CLERICAL DRESS

We’ve all seen Catholic priests (and other Catholic leaders) with their special “outfits” or “uniforms” on, usually some type of robe and the typical white collar worn backwards.  They seem to always wear this, especially during Mass (Church services) or other religious events. 

Of course these are certainly not the only types of religious clothing that you will see in the Catholic Church.  There is a history of evolving clerical dress for the Church over the years, but we will not be delving into that aspect of it.

By the way, there are other groups who claim to serve Jesus Christ besides Catholics that wear some type of clerical dress.  Others include the different branches of Eastern Orthodox and even some Protestant groups who wear such attire.

But the question I want to ask today is why?  For what purpose do these groups clothe themselves in such a way?  Why must they be distinguished from others by their garb?

Set Apart

According to one Catholic source, the purpose of clerical attire is:

“It’s associated with liturgy, status, and people’s relationship to material objects… It helps define the religious body… It has conveyed a sense of community, solidarity, and allegiance.”

The author of the article says that a priest in a Roman collar “appears neat and respectable, someone worthy of respect in society, and will be perceived as a professional.” 

Concerning Catholic women religious groups, the author also said:

“…if they were seen doing charitable work in their distinctive clothing, it helped win respect from non-Catholics.”

See the article here:

https://uscatholic.org/articles/201907/how-clothing-became-the-thread-that-ties-catholics-together/

According to one non-Catholic source, the purpose for clerical dress is:

·      For people to “see them as different”

·      “To show clergy’s dedication”

·      To show “their tradition and role”

·      To “tell us about a cleric’s connection to God and their job in the church”

·      “For showing who is part of the clergy at events or when they’re helping people”

·      “This attire helped identify them as leaders of worship and guidance within communities”

This article can be found here:

https://choiron.com/blogs/news/uncover-the-history-of-clericals-in-church-tradition#:~:text=Key%20Takeaways%201%20Clerics%20started%20wearing%20special%20clothes,and%20their%20job%20in%20the%20church.%20More%20items

The article also stated:

“The detachable clerical collar reflects not just an evolution in fashion but symbolizes a binding commitment to spirituality and service across Christian denominations.”

A Closer Look

Ok, so let’s take a look at these reasons for Catholic leaders to wear such attire.  Going back to the first link at the beginning of this article, we find that such attire is to emphasize the liturgy (customary public ritual of worship), status, people’s relationship with objects (I suppose they are referring to symbolism here), definition, community, solidarity and allegiance.  In other words, it seems to give them a sense of belonging in a special group.  One of the things mentioned here that could cause concern is the “status” issue.  We’ll come back to that.

Continuing on in the first article, Catholic leaders have a desire to appear neat, respectable and professional.  On the surface, there is nothing at all wrong with that.

The non-Catholic source mentions seeing clergy as different because of their dedication/role/job and connection to God, the necessity of identifying clergy at events, as leaders of worship and guidance, and are known for their commitment/spirituality/service.

These reasons sound good and there seems to be nothing on the surface that should alarm us about clerical dress.  But again, in a roundabout way, they also call attention to the status of the person.    

Ulterior Motive?

Here’s where it gets tricky.  There is nothing wrong with having leaders in the church.  They are, of course, biblical and very much needed.  But very often, people will tend to put their leader up on a pedestal.  I remember very well, as a child who was raised Catholic, I had a respect (or perhaps more accurately, a fear) of priests.  And almost all the Catholics I knew were more than willing to kiss up to the priest as one would a king.

But there is a difference, on the one hand, between foolishly fawning over someone important, and on the other hand, truly “giving honor to whom honor is due” (Romans 13:7).  So, yes, there should be respect and honor toward church leaders, but remember, there is a balance.   We can see that balance here in what Jesus said about the scribes and Pharisees:

“But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments, And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues, And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi.  But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.” (Matthew 23:5-8)

To consider other believers as equal with you is the biblical attitude for spiritual leaders.  Yes, as a leader, you have a different role in the church than the others, but in the eyes of God, they are just as important as you are.  Actually, according to Scripture, the minister is the servant of the congregation (Philippians 2:5-7; Colossians 1:25)!  After recognizing this fact, to wear a distinct set of clothing in order to stand out from the others is questionable, at best, and calls into question your motives.  

The scribes and Pharisees loved the spiritual titles that were bestowed upon them and the intoxicating affection that came with it.  But Jesus burst their bubble and told them that they were all brothers, i.e., they were not to see themselves as “greater than” the common people. 

Also, neither did He allow them to be “set apart” by their clothing/fashion:

“Then in the audience of all the people he said unto his disciples, ‘Beware of the scribes, which desire to walk in long robes, and love greetings in the markets, and the highest seats in the synagogues, and the chief rooms at feasts;’” (Luke 20:45-46)

The truth is they did it for show.  Yes, they wore the special garments so everyone would notice them and revere them over the “common” people.

Blending In or Standing Out?

But wait a minute!  Didn’t Jesus also wear a robe?  Wasn’t He distinguishing Himself?  After all, He was a Jewish rabbi, right?

But note this fact:  When Judas Iscariot was approaching Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane to betray Him, why did Judas have to give a sign to the murderous mob of Jews in order to identify Jesus and to distinguish Him from the apostles?  Look what happened:

“Now he [Judas] that betrayed Him gave them a sign, saying, Whomsoever I shall kiss, that same is he: hold him fast.” (Matthew 26:48)

Jesus was a rabbi, but if He was wearing special clerical attire (like the Pharisees and scribes), why in the world did Judas have to give them a secret sign, and why did they not simply recognize Him by His clothing?  It seems that Jesus actually blended in with the others quite well.  So, Jesus was not trying to stand out among the leaders by His clothing or to promote special vestments of any kind for the “clergy.”

Outward Appearance or Behavior?

But what about priests in the Old Testament?  If special clothing for the spiritual leaders is wrong today, then why did God command the Old Testament priests to have a distinct attire (Exodus 28:1-43)?  If it was ok to wear those distinctive garments back then, why not today?

The point is the clerical garb in the Old Testament was very symbolic and it was used to point to Jesus in the New Testament.  Each and every piece of clothing was a distinct picture of Jesus Christ.  And all that symbolism was fulfilled by Him, not necessarily intended to be continued in the New Testament church.

The question must be asked, “Why would a Christian want to wear a “uniform” indicating that he is a “clergyman”?  Would this not appeal to the flesh and cause pride issues?  Again, wasn’t this the exact thing that happened to the leaders/Pharisees/scribes of Jesus’ day?

Is there anything wrong with wearing nice clothing?  No, not at all.  A close Christian friend of mine says that someone in church should not look like a bale of hay that had just been shot out of a cannon.  Although appearance is not everything, we certainly should not want to be dressed sloppily or indecently, but rather, appropriately.  

But is there really a need to broadcast your “ministry” and your status, through special clothing?  Should it not be shown through your behavior instead?

1 Peter 3:3-4 talks about one’s adorning/value not being merely outward:

“Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.”

Although Peter was speaking about women here, this principle should still apply to men.

Not surprisingly, many outsiders/unbelievers think that this ministerial clothing is all about pride, maybe even about intimidation! 

Conclusion

I’m not saying that everyone who wears clerical dress of any kind does it out of selfish pride, but human nature can easily and quickly give in to pride (Genesis 3:6; Proverbs 16:18; 1 John 2:16).

In America, billions of dollars are spent each year on make-up and beauty products, gym memberships and provocative clothing.  People are well aware of their looks and what they want to look like.  We strive to be attractive and we desire to be noticed. 

Furthermore, it is a fact of human nature that a person (Christian or not) who is wearing a uniform of any kind is normally self-aware of that uniform, especially if he is proud of his accomplishments that are represented by the uniform.  In fact, many are hoping to be noticed by others, desiring to be on display.

Whether it is a Boy Scout uniform, a police uniform, a martial arts uniform, a military uniform, etc., the person is almost always conscious of it.  Many of these will even admit that they wear these uniforms out of pride.  Do you think that priests, rabbis or Christian ministers are exempt from this tendency?  No, no one is. 

So, whether it is a Jewish rabbi, a Catholic or orthodox priest, or a Protestant minister, they should be very careful.  Jesus knows the heart of man and how capable he is of pride (Jeremiah 17:9; 2 Timothy 3:2).  I think we need to heed His Word by examining our hearts daily (2 Corinthians 13:5). 

Clerical dress can certainly be a stumbling block, both for the one who wears it and for the one who observes the wearer.

A LESSON NOT YET LEARNED FROM THE PAST

 

For a long time Catholics have chided Protestants for their divisions.  The Catholic Church claims to be the one true Church of Jesus Christ (CCC #2105).  They claim that they are “one” because of the Church’s dedication to unity.  See this article:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2014/02/there-aremany-important-choices-that-we.html

Catholics claim a “profound” unity, one which is established by God and is “inherent” in the Church.  They will claim that their unification is in direct obedience to the prayer of Jesus Christ in John 17.  But interestingly, the Catholic Church is also concerned about unity with other spiritual groups, including non-Christian ones.

But this is nothing new – they have been spearheading (and are totally committed to) an ecumenical movement which will ultimately cause all religions to come together in “peace,” with the Catholic Church as the head, of course. 

Those leading in this ecumenical movement seem to be saying that we should all put aside our differences and focus on our agreements and similarities.  After all, wasn’t unity what Jesus was all about?  (Actually, no – see Matthew 10:34).  And wouldn’t this unity lead to peace, something that would benefit the whole world?

Well, this sounds really good, doesn’t it?  Everyone would be one big happy family.  Although we would not agree on everything, or even agree on many things, we would at least be “unified” and enjoying peace, right?

But what does this type of unity look like?  Would it look like former Pope John Paul II’s  prayer meetings, where he prayed together with religious leaders from around the world, including Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Bahais, a voodoo priest, witch doctors, and other pagans – hoping to focus on “common ground”?  Is this the “unity” that the Catholic Church is hoping for?

What Will I Have to Give Up?

These ecumenical groups want to encourage dialogue with others in order to bring about this unity.  Dialogue with other groups is fine, but again, their emphasis must be, and will ultimately be, on putting aside our theological and spiritual differences, even our most cherished ones in order to be part of this group.  But this concept is totally unbiblical and promotes “unity at any cost.”  And the cost would indeed be great.

But how can Catholics “unite” with others whose faith does NOT include the same authority, doctrine, worship, government, outward expression, or sacraments?  “Can two walk together, unless they are agreed” (Amos 3:3)?

But it is interesting how they praise the “special” unity they have, yet they also want to unite with other spiritual groups (like Protestants and others) who (according to the Catholic Church) do not have true unity!  So, which is it?  Do you Catholics want to embrace true unity or not?  Why brag about your own “unique” brand of unity and then desire to tarnish that unity by joining with other groups whose concept of unity is “tainted”?

Even if Catholics would be sincere about true unity and true faith, those with whom they are joining would necessarily be corrupting that faith with a different form of their own. 

The Core Biblical Truth

But is the peace sought after in this modern ecumenical movement biblical?  Is this actually the kind of peace and unity that Jesus had in mind?

Jesus Christ is indeed the Prince of Peace (Isaiah 9:6).  But there is such a thing as false peace, as well (Jeremiah 6:14).  This is the “peace” that the ecumenical movement brings.  The Bible also tells us:

“There is no peace, saith the Lord, unto the wicked” (Isaiah 48:22). 

These groups will have neither true peace nor true unity.  And it is extremely important to remember that the unity that Jesus calls for is unity in the truth (John 17:17)!

Following is one of the simplest and most critical teachings in all of Scripture.  The rejection of this verse by the world religions and other non-Christians is the cause of many, if not most, of them perishing in the Lake of Fire.  Listen very carefully to what Jesus Christ says:

“Jesus saith to him, ‘I am the way, the truth, and the life:  no man cometh unto the Father, but by Me.’” (John 14:6)

There is no way to avoid this core biblical truth.  It is His work on the cross, alone, that allows any human being to be fit for Heaven.  Absolutely no one on the face of this planet could possibly make it into Heaven apart from His suffering at Calvary.  Those who do not abide by this truth will be lost.  Yes, Christianity is exclusive, so the secular world (and even the religious world) doesn’t like this fact. 

John 14:6 simply will not allow the modern ecumenical movement to ultimately prosper.  This is an absolute biblical fact.  This movement cannot and will not circumvent the truth of God’s Word.  I pray that we can all embrace this truth before Judgment Day comes.

Who is Behind this?

It’s interesting to see some of the groups who are behind all this modern ecumenical activity.  How is it that secular organizations like the United Nations (UN) and the European Union (EU), corrupt as they both are, would be so interested in a religious crusade like the ecumenical movement?  Personally, I believe that their interest is in control, not brotherly unity.

The World Council of Churches (WCC) is another corrupt entity that is pushing this idea.  In fact, they have been working together with the Catholic Church to bring about this movement for quite a while now. 

Another such attempt at ecumenism happened in 1994, where a group of Catholics and Protestants got together and drafted a document titled Evangelicals and Catholics Together: the Christian Mission in the Third Millennium (ECT).  It was signed by prominent members on both sides.   The document emphasized unity and a common mission between the two groups.  This seemed to be an attempt to reverse the Protestant Reformation of the 16^th century, and there was a heavy emphasis on agreement on the doctrine of justification.

Shame on these Protestants for betraying the gospel of grace.  Whether intentional or not, they have fallen for the slick language and have violated the biblical gospel and traded it for a works-based salvation, which is inherent in the Catholic system.  Have both sides forgotten what the Reformation was all about?  Did these people forget about all the anathemas (curse of excommunication) hurled at Protestants from the Catholic Council of Trent?  Do they not remember that many people died (on both sides) to maintain their cherished doctrines?  Or is it all just a simple “mistake” or “misunderstanding” from the past, to be glossed over today?

The Tower of Babel One More Time?

The book of Genesis tells us of man’s first attempt at ecumenism (Genesis 11:1-8).  In a nutshell, God confounded this endeavor when they were trying to form a one-world government/religion.  He didn’t like it then, and He doesn’t like it now.  But in this modern, last-day attempt, God will actually allow mankind to go through with it, but man will finally see that the result will be disastrous.  It will end with the anti-Christ creating a one-world “church” where everyone will be forced to worship him (the anti-Christ) because he performed impressive false miracles (Revelation 13:11-15)… and many will believe in this great delusion (2 Thessalonians 2:11) and will be eternally lost because of it.

Conclusion

Shouldn’t the world have learned an important lesson from this biblical story?  No, they haven’t, but this ecumenical movement is an attempt by man to re-create the tower of Babel.  In essence, it is man shaking his fist toward God once again, and saying “We don’t care what God thinks about it, we will make a name for ourselves” (Genesis 11:4). 

I once heard an example given by Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason.  His example demonstrated the importance of similarities and differences.  He drew a picture of two small round circles, one representing an aspirin and the other representing arsenic (a deadly poison).  He pointed out that they were both small pills, both round, and both started with the letter “a”.  These were the similarities.  But far more important was the fact that one would KILL you and the other would help if you had a headache.

He made the point that their differences were far more important than what they had in common.  It is the same thing with different religions/beliefs.  No matter how many similarities a false religion has with the true one, being at odds with the most crucial core belief of Christianity is fatal.  The difference between the biblical gospel and other “gospels” is one’s destiny for eternity.

So, there is no way that all religions can come together in “unity” in a successful way.  They cannot tolerate the harsh truth that Jesus is the only way to Heaven.  My friends, either Jesus is lying or He is telling the truth.  We cannot have it both ways.

If I were a Catholic, I would take a serious look at the list of powerful people and organizations that are promoting this ecumenism and run far away from them.  Any group pursuing such “unity” is extremely dangerous.

This biblical lesson from the past that God has given mankind concerning ecumenism is simply one from which we MUST learn.  Each person’s eternal destination depends on it.

SEEDS OF DOUBT

 

The topic of an eternal Hell is not a pleasant one.  No sane person wants to go to this horrible place (Mark 9:42-48).  Most of us would rather not even talk about it and we would like to think that no one goes there.  If only we could be assured that it will remain empty!  Wouldn’t that be great?

Some may say that if Hell is indeed a reality, maybe it is just there as a warning so that we will live right and steer clear of the sins that God warned us about in the Bible.  It would be an effective deterrent.  Then everyone could go to Heaven!  We can hope, can’t we?  So, is there a chance that Hell will remain empty?

Well, it seems that Pope Francis, the head of the largest church in the world (the Catholic Church) may be convincing himself (and others) that it could indeed be empty.

According to an article from the Catholic News Agency (CNA) dated January 24, 2024, Pope Francis did an interview and appeared on Italy’s most prime-time talk show.  It was an hour-long broadcast with a viewership of three million people tuning in.

The pope was asked how he imagines the concept of Hell.  He responded, “What I am going to say is not a dogma of faith but my own personal view: I like to think of Hell as empty; I hope it is.” 

See the article here:

https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/256542/pope-francis-i-like-to-think-of-hell-as-empty

To his credit, the pope says that this is not a dogma, that is, it is not an official or infallible teaching of the Catholic Church.

But the Bible is clear.  Jesus Christ, Himself, said:

“Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it” (Matthew 7:13-14 – emphasis added).

This passage is unmistakably clear, and of course the pope is well aware of what Jesus said.  He could have told his audience:

“Hey folks, what Jesus said about Hell is clear: There will be many more people in Hell than in Heaven.  Let’s not fool ourselves.  We’d like Hell to be empty, but Jesus cannot lie.”

But no, he decided to confuse his audience and plant seeds of doubt.

We can all hope that it will be empty, but Scripture tells us otherwise.  Our “hope” does not override God’s truth.  This type of hope is not a biblical one.

Misleading the Flock

It is interesting that in this same interview, the pope also stated:

“As a bishop, I have a very great responsibility to the Church.”  He was also asking for prayer “that I do not end up in the attitude of a mediocre shepherd who does not take care of his flock.”

Yes indeed, he does have a great responsibility.  People are actually placing their souls in this man’s hand.  And part of that responsibility is to NOT mislead the flock (Ezekiel 34:7-10; Acts 20:28).

It is true that the pope did not directly say that Hell is (or will be) empty.  But planting that subtle, yet false, little seed about Hell is not “taking care of his flock.”  It makes him worse than a “mediocre” shepherd – this just adds to the already-known fact that he is a false shepherd.  His hope of Hell being empty is a direct contradiction of God-breathed Scripture (Matthew 7:13-14).

Pope Francis is flirting with the teaching of universalism.  Universalism is a doctrine claiming that all humans will eventually be saved.  But this is certainly not what the Bible teaches (Matthew 25:46; 2 Thessalonians 1:9-10).  He is toying with the idea without actually officially declaring that Hell will be empty.  It is an extremely dangerous suggestion.  He is actually giving these people a false hope by planting seeds of doubt.

Sadly, when people believe in universalism, they will ultimately say, “Hey, I don’t have to worry, since no one goes to Hell!  So I can live any sinful way I want and still go to Heaven.”  This produces moral indifference and it is the obvious fruit of this teaching.

Not Just Suggesting…

But just in case anyone was wondering, there is evidence that Pope Francis does indeed lean toward universalism.

Here is a link to a speech given by the Pope containing some interesting (and unbiblical) statements:

https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/audiences/2022/documents/20220202-udienza-generale.html

According to this official speech to a general audience by the pope, titled St. Joseph and the Communion of Saints:

“No one can exclude themselves from the Church….”

And again, a little later the pope says:

“‘Father, let us think about those who have denied the faith, who are apostates, who are the persecutors of the Church, who have denied their baptism: are these also at home?’  Yes, these too, even the blasphemers, everyone.  We are brothers.  This is the communion of saints.”

Interestingly, there is absolutely nothing in this speech about repentance, forgiveness, guilt, contrition, or sorrow for sin.  Apparently, a person does not need repentance after blaspheming or becoming an apostate, and he can still be a member of the Catholic Church!

Again, the pope says that no one can exclude himself from the Catholic Church.  Is Francis teaching some kind of “Once Saved, Always Saved” doctrine for Catholics?

Is God’s Justice Too Harsh?

In another article concerning the same interview, Pope Francis is said to have also commented on the phrase from the traditional Act of Contrition prayer:

“… because I have sinned, I have deserved your punishments.” 

But the pope doesn’t seem to like this wording and described this as “overly harsh.”  See here:

https://ucatholic.com/news/pope-francis-discusses-hope-for-empty-hell-in-candid-tv-interview/

Overly harsh?  Is punishment for sin really a radical concept?  Our very laws in America are indeed based on biblical principles – including punishment for crime and punishment for sin.  Why should this surprise anyone?

While the idea of an “empty Hell” may seem “compassionate,” this concept is not biblical.

The “Gradual Decline” Concept

There is a principle, a concept, in which the devil operates – one that I will term the “gradual decline.”  When the devil wishes to attack most people, when he wants you to move away from God and His Word, he will not show up as a scary monster in a red suit with a pointy tail and a pitchfork, and announce that he is here to steal your soul!  That’s much too obvious.  If he did that, everyone would easily recognize the danger and reject him.  But since he is very subtle and deceptive (2 Corinthians 11:13-14), he is more likely to introduce false teaching a very little bit at a time, so that no one notices the damage until it is too late.

A fitting analogy would be if you were talking to someone and a third person was hiding and he ever-so-slightly turned down the light dimmer switch every fifteen minutes while you talked.  And before you know it, after a couple of hours, to your surprise, you are almost completely in the dark!

It is the same concept that the devil uses to deceive people with a little bit of false doctrine, given every so often, until it is too late and you are neck deep in heresy.

This, I think, accurately describes the pope’s subtle twisting of Scripture.  First he plants a tiny “harmless” seed by suggesting Hell may be empty.  To the faithful Catholic, the pope is seen as the “Vicar of Christ.”  He represents Jesus Christ on earth, or so they teach.  This faithful Catholic has never seen Jesus, but he has seen his representative (the pope).  It is hard for him to doubt the leader of Christ’s Church, since they see him as utterly trustworthy.  If the pope says that he hopes that Hell will be empty, then this Catholic can say the same thing! 

This seed sits there in his brain and becomes quite real to him and may become a “foundational” concept.  After this idea is completely saturating his mind, it becomes easier to accept this teaching as absolute.  Once that happens (and an empty Hell becomes a “reality”), it is just a small step to feel free to go deeper and deeper into sin, and finally, his heart becomes hardened (Romans 2:5) and anything goes.  You know, because there is no danger of Hell anyway, right?

This person is in a gradual decline, falling directly into the devil’s trap.  And it all started “innocently” with the pope’s “hope” that Hell will be empty.

Conclusion

Make no mistake – Universalism is a false teaching.  The Bible is clear when it tells us that Hell will not be empty. (1 Corinthians 9:16, Romans 2:6-10 and Revelation 21:8)

This is bad enough, but what’s next for the average Catholic?  What deception does the pope have in store to convince the world tomorrow or next week?  He’s been a very controversial pope in the past, and this idea of an empty Hell is certainly raising eyebrows, as well.  We know that this is not an official Catholic teaching, but this is still being pushed by its leader.

Some may be thinking that what the pope said is no big deal – he’s just talking or pondering, not teaching.  But words have meaning and many of the one billion Catholics in the world are impressionable and may be easily swayed by him.

My prayer is that they would be swayed by the Holy Scriptures and not be corrupted by these seeds of doubt. 

 “And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.” (Revelation 18:4)

 

THE “INFALLIBLE CHURCH” DECEPTION (Part 2)

Last month, we mainly dealt with 1 Timothy 3:15, which speaks of the church of Jesus Christ being the pillar and ground of the truth, and we addressed how the Catholic Church wrongly interprets this passage.  See Part 1 here:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2024/07/the-infallible-church-deception-part-1.html

This is just one passage that the Catholic Church uses to attempt to claim infallibility for itself.  But they also use a few other passages, like Ephesians 1:22-23 together with Colossians 2:9-10 to assert their infallibility and we will talk about these today.

Confusion of Terms

Let’s read the Ephesians 1 passage first.  The author of this epistle (the apostle Paul) says:

v. 22 – And [God] hath put all things under his [Jesus’] feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, 

v. 23 – Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.

Ok, so we have here a passage saying that the Father has put all things under Jesus’ feet (that is, under His control) and He appointed Jesus as Head over all things, including the church.  Then Paul says that the church is the “body of Christ” and it is the “fullness of Christ.”  Catholics will also tie this in to Colossians 2:

v. 9 – For in Him [Jesus] dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily

v. 10 – and ye are complete in Him, which is the head of all principality and power [or, “which is over every ruler and authority” - NASV].

And somehow, they take this to mean that the Church therefore has infallibility.

This is the logic of at least one popular Catholic apologist, John Martignoni, in his newsletter, “Apologetics for the Masses” #352.  This particular newsletter is, for the most part, about the “infallibility” of the Catholic Church and Martignoni goes on to reason this way:

1) The church is the body of Christ (Ephesians 1:22-23)

2) Jesus Christ is the Head of that body (Ephesians 1:22-23)

3) Jesus is also the Head of all rule and authority (Colossians 2:10)

4) Therefore, the Church IS all rule and authority (which gives them infallibility)!

See the article here:

https://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter/466-apologetics-for-the-masses-352-problems-with-protestantism-1

But this logic is utterly ridiculous.  This is like saying that a business owner has/owns two separate shops in two different places.  One is a bait shop and the other is a flower shop.  But it would be absolutely wrong to assume that the two shops are one and the same just because he is the owner/head of both.  It just doesn’t follow. 

Headship over multiple things does not make all of (or even any of) those things equal.  God is Head over the animal world on earth just as He is Head over all the galaxies in space, but they are certainly not the same in any sense.  Likewise, Jesus is the Head over the church, and He is also Head over all rule and authority, but that in no way makes these two things equal.

There is nothing in these verses about infallibility for the church, either explicitly or implicitly.  It is amazing the length that Catholic apologists will go to in their desperation to exalt Mother Church!

Is the Church Christ?

Catholic apologist Tim Staples, writing for Catholic Answers, tells us:

“In Ephesians 1:22-23, Paul tells us that the Church is Christ, extended in this world” (Emphasis in original).  See here:

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/mary-saves

No, I’m sorry, but Paul is not telling us that the church is Christ. 

Maybe Staples is just meaning that Jesus is giving us authority to spread the gospel truth.  That would be true.  Perhaps he means that the church is an extension of Christ’s will, behavior, character, etc.  Maybe he’s saying that the church is closely related to Christ.  These are all true.

But then again, maybe he is saying that the (Catholic) Church IS actually Christ or that the Church has become Christ, as it states in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC #795).  And of course, this would bolster their concept of Church infallibility, but this is certainly not biblical. 

See this article:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2017/05/can-we-become-christ.html

The Fullness of Christ

At any rate, the Catholic Church makes much of the phrase concerning the Church being “the fullness of Christ.”  But in what sense is the body (the church) the fullness of Christ?  What does that even mean?

Just as Jesus (the Son) is the full and true expression of the Father in Heaven (John 14:9), the church (when it is functioning correctly and properly responding to God’s Word) is also the full and true expression of Christ on earth. 

As I mentioned in Part 1 of this series, Jesus (the Head) is indeed infallible, but the body (the church) is not, since it is not always functioning correctly and not always properly responding to God’s Word.  Even when members of the church are indeed functioning as God wants them to, it is still not infallible.  So, being the “fullness of Christ” has nothing to do with church infallibility in the contexts of Ephesians 1 and Colossians 2.

A “Concrete Application”?

Another passage that the Catholic Church uses to try and bolster their claims of infallibility is Acts 15:1-31.  This is about the very first church council (the Jerusalem Council), which involved the question of the Law of Moses and justification (i.e., “Must a person follow the Mosaic Law in order to be saved?” Acts 15:1, 5).  Catholics will claim that this debate in the Jerusalem Council is a prime example and a “concrete application” of the need for an infallible church. 

I beg to differ.

Catholics want to compare this Jerusalem Council in the very early church to the modern Catholic Church’s councils and their operations (and claims).  Catholics are claiming that we must have an infallible church today to be able to interpret Scripture correctly and to provide the world with true and authoritative doctrine with certainty, just like they did in Jerusalem.  Catholics will say that the Jerusalem Council is the example to follow for the church today.  Furthermore, they’ll emphasize that the Holy Spirit agreed with the decision of the Council (Acts 15:28), so if the Holy Spirit agreed, then it must have been an infallible decision, right?

No, although the early church described in Acts 15 could indeed claim to have a certain level of infallibility, it was only an infallible decision because there were APOSTLES present in this Council (v. 7, 12, 13).  In other words, the church in that day was still receiving new divine revelation from God, and this was only because apostles and prophets were still around then, who enjoyed at least some measure of infallibility.   

But we don’t have apostles and prophets today who operate in the same capacity as they did back then in the early church.  Furthermore, why should the Holy Spirit’s agreement with that specific church council prove the concept of church infallibility for today?  The Holy Spirit “agrees” with anyone who proclaims biblical principles, but that doesn’t imply infallibility for that person or group in the post-apostolic church.  Again, the difference is the Holy Spirit working through apostles and prophets in the early church.

As I said, the post-apostolic church does not have the benefit of receiving new divine revelation like the early church did.  Even the Catechism of the Catholic Church would agree with me on that (CCC #66).

So, the Jerusalem Council simply does not prove the need for an infallible church today.  The only infallible source of truth we have today is the Holy Scriptures (2 Timothy 3:16-17), so there is no need for infallible Tradition, nor for an infallible Magisterium.  Interestingly, the Catholic Magisterium only claims to be infallible on very rare occasions, but Scripture is infallible ALL the time.

Conclusion

There are more passages that the Catholic Church would call upon to attempt to demonstrate that their Church is infallible.  We’ve only covered a few of the main ones here.  Of course, we haven’t forgotten Matthew 16, which is probably their main argument.  But this chapter has been dealt with elsewhere on this blog.  See here:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/search?q=matthew+16

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2016/09/ 

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2016/08/

 Other passages might include John 21:15-17, where Jesus asks Peter to “feed My sheep.”  But feeding His sheep applies to all pastors, not just Peter.  Not a word about infallibility here.

They also refer to Matthew 18, concerning “binding and loosing,” but that topic is covered in the Matthew 16 links just above.

There is also Luke 22:31-32, where Jesus prays for Peter’s faith.  Jesus did this because He knew that Peter would be weak in his trial and end up denying Him.  But Jesus intercedes for all of us, myself included, but that certainly does not make me infallible.

They sometimes also use John 16:13 to say that “… when He, the Spirit of truth, is come, He will guide you into all truth.”  That is true, but is there any one person or group who actually, literally, possesses “all truth”?  No, that’s not what the verse is saying: Jesus is telling us that when the Holy Spirit comes, He will give you all the truth you NEED for any particular occasion.  I think it is safe to say that God has never given any single human being “all truth,” i.e., every bit of truth in Heaven and earth in human history.  Not even the Bride of Christ, the whole church collectively, has this level of knowledge, but only the Trinity.

I’m sure that there are other passages that I haven’t mentioned, but I believe that what we have shared is sufficient to show that, according to Scripture, the concept of an “infallible church” is truly a deception, a mere figment of the Catholic Church’s imagination.

 

THE “INFALLIBLE CHURCH” DECEPTION (Part 1)

In the Catholic/Protestant debate arena, I have seen Catholics try to “bait” Protestants with a question, and the question Catholics ask is:

“What is the pillar and foundation of the truth?”

Often, this question is intended to trick the Protestant into saying “the Bible,” since many, if not most, Protestants hold the Bible as the ultimate source of truth in spiritual matters.  So, if the Protestant answers this way, the Catholic will respond that the correct answer to this question (according to the Bible, itself) is the Church:

“But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground [foundation/bulwark] of the truth.” (1 Timothy 3:15 – emphasis added)

It is unfortunate that some Protestants will answer the question wrongly.  But anyone who has been saved for a while and is familiar with the Bible should be acquainted with this verse and what it actually means.

However, in a footnote in its Catechism, the Catholic Church uses this particular verse to advance the idea that it is the Catholic Church who is “the pillar and bulwark of the truth,” who “faithfully guards the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints” (CCC 171) – and somehow, this idea leads to the “infallibility” of their Church.  Infallibility means that the Church is incapable of error (under certain conditions).  But is the biblical passage in question really saying that?  Are Protestants missing something? 

Catholics will fight hard against the teaching of Sola Scriptura, i.e., the concept of “the Bible alone.”  The doctrine of Sola Scriptura, believed by most Protestants, teaches that the Bible is the only infallible source of truth for the church today, as 2 Timothy 3:16-17 indicates.  But Catholics will use 1 Timothy 3:15 to try to say otherwise, to demonstrate that the Church has infallibility, also.

To maintain this interpretation, the Catholic logic goes something like this:

“Pillars and foundations are made to hold up something and keep it from crashing down.  In the case of this verse, this pillar/foundation is holding up the truth.  If the truth would somehow collapse, it would be lost.  But Jesus told us in Matthew 16:18 that the gates of Hell would not prevail against the church.  For this victory against the gates of Hell to be true, the Church should not be able to err in its teachings, therefore, it must be infallible.  Furthermore, the fact that Jesus Christ is the Cornerstone of this foundation (Matthew 21:42; 1 Peter 2:6) and the Church is the body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:27), these things assure us of the infallibility of the Church.”

At least, that’s pretty much how they come to this conclusion.

An Analogy

But the Catholic interpretation of 1 Timothy 3:15 is like a son who is admonished by his father:

“Son, you are aspiring to be a doctor and it is of the utmost importance that you maintain the highest medical and ethical standards and responsibilities.  You must study to become the best possible doctor that you can be!”

And then the son concludes from this short speech:

“Dad says that I am the best doctor there is – I can do no wrong!”

Of course, this was not at all what Dad was really saying.  The son, in his quest for greatness, was obviously mistaken in interpreting his father’s message to him.  The father’s words were spoken to impart responsibility and nothing more.  But they were twisted by his son into suggesting some sort of infallibility.

This is exactly the same mistake that the Catholic Church is committing when they claim infallibility from Paul’s admonition to Timothy in this passage.   

The man’s son was wrongly emphasizing his exaggerated ability above his critical responsibility in his chosen field.  In the very same way, the Catholic Church is taking this verse out of context to wrongly emphasize a supposed special ability over and above its critical responsibility to uphold the gospel truth.

Again, the emphasis of the apostle Paul was on Timothy’s (and his local church’s) responsibility to behave and to uphold the truth in the household of God – not on some imagined infallibility.  This is indeed an incredible leap of logic for the Catholic Church which violates the context of this passage.

“The Church” Really Means Something Else

By the way, when Catholics say “the Church,” they are referring specifically to the Catholic Church, and often, to its “Magisterium” (i.e., its leaders).  But this is an unbiblical definition, as I show elsewhere on this blog.  Absolutely nowhere in the Holy Scriptures does the term “the church” ever refer to a Magisterium.  As the old saying goes, “It just ain’t there!”

See these articles:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2022/01/the-origin-of-truth.html

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2024/05/is-noahs-ark-symbol-of-catholic-church.html

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2017/04/the-catholic-mindset.html

All About Responsibility!

But let’s look at the passage again, starting with the previous verse:

v. 14 -These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly:

v.15 - But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. (1 Timothy 3:14-15 - Emphasis added)

Notice the “ought” in v. 15.  This is about what the members of the church should be doing.  The apostle Paul is telling Timothy and his congregation how to conduct themselves when the church assembly (Greek, “ekklesia”), or “house of God,” is gathered together.  But again, Catholics take this passage completely out of context.  They love to inject a whole new meaning into it.

Once more, the whole chapter (1 Timothy 3) is about the RESPONSIBILITIES, OBLIGATIONS and EXPECTATIONS of the leaders within the church, and NOT about any infallibility or special authority. 

No, the chapter is about church leaders needing to be careful in their behavior (v. 1-15) and their teachings (v. 2, 9), since it is their responsibility to safeguard and uphold the gospel message and not be a stumbling block in the way they conduct themselves.  This was actually more of a limitation on church leaders, rather than about their exaltation.

But Catholics try their hardest to make it about special Church authority and privileges of the Magisterium, when it is not about that at all.   

Guarantee of Infallibility?

Like I said, there is no infallibility here for the church.  The universal church of Jesus Christ, as a whole, is the pillar and foundation (metaphorically speaking) of the truth.  The church is not the truth itself and the truth doesn’t originate from the church, but Paul is saying that the church has the responsibility to uphold and support the truth through the faithful preaching of the gospel – not that it is a guarantee of infallibility for anyone in the post-apostolic church.

Has the church always been effective in fulfilling its mission of upholding the truth?  No, there are certainly times when members of the church have deviated from the truth.  This is exactly the reason why most of the New Testament epistles are corrective in nature, that is, the authors are correcting false teachings or improper behavior.  So we shouldn’t be surprised if we see apostasy in the church today.  After all, Paul warns us in the very next chapter that some would abandon the faith, and it would get worse as time goes on (1 Timothy 4:1-2).

Of course, this has not been a total apostasy, since Jesus said that the gates of Hell would not prevail against the church (Matthew 16:18).  You see, God has always had a faithful remnant.  But apostasy did indeed (and still does) exist, at different levels and in different places, throughout church history.

But the point here is that the church doesn’t have to be infallible to maintain the message of 1 Timothy 3. 

Do You Really Want to Say That?

When you say that the church cannot err, exactly what church are you talking about?  If Catholics are using the word “church” in a biblical sense, they are saying either:

1) that the local assembly (altogether) cannot err, or

2) that the universal, worldwide community of true believers (altogether) cannot err. 

But it is highly unlikely that they would ever say this about either of these two groups.  This is because they so often use the term “the Church” in an unscriptural sense.

The only way that you can force the Catholic interpretation onto the text of 1 Timothy 3:15 is by assuming an infallible Magisterium to start with. 

Catholics will sometimes stress the idea that, since the Church is the foundation, “whatever is built upon a foundation cannot be greater than that foundation – in other words, the foundation is always greater than what it supports.”  But hold on!  That may be true in the fields of architecture and construction, but are they implying that the Church (foundation) is greater than the very truth it upholds?  This is both arrogant and blasphemous!  Once again, the church can only be the pillar of truth IN THE SENSE OF BEING OBLIGATED TO UPHOLD THAT TRUTH!

There are always some in the church that can err in doctrine.  The Head (Jesus) cannot err, but the body (the church) certainly can.  Just because Jesus is identified with the church does not mean the church is infallible like He is.  The church is supposed to emulate Him in its character and its fruit (Galatians 5:22-25).  Christians have some of His characteristics, but we certainly don’t have His immutability, His omniscience, His omnipotence, His omnipresence, nor His infallibility.  Those are reserved for the Trinity alone.

What is a Household?

In 1 Timothy 3:15, the apostle Paul calls the church the “house” or “household” of God.  A family household is not always comprised of parents only, but also of children.  In the same way, the household of God does not contain leaders only, but it also includes “the laity” (the common man in the pew).  So, if the Church is indeed the household, and you want to maintain the Catholic interpretation of this passage, you’d have to say that everyone in the Church is infallible!  And I don’t think that anyone would want to say that.

Bad News

If being an infallible pillar of truth is automatic for Magisterial leaders, simply by reason of their office (as Catholics seem to think), then why do we have all the warnings from Paul toward church leadership (1 Timothy 3:1-13; 4:16; 5:21-22) and why such a concern for apostasy – even from leaders (Acts 20:28-31; Timothy 4:1)?  Furthermore, we often forget that Jesus, Himself, also warned His churches – including leaders (Revelation chapter 2 and 3). 

There should be no need for these warnings if infallibility is “automatic.”  In fact, these firm warnings (along with other biblical principles) exclude the possibility of such a gift for the post-apostolic church.  Otherwise, Jesus’ and Paul’s threats would be irrelevant. 

The truth is, being a biblical pillar/foundation is something that you choose to do, it is what you ought to do, so that you fulfill your responsibility as a leader or member of the church.  It doesn’t automatically happen because of the position you hold in your church.

At the risk of being redundant, the bottom line, once again, is that the apostle Paul (in context) was telling Timothy, “You NEED to be a pillar of the truth,” not, “You are guaranteed to be an infallible pillar of the truth.”  Thankfully, the church does not need to be infallible in order to effectively share and uphold this gospel truth.

The burden of proof is on Catholics to prove that infallibility is spoken of here (1 Timothy 3).  Once again, I would assert that this concept is simply being forced into this passage. 

The bad news for the Catholic Church is this: Not only do you have a wrong interpretation of 1 Timothy 3:15 (and therefore, do NOT have infallibility), but you also are NOT the pillar and foundation of the truth, as long as you are neck-deep in false doctrine.

So, I would assert that the concept of an “infallible church” is indeed a deception and that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura remains unscathed!

We will continue this topic next time in Part 2…