Recently, I ran across this response to a refutation I had done about two years ago of a article originally written by Greg Durel (found at Reaching Catholics for Christ) , In the spirit of honesty I felt I should answer the Authors objections to my article.
(Greg Durel) THE ISSUES: # 1. "Call no man your Father" is very clear in Matthew 23:9 to the intellectually honest person.
"And call no man your father on earth For you have one Father in heaven" The meaning is, that our Father in heaven is incomparably more to be regarded, than any father upon earth: and no master to be followed, who would lead us away from Christ. But this does not hinder but that we are by the law of God to have a due respect both for our parents and spiritual fathers, ("For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many Father, For I became you Father in Christ Jesus through the Gospel"--1 Cor. 4-15) and for our masters and teachers. Christ continues on to instruct the apostles to become the servants of others rather than hunt personal glory like the scribes and Pharisees who were hypocrites.
He that is the greatest among you shall be your servant. And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be humbled: and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted. But woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you shut the kingdom of heaven against men, for you yourselves do not enter in; and those that are going in, you suffer not to enter. Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites: because you devour the houses of widows, praying long prayers. For this you shall receive the greater judgment. Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you go round about the sea and the land to make one proselyte; and when he is made, you make him the child of hell twofold more than yourselves....(Matthew 23:11-15)(Greg Durel) It certainly is not referring to your BIOLOGICAL father. We are to give to no man the office of spiritual father. We have ONE Spiritual Father who is in heaven.
Really? Than why does St. Paul tells us that he is our spiritual father?
"For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many Father, For I BECAME YOU FATHER IN CHRIST JESUS THROUGH THE GOSPEL"(1 Cor. 4-15)
It does not take a rocket scientist to see that Greg Durel has not studied the Bible thoroughly or he certainly would have known this
(Greg Durel) Protestants are just as wrong when they use the term "Doctor" when referring to someone in a spiritual role.
The Protestant use the term "Doctor" is neither here nor there, and it is not relevant to the topic of discussion.
(Greg Durel) Does anyone ever refer to anyone in the New Testament as "father...... "?
If Greg had bothered to read the New Testament he would find that there are several people referred to as "Father", even by Christ:
Mk 11:9-10 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!"Lk 16:24 And he called out, 'FATHER ABRAHAM, have mercy upon me, and send Lazarus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am in anguish in this flame.'
(Greg Durel) The New Testament does not teach the false dichotomy of "laity" and "clergy."
Nor does the Catholic Church teach a "FALSE" separation of the "laity" and the "clergy". The foundation of the hierarchical structure of the Church was first laid in Mark 3:13, it is here that we fined the first clerical ordination of the New Testament. Christ ordained the 12 apostles and sent them forth to preach. The apostles understood that they would not be around forever and THEY needed to establish a leadership to pass along their authority from generation to generation. In St. Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians (3:10-11) he explains he laid a foundation as an expert builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should be careful how he builds. For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ.
So in the Acts (6:2) the ordination of the seven Deacons of the church of Jerusalem. The implication here is very clear "Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom WE (the apostles) may appoint over this business." in Acts 14:23 we read how Barnabas and Paul ordained presbyter in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed. In St. Paul’s letter to Titus (1:5) St. Paul explains it was For this cause he left Titus in Crete, so Titus could set the church in order, and appoint presbyters in every city, as St. Paul commanded; clearly again an example of authority being derived from above in a hierarchical fashion and not from the congregation.
In St. Paul’s first letter to St. Timothy (who was ordained by St. Paul as a bishop: 1 Timothy 4:14; 2 Timothy 1:6) St. Paul praises this properly ordained leadership is being worthy of double honor "Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially they who labor in the word and doctrine."(1 Timothy 5:17)
Evidence or a special ordained Priesthood is clearly found in the writings of the early Christians as well, the "Didache", Hermas, Clement of Rome, and Irenaeus often use the terms "bishop" and "priest" indiscriminately. In fact, it is really a moot question whether the presbyterate gradually developed as an offshoot of the episcopate--which is in the nature of things more likely and in view of the needs of the growing Church more readily understood--or whether, conversely, the episcopate had its origin in the elevation of the presbyterate to a higher rank (Lightfoot), which is more difficult to admit. On the other hand, even at the beginning of the second century, Ignatius of Antioch (Ep. ad Magnes., vi and passim) brings out with remarkable clearness the hierarchical distinction between the monarchical bishop, the priests, and the deacons. He emphasizes this triad as essential to the constitution of the Church: "Without these [three] it cannot be called the Church" (Ad Trall., iii). But, according to the law of historic continuity, this distinction of the orders must have existed in substance and embryo during the first century; and, as a matter of fact, St. Paul (I Tim., v, 17, 19) mentions "presbyters" who were subordinate to the real bishop Timothy. But in the Latin writers there is no ambiguity. Tertullian (De bapt., xvii) calls the bishop the "summus sacerdos", under whom are the "presbyteri et diaconi"; and Cyprian (Ep. lxi, 3) speaks of the "presbyteri cum episcopo sacerdotali honore conjuncti", i.e. the priests united by sacerdotal dignity with the bishop.
(Greg Durel) Further, to deny that Catholicism teaches the primacy of their priesthood is an insult to anyone that has been through a basic catechism for children.
The very fact that God (I.E. Christ) himself established the Christian Priesthood is evidence enough of the primacy of the the Catholic priesthood
(Greg Durel) But let us not be the final word on that, but allow us to quote official Roman Catholic sources....LEO THE GREAT...POPE INNOCENT III...SAINT JEROME...CARDINAL GIBBONS...
Here Greg provides four supposed "citations", but as is usual for him he provides no document reference for any of them. As I shell show further down, Greg has a habit of dishonestly altering statements to fit his agenda, and some times blatantly fabricating them. Understanding this – and the fact that the four above "statements" have no reference – we are forced to discount them as simply more of the same chicanery.
(Greg Durel) ISSUE # 2. Do not try and tell any Catholic in the pew that Catholic priests can marry. Their celibacy is not optional.
Most Catholics are as ignorant of the Catholic faith as Greg seems to have been [and still is]. As I shall show further down the in fact many married Priest in the Catholic Church.
To Begin with it is Priesthood, that is the Sacrament, the celibacy is a voluntary solemn vow, the exact form of which varies according to your Rite. Therefore, a widower can be ordained in the Latin Rite. The Pope can give permission for a married man to become a priest in the Latin Rite, as he's done for some married Protestant ministers who have converted the marriage came before the ordination. Or he can excuse a priest from his solemn vow of celibacy: but, in that case, because the Latin Rite doesn't generally have married priests, you can't function as a priest any more. You still are one; you just can't work as one. A priest in this situation is a laicized priest, (not an ex-priest.). The discipline of priestly celibacy has been around since the beginning, to some degree. St. Paul listed some obvious advantages (1 Cor 7:27_35, for instance). St. Jerome pointed out that "the Virgin Christ and the Virgin Mary have dedicated in themselves the principles of virginity for both sexes. The Apostles were either virgins or, presumably, remained continent (1 Cor 7:29) after their marriages. Those persons chosen to be bishops, presbyters, or deacons are either virgins or widowers; or certainly, once receiving the priesthood, they remain forever chaste." For about the first four hundred years, there wasn't any law about it, but then the example of the celibate monks started to take effect, and it quickly became a real rule. In the East, it was all right to ordain a married man, but in the West it was priesthood or marriage, but never both.
(Greg Durel) Thousands have left the various orders because they wanted to marry.
I would like to see Greg Durel provide some evidence to support this unsubstantiated claim.
(Greg Durel) Further to deny the mandate in 1 Timothy 3:2 is childish and ANTI-BIBLE. Jesus declares in John 3 that we "must be...." Then obviously we must be whatever comes after. Paul tells Timothy that the pastor "must be..."! So the prerequisites of the pastor in 1 Timothy "Must be" met! Not just one or two of them, but ALL of them. A husband is a married man! You don’t need to be a Jesuit to figure that out.
No one is trying to deny any portion of 1 Tim. 3:2, what we are rejecting is Greg’s faulty attempt mis-apply it. If you read the text St. Paul What he says is "A bishop then must be blameless" and this is true then he goes on to states that they can be married "but once." St. Paul does not say that all Bishops "must be married".
St Paul never meant for marriage to be a requirement, this is illustrated in St. Paul's Letter to Titus (1:7-9) in which we find another listing of qualifications for becoming a Bishop. In this Listing we again find that St. Paul starts with "For a bishop must be blameless...." he than goes on to list other prerequisites for the position of Bishop in the Church. It is important to note that NO WHERE in this listing does St Paul even discuss Marriage.
If we read two verses down in First Timothy St Paul goes on to explain exactly why he wanted Timothy to inquire about the marriage and family life of the prospective "Bishop".
"One that ruleth well his own house.... For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?" (1 Tim. 3:4-5)
So we see In other words what St. Paul was truly saying to Timothy was that a remarried divorced Man (understanding that Christ outlawed divorce among his followers, this person would have been considered by the early Christians to have had more than one wife) and other men who could not properly run there own marriages and there own families, are not qualified to be leaders in the Christian Church. The Question I would like to ask Greg is why would St. Paul require more of other than he himself was willing to do? For St. Paul himself did not have a wife.
(Greg Durel) Paul was not a pastor but an Apostle. It was his option to marry or not.
The Greek of text in reference [1 Timothy 3:2] is not really limited to "Pastors" or "Bishops". The Greek term used is "episkopos" which literally means "Overseer". The term applies to ANY OFFICIAL in a position authority, in the LXX it is used for both civil and religious personages, for example Eleazar the Priest (Num. 31:14) and officers of the army (Num. 4:16). So we see that if we accept Greg’s stance that 1 Tim. REQUIRES ALL overseers of the Church to be married, than St. Paul was certainly in violation of his own rule.
Another example of how ridiculous Greg’s position on this verse is, that In the New Testament we see the Greek term "episkopos" applied to Christ (I Peter 2:25). By Greg’s understanding of 1 Timothy, Christ himself was in violation of St. Paul’s rule.
(Greg Durel) There are no qualifications for Apostles other than
I would like to ask Greg Durel exactly were in the text of the scriptures he found this listing of "qualifications for Apostles" ?In first chapter the book of Acts we find the eleven discussing amongst themselves what they were looking for in a replacement for Judas, no were in this text do they apply that these qualities were required of ALL Apostles.
(Greg Durel) 1. They were a witness of the resurrection of Christ;
This "Qualification" should be applied to all Christians, for we are all called to witness about the resurrection of Christ to others.
(Greg Durel) 2. Chosen by Christ Himself;
Really? And exactly when was Matthias [who was " part of this ministry and apostleship...(and was) numbered with the eleven apostles". (Acts 1:25-26)] "Chosen by Christ Himself" ? He wasn’t, Matthias was chosen by the use of "lots". It is also Interesting to point out here that the scriptures sometimes refer to Christ himself as a "Apostle" (Heb. 3:1).
(Greg Durel) 3. Discipled by Jesus Christ.
Where does the scriptures list either of the Apostles St. Barnabas (Acts 14:14) or St. Paul as having been a disciple of Christ? Were are Apostles Andronicus and Junias (Rom. 16:7) said to have been disciples of Christ?
(Greg Durel) Hence it was not a problem that Peter was married,
If the ambiguous word "penthera" is correctly translated, St. Peter was certainly married, but he was married before he became an Apostle, and tradition declares that he did not live with his wife after his divine call (Matt. iv. 9) to the Apostleship (St. Jerome, Epis. 48, Ad Pamm). He says himself that he had left all things to follow Christ (Mark ii. 28). In his treatise against Jovinian (viii., 26) St. Jerome judges from the context of Matt. viii. 14, 15, that St. Peter's wife must have been dead at the time of the miracle, for otherwise she would have been mentioned.
Whether St. Peter was married or not is utterly irrelevant, for clerical celibacy is not a divine law, but a Church law, dating only from the fourth century.
(Greg Durel) nor was it required of him since he was not a pastor either.
This issue has already been addressed above, there is no need to answers it again, so we shall move on to Greg’s next point.
(Greg Durel) For a real interesting study——why were Catholic priests forbidden to marry?
As I said in my last refutation, there ARE married priests in the Oriental Churches in communion with the Holy See, we may note that as a general principle married clerics are not ineligible for the subdiaconate, diaconate, and priesthood. As in the Russian Church they must either be married in accordance with the canons, or else as a preliminary to ordination they are asked whether they will promise to observe chastity. The full recognition of the right of the Oriental clergy to retain their wives will be found in the Constitution of Benedict XIV, "Etsi pastoralis", 26 May, 1742. For more on the subject please read the Catholic Encyclopedia, article on "Celibacy of the Clergy".
(Greg Durel) ISSUE # 3. The Bible clearly does not teach a sacrificing, mediating earthly priesthood of men. It does teach of a mediating High priest who offered one sacrifice, for all, forever and is now our sole mediator, advocate and savior. His name is Jesus the Christ.
The proof of the Divine origin of the Catholic priesthood must
be regarded as established, once it is shown that the Eucharistic Sacrifice of
the Mass is coeval with the beginnings and the essence of Christianity.
In proof of this we may appeal even to the
Old Testament. When the Prophet
Isaias foresees the entrance of pagans into the Messianic Kingdom, he makes the
calling of priests from the heathen (i.e. the non-Jews) a special characteristic
of the new Church (Is., lxvi, 21): "And I will take of them to be priests
and Levites, saith the Lord". Now this non-Jewish (Christian) priesthood in
the future Messianic Church presupposes a permanent sacrifice, namely that
"clean oblation", which from the rising of the sun even to the going
down is to be offered to the Lord of hosts among the Gentiles (Mal., i, 11). The
sacrifice of bread and wine offered by Melchisedech (cf. Gen., xiv, 18 sqq.),
the prototype of Christ (cf. Ps. cix, 4; Heb., v, 5 sq.; vii, 1 sqq.), also
refers prophetically, not only to the Last Supper, but also to its everlasting
repetition in commemoration of the Sacrifice of the Cross.
Sacrifice and priesthood are by Divine ordinance so inseparable that they are found together under all laws. Since therefore in the New Testament the Catholic Church has received from the Lord's institution the holy visible sacrifice of the Eucharist it must also be admitted that in the Church there is a new, visible and external priesthood into which the older priesthood has been changed. Surely this logic admits of no reply.
(Greg Durel) In the first article I quoted from The Catholic Encyclopedia to prove that the Roman Catholic priesthood was NOT biblical and "cannot be traced back to Christ Himself by analysis of strIct historical testimony."
It is important to note that Mr Durel does not reference which article out of hundreds in the Catholic encyclopedia he found this quotation, he does this for the specific reason that he has mis-cited it. below I have provided the exact citation from the Encyclopedia and a link to the article for those who wish to verify the exact wording of this citation:
"The Divine institution of the threefold hierarchy cannot of course be derived from our texts; in fact it cannot in any way be proved directly from the New Testament; it is Catholic dogma by virtue of dogmatic tradition, i.e. in a later period of ecclesiastical history THE GENERAL BELIEF IN THE DIVINE INSTITUTION OF THE EPISCOPATE, PRESBYTERATE, AND DIACONATE CAN BE VERIFIED AND THENCE BE FOLLOWED ON THROUGH THE LATER CENTURIES. But this dogmatic truth cannot be traced back to Christ Himself by analysis of strictly historical testimony."(The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume VII Copyright © 1910, Hierarchy of the Early Church )
Mr Durel, chopped out the sentence where the Catholic Encyclopedia states the general belief in the Divine institution of the presbyterate (priesthood) can be verified. This type of dishonesty is apparent throughout this article. In order to twist the truth in a vain attempt to discredit the Catholic Church Mr Durel has degraded to the level of lying.
(Greg Durel)If that were not enough, let us quote some other official catholic sources:
1) The words "priest", "priesthood" are never applied in the New Testament to the office of the Christian ministry. All Christians are said to be priests (Catholic Dictionary, Addis & Arnold Pg. 692).
Greg seems to be getting hung up on title "Priest", and the position it self. Very true the terms "priest" and "priesthood" were never applied to Christian ministers in the New Testament, just as the term "Bible" was never applied to the Scriptures in either the New or Old Testaments. But in both cases the concepts themselves are clearly implied.
It may be said that Catholics also believe in a universal priesthood; this, however, by no means excludes a special priesthood but rather presupposes its existence, since the two are related as the general and the particular, the abstract and the concrete, the figurative and the real. The ordinary Christian cannot be a priest in the strict sense, for he can offer, not a real sacrifice, but only the figurative sacrifice of prayer.
(Greg Durel) 2) "The priesthood evolved" (Catholic Ency. Vol. XII).
Greg seems to have MADE THIS QUOTE UP, for it surely did not come from the Catholic Encyclopedia. If any one doubts this, I invite the reader to follow this link [Priesthood] and word search the article for themselves.
(Greg Durel) 3) "Priests were not so called in the very earliest Christian times; rather they were the presbyters or elders" (Mass of the Future, Ellard, pg. 66).
This citation does not disprove the Catholic Position, for the English word priest is derived from the Greek word "presbyteros", the Latin for which is "presbyters".
(Greg Durel) 4) "The Apostolic Fathers abstained from any mention of a Christian priesthood" (Catholic Dictionary, Addis & Arnold pg. 693).
Here the Dictionary is wrong, for I have already provided several Apostolic Fathers who mentioned a Christian priesthood
(Greg Durel) ISSUE # 4. The argument that the word "presbyters" should be translated "priest" because the German matches is laughable. Firstly, the Bible, i.e., the New Testament, was written in Koine Greek not German. Secondly, there was no "German" language at the time the New Testament was written.
The quote that Greg is trying to twist is:
"The word priest (Germ. Priester; Fr. prêêtre; Ital. prete) is derived from the Greek presbyteros (the elder, as distinguished from neoteros, the younger)"
A simple reading of this quote will show that no one is using the German to prove the origin of the word Priest. The German equivalent [along with the French and Italian] was give simply for reference purposes.
The point being made is that The English word priest is derived from the Greek word "presbyteros", Greg has neither addressed nor refuted this point.
(Greg Durel) Thirdly, the Greek language has its own word for priest (Heirus) and that word is never used when referring to a New Testament Believer.
No, one is refering to the Greek word "Heirus", we are discussing the word "presbyteros" [i.e. elder], which was most certainly "used when referring to a New Testament Believer". In the first century Roman empire Greek word "Heirus" was used in referance to Pagan priests. Understanding this we can see why the Apostles would have been reluctant to use this term in reference to ordained misters of Christ.
(Greg Durel) Even Peter twenty-five years after the cross of Christ testifies that he is merely a co-elder and nothing more.
Not so, St Paul does not say he is "merely" any thing. I we study the text of the verse (1 Peter 5:1) we see that the Greek term used here is "sumpresbuteros" which means co_presbyter [from which the English word Priest is derived], In essence St Peter was saying that he was also a member of the Christian Priesthood, as all Priests, Bishops and Popes are.
St. Peters position a the Leader of the Christian Church is clearly shown in the Sacred Scriptures. The biblical Petrine data is quite strong, and is inescapably compelling by virtue of its cumulative weight, even when looking at the King James Bible, the most well known Protestant Bible.
St. Peter's name occurs first in all lists of apostles (see Mt 10:2; Mk 3:16; Lk 6:14; Acts 1:13). Matthew even calls him "the first" (10:2). (Judas Iscariot is invariably mentioned last.)
St. Peter is almost without exception named first whenever he appears with anyone else.
St. Peter is often spoken of as distinct among apostles (Mk 1:36; Lk 9:28,32; Acts 2:37; 5:29; 1 Cor 9:5).
St. Peter is often spokesman for the other apostles, especially at climactic moments (Mk 8:29; Mt 18:21; Lk 9:5; 12:41; Jn 6:67
St. Peter's name is always the first listed of the "inner circle" of the disciples (Peter, James and John _ Mt 17:1; 26:37,40; Mk 5:37; 14:37).
St. Peter's name is mentioned more often than all the other disciples put together: 191 times (162 as Peter or Simon Peter, 23 as Simon and 6 as Cephas). John is next in frequency with only 48 appearances, and Peter is present 50 percent of the time we find John in the Bible. It has been reckoned that all the other disciples combined were mentioned 130 times. If this is correct, Peter is named a remarkable 60 percent of the time any disciple is referred to.
When we read the scriptures we find that there are many examples of St Peter exercising his position as as the "chief bishop". We Find that St. Peter was the first traveling missionary, and first exercised what would now be called "visitation of the churches" (Acts 9:32_38,43). Paul preached at Damascus immediately after his conversion (Acts 9:20), but had not traveled there for that purpose (God changed his plans). His missionary journeys begin in Acts 13:2. Paul went to Jerusalem specifically to see Peter for 15 days at the beginning of his ministry (Gal 1:18), and was commissioned by Peter, James and John (Gal 2:9) to preach to the Gentiles.
We also know that St. Peter himself presides over and opens the first council of Christian Church, he lays down principles afterward accepted by it (Acts 15:7_11). It is St. Peter's words that settles the dispute (v.7) that was raging among the apostles and elders, when St. Peter was done speaking all the multitude was silent (v.12). St. Peter also shows his authority by correcting those who would misuse Paul's writings (2 Pt 3:15_16)
(Greg Durel) Nowhere in the New Testament does Peter or Paul or any Apostle hear someone’s confession.
While it is true that the Scriptures do not give us a explicate example of Peter or Paul hearing someone’s confession. It is also true that the New Testament distinctly show Christ giving them the power, authority and mission to go forth and do so, therefor clearly implying that did so.
"Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I ALSO SEND YOU. When he had said this, HE BREATHED ON THEM; AND HE SAID TO THEM: RECEIVE YE THE HOLY GHOST. WHOSE SINS YOU SHALL FORGIVE, THEY ARE FORGIVEN THEM; AND WHOSE SINS YOU SHALL RETAIN, THEY ARE RETAINED." (John xx. 21_23)
(Greg Durel) Nowhere in the New Testament for that matter, does anyone even mention a "sacrament" or even have a clue as to what one is.
Here again Greg show he is ignorant of the subject at hand, If Greg had bothered to study the New Testament he would have found that all seven Sacraments are indeed clearly located in the scriptures.