Salvation is a free gift of God - Have confidence you are saved!

I would like to know from any former Catholics if there was a yearly study plan for reading the Bible and if the Pauline Epistles were studied. TIA

I can’t speak for other Catholics. Only for myself. I was never given ANY suggestions for reading the Bible. They stressed that I needed a priest to interpret it for me. Since I didn’t have a priest at my beck and call, I didn’t read it. Later, when I was already in the Air Force, I got evangelized, and gave up on the Catholic Church. I am comfortable with that. 👍😁

My Bible Ignatius Catholic Study Bible states ‘acquitted’ and in the footnote or ‘justified’. The same meaning.

BUT YOUR QUOTE IN 385 STATES THE OPPOSITE.

“And Paul’s already been judged by the Lord and found to be just ...” Only after his death.

You were caught and then tried to blame it on the Catholic Church.

So you now acknowledge that we are justified upon our death by Jesus and not before.

“ Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.”

(Rom. 4:24-25)

Literally in Greek, “having been justified…”

Done.

For the saved believer, justification happened when he entrusted himself to Christ alone.

Romans 4:9-11

“ Romans 5:9–11 (WUESTNT): Much more therefore, having been justified now by His blood, we shall be saved through Him from the wrath.”

The basis of the saved believer’s justification is the shed blood of Christ.

And has happened for he who entrusts himself to Christ alone.

Galatians 2:16

“nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus,

“even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified.”

Already done for the saved believer.

So you now acknowledge that we are justified upon our death by Jesus and not before.

I will certainly NOT acknowledge that. We saved people, are justified, right here on earth, before we die. If one waits till they die, to see if they are going to Heaven, it’s almost an iron clad Guarantee, that person will probably spend a bit of time in the lake that burns. 🔥 Why wound anyone, with two functioning brain cells, choose the lake that burns? Can you enlighten me?

wound=would

You were caught and then tried to blame it on the Catholic Church.
So you now acknowledge that we are justified upon our death by Jesus and not before.

I don't know what you are talking about there but I DO know what the bible is talking about...

Rom 3:24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:

Rom 3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
Rom 3:26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

Rom 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

Joh 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life (right now), and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

Call no man father
--------------

, the imperative "call no man father" does not apply to one’s biological father. It also doesn’t exclude calling one’s ancestors "father," as is shown in Acts 7:2, where Stephen refers to "our father Abraham," or in Romans 9:10, where Paul speaks of "our father Isaac."

There are numerous examples in the New Testament of the term "father" being used as a form of address and reference, even for men who are not biologically related to the speaker.

A careful examination of the context of Matthew 23 shows that Jesus didn’t intend for his words here to be understood literally. The whole passage reads, "But you are not to be called ‘rabbi,’ for you have one teacher, and you are all brethren. And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. Neither be called ‘masters,’ for you have one master, the Christ" (Matt. 23:8–10).

although your literalist interpretation shows Jesus seemingly prohibiting the use of the term "teacher," in Matthew 28:19–20, Christ himself appointed certain men to be teachers in his Church: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations . . . teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you." Paul speaks of his commission as a teacher: "For this I was appointed a preacher and apostle . . . a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth" (1 Tim. 2:7); "For this gospel I was appointed a preacher and apostle and teacher" (2 Tim. 1:11). He also reminds us that the Church has an office of teacher: "God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers" (1 Cor. 12:28); and "his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers" (Eph. 4:11). There is no doubt that Paul was not violating Christ’s teaching in Matthew 23 by referring so often to others as "teachers."

So Elsie - does that mean you call no man Teacher or Doctor (That's teacher in Latin) or Rabbi?

So What Did Jesus say really about Call No Man Father when he used that term along with teachers etc. elsewhere?

Jesus criticized Jewish leaders who love "the place of honor at feasts and the best seats in the synagogues, and salutations in the market places, and being called ‘rabbi’ by men" (Matt. 23:6–7). His admonition here is a response to the Pharisees’ proud hearts and their grasping after marks of status and prestige.

He was using hyperbole (exaggeration to make a point) to show the scribes and Pharisees how sinful and proud they were for not looking humbly to God as the source of all authority and fatherhood and teaching, and instead setting themselves up as the ultimate authorities, father figures, and teachers.

Christ used hyperbole often, for example when he declared, "If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell" (Matt. 5:29, cf. 18:9; Mark 9:47). Christ certainly did not intend this to be applied literally, for otherwise all Christians would be blind amputees! (cf. 1 John 1:8; 1 Tim. 1:15). We are all subject to "the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the pride of life" (1 John 2:16).

Since Jesus is demonstrably using hyperbole when he says not to call anyone our father—else we would not be able to refer to our earthly fathers as such—we must read his words carefully and with sensitivity to the presence of hyperbole if we wish to understand what he is saying.

Jesus is not forbidding us to call men "fathers" who actually are such—either literally or spiritually. (See below on the apostolic example of spiritual fatherhood.) To refer to such people as fathers is only to acknowledge the truth, and Jesus is not against that.

Throughout the world, some people have been tempted to look upon religious leaders who are mere mortals as if they were an individual’s supreme source of spiritual instruction, nourishment, and protection. The tendency to turn mere men into "gurus" is worldwide.

This was also a temptation in the Jewish world of Jesus’ day, when famous rabbinical leaders, especially those who founded important schools, such as Hillel and Shammai, were highly exalted by their disciples. It is this elevation of an individual man—the formation of a "cult of personality" around him—of which Jesus is speaking when he warns against attributing to someone an undue role as master, father, or teacher.

The New Testament is filled with examples of and references to spiritual father-son and father-child relationships. Many people are not aware just how common these are, so it is worth quoting some of them here.

Paul regularly referred to Timothy as his child: "Therefore I sent to you Timothy, my beloved and faithful child in the Lord, to remind you of my ways in Christ" (1 Cor. 4:17); "To Timothy, my true child in the faith: grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord" (1 Tim. 1:2); "To Timothy, my beloved child: Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord" (2 Tim. 1:2).

He also referred to Timothy as his son: "This charge I commit to you, Timothy, my son, in accordance with the prophetic utterances which pointed to you, that inspired by them you may wage the good warfare" (1 Tim 1:18); "You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus" (2 Tim. 2:1); "But Timothy’s worth you know, how as a son with a father he has served with me in the gospel" (Phil. 2:22).

Paul also referred to other of his converts in this way: "To Titus, my true child in a common faith: grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior" (Titus 1:4); "I appeal to you for my child, Onesimus, whose father I have become in my imprisonment" (Philem. 10). None of these men were Paul’s literal, biological sons. Rather, Paul is emphasizing his spiritual fatherhood with them.

Perhaps the most pointed New Testament reference to the theology of the spiritual fatherhood of priests is Paul’s statement, "I do not write this to make you ashamed, but to admonish you as my beloved children. 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" (1 Cor. 4:14–15).

Peter followed the same custom, referring to Mark as his son: "She who is at Babylon, who is likewise chosen, sends you greetings; and so does my son Mark" (1 Pet. 5:13). The apostles sometimes referred to entire churches under their care as their children. Paul writes, "Here for the third time I am ready to come to you. And I will not be a burden, for I seek not what is yours but you; for children ought not to lay up for their parents, but parents for their children" (2 Cor. 12:14); and, "My little children, with whom I am again in travail until Christ be formed in you!" (Gal. 4:19).

John said, "My little children, I am writing this to you so that you may not sin; but if any one does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous" (1 John 2:1); "No greater joy can I have than this, to hear that my children follow the truth" (3 John 4). In fact, John also addresses men in his congregations as "fathers" (1 John 2:13–14).

Perhaps you ought to read it a bit - the Spanish Inquisition (beware :-P) - was founded, as you said, in 1478 -- well BEFORE the Luthers and Calvins and Elizabeths. Didn't you read that?

Also the Inq was directed against crypto-Muslims and crypto-Jews, both of whom were supporting the Muslims who had just recently (1450) been thrown out of Spain and were an ever-lurking threat.

The Elizabethan slaughter of Catholics, the Kulturkampf (yes, centuries later) etc. - were as horrific and disgusting as the Catholic actions against Huguenots in France and others. All sides did horrific things

Elsie were at the tomb in the dark on that Sunday morning: to slice up His body for sandwiches!

you really want to mock Jesus God's teachings?

From here

All three accounts of the institution of the Lord's Supper in the Gospels (Matthew 26:26-29; Mark 14:22-25; Luke 22:14-23) explicitly state that Jesus took BREAD, blessed it, broke it, and gave it to his disciples saying, "Take, eat; this [i.e., this BREAD, which I have just blessed and broken and am now giving to you] is my body." Jesus uses similar language in referring to "the cup" (of wine) as "his blood."...

Perhaps the most explicit expression of this truth, however, is found in 1 Cor. 10:16-17, where Paul writes: "The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread." Paul clearly says here that we all "partake" of "BREAD" when we receive the Lord's Supper--even as we also partake of and "participate in" the true body of Christ. And he says that we all "partake" of the wine (the cup), even as we also partake of the true blood of Christ. Similarly, in 1 Cor. 11:26, Paul says: "For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes." Paul expressly states here that when we receive the Lord's Supper we are "eating bread" and "drinking the cup" (wine), but he goes on to say that those who eat this bread and drink this cup are also partaking of the true body and blood of Christ.

So "real" is this participation in Christ's body and blood, in fact, that (according to Paul) those who partake of the bread and wine "in an unworthy manner" are actually guilty of "profaning the body and blood of the Lord" (1 Cor. 11:27). (Partaking of the Lord's Supper "in a worthy manner," of course, is not something that we "do" or "accomplish" on the basis of our "personal holiness" or "good works." It means receiving God's free and gracious gifts of life and forgiveness offered in the Lord's Supper in true repentance produced by the work of the Spirit through God's Law and in true faith in Christ and his promises produced by God's Spirit through the Gospel).

And, as a 16th century man said

Who, but the devil, has granted such license of wresting the words of the holy Scripture? Who ever read in the Scriptures, that my body is the same as the sign of my body? or, that is is the same as it signifies? What language in the world ever spoke so? It is only then the devil, that imposes upon us by these fanatical men. Not one of the Fathers of the Church, though so numerous, ever spoke as the Sacramentarians: not one of them ever said, It is only bread and wine; or, the body and blood of Christ is not there present.

Surely, it is not credible, nor possible, since they often speak, and repeat their sentiments, that they should never (if they thought so) not so much as once, say, or let slip these words: It is bread only; or the body of Christ is not there, especially it being of great importance, that men should not be deceived. Certainly, in so many Fathers, and in so many writings, the negative might at least be found in one of them, had they thought the body and blood of Christ were not really present: but they are all of them unanimous.

while from here

By the miracles of the loaves and fishes and the walking upon the waters, on the previous day, Christ not only prepared His hearers for the sublime discourse containing the promise of the Eucharist, but also proved to them that He possessed, as Almighty God-man, a power superior to and independent of the laws of nature, and could, therefore, provide such a supernatural food, none other, in fact, than His own Flesh and Blood. This discourse was delivered at Capharnaum (John 6:26-72), and is divided into two distinct parts, about the relation of which Catholic exegetes vary in opinion. Nothing hinders our interpreting the first part [John 6:26-48 (51)] metaphorically and understanding by "bread of heaven" Christ Himself as the object of faith, to be received in a figurative sense as a spiritual food by the mouth of faith. Such a figurative explanation of the second part of the discourse (John 6:52-72), however, is not only unusual but absolutely impossible, as even Protestant exegetes (Delitzsch, Kostlin, Keil, Kahnis, and others) readily concede. First of all the whole structure of the discourse of promise demands a literal interpretation of the words: "eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood". For Christ mentions a threefold food in His address, the manna of the past (John 6:31, 32, 49,, 59), the heavenly bread of the present (John 6:32 sq.), and the Bread of Life of the future (John 6:27, 52). Corresponding to the three kinds of food and the three periods, there are as many dispensers Moses dispensing the manna, the Father nourishing man's faith in the Son of God made flesh, finally Christ giving His own Flesh and Blood. Although the manna, a type of the Eucharist, was indeed eaten with the mouth, it could not, being a transitory food, ward off death. The second food, that offered by the Heavenly Father, is the bread of heaven, which He dispenses hic et nunc to the Jews for their spiritual nourishment, inasmuch as by reason of the Incarnation He holds up His Son to them as the object of their faith. If, however, the third kind of food, which Christ Himself promises to give only at a future time, is a new refection, differing from the last-named food of faith, it can be none other than His true Flesh and Blood, to be really eaten and drunk in Holy Communion. This is why Christ was so ready to use the realistic expression "to chew" (John 6:54, 56, 58: trogein) when speaking of this, His Bread of Life, in addition to the phrase, "to eat" (John 6:51, 53: phagein). Cardinal Bellarmine (De Euchar., I, 3), moreover, calls attention to the fact, and rightly so, that if in Christ's mind the manna was a figure of the Eucharist, the latter must have been something more than merely blessed bread, as otherwise the prototype would not substantially excel the type. The same holds true of the other figures of the Eucharist, as the bread and wine offered by Melchisedech, the loaves of proposition (panes propositionis), the paschal lamb. The impossibility of a figurative interpretation is brought home more forcibly by an analysis of the following text: "Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed" (John 6:54-56). It is true that even among the Semites, and in Scripture itself, the phrase, "to eat some one's flesh", has a figurative meaning, namely, "to persecute, to bitterly hate some one". If, then, the words of Jesus are to be taken figuratively, it would appear that Christ had promised to His enemies eternal life and a glorious resurrection in recompense for the injuries and persecutions directed against Him. The other phrase, "to drink some one's blood", in Scripture, especially, has no other figurative meaning than that of dire chastisement (cf. Isaiah 49:26; Apocalypse 16:6); but, in the present text, this interpretation is just as impossible here as in the phrase, "to eat some one's flesh". Consequently, eating and drinking are to be understood of the actual partaking of Christ in person, hence literally.

This interpretation agrees perfectly with the conduct of the hearers and the attitude of Christ regarding their doubts and objections. Again, the murmuring of the Jews is the clearest evidence that they had understood the preceding words of Jesus literally (John 6:53). Yet far from repudiating this construction as a gross misunderstanding, Christ repeated them in a most solemn manner, in John (6:54 sqq.). In consequence, many of His Disciples were scandalized and said: "This saying is hard, and who can hear it?" (John 6:61); but instead of retracting what He had said, Christ rather reproached them for their want of faith, by alluding to His sublimer origin and His future Ascension into heaven. And without further ado He allowed these Disciples to go their way (John 6:62 sqq.). Finally He turned to His twelve Apostles with the question: "Will you also go away?

Then Peter stepped forth and with humble faith replied: "Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. And we have believed and have known, that thou art the Christ, the Son of God" (John 6:68 sqq.). The entire scene of the discourse and murmurings against it proves that the Zwinglian and Anglican interpretation of the passage, "It is the spirit that quickeneth", etc., in the sense of a glossing over or retractation, is wholly inadmissible. For in spite of these words the Disciples severed their connection with Jesus, while the Twelve accepted with simple faith a mystery which as yet they did not understand. Nor did Christ say: "My flesh is spirit", i.e. to be understood in a figurative sense, but: "My words are spirit and life".

===== +++ =======

Let’s read John 6 - just the words of Jesus recorded

he said to Philip, “Where can we buy enough food for them to eat?”
Philip answered him, “Two hundred days’ wages[e] worth of food would not be enough for each of them to have a little [bit].”
Jesus said, “Have the people recline.”
He gave thanks, and distributed them to those who were reclining, and also as much of the fish as they wanted.

they saw Jesus walking on the sea[k] and coming near the boat, and they began to be afraid. 20 But he said to them, “It is I.[l] Do not be afraid.”

“Amen, amen, I say to you, you are looking for me not because you saw signs but because you ate the loaves and were filled. 27 Do not work for food that perishes but for the food that endures for eternal life,[o] which the Son of Man will give you. For on him the Father, God, has set his seal.”

“This is the work of God, that you believe in the one he sent.”

, “Amen, amen, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave the bread from heaven; my Father gives you the true bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”

“I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst. 36 But I told you that although you have seen [me], you do not believe. 37 Everything that the Father gives me will come to me, and I will not reject anyone who comes to me, 38 because I came down from heaven not to do my own will but the will of the one who sent me. 39 And this is the will of the one who sent me, that I should not lose anything of what he gave me, but that I should raise it [on] the last day. 40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in him may have eternal life, and I shall raise him [on] the last day.”

“Stop murmuring[r] among yourselves. 44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draw him, and I will raise him on the last day. 45 It is written in the prophets:

‘They shall all be taught by God.’

Everyone who listens to my Father and learns from him comes to me. 46 Not that anyone has seen the Father except the one who is from God; he has seen the Father. 47 Amen, amen, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died; 50 this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.”

“Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. 54 Whoever eats[s] my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. 55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.”

“Does this shock you? 62 What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?[u] 63 It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh[v] is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe.”
“For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father.”

“Did I not choose you twelve? Yet is not one of you a devil?” 71 He was referring to Judas, son of Simon the Iscariot; it was he who would betray him, one of the Twelve.

Jesus’ deeds and words are clear

1. God will feed the multitudes
2. I am God - I can walk on water
3. Do not work for food that perishes but for the food that endures for eternal life,[o] which the Son of Man will give you
4. This is the work of God, that you believe in the one he sent
5. my Father gives you the true bread from heaven.
6. I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger,
7. I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life.
8. unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. 54 Whoever eats[s] my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. 55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.

===== +++ =======

He is crystal clear - and He emphasizes that this is not an allegory, but repeats thrice that this is what you are to do - eat of His Body and drink of His blood

Mat 23:9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

I love the way God does things...He makes you work for those pieces of meat...Paul could just as well written verse 9 as he did 10...And what does 10 say???

Mat 23:10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.

He could just as well have said, 'Neither by ye called fathers, for one is your Father, even God'

And then he drives it home with the next verse...

...Mat 23:11 But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.

You may have a Spiritual father, or a bishop but you don't address them as bishop, or father, or cardinal...

Job 32:21 Let me not, I pray you, accept any man's person, neither let me give flattering titles unto man.
Job 32:22 For I know not to give flattering titles; in so doing my maker would soon take me away.

Jesus criticized Jewish leaders who love "the place of honor at feasts and the best seats in the synagogues, and salutations in the market places, and being called ‘rabbi’ by men" (Matt. 23:6–7). His admonition here is a response to the Pharisees’ proud hearts and their grasping after marks of status and prestige.

Throughout the world, some people have been tempted to look upon religious leaders who are mere mortals as if they were an individual’s supreme source of spiritual instruction, nourishment, and protection. The tendency to turn mere men into "gurus" is worldwide.

This perfectly describes your religion...

Au contraire turning yourself into a guru and founding your own school of thought. is the perfect description of the Church of Iscool - membership 1

Your own gurushala teaches that you reject the Trinity as "Catholic innovation" and all the other tinfoil non-Christian beliefs that you write about. The fact that your Church of one gets no traction is proof of the godlessness of it's philosophies.

And even more, just for you
Matt. 23:9 - Jesus says, "call no man father." But Protestants use this verse in an attempt to prove that it is wrong for Catholics to call priests "father." This is an example of "eisegesis" (imposing one's views upon a passage) as opposed to "exegesis" (drawing out the meaning of the passage from its context). In this verse, Jesus was discouraging His followers from elevating the scribes and Pharisees to the titles of fathers and rabbis because they were hypocrites. Jesus warns us not to elevate anyone to the level of our heavenly Father.

Matt. 23:8 in this teaching, Jesus also says not to call anyone teacher or rabbi as well. But dont Protestants call their teachers teacher? What about this commandment of Jesus? When Protestants say call no man father, they must also argue that we cannot call any man teacher either.

Judges 17:10; 18:19 - priesthood and fatherhood have always been identified together. Fatherhood literally means "communicating one's nature," and just as biological fathers communicate their nature to their children, so do spiritual fathers communicate the nature of God to us, their children, through (hopefully) teaching and example.

Eph. 3:14-15 - every family in heaven and on earth is named from the "Father." We are fathers in the Father.

Acts 7:2; 22:1,1 John 2:13 - elders of the Church are called "fathers." Therefore, we should ask the question, "Why don't Protestants call their pastors "father?"

1 Cor. 4:15 - Paul writes, "I became your father in Christ Jesus."

1 Cor. 4:17 - Paul calls Bishop Timothy a beloved and faithful "child" in the Lord.

2 Cor. 12:14 - Paul describes his role as parent over his "children" the Corinthians.

Phil. 2:22 - Paul calls Timothy's service to him as a son serves a "father."

1 Thess. 2:11- Paul compares the Church elders' ministry to the people like a father with his children.

1 Tim. 1:2,18; 2 Tim. 1:2-3 - Paul calls Timothy his true "child" in the faith and his son.

Titus 1:4 - Paul calls Titus his true "child" in a common faith. Priests are our spiritual fathers in the family of God.

Philemon 10 - Paul says he has become the "father" of Onesimus.

Heb. 12:7,9 - emphasizes our earthly "fathers." But these are not just biological but also spiritual (the priests of the Church).

1 Peter 5:13 - Peter refers to himself as father by calling Mark his "son."

1 John 2:1,13,14 - John calls the elders of the Church "fathers."

1 John 2:1,18,28; 3:18; 5:21; 3 John 4 - John calls members of the Church "children."

1 Macc. 2:65 - Mattathias the priest tells his sons that Simeon will be their "father."

Top

II. The Lord, Mary, the Apostles and Others Refer to Spiritual Leaders as "Fathers"

Matt. 3:9; Luke 3:8 - Jesus refers to Abraham as our "father."

Mark 11:10 - the people cried out blessed is the kingdom of our "father" David that is coming!

Luke 1:32 - God's angel says Jesus will be great and be given the throne of his "father" David.

Luke 1:55 - Mary says that He spoke to our "fathers," to Abraham and to his posterity for ever.

Luke 1:73 - Zechariah says the oath which he swore to our "father" Abraham.

Luke 16:24,30 - Jesus, in His parable about the rich man, says our "father" Abraham.

John 4:12 - the Samaritan woman asks Jesus if He is greater than our "father" Jacob.

John 7:22 - Jesus refers to the "fathers" who gave the Jews the practice of circumcision.

John 8:56 - Jesus tells the Jews your "Father" Abraham rejoiced that he was to see my day.

Acts 3:13,25; 5:30 - Peter teaches that the God of our "fathers" glorified His servant Jesus and raised Him to life.

Acts 4:25 - Peter and John pray to God and refer to our "father" David.

Acts 7:11-12, 15,19,38,44-45,51-52 - Stephen refers to our "fathers" in the faith.

Acts 7:32 - Stephen calls God the God of our "fathers."

Acts 13:17,32,36; 24:14; 26:6; 28:17,25 - Paul also refers to the God of our "fathers" in the faith.

Acts 22:3 - Paul says he was educated according to the strict law of our "fathers."

Acts 22:14 - Ananias says the God of our "fathers."

Rom. 4:1 - Paul calls Abraham our "forefather."

Rom. 4:16-17 - Paul says that Abraham is the "father" of us all and the "father" of many nations.

Rom. 9:10 - Paul calls Isaac, a spiritual leader, our "forefather."

1 Cor. 10:1 - Paul says that our "fathers" were all under the cloud, referring to the Old Testament spiritual leaders.

Gal. 1:14 - Paul says that he was zealous for the tradition of his "fathers."

2 Tim. 1:3 - Paul thanks God whom he serves with a clear conscience as did his "fathers" in faith.

Heb. 1:1 - the author says God spoke of old to our "fathers."

Heb. 3:9 - the Holy Spirit says that your "fathers" put me to the test.

Heb. 8:9 - God says not like the covenant that I made with their "fathers."

James 2:21 - James says was not our "father" Abraham justified by works when he offered his son Isaac?

1 Peter 1:18 - Peter says you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your "fathers."

2 Peter 3:4 - Peter says ever since the "fathers" fell asleep, all things have continued as they were from the beginning.

Top

III. Other Examples Where Jesus Uses the Word "Father" When Teaching

Matt. 15:4-5; 19:19 - Jesus uses "father" when He teaches God's commandment to "Honor your father and your mother."

Mark 7:10-12; Luke 18:20 - these are more examples of Jesus using "father" when teaching about honoring our fathers and mothers.

Eph. 6:2,4 - Paul also teaches to honor your "father" and mother, and says "fathers," do not provoke your children.

Matt. 10:21; 35,37; Mark 13:12 - Jesus says "father" will deliver up his child in the last days.

Matt. 19:5; Mark 10:7,19 - Jesus says a man shall leave his "father" and mother and be joined to his wife. See also Eph. 5:31.

Matt. 19:29; Mark 10:29-30 - Jesus says whoever has left mother or "father" for His sake shall receive a hundredfold.

Matt. 21:31 - Jesus uses "father" when he teaches about the parable of the two sons and asks, "who did the will of his "father?"

Luke 6:23,26 - Jesus speaks about reward and punishment with reference to what their "fathers" did to the prophets.

Luke 11:11 - Jesus says what "father" among you will give his child a serpent when he asks for a fish.

Luke 11:47-48 - Jesus tells the lawyers they are witnesses to the deeds of their "fathers."

Luke 14:26 - Jesus says we must leave our "fathers" and mothers and come to him, or we cannot be His disciple.

Luke 15:12,17-18,20-22,27-29 - Jesus repeatedly uses "father" when teaching about the prodigal son.

Luke 16:27 - Jesus uses "father" when teaching about the rich man in purgatory.

John 6:49,58 - Jesus says your "fathers" ate the manna in the wilderness and died.

Oopsie.

Having been = done deal.

Roman 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.

Excuses, excuses.

Jesus is clear, whether you make the absolutely ludicrous claim that He meant even children should not call their male parent *Father*, or take the actual, sensible understanding that in context He’s talking about using the title for religious leaders, either way, Catholics disobey the clear, concise command of Jesus, and their church demands it by insisting on the use of the title for their priests, in direct violation of what Jesus Himself said.

IOW, one big massive fail of deliberate disobedience to Jesus.