JOE HESCHMEYER AND THE EUCHARIST

 

“Well, if it’s just a symbol, to Hell with it!”

The above quote is from a Catholic author and apologist, Mary Flannery O’Connor, at a literary gathering, and it was intended as a rebuke toward a writer who commented that the Catholic Eucharist was a symbol.  It seems that emotions run high between Catholics and Protestants when speaking on this particular topic.

But the quote from O’Connor makes one think.  If the Catholic Eucharist is really all that the Catholic Church says it is, then every single one of us who names the name of Christ should line up to worship this Eucharist. However… if Catholics are wrong about this, they are guilty of outright idolatry.  Yes, the stakes are high, so we should make sure of what the Living God says on this topic.

There is much written on this subject, for and against, but our only sure hope of finding the truth is in God’s Word:

“Thy Word is truth…” (John 17:17).

Joe’s Article

I would now like to address an article from Catholic Answers written by Catholic author, apologist, and speaker, Joe Heschmeyer, who seems to be a likeable and intelligent guy.  His article is titled, “5 Tests for Your Faith in the Eucharist” and it was written May 18, 2026.  You can find it here:

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/5-tests-for-your-faith-in-the-eucharist

In order to know if you have the correct and biblical interpretation on the subject of the Eucharist, Joe suggests that your beliefs should be “strange, sacrificial, serious, sacramental and shocking.”

Ok, that’s an interesting statement, to say the least, so let’s dig in and see what Joe has to say.

Strange

First, he says the proper Christian understanding of the Eucharist should be strange and hard to accept. 

Joe is referring to the events in the gospel of John in chapter 6, where Jesus keeps telling His listeners that they must eat His flesh and drink His blood to be saved.  Joe is also saying that Jesus is referring to the Eucharist when He said these things.  At this time, many of Jesus’ followers walked away from Him because they felt that the words of Jesus were hard.  (By the way, Jesus was never obligated to chase after, or explain anything to, anyone who purposely walks away from Him!)

It seems that Joe is suggesting that since this teaching was initially received as strange and hard-to-accept for Jesus’ audience (John 6), it should be taken that way by everybody. 

But the truthfulness of a particular teaching is not determined by the reaction of the audience, but rather by measuring that teaching against the whole of Scripture. 

More to the point, either the “literalness” or the symbolism of any teaching is determined by context and common sense.  As many people know, Catholics believe that after the priest consecrates the Eucharist, it is changed into the literal flesh and blood of Jesus (transubstantiation).  To promote this teaching, Catholic apologists lean heavily on John 6, which is also called the “Bread of Life” discourse.  They believe that this chapter helps to prove that Jesus was speaking literally here about changes in the bread and wine.

If there were no symbolism at all in the “Bread of Life” discourse, I might agree with the Catholic Church, but symbolism is not only present, it is abundant in this chapter:

“And Jesus said unto them, ‘I am the bread of life: he that cometh to Me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on Me shall never thirst.’” (John 6:35)

This is a pivotal verse for this whole chapter, where “coming to Him” is equated with no longer hungering, and “believing on Him” is equated with no longer thirsting.  This is obviously symbolic language.  I don’t think that anyone in this audience is thinking that they would never physically hunger or thirst again if they came to Jesus and believed on Him.

Interestingly, Jesus continues to refer to “believing in Him” in v. 29, 36, 40, 47, and 64 – and this extends into, and well past, the “eat My flesh and drink My blood” language, which ends at v. 58.

Furthermore, Jesus also continues to use this “coming to Him” language in v. 37, 44, 45, and 65 – and again, it extends well into the “eat My flesh” passages. 

So, because of this, there is obviously figurative language throughout John 6, pointing strongly toward a symbolic eating of His flesh and a symbolic drinking of His blood.  This imagery simply refers to embracing, partaking of, and trusting in what Jesus was going to do on the cross, where man’s sin-debt was to be paid.

Sacrificial

Joe also points out that the apostle Paul compares the Jewish sacrifices with the heathen sacrifices of his day and that a person becomes a partner with whichever altar he chooses to partake of (1 Corinthians 10:14-22).  This is true, but this does absolutely nothing to prove transubstantiation, nor does it prove that the Lord’s Supper is a sacrifice.  Joe then says:

“If your understanding of the Eucharist isn’t a sacrifice comparable to the fleshly sacrifices offered in the temple in Jerusalem or in pagan rites, then you don’t believe what Paul believed.”

Catholics love to point out the “sacrificial overtones” in Paul’s description of the Lord’s Supper/Communion service (1 Corinthians 10:14-22; 11:20-34).  But of course there are sacrificial overtones – the bread and wine in Communion are pointing to the ultimate sacrifice of Jesus on the cross!  The bread represents His broken body and the wine, His shed blood.  The ritual itself is not a sacrifice, but it points to the sacrifice that happened on Calvary!

Serious

Joe then points out that Paul directly received the information he got from Jesus concerning the Eucharist/Communion.  According to Joe, this is how seriously Jesus takes the Eucharist and adds:

“He doesn’t just leave it up to us to figure out how best to commemorate or honor or worship him.”

Joe then points to how some in the church eat and drink of the elements unworthily and profane the body and blood of the Lord (1 Corinthians 11:28-30).  He then says:

“It’s hard to square this seriousness with a symbolic view of the Eucharist.”

But I would say, no, it’s not hard at all.  Consider Genesis 17:9-14: 

(v. 9) – “And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep My covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations. 

(v. 10) – This is My covenant, which ye shall keep, between Me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised. 

(v. 11) – And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token [sign] of the covenant betwixt Me and you.”

(v. 13) – “… and My covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.”

(v. 14) – “And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken My covenant.”

Ok, so here we have circumcision, which is a TOKEN of the covenant (v. 11) between God and Abraham.  A token is a SIGN, a SYMBOL of the covenant.  Yet, notice the consequences for ignoring or abusing this “mere sign.”  The penalty was for one to be CUT OFF from God’s people!  (See also Exodus 31:14-15)

That sounds like a pretty stiff punishment for profaning a mere symbol, doesn’t it? 

So, yes, the Eucharist/Communion (like circumcision) can indeed be just a symbol, yet still endanger the one who abuses or disrespects the elements involved.  The reason is because of what the elements in the Lord’s Supper POINT TO – i.e., the work and suffering of Jesus Christ on Calvary.  These people in the church at Corinth were not discerning what these elements represented.  THAT’S why church members were sick and dying (1 Corinthians 11:30), not because the bread and wine supposedly turn into Jesus’ body and blood through transubstantiation. 

If you want to see a real, biblical and verifiable miraculous example of transubstantiation, look to the wedding at Cana (John 2:1-10).  The Catholic “miracle” of the Eucharist at Mass is none of these.

By the way, Jesus uses the same type of language in the New Testament as the Father did in the Old Testament: 

Genesis 17:10 – This [circumcision] is My covenant… between Me and you…

Luke 22:20 – … This cup [wine] is the New Testament [New Covenant] in My blood…

1 Corinthians 11:25 – This cup [wine] is the New Testament [New Covenant] in My blood…

Both the Father and Jesus call the symbols a “covenant” in the passages just above.  Now, we all know that a covenant is an intangible thing – an agreement, a contract, or a promise to do something.  But the tangible bread and wine (as well as Abraham’s circumcision) are not the actual covenant, itself, but are simply symbols of that covenant between God and man.  (See also Exodus 31:12-13; 16).

No doubt, the apostles at the Last Supper recognized Jesus’ use of the symbolic language from Genesis 17 and Exodus 31.  So, if the cup (wine) is a symbol, so is the bread. 

Thus, we see that symbolism is used in John 6 (as demonstrated earlier) and symbolism is also used again at the Last Supper (Luke 22:20; 1 Corinthians 11:25).  This would cancel out any purely “literal” language of transubstantiation.

Catholics will say that since Jesus didn’t explain His reasoning for the “strong language” in John 6, then He must have been speaking literally.  Well, Jesus most likely had explained it to His true followers later on (privately) in the John 6 event, but He certainly made the symbolism known at the Last Supper.

Sacramental

Joe then points out that Ignatius of Antioch “adopts a sacramentarian stance” concerning the events of John 6 and says that Ignatius seems to have been a disciple of John.  Joe then states:

“If anyone can shed light on what John 6 means, surely it is one of John’s own students.”

Well, no doubt we can learn some things from John’s students, but I think that we should not be overlooking the very words of the apostle John and Jesus Christ, Himself!  Why turn to fallible church fathers when you can go directly to the infallible and inspired words of Jesus and the apostles in Scripture (2 Timothy 3:16-17)?

We should follow the example of Jesus: When He quoted Scripture to the devil (Matthew 4:3-4) and the devil quoted Scripture right back at Him (v. 5-6), did Jesus turn to someone else for clarity and authority, like the venerable rabbis, scribes or scholars of His day?  No, Jesus simply went EVEN DEEPER INTO THE SCRIPTURES (v. 7) as an example of where to turn (… it is also written)!  Thus, He provided a fuller understanding.  So, we do have enough evidence in the Scriptures to determine that Jesus was speaking symbolically in the “Bread of Life” discourse, as pointed out above.

Concerning sacraments, I would like to point out that there is no such thing in Scripture as a sacrament, as described by the Catholic Church.  According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, “the sacraments confer the grace that they signify” (CCC #1127) and “the sacraments are efficacious signs of grace” (CCC #1131), etc., etc.

So, according to Catholicism, sacraments are rituals/signs that supposedly convey grace to the individual.  But grace (by definition) is not something that can be bought, earned or merited by doing a prescribed ritual.  Rituals are works and, according to Scripture, we don’t get grace by works (Romans 11:6).  We get grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8) and through humility (Proverbs 3:34; James 4:6; 1 Peter 5:5). 

See this article on sacraments:

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

Note also that the Catholic Church is forced to admit that the Eucharist is indeed a symbol (since it is known to them as a sacrament), but they say that it is not just a symbol.  In other words, according to Catholics, the Eucharist is both a symbol of Jesus, and it is also actually Jesus after consecration!

But how can something be a symbol of XYZ and at the same time, be the actual XYZ, itself?  If you were holding a photograph of yourself and you told someone “This is me,” what you really mean is “This is a picture, or symbol, or representation of me.”  The picture cannot be the actual “you.”  Only YOU, YOURSELF are the actual “you.” 

By definition, nothing can be both a symbol of something AND its reality.  It is either one or the other, but it can’t be a symbol of itself!  You can’t have it both ways.  There is nothing like this in nature or in Scripture.  You can’t just create unbiblical concepts just so your theology can work.  Again, this is not a biblical concept, but is simply a deceptive game of semantics used by the Catholic Church.

Shocking

Finally, Joe goes on to say that the crowd in John 6 found Jesus’ words shocking and even repulsive, and that later on in the ancient world, some even saw Christians as cannibalistic, because of the Eucharist.  I can see their point!  But Catholics seem to somehow take this as a badge of honor. 

Nevertheless, the New Testament tells us that the ritual of Communion/Eucharist is simply a memorial (Luke 22:19; 1 Corinthians 11:24-25) of what Jesus did for us on the cross.  Paul tells us its purpose is to proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes (1 Corinthians 11:26).  And we do exactly that.  This goal of proclaiming His death can certainly be achieved without any kind of literal or physical change in the elements. 

Conclusion

Time and time again, the Old Testament Jews were lured into the snare of idolatry (Exodus 23:32-33).  Many lost their souls because of it.  It seemed to be the devil’s most useful tool in the Old Testament.  Many people today seem to think that idolatry has largely “gone away,” but we also have New Testament warnings against this sin (e.g., 1 Corinthians 10:14; Galatians 5:19-21).

Like I said earlier, the stakes are high.  If there is ANY symbolism at all in the “Eucharistic” passages (and there is), I would be extremely cautious about embracing a “literal” understanding of it.  Any and all of us can freely pray to, spend time with, and worship Jesus Christ whenever we want to and wherever we are in the world, even if we are nowhere near the elements of bread and wine.  Transubstantiation is not at all needed to perform these acts of worship.

Remember, the Last Supper is not about the Church’s sacrifice to God in the Mass, but it is about God’s sacrifice provided for mankind on the cross.

The bottom line is that the Catholic Eucharist is a deception and a dangerous trap that leads to idolatry.

See this link for more on the Eucharist:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2023/07/the-sacrament-of-eucharist.html

 

 

CATEGORIES OF WORKS

 

Protestants accuse Catholics of believing in a “faith plus works” salvation system.  But popular Catholic apologists will deny that and say that they are not saved by their works.  Yet, they will soon after point to passages like Matthew 25:31-46, Galatians 5:6, James 2:24 and many other verses that mention works, insisting that works will merit salvation after all.

But I believe that some of the confusion can be cleared up by recognizing the types, or categories, of work(s) that the Bible speaks of, and comparing this to what Catholics believe.

Different Types

First of all, the Bible mentions the “works of the flesh” (Galatians 5:19-21), and it also mentions “dead works” (Hebrews 6:1 and 9:14).  But of course these do not impart merit of any kind, since they are sinful works.  I think that both Catholics and Protestants would agree here.

Another category would be “works of debt,” which would be understood as works that obligate God to save you – works that produce an attitude of putting God in debt to you – but we can never put God in our debt.  These “works of debt” also would not necessarily be considered by Catholics to be the kind of works that contribute to one’s salvation, and I think again that Catholics and Protestants will agree on this.

What about works of “the Law” (Romans 3-4)?  There is a lot of confusion about this one.  Some believe that this term only refers to the “ceremonial” laws of the Old Testament (like circumcision, diet restrictions, etc.) and not the “moral” laws (like the Ten Commandments).  But Paul shows that “the Law” does indeed include the Ten Commandments (Romans 7:6-7). 

It is important to note that the apostle Paul (Romans 3-4) is not only saying that “the Law” consists of the whole Mosaic Law (Exodus through Deuteronomy), but he is also saying that we are saved apart from the merit of any and all laws/good works.  Notice that I am NOT saying that those who are saved don’t ever have to do good works – of course we do good works – I’m just saying that these good works do not contribute to one’s salvation, since they are done AFTER one is already saved.  

A Look at Paul and Abraham

Ok, so now we come to the works that Catholics would consider salvific, or saving – works that somehow contribute to one’s salvation by accumulating a certain amount of merit each time one of these good works are done.  These works are called by many names and they would include:

Good works, works of righteousness, works of faith, works of obedience, grace-filled works, God-assisted works, grace-empowered works, works done in a state of grace, works of the New Law of Christ, meritorious works, works of God, etc.

These are the types of works (along with faith) that Catholics say will merit salvation.  But notice two things here before we go on:  1) We know from Scripture that circumcision is a work.  And 2) We know that circumcision did not save Abraham.  Both Catholics and Protestants should agree with these two points, since according to Romans 4:

(v. 9) “Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also?  For we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.”

(v. 10) “How was it then reckoned?  When he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision?  Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.”

(v. 11) “And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also.”

“This blessedness” (v. 9) about which Paul is speaking is salvation/justification/the act of being forgiven and made righteous.  This is exactly what he is talking about.  And “this blessedness” is acquired by faith, not circumcision.

But why?  Was not Abraham’s circumcision a work of righteousness?  Didn’t God specifically tell him to do this work (Genesis 17:7-11) and wasn’t he obedient?  The answer is a resounding “YES”! 

Then why wasn’t this God-ordained work salvific?  Why was he not justified by it?  Was there something wrong with circumcision?  Not at all, but the reason it did not save anyone is simply because circumcision is a work.  And works don’t save us.  That’s the bottom line.

Comparing the list of the names of the good works that Catholics hold to (above), wasn’t Abraham’s circumcision a “work of obedience,” a “work of faith,” a “work of God,” a “grace-empowered” work?  Absolutely!  Is there any evidence that Abraham had some kind of ulterior motive in getting circumcised?  No, there is not.  So how was his circumcision somehow inferior to the works of the New Testament?  It wasn’t!

If this work of Abraham (circumcision) was not salvific or meritorious, then neither are any other works in the New Testament!

Context

But what about all those passages that seem to tie works in with salvation?  Fair question.  There is indeed a close relationship between the two.  But many of those passages are simply DE-scriptive in nature, i.e., describing the type of person (and the works he does) who is already saved.  But when the context of a passage is “How to get right with God” (i.e., become justified), then it is PRE-scriptive, it is prescribing how to get saved.  That’s what we don’t see in most (if not all) of the passages that Catholics quote to us Protestants.

With this in mind, we must also remember to take Scripture as a whole, and we must take Scripture passages in context.  This is the only way that all the passages make sense, that is, to determine whether they are descriptive or prescriptive.  This would clear up a lot of the issues.  As Protestants, we can reconcile passages that seem to involve works in salvation.  But I don’t think that Catholics can do the same thing when dealing with passages that talk about salvation “apart from works.”  Catholics really seem to struggle with (or avoid) such passages of Scripture.

Works of Righteousness

Speaking of salvation, observe what the apostle Paul told Titus:

“Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost.” (Titus 3:5)

Did you catch that?  Salvation is NOT by works of righteousness!  And every single (biblical) good work that Catholics can name is a work of righteousness!  So this verse effectively excludes the merit of any and all works that Catholics claim will contribute to salvation.

But couldn’t they say that such passages are only speaking of “initial” justification?  No, because “initial” justification would include water baptism (by their own admission, a work of righteousness)!

The Catholic may say that all these God-assisted works of obedience are not just the works of men, but are “works of God’s grace.”  But isn’t absolutely EVERYTHING we (the saved and the unsaved alike) have, given to us by the grace of God?  Yes, indeed.  Even the air we breathe is purely God’s grace.  But that doesn’t make breathing redemptive, does it?  Just because grace is involved doesn’t mean that the act is a cause of salvation!

God’s grace may abound in all gifts, but there is only one biblical way to receive the gracious gift of salvation – and that is by the conduit of faith.  We just have to trust Him.  His work on the cross, His merit.

Conclusion

As we have seen, there are several categories and types of works for the believer.  But when we diligently study the Scriptures, we find that NONE of these works cause salvation.  I can just hear someone screaming, “But the Bible itself says that ‘baptism now saves us’ (1 Peter 3:21)!  Again, a diligent study of Scripture will show that this verse is often misunderstood.  See these links, especially Part 3:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2015/05/on-baptism-part-1-few-basics.html

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2015/06/on-baptism-part-2-bible-verses.html

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2015/07/on-baptism-part-3-more-verses.html

There is no special category of work that merits salvation.  An honest look at Galatians 3:3 should settle the matter, since it points out that works will not merit salvation AT ANY POINT in your spiritual walk:

“Are ye so foolish?  Having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?” 

We begin our salvation journey by faith, we maintain it by faith, and it is concluded by faith (Philippians 1:6). 

Salvation is all about the Savior, Jesus Christ, and the sufficiency of His work on the cross, His honor, His bragging rights, His merit – and none of man’s.

A SELF-REFUTING CATHOLIC ARGUMENT

There is an old saying that basically states, “He shot himself in the foot.”  This is when someone inadvertently undermines his own chances of success or he achieves the opposite of his intended outcome. 

I would say that this is exactly what happens when applied to the Catholic Church when they put forth their “certainty of the canon” argument.

As for as I can remember, I have never heard of, spoken with, or met a Catholic who did not believe in the supposed NEED for infallible certainty on the list of books in the canon of Scripture.  This basically means that one cannot have any meaningful assurance that we have the right Bible books unless an “infallible source” (like the Catholic Church) infallibly declares exactly which books are intended to be in the canon.  It appears that this is a universal concept within Catholicism. 

One Catholic source, which bears the Catholic seals of approval (the Nihil Obstat and the Imprimatur) states:

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

A few months ago I posted an article concerning the canon and Catholicism’s claims, and I presented two major premises to demonstrate the error of the Catholic Church’s teaching.  You can see it here:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2025/10/the-two-fatal-flaws-of-catholics-when.html

Today, I will again address two premises concerning the Catholic Church’s canon, but with a different twist.

Two Premises

Major premise #1 – The Catholic Church has always proposed a NEED for infallible certainty of the canon (as just mentioned).  And Catholics (supposedly) have this infallible level of certainty while Protestants don’t.  Note that this idea also assumes that any kind of “sufficient certainty” on the canon can never be enough.

Major premise #2 – It is clear that there was no infallibly-declared canon until the Council of Trent in A.D. 1546:

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

By the way, this particular encyclopedia also contains the Catholic seals of approval.

Two Questions

•      So, the first big question is, how did the Catholic Church operate in the first 1500 years of its existence if there was any kind of doubt about its canon?

To answer that, they will often claim something like they were able to operate on a broadly accepted 4^th century consensus.  They were also able to make use of local councils, apostolic tradition, the Church fathers, the living Magisterium of the Church, etc., etc. 

•        Ok, so this brings us to the second big question:

Exactly what kind of certainty did these things (consensus, councils, tradition, etc.) actually produce for the Church?

And the answer to that question is most important.  It seems to me that there can only be three ways to answer this question, so here is what I believe the possible answers are:

    1) Either, these things produced infallible certainty on the canon for the Church before Trent, or

    2) These things produced reasonable/sufficient certainty on the canon for the Church before Trent, or

    3) These things produced no certainty at all on the canon for the Church before Trent

I don’t see any other possibilities. 

Ok, if the Catholic Church answers with #1 above, they would be lying, since they know and agree that the Council of Trent (A.D. 1546) was the earliest time that the canon of Scripture was infallibly declared/recognized (as described by the New Catholic Encyclopedia above).

If the Catholic Church answers with #2, they would have to admit that sufficient certainty is indeed good enough and that Protestants were right all along concerning this.

If the Catholic Church answers with #3, they’d have to admit that they had a bad, or false, canon that gave them no certainty, and all their books (and the teachings therein) are in danger of being false.

This produces a trilemma for the Catholic Church and puts them in a very awkward position.  All three answers are embarrassing for them, but the best and most accurate answer of the three is to agree with the Protestants and the possibility of a sufficient certainty being good enough. 

But if they do this, it questions the very need for infallible certainty in the first place, and Major premise #1 would be false.  Either way, whether they deny or admit that Protestants have a sufficient canon, Catholics are trapped by their own argument.

If infallible certainty was never needed before A.D. 1546, it is not needed now.  This teaching of the Catholic Church is indeed a self-refuting argument. 

 

HAIL MARY!

“And the angel [Gabriel] came in unto her [Mary], and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.” (Luke 1:28)

Catholics will look at this verse and claim that it is saying that Mary, the mother of Jesus, is indeed an exception to the rule of the universal sinfulness of man.  This means that God saw fit to cause Mary (apart from any other mere human) to be born, and even conceived, sinless and that she remained sinless throughout her entire life.  This concept is known as the Immaculate Conception of Mary, which the Catholic Church has dogmatically proclaimed in the apostolic constitution Ineffabilis Deus in 1854 by Pope Pius IX.  And since it is a dogma, Catholics are obligated to believe it.

But I just can’t imagine an intelligent person reading the first few chapters of the book of Romans and understanding its message, to then go and read Luke 1:28 (above) and come up with the Catholic interpretation of Gabriel’s message to Mary.  Theirs is not a natural reading of the text.

If this intelligent person reads the beginning of Paul’s letter to the Romans (chapter 1), he will easily see that Paul is proclaiming that the gentiles (non-Jews) are all guilty of sin and living under the wrath of God.  In chapter 2, he then addresses the Jews and tells us that they, too, are all under the curse of sin.  Then in chapter 3, Paul states that the whole world is unrighteous and says that ALL people are under the bondage of sin (v. 10-18), pointing to the Psalms.  He then specifically says:

“For ALL HAVE SINNED and come short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23). (Emphasis added)

And in the rest of this chapter and the next, the apostle Paul goes on to define how all these lost and sinful people can be justified/made right with God, which is, of course, only through faith in His Son, Jesus Christ and what He accomplished on the cross.  But the Scriptures are clear that no one (i.e., no mere mortal) has escaped the curse of sin.  Jesus Christ is the only exception.

I cannot imagine our intelligent inquirer (after first reading Romans) could come upon Luke 1:28 and conclude that this passage would automatically cause him to understand that Mary must necessarily be an exception to the rule… again, this is NOT a natural reading, and this would turn the easily understandable message found in Romans on its head!  This would negate a very clear biblical concept about the universality of sin in every person.   This is exactly why the Word says, “All have sinned…” 

Issues

So, why indeed does the Catholic Church think that this passage really means that Mary was conceived sinless?  According to them, the angel’s phrase “highly favoured” or “full of grace” in the Greek language (“kecharitomene”) is a very unique term which indicates something that already happened in the past.  I have heard Catholics say that this term is used only once in the New Testament.  I don’t know if that’s true, but let’s assume that it is indeed used only here.

According to one Catholic Answers article, “The word is the past perfect tense, meaning that the action of giving grace has already occurred.  It was not something that was about to happen to her but something that has already been accomplished.”  See here:

https://www.catholic.com/qa/full-of-grace-versus-highly-favored

But no, this whole context is about Mary giving birth to the Savior (v. 30-35), that’s all – the whole point of Gabriel’s message was NOT about something that was already accomplished in the past.  Mary giving birth to Jesus was definitely something that had not yet happened.  And yes, Mary certainly received grace and favor, but the angel’s focus was on the sinless Savior coming into the world, not on someone else’s (supposed) sinlessness.

By the way, this same article from Catholic Answers admits that this term is “… difficult to translate because it is a unique use of the word.”  In fact, there are many, many articles out there written on this same passage, and the debate on this topic continues to rage, so I would think that it is safe to say that the term itself is not as clear as it could be. 

It is also interesting that the phrase “full of grace” for this particular verse is very seldom used in the different Bible versions.  I looked at over thirty different versions and saw that only a small percentage of them use “full of grace” (e.g., two Catholic versions and two Aramaic ones).  But these are the only ones in which I saw this term used.

Actually, the only time we find the words “full of grace”  in the New Testament in most Bible versions is in a reference to Jesus Christ, himself (John 1:14) and to Stephen, the deacon (Acts 6:8).

Problems with the Term

But there are even more issues with the Catholic interpretation of the passage.  According to the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia:

“But the Greek term ‘kecharitomene’ (‘full of grace’) serves only as an illustration, not as proof of the dogma.” (under “Immaculate Conception”)

In another Catholic source, we find:

“The words of Gabriel, ‘Hail, full of grace’ (Lk. 1.28), have also been appealed to as a revelation of the Immaculate Conception, on the grounds that to be truly full of grace, Mary must have had it always. This interpretation, however, overlooks the fact that the Greek term κεχαριτωμένη [kecharitomene] is not nearly so explicit as the translation ‘full of grace’ might suggest. It implies only that God’s favor has been lavished on Mary, without defining the degree of grace.” (New Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume VII, Page 378)

We also have to ask ourselves a question: Why was Mary troubled and perplexed at the greeting of the angel Gabriel (Luke 1:28-29)?  If this greeting meant that she was sinless, wouldn’t Mary have already recognized that fact in her life before now?  Hadn’t she already realized that she had never given in to the temptation of any sin up to this point?  So then why would she be troubled or confused if the angel points her “sinlessness” out? 

I believe that she was surprised at the angel’s words, “highly favored” of God, because she knew that she was only a young, humble peasant girl, and she was not aware of the great blessing that God had in store, that is, that she would be allowed to bear the Messiah. 

Furthermore, the final wording of Luke 1:28, “blessed art thou among women” is interesting.  Why would he say, “among women”?  The angel didn’t say “among mankind,” that is, among all people.  She would stand out among women because she would be the envy of all women through giving birth to the Christ.  That was the focus.  There is no reason to believe that the angel was talking about Mary towering over all humans with the gift of sinlessness that no one else among mankind would have.   

So, the Catholic interpretation of this passage doesn’t make sense.

Only Fitting?

It was absolutely necessary for Jesus to be born sinless, not anyone else.  The concept of the Immaculate Conception of Mary demands an unbiblical and unnecessary exception of Romans 3:23, based on a questionable and highly debated rendering of a rare Greek term used in Luke 1:28, when there is very strong biblical evidence in both the Old and New Testament that ALL mankind is corrupted with sin.  It would be much simpler (and more biblical) to interpret the phrase as simply “highly favored,” as most Bible versions do.

But Catholics will say that it is “only fitting” that Mary would be without sin.  But why would it be necessary for Jesus to have been kept in a perfect and sinless womb for a mere nine months of His life, when, for 33 years, He was exposed to a very, very sinful world, having a sinful (earthly) father and sinful relatives, and coming in daily contact with sinful people, tainted by a filthy and corrupt society?  Is any of this “fitting” for a Savior?  But if He remained pure and untainted while in contact with this ungodly world for all those years, there was never any need for a sinless mother with a sinless womb in the first place.  

A good question for Catholics is why is it that the only thing that needed to be sinless in Jesus’ world was His mother?  Why did God stop there?  Why couldn’t Joseph (her husband) also be created sinless?  And how about Mary’s parents – if Mary needed to be sinless to bear a sinless Savior, should not Mary’s mother also need to be sinless to bear a sinless Mary?

“But God Could Do It…”

Yes, God could have made Mary sinless before she was even born (as the Catholic Church teaches).  God does indeed have the ability to do such a thing, but God’s ability is not what is in question here.  Just because He could possibly do something does not mean that it was necessary.  Scripture plainly tells us that all of us have sinned.  A Catholic may say, “But the word ‘all’ in Romans 3:23 doesn’t necessarily mean every single person.  There are examples in the Bible where the word ‘all’ clearly does not mean all.”

Well, that’s true, but we could also say that the term “full of grace” in Luke 1:28 may not really mean “full of grace,” either.  And the biblical evidence does indeed suggest that it doesn’t.

See also this link:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2011/05/was-mary-without-sin.html

THE CATHOLIC CHURCH’S FALSE CONCEPT OF “INITIAL” JUSTIFICATION

Salvation is rightly considered the most important spiritual topic there is.  We all want to one day make it into Heaven and have everlasting life with God (John 3:16).  And it goes without saying that we would also want to avoid the place the Bible calls Hell, wherein is everlasting punishment (Matthew 25:46).

But there are disagreements, even among those who call themselves Christians, concerning the requirement(s) to enter the narrow gate (Matthew 7:13-14).  So I would like to address an odd situation in Catholic apologetics concerning salvation. 

Both Catholics and Protestants agree with the idea that, for Christians, we were saved (past tense – Ephesians 2:8), that we are being saved (present tense – 1 Corinthians 1:18), and that we will ultimately be saved (future tense – Matthew 10:22).

We all believe that, in our salvation journey, there is 1) a distinct beginning, 2) a growth process, and 3) a final destination. 

The Protestant View

Generally, the Protestant believes that the first stage is “justification,” wherein he believes/trusts in the full and sufficient work of Jesus Christ on the cross.  The Protestant surrenders to the will of God with love and thanksgiving and God gives him a new heart, with new desires.  This justification is obtained apart from works (Romans 3:28) and is a one-time event, not a process. 

The second stage is what the Protestant calls “sanctification,” which is a process (1 Thessalonians 4:1-7).  Here is where he will, out of a thankful heart, start to do good works for God as he grows closer and closer to Him, conforming to the image of Jesus Christ (2 Corinthians 3:18).  And even then, his works are not done to gain, earn or merit salvation, but he does good works out of a thankful heart because he is already saved! 

And thirdly, he enters Heaven, glorified with a new body to be with the Lord forever (1 Thessalonians 4:17).

The Catholic View

The odd situation of which I spoke earlier is that the Catholic Church splits justification into three parts: 1) “initial” justification, 2) “ongoing/progressive” justification (which they also call sanctification), and then 3) “final justification.”   

In the first phase, the Catholic begins his initial justification by being baptized (normally, as an infant).  Interestingly, the Church claims that initial justification is not obtained by either works of any kind or even by faith.  See here:

“… but we are therefore said to be justified freely, because that none of those things which precede justification – whether faith or works – merit the grace itself of justification.  For if it be a grace, it is not now by works, otherwise, as the same Apostle says, grace is no more grace.” (Council of Trent, Sixth Session, Chapter VIII)

Second, in the ongoing/progressive justification phase, his works are now able to merit “an increase of justification” for himself. 

And third, at death, the Catholic experiences final justification, which will usher him into Heaven (or more likely, Purgatory, to be first cleansed of temporal sins).

Baptism and Initial Justification

So, according to the Catholic paradigm, you get no merit from either faith or works that are done before the initial justification stage.  Yet, this same initial justification is obtained by water baptism (CCC #1992; Council of Trent, Sixth Session, chapters 6-7), which is, ironically, a ritual/work!

The Catholic Church has it backward.  The Bible says that salvation begins with faith and no works (Romans 3:28; 4:4-5; Galatians 2:16).  But the Church says that salvation begins with a work (i.e., baptism) and no faith (Council of Trent, chapter VIII, above).  There seems to be some kind of disconnect here.

What About Abraham?

As I said, Catholics believe that there are “levels” of justification.  They say that someone can receive justification and then later have an “increase” of that justification, again and again.  In their quest to prove these different levels of justification, they will often point to the example of Abraham.

The Catholic will say that Abraham was justified at least three times in Scripture, i.e., in Genesis 12:1-3, in Genesis 15:6, and in Genesis 22:1-14.  

The first time, in Genesis 12:1-3, God spoke to Abraham, telling him to leave his family and his country and to go to an unknown land.  God also told Abraham that He would make a great nation from him.  Abraham, looking forward to the promise, must have been justified about this time, because of his faith and his willingness to obey God.

I would actually tend to agree with Catholics at this point, that Abraham was probably justified here (or at least just prior to this point). 

The second time, in Genesis 15:6, Catholics will say that Abraham was “further” justified, because here God tells Abraham that his ancestors would be as the stars in Heaven, “And he believed in the Lord; and He counted it to him for righteousness.”

And, of course, this same verse is quoted by the apostle Paul in Romans 4:3, where he emphasizes the point that Abraham was justified by faith, and not by his works. 

But is Paul really using this particular verse to point out that Genesis 15:6 marked an increase of the justification that Abraham already had?  Was he saying that Abraham was more justified at this point, or that he was receiving another “installment” of justification?  No, God was simply re-stating His promise to Abraham, and Paul was just showing that Abraham’s faith here exemplified the same type of faith/trust that he exhibited earlier in Genesis 12.  Paul was simply pointing out Abraham’s continuing faith in God and his non-dependence on work.

Just a few verses later, the apostle Paul also mentions David (v. 6-8) and references David’s repentance after he sinned with Bathsheba, quoting Psalm 32.  But again, Psalm 32 was not the time that David was justified.  He was justified and made right with God long before this particular time. 

[Addendum – added on 03/11/2026]

{If doing good works causes an “increase” in one’s justification (Council of Trent, Sixth Session, Canon 24), then why did the apostle Paul specifically say that Abraham was NOT justified by his circumcision (Romans 4:9-11)?  Was not Abraham’s circumcision (Genesis 17:9-14) a good, faith-filled and God-ordained work of obedience?  Yes indeed!  But, according to Paul, this work of obedience was never considered an increase in his justification, and had nothing to do with it.  If his good (and painful) work of circumcision did not add to his “ongoing” justification, then there must not BE such a concept of an “increase of justification!”}

Paul’s whole point in mentioning these two great men of faith was that they were examples of someone who is credited with righteousness through faith/believing/trusting, apart from their good works (Romans 3:28; 4:4-5).  There is no reason to believe that this was about some kind of “progressive” justification, as Catholics assert.

Catholics will say that the third time Abraham was justified was in Genesis 22:1-14 where Abraham offers his son Isaac on the altar to be sacrificed.  Thankfully, God stopped him from going through with it, but here Abraham proved his faith in God by being willing to sacrifice his son.  This passage is referenced in James 2:21-24, which includes the idea that a man is justified by his works (v. 24). 

So, what does it mean to be “justified by works” and not just faith?  We can see from the context of James 2 that he is referring to the idea of how we know if a person has true faith or a fake/dead faith (v. 17, 20, 26).  So, this whole section in James (v. 14-26) is about the proof or demonstration of one’s faith.  This section is not about how to be saved, but it’s about observing the fruit of those professing to be saved.  James is saying that a man is justified by works in the sense of being vindicated, or proven, by his works.  This type of “justification” is seen elsewhere in Scripture (Matthew 11:19; Luke 7:29; 10:29; 16:15), and the context of James makes it obvious that he was referring to vindication.  See here:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2010/01/faith-alone-part-2.html

So, saying that the life of Abraham proves that a person is justified multiple times is simply not true.

Funny how the Sixth Session of the Council of Trent (which focuses heavily on justification) never uses, or even mentions, Abraham as an example of one who is “increasing in justification,” as many Catholics try to use the term!

Wrong Category

The apostle Paul made it abundantly clear that there are no works done in the “justification” category:

“For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the law.” (Romans 3:28)

“Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.  But to him that worketh not, but believeth on Him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.” (Romans 4:4-5)

“Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.” (Galatians 2:16). 

Again, according to Holy Scripture, in justification, there are no works that merit.  But because of the Catholic Church’s unbiblical splitting of justification, it allows their works to merit salvation in the justification stage.  This is dangerous because it (supposedly) allows our works to “merit” what only the work of Jesus on the cross could possibly merit.  

Just a side note: Catholics will also play word games with the term “merit,” as well.  Another topic for another day.

Faith Working in Love

Also, Catholics love to use Galatians 5:6 when debating justification, because it says that we are saved by faith which works through love.  And they’ll say, “See, works (of love) must be involved/present along with your faith for you to be saved!” 

But context will demonstrate otherwise:

Galatians 5:

(v. 3) “For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.

(v. 4) “Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

(v. 5) “For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.

(v. 6) “For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.”

And the Protestant will point out that v. 4 says that if you try to be saved using the law/commandments/works, you are “fallen from grace” (the NASV says “severed from Christ”)!  Therefore, salvation/justification is by faith, apart from works.  But this same faith will then afterward produce works of love, but the works themselves don’t save.  Very simple.

But the Catholic may say, “But this passage is only describing initial justification – that’s why works have no merit here!”

But remember, this passage contains faith, but Trent says that neither works NOR faith are used in the initial justification stage!  Therefore, Galatians 5:3-6 is not at all talking about this mythical “initial justification” phase.  Sorry, my Catholic friends, but you can’t have it both ways.

This is also how Catholics tend to deal with other critical passages on justification that speak of salvation by faith apart from the merit of works, for example, Romans 3:28; 4:5; 4:6; Galatians 2:16; Ephesians 2:8-9.  Catholics will say that these refer to the initial justification phase, yet in all of these passages, faith is clearly in view and baptism (which is the only thing that supposedly merits in this stage) shows up in none of these passages!  So, no, these key passages are not referring to this artificially fabricated phase of “initial” justification.

Can Works Merit Grace in Any Stage?

After reading books like Romans and Galatians, one can see that there is a real problem with a “faith plus works” salvation system.  And that is exactly what the Catholic Church has.  But when the Church uses this deceptive “initial justification” concept, it muddies the water concerning the role of works and faith.

But the following passage makes it very clear that works do not save in any part of our salvation journey:

Galatians 3:

(v. 1) “O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?

(v. 2) “This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

(v. 3) “Are ye so foolish?  Having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?”

Notice (v. 2) that there are only two options: you are either saved by works of the law (which is impossible with mere men), or by faith.  He then equates the law (works) with operating by the flesh (v. 3).  Paul is basically saying to us, “You must start in the Spirit (faith/trusting in the cross – v. 1), and you never leave that option – you continue in your faith by never relying on works to save you.  You are made perfect (completed) by trusting in the gospel message, not in your works.”

Again, this passage is clearly telling us that IN NO PHASE of our salvation journey do works contribute to our salvation.  Works are definitely present in our lives, and we will get heavenly rewards for them, but the free gift of God (eternal life) is only obtained through faith. 

In other words, we start salvation by faith, we continue/maintain that same salvation by faith and end it by faith.  In this way, we are telling Jesus that His work/suffering on the cross was sufficient to save us and that He gets all the credit!

Conclusion

According to Scripture, there exists a justification phase and there is a sanctification phase, ultimately followed by the glorification phase.  Nowhere do we see anything called “initial justification” where faith is not required. 

There is nothing in the New Testament that tells us to “grow in justification,” or that you can be “further justified.”  Therefore, Catholics have no biblical reason to split justification into two or more categories. 

Catholics recognize that having a “works-based salvation” sounds bad.  That’s why they are quick to deny this Protestant accusation toward them.  And with the concept of “initial” justification, they feel that they can temporarily avoid the stigma of that accusation. 

If a policeman came into the home of a drug user and the homeowner told him, “But officer, I don’t have any drugs in my kitchen!”  That may be true, but that doesn’t mean that he doesn’t have drugs in another room of his home.

In a similar way, just because you Catholics don’t have works that merit salvation in one of your three categories of the salvation journey, doesn’t mean that you don’t have works that merit.  You still have a “works-based salvation,” it’s just in another category.

Yes, Catholics often deny it, but they do indeed embrace a “faith plus works” salvation.  But a faith that will later result in good works is not the same thing as a “faith plus works” system.

So, the big question is this: Is “initial justification,” as described by the Catholic Church, a biblical concept?  And the answer is no.