ARE COUNCILS AUTHORITATIVE?

 

I recently came across an article from Catholic Answers written by an author named Parker Manning.  The title of the article was, “Do Protestants Care About Church Councils?” [With the subtitle, “Church councils aren’t worth much if you accept in them only what you agree with”]

You can find the article here:

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/do-protestants-care-about-church-councils

In the article, Manning correctly points out that Protestants, who believe in Sola Scriptura (“Bible alone”), also believe that other valid authorities exist, such as traditions and councils, but that they are less authoritative.  Protestants believe that Scripture is the ultimate and final authority for the church today, because it is the only infallible source in the post-apostolic church (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

But Manning doesn’t like the way that Protestants view the Church councils.  He says:

“Protestants like [James] White, [Jeff] Durbin, and [Matt] Slick will often try to persuade their audience into believing that they care about the early church councils when they really do not.  Or at the very least, they care about them only when they agree with their interpretation of Scripture.  Once we recognize this, it only makes sense to conclude that these Protestants really do not care about what these councils teach.”

But as Christians, we’re not obligated to embrace every word just because it comes from a council, nor are we obligated to support unbiblical concepts when presented by said council.  Having some truth mixed in with error does not make it ok.  How can a council be acceptable, much less infallible, if it contradicts Scripture?  If a council contains false teaching, those parts should be publicly rejected. 

It looks like Manning is suggesting that if we Protestants are going to accept anything from church councils, we should accept everything in these councils! 

Inconsistent?

He also stated:

“… [I]t makes little sense to argue for something because a council said so when they agree with only that part of the council that agrees with their interpretation of Scripture?  Why not just argue with Scripture?”

And I would say, “Amen to that!”  That’s where the real issue lies. 

Catholics will claim that Protestants are inconsistent when they point to Church councils because Protestants will only pick and choose the things within the councils that they like.  But I think that sometimes the reason certain Protestants even bother to point to something said in a church council at all is not to pretend to agree with everything in it, but I believe that sometimes Protestants are simply saying, “Even your Catholic council XYZ agrees with us on this particular point!” 

But that certainly does not mean that we agree with everything within that council. 

Interpretation Dilemma?

Notice that in Manning’s article, he keeps talking about when councils don’t agree with the Protestant’s interpretation of Scripture.  As if to continually expect him to interpret it wrong.  For example, in the article, Manning says things like, “They care about only what they believe Scripture says…” (emphasis added).  In using the word “believe” here, he seems to be implying that the Protestant interpretation will likely be incorrect.  Since Protestants don’t have an infallible Magisterium to interpret for them (like Catholics allegedly do), they are apparently very unlikely to get it right.

But the truth is Catholics are in the same situation.  They too are obligated to use their fallible understanding and reasoning to interpret what their “infallible” Magisterium is saying.  There’s no way out of it.  If it is a dilemma for Protestants, then it is also a dilemma for Catholics.

See these links on Bible interpretation:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2014/07/private-interpretation.html

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2009/12/dialogue-on-bible-interpretation.html

Arbitrary Dismissal?

Manning also says:

“This arbitrary dismissal of certain things councils teach is known as special pleading – a logical fallacy in which someone applies a principle or rule to others but exempts himself (or his position) without providing a valid reason for the exception.  By being inconsistent and appealing to councils and also rejecting certain parts of them, Protestants are committing this fallacy.”

Notice that he says, “…without providing a valid reason for the exception.”  Protestants will accept particular parts of a council, yet indeed reject other parts, but he does this on the basis of agreement with a greater authority – Scripture!  So, it is not an “arbitrary” dismissal at all, but a biblical one.

Perhaps we Protestants would care for councils more if they would fully align with the Bible.  Then there should be no issue from either side.

Conclusion

To answer the question, yes, councils are authoritative – they carry weight in the church.  Councils are often useful to articulate or codify the core beliefs of the church and these beliefs are fine, as long as they align with the truth of God’s Word (John 17:17), which, by the way, will judge us on the last day (John 12:48).

But if any council contradicts the principles of Scripture in any way, its words are no more than man-made traditions as Jesus said (Mark 7:1-13), “laying aside the commandment of God” (v. 8) by “teaching for doctrines the commandments of men” (v.7).  

You see, “authoritative” does not necessarily mean infallible.  There are real authorities in our churches, just as there are in our everyday lives (parents, teachers, doctors, law enforcement, judges, etc.), and most people have no problem obeying these authorities, even if they are not infallible.  Councils may be authoritative, but we only have one source that is infallible (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

The apostles enjoyed, at least in a limited sense, the gift of infallibility in their day, but today it is the apostolic MESSAGE that has the built-in authority/infallibility:

“For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation…” (Romans 1:16). 

We don’t have apostles today, but to the extent that one is faithful with the apostolic message (Scripture), he is authoritative.  Jesus said:

“The one who listens to you listens to Me, and the one who rejects you rejects Me; but the one who rejects Me rejects the One who sent Me.” (Luke 10:16 - NASB)

If you are faithful in bringing the true gospel message to others, they are indeed not just hearing you, but hearing Jesus.  In the context of Luke 10, Jesus was not just speaking to the apostles, but to the seventy disciples, as well – and by extension, the universal church.  Jesus gave us the “Great Commission,” i.e., the responsibility of the whole church to spread the gospel (Matthew 28:18-20; Mark 16:15-18; Luke 24:46-49; John 20:19-23).  If the gospel message being delivered is perverted/wrong, the presenter of the message is not authoritative.  But whoever hears the person commissioned and faithfully bringing the true gospel is also hearing Jesus – and the faithful messenger is therefore authoritative.  He is authoritative because he is correctly using the highest authority.

 

THE TWO FATAL FLAWS OF CATHOLICS WHEN USING THE “CANON ARGUMENT” AGAINST SOLA SCRIPTURA

 

Well, folks, it looks like we Protestants, who love having Bible discussions, cannot possibly win any kind of debate or have any kind of meaningful discussion with Catholics, simply because we don’t know the canon (official list of books) of Scripture.  Because knowing the canon is a “must” for all believers, right?  If we happen to use the wrong books, we could possibly be in danger and end up believing false doctrine!  Too bad no Protestant can really know the canon, though, since (according to Catholics) we don’t have the certainty on the canon that they enjoy.  Apparently, God just doesn’t allow “sufficient certainty” for anyone on the canon.  

What we need is what all Catholics have on the canon – INFALLIBLE certainty!  You see, they have an infallible Church that has infallibly declared the full canon for them.  According to the following Catholic source:

“Only the Church, the infallible bearer of tradition, can furnish us invincible certainty as to the number of the
Divinely inspired books of both the Old and the New Testament.” (Online New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia, under “Scripture”)

Because of this, Catholics can have absolute certainty, and never need to worry about that issue again.  They simply submit to their infallible Magisterium and all is well.

But according to this paradigm, it seems that we Protestants can’t even use the contents found in any supposed Bible book, since we don’t know if this material is actually part of the true canon, right?  Any doubt about its contents would seem to neutralize any argument we Protestants can put forward.  The Catholic can say, “Hey, you Protestants don’t have the right canon and you don’t even realize it.  It was the Catholic Church who determined the books of the Bible for you!” 

So it looks like Protestants are kept at a major disadvantage here, doesn’t it?  Apparently, the Catholic’s “infallible certainty” is the coup de grace that allows them to prevail in all apologetics with us… 

But of course, all this is absurd.

Fatal Flaw #1

In case you missed it, Protestants DO NOT agree with the Catholic Church’s concept of “infallible certainty” on the canon.  Catholics use this “canon argument” to try and disprove the doctrine of Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone).

This is how the argument unfolds: 1) Protestants believe in Sola Scriptura (i.e., only Scripture is infallible), 2) But the Bible does not contain an infallible list of its canon, 3) So, Catholics believe that the canon MUST be found in some other infallible source (like the Catholic Church), and 4) Therefore, the Catholic Church becomes that source and provides the needed infallible certainty on the canon.

But the first fatal flaw in this argument is this:

·      THERE WAS NEVER ANY NEED FOR “INFALLIBLE CERTAINTY” ON THE CANON

The truth is that the Catholic must always ASSUME infallibility from the outset.  They bear the burden of PROVING that they have this gift of infallibility in the church today – something they cannot do.

Some Catholics act as though the knowledge of the canon is a requirement for salvation!  But the fact is that millions of people in the Old Testament era have been saved and lived for God without ever knowing the full canon – and they did this long before the “infallible” Catholic Church ever existed! 

So, there was never a need for this level of certainty – “sufficient” certainty has always been sufficient in God’s eyes.

And for the record, even if we believed that they did have an infallible canon, Catholics didn’t get it until 1546 during the Council of Trent:

“According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the Biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church.  This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Church (at the Council of Trent).  Before that time there was some doubt about the canonicity of certain Biblical books, i.e., about their belonging to the canon.” (The New Catholic Encyclopedia, McGraw Hill, Copyright 1967, Volume 3, Canon, Biblical,” p. 29)

If there was such a “need” for infallible certainty on the canon this whole time, then why did the Catholic Church wait 1500 years before “infallibly” determining said canon?   

Here are some related links on this canon issue:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2010/02/canon-and-infallible-certainty.html

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2012/02/did-catholic-church-give-us-bible.html

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2013/08/quick-notes-on-sola-scriptura-part-8.html

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2017/12/using-canon-as-smokescreen.html

Fatal Flaw #2

·      THERE IS NO GUARANTEE OR PROMISE IN SCRIPTURE THAT ANY INDIVIDUAL OR GROUP IN THE POST-APOSTOLIC CHURCH WOULD HAVE THE GIFT OF INFALLIBILITY – EITHER IN HIS DOCTRINE OR IN DISCERNING THE CANON

Of course, Catholics will try to argue that the Catholic Church does indeed have the gift of infallibility.   They will say that Jesus built a church (Matthew 16:18) and promised that the Holy Spirit would be directing and guiding that church (John 16:13).  And they believe that since the infallible Holy Spirit is guiding the church, this has to mean that the church can never fall into false teaching.

But Matthew 16:18 says nothing whatsoever about infallibility for the church nor anything about protection against false teaching.  And neither does John 16:13 say anything about infallible guidance.  

But there is a difference between receiving 1) general/indirect guidance from the Holy Spirit (e.g., John 16:13) and 2) receiving direct/infallible guidance from the Holy Spirit – which has only been offered to those individuals writing Scripture (2 Peter 1:20-21).  It was the former guidance that the church received, not the latter. 

See this article on John 16:13:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2025/05/catholic-apologists-abuse-john-1613.html

Conclusion  

Catholics really seem to have issues with the doctrine of Sola Scriptura and they sometimes offer the “canon argument” as one of their best arguments.  So that’s why I wanted to focus in on this argument for this particular article.

Hopefully, the two fatal flaws mentioned above should put this particular Catholic argument to rest.  There’s nothing wrong with having “only” sufficient certainty on the canon of the Bible.  We’re all fallible humans and everything we do, even our greatest endeavors, stems from our fallible mind/understanding/faculties.  But “fallible” does not necessarily mean “wrong.” 

Insisting on infallibility on our part only drives us into an infinite regress: “A” is infallible and can only be recognized/interpreted by an infallible entity.  So we must press infallible “B” into service to recognize/interpret “A”.  But for us to deal with “B”, we must now turn to infallible “C”, etc., etc.  We need to recognize that at some point, the fallible must meet the infallible.  As I said before, if the infallible (God) cannot intersect with the fallible (us), then we could never know anything about Him!

Since we, as humans, cannot have infallibility, sufficient certainty of the canon is enough.  

 

YES, CATHOLICS DO WORSHIP MARY (Part 4)

This is the fourth and final article in this series on Mary and why I say that Catholics actually worship her.

There seems to be a silly false dichotomy that is common in Catholicism: Either 1) Protestants should pray to Mary, or 2) if they don’t, they must hate her!

First of all, I want to emphasize that no Protestant that I know hates Mary and we are in no way trying to denigrate her.  In fact, I am glad that God chose her for this great distinction and we know that God knows what He’s doing.  She proved to be a humble, faithful servant of God and a fitting mother and nurturer to bear the Savior.  All of us should agree on that.  This was a great honor and indeed all generations are calling her blessed, as Mary stated (Luke 1:48).  Yes, she had a definite, God-given role in history, but that does not justify praying to her.  As I said in the beginning, the only recipient of prayer should be God.

Putting Things into Perspective

Catholics love to stress that Mary “cooperated” with God by saying “Yes” to Him and agreeing to bear the Savior.  But what if she had said “No”?  Would the will of God have been frustrated?  Would we now be without a Savior?  Of course not.

God is not limited, but Catholics act as though the Messiah coming to earth would have been absolutely impossible if it weren’t for this one humble virgin!  But I’m sure there were very many young, godly and capable virgins in that day who would have done anything to have the honor of bearing the Messiah.  Catholics need to quit acting like God’s hands would have been tied without Mary accepting this honor.  They act as though Mary came to the rescue and saved the day when no one else was willing or able.  In this way, Catholics are almost making her the Savior.  But the truth is that God could have used someone else!

“Mother” of the Church?

In John 19:26-27, Catholics find an interesting concept.  Jesus, from the cross, told the apostle John, “Behold your mother.”  From this statement, Catholics deduce that this is intended to convey the idea that Mary is now going to be the “Mother” of the whole church.  And from this idea, there are a multitude of privileges and special honors that follow her. 

But if that’s true, then what about the second half of the equation?  Does this also mean that John is the “son” of the whole church, since Jesus also told Mary, “Woman, behold your son”?  Why doesn’t the Catholic Church make a big deal over that, as well?  No, Jesus was not giving Mary a new exalted role here, but was simply putting His mother into the care of the apostle as she grew old.  Just as there is no universal “son of the church,” neither is there a universal “Mother of the church.”

Spirit Over Family

“And it came to pass, as He spoke these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto Him, ‘Blessed is the womb that bare Thee, and the paps which Thou hast sucked.’  But He said, ‘Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it.’”  (Luke 11:27-28)

No, Jesus was not being rude to His mother here, as some suggest.  But in this passage, Jesus is showing everyone here how it is more blessed to be a follower of Christ than to be the physical mother of Christ!  Jesus emphasizes the importance of the spiritual aspect of the believer’s relationship with Him, over the familial aspect between Him and His mother. 

Abusing James

“Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed.  The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.” (James 5:16)

Catholics almost always point to this passage when appealing to the Catholic teaching of praying to Mary and the saints in Heaven.  They’ll eagerly point out the fact that “… The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much,” and that Mary and the saints in Heaven are far more righteous than we are.  Therefore (according to Catholics), we should ask for their intercession, i.e., for their prayers for us. 

But if Catholics want to be consistent in their use of James 5:16, they should also obey the part that says (“… pray one for another”).  So, if that’s true, Catholics on earth should also have to pray FOR Mary and FOR those same saints in Heaven who are (supposedly) praying for those on earth!  The context of this verse is clearly not just one-way prayer, but RECIPROCAL PRAYER (… pray one for another…)! 

But why would anyone need to pray for Mary and the saints in Heaven?  They have need of nothing in the presence of Jesus!  But this is the logical conclusion when trying to use the context of this passage to prove prayers to Mary/saints.  It just doesn’t work.

Again, James is talking about reciprocal prayer – he is actually telling the saints on earth to pray for one another here on earth!  This passage fails to support the teaching of prayer to Mary and the saints.

Marian Mantras

I would like to address some very common sayings that Catholics have of Mary.  These are like mindless mantras and are often blurted out without even thinking:

• A Catholic once said, “We never give more honor to Jesus than when we honor His mother.”

So, let’s take that idea to its logical conclusion.  According to this logic, the more we honor Mary, the more we honor Christ.  If that’s true, then maybe we should whole-heartedly adore/latria/worship Mary as God, so that Jesus can then be super-duper worshipped!  He would be getting absolutely unlimited honor and worship, right?  But something tells me that Catholics would take issue with this idea.

No, Catholics think that this “more-honor-to-Mary” equals “more-honor-to-Jesus” idea sounds good, but it is utterly false and absurd.

• Another false mantra is that “Mary always points to Jesus!” 

This was true of the biblical Mary, but not with the “Catholic Mary.”  According to one of the popular visions of Fatima, “Mary” gave instructions to pray the rosary every day “to bring peace to the world and the end of the War” [WW1].  But why the rosary, since its prayers to Mary far outnumber those directed to God/Jesus?  This is pointing more toward her. 

This “Mary” also told the children that God wished for “devotion to her Immaculate Heart for world peace and the salvation of souls.”  Again, she requested that they pray that Russia would be consecrated to her Immaculate Heart.  Is this pointing to Jesus or to “Mary”?  Furthermore, she asked that a chapel be built in her honor!  It is her exaltation that seems to be the goal here, not Jesus.’

Amazingly, she also said that peace with Russia would be granted and that “ONLY I CAN HELP YOU.  My Immaculate Heart will be your refuge and the way that will lead you to God.” (Emphasis added)

See this article:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-visions-of-fatima.html

It is clear that the “Mary” to whom Catholics pray does not always point to Jesus.

• Mary is a “shortcut to Jesus”!

While this might sound good, the Scriptures tell us that we can go directly to God through Jesus (Hebrews 4:14-16), since He is fully able to sympathize with our needs and weaknesses, and that we can approach the throne of grace with confidence.  Was the author of Hebrews lying when he said this?  No, but adding Mary to the list only adds one more layer to the process.  Some “shortcut”!

• Mary is “the surest way to her Son”!

If we come to Jesus humbly for salvation, we are saved by grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8-10).  If we come to Him with other needs, it is the same.  But Mary is needed in neither case.  Again, I would repeat what I said just above: Hebrews 4:14-16 assures us that we will be heard, if we approach Him with confidence and with humility.   The surest way to Jesus is by faith in His word, not faith in His mother.

“The Bible Doesn’t Say…”

When Protestants claim that praying to Mary is wrong, Catholics will often say, “But the Bible doesn’t say NOT to pray to Mary, does it?”

But there are countless things that the Bible doesn’t address specifically.  For example, it never says, “Don’t throw your trash over your neighbor’s fence into his yard,” or “Don’t slash your co-worker’s tires.”  There is nothing in the Bible that specifically addresses these things.  But we all know that these things are prohibited because of the command to “love your neighbor” (Leviticus 19:18; Matthew 22:39).  That is a general principle found throughout Scripture that overrides any act that would violate that command.

The Bible may not specifically say, “Don’t pray to Mary,” or “Never address the saints or angels in prayer,” but there is a way that we can know if these things are allowed.  We have biblical principles throughout the Scriptures, and patterns in which to cling when there is no specific instruction.  We should look to examples of what the people of God did, and what they avoided.  And the continuous pattern throughout Scripture is very simple – it is that people prayed to God alone!

Conclusion

It seems that Mary is the only mother in history who has been dignified with such incredible titles of exaltation from the Catholic Church.  Granted, her Son is indeed the Savior and is of immeasurable worth.  But one would think that other mothers of great children would also be dignified in a similar manner for their child’s sake.

For example, Moses is recognized as the greatest Old Testament prophet ever.  Few people are as revered by the Jews as Moses was.  Yet, his mother, Jochebed, was never considered to be:

“Co-Mediatrix between God and the Jews,” Co-Redemptrix of the Jews,” “Mother of the Jews,” “Mother of the Mosaic Law,” “Queen over the Red Sea,” “Co-Provider of manna,” “Sovereign Princess of plagues,” “Mother of the brazen serpent,” “Co-Intercessor of the Israelites,” or “Queen of the Promised Land.”

Someone might say, “But that’s ridiculous!”  But why is it ridiculous for Jochebed when the same thing is being done for Mary?  None of Moses’ exploits, prophecies and great miracles would have been done if Jochebed had not given birth to him.  That seems to be the criteria for Mary’s exaltation, so why not Jochebed, as well?  After all, she literally saved Moses’ life, as a child, when she kept him from the Egyptians and placed him in a basket in the Nile River.  So why is Jochebed not also sharing the attributes of her son, Moses, and the honor he held? 

Funny, but we see very little of Jochebed in the Scriptures, in spite of the great exploits of her son.  The truth is, we also see very little of Mary in the Scriptures, yet her titles, honor and attributes of Jesus abound.

You have to wonder, how many other godly, humble and faithful mothers out there are being deprived by the Catholic Church of the honor and veneration they deserve?  Is it because the Church would see this as usurping the honor their sons deserve?  Yes, it should be.  Then how much more is the Catholic Church usurping the honor and uniqueness of the Savior of mankind when giving Mary the honor and attributes that only her Son should have?

Once again, I would have to say that Mary, by biblical standards, is being worshipped and this is the sin of idolatry.  There is no other way to see it.  And the Catholic Church seems to have no problem with that.

Whom have I in Heaven but thee? And there is none upon earth that I desire beside thee? (Psalm 73:25)

See also these links:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2021/03/excessive-devotion-to-mary-in-catholic.html

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2011/02/praying-to-saints.html

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2023/10/worship-and-prayer.html

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2024/01/if-you-cant-find-jesus-look-for-his.html

 

 

YES, CATHOLICS DO WORSHIP MARY! (Part 3)

The Bible tells us that every normal, thinking person knows intuitively that God exists (Psalm 14:1).  Atheism is not the default position for man.  If anything, man leans toward worship, since it is built into his nature.  It is not just a need, but his deepest desire, even for the unregenerate person – because God has put eternity in the heart of man (Ecclesiastes 3:11).  Whether saved or not, he will worship something.  Rather than atheism, the unregenerate heart will tend toward worshipping the creature instead of the Creator (Romans 1:25-26). 

This was exactly the case with the Jews in 2 Kings 18:1-4.  God had previously instructed Moses to erect a statue of a bronze serpent to heal the Jews of snakebite (Numbers 21:4-9).  But as time went on, the Jews turned this symbol (which was provided by God) into a stumbling block when they began to worship the symbol itself – and King Hezekiah had to destroy it. 

Idolatry was a real problem for the Jews in the Old Testament, but this sin did not fade away.  Even today, it appears in many forms.  Everyone (including Catholics and Protestants) is susceptible to this sin.  That’s why the New Testament also tells us to flee idolatry (1 Corinthians 10:7, 14), because man will lean toward idolatry.  It is a message for us all: don’t be so high-minded as to think that it will never affect you in any way.

In Part 2 of this series, I promised to show some more examples of idolatry in Catholicism when it comes to Mary.  So, here we go…

The Cross and the Ark

In the Catholic Church of the Mother of God of Polish Martyrs in Warsaw, Poland, we find a cross with Mary on it (holding Jesus, as a child). 

On another cross in a Catholic Church in Rome (St. Maria Maggiore), we find Jesus hanging on one side of the cross with Mary hanging on the other side (i.e., back to back).  This is absolute blasphemy! 

For those who may not know, according to Scripture, Mary was not on the cross, Jesus was, and He alone paid the price for the salvation of mankind on that cross.  The Catholic Church has no business depicting Mary on the cross.  She didn’t die for our sins.  The real Mary, Jesus’ humble mother, would be utterly shocked if she knew she was being depicted in such a way!

You can see photos of these here:

https://www.wayoflife.org/database/maryolatry.html

And if that’s not bad enough, in St. Stanislaus Kostka Catholic Church in Chicago, in the backdrop of the church’s central altar, there is a statue of Mary sitting between the two angels on the mercy seat of the Ark of the Covenant!  This exact place is reserved FOR GOD ALONE (Exodus 25:17-22; 1 Samuel 4:4; 2 Samuel 6:2)!  This is utter blasphemy!  If this is not calling Mary “God,” and if this is not worshipping her, then I don’t know what is.

You can see it here:

https://ststanschurch.org/the-sanctuary-of-the-divine-mercy

What’s wrong with these people?!!!  Why haven’t the Catholic faithful risen up and protested?  And why haven’t these blasphemous icons been destroyed by the pope or some other Catholic authorities, as King Hezekiah did in the Old Testament?  Surely, they are aware of this insanity, aren’t they?  Or maybe, it’s because they approve of it and want it there!  This should shock every Catholic in the world who has any sense of decency. 

But the Catholic Church seems to be much more concerned about “canonizing saints” than it is about warning its people against the sin of idolatry!

Parallels?

It’s really hard to ignore the obvious attempts by the Catholic Church to try and force an unbiblical parallel between Jesus Christ and His mother, Mary.  This is how she is presented:

1) Jesus Christ, the Redeemer – Mary, the Co-Redemptrix

2) Jesus Christ, the one Mediator – Mary, the Mediatrix

3) Jesus Christ, the King of Kings – Mary, the Queen of Heaven

4) Jesus Christ, the perfect and sinless Savior – Mary, immaculately conceived and remained sinless throughout her life

5) Jesus Christ, the absolute purest person – Mary, ever-Virgin and undefiled

6) Jesus Christ, the Ark that protected Noah and saved mankind – Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant

7) Jesus Christ, sitting enthroned at the right hand of the Father in Heaven – Mary, sitting enthroned at the right hand of the Son in Heaven

8) Jesus Christ, the Second Adam – Mary, the Second Eve

9) Jesus Christ, suffered on the cross – Mary, suffered at the foot of the cross

10)   Jesus Christ, the Head of the church – Mary, the Mother of the Church

11)   Jesus Christ, the Son of God – Mary, the Mother of God

12)   Jesus Christ, ascended into Heaven – Mary, assumed bodily into Heaven

Do you see the unbiblical pattern here?  This is a relentless attempt to exalt Mary above what her God-intended and biblical role was. 

Insight from John the Baptist

But notice what John the baptist said:

“He [Jesus] must increase, but I must decrease.” (John 3:30)

John is saying that he needs to put Jesus on the “front burner,” so to speak, elevated above all others.  He is saying that Jesus is to be in the limelight and he (John) is to be in the background, not striving for glory or attention.  Jesus is to be exalted while John should remain a humble and unworthy servant.  This is the essence of what John the baptist is saying here and it applies to every human ever born.

But is this what the Catholic Church is doing with Mary?  Are they leaving her in the background as a humble and unworthy believer?  No, rather they are exalting her to the point of almost being equal with Jesus.  They are attributing to her the hallmarks of Jesus, thus worshipping her.  And I don’t see that changing any time soon.  They deny worshipping her, but their actions contradict the Catholic Church’s official teachings that say she is not to be worshipped.

The Catholic Church claims that Jesus Christ has a unique role in history.  But these issues with Marian devotion make the unique Savior much less unique.

I hope that no Catholic is foolish enough to actually believe that Mary IS God.  They should know better than that.  But you Catholics can say all day long that “We don’t worship Mary,” but the evidence (your actions) speaks louder than your words.

To be continued…

YES, CATHOLICS DO WORSHIP MARY! (Part 2)

 

We are well aware that Catholics are encouraged by their church to pray to Mary, the saints, and even to angels.  In Part One of this series, I stressed the biblical fact that praying to anyone other than God is not permissible, since prayer is always a form of worship.  Therefore, praying to someone is indeed worship of that someone, no matter what name you try to give it.

Now, we know that worship and prayer are not exactly the same things.  Actions, words and thoughts/attitude can all constitute worship.  Prayer and worship are distinct, yet very closely related.  But again, prayer is always an act of worship in Scripture. 

In fact, there are so many examples of prayer in the Bible that one would have to have an agenda to overlook the obvious fact that no one in Scripture prayed (with God’s approval) to an entity other than God.  This is such a basic and elementary principle that cannot be avoided or overlooked… unless there is an ulterior motive. 

Fabricating Terms

But Catholics will say that the Church teaches that there are different types of prayer, for example: prayer to the saints (which they call “dulia”), prayer to Mary (“hyperdulia”) and prayer to God (“latria”).  And they tell us that each type of prayer is proper toward its intended recipient.

But the Bible is oblivious to such distinctions.  The Bible says to give honor to whom honor is due (Romans 13:7), but never suggests giving the honor of prayer to other humans (Acts 10:25-26) – alive or deceased – or even to angels (Revelation 22:8-9).

But Catholic apologists love to play word games and say things like:

• “prayer is just asking”
• “we don’t actually pray to Mary, but we’re just asking her to pray for us”
• “the angel in the book of Revelation received prayer and offered the prayers of the saints to God”
• "Mary and the saints in Heaven are more righteous than we are, and their prayers are more effective”
•  “in the story of Lazarus and the rich man (Luke 16:19-31), the latter prayed to Abraham”
• “in the Bible, sometimes people used the phrase, ‘I pray thee,’ with other people and that is considered prayer”
• “if we can ask friends/family to pray for us, why not Mary and the saints?  It’s the same thing!”

But see the links below to answer these types of arguments:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2011/02/praying-to-saints.html

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2019/01/dave-armstrong-on-praying-to-saints.html

Again, these flimsy Catholic arguments are simply semantics and shallow word games.

Location, Location, Location!

When speaking of praying to Mary, saints or angels, there is a certain aspect of this discussion that seems to be almost totally lost.  And that is the fact that Mary, along with the saints and angels in Heaven, is in another realm, another dimension.  She is not in this earthly realm.  The act of people on earth requesting something of other people on earth is not prayer.  It is simple human communication.  Addressing someone in the realm of Heaven, however, is prayer.  And therefore, if not to God, it is wrongful, since prayer involves worship.  Again, according to the examples in Scripture, God is the sole and proper recipient of prayer. 

In Scripture, the only time people were allowed to speak to angels was when they were face to face with the angel, that is, when they were in the same realm, the exception being perhaps in dreams or visions.

Likewise, there is no God-approved case of believers contacting dead saints.  Catholics like to point to Jesus speaking to Moses and Elijah on the mount of Transfiguration (Matthew 17:1-8).  But again, Moses and Elijah were in our realm, earth, not some other spiritual realm, so this particular communication was allowed.

The same thing applies with Mary.  When she spoke with the angel Gabriel, it was face to face, here on earth.  As far as the people on earth are concerned, she is now in another realm and we are not allowed to “ask” her anything – because then it becomes prayer, and thus, idolatry. 

Another problem with praying to Mary and the saints is this: Personally, I believe that Mary is in Heaven (but not because the Catholic Church says so).  I believe that she was close to the apostles and their doctrine (Scripture) and she probably made it to Heaven.  But we have no scriptural proof that she is there.  God forbid, but what if she ISN’T really in Heaven?  Or what if some of the saints you pray to are actually in Hell?  Wouldn’t you be sinning by praying to God’s enemies? 

Just because the Catholic Church has “canonized” or “beatified” someone doesn’t prove they are in Heaven, since these are just fabricated, unbiblical concepts.  In fact, the Church will tell us that, apart from a revelation from God, they cannot guarantee that a particular “saint” or anyone else is in Heaven.  In that case, it is certainly possible that you are indeed praying to an enemy of God!  Your “devotion” to them may be leading you to Hell. 

Excessive Devotion Abounds

By the way, the term “excessive devotion” is a Catholic term, although I’ve never actually seen the Church formally accuse any Catholic of this sin.  But when Protestants point out this excess which we find in certain books or at Marian shrines, etc., Catholics are quick to say that these words/actions are not “formal doctrine,” but only a reflection of what the speaker/participant “feels.”  This way, the Church doesn’t appear to be responsible for these Catholics’ unbiblical behavior.  But I truly wonder, how excessive would it have to get before the pope ever steps in and says “Enough!”  We may never know.

More examples of this “devotion” can be seen in a very popular Catholic book written by a “saint” and “doctor” of the Church, Alphonsus Liguori, called The Glories of Mary, which has the Catholic seals of approval, and it contains countless examples of excessive devotion.

You can find the book here:

https://archive.org/details/thegloriesofmary00liguuoft/mode/2up

If there is any doubt that Catholics ascribe to Mary titles or attributes reserved for God alone, read this book.  Just to show a few mild examples:

“I will say to thee with thy loving child John Berchmans: ‘I will never rest until I have attained a tender love for my mother Mary.’  No, I will not rest until I am certain of having obtained a love – a constant and tender love for thee, my mother, who hast loved me with so much tenderness even when I was so ungrateful towards thee.” (Emphasis added - page 66-67)

According to this, the believer’s rest is in Mary.

But in the Catholic New American Bible (NAB), it tells us:

“My soul rests in God alone, from whom comes my salvation.” (Psalm 62:2 – Emphasis added)

And shortly after, verse 6 says, “My soul, be at rest in God alone, from whom comes my hope.” (Emphasis added)

According to Scripture, the believer’s rest is in God alone, not Mary!

Concerning the issue of salvation, the Glories of Mary also says:

“Oh my lady, thou alone art my help, given me by God; thou art… the hope of my salvation.” (page 119-120 - Emphasis added)

“Oh lady, in thee I have placed all my hope, and with firm confidence I look to thee for my salvation.” (page 195 – Emphasis added)

“Let not my sins prevent me from confiding in thee, oh great mother of God; no, I trust in thee, and trust in thee so much, that if my salvation were in my own hands, yet I would place it all in thine.” (page 759 – Emphasis added)

But the (Catholic) NAB tells us:

“God alone is my rock and salvation, my secure height; I shall never fall.” (Psalm 62:3, 7 – Emphasis added)

Again, salvation is from God alone, not Mary.

This is just a tiny sampling of the insane prayers to (and descriptions of) Mary found in this book from Liguori.  Many more of these types of examples can be found here:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2019/04/liguoris-idolatry-and-catholic-churchs.html

So where is the outcry of “excessive devotion” from the Catholic hierarchy?  All we seem to hear is crickets…

But wait!  There are more abominations to come, as we shall see in Part 3…

 

YES, CATHOLICS DO WORSHIP MARY! (Part 1)

 

I was recently watching a video by evangelist, teacher and author Justin Peters and he was talking about the new pope, Leo XIV (the first American pope) and the pope’s first appearance addressing a crowd in Rome on May 8, 2025.  You can find Justin’s video here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3g0hRRxC0nY

Within Justin’s video, he plays a video clip of Leo’s first speech as pope to a large crowd in Rome.  In this clip, the pope’s address was in Italian and he was speaking through an interpreter.  At one point, we can hear the pope speaking of Mary, the mother of Jesus, saying “… and let us ask for this special grace from Mary, our God.”

It may have gone unnoticed by many listening to the pope, but Justin points out the severe error of using the phrase, “Mary, our God.”

In fairness to the pope, Justin admits that he doesn’t speak Italian and he admits to the possibility that he could be wrong about what he heard.  He also tries to give the pope the benefit of the doubt and says that perhaps it was the fault of the translator.  The point is, he humbly admits to not knowing for sure if the new pope is calling Mary “God” or not.  He was never adamant about what exactly the pope said.

But many people in the comment section of Justin Peters’ video were quick to take issue with him, calling him out for his response to the pope, even though Justin was very cautious about what he said in the video.   

A few days later, when he found out that he was wrong, Justin follows up with a second video, which can be found here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YKxwugxVvs

In this video, Justin humbly apologizes to the pope when he found out that it was indeed the translator’s mistake and that the pope did not call Mary “God.”  Pope Leo XIV actually called Mary our “Madre” (“mother” in Italian).  It was the translator who got confused and probably conflated the terms, “Mary, our Mother” with “Mother of God,” rendering it “Mary, our God.”  I’m sure translators have a tough job keeping up with the pope’s words, and it appears to be a legitimate slip of the tongue.

Having Said That…

Ok, having said all the above, I agree with Justin Peters when he went on to say that even though the pope did not call Mary “God,” Catholics are still guilty of worshipping Mary, and giving to her some of the attributes of God, though they don’t want to admit it.  No matter how innocent the pope may have been with his statements in the video, it is a fact that the actions of many of the Catholic people worldwide show that Mary is indeed worshipped. 

Why would I say that?  Let me first say that it is clear that Catholics are encouraged by the Catholic Church to pray to Mary (CCC #2679), and most do indeed pray to her.  I also want to say that I cannot stress enough that prayer to ANYONE other than God, Himself, is wrong, unbiblical and idolatrous.  Nowhere – again, nowhere – in the God-breathed Scriptures do we find anyone given permission or encouragement (from God) to pray to anyone other than God.

We have tons of examples of prayer in the Bible.  It would seem that if it is permissible to pray to Mary or to the “saints,” that we would expect to find examples of that in God’s Word.  But we don’t.  The Bible gives us a clear pattern of prayer to God alone.  Remember, prayer is an act of worship and to divorce worship from prayer is to destroy the very essence of both terms.  Therefore, once again, prayer to someone other than God is not only unbiblical, it is blasphemous, as well.  It is treating that person as though he/she were God. 

It is that same old sin called idolatry that the Old Testament Jews and their surrounding neighbors were guilty of (Exodus 20:3; 2 Kings 17:16).  And the punishment from God for that sin was severe (Deuteronomy 6:14-15; 17:1-5) and God still hates it today.  I know the title of this article is provocative, but according to Scripture, it is the truth.

Idolatry in the Catholic Catechism

Catholics will say no, it is not worship, and therefore not idolatry, to pray to Mary and the saints.  But the Catechism of the Catholic Church defines idolatry this way:

“Idolatry not only refers to false pagan worship.  It remains a constant temptation to faith.  Idolatry consists in divinizing what is not God.  Man commits idolatry whenever he honors and reveres a creature in place of God, whether this be gods or demons (for example, satanism), power, pleasure, race, ancestors, the state, money, etc.  Jesus says, ‘You cannot serve God and mammon.’  Many martyrs died for not adoring ‘the Beast’ refusing even to simulate such worship.  Idolatry rejects the unique Lordship of God; it is therefore incompatible with communion with God.” (CCC #2113)

You know, I pretty much agree with this definition of idolatry and I would like to point out a few things about it. 

Note that the Catechism above says that idolatry remains a “constant temptation to faith.”  Well if that’s true, then why are Catholics allowed to put up shrines to Mary all over the world (far more in number than shrines to Jesus) and why are they encouraged to pray the rosary (which has many more prayers to Mary than to Jesus)?  Would not these things be a temptation and a stumbling block to others?  Aren’t they an encouragement to go beyond “veneration,” just as the Old Testament Jews did?  Yes, indeed.

The Catechism also says that idolatry is “divinizing” what is not God.  To divinize is to deify someone/something; to make someone/something divine.  It treats one as though he/she were God.

But isn’t it also divinizing to pray to Mary (as mentioned earlier)?  And isn’t it divinizing when Mary is called “Mediatrix,” “Co-redemptrix,” “Sovereign Lady,” “Sovereign Princess,” “Immaculate,” “Queen of Heaven,” “the Cause of Our Joy,” “the salvation of our people,” “having unlimited merit and power over all creatures,” “the dispenser of all graces,” “the source of salvation,” “Gateway to Heaven,” “omnipotent to save sinners,”  and many, many other such names?  Yes, it is divinizing. 

All these terms are used by Catholics toward Mary (with no objection from the Church, I might add) and all these are assigning attributes of divinity to a mere creature. It is a fact that Catholics ascribe to Mary deific attributes and deific powers.  

Paragraph 2113 of the Catechism above also mentions Jesus saying, “You cannot serve God and mammon” (Matthew 6:24), acknowledging that a person can indeed worship money (and other things, like power, pleasure, ancestors, etc.).  Just as one can misplace his love, trust and devotion toward his money, so can he also misplace his love, trust and devotion toward Mary, the saints and the angels.  I have never known anyone to pray to his money, yet he could still be worshipping it.  But if one’s devotion can be considered worship without using prayer, then HOW MUCH MORE is it worship when prayer is involved, as with Mary?

Furthermore, the Catechism says that the martyrs refused “even to simulate such worship [idolatry].”  In other words, they dared not even fake such worship in order to save their lives!  At the cost of their lives, they avoided even the very appearance of evil, as the apostle Paul encourages (1 Thessalonians 5:22).  But using all these exalted names of Mary, praying to Mary in the rosary, building Marian shrines, etc. – these are exactly the types of things that the Catechism is warning about here – because, in doing these, they are encouraging the appearance of evil (idolatry).

Lastly, the Catechism above says that idolatry rejects the “unique Lordship of God.”  I couldn’t agree more, but again, prayer to Mary does exactly that – it intrudes on His unique Lordship by allowing prayer to mere creatures!  By definition, there IS no unique Lordship of God if we can pray to others.  According to the multitude of examples in the Bible, prayer belongs to God alone. 

“Whom have I in Heaven but thee? And there is none upon earth that I desire beside thee.” (Psalm 73:25)

We will continue with this important topic in Part 2 …