Catholic Explained

How misused: The scripture 'Call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven' is dismissed as hyperbole and not meant to be taken literally in the context of spiritual titles. The speaker argues this command is contradicted by New Testament figures (Paul, John) using 'father' in spiritual contexts.

Scripture's answer: Jesus' command in Matthew 23:9 is a condemnation of the *aspiration to spiritual authority and honor* that rivals God's unique position as the ultimate spiritual Father. It's not a prohibition against biological fatherhood or respectful titles. The issue is the *arrogation of divine honor* and the creation of a human hierarchy that overshadows God's singular headship and fatherhood. Paul and John's usage of 'father' (e.g., 1 Corinthians 4:15, 1 John 2:13) is descriptive of spiritual *mentorship or origination of faith* in a specific community, not an adopted formal, hierarchical title demanding obeisance akin to God's unique role. The deliberate *institutionalization* of 'Father' as a formal, honorific title within a religious hierarchy runs counter to the spirit of Jesus' warning against seeking human accolades and elevating human leaders to positions of preeminence that detract from God.

How misused: The speaker cites Paul's statement 'For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel' as evidence that Jesus' command in Matthew 23:9 was not literal and that spiritual fatherhood is biblical.

Scripture's answer: Paul uses 'father' here metaphorically to describe his unique role in *birthing* the Corinthian church spiritually through the gospel. It defines a specific historical relationship of evangelism and discipleship, not a *permanent, institutionalized hierarchical title* to be adopted universally. Paul doesn't claim nor advocate for others to be formally called 'father' in a hierarchical sense. This is distinct from bestowing a fixed ecclesiastical title that implicitly elevates human authority to a level resembling the divine paternal role that Matthew 23:9 warns against.

How misused: Though not explicitly cited, the argument for 'unbroken apostolic tradition' as co-equal or superior to scripture in matters like calling priests 'father' implicitly appeals to passages like this (or 1 Corinthians 11:2; 2 Timothy 2:2) to validate extra-biblical traditions.

Scripture's answer: The traditions (παραδόσεις) mentioned by Paul often refer to the *apostolic teaching itself*, the direct revelation received and delivered, which later became codified in scripture. It is not an open-ended endorsement of *future human traditions* that may contradict or exceed what is written. 'Tradition' in the early church was primarily the oral instruction and practice *derived from Christ and the apostles*, which was foundational, not an evolving body of doctrines and practices that could be self-validating without scriptural grounding. The *specific content* of these traditions was crucial, and they were always understood to be in harmony with, and ultimately derived from, divine revelation.

How misused: Implied in the assertion of the Church's infallible authority (related to canon and later doctrines) is often the interpretation of this passage ('If you forgive the sins of anyone, they are forgiven; if you withhold forgiveness from anyone, it is withheld') as granting extraordinary, infallible interpretive and spiritual authority to the apostles and their successors.

Scripture's answer: This passage speaks to the authority given to the apostles (and by extension the church) to *proclaim God's forgiveness* through the gospel and discipline within the community, acting as agents of God's revealed will. It refers to the power of the keys of the kingdom, which implies the authoritative declaration of who is bound or loosed *according to God's standard*. It does not inherently grant an infallible authority to *create new doctrines* or interpretations that are not consistent with the broader revealed word of God. The authority is ministerial and declaratory, not legislative or independent.

How misused: The speaker's argument for the Church's authority to define the canon and interpret scripture often implies a rejection of 'private interpretation' as leading to fragmentation, akin to a misreading of this passage.

Scripture's answer: This passage states that 'no prophecy of Scripture comes from one's own interpretation' but that 'men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.' This refers to the *origin and inspiration of scripture*, emphasizing that scripture didn't arise from human subjective will but from divine initiative. It does not forbid or condemn individual study and understanding of scripture under the guidance of the Holy Spirit (e.g., Acts 17:11). Rather, it guards against interpreting scripture *apart from its divinely intended meaning and purpose*, not against a personal engagement with the text. The Catholic argument often twists this to mean that *no individual* can rightly interpret scripture without the Church's mediation, which goes beyond the text's original intent.

How misused: The argument that individuals cannot understand scripture 'alone' and thus need church authority often points to this example of Philip explaining scripture to the Ethiopian eunuch.

Scripture's answer: While the Ethiopian eunuch needed guidance, Philip was an evangelist sent by God, not an institutionally infallible interpreter. This passage demonstrates the importance of *teaching and mentorship* in understanding scripture, especially for new believers or complex passages. It does not establish the necessity of an infallible Magisterium or imply that believers cannot, through prayer and study, understand core biblical truths. The eunuch *was* reading the scripture himself; he simply required specific contextual insight, which a Spirit-led teacher provided. This is different from requiring an overarching, infallible interpretative authority for all believers for all times.

How misused: The entire argument for the Church's infallible authority and its role in defining the canon is implicitly built upon a specific interpretation of 'upon this rock I will build my church' and the 'keys of the kingdom' as granting supreme, infallible authority to Peter and his successors.

Scripture's answer: The 'rock' refers either to Peter's confession of Christ's deity (that Christ is 'the Son of the living God') or to Peter himself as the first to confess this truth, becoming a foundational stone in the sense of initiating the church's mission. The 'keys of the kingdom' signify authority to *declare God's word and open the way to the kingdom* through the preaching of the gospel and disciplinary action, consistent with God's revealed will. While Peter was preeminent among the apostles, initiating the church's expansion and mission (Acts 2, 10), this does not grant him or his successors universal, infallible authority over all doctrinal matters independent of scripture. The authority given was ministerial and prophetic, not absolute or independent of divine revelation.