Why do we as Catholics call priests 'Father'?

  • Thread starter Thread starter GiannaMarie_JMJ
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

GiannaMarie_JMJ

Guest
My Protestant boyfriend actually asked me this question and I wasn’t sure so I told him that I would get back to him on that. So if someone could kindly explain why, it would be much appreciated 😃

Thanks,

GiannaMarie_JMJ
 
GiannaMarie_JMJ said:
My Protestant boyfriend actually asked me this question and I wasn’t sure so I told him that I would get back to him on that. So if someone could kindly explain why, it would be much appreciated 😃

Thanks,

GiannaMarie_JMJ
Click to expand...
Hi there.

This Catholic Answers article on this verse from Matthew 23:9 details the reason.

In a nutshell, if we take Christ literally, we couldn’t even call our biological male parent as “father.” Obviously this was not what He meant, anymore than He wanted us to literally pluck our eye out in order to get into heaven. That saying was a form of hyperbole that Christ used then, as He did in this statement, too.

Christ was warning others not to give undue respect to men such as the Pharisees, who falsely assumed the authority and responsibility that comes with being a spiritual father without properly acknowledging the ultimate Father, the supreme protector of all of us. By saying “Call no man Father,” Christ warns us not to see religious clerics as “gurus”, as the only authorities or supreme source of inspiration.

Priests, deacons and bishops and the Pope acknowledge their responsibilities of leadership on earth, but also know that all power and authority to do their work comes from our Lord, Jesus Christ, and that His Father is the only One that gives us the most important form of fatherhood.
 
Great question, and it looks like you’ve gotten some very good answers. Long story short, everyone from Abraham to the Jewish elders to Peter and Paul are referred to as “Father” in the New Testament. If I’m not mistaken, the following should be a Tim Staples interview where he explains that, and the Immaculate Conception of Mary in a really clear way:

bringyou.to/JHTimStaples.mp3

If it’s not, let me know, and I’ll find the right one.
 
All the above answers are very good and well stated. There is also a historical development. For centuries secular priests were not called Father and in some countries they are not called Father. The title Father came into popular use in the religious orders of monks where the superior of the monastery was called Abba. Today we call him the Abbot. His house is called the abbey.

When the mendicants (Franciscans, Carmelites, and Dominicans) were founded they too called their superiors Father. For example, in my Franciscan tradition we still refer to the superior as Father, even if he’s not a priest. Francis of Assisi is always called Holy Father or Seraphic Father. The priests who joined the mendicants and the monastic orders were called Brother. The secular priests were called by their secular titles. In the USA we called them Mr. until the late 1800s. In Italy they are still called Don (Sir). That’s how we get saints such as Don Bosco. Don is not his name, but his secular title.

Gradually, many orders were clericalized, meaning that the number of priests was larger than the number of lay men. Rome changed the rules for some orders. It required that the superiors always be priests, even if they had both lay and clerical brothers. Gradually, the title Father became associated with the priests, because they were the superiors and when their term was up, they left the post to a successor, but they retained the title, Father, just as the early founders have retained the title Father.

Over the years, priests who were also religious were known as Father, except for the Franciscans, Carmelites and Dominicans. They always called their members Friar. When the Jesuits were founded, they were religious, but they were not monks or friars. They were the first religious order of men who were founded as a clerical order. They were all called Father, because that was the title for the priests who ran the religious houses. It was the expansion of the Jesuits that also expanded the use of the title Father for priests who were not religious superiors.

Now, why were religious superiors called Abba (Father). The tradition begins in the Old Testament with the Patriarchs. They were called Father. These religious superiors were the patriarchs of their communities. That’s how the custom carries over from Judaism into Christianity.

In the early 20th century America, many religious orders were asked to take over parishes, because there was a shortage of parish priests. As the number of parish priests who were secular priests grows and replaces the religious, the laity continued to call them Father. Gradually the title Mr. is lost and replaced by Father. The laity did not know the difference between a religious and a secular priest. When a Carmelite superior left a parish and was replaced by a secular priest, that priest simply inherited the title, Father. Secular priests gradually organize themselves around bishops and are bound to dioceses. Eventually the title secular is replaced by diocesan. Today we know them better as diocesan priests. Once the secular identity of the diocesan priest disappears into the background, not in Canon Law, but in daily life, so do the secular titles such as Mr., Don, Dr., Lord, Sir, etc. They all become Father, just like the religious superiors.

Today, there is a strong movement within the Benedictine and Franciscan families to de-clericalize, strip away the false impression that the priesthood is essential to the religious life. Many monasteries of Benedictines (Benedictines, Trappists, Cistercians, Camaldolese and others) and many provinces (regions) of Franciscans have gone back to the title Brother. My own region uses Brother. Father is reserved for the elected successor of our Holy Father Francis. I believe that with time, we will see the monks and mendicants called Brother, except for the superiors who are the patriarchs of these communities. Father will probably stay with the rest of the priests in the Church.

It’s interesting to note that in the Anglican countries (not the Anglican Church) bishops are still called Doctor (especially in Ireland and Canada). We Americans refer to them as Bishop. In the French, Spanish and Italian cultures Bishops are still called My Lord (Monsignor, Monseñor, Monsignore)

The titles are not a doctrinal or biblical phenomenon as much as a cultural one.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
JReducation said:
All the above answers are very good and well stated. There is also a historical development. For centuries secular priests were not called Father and in some countries they are not called Father. The title Father came into popular use in the religious orders of monks where the superior of the monastery was called ( . . .)

The titles are not a doctrinal or biblical phenomenon as much as a cultural one.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
Click to expand...
Thanks for the great insight on the cultural background of the term, especially from a monastic viewpoint.
 
JReducation said:
All the above answers are very good and well stated. There is also a historical development. For centuries secular priests were not called Father and in some countries they are not called Father. The title Father came into popular use in the religious orders of monks where the superior of the monastery was called Abba. Today we call him the Abbot. His house is called the abbey.

When the mendicants (Franciscans, Carmelites, and Dominicans) were founded they too called their superiors Father. For example, in my Franciscan tradition we still refer to the superior as Father, even if he’s not a priest. Francis of Assisi is always called Holy Father or Seraphic Father. The priests who joined the mendicants and the monastic orders were called Brother. The secular priests were called by their secular titles. In the USA we called them Mr. until the late 1800s. In Italy they are still called Don (Sir). That’s how we get saints such as Don Bosco. Don is not his name, but his secular title.

Gradually, many orders were clericalized, meaning that the number of priests was larger than the number of lay men. Rome changed the rules for some orders. It required that the superiors always be priests, even if they had both lay and clerical brothers. Gradually, the title Father became associated with the priests, because they were the superiors and when their term was up, they left the post to a successor, but they retained the title, Father, just as the early founders have retained the title Father.

Over the years, priests who were also religious were known as Father, except for the Franciscans, Carmelites and Dominicans. They always called their members Friar. When the Jesuits were founded, they were religious, but they were not monks or friars. They were the first religious order of men who were founded as a clerical order. They were all called Father, because that was the title for the priests who ran the religious houses. It was the expansion of the Jesuits that also expanded the use of the title Father for priests who were not religious superiors.

Now, why were religious superiors called Abba (Father). The tradition begins in the Old Testament with the Patriarchs. They were called Father. These religious superiors were the patriarchs of their communities. That’s how the custom carries over from Judaism into Christianity.

In the early 20th century America, many religious orders were asked to take over parishes, because there was a shortage of parish priests. As the number of parish priests who were secular priests grows and replaces the religious, the laity continued to call them Father. Gradually the title Mr. is lost and replaced by Father. The laity did not know the difference between a religious and a secular priest. When a Carmelite superior left a parish and was replaced by a secular priest, that priest simply inherited the title, Father. Secular priests gradually organize themselves around bishops and are bound to dioceses. Eventually the title secular is replaced by diocesan. Today we know them better as diocesan priests. Once the secular identity of the diocesan priest disappears into the background, not in Canon Law, but in daily life, so do the secular titles such as Mr., Don, Dr., Lord, Sir, etc. They all become Father, just like the religious superiors.

Today, there is a strong movement within the Benedictine and Franciscan families to de-clericalize, strip away the false impression that the priesthood is essential to the religious life. Many monasteries of Benedictines (Benedictines, Trappists, Cistercians, Camaldolese and others) and many provinces (regions) of Franciscans have gone back to the title Brother. My own region uses Brother. Father is reserved for the elected successor of our Holy Father Francis. I believe that with time, we will see the monks and mendicants called Brother, except for the superiors who are the patriarchs of these communities. Father will probably stay with the rest of the priests in the Church.

It’s interesting to note that in the Anglican countries (not the Anglican Church) bishops are still called Doctor (especially in Ireland and Canada). We Americans refer to them as Bishop. In the French, Spanish and Italian cultures Bishops are still called My Lord (Monsignor, Monseñor, Monsignore)

The titles are not a doctrinal or biblical phenomenon as much as a cultural one.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
Click to expand...
That was an extremely informative answer - thank you! I only pause to note that the reformed Camaldolese (in the USA at least) are all still going by ‘Father’ unless they are not priests yet - but they all become priests as part of their vocation to the order. I’m not certain what the other Camaldolese are doing.
 
adriancombe said:
That was an extremely informative answer - thank you! I only pause to note that the reformed Camaldolese (in the USA at least) are all still going by ‘Father’ unless they are not priests yet - but they all become priests as part of their vocation to the order. I’m not certain what the other Camaldolese are doing.
Click to expand...
I don’t know the Reformed Camaldolese. Where are they? Are they a new house?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
All the answers given about calling a Roman Catholic priest a Father is just to reason out their action even it is unacceptable. Why can we not just take Jesus’ words and obey it? What is wrong with calling him MR., Pastor, Brother, Elder, etc.? It is not metaphorical or exaggeration to stress a point like “plucking your eyes out” or “cut your hands”, etc.
The comparison of calling your own father (biologically) and the priest is not on the same playing field. The other is your own biological DAD. The other is not. Jesus was not referring to biological DAD instead spiritual. To have another spiritual “Father” other than Heavenly Father is a violation of the the first commandment, “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.”
The Pharisees and priests loved to be called “Rabbi” and “Master”. Jesus rebuked them for that and told His disciples and audience not to call them such in a spiritual sense because their heavenly Father is their “spiritual” Father and Christ is their Master.
Apostle Paul called Timothy and Titus son(s) in faith but never referred to him as spiritual father nor asked them to refer to him with the title.
The RCC is making another dimension of family in a spiritual sense like what Jesus was referring to. The term “holy Father” should be reserved to our heavenly Father alone because He is the one and only perfect and no comparison. Period. We should not even think of equating His position to our position.
To do that is to provoke God in jealousy.:mad: He said many times that He is a Jealous God.
 
onthego4 said:
All the answers given about calling a Roman Catholic priest a Father is just to reason out their action even it is unacceptable. Why can we not just take Jesus’ words and obey it? What is wrong with calling him MR., Pastor, Brother, Elder, etc.? It is not metaphorical or exaggeration to stress a point like “plucking your eyes out” or “cut your hands”, etc.
The comparison of calling your own father (biologically) and the priest is not on the same playing field. The other is your own biological DAD. The other is not. Jesus was not referring to biological DAD instead spiritual. To have another spiritual “Father” other than Heavenly Father is a violation of the the first commandment, “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.”
The Pharisees and priests loved to be called “Rabbi” and “Master”. Jesus rebuked them for that and told His disciples and audience not to call them such in a spiritual sense because their heavenly Father is their “spiritual” Father and Christ is their Master.
Apostle Paul called Timothy and Titus son(s) in faith but never referred to him as spiritual father nor asked them to refer to him with the title.
The RCC is making another dimension of family in a spiritual sense like what Jesus was referring to. The term “holy Father” should be reserved to our heavenly Father alone because He is the one and only perfect and no comparison. Period. We should not even think of equating His position to our position.
To do that is to provoke God in jealousy.:mad: He said many times that He is a Jealous God.
Click to expand...
This is not totally accurate. Jesus was called Rabbi and did not complain about it. He was also called Master. The apostles also referred to the patriarchs as Father: Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, etc.

I’m the superior of my religious house. The brothers call me Father. Why? Because I’m the patriarch of the house, not because I’m God. They know that I’m not God and I know that I’m not God. But it is my job to protect them, govern them and guide them as my sons. That is a duty that I have before God. By the way, I’m not a priest. I’m a friar. When we have election for a new superior on Pentecost Sunday a new Father will be elected. At least I’m hoping it will go that way and that I won’t be re-elected. Pray for that intention please.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
onthego4 said:
All the answers given about calling a Roman Catholic priest a Father is just to reason out their action even it is unacceptable. Why can we not just take Jesus’ words and obey it? What is wrong with calling him MR., Pastor, Brother, Elder, etc.? It is not metaphorical or exaggeration to stress a point like “plucking your eyes out” or “cut your hands”, etc. The comparison of calling your own father (biologically) and the priest is not on the same playing field. The other is your own biological DAD. The other is not. Jesus was not referring to biological DAD instead spiritual.
Click to expand...
Say who? If we’re taking Him literally here, and taking his words as “not metaphorical or exaggeration,” then let’s take Him literally. But besides that, mister is a variant on the word “master.” So that’s out.
onthego4 said:
To have another spiritual “Father” other than Heavenly Father is a violation of the the first commandment, “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.”
Click to expand...
No, it’s not. Having another spiritual father violates the First Commandment only if that person detracts from, or is held above, God. Hence the “before me” rounding out the commandment. Similarly, Jesus says you can’t serve two Masters, not that you can’t find two things good.

If you were right, then St. Paul’s a blasphemer:

1 Corinthians 4:15 Even though you have ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus **I became your father **through the gospel.

He’s talking about what? Spiritual fatherhood.
onthego4 said:
The Pharisees and priests loved to be called “Rabbi” and “Master”. Jesus rebuked them for that and told His disciples and audience not to call them such in a spiritual sense because their heavenly Father is their “spiritual” Father and Christ is their Master.
Apostle Paul called Timothy and Titus son(s) in faith but never referred to him as spiritual father nor asked them to refer to him with the title.
Click to expand...
Yes he does. He compares his relationship with Timothy as a father/son in Philippians 2:22. But beyond that, even when he doesn’t refer to himself explicitly as Timothy’s spiritual father, he does refer to him as his spiritual son. If Jesus meant we could only have one spiritual father (the Father), then Paul’s blaspheming again.
onthego4 said:
The RCC is making another dimension of family in a spiritual sense like what Jesus was referring to. The term “holy Father” should be reserved to our heavenly Father alone because He is the one and only perfect and no comparison. Period. We should not even think of equating His position to our position.
To do that is to provoke God in jealousy.:mad: He said many times that He is a Jealous God.
Click to expand...
Your post is well-intentioned but built on faulty premises and against clear Biblical evidence.

In Romans 4:11-12, St. Paul says of Abraham, “11And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. So then, he is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them. 12And he is also the father of the circumcised who not only are circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.”

He’s not talking about biological ancestry (that’s his point throughout Romans), but spiritual fatherhood, which is why all of those who live by faith are his descendants, rather than just his biological descendants. And Paul calls him “father,” even “our father.”

Or how about Acts 7:2 or Acts 22:1? Referring to the Jewish elders as “brothers and fathers.” The terms were ones of respect.

What Christ is warning against is having another source of spiritual fatherhood. Abraham is the “father of the faithful” because of his faith in God. That is, if you’re following God, you’re following Abraham (and vice versa), which is why Paul says that even non-Jews are descendants of Abraham, because they’re following after him whether they know it or not. Imagine a small magnet being drawn to a much larger magnet. When we’re drawn towards one, we draw closer to the other as well. This doesn’t make them equal, or diminish the pull of the large magnet (on the contrary, it makes that pull stronger).

So what Christ is banning would be, for example, trying to follow Marx and Christ, or Obama (or Bush) and Christ, etc. But following Christ and following those who follow Christ isn’t a sin – it’s the exact opposite. We’re called to be a spiritual family, with father/son relationships like the one between Paul and Timothy.
 
onthego4 said:
All the answers given about calling a Roman Catholic priest a Father is just to reason out their action even it is unacceptable. Why can we not just take Jesus’ words and obey it? What is wrong with calling him MR., Pastor, Brother, Elder, etc.? It is not metaphorical or exaggeration to stress a point like “plucking your eyes out” or “cut your hands”, etc.
The comparison of calling your own father (biologically) and the priest is not on the same playing field. The other is your own biological DAD. The other is not. Jesus was not referring to biological DAD instead spiritual. To have another spiritual “Father” other than Heavenly Father is a violation of the the first commandment, “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.”
The Pharisees and priests loved to be called “Rabbi” and “Master”. Jesus rebuked them for that and told His disciples and audience not to call them such in a spiritual sense because their heavenly Father is their “spiritual” Father and Christ is their Master.
Apostle Paul called Timothy and Titus son(s) in faith but never referred to him as spiritual father nor asked them to refer to him with the title.
The RCC is making another dimension of family in a spiritual sense like what Jesus was referring to. The term “holy Father” should be reserved to our heavenly Father alone because He is the one and only perfect and no comparison. Period. We should not even think of equating His position to our position.
To do that is to provoke God in jealousy.:mad: He said many times that He is a Jealous God.
Click to expand...
Why did Paul call himself Timothy and Titus’s father? (1 Timothy 1:2, 1 Corinthians 4:17, Titus 1:4) Was Paul a heretic? No! Why did Peter call himself the father of Mark (1 Peter 5:13)? Was Peter a heretic? No! We must read God’s Word in context. Jesus was speaking to Pharisees who attempted to justify themselves by their bloodline alone. They claimed derivative holiness simply as descendants of Abraham. Christ revealed that this was not the case, as they paid only lip service to God, but their hearts were far from Him.
 
In fairness, there are some religious communities that are dropping the title Father, but it has nothing to do with blasphemy. It’s because it goes against the mind of the founder to call some members Brother and others Father. The Franciscans have been doing it by regions. Some have gone to Brother and others to Friar. And other regions have not changed because the laity has to get used to the idea. But notice, the superior is still Father.

The reason for that is to emphasize the religious life and de-clericalize the order, to go back to the 13th century when Francis was the only Father, even though he was not a priest and there were priests under his authority. But they were all called Fraterllo (Brother or Friar).

When you use a title inappropriately, it should be changed. But when you use it as it was meant to be used, why change it? From my perspective, it’s all a matter of context. I don’t think that anyone considers themselves God.

As to the term Holy Father, that term is not only reserved to the pope. All of the Orthodox Patriarchs are also Holy Father. Benedict, Francis and Dominic are also Holy Father Mother Teresa is referred to by her sisters as Holy Mother. Mother Superiors are Rev. Mother.

If we follow this literal interpretation we could not say that our founders were holy men and women or that our superiors and ministers are reverend, because only God is reverend. But when the Protestant Reformers left the Catholic Church they took with them the titles Reverend, Father, Mother, Pastor.

Let’s look at those titles. Every ordained minister is called Rev. Does that mean that they get the same reverence as God?

Among the Anglicans, Catholics and Othodox, priests are called Father and superiors of convents are called Mother or Rev. Mother.

If a man leads a congregation he is called Pastor. But pastor is the Latin word for shepherd. Jesus said, “I am the Good Shepherd.” Is the pastor claiming to be Jesus? Is the Reverend claiming to be God? Are the Anglican, Catholic and Othordox priests claiming to be God the Father?

No. These titles are completely separate of what Jesus was talking about. He was creating a juxtaposition between “Call no man your Father” and this is how you ought to pray “Our Father who art in heaven.”

In other words, you only have one heavenly Father. You can have as many earthly fathers as you want. Jesus referred to the patriarchs, which means the fathers.

Has the title Father been overused? Yes. But never in a blasephemous way. It was a cultural development. That’s why the mendicant and monastic orders are trying to do away with it. It was never intended to be blasphemy. It was something that people brought from home when they entered the order. They were taught by their parents to call priests Father. They continued to call those few monks and friars who were ordained, Father. It was out of context, not out of blasphemy. There is a big difference.

We can’t go calling everything charcoal, just because it’s black.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
Maybe this should be a new thread, but does anyone know when the early church began calling any of the clergy “father”, whether priest, bishop, or pope?
 
armofthelord said:
Maybe this should be a new thread, but does anyone know when the early church began calling any of the clergy “father”, whether priest, bishop, or pope?
Click to expand...
I gave a quick summary of the history on post # 5. LOOK UP. LOL

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
GiannaMarie_JMJ said:
My Protestant boyfriend actually asked me this question and I wasn’t sure so I told him that I would get back to him on that. So if someone could kindly explain why, it would be much appreciated 😃

Thanks,

GiannaMarie_JMJ
Click to expand...
Hi GiannaMarie JmJ

From the offset Mat 19:5 Jesus speaks, “For this reason a man will leave his ‘father’ and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.”-----As a result from this, we now know that Jesus is not speaking about our biological earthly father. -----Since the whole chapter Mat 23 speaks about religious teachers and leaders, There can be no other reason not to believe what Jesus said and meant, that is, “don’t call any earthly spiritual teacher/leader) father.” Which in plain English, it means not to call any priest “father” or the Pope Holy Father. No amount of rationalizing will change what Jesus said and meant.----- The Pope at times is called the “Vicar of Christ”. The Latin equivalent of the Greek “anti” is “vicarious” from which comes “vicar” Thus “Vicar of Christ” literally means Antichrist.------Jesus in Luke 8:21, “ My mother and brothers are those who hear God’s word and put into practice.” And not to rationalize His word when it’s perfectly clear as it is in Mat 23:9 “Jesus loves you” ED O.

James 3:1 Teachers who teach wrongly, will be punished more severally.
 
Posted by po18Guy
Why did Paul call himself Timothy and Titus’s father? (1 Timothy 1:2, 1 Corinthians 4:17, Titus 1:4)
Click to expand...
Hi po18Guy
In none of these verses that you quote is the word “father” mentioned. Father is implied. That’s not what Jesus speaks about, Jesus said don’t CALL anyone father. Not to give anyone the title 'Father" Exp. Dr. Phd. etc…-----Why wasn’t Peter called “The Holy Father” or “Vicar of Christ” He calls himself an “Elder” equal to the other elders 1 Peter 5:1 ED. O “Jesus loves You”

James 3:1 Teachers who teach wrongly will be punished more severally
 
EdOsiecki said:
Hi po18Guy
In none of these verses that you quote is the word “father” mentioned. Father is implied. That’s not what Jesus speaks about, Jesus said don’t CALL anyone father. Not to give anyone the title 'Father" Exp. Dr. Phd. etc…-----Why wasn’t Peter called “The Holy Father” or “Vicar of Christ” He calls himself an “Elder” equal to the other elders 1 Peter 5:1 ED. O “Jesus loves You”

James 3:1 Teachers who teach wrongly will be punished more severally
Click to expand...
If you read the Fathers of the Church, they did refer to Peter as the Vicar of Jesus Christ and as the Holy Father. The first generation Fathers learned this from the apostles. Someone help me. There is one of the first generation of the Fathers who knew St. John the Evangelist personally. He makes reference to much of this, which he got from John. I can’t recall his name right now.

But these titles date back to the end of the first century. They are implied in the scriptures when Jesus hands Peter the keys, tells him to feed his sheep and to encourage his brothers, what Jesus is doing is deputizing Peter to do what he had done up to that point. That’s what the word Vicar means. It’s like the Vice President. Jesus remains the president. Non doubts that.

Fraternally,

Br. JR. OSF 🙂
 
Posted by JReduction
If you read the Fathers of the Church, they did refer to Peter as the Vicar of Jesus Christ and as the Holy Father. The first generation Fathers learned this from the apostles. Someone help me.
Click to expand...
Hi JReduction
I’ll help you! -----We know for a fact that some of Paul’s letters were false----That’s why a Council was convened in order to sort out the false from what was true, from which we now have the New Testament. -----When you speak of reading the letters of the Fathers, how do you know that they too aren’t false? ------You don’t know! ----Jesus never once told us to rely on the church Fathers, in fact in John 2:25 and John 6:34 Jesus said that he does not accept testimony of men.----- If Jesus didn’t accept men’s testimony, then why should I ?----- If the first generation of fathers, as you say, referred to Peter as the “Vicar” of Christ, they were wrong by violating Scripture Mat 23:9.----I don’t want to go beyond this thread but I’ve read some of the church fathers letters where they have misquoted Jesus. ED. O ‘Jesus loves you”

James 3:1 Teachers who teach wrongly will be punished more severally.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top