Thursday, May 2, 2024


In Palermo, Sicily resides a Palatine Chapel which is reported to contain a famous mosaic of Noah’s ark.  Pictures of it can be found here:

In this mosaic, Noah’s ark appears to be representing the Church, which Catholics officially believe to be the “universal sacrament of salvation” (Lumen Gentium, chapter VII, par. 48).  See here:

Please note that another official teaching of Catholicism is that the Catholic Church is absolutely necessary for the salvation of mankind.  The first paragraph of the papal decree Unam Sanctam reflects this teaching:

“Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to maintain that the Church is one, holy, catholic, and also apostolic… we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins… In her then is one Lord, one faith, one baptism... There had been at the time of the deluge only one ark of Noah, prefiguring the one Church… outside of this ark, all that subsisted on the earth was destroyed.” (Unam Sanctam, Bull of Pope Boniface VIII promulgated November 18, 1302). 

Moreover, this document “infallibly” declares:

“Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman pontiff [pope].” (Emphasis added)

See here:

This whole bull (public papal decree) is about the authority of the Catholic Church and the necessity of it for salvation.  And because of this concept, this Church puts forth the idea that the ark of Noah (Genesis chapters 6-8) has to be a picture of the Church – specifically, the Catholic Church.  So, with this in mind, we can begin to understand the reason why the average Catholic in the pew sees Noah’s ark as a symbol of the Church. 

But is the ark of Noah indeed a picture of the Church, or are Catholics mistaken?  Furthermore, does it even matter?

Wrong Picture

Yes, it does indeed matter, because Catholics are attributing to their Church a power that Scripture does not give it. 

It was certainly the ark that saved Noah and the other seven members of his family, but the church is not a structure, like a boat or a building, but rather, the church is defined as the people of God (1 Corinthians 16:19; Philemon 1:1-2). Believers are not IN the church, they, collectively, ARE the church. 

It is the people in the ark (Noah and his family) who are the picture of the church – while the ark itself represents Jesus, the one who saves from judgment!

What Does “the Church” Mean?

When most Catholics (even the “clergy”) use the term “the Church,” they are not using the biblical definition.  They are usually not talking about the universal, worldwide church of Jesus Christ (e.g., Ephesians 5:23; Colossians 1:17-18), nor the local assembly of believers (e.g., 1 Corinthians 1:2; Galatians 1:2; Revelation 2:1, 8, 12, 18; 3:1, 7, 14), but to them, the term “Church” means specifically the Magisterium, i.e., the leaders of the institution of the Church of Rome, the Catholic Church and no other church. 

Whether it is intentional or not, there is a continual effort in the Catholic Church to present the Magisterium in this way.  But the term “church” is not ever used this way in the Bible.  And once we use the biblical definition, it clears the air and does not allow the heresy of having any one denomination as the “one true church.”

This is simply the mindset of most Catholics.  See more of this mindset in this link:

What About 1 Peter 3:20?

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the event of Noah’s ark and the flood prefigures/symbolizes salvation by water baptism:

“The Church has seen in Noah's ark a prefiguring of salvation by Baptism, for by it ‘a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water.’" (CCC #1219)

And it then footnotes 1 Peter 3:20, which says:

“Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.”

Of this verse, Catholics will often focus on the last three words in the King James Version of the Bible – “saved by water.”  They claim that this verse proves that a person is saved by water baptism.  But the context does not bear this out.

A more correct reading would be “saved through the water,” as the great majority of the Bible translations indicate, as well as the Catholic Catechism quote above.

It is a fact that not every Scripture passage that talks about baptism is about water baptism.  Yes, there is water in the context of this passage, but the water here destroyed all those who were “baptized” in it.  The water in this context was the judgment of God.  If this is all about water baptism saving a person, this is a terrible example! 

The only reason that “baptism language” is used here is to indicate that Noah and his family were placed/immersed into the ark – which is what saved them.  This is a picture of those who are incorporated into the body of Christ to be saved (1 Corinthians 12:12-13), not into water.  Water baptism is simply a symbol of what happens to you when you get saved. 

So, this “salvation-by-baptism” argument fails to show that Noah’s ark is symbolic of the Catholic Church.

See more about 1 Peter 3:20 and baptism here:

Biblical Church vs. Sacramental Church

For the biblical Christian, the local church should indeed be a vital aspect of his life.  There, he is fed spiritually (Hebrews 5:13-14), he is edified and equipped for the ministry (Ephesians 4:12), encouraged and comforted in his Christian walk (1 Thessalonians 2:12), he is convicted of sin when necessary (1 Corinthians 14:24), and he is fellowshipping and interacting with other Christians in a mutually positive way (1 John 1:3, 7) – but most importantly, he is encouraged to depend on the life and work of Jesus Christ on the cross for his salvation, and that alone (Romans 4:4-6) – or, at least this should be the case. 

But throughout the individual Catholic’s life, the Catholic Church subtly (and sometimes not so subtly) conditions him to depend on the Catholic institution/organization/denomination itself for salvation.  Usually, he receives the sacrament of baptism very early in life, even as an infant.  He is brought up to believe that this absolved him of his original sin.  He is also taught that the sacrament/ritual of confirmation confirms and establishes him in his faith.  He will also receive the Eucharist weekly and go to confession often, and when he is at the point of death, he will receive the last rites.  It is a cradle-to-grave dependence upon the (Catholic) Church for salvation, through the sacraments.

All these are necessary steps in his salvation and these can only be obtained from the leaders of the Church.  And if he happens to miss a step, he can always depend on a temporary visit to Purgatory to finish the job that Jesus Christ was unable to finish with His work on the cross!  Yes, this is absolute blasphemy, yet, in practice, this is what the Catholic is expected to believe.

See this link for more on the sacraments:

See also a seven-part series on Catholic sacraments, beginning here:


Yes, the (truly biblical) local church is indeed very important.  But again, the Catholic Church puts great emphasis on a person’s lifelong subjection to its sacraments and rituals for salvation. 

And this is exactly why they liken the Church to Noah’s ark, because the ark is what saved the eight people of God, and they desperately want their members to believe that their salvation comes from the Church.

But in Catholic theology, it seems that Jesus always has to take a back seat to the Magisterium, which, in practice, is the one that is actually exalted. 

Granted, in their official documents, the Catholic Church uses many sublime descriptions and eloquent language to describe their honor of, and submission to, Jesus – yet in practice it seems to be quite different.  Mother Church is the one who always seems to be in the limelight, while the work of Jesus is minimized.

When one looks deeper into their doctrines, he will see a notable disparity between those teachings and the Holy Scriptures that they claim to love and obey.

To nail it home, the event of Noah’s ark points to the Savior of the world, Jesus Christ as the one who saves mankind, not to the Catholic Church.


Tuesday, April 2, 2024



In our last article, we dealt with a little history about the Inquisition and pointed out the inconsistencies, the cruelty and the corruption of the Catholic Church – who actually bred and established the environment that gave rise to the Inquisition.  And this is how they did it – the Catholic Church claims to be the “guardian of souls” and they also claim that they were commissioned by Jesus Christ to “root out heresy,” thus, leading up to one of history’s greatest tragedies. 

I left off addressing an article written by Catholic Answers, which can be found here:

The author of that article goes on to ask, “What’s the point?” That is, what is it that Fundamentalists [Protestants] think that the existence of the Inquisition proves?  Does it prove that “Catholics are sinners”?  That “people in positions of authority have used poor judgment”?  Does it prove “that otherwise good Catholics, afire with zeal, sometimes lose their balance”?  And the answer is that all these things could be true (for Catholics and Protestants) even without the Inquisition ever occurring.   

And that’s true, but the problem here is not just about the average Catholic in the pew.  It’s not simply about an authority occasionally using “poor judgment.”  It is about corrupt and power-hungry leaders in the Catholic hierarchy wanting control over the people and not letting the truths of Scripture dictate doctrine and behavior. 

It is possible that some who were punished in those days may have been actual heretics, but I believe the Inquisition was more about suppressing the voices of the faithful common people who questioned the authority of the Church or pointed to the Bible as the ultimate authority (2 Timothy 3:16-17).  This has always made the Catholic Church quite nervous.

Twisting the Scriptures

Toward the end of the article, the author points out that:

“… it is easy to see how those who led the Inquisitions could think their actions were justified.”  And he goes on to point to certain Old Testament passages that encourage the killing of certain offenders in order to purge the evil from their midst (Deuteronomy 17:2-5; 13:6-11; 13:12-18).  

All right then, if Catholic Answers wants to be consistent and continue with this line of thinking, they also need to push for the stoning to death of all gay Church members, gay priests, gay bishops, gay cardinals, etc. (Leviticus 18:22; 20:13).  After all, this is also part of the law in the Old Testament, right?

But of course they would never do that because they know it would be wrong to do today.  They know that we are living under a different and better covenant (Hebrews 8:6) than that of the Old Testament law because Jesus ushered in a system of grace. 

Although homosexuality is wrong, there is no reason today to put gay people to death (or sexually promiscuous straight people, for that matter) unless there are other crimes involved.

Furthermore, Catholic Answers knows very well that the Inquisition occurred under the New Testament period.  So, why would they try to apply a strictly Old Testament law in this case to support it?  I believe that they are just desperate to justify their involvement in the Inquisition.  But, remember, God does not sleep and justice will be done.

Furthermore, the author of this article tries to also use a New Testament verse as a reason to justify the Inquisition:

“But them that are without, God judgeth.  Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.” (1 Corinthians 5:13)

But this New Testament passage is obviously not about civilly punishing someone, or putting him to death using the law of the land, as was done in the Inquisition.  Note the context of this passage: “… not to company with fornicators” (v. 9); “… with such an one not to eat” (v. 11).  This context is about not fellowshipping with certain people.  It does not equate to Inquisition tactics.   So we can clearly see that this argument is another good example of Catholics twisting Scripture.    

The author also brings out the fact that some Protestant Reformers also made use of their own Inquisition-type justice.  And this is equally wrong, no matter who’s doing it.  I would certainly not defend Protestants if they did the same evils that the Catholic Church did.

In light of all this, a sensible person might say that this particular article by Catholic Answers is misguided.  But remember, this article is accepted by, and in line with, the teachings of the Church, because it contains the Catholic seals of approval (the Nihil Obstat and the Imprimatur).  So, if the article is wrong, so is the Church. 

Another Catholic’s Lack of Remorse

One other article by Catholic Answers, written by popular author and speaker Jimmy Akin, once again focused on the Old Testament principle that heresy is a serious sin.  Indeed it is.  But everybody already knows that.  This is not new information. 

Akin states that “Anti-Catholics regularly bash the Church with the Inquisition” to show “how evil the Church truly is.”  He states that Catholics should reply by pointing to the “Mosaic Inquisition.” 

He then refers to Deuteronomy 17:2-7 and Deuteronomy 13:1-11 which speak of the evils of idolatry and Israel’s obligation to investigate the accusations and to purge this evil from their midst.

But, like I said, we already know that idolatry and heresy are horrible sins.  But that’s not the point.  The point is that when we’re talking about heresy, how do we deal with that issue TODAY, in the Christian/New Testament era of grace?  Do we put offenders back on the medieval rack or burn them alive?  Or is there some other, more biblical, avenue that Christians should take?

But notice that in Jimmy Akin’s article, there is not one word about what we should do about heresy today, and absolutely no hint of remorse for what the Catholic Church has done in the past.  Instead of defending the Inquisition, he, like many other Catholics, is simply trying to justify those horrible things that were done to (supposed) heretics.  Notice that there is far more focus on trying to cover for Mother Church for the evils she has done, than on any concern for the multitude of innocent victims she destroyed.  Akin’s “Mosaic Inquisition” argument is just a disgusting diversion from the real topic and more twisting of Sacred Scripture.  It doesn’t relieve the Catholic Church’s guilt.  See Akin’s article here:

The Pope Apologizes for the Church’s Sins

According to an article in The Guardian (March 13, 2000), Pope John Paul II, as leader of the Catholic Church, had apologized for “2,000 years of violence, persecution and blunders.”  He also sought forgiveness for “sins committed against Jews, heretics, women, Gypsies and Native peoples.”

But if the Inquisition was ever a good thing, then why apologize for “sins against heretics”?  Doesn’t this also prove that the Inquisition was wrong, after all?  Otherwise, there’d be no need for an apology.  But, practically speaking, Pope John Paul II’s “apology” amounts to “too little… too late.”  See his apology here:

“Physician, Heal Thyself”

It is interesting that the Catholic Church was so greatly focused on the sin of heresy.  And they were willing to kill those who committed such a sin.

But what about the multitude of wicked sins that existed WITHIN the hierarchy of the Church itself during this very same time?  The Inquisition lasted from roughly the early 1200’s up until about the middle of the 1500’s.  During that time there was much sin, corruption and heresy that was happening within the Catholic Church in very high places.  Just to name a few:

Pope Leo X made Johann Tetzel an inquisitor (an officer in the Inquisition) in 1509.  Tetzel then duped the poor by selling indulgences and tricking the people into believing they could get family members out of Purgatory earlier than “scheduled.”  By the way, the lavish St. Peter’s Basilica (Catholic Church) was mainly funded by the already-burdened poor, who felt obligated to pay for the indulgences because they anguished over the eternal fate of their beloved relatives.  Note that Pope Leo apparently agreed with Tetzel’s tactics and the doctrine of indulgences.

Simony in the Catholic Church was also a major problem for many, many years.  Simony is the buying and selling of a church office – yes, even the papacy (the “Vicar of Christ’s” office) was bought and sold a number of times like a piece of common merchandise!  This is a wonderful example of the Catholic Church’s version of “apostolic succession,” which still claims a “lawful and unbroken chain of successors.”  Indeed!

The papacy was also infested with fornication, adultery, corruption and extreme greed for material goods and power.

And all this was happening, not only during this same Inquisition period, but throughout much of the Catholic Church’s history.

Jesus gave us an example of this type of hypocrisy:

“And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?  Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?  Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.” (Matthew 7:3-5)

There was so much wickedness and corruption that was going on within the Catholic leadership (including the papacy) that it would be hard for most Catholics to believe.  So, Catholic Church, before you started burning people at the stake for “heresy,” why didn’t you get your act together first?


The first Catholic Answers article mentioned above claims that the Inquisition is “a handy stick for Catholic-bashing, simply because most Catholics seem at a loss for a sensible reply.”  But there is a reason for that.  And it is because there IS no sensible reply – the Inquisition’s method of dealing with heresy was absolutely unbiblical and demonically inspired.  There is no excuse for it.  The Catholic Church needs to quit whining and playing the martyr (no pun intended) when people complain about the Inquisition.  The blame directed at the Church is deserved, and you Catholic apologists need to stop defending it!

The Inquisition was an opportunistic power grab and a convenient way to rid the Church of her detractors which was disguised as an attempt to “cleanse” the Church.  In my opinion, the Inquisition was an exercise in absolute control, an example of man trying to take the place of God. 

Even if they would show genuine repentance for the past, the Catholic Church should still be concerned about the heresy that yet remains within her own borders today.  If any biblical church sees heresy in others, they should then reach out to those heretics by preaching the Word of God to them (like Jesus did – Matthew 4:23) and reasoning with them (like the apostles did – Acts 17:2).  If you preach the gospel to them and they are still unrepentant, apply Matthew 18:15-17 and let God deal with their hearts. 

There is, and was, no godly justification for the Inquisition, so Catholics need to stop pretending that it was a necessary event, and they need to stop pretending that the Catholic Church is the “guardian of souls.”  A closer look at Scripture will prove otherwise.


Friday, March 1, 2024


Someone recently made a comment about wishing that the “Holy Inquisition” was still around.  I found that to be a very strange and twisted desire and I think it speaks volumes about that person’s mental state.  But what about the Inquisition?  When we think about it, we conjure up images of people being tortured, body parts being cut off, people being stretched on “the rack” until their joints were dislocated, people being fed to wild animals and all sorts of heinous treatment. 

And these things did indeed happen.  These unfortunate people were usually first tried in court, yet many times the victims were not even able to confront their accusers, since the state kept their identity a secret.  But who caused this and why were these people treated in such a horrible manner?  What did they do to deserve this? 

Well, the Inquisition happened because the Catholic Church considered these “offenders” heretics who went against the teachings of the Church.  The Catholic Church claims that they were simply trying to remove heresy, and if that involved threatening “heretics” with using such severe tactics, causing obedience to the Catholic Church, then so much the better.

According to the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia (online), there were actually three different periods of “Inquisition” in history. 

The first one, in southern France in the early 1200’s A.D., was known as the Medieval Inquisition.  A little later began the Spanish Inquisition (probably the most infamous one) at about 1478 A.D.  And finally came the Roman Inquisition at about 1542 A.D.  See here:

But was the Inquisition really that barbaric, that horrific?  Maybe so, maybe not.  Some tell of extreme horror stories, of atrocities done against Protestants (and other groups) by the Catholic Church.  Others downplay the stories, asserting that these punishments were “necessary” to keep heresy at bay.

I would not doubt that some of those claims are most likely exaggerated.  But on the other hand, I would think that many of them are indeed true.


One article on the Catholic Straight Answers website concerning the purpose of the Inquisition claims:

“Not only was a heretic’s soul in jeopardy, but also his false teaching jeopardized the souls of others.  The [Catholic] Church, as the guardian of souls, had to ‘root out’ any such heresy.”

This is actually an admission of the Catholic Church’s involvement in the Inquisition(s).  We need to remember this admission when they tell us that the Church had nothing to do with it, and that they simply turned over the “violators” to the state authorities to be punished. 

This article also admits that the Church and the state often “worked together in this endeavor,” since “the Roman Catholic Church was the only Church in western Europe until Martin Luther started the Protestant movement in 1517.”

I make this point because Catholics often try to push off the blame onto the state for such cruel abuse.  But when the Catholic Church turned someone over to the authority of the state to be punished, they knew exactly what to expect, so they can’t plead ignorance or innocence in this matter.  In fact, the Catholic Church brags that her authority is higher than the state’s authority.  Pope Nicholas I (858 A.D. – 867 A.D.) was quoted as saying:

“Fear, then, our wrath and the thunders of our vengeance, for Jesus Christ has appointed us with his own mouth absolute judges of all men, and kings themselves are submitted to our authority..."

See here:

Also, according to Catholic priest, theologian, and church historian Johann Joseph Ignaz von Dollinger:

“It is the office of the Papacy to tread under foot kings and emperors.” (The Pope and the Council, London 1869, p. 339)

It is a well-known fact that kings/emperors/monarchs feared the pope because they knew that he could excommunicate them.  This gave the pope great leverage, since they feared for their souls and they believed that the Catholic Church could actually keep them out of Heaven.  

Here is a list of examples of kings/emperors/monarchs who were excommunicated from the Catholic Church:

And here are examples of kings who were deposed (removed from office) by popes.

So, there is certainly blood on the Church’s hands and they can’t blame the Inquisition on the state.

A Catholic Event

The article by Catholic Straight Answers also states that after the Inquisition climaxed, it began a decline, which continued throughout most of Europe and was finally suppressed in 1834.

Ok, interesting thought here.  If the Inquisition was the right thing to do, if it was rooting out heresy (like the beginning of this article said it was), then why did it fade out?  Why did the Catholic Church allow the Inquisition to decline and be suppressed?  Didn’t they consider it God’s will to extinguish heresy and wouldn’t they try to continue with a new Inquisition?  Was there no one left in all Christendom at this time who was involved in heresy?  I believe that it stopped because the Church was losing its grip on its reign of terror and the people were seeing the truth of what was happening.

At the end of the article, it claims that the Inquisition was not a “Catholic event.”  But that contradicts what they said earlier about the Church being the “guardian of souls” and their responsibility to “root out heresy.”  But it is interesting that now they want to distance themselves from it?  Why?  Again, because they know it was wrong.


The article also admits that the Inquisition sometimes used torture to gain a confession of heresy, but not everyone thought that this was a moral thing to do:

“Bernardo Gui, one of the most famous inquisitors, commented that torture was deceiving and inefficacious because it forced the confession.” (Emphasis added)

I absolutely agree.

Furthermore, there is much quibbling today about the accuracy of the actual numbers of those killed.  But even if there was only ONE person wrongly killed, tortured or punished by the Inquisition, it was still too many!  Instead of arguing about numbers, how about showing some legitimate regret for those poor souls who suffered under the boot of the Church?  Indeed, the Catholic Church will have to answer for that.

See the article by Catholic Straight Answers here:,being%20finally%20suppressed%20in%201834.

What Would Jesus Do?

The highly influential and very popular Catholic Answers website also weighed in on this topic of the Inquisition.  See their article here:

In their article, it states that the purpose of the Spanish Inquisition was:

“To identify conversos – Jews and Muslims who pretended to convert to Christianity for political or social advantage and secretly practiced their former religion.  More importantly, its job was also to clear the good names of many people who were falsely accused of being heretics.”

But what would Jesus Christ say about this?  How did He go about trying to “root out heresy” when He was here on earth?  Did He advocate the burning at the stake of those who didn’t obey what He taught?  No, He set no such example, nor did He encourage it.  But rather, He left that judgment for the afterlife.  He just preached the gospel.  Those who refused His message He neither chased nor punished.  They made their decision and they would have to live with it.

Also, 2 Peter 2:1-22 has some harsh things to say about the promoters of heresy, but suggests nothing about civil penalties or punishment in man’s court.  We could also mention 1 Corinthians 11:19, Galatians 5:20, and Titus 3:10, which all mention heresy, but say nothing about civil penalties for it.  I hope the reader can see a pattern here.  Heresy is wrong, but we don’t kill people for that today (in the New Testament).

Whitewashing the Inquisition

That Catholic Answers article goes on to mention two “Fundamentalist” authors who wrote about the Inquisition, claiming that they harbored fierce animosity toward the Catholic Church “that had little to do with the Inquisition itself.”  In other words, Inquisition or no Inquisition, they had an agenda against Holy Mother Church.  Well, maybe they had some hostility toward the Church, but remember again, this is the same Church who claims that her job was to “root out heresy,” thus, starting this whole reign of terror.  This doesn’t sound like a Church that had “little to do” with the Inquisition.  In my opinion the Catholic Church is indeed the cause of it all.

Right after that, the article states that some Catholics (knowing that something is amiss) have glossed over the admittedly incontrovertible facts and tried to whitewash the Inquisition, fearing that the facts about the Inquisition might prove the illegitimacy of the Catholic Church.  But the author goes on to assure Catholics that “no account of foolishness, misguided zeal, or cruelty by Catholics can undo the divine foundation of the Church.”

Well, I’m sorry, dear Catholics, but it is far too late for that.  The “divine foundation” of the Catholic Church is, and always was, a fallacy.  This whole blog (and many other sources) is a testament to that.  The events of the Inquisition are only one of the many things that points to the illegitimacy of the Catholic Church.  But more devastating than that, it is the God-breathed Scriptures (2 Timothy 3:16-17) that clearly demonstrate the corruption, heresy and false teachings of this Church.  The Inquisition was only one symptom of the real problems.

Ok, I’ll stop for now and continue with Part 2 next time.  To be continued…

Thursday, February 1, 2024


Let’s rewind back to March 2021.  The Associated Press published an article saying that the Vatican, under the authority of Pope Francis, issued a formal response to the question of whether the Catholic Church could bless gay unions.  And the answer, according to the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in a two page explanation published in seven different languages, was that the Catholic Church COULD NOT bless the unions of two men or two women because “God cannot bless sin.”  See here:

Of course, those pushing the LGBT agenda were disappointed, while many staunch Catholics were pleased.  But this has been the official long-standing teaching of the Catholic Church since the beginning.

Ok, fast forward to December 18, 2023, when this same pope did a complete turnabout and made another formal declaration allowing Catholic priests to now bless same-sex unions!  The Associated Press calls it a “radical change in Vatican policy,” and so it is.  The article said that the pope’s reasoning was that people seeking God’s love and mercy should not be subject to “exhaustive moral analysis.” 

Well, that may be true, but the real analysis should be focused, in this case, on the pope and his complete reversal of his previous formal declaration.  In two short years, Pope Francis’ view changed from “God cannot bless sin” to “God does indeed bless sin.”

So, can one formal Catholic declaration nullify another formal Catholic declaration only two years later?  It certainly seems so.

But in an attempt to do damage control, the pope said that this ritual of blessing such couples was not to be confused with the sacrament of marriage.  See here:

It appears that this new document offers an “extensive definition” of the term “blessing” in Scripture.  Yes, as is often the case, the Catholic Church is playing fast and loose with certain biblical terms.   Apparently, it is now ok to bless perverted and unbiblical lifestyles.  But is the Church also willing to bless murderers, whoremongers and slave traders (1 Timothy 1:9-10) in their chosen lifestyle?  How about blessing the lives of idolaters, thieves, drunkards and swindlers (1 Corinthians 6:9-10)?  If not, then why not?  Aren’t these offenders listed together in the Bible with homosexuals?  Yes, indeed (read the two Scripture passages I just quoted above).  So, if one of these lifestyles is wrong, they are all wrong!  Let’s be biblically consistent. 

But it seems that being consistent with Scripture is not high on the list of the pope’s agenda.

What is His Agenda?

So how does this work?  From the Catholic Church’s standpoint, does this mean that the priest can now encourage and even bless the union of a gay couple, but it is not ok to bless them in marriage?  But why bless a homosexual “union” at all, if you are not willing to go all the way?  It’s either right in the eyes of God… or it’s not.  The pope needs to choose one and stick with that choice. 

But blessing these unions in any way is an approval, an acceptance, of their ungodly behavior.  The pope, because he knows it is very controversial, is not fully accepting homosexual marriages at this time.  Francis should show the world what he really believes.  The question is, will he side with the God of the Bible or will he refuse to because of some global agenda? 

This is just an incremental game he’s playing.  It is pretty obvious to me that the pope will indeed cave in somewhere down the line and eventually allow such “marriages.”  It’s just a matter of time.  When the winds of change are strong enough, and he convinces enough people, I believe the pope will reject the Scriptures and justify homosexual marriages.  But I am certainly glad that many Catholics are standing against the pope on this issue.

He wants to embrace the idea so that he can appease one group, and yet he is distancing himself from it to appease another group.  He is trying to please both sides.  As they say, he wants to have his cake and eat it, too.  But either way, this “cake” will cause his downfall, either in the eyes of God, or in the eyes of the LGBT crowd.

A few months ago, I posted an article addressing the pope’s views on homosexuality and dealt with it in more detail.  See here:

How to Actually Handle This Sin

In another NBC News article on this topic, the pope is quoted to have said, “We cannot be judges who only deny, reject, and exclude.”  See here:

Pope Francis signals he's open to blessings for same-sex unions by Catholic priests (

If you’ll notice, people who are constantly trying to justify their sins will often say things like what the pope said just above.  They will quote Matthew 7:1“Judge not, that ye be not judged,” and say, “See!  Jesus, Himself, says you can’t judge me!” 

But while it is true that Christians should not just alienate and exclude people for selfish reasons, it is right to exclude them for biblical reasons.  It is also true that Jesus commanded us to judge people, i.e., to be fruit inspectors.  Yes, judging rightly (John 7:24) is indeed a biblical mandate.  

Furthermore, Jesus commanded us to treat those in the church WHO REFUSE TO REPENT OF THEIR SIN as outcasts (Matthew 18:15-17), including the sin of homosexuality.  But this alienation is only exercised by the church after first trying to reconcile them to God.  They must first point out the offender’s sin.  And if he refuses to confess his sin, they should approach him with witnesses, and if he still refuses to listen, he must be brought before the church (the local assembly).  And if he’s still unrepentant, he should be excommunicated for his refusal to turn from his sin, and the whole local assembly is obligated to treat this person as an outsider (unless and until he repents).  If the Catholic Church (or any church) wants to be biblical about this, they would confront homosexuals about their open sinful lifestyle in the manner prescribed by Jesus in Matthew 18.

Just Being Respectful?

Trying to excuse the pope’s action, some say that Francis, up to now, held back on his present view out of respect to honor his predecessor (Benedict XVI), who was more conservative.  But since Benedict XVI is now dead, the new pope can move in the direction he sees fit.

See here:

Whether that’s true or not is pretty much irrelevant.  If Francis is really concerned about honoring his more conservative predecessor, he would maintain the previous pope’s ideals.  But because he hasn’t, I think that this is just an excuse and that he really doesn’t care what Pope Benedict XVI believed.  Remember, he has an agenda to follow.

Repent While There is Time

At the beginning of this article, Francis was quoted as saying, “People seeking God’s love and mercy should not be subject to ‘exhaustive moral analysis.’” 

Two things I want to address here.  First, the pope is assuming that those in a gay union are seeking God’s love and mercy.  But the simple truth is that if someone really wants to seek God, he will humbly recognize his sin (from the Scriptures) and turn away from it.  If he really wants God’s love and mercy, he will abandon his sinful lifestyle.  But if he refuses to do this, then this just proves that he is really not concerned about seeking God at all.  He just wants God’s love and blessings, but refuses to get it on God’s terms. 

He, like the pope, wants to have his cake and eat it, too.  He wants to do whatever his sinful heart desires, but also have God’s approval in doing it.  But the truth is the acceptance that gays so desperately desire will never be found apart from God’s way of doing things.

Secondly, it is true that no one can prevail in an “exhaustive moral analysis.”  We are all sinners (whether homosexual or heterosexual) and we all deserve Hell.  We all fail the test when analyzed.  And yes, as humans, we should not analyze someone simply to throw his sin in his face, or to be “holier than thou.”

The reason we point out someone’s sin should be out of compassion (Jude 1:20-23) and to make him aware of the danger – so that he can repent and ultimately avoid the Lake of Fire.  Pointing out sin (in the right spirit) is actually an act of love.  I understand that it is never pleasant when someone points out a person’s sin and it may be easy to get offended.  But it is better to be offended now and end up in Heaven than to pacify your feelings now, and later suffer an eternity apart from God (Revelation 20:11-15).


To all those who are in the LGBT camp, this pope is not doing you any favors by promoting this lifestyle.  There are so many supporters of gay rights out there who are more concerned with your present feelings than with your eternity.  If I didn’t care, I’d remain silent and never talk about it.  But this lifestyle of unrepentant homosexuality is indeed spiritually dangerous and will draw you away from God… just like the unrepentant heterosexual can be drawn away by his own lusts, as well.  Both end up in Hell. (1 Corinthians 6:9)

So, can Pope Francis be trusted?  Is it ok for a man of such power and influence to formally make two absolutely contradictory Church declarations? Does this “Vicar of Christ” really care for your soul?  I will leave you to ponder these questions.   



Friday, January 5, 2024


I had seen bumper stickers of the title above and had also heard similar comments from certain Catholics.  I know that sometimes it may seem that God doesn’t hear our prayers, yet it is one of the most basic needs of a believer to have his prayers answered.  We all want to know that somebody’s listening.  I understand that, and I understand the seeming desperation that most of us have experienced at some point in our lives.    

But this title reminds me of the story of a man who fell off the edge of a cliff at night and managed to grab onto a small shrub on the way down, hanging on for dear life between Heaven and earth.  In the dark, he was unaware that safe and solid ground was only a couple of feet beneath him.  The desperate man calls out several times for help and no one answers.  Finally, he hears a loud voice from Heaven that says, “If you trust Me, let go!”  The desperate man pauses and thinks for a minute and then yells, “Is there anyone else out there?!!” 

Although the story is intended to be funny, there is a disturbing truth within it that causes some to want a “back-up” when praying.  What if God doesn’t answer your plea for help?  Is your need so strong that you are willing to compromise your spiritual walk with God?  Perhaps you, like King Saul, are desperate enough to go to a psychic or a fortune teller if God doesn’t answer? (1 Samuel 28:7-19)

Hopefully, you would never do such a thing, since this would have dire spiritual consequences (Leviticus 19:26, 31; 20:6, 27; 2 Kings 21:6; Isaiah 8:19-22).  You may never even consider such a thing… yet, you may feel like God is “uninterested” or “too busy,” therefore it’s ok, as a Catholic, to call on some other “positive” spiritual entity to help you, like Mary (Jesus’ mother). 

Surely, if Mary appeals to Jesus for you, He couldn’t turn her down, right?  After all, she is His mother, and as a kid, we know that if you wanted something, but you were afraid to ask your father, Mom would often step in to increase your chances of finding favor.  Therefore, it only seems fitting to call on Mary to do the same for you, right?

Several Assumptions

This slogan, “If you can’t find Jesus, look for His mother” assumes several things.  First, it assumes that one can have the ability to communicate with Mary to start with.  It also assumes that one has God’s permission, that it’s ok, to appeal to Mary and ask for her help.  And if it is ok, it assumes that she can actually hear us.  And if she hears us, it also assumes that she is able to help us in some way.

Furthermore, this slogan is assuming that sometimes we (perhaps “less spiritual”) believers just can’t “find” Jesus like we should.  But why would anyone who has any biblical understanding think that? (Matthew 7:7-8; 11:28; 1 Peter 5:6-7)

The slogan is also assuming that Jesus may not be touched by, or concerned with, our needs.  After all, He’s busy running the universe!  What makes us think that we are significant enough to even be on His “radar”?  But seriously, are Catholics really not aware that He is indeed conscious of our needs?

Hard to Find?

“Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.  For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.  Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.” (Hebrews 4:14-16)

Jesus, Himself, as a human, had needs and was tempted to sin, so He knows what it’s like to be human and He knows our weaknesses.  Either, this passage is a lie or it is the truth.  Its message is very simple, nothing vague about it.  It is telling us that we can, indeed should, call on Him in time of need.  Trusting in Him is how we hold fast to our profession.

But appealing in prayer to someone else (even someone in Heaven, like Mary) is not “holding fast to our profession.”  In fact, doing so would deviate from our profession.  How so?  This passage is magnifying the person and role of our New Testament High Priest, Jesus Christ.  It is pointing to Him alone.

In the case of those who say, “If you can’t find Jesus, look for His mother,” their interpretation of Hebrews 4:14-16 would have to be: “Hey everyone, let’s give honor to Jesus, the Son of God, who has entered Heaven on our behalf and to whom we can directly and boldly come, without hesitation to help us in time of need (whether for salvation or anything else)… BUT, we will go to Mary first!”  I’m sorry, but that’s not giving Jesus the honor He deserves (Revelation 17:14, 19:16) and that’s not putting Him first and foremost.

But is Jesus ever really “hard to find”?  His offer to “come boldly unto the throne of grace” does not permit the idea of praying to someone else in order to get to Him.  It does not leave room for an appeal to another person in Heaven.  He doesn’t say, “Come boldly unto the throne of grace and if I have time, I’ll try to get to you.”  Or, “Come boldly unto the throne of grace by going through other ‘mediators’ first who can then get My attention.”  Or, “Come through My mother, who always puts in a good word for you and convinces Me to help you.  Otherwise, I might not be interested.” 

No, there is no guessing what Hebrews 4:14-16 is saying.  If you turn your heart toward Him and seek Him, you will find Him.  He will make Himself known to you without having to go through other “heavenly intercessors.”  That’s a promise.  To say that there are others to which one should pray is simply eisegesis (reading something into the text that is not there).

On Whom are You Really Depending?

Now, Catholics will say, “But we, just like you Protestants, also rely on people here on earth when we ask them to pray for us.  So why can’t we appeal to Mary or the saints in Heaven, who are far more spiritual than anyone on earth?  Their prayers are stronger than anyone else’s.”

But requesting prayer from others here on earth is perfectly fine.  That is totally biblical, while requesting prayer from others who are supposedly in Heaven is not.  Catholics just don’t seem to get the concept that there are absolutely no examples in the whole Bible of anyone praying to Mary or the saints, and there is nothing to suggest that we should.  That idea is utterly absent from the pages of Scripture.  Yet, that doesn’t stop Catholics from doing it.  This is because they are simply being a faithful son or daughter of “Holy Mother Church.”  You are doing what the Catholic Church tells you to do.

This whole concept of depending on Mary’s intercession appears to be saying that somehow, we can better depend on her than we can on Jesus.  So, I would have to ask, when addressing Mary in prayer, on whom are you really depending? 

A Purely Human Concept

Recently, a devout Catholic and I were having a nice discussion and the conversation led to Mary and the subject of praying to her.  At this point, the Catholic gave that familiar comment and said something along these lines: “If, for some reason, you find it hard to pray to Jesus, pray to His mother, instead.  She will surely hear you and appeal to her Son to help you.” 

Well, that sounds good, but this is purely a human (and unbiblical) mindset.  Yes, on earth, moms generally intercede for their kids when speaking to their fathers.  And that’s because many fathers may be harsh and unloving – nothing like the High Priest in Heaven to which we have access today.  But He is a gracious Savior who knows what you need before you even ask (Matthew 6:7-8).  He just wants you to admit your need and come humbly, yet confidently, to Him.  He wants you to come directly to the Savior, not to a relative of the Savior.

Pointing to Jesus

Catholics are quick to say that Mary always points to Christ.  For example, they love to use this particular verse:

“His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it” (John 2:5). 

And then they say, “See!  Approaching Mary is a good thing, since she always points to her Son.”  But every true Christian does that.  How does that separate Mary from other believers?  It doesn’t. 

And while we are on that topic, “pointing to Jesus” was exactly what John the baptist was doing when he said:

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

THAT is pointing to Jesus and honoring Him, and John did this while denying himself and lowering his own importance.  But, it’s funny, I have never seen a Catholic ever use this verse to apply to Mary decreasing.  Why do you think that is?  I’ll tell you why.  I believe that they will never accept any lowering of Mary’s status, never admitting that Mary must also decrease, because the Catholic Church will not let them. 

Interestingly, there are far, far more Catholic shrines that were built to honor her than there are to Jesus, and I’ve never seen a pope or any other Catholic official object to this.  The Catholic Church will turn its head the other way when there are large numbers of people who are giving Mary “excessive devotion” (using the Catholic Church’s own term).  No one seems to object to that.   But don’t you dare suggest that Mary diminish her own status!  The Church will simply not let that happen.  

A Bit Much!

For instance, look at this prayer from a doctor and “saint” of the Catholic Church named Liguori:

"Most Holy and Immaculate Virgin! O my Mother! Thou who art the Mother of my Lord, the Queen of the world, the Advocate, Hope, and Refuge of sinners! I, the most wretched among them, now come to thee. I worship thee, great Queen, and give thee thanks for the many favors thou hast bestowed on me in the past; most of all do I thank thee for having saved me from hell, which I had so often deserved.  I love thee, Lady most worthy of love, and, by the love which I bear thee, I promise ever in the future to serve thee, and to do what in me lies to win others to thy love.  In thee I put all my trust, all my hope of salvation…” (emphasis added)

See here:

If this doesn’t offend you as a believer, there is something wrong with you.  These are things said of Mary that the true and biblical Mary would never accept or attribute to herself. 

Actually, the above prayer is from Liguori’s very popular book, The Glories of Mary.  You can find the book online here:

It’s funny that some will object that Liguori’s “worship” doesn’t really mean worship, yet the extravagant language they use exposes them.  As the old saying goes, “If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it is probably a duck!”  The activity around Mary is, by definition, worship, regardless of what the non-biblical detractors want it to mean. 

And this is only one of a multitude of blasphemous comments and prayers in his book. 

See also this article addressing Liguori’s book here:

Furthermore, I think that another reason for not allowing Mary’s status to diminish is that the Catholic Church plans to use this unbiblical version of her as a tool in the global ecumenical arena to form a one-world religion as the Bible predicts (Revelation 13:8).  As one source describes it, she is:

“… rapidly becoming the ‘queen of ecumenism,’ someone whom diverse religions can honor, rally around, and even worship without offending their respective theologies.” 

Very well said!

See here:


It is critical to remember that there must be a clear distinction between mankind and the Savior of mankind.  The problem with the Catholic Church’s magnifying of Mary is that it causes this distinction to be blurred by such exalted language.

All this boils down to the fact that the Catholic Church wants Mary to remain exalted, even at the expense of Jesus losing status and staying in the background.  Of course they won’t say this out loud, but this is the logical consequence of a “continually increasing” Mary. 

It is also interesting that many pictures we see of Mary often have her holding the “baby Jesus.”  Folks, let’s not forget that He grew up and that He performed His ministry and death on the cross (the most important part of His life) as an adult, not while on His mom’s lap.  It’s as though there is a force in the Catholic Church that wants Mary to appear to be the one in control, to be the main figure, while Jesus is depicted as a toddler in need of guidance.

Now, I’m certainly not saying that Mary shouldn’t have honor, since the Bible says to give honor to whom honor is due (Romans 13:7).  But praying to someone other than God is not “honor” – it is worship.  All Christians will be exalted in due time, but never as the object of prayer. (Acts 10:25-26; Revelation 22:8-9)

Again, Mary was a wonderful, humble and godly handmaid, whom I believe is in Heaven today, but I’m sure that never did she expect to have such attention, devotion, veneration and idolization directed toward her.  But if God would allow her, from Heaven, to see all this attention directed toward her, I would bet that the humble Mary of the Bible would be utterly grieved and weep over it.  And I believe that she would say, “If you can’t find Jesus, humble yourself and continue seeking Him, since He is always nearby!” (Matthew 11:28; Acts 17:27)