoying my time away from the computer. I think that, as it is, this post is at least a good start. For more information, I highly suggest Peter Kreeft's "Evidence for the Resurrection of Christ," a chapter from his Handbook of Christian Apologetics that you can read online.

That said, how would you answer this question?:

What proof is there in the resurrection of Jesus?

First, let's outline what happened. The Christian claim is that Jesus of Nazareth, a Jewish prophet who claimed to be the Messiah, was arrested, condemned by Pontius Pilate, and crucified. He was placed in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea, which was sealed with a large boulder and guarded by Roman soldiers. Three days later, some women who went to His tomb found the boulder removed and the body gone. In a span of 40 days, He appeared to over 500 people and then ascended into heaven. But, is it true?

With any historical event, you discover what happened by utilizing eyewitness accounts and the documents of those who collected such accounts. For the resurrection of Jesus, the New Testament is our primary source for such documentary evidence. There simply is not enough room here to defend the historical reliability of the New Testament, but trust me, we can be exceedingly confident in the purity of the New Testament as it has come down to us (despite the fact that we do not have the originals), and we can rest assured that it gives us an accurate reporting of what actually happened.

That said, we know that Jesus resurrected from the dead because: 1.) all of the reliable historical evidence tells us that He did, and 2.) There is no other explanation that better accounts for the facts of the matter. Of course, people have their theories, but they are easily refuted.

Some say that, in their great psychological distress, everyone who thought they saw the resurrected Lord was actually hallucinating. But, 500 people hallucinating the same thing? Not likely. You can’t touch a hallucination either (like Thomas did), and last time I checked, hallucinations don’t eat, nor do they last for 40 days.

Others say that once Jesus died, the apostles realized that He was actually a quack and so, to avoid embarrassment, they devised a grand conspiracy to fool everyone into believing that He was actually the Messiah. Also not likely. For one, these are simple people we’re talking about here. The apostles did not have the brains to conceive of such a perfect scheme. Secondly, the conspiracy theory requires them to do things that would have been nearly impossible, such as rolling away the boulder, separating Jesus’ body from the burial linens (which by then would have been securely glued to his skin), and then running away with the body all without the Roman guards seeing. There’s also the fact that no one travels to far distant lands and then suffers a martyr’s death for a lie — unless he is absolutely deranged!

The fact is that the tomb was empty, Jesus appeared to over 500 people during those 40 days, and the gospel message spread like wildfire because Jesus Christ had truly risen from the dead. Thanks be to God! Alleluia!!

Pax Christi,
phatcatholic

Fulton Sheen and the Latin Mass for Easter

noreply@blogger.com (Nicholas Hardesty) — Sun, 31 Mar 2013 12:00:00 +0000

As is my custom every Easter, watch and enjoy the Solemn High Mass for Easter Sunday, 1941, with narration by Fulton J. Sheen. There is no better man to explain the mysteries of the Latin Mass ... and as they happen!

HAPPY EASTER!

Pax Christi,
phatcatholic

Why the Easter Vigil

noreply@blogger.com (Nicholas Hardesty) — Sat, 30 Mar 2013 21:12:00 +0000

Pope Benedict XVI holds a candle during the Easter Vigil Papal mass on Holy Saturday on April 23, 2011 at St Peter's basilica at The Vatican. Source: Getty Images

With Easter now fast upon us, I would like to take this opportunity to explain just very briefly why I think you should attend the Easter Vigil.

Reason #1: You’ve never seen anything like it

The Mass for the Easter Vigil on Holy Saturday night is the liturgy of all liturgies. All of the symbolism that makes the typical liturgy so rich and meaningful is multiplied by 100 for the Easter Vigil. What this means is that you’re going to see and experience something truly unique.

For one, the Mass begins with the lights out. The only illumination comes from a massive bonfire burning outside. Once the Paschal candle is lit by the fire, its flame is used to light small candles held by those in the congregation. To see the church ultimately alive not by the force of electricity but by a holy fire is truly a sight to behold.

The Liturgy of the Word during the Vigil Mass is also much more substantial. It is essentially a grand tour through salvation history, as reader after reader tells the story of God’s interventions into human history. It is awe-inspiring to see the plan of God unfolding and to reconsider the hard work that God put in to bringing us His Son and raising Him from the dead for our salvation.

There are many more extraordinary things about the Vigil liturgy, but I don’t want to ruin the surprise! If you want to know what those are, you’ll have to see them for yourself!

Reason #2: Welcome to the party!

Since the revival of the RCIA process after the Second Vatican Council, the Easter Vigil has taken on new significance as the liturgy that welcomes new members into the Church. At my parish, we don’t have any catechumens this year so there won’t be any baptisms, but we do have candidates who will be fully initiated into the Church by receiving the sacraments of Confirmation and Holy Communion.

This is a cause for great celebration! Each candidate brings his own gifts, and talents, and aspirations to the Church. This can only work to build up and renew us as a mystical Body. But, beyond the benefit for us, we should also celebrate this occasion for the simple fact that more souls are entering into the fullness of grace and truth that we possess. Praise God!

Considering all this, what message would it send if the church was only half full, or if no one attended the reception afterwards? We should show these candidates that we are thankful for their presence and for the hard work that brought them here. I hope that you will come to welcome them and to experience the awesome beauty that only the Easter Vigil can bring. Christ is coming soon. Are you ready?

Pax Christi,
phatcatholic

On Calling Priests "Father": Part 3

noreply@blogger.com (Nicholas Hardesty) — Thu, 28 Mar 2013 19:01:00 +0000

On Holy Thursday, when we commemorate the institution of the ministerial priesthood, it seemed fitting that I should pick up again my debate with Russell on calling priests "father" and respond to his latest comment. Also see Part 1 and Part 2. His words will be indented and italicized.

I had said that “King” is not a spiritual title, and you said:

“Regarding your second point, I think the title of ‘King’ -- at least as it applies to the Davidic kings -- is very much a spiritual title.”

But many other kings, even UNGODLY ones, in both the Old and the New Testament, were also called “King” as a title (for example, “King Nebuchadnezzar,” or “King Herod,” etc.). So, this is a very weak argument. If “King” is a SPIRITUAL title, why would the writers of Scripture give such an honor to those kings who were spiritually UNdeserving?

I should not have made my point so tentatively before. That is my fault. All I meant to affirm is that "King" is a spiritual title when it is applied to the Davidic Kings. That much is true, and it follows from this that we have a spiritual title being used quite extensively in Scripture. Also, you didn't address the fact that Jesus told a parable where servants refer to their owner as "Master" (cf. Mt 25:14-30).

I found some other passages too. In another parable, Jesus had the rich man refer to Abraham as "Father Abraham" (Lk 16:24, 30). Paul addressed the high priest and the council of elders by saying, "Hear me, brethren and fathers!" (Acts 7:22). Paul isn't just describing a position. He actually called them fathers, even though Jesus said, "call no man father."

And concerning whether one is “deserving” of a title or not, let’s address this common Catholic argument (surrounding Matthew 23) that it’s ok to have these formal spiritual titles “as long as the person is deserving.” Some of your own comments suggest that you believe this.

But Jesus didn’t say, “Whoever humbles himself gets to be called ‘Father.’” If Matthew 23 is about “deserving” a title, Jesus would have used some sort of “give honor to whom honor is due” expression in the context. But He doesn’t. But He does tell us, quite clearly, who is worthy of such a title – “… NO man…” (23:9). There is far more reason to believe that this context is about the FORBIDDING of titles than some human DESERVING them. So, the “as long as the person is deserving” argument is bogus.

By the way, how do you know that a priest you have never seen before is deserving of the title “Father”? There could always be some deep, dark, continual sin in his life that no one but God knows about. Yet, Catholics do not hesitate to call almost any priest by that spiritual title.

I never said that it was ok to have a formal title as long as the person is deserving. As you rightly conclude, that would not square with Catholic practice. Let me be clear on this. I think there are two lessons we should derive from Mt 23:

1. The Pharisees do not deserve the honor they receive.
-- Consequently, respect their authority but do not abide by their example.
2. God is the ultimate Father, Rabbi, and Master

That's as far as I think we should go with it. Protestants go too far when they say that this chapter is evidence that Jesus wanted to do away with spiritual titles.

You mentioned that Jesus, in anger, was saying that we have only ONE “Teacher,” ONE “Father,” and ONE “Master,” when we actually have many teachers / fathers / masters to teach and guide us. That may be true, but the point is that there is only One who is DESERVING of these titles, and that One is God / Jesus. Again, no hyperbole, no exaggeration. There is no connection or similarity between “straining a gnat / swallowing a camel” and “call no man Father,” as you implied. It seems that claiming hyperbole may be just an excuse to continue with an unbiblical (and anti-biblical) practice. This is an excellent example of voiding Christ’s command for the sake of your own traditions (Matthew 15:3, 6).

In a sense, I agree with you. No one is a Father like God is a Father. But, that doesn't mean we can't have a share in His work, or that we shouldn't call a thing what it is, or that we should fail to respect the noble office a person has been given. Jesus told the people to practice and observe whatever the scribes and Pharisees told them to do. Why? Because they sit on Moses seat. The honor is given because of the position that is held. Jesus does not want to do away with this honor, He wants the scribes and Pharisees to live up to it. Do you really think that Jesus went through such great lengths to catalogue their many sins so as to do away with titles? Or, could it be more likely that He did this so as to expose their failure to be the fathers, rabbis, and teachers that they should be?

When I mentioned that Jesus said to give no human a spiritual title, you implied that the context of Matthew 23 denies this. You said:

“’The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you’ (vs. 2-3). Jesus’ wants the people to continue to respect the authority of the scribes and Pharisees. Using titles such as ‘father’, ‘rabbi’, and ‘master’ is how you show this respect for someone in a position of authority. Yet, by your interpretation, Jesus told the people to respect their authority one minute, then disrespect it the next. That makes no sense.”

Nicholas, Matthew 23:2-3 is more about respect for the Law that they were obligated to preach, than for the Pharisees themselves. Respect for the role of “teacher” is fine, but you’re assuming that one way to do this is by giving them spiritual titles. But Jesus speaks directly against this very practice. It is not “disrespect” to avoid what the Ultimate Teacher says to avoid.

You're obviously begging the question here. This argument only holds if Jesus actually spoke against using spiritual titles. But, you haven't proven that yet.

You emphasized that Jesus is concerned with THEIR DISPOSITION. I certainly agree! And these personal, spiritual, exalting titles CONTRIBUTE GREATLY to this problem! If using these titles were discontinued, we wouldn’t have as many ego problems in many churches. Jesus knew what He was talking about. He said, “But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.” (Matthew 23:11) But I’m sure it’s hard to have the mind of a servant when people you don’t even know are feeding your ego with flattering titles like “Father” or “Reverend.” God knows the selfish tendencies of man and how quickly this can go to his head.

Having a spiritual title does not necessarily lead to ego problems. Surely you know that. In some cases, it probably does, but not in every case or even most cases. To call a priest "father" has catechetical value for people. It reminds them that God has called this man to be a father and has truly made him one through the Sacrament of Holy Orders. He exercises this role in his ministry. The priest fathers many spiritual children in the Sacrament of Baptism. He creates them anew in the Sacrament of Reconciliation. He protects them from sin and temptation with his blessing. He feeds them with the Eucharist. To make children, to create, to protect, to feed -- these are all fatherly duties. And so it is with good reason that we call priests "father."

The title is for the priest's benefit insofar as it reminds him of what his identity is and what God has called him to do and to be in His Church. Instead of getting rid of the title, perhaps it would be better to make sure that only the best men receive it. This is what the Church strives to do. But even when wretched men become priests, they still remain fathers through the exercise of their priestly ministry.

You said:

“I humbly submit that your bias against Catholicism is causing you to misinterpret this passage.”

Nicholas, thank you for being respectful (and I believe you have good intentions), but, with all due respect, I can say the same thing in reverse. I believe that your Catholic bias, i.e., your will to serve the Catholic Church at any cost, is misdirected and will not let you accept the simple interpretation of this passage in its context.

Everyone brings biases and preconceived notions to the text. This is unavoidable. The task then is to decide which preconceived set of beliefs is the proper one. How about the set of beliefs that Christians have always had? How about the set of beliefs of the people out of which the Scriptures came? That seems like the proper context to me. It is ancient Christian practice to at least call bishops "father." For thousands of years, if you were a Christian, that's simply what you did. It was only after the Protestant reformers abandoned the ministerial priesthood altogether that anyone had the notion that Jesus was somehow against this title. Your bias is the abberation, not mine ... unless you would have us believe that Jesus allowed all of Christendom to confuse and betray one of His explicit commands for over 1500 years.

If it was wrong of Christians to call a bishop, or the pope, or one of the ancient teachers of the faith "father," then the great leaders and theologians of the Church that fought so ardently and even gave their lives to eradicate heresy would have squashed that bug a long time ago. You have separated your self from the Church of the Apostles and from the Church that emerged from the apostolic period. That is why you misinterpret this text as you do.

And with that, things boil down, as they always do, to authority. But let us leave that debate for another day (at least as long as we are able). It is Holy Week and I am very busy!

Peace of Christ to you,
phatcatholic

PS: From here you may proceed to Part Four.

Resources for Palm Sunday

noreply@blogger.com (Nicholas Hardesty) — Sun, 24 Mar 2013 15:00:00 +0000

I don't have time to post a great deal today, but I wanted to at least point you in the direction of some resources that you could use to learn something new about Jesus' amazing entrance into Jerusalem and the great mysteries of His Passion. I also threw in a few activities for children (why not, right?).

And they brought the colt to Jesus, and threw their garments on it; and he sat upon it. And many spread their garments on the road, and others spread leafy branches which they had cut from the fields. And those who went before and those who followed cried out, "Hosanna! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord! Blessed is the kingdom of our father David that is coming! Hosanna in the highest!"

-- Mark 11:7-10

Pax Christi,
phatcatholic

In the Hands of St. Joseph

noreply@blogger.com (Nicholas Hardesty) — Tue, 19 Mar 2013 14:07:00 +0000

Today is the Solemnity of St. Joseph, Husband of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

I have always looked to St. Joseph for the strength to be a good and chaste man. He is, after all, Mary's "most chaste spouse," and as the father of Jesus and the protector of Mary he is an ideal model of what it means to be a responsible husband and father. I hope to live as he lived: chaste, responsible, strong, courageous, skilled, loving, manly. I am so thankful that, in giving me my middle name, my parents made him my patron. I have done the same with my own son (Dominic Joseph), so that he will always have the intercessory power of St. Joseph to guide him and protect him.

Here are some articles on St. Joseph. Learn what it means to be devoted to him:

Pax Christi,
phatcatholic

A Short Biography of "The Apostle of Ireland" for St. Patrick's Day

noreply@blogger.com (Nicholas Hardesty) — Sun, 17 Mar 2013 17:27:00 +0000

Saint Patrick was born in Kilpatrick, near Dumbarton, in Scotland, in the year 387 AD. When he was 16, he was captured by pirates from Ireland and sold into slavery there. For six years, he tended the flocks of his master. While a slave, he prayed 100 times a day and the same every night. Regardless of the weather or the time, in the woods or on a mountain, he was always praying.

Providentially, his time in captivity became a preparation for his later work as bishop and evangelist. He learned to speak the Celtic language, and, because his master practiced Druidism, he became very familiar with the religion that he would almost single-handedly replace with Catholicism among the people of Ireland.

A vision of an angel compelled him to leave his master and flee to England, where he studied at a few monasteries and eventually became a priest. With St. Germain he preached against the Pelagian heresy. Together they performed many miracles and converted a great number.

The Pope, so impressed by Patrick, sent him to Ireland to convert the Irish people to Christianity. Before Patrick set out on his mission, he was made a bishop. When he arrived in Ireland, one of his first acts was to visit his former master, pay the ransom owed him, and give him a blessing and forgiveness for his cruelty as a master.

On several occasions, Patrick met with violent opposition by the Druid chieftains. When one of them tried to kill Patrick with a sword, Patrick make his attacker’s arm immovable and did not relieve it until the attacker pledged obedience to Patrick. He eventually converted his attacker and every Druid chieftain and king who sought to kill him.

Everywhere Patrick went, he converted people by powerful preaching and miracles. He also formed several parishes and dioceses throughout Ireland. He ordained priests, healed the sick, expelled demons, and brought the dead back to life. Through boundless prayer and severe penances he sought the salvation of Ireland. He continued until his death to visit and watch over the churches he had founded throughout all the land.

Patrick is the one who first used the shamrock as a tool for teaching the Trinity. “St. Patrick’s Breastplate”, a prayer he composed on the morning of a great victory over paganism, remains to this day a popular Catholic prayer. He is called “The Apostle of Ireland” because of his tireless evangelism in that land, and is one of the Church’s greatest saints.

For more about St. Patrick and the conversion of Ireland, see the following resources:

New Advent: St. Patrick
Patron Saints Index: Saint Patrick
Saint of the Day: St. Patrick
St. Patrick, Confessio
St. Patrick, "Breastplate" prayer
Office of Readings: Commemoration of the Feast of St. Patrick
Warren H. Carroll: The Conversion of Ireland
Lives of Saints: Saint Patrick, Apostle of Ireland
Fr. John Harris, OP: Croagh Patrick ("St. Patrick's Mountain")
Fr. Billy Swan: St. Patrick and the New Evangelization
National Catholic Register: St. Patrick, Pray for Us!
Durmott J. Mullan: St. Patrick's Long Line of Muddy Boots
Kevin Wright: Three-Day Getaway to Purgatory (on "St. Patrick's Purgatory")

Pax Christi,
phatcatholic

Collection of Biographies, News, and Analysis of Jorge Bergoglio, Pope Francis

noreply@blogger.com (Nicholas Hardesty) — Wed, 13 Mar 2013 22:41:00 +0000

Now that the whole world knows who is the new successor of St. Peter, there will be a rush to find out more about this man, where his priorities lie, the nature of his theological and political views, etc. As such, I have compiled the following links to biographies and analysis of Jorge Bergoglio, Pope Francis I.

I will update this post regularly as new material appears online. If you know of any that I should add to the list, please leave a comment.

UPDATE (3/17/2013): I have decided to organize these articles by when they were written so that the reader can see how the commentary on Pope Francis has developed over time. Also, please note that while this compilation is extensive, it is by no means exhaustive. I am sure that there are some great articles that I have missed. Thirdly, I will only be chronicling the first week of his papacy. It would be too much of a burden to keep this up after that. Finally, the inclusion of an article to this list does not necessarily indicate an endorsement on my part.

Before his election:

Jose Maria Poirier, The Catholic Herald: Quiet thunder in Argentina
John L. Allen, Jr., National Catholic Reporter: Profile: New pope, Jesuit Bergoglio, was runner-up in 2005 conclave
Sandro Magister, Chiesa: Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Profession: Servant of the Servants of God | Go Forth and Baptism. The Wager of the Argentine Church
The Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church: Biographical Dictionary, "BERGOGLIO, S.J., Jorge Mario"
Andrea Tornielli, Vatican Insider: "Careerism and vanity: Sins of the Church"
Sefania Falasca, 30 Days: What I would have said at the Consistory: An interview with Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Archbishop of Buenos Aires
Gianni Valente, Vatican Insider: That neo-clericalism which “hijacks” the sacraments
Judy Keane, Catholic Exchange: Red Shoes and the Room of Tears
EWTN, The Voice of the Pastor: Exclusive interview with Cardinal-Archbishop Jorge Mario Bergoglio
CWR Staff, Catholic World Report: Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio's Letter on the Year of Faith
CWR Staff, Catholic World Report: Cardinal Bergoglio’s Letter to the Catechists of the Archdiocese of Buenos Aires

Wed., Mar. 13 (the day of his election):

Dr. Taylor Marshall, Canterbury Tales: 10 Facts about Pope Francis
Dr. Edward Mulholland, The Gregorian Blog: Three Keys to Pope Francis
Francis X. Rocca, The Catholic Herald: Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio: a profile
The Contributor: New Pope Thinks Gay Adoption is a Form of Discrimination Against Children
Anna Williams, First Things: More on Pope Francis
John Haldane, First Things: A New Pope for a New Chapter in an Old Story
Catholic World News: Argentine Cardinal Bergoglio elected Pope Francis
Thomas L. McDonald, God and the Machine: Habemus Papam!: Pope Francis [Ongoing Updates]
Sandro Magister, Chiesa: The First Pope Named Francis
Wikipedia: Pope Francis
Anthony Faiola, The Washington Post: Jorge Mario Bergoglio known for simple lifestyle, conservative views
Steven Ertelt, Life Site News: New Pope Francis Called Abortion the “Death Penalty for the Unborn”
Olga Kazhan, The Atlantic: Pope Francis: The First Global Pontiff
John Henry Westen, Life Site News: New Pope Francis called homosexual ‘marriage’ a ‘machination of the Father of Lies’
Vatican Radio: Who Is Pope Francis?
Breitbart News: New Pope: No Communion for Pro-Abortion Politicians
Mark Shea, Catholic and Enjoying It!: More Francis Love
Nina Shea, National Review Online: Persecution and the Pope
Jeffrey Tucker, The Chant Cafe: Pro Pontifice nostro Francisco
Damian Thompson, The Telegraph: Pope Francis I: a humble man from the New World whose first challenge is to end the scandals
Terry Mattingly, Get Religion: Yes! Pope Francis is not from Europe!
George Conger, Anglican Ink: Francis I a friend to Argentine Anglicans
Kevin Tierney, Common Sense Catholicism: Pope Francis and the Case for (Guarded) Traditionalist Optimism
Fr. Z, WDTPRS?: How I received our new Pope
Matthew Archbold, National Catholic Register: Gay Groups Rush to Label New Pope "Hateful" and "Harsh"
Jennifer Fulwiler, National Catholic Register: It's a Great Day to Be Catholic
Amy Welborn, Charlotte Was Both: Who Is Pope Francis?
Pia de Solenni, Catholic Vote: Pope Francis Takes a Cue from Benedict XVI: Prayer

Thurs., Mar. 14:

Dr. Taylor Marshall, Canterbury Tales: Traditionalists and Pope Francis: Can We Take a Deep Breath and Please Calm Down?
Thomas G. Guarino, First Things: Pope Francis and the Papacy
Skye Jethani, Christianity Today: New Pope Praised by Evangelicals
Drew Belsky, American Thinker: Pope Francis: A Disappointment for Catholics Who Don't Like Being Catholic
John Thavis, The Blog: Pope Francis' first 24 hours: Doing it his way
Mark Shea, Catholic and Enjoying It!: Pseudoknowledge | The Accuser of the Brethren Gets Right to Work
Annie Karni, Crain's New York Business: Cuomo kin say nope to pope
George Weigel, National Review Online: The First American Pope
The Editors, National Review Online: A Francis for Our Time
John Feister, National Review Online: A Welcome Francis
Michael Pakaluk, National Review Online: The Peace of Pope Francis
Carl E. Olson, Catholic World Report: Pope Francis and the Humility of Orthodoxy
Fr. Dwight Longenecker, Standing on My Head: Why Did Pope Francis Go to St. Mary Major?
Fr. Dwight Longenecker, aleteia: A Pope from the Ends of the Earth
Francis Phillips, Catholic Herald: Pope Francis - what's in a name?
Giacomo Galeazzi, Vatican Insider: Scola betrayed by the Italians from the very first vote
Chris Bain, Catholic Herald: Pope Francis will bring the spirit of St Francis of Assisi to the Church and world
Terry Mattingly, Get Religion: A press litany: Will Pope Francis just hold that Vatican line? | Pope Francis on Page 1: Best and worst of local reax
Shawn Tribe, New Liturgical Movement: St. Francis and the Liturgy
Fr. Z, WDTPRS?:Updates on Pope Francis’ first day as Pope – Great moments! (live blogging) | Conclave concludes: Mass in the Sistine Chapel with Cardinals
Simcha Fisher, National Catholic Register: Papamoon!
Rocco Palmo, Whispers in the Loggia: On Day One, Pope Rides the Bus and Pays the Bills | Francis' Agenda: "To Walk, To Build, To Profess Christ Crucified"
Carson Holloway, Catholic Vote: Pope Francis: A "Brilliant" Move
Pia de Solenni, Catholic Vote: Shoe Leather Evangelization
Jeff Miller, The Curt Jester: Liturgical Doomsday! | What's in a name?
Kevin Tierney, Common Sense Catholicism: Reverse Pope Worship (Or why the identity of the Pope isn't as important as you think) | What We Do (and don't) Know about Pope Francis

Fri., Mar. 15:

Giles Trimlett, The Guardian: Pope Francis's book reveals a radical progressive in the making
Mark Shea, Catholic and Enjoying It!: The Skeptical Mind Hard at Work | So, about that whole Bergoglio the Fascist Fiend narrative
Terry Mattingly, Get Religion: Flooding the papal coverage zone | Pope Francis and the "Hand of God"
Shawn Tribe, New Liturgical Movement: Some Liturgical Thoughts for the NLM Following the Election of Pope Francis
Fr. Z, WDTPRS?: Pope Francis - the real deal - has Audience with Cardinals | What Did St. Francis Really Say? Part 1
Peter Jesserer Smith, National Catholic Register: Habemus @Pontifex: Social Media Greets Its Pope
Fr. Raymond de Souza, National Catholic Register: Pope Francis and the Wisdom of Years
Fr. C. John McCloskey, National Catholic Register: Orphans No More!
Elizabeth Scalia, The Anchoress: The Jesuit in the Dominican Robes, with the Franciscan Name
Rocco Palmo, Whispers in the Loggia: Il Poverello del Vaticano
Deacon Greg Kandra, The Deacon's Bench: Historic: for first time since schism, Ecumenical Patriarch will attend pope’s installation Mass
Sister Mary Ann Walsh, USCCBlog: Pope Francis Has A Style All His Own
Emily Stimpson, Catholic Vote: Pope Francis and St. Francis: "Preach the Gospel Always. And for the Love of God, Use Words."
Taylor Marshall, Canterbury Tales: Pope Francis: Devotion to Mary and the "New Evangelization"
Patrick J. Reilly, Catholic Education Daily: Can Pope Francis renew Jesuit education?
David Gibson, Religion News Service: The story behind Pope Francis' election
Edward Peters, In the Light of the Law: When nothing else will work, accuse a Catholic prelate of NSO (Not Speaking Out)
Kevin Tierney, Common Sense Catholicism: Why This (Semi) Capitalist Wants a Social Justice Pope | How to Handle Doubt

Sat., Mar. 16:

Judy Roberts, National Catholic Register: Archbishop Chaput on Pope Francis’ Election: ‘A Huge Benefit for the Church’
Estafania Aquirre, National Catholic Register: Pope Francis Speaks to 5,000 Journalists at Paul VI Hall
The Editors, National Catholic Register: Francis, Our Shepherd
Edward Pentin, National Catholic Register: Pope: "How I Wish for a Church That is Poor and For The Poor!"
Elizabeth Scalia, The Anchoress: All In: the Deep Evangelization of Pope Francis -UPDATED
Rocco Palmo, Whispers in the Loggia: "I Want A Church Which Is Poor, And For the Poor!" – To the Press, Francis Talks His Name
Deacon Greg Kandra, The Deacon's Bench: Young Pope Francis turned to God after snub from childhood sweetheart
Jimmy Akin, JimmyAkin.com: First Impressions of Pope Francis
Fr. Z, WDTPRS?: What Did St. Francis Really Say? Part 2
Omar Gutierrez, Catholic Vote: Pope Francis the Liberator
Stephen Kokx, Catholic Vote: I Pray Pope Francis Is the Right Man for the Job
Scott Simon with Mary Eberstadt, National Public Radio: A Catholic Viewpoint: Survival Requires Orthodoxy
Jeff Miller, The Curt Jester: What's in a nickname?
Andrew Haines, Ethika Politika: ‘Camminare, Edificare, Confessare’: The Crux of Francis’s Papacy
Steve Delaney, American Thinker: Pope Francis, give us Apologists for Catholicism

Sun., Mar. 17:

Fr. Z, WDTPRS?: Liberals will soon turn on Pope Francis
Fr. Dwight Longenecker, Standing on My Head: Is Pope Francis a Liturgical Liberal?
Owen Swain, Journal: Pope Francis’s first Homily is good Tradition and good ‘New Evangelization’
Scott Landry, The Good Catholic Life: Pope Francis’ First Sunday Angelus
Estafania Aquirre, National Catholic Register: Pope Francis’s Humor and Simple Words Wins Hearts in First Angelus
Jimmy Akin, National Catholic Register: 9 things you need to know about Pope Francis's inaugural Mass
Jimmy Akin, JimmyAkin.com: The Weekly Francis (March 13-17)
Rocco Palmo, Whispers in the Loggia: From the Window, "God Never Gets Tired of Forgiving!"
Amy Welborn, Charlotte Was Both: A word
Deacon Greg Kandra, The Deacon's Bench: They haven’t elected a theologian; they’ve elected a pastor | Did Benedict suspect Bergoglio would be the next pope? | Pope Francis preaches mercy in Sunday homily | A great story of Jorge Bergoglio and a poor widow who wanted her children baptized
Brad Birzer, Catholic Vote: Neither Left nor Right, Greek nor Jew, Male nor Female
Tom Hoopes, Catholic Vote: Pope Francis, the Conservative Liberal
Stephen Kokx, Catholic Vote: Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi Will Represent the United States at Pope Francis' Inaugural Mass
Steve Skojec, Catholic Vote: The Demographics of a Changing Church: The First Pope from the Americas
John Shimek, Catholic Vote: JP in Rome: Pope Francis' First Angelus
Mary Anastasia O'Grady, The Wall Street Journal: Behind the Campaign to Smear the Pope
Kevin Tierney, Common Sense Catholicism: Why do Traditionalists Care So Much About the Latin Mass?
Jeannie DeAngelis, American Thinker: Did Hugo Chávez Pick the New Pope?
Timothy Gordon, American Thinker: Pope Francis: Papabile in a Fallen World

Mon., Mar. 18:

Elizabeth Scalia, The Anchoress: Pope Francis: Installation Liturgy like None We’ve Seen! – MORE! UPDATED! | "the usual efforts at Church reform are useless ..." | Between Fusty and Freaky: Can Francis find the Liturgical Balance? UPDATED
Rocco Palmo, Whispers in the Loggia: In the Vatican, The Pope of Chaos
Deacon Greg Kandra, The Deacon's Bench: Mass appeal: some details of tomorrow’s papal inauguration | Letting go: the challenging lessons of Benedict and Francis
Fr. Z, WDTPRS?: What Does The Pope’s Motto Really Say? The Latin motto explained. | I am thinking about those red shoes | What Did St. Francis Really Say? Part 3
Jessica Rabbit, ... the hell with it: Pope Francis (Roundup of Links)
Michael Coren, Catholic World Report: Pope Francis and Secularist Stereotypes
Catherine Harmon, Catholic World Report: Pope Francis’ coat of arms and motto, explained
David Uebbing, Catholic News Agency: Pope Keeps Motto of Mercy from Buenos Aires
Vatican News Service: Worship Aid for the Inauguration Mass of Pope Francis
Rome Reports: Laughs and good mood for meeting between Pope and Argentine president
Taylor Marshall, Canterbury Tales: Mary Untier of Knots - Pope Francis' Favorite Marian Image
Michael Barber, The Sacred Page: Some Thoughts on Pope Francis' Coat of Arms
Sherry Weddell, Intentional Disciples Blog: A Little Essay on Post Conclave Stress Disorder
Jeff Miller, The Curt Jester: The Humble Pope(s) | The Cult of Youth
James V. Schall, SJ, Catholic World Report: The Pope and the Poor
Fr. Dwight Longenecker, Standing on My Head: High Mass, Low Class: Part 1 and Part 2
Andrew Haines, Ethika Politika: Good Reasons to Pray for the Pope
Kevin Tierney, Common Sense Catholicism: The Liturgy and Humility
Selwyn Duke, American Thinker: Is Pope Francis Liberal or Conservative?
Jimmy Akin, National Catholic Register: Should We Be Concerned About Pope Francis' Inaugural Mass?

Tues., Mar. 19:

Tom Hoopes, Catholic Vote: A Quick Note to Benedict on Pope Francis' Inauguration Day
Stephen White, Catholic Vote: Pope Francis: Protect Creation, It Points to God!
Fr. Z, WDTPRS?: Dear Traditionalists ... | Of the Pope's mozzetta ...
Taylor Marshall, Canterbury Tales: Pope Francis: Reviving the Gospel Reading in Greek?
Michael Barber, The Sacred Page: A Catholic Meme I'm Not Thrilled About. Don't Forget, Benedict Emphasized "Charity"
Jeff Miller, The Curt Jester: Curia and Curiouser
Michael Severance, Catholic World Report: A Week of Firsts
Deacon Greg Kandra, The Deacon's Bench: Pope greets Jesuit superior general: "He insisted I treat him like any other Jesuit"
Catholic World News: Head of Ukranian Catholic Church pays tribute to Pope Francis as his mentor
Andrew Haines, Ethika Politika: The Pope's Painful Liturgies
Dom Charles Gilman, O.S.B., The Chant Cafe: A Note on the New Pope and the Liturgy
Damian Thompson, The Telegraph: Pope Francis inaugural Mass: can this extraordinary man save the Catholic Church?
Mollie Hemingway, Get Religion: Was Pope Francis ‘anointed’ today?
Kevin Tierney, Common Sense Catholicism: Pope Francis and St. Joseph
Shawn Tribe, New Liturgical Movement: Ceremonial Details of Today's Mass of Inauguration

Wed., Mar. 20:

Caitlin Bootsma, Truth and Charity Forum: The Vicar of Christ, Not a Tool
Taylor Marshall, Canterbury Tales: Pope Francis Visits Downton Abbey: The Papal Wardrobe Controversy
Mark Shea, Catholic and Enjoying It!: Francis and Benedict are on the Same Page
Jimmy Akin, National Catholic Register: Pope Francis on Homosexual Unions
Jimmy Akin, JimmyAkin.com: The Weekly Francis (March 17-24)
Deacon Greg Kandra, The Deacon's Bench: Bergoglio’s ministry of mercy: "He was the only Catholic cleric to visit Podestá in the hospital ..." | The pope as CEO: a leading management consultant on Pope Francis’ leadership style | As seminarian, Jorge Bergoglio struggled with celibacy
George Weigel, First Things: Meeting Pope Francis
Catholic World News: Pope affirms commitment to ecumenism
Jeffrey Tucker, The Chant Cafe: Some Musical Moments at the Inaguration
Amy Welborn, Charlotte Was Both: What I didn’t like about the Papal Inauguration
Fr. Dwight Longenecker, Standing on My Head: The Church of Surprises

I will update each day with new links as I find the time. This is still a work in progress.

UPDATE (4/3/2013): If I happen to come across one, I'll add it, but I don't plan on actively seeking any more links to add to this collection. Of course, if you know of one that I should add, you are free to leave a comment and I will add it (unless I don't like it for some reason).

Pax Christi,
phatcatholic

On Calling Priests "Father": Part 2

noreply@blogger.com (Nicholas Hardesty) — Thu, 07 Mar 2013 22:20:00 +0000

Russel responded to my previous post. As before, his words will be indented and italicized.

Hi Nicholas,

You asked if the followers of John the Baptist were wrong in calling him (i.e., John) “Rabbi / Teacher.” I would have to say yes they were, according to Jesus, but they probably did this in ignorance, since Jesus addressed this topic AFTER John the Baptist’s death (Matthew 14:1-12).

Concerning the title “King,” this is not a SPIRITUAL title, which is what Jesus was addressing in Matthew 23.

You said:

“Jesus’ issue was with people who seek certain positions because of the title that it affords them, or who do not live up to the title that they have received.”

That is partly true, but Jesus didn’t say, “Call only those with the RIGHT ATTITUDE “Father,” or only those who DESERVE it “Rabbi.” He said to give those spiritual titles to NO HUMAN (Matthew 23:8-10).

Russell ... thank you for your response. Your debate style is much like mine, calm and thorough. I appreciate that.

Regarding your first point, I think that if it was wrong of them to address John the way they did, then John himself would have objected to it. He is after all the model of humility. "His sandals I am not worthy to carry" (Mt 3:11) or "to stoop down and untie" (Mk 1:7). "He must increase, I must decrease" (Jn 3:30).

I guess you'll say that John was ignorant of Jesus' teaching as well. While I find it hard to believe that John would not have intuited the wrongness of these titles if indeed they were wrong, since neither of us can really know the mind of the baptist on this point, let us consider this particular argument a draw.

Regarding your second point, I think the title of "King" -- at least as it applies to the Davidic kings -- is very much a spiritual title. The Davidic king was God's anointed steward of His people, and the mediator of God's covenant relationship with them. The new Davidic king was the great hope of all of Israel. So, perhaps the references to Herod, Agrippa, and Aretas don't apply, but the ones to Saul, David, Solomon, and Adonijah do.

Regarding your final point, you say that we are to give spiritual titles to "NO HUMAN". I really think you're missing the point. Read everything in Mt 23 that is before and after the passage in question. "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you" (vs. 2-3). Jesus' wants the people to continue to respect the authority of the scribes and Pharisees. Using titles such as "father", "rabbi", and "master" is how you show this respect for someone in a position of authority. Yet, by your interpretation, Jesus told the people to respect their authority one minute, then disrespect it the next. That makes no sense.

Continuing on, look at what Jesus says about them:

"they preach but do not practice" (vs. 3)
"they bind heavy burdens" (vs. 4)
"they do all their deeds to be seen by men" (vs. 5)
"they love the place of honor" and "the best seats" (vs. 6) "and salutations in the marketplaces" (vs. 7)

Look at this. Do you really think Jesus is concerned with titles, or is He concerned with the fact that the scribes and pharisees "LOVE" such titles and don't live up to them? Jesus is taking great pains to show how prideful and negligent the scribes and pharisees are. He continues:

"He who is greatest among you shall be your servant; whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted." (vs. 11-12)

See? Jesus is concerned with THEIR DISPOSITION. Continuing on, we see that the scribes and Pharisees:

"shut the kingdom of heaven against men" (vs. 13)
make proselytes a child of hell (cf. vs. 15)
make false distinctions between oaths (cf. vs. 16-22)
"have neglected the weightier matters of the law" (vs. 23)
"are full of extortion and rapacity" (vs. 25)
"are like whitewashed tombs" (vs. 27), "full of hypocrisy and iniquity" (vs. 28)
fill up the measure of God's wrath against their fathers for murdering the prophets (vs. 29-36)

Jesus issues 7 woes against them in this chapter for being the "hypocrites" and "blind guides" that they are. You have to understand vs. 8-10 in light of this context. Jesus' whole point is that the scribes and Pharisees exhibit a dastardly conduct that should not be imitated and they do not live up to the honor that they receive. God alone is the great and perfect Father, Rabbi, and Master. We can only fulfill these positions in a derivative sense.

Finally, think about it, Jesus is pissed off and fed up. He is angry, filled with righteous indignation. It makes perfect sense that He would use hyperbolic language. "You have ONE teacher" (vs. 8), "you have ONE father" (vs. 9), "you have ONE master" (vs. 10) ... yet obviously we have all had more teachers and fathers and masters than simply God. Thus, Jesus is NOT speaking literally, He is using exaggerated language. Verse 24 from this same chapter ("You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel!") is obviously hyperbolic. Verses 8-10 are said in the same vein.

Like I said before, the Catholic interpretation is the only one that squares with the context of the passage and the greater body of Scripture. I humbly submit that your bias against Catholicism is causing you to misinterpret this passage. If you will simply put that aside, even just for a moment, I think you will see that what I am saying about this passage is true.

Pax Christi,
phatcatholic

PS: From here you may proceed to Part Three.

Debate with "Russell" on Calling Priests "Father"

noreply@blogger.com (Nicholas Hardesty) — Wed, 06 Mar 2013 22:07:00 +0000

Someone named "Russell" who is the author of the "Answering Catholic Claims" blog recently left a comment on my post about Mt 23:8-10 and calling priests "father". Here is his comment and my response. His words will be indented and italicized.

I agree with a lot of things you said, but I still don’t agree with your final conclusion.

Now, there is nothing wrong with calling a human “a” spiritual father / teacher / rabbi, etc., but to call them “Father,” “Teacher,” or “Rabbi” directly as a spiritual title is wrong (and this would include the use of the Protestant title “Reverend,” as well). These are forbidden as formal religious TITLES OF HONOR. If all Christians are “brothers” in Christ (Matthew 23:8), then there should be no elevated religious titles among Christians.

Matthew 23 is not against “biological,” “spiritual,” or “ancestral” fathers, since they are recognized as legitimate roles elsewhere in Scripture. And since Jesus does not condemn the role of pastor, you could refer to a man as “a pastor” or “the pastor,” but the term should not be used as a formal, personal, spiritual title. Although we all have different functions in the church, where some are certainly (and rightfully) leaders, Jesus clearly forbids the self-exalting titles that men often want to use.

By the way, there is no reason to believe that Jesus was using hyperbole here, in view of the context. For example, He wasn’t exaggerating when He said, “You are all brothers”, and He wasn’t exaggerating when he described the antics of the scribes and Pharisees.

Russell ... thank you for your comment. I see what you mean. The examples I provided describe a position, not a title that was being used. I wonder though: were the people wrong when they called John the Baptist "Rabbi" (Jn 3:36) and "Teacher" (Lk 3:12)? What about "King"? That title is used quite extensively in Scripture. See, for example:

"King Saul": 1 Sam 18:6
"King David": 2 Sam 3:31; 5:3; 6:12, 16; 7:18; 8:8, 10-11; 9:5; 13:21; 16:5-6; 17:17, 21; 19:11, 16; 20:21; 1 Ki 1:1, 13, 28, 31-32, 37-38, 43, 47
"King Solomon": 1 Ki 1:34, 39, 51, 53; 2:17, 19, 22-23, 25, 29, 45; 4:1, 27; 5:13; 6:2; 7:13-14, 40
"King Adonijah": 1 Ki 1:25
"King Herod": Mk 6:14
"King Agrippa": Acts 25:24, 26; 26:2, 19, 27
"King Aretas": 2 Cor 11:32

Jesus even told a parable where servants refer to their owner as "Master" (cf. Mt 25:14-30). What we see from all of this is that there is nothing wrong with using titles to refer to a person's position among the people. Jesus' issue was with people who seek certain positions because of the title that it affords them, or who do not live up to the title that they have received.

That interpretation is really the only way to reconcile Mt 23 with the biblical data. Otherwise, you would have to accuse Samuel (the author of 1 Sam 1-25), Nathan and Gad (the authors of 2 Sam; cf. 1 Chron 29:29-30), Jeremiah (the author of 1 Kings), Mark, Paul, and the disciples of John the Baptist with all doing something that displeases God.

Pax Christi,
phatcatholic

PS: From here you may proceed to Part Two.

A Comprehensive and Biblical Defense of the Marian Doctrines

noreply@blogger.com (Nicholas Hardesty) — Sun, 03 Mar 2013 21:33:00 +0000

Scripture says very little about Mary, the mother of Jesus, compared to the other great figures in the formative years of the Church, yet Catholics believe that she is the greatest woman who ever lived. Let's take a closer look at the Scriptural evidence and see if perhaps more is said about Mary than what first meets the eye.

FIRST DOCTRINE: Mary, Mother of God

There are five doctrines about Mary. The first one proclaims that Mary is the Mother of God. The logic here is simple: If Mary is the mother of Jesus and Jesus is God, then Mary is the Mother of God. In giving Mary this title, the Church follows in the example of Elizabeth, who exclaimed upon seeing Mary, “And why is this granted to me that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” (Lk 1:43).

Note that this doctrine says more about Jesus than it does about Mary. If Jesus is not God, then Mary is not the Mother of God. By affirming this doctrine, the Church affirms the divinity of Jesus. At the Council of Ephesus in 431 AD, the Church officially referred to Mary as the theotokos (Gk. “God-bearer”), not to exalt Mary but to combat the heresies of the day that denied that Jesus was truly God.

SECOND DOCTRINE: Mary, Immaculately Conceived

The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception declares that God preserved Mary from the stain of original sin at the moment she was conceived within the womb of her mother. It also declares that Mary remained sinless her entire life. The first indication of this comes from Luke’s gospel:

"And he came to her and said, 'Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you!'" (Lk 1:28, RSV-CE)

To really grasp the full depth of meaning in this passage, we have to look at the original Greek language in which it was written. The Greek word translated as "full of grace" is kecharitomene. This is a difficult word to translate. For one, in the entire New Testament and the entire Greek Old Testament, it only appears once: right here in Luke 1:28. Clearly, something extremely unique is being described here.

Secondly, the construction of the word is peculiar. Without getting too bogged down by Greek grammar, looking closely at the voice and the verb tense of kecharitomene, one finds that this word literally means, "You who were and continue to be full of and completed in grace." Blass and DeBrunner's Greek Grammar of the New Testament states: "It is permissible, on Greek grammatical and linguistic grounds, to paraphrase kecharitomene as completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace."

How remarkable! Mary wasn't just given grace like we receive grace. She was filled with grace, completed in grace, perfected in grace, and this fullness of grace persisted, it continued up to and through the present. Sin and grace are opposed (cf. Rom 5:20-21), and grace saves us from sin (cf. Eph 2:5, 8). Where there is fullness of grace there is no room for sin.

Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant

Another indication of Mary’s sinlessness comes by way of the comparison between Mary and the Ark of the Covenant. The Ark of the Covenant was the vessel that contained the word of God on the stone tablets, the manna from heaven, and the rod of Aaron the great High Priest (cf. Heb 9:4).

These were the holiest of all Jewish relics and represented the very presence of God to the Jewish people. As such, the container or "ark" that held them had to be made of the purest, most perfect materials. The Ark itself was considered so holy that no one was allowed to even touch it, lest they die (cf. 2 Sam 6:7; 1 Chron 13:9-10).

We see in Scripture that there are many parallels between Mary and the Ark (compare Lk 1:35, 39, 41, 43, 56 with Exo 40:35 and 2 Sam 6:2, 9, 11, 16) but space permits us to only address one. We already know what the Ark was built to contain. What was Mary built to contain, but Jesus Christ? And Who is He but the new Word of God (cf. Jn 1:1), the Manna from Heaven (cf. Jn 6:51), and the great High Priest (cf. Heb 5:4-5)?

This means that Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant, and just as the contents of the previous Ark demanded a perfectly pure vessel, so did Christ, not as a matter of strict necessity (God could have received His human flesh from any woman) but because His holiness demanded it. By preserving Mary from sin, God prepared her to be the pure Ark of the New Covenant.

THIRD DOCTRINE: Mary, Perpetual Virgin

Catholics believe that Mary remained a virgin her entire life. This may seem odd at first, considering that there are many Scripture passages that refer to the “brothers” of Jesus (cf. Mt 12:46; 13:55-56; Mk 3:31; Lk 8:19; Jn 7:1-10; Acts 1:14; Gal 1:19). It is not necessary, however, to believe that these “brothers” were actually His siblings.

The Greek word for “brother” in these verses is adelphos. This word can mean “sibling,” but it is also used in Scripture to refer to those of the same nationality, any man or neighbor, persons with like interests, distant descendants of the same parents, persons united by a common calling, mankind, the disciples, and all believers.

Considering the broad meaning of the word, we can just as easily say that these “brothers” of Jesus were related to Him in some other way. Scripture tells us that at least four of them – James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas – were actually Jesus’ cousins, since their mother was Mary’s sister (cf. Mt 27:56, 61; 28:1; Mk 15:47; Jn 19:25).

Also, note that it was Jewish custom for the eldest son to care for his mother once his father died. When the eldest son died, this responsibility fell on the next son, and so on. Yet, Jesus gave His mother to the Apostle John, not to any of His "brothers" (cf. Jn 19:26-27).

It appears from these peculiar details that Jesus was in fact the only son of Joseph and Mary. And, since the Jews considered it a serious sin to prevent the marital act from bearing fruit (cf. Gen 1:22; 9:1; 38:8-10), we can rightly infer from the lack of other children that Mary remained a virgin.

FOURTH DOCTRINE: Mary, Assumed Into Heaven

Typically, when a human being dies, his body is buried or cremated and his soul receives its eternal reward. It is only once Jesus comes again that this soul will receive its body back and experience heaven or hell as a completed human being.

But, in the case of Mary, the Church teaches that, having completed the course of her earthly life, she was assumed (or raised) body and soul into heavenly glory. In other words, Mary didn’t have to wait for the Resurrection of the Body. She has her body, now, in heaven.

The concept of persons being assumed, body and soul, into their eternal reward is not foreign to Scripture. Enoch (cf. Gen 5:24; Heb 11:5) and Elijah (cf. 2 Ki 2:11-12) experienced this. Paul said that a third man may have as well (cf. 2 Cor 12:2-4). The "two witnesses" in the last days (Rev 11:1-12) also were taken up bodily to heaven. Thus, there is precedent for what we believe happened to Mary.

Our first indication that Mary was assumed into heaven comes from the Revelation of John the Apostle. John looked up, expecting to see the Ark, and what did he see? A woman clothed with the sun (cf. Rev 11:19-12:1). We have already seen how Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant. That this woman is Mary is further confirmed later in chapter 12, where we see the woman giving birth to a son who will rule the nations with a rod of iron (vs. 5). This son is obviously Jesus, therefore the woman is Mary, whom John has seen, body and soul, in heaven. “Arise, O LORD, and go to thy resting place, thou and the ark of thy might” (Ps 132:8).

Beyond this, the assumption of Mary follows from who Christ is. During the reign of David and his descendants, the queen of the kingdom was actually the mother of the king, not his wife (cf. 1 Ki 2:19; 15:13; 2 Ki 10:13; Ps 45:9; Jer 13:18; 29:2). As soon as the king was crowned, the queen was likewise crowned, and she was seated on a throne right beside him (cf. 1 Ki 2:19).

Now, who is Jesus? He is the new king of David (cf. Mk 11:10; Lk 1:32). It makes perfect sense that from the moment He ascended into heaven and took up His throne, Jesus would assume Mary into heaven and install her as His queen mother. In the Davidic kingdom, there is no king without a queen.

FIFTH DOCTRINE: Mary, Mediatrix of God's Grace

The final Marian doctrine of the Church declares that Mary is the “Mediatrix” of God's grace. By this we mean that Mary cooperated in an extraordinary way in the saving mission of Christ, who alone is the unique mediator between God and man.

It may seem peculiar at first to think of a human being working with God to bring us grace, but Scripture says that all Christians are called to contribute to this vital work. It bears repeating: Jesus alone is the Savior and Redeemer of all mankind. Yet, it is also true that He wishes to involve us in His work.

For example, St. Paul said, “I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some” (1 Cor 9:22). He considered himself a steward of God’s grace that was given to him for others (Eph 3:2; cf. Rom 11:13-14; 1 Cor 7:16; 1 Tim 4:16; 2 Tim 2:10; Jas 5:20; 1 Pet 3:1; 4:10; Jude 1:22-23). We are "God’s fellow workers" (1 Cor 3:9), “working together with Him” (2 Cor 6:1).

Now, Mary played her part just as Paul did, but her cooperation was and is uniquely exemplary. Why? Consider her amazing life. Mary’s “yes” to God was the occasion for the Son to enter human history and take on our human nature. She gave Him the flesh that He nailed to the Cross for our salvation. And, since she was sinless, she was able to stand at the foot of the Cross and unite her will and her suffering perfectly with the will and the suffering of her Son. No other human being can claim to do what Mary did.

This was undoubtedly rewarded with a tremendous outpouring of grace for the benefit of the Church. How do we know this? Because we see from Scripture that whenever someone suffers for the sake of the Church, the Church is rewarded with an application of the grace of the Cross.

St. Paul said, “Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and … for the sake of his body, that is, the church” (Col 1:24). Paul is showing us that the Church benefits whenever we unite our sufferings with the sufferings of Christ on the Cross. This is what he did (cf. 2 Cor 1:6; 4:8-15; Phil 2:17; 3:10; Col 1:24), this is what he encouraged others to do, and this is what Mary did.

Since Mary was sinless, she was able to do it perfectly, and so we honor her role in salvation history with the title “Mediatrix.”

Conclusion

These five doctrines, and the Scripture passages that support them, point to Mary as uniquely blessed by the fruit of her womb. If God had not chosen her to be His mother, then none of her other unique qualities would have existed. He made her the most extraordinary woman who has ever lived, and it is with good reason that “all generations will call her blessed” (Lk 1:48).

Pax Christi,
phatcatholic