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 …

THE SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST

 

Well folks, this is the last of the seven Catholic sacraments, and today we’re talking about what Catholics call the sacrament of “Holy Communion,” or the “Holy Eucharist.” 

This is the solemn ceremony where the Catholic priest blesses the bread and wine and it supposedly becomes the actual body and blood of Jesus Christ.  The priest then offers it to the members of the congregation for their spiritual nourishment.

I have addressed my objections to this topic before in great detail elsewhere on this blog.  See these links for detailed discussions and the ramifications involved:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2009/10/eucharist-part-1.html

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2009/11/eucharist-part-2.html

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2016/01/access-denied.html

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2021/02/eucharistic-wonders-miracles-or.html

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2018/04/the-catholic-time-machine.html

Source and Summit

How important is the Eucharist to Catholics?  The Catechism of the Catholic Church says:

“The Eucharist is ‘the source and summit of the Christian life.’  The other sacraments, and indeed all ecclesiastical ministries and works of the apostolate, are bound up with the Eucharist and are oriented toward it. For in the blessed Eucharist is contained the whole spiritual good of the Church, namely Christ himself, our Pasch." (CCC #1324 – Emphasis added)

Notice that all the other sacraments and “all ecclesiastical ministries and works” within the Catholic Church tie in with, and point to, the Eucharist.

As we can see, the Catholic Eucharist is extremely important in the Church.  In fact, it is EVERYTHING to them because it is the ultimate Catholic sacrament.  This is because:

“The mode of Christ's presence under the Eucharistic species is unique. It raises the Eucharist above all the sacraments as ‘the perfection of the spiritual life and the end to which all the sacraments tend.’  In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist ‘the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained’”…  (CCC #1374 – Emphasis in original).

Did you get that?  The wafer that the Catholic priest consecrates and gives to the members of the Church to eat is considered the actual BODY, BLOOD, SOUL and DIVINITY of Jesus Christ!  Yep, you’re eating His body and you’re eating His soul!  Literally!  Not sure how that works, but if you don’t believe that, this is what happens:

“If any one denieth, that, in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ; but saith that He is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or virtue; let him be anathema.” (Council of Trent, Session XIII, Canon I)

That’s right.  If you don’t believe their teaching on the Eucharist, you are under the Catholic Church’s anathema.  Anathema means that you will experience the severest and gravest form of excommunication, where you are eternally condemned to Hell, unless and until you do the required penance, to the Catholic Church’s satisfaction.  You can find this definition in the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia, under “Anathema.”

This is one reason why, in my first article on the Eucharist years ago on this blog, I said that this sacrament is either a very good thing, or a very bad thing.  If it is what the Church says it is, then it is the most wonderful sacrament of all and we (Protestants included) should all line up to enthusiastically “receive Jesus” by eating Him in the form of the Eucharist.  But if it is not what they say it is, if what they’re eating is not actually Jesus, and what they are worshipping is a mere piece of bread, they are guilty of outright idolatry, a severe sin throughout the Old and New Testament (e.g., 1 Kings 21:25-26; Jeremiah 7:16-19; 1 Corinthians 6:9; 10:14).

So, if you believe this bread and wine is the ACTUAL, LITERAL, PHYSICAL Jesus, you’d better be absolutely sure that it is what they claim it is, and not just take someone’s word for it.  You’d better be certain as to whether it is a biblical concept or not!

Absent Does Not Mean Present

Again, the claim is that the bread and wine are literally Jesus.  It says that His physical presence is with us today.  In fact, they call it the “Real Presence” of Christ in the Eucharist (CCC # 1378).  But note that the Bible is clear that Jesus’ physical presence here on earth is no longer the case:

Jesus therefore said, “Let her alone, in order that she may keep it for the day of My burial.  For the poor you always have with you, but you do not always have Me.” (John 12:7-8 – Emphasis added)

So tell me, what did Jesus mean when He said this?  In what sense do we NOT have Jesus today?  Does this passage mean that He is not here spiritually?  No, I think everyone would agree that we always have Him in a spiritual sense, right?  For example:

 

… and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the world (Matthew 28:20).

 

So, John 12:7-8 above is not talking about His presence in a spiritual sense.  So, again, if it is not in the spiritual sense, then in what way is He NOT present with us?

 

Now, Catholics will claim that He is present in a “sacramental” sense, but there is absolutely nothing in Scripture to suggest this concept.  The word “sacramental” (as an adjective) seems to be a conveniently flexible term in Catholicism, in fact, too flexible to have any real meaning.  The truth is, the whole idea of sacraments and “sacramental presence” is foreign to Scripture.  See here:

 https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2011/01/sacraments-gods-grace-for-sale.html

 

So that leaves a physical vacancy.  Jesus is no longer here physically.  And if that’s true, the Catholic Church is wrong about the “Real Presence.”

 

Again, in John 16:10, Jesus says:

And concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father, and you no longer behold Me.

How do we “no longer behold Jesus”?  Physically, of course.  He ascends to the Father and we don’t see Him anymore (at least, not until He returns).  It’s very simple.  Although Catholics will say that we see Jesus in the Eucharist, the Bible says that we don’t see Him in the Eucharist, i.e., we no longer behold Him.

Furthermore, in John 17:11, Jesus, when praying to the Father and about to leave, says:

And I am no more in the world; and yet they themselves are in the world, and I come to Thee…

If He is no longer in the world (after His ascension), then, by definition, He is not physically here, so He can’t physically be in the Eucharist.

You Can’t Handle His Presence!

Ok, another point I want to make is that the Catholic Church makes extreme claims, and then later has to backtrack or play word games when called out on it.

One very unsustainable claim they make is that according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, “the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained” in the Eucharist.  And furthermore, “because it is presence in the fullest sense: that is to say, it is a substantial presence by which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present.” (CCC #1374) 

By the way, it seems that some Catholics are hesitant to claim that Jesus is physically present in the Eucharist.  But terms like “the whole Christ,” “entirely present” and the “fullest sense” would appear to indicate otherwise.

But think about this.  What would happen to us if we were truly exposed to “the whole Christ” in all His glory?  The truth is, if we were ushered into His presence in the “fullest sense,” we would not be able to endure it, UNLESS we were in our heavenly bodies. 

Again, that level of exposure to Jesus Christ could only safely happen when we are in our glorified bodies.  Only then could we be able to endure His absolute fullness and glory.  Some saw Jesus in His new body right after His resurrection, but that was not the same thing.            

Why do I say this?  In the book of Revelation, the apostle John said:

And I turned to see the voice that spoke with me…

And when I saw Him, I fell at His feet as dead… (Revelation 1:12, 17)

Folks, THIS is what happens when a mere human sees “the whole Christ” in the “fullest sense.”  Even John, probably the closest friend of Jesus on earth, fell as a dead man in His “fullest” presence.  John was utterly stunned and unable to even look at Jesus.  He was overwhelmed, virtually paralyzed, by the majesty of the Son of God.  If the Eucharist was all that Catholics say it is, no man would be able to stand before it.  Therefore, they are promoting a false teaching.

So What is the Purpose of Communion?

Catholics will always point to John chapter 6 when discussing the Eucharist.  They’ll say that when Jesus said to “eat My flesh” and “drink My blood” (John 6:50-58), He was talking about the Communion service (Eucharist).  But when Jesus said this, He was simply speaking of “coming to Him” and “believing in Him,” as is plain in a previous verse in the same chapter (John 6:35).  This is obviously symbolic language and it was setting the stage for the rest of the passage.

The truth is, Communion is simply a holy memorial:

And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. (Luke 22:19 – Emphasis added)

The Catholic Church does rightly believe that there is a “memorial” aspect in celebrating Communion, but they also falsely believe that the priest’s consecrating of the bread and wine “actualizes” the event of Calvary (CCC #1104). 

 

The word “actualize” means “to make actual” or “to make something a reality.”  They also claim that the Eucharistic ritual “re-presents” (makes present) the event of Calvary.  That’s why they claim that the victim of the Mass (Jesus) and the victim of Calvary (2000 years ago) is “one and the same” (CCC #1367; Council of Trent, Session 22, Chapter 2).  The Eucharistic sacrifice (supposedly) brings the event of Calvary to the here and now.  The Catholic Church reads way too much into the biblical text, instead of letting it speak for itself.  But of course, this is all a “paschal mystery,” something that we non-Catholics just can’t seem to grasp.  Very often, when it comes to things that Catholics can’t verify biblically, it appears that another “mystery” is born in Catholic theology.  Convenient, huh?

 

But getting the benefits of Calvary is not “eating and drinking Jesus’ body and blood.”  Nor do these benefits include time-travel, where God makes the events of Calvary present (CCC # 1104, 1362, 1364, 1366), as though a past event is literally transferred into the present.

 

No, the benefits of Calvary are eternal salvation and a sanctified life, and these are simply received by faith, not by a ritual done by a priest of any kind.

 

One Sacrifice Offered, One Time, By One Person

 

Here’s another instance where the Catholic Church plays word games.  Catholics are sometimes accused of sacrificing Jesus over and over when the Eucharist is celebrated.  Of course, they deny this and claim that they are instead re-presenting that same one-time, once-for-all sacrifice at Calvary. 

 

Even though that may sound good, it cannot be the case.  If the Catholic priest is indeed offering a sacrifice (as they claim), it is not a legitimate one.  Why?  Because only Jesus Christ, Himself, was able to make this one-time offering/sacrifice of Calvary, and He will never, ever, do it again, much less offer it daily (Hebrews 10:11-12 – See CCC #1389).  That, by definition, is what a one-time offering means.  It was offered once and it was only offered BY JESUS.  No man can rightly claim that he is offering, re-offering or re-presenting the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.  It cannot and will not be done.  This Catholic “Eucharistic sacrifice” is not Jesus.  It is a REPLACEMENT of Him, a false offering (Hebrews 7:27; 9:12; 10:2, 10).

 

Using fancy verbs like “re-presenting” doesn’t help the Catholic case.  Actually, the verbs “sacrifice,” “offer,” and “present” are all synonyms in the Bible in the context of sacrifices.  They all mean basically the same thing and they are used interchangeably.  So you can’t say, “I’m not sacrificing Him again in the Eucharistic ritual, I’m only ‘re-presenting’ Him.”  But that ends up being the same thing.  Again, the words are interchangeable.  To “re-present” is to “re-offer” is to “re-sacrifice.”  There is no difference.

 

If a person successfully offered payment for an item, there would be no other offer.  The payment has been given and the debt is already paid for.  The transaction is completed.

 

Likewise, the event of Calvary is a successful payment/offering by Jesus to pay for the sin-debt of mankind.  Why would there ever be another offering of the same thing, since it is a completed transaction?   If something is paid for, there is no need for anyone else to present, RE-present or RE-offer that same payment. 

 

Stop and think, though: If the priest’s RE-offering or RE-presenting of payment is actually valid, that would mean that the original payment was illegitimate!  Would the Catholic Church ever admit that Jesus’ payment at the cross was invalid or illegitimate?  Because if the Eucharistic sacrifice is valid, then Jesus’ payment is indeed null and void.  The implications of this are blasphemous and totally unacceptable!

 

Conclusion

 

The purpose of the true biblical Communion service is not to point to the elements of the bread and wine.  That would be missing the whole point. It is not to physically “eat Jesus.”  The purpose of Communion is to use these signs/elements to remember the event of Calvary with heart-felt thankfulness to God for what Jesus did.  It is to point to the One who gave Himself willingly on the cross, who lovingly paid the penalty for mankind’s sins.  And that sacrifice is finished! (John 19:30)  The whole Communion service is about God’s offering to us, not about the church’s offering to God.

 

Well, folks, that’s the end of this brief address of this series on the seven Catholic sacraments.  Much more could be said and I know that many Catholics will disagree with me on at least some of my thoughts.  But I have endeavored to keep things biblically and logically sound, and I hope that this has been food for thought.

 

 

DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINE?

 

Imagine with me this scenario:

Once upon a time in a far away land, there was this wonderful and mystical church.  And God was very pleased with it.  This church remained faithful to the Word of God, even in spite of persecution.  Then, one day the emperor of the land made it illegal to persecute the church any more.  Also, the emperor’s new laws allowed the teachings of the pagans to blend with the teachings of the church.  This immediately caused problems for the church, and as time went on, this church got farther and farther away from the Scriptures.  Over time, the leaders in the church grew more and more corrupt, and embraced many false doctrines that were unique to that church.  Then, one day a group of resisters arose and challenged the corruption and false teachings of this church.  The resisters demonstrated that this church’s teachings were no longer according to the Bible.  It soon became clear that the church’s arguments did not hold up to the reasoning of the resisters.  So, the church found a man who presented a new concept, proposing that the church’s teachings had developed over time.  And they told everyone, “That’s how come our teachings didn’t seem to line up with Scripture – they were there all along, but were simply in ‘seed form!’”  So, this “development” idea seemed to save the day for the church – but not everyone lived happily ever after…

Of course, anyone (Protestant or Catholic) can easily determine who the characters are in this story:

The church is the Church of Rome (later to become the Roman Catholic Church).  The emperor is Constantine.  The leaders are (mainly) the popes.  The resisters are the Protestants of the Reformation.  And the man who proposed the “development” theory is Cardinal John Henry Newman in the 1800’s.

Of course, some Catholics will say that this story/scenario is indeed a fairy tale.  But, in spite of its simplicity, I believe that this story is exactly what happened.

To Grow or Not to Grow

Many great minds (both Catholic and Protestant) have debated the topic of “development of doctrine” for a long time, so I don’t pretend to have all the answers.  I just want to present a simple case.  Catholics say that the development of doctrine does not mean that doctrine changes, but that it “grows” and its essence or substance remains over time (even if it looks different later on). 

They claim that all these uniquely Catholic teachings were there in Scripture the whole time.  They just needed to be drawn out by “development.”  You know, like an acorn becomes an oak tree.  It has the same DNA, i.e., the same essence, just a different appearance.  So, they would say that this is what happened to doctrines like Purgatory, papal primacy, the Marian doctrines, etc.

But a doctrine is either true or false from the beginning and it remains that way unless someone changes it.  It doesn’t grow or morph by itself into something more complex.  It is constant.  I don’t believe that a doctrine develops; only our understanding of it does!  But it is a corruption (not growth) when one’s doctrine ends up contradicting Scripture. 

What If?

Now who’s to say that Catholic doctrines will not undergo even further “development” later on?  For example, what if they “discover” one day that Mary’s mom was actually also immaculately conceived (like Mary was)?  Seems like a logical development, right?  Jesus was conceived without sin, therefore (they say) Mary had to be conceived without sin first.  If that’s the case, then why didn’t this also happen to Mary’s mother, and Mary’s grandmother, on and on, all the way back to Eve?  Given enough time, couldn’t this development of doctrine theory justify almost any form of “development” [read change]?  Yes, my friends, this theory is a slippery slope!

The Pagan Connection

I mentioned paganism in the beginning of this article.  It is very interesting that Newman, himself, admits that the Catholic Church has blended with paganism.  In his very famous book, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, he writes:

“We are told in various ways by Eusebius, that Constantine, in order to recommend the new religion [Christianity] to the heathen, transferred into it the outward ornaments to which they had been accustomed in their own… The use of temples, and these dedicated to particular saints, and ornamented on occasions with branches of trees; incense, lamps, and candles; votive offerings on recovery from illness; holy water; asylums; holydays and seasons, use of calendars, processions, blessings on the fields; sacerdotal vestments, the tonsure, the ring in marriage, turning to the East, images at a later date, perhaps the ecclesiastical chant, and the Kyrie Eleison, are all of pagan origin, and sanctified by their adoption into the Church.” (Chap. 8, Section 2, Paragraph 6 – emphasis added)

See the online version here:

https://www.newmanreader.org/works/development/chapter8.html

So, again, Newman admits that many additions Rome made to Christianity were of pagan origin, i.e., they were pagan practices and rituals - some acceptable, some not so good.  Several of these are closely related to idolatry (1 Corinthians 10:14).  At the very least, they could be a stumbling block for others (1 Corinthians 8:9-13; 2 Corinthians 6:3).

Notice that Newman says they were “sanctified” by their adoption into the Church.  But author/theologian/philosopher, Norman Geisler in his article, “An Evaluation of John Henry Newman’s Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine” states:

“The Gospel does not “change” a false doctrine into a true one, nor take pagan practices and “make them right.”  (Emphasis in original) 

He also said:

“Newman’s theory of ‘development’ is a beautiful theory, but it is ruined by a brutal gang of facts about the Paganism that was adopted by Catholicism.  It is clearly a corruption of biblical truth, not a true development of it.”  See Geisler’s article here:

https://normangeisler.com/evaluation-jhnewman-dev-christian-doctrine/

The late Christian researcher Dave Hunt sounded this warning:

“In all pagan/nature religions there is a presumed cause-and-effect relationship between the ritual or ceremony performed and the obtaining of the power or healing or other blessing sought. The whole idea of pagan ceremonies — the rites of the shaman or witch, the burning of candles, the making of potions, the use of fetishes, etc. — is that they will (if done correctly) elicit a response from the gods or spirits.”

See here:

https://answersingenesis.org/world-religions/paganism/

 

How to Become Catholic

According to the National Catholic Register :

 

“Blessed John Henry Newman's intensive study of the development of doctrine eventually led him to the Catholic Church.”  See here:

https://www.ncregister.com/blog/development-of-catholic-doctrine-a-primer

Yes, a false method like the “development of doctrine” can indeed lead people to Catholicism.  Another false method that has led many to the Catholic Church is an over-emphasis on the church fathers and/or church history, essentially putting them above Scripture.  Another is the unbiblical personal experiences that some have had with the Eucharist.  And yet another is trusting in the flimsy arguments that certain people have used against the Protestant doctrines of Sola Scriptura (“Bible Alone”) or Sola Fide (“Faith Alone”). 

So, yes, wrong teaching and wrong perspectives can lead one to the Catholic Church.

Conclusion

Catholics will claim that the development of doctrine helps us to better articulate the doctrines we have today.  But clear articulation does not make a false doctrine true.  Which begs the question – where does one find truth? 

Catholics will answer, “The truth is whatever the Catholic Church teaches!”  But that’s just begging the question.  It is this “development of doctrine” that is on trial here in the first place.  But the correct answer to the question of finding truth is that we must look to Scripture (John 17:17).

Catholics also love to point out that Newman was a former Protestant (Anglican).  Maybe so, but in my opinion, there is not a great amount of distance between Catholicism and the Anglican/Episcopalian religions.  There are a number of those from this camp who have ended up joining the Catholic Church.  Sadly, they had much in common to start with.

Calling it “development” is no justification for teaching and promoting false doctrine. This theory of the “development of doctrine” is simply an excuse for Catholics to continue to embrace certain unbiblical, paganistic, and idol-infected teachings.

The bottom line is that, in these strictly Catholic “developed” doctrines, there is always a contradiction involved when tested against the Bible (1 Thessalonians 5:21).

See also this link on the “development” of the papacy:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2017/10/the-papacy-foundation-of-sand.html