YES, CATHOLICS DO WORSHIP MARY! (Part 3)

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

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

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

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

The Cross and the Ark

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

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

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

You can see photos of these here:

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

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

You can see it here:

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

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

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

Parallels?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Insight from John the Baptist

But notice what John the baptist said:

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

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

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

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

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

To be continued…

YES, CATHOLICS DO WORSHIP MARY! (Part 2)

 

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

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

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

Fabricating Terms

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Location, Location, Location!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Excessive Devotion Abounds

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

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

You can find the book here:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But the (Catholic) NAB tells us:

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

Again, salvation is from God alone, not Mary.

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

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

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

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

 

YES, CATHOLICS DO WORSHIP MARY! (Part 1)

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Having Said That…

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

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

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

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

Idolatry in the Catholic Catechism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We will continue with this important topic in Part 2 …

THE MOSAIC LAW AND WORKS

 

Romans 3:28:

“Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.”

 

Romans 4:4-6:

(v. 4) “Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. 

(v. 5) “But to him that worketh not, but believeth on Him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. 

(v. 6) “Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works.”  

 

Galatians 2:16:

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 shall no flesh be justified.

 

What does all this mean?  I certainly hope that everyone can see a clear pattern here.  The apostle Paul, in both of these epistles (Romans and Galatians), is saying that man is NOT saved by the deeds/works of the law (and there are plenty of other passages in Scripture that emphasize this same theme).  But to whom were these passages addressed?  Whoever the targeted audience was, it is an unmistakable and crystal clear fact that they were saved, not by the law or their works, but by faith. 

Enter Moses

But I’d like to address this from a different angle than I usually do.  Most Protestants believe in the doctrine of salvation by “faith alone” (“Sola Fide”), i.e., faith apart from the merit of works – while Catholics believe in salvation by “faith plus the merit of their works” (e.g., CCC #1129, #1257, #2068).

Of course, this Catholic belief contradicts the idea of Sola Fide, but here’s how Catholic apologists try to “get around” the verses listed above.  They will say that all these underlined key phrases – “without the deeds of the law,” “But to him that worketh not,” “without works,” “not justified by the works of the law,” and “not by the works of the law” – are ONLY referring to the works of the Mosaic Law, since these types of phrases are often (but not always) used in the context of the Jews and their laws.  But when they use this argument, are Catholics speaking of the whole Mosaic Law or just certain parts of it?

The Judaizers Refuted at the Jerusalem Council

The Catholic may say, “But Paul was only speaking here of the ceremonial works of the Mosaic Law, but not the moral aspect of the law.  Those moral laws, like the Ten Commandments (along with faith), do indeed save.”  

But this argument doesn’t hold water, as we will soon see.  We see no evidence whatsoever that Paul was referring specifically, and only, to the ceremonial-type works of Moses, whatever those might be.  Some people include circumcision here.

I’m not sure if Catholics want to put circumcision on the “ceremonial list” of works or not, but the apostle Paul was very clear when he said that physical circumcision did not save the Jew (Romans 4:9-11), even though it was a very big deal to the Jews.  It was the recognized mark of the “authentic” Jewish man.  It was to identify the people of God in the Old Testament, the very sign of the Mosaic covenant between God and the Jews.

Yet, a group of Pharisees known as the Judaizers, who were condemned by God (Galatians 1:6-9; 2:4-5) were trying to add (to the work of Jesus on the cross) both circumcision AND following the Law in order to be saved (Acts 15:1, 5).  But their idea was shot down by the apostles when they (the apostles) pointed out that the Law was a burden that neither the Jews’ of that day nor their forefathers were able to bear (Acts 15:10).  They were stressing that salvation was for those whose hearts were cleansed by grace through faith (Acts 15:9, 11), with nothing added to Jesus’ work on the cross. (See also Galatians 3:3).

The Whole Law

Furthermore, five times in Romans 2:17-23, “the law” is mentioned, and also in Romans 7:7 this same law specifically refers to things listed in the Ten Commandments (e.g., stealing, adultery, idolatry and coveting), showing us that “the law” refers to the WHOLE law of Moses and not just some “ceremonial” part of it.

So no, neither observing the rite of circumcision nor even following the Commandments justifies/saves anyone.

Some Catholics will say, “But the works of the New Covenant, the “new law” or the “law of Christ,” are by grace and God considers ‘grace-empowered’ works to be salvific.”

But the Bible nowhere distinguishes between “works of the law” and “grace-empowered works” – and by the way, couldn’t both circumcision and obedience to the Commandments also be considered “grace-empowered” works?  Were these works not also ordained and empowered by God?  Yes, they were.  But this Catholic argument proves too much.  Keep in mind that without God, we can do absolutely nothing on our own (John 15:5) and everything we do, even our breathing, is “grace-empowered” by God, but that doesn’t mean breathing is salvific. 

Any work done by a believer and done for God according to His will and with the right intent is a good and God-ordained work.  But again, nowhere in Scripture do we ever see the contrast of “God-ordained works that save” versus “God-ordained works that don’t save.”

So, for the Jew at that time period, following the ceremonial works ordained by God was a good work, just as following the Ten Commandments ordained by God is a good work.  But the issue is that THESE ARE BOTH WORKS – that is the problem!  But the moment of salvation/justification will happen “apart from works,” as the passages at the very beginning of this article forcefully demonstrate. 

Furthermore, even Catholic apologist Robert Sungenis agrees that Paul, when speaking of such passages, is NOT just talking about the ceremonial aspect of the Mosaic Law, but the whole of it.  See his article here:

https://www.scribd.com/document/698067858/works-of-the-Law-Robert-Sungenis

Sungenis argues that the Council of Trent never used this “works of the law = the ceremonial aspect” language, and he also uses quotes from the church fathers against this same argument.  Furthermore, concerning Romans 3 and 4, he virtually uses the Scriptures on this topic in his argument as Protestants would.

So, I would agree with Sungenis’ particular point that when Paul speaks of “the works of the law,” he is speaking of no less than the WHOLE Mosaic Law.

The Angle

Ok, I mentioned above that I would be addressing this issue from a different angle.  And here it is:

I believe that the argument for the salvation of the Old Testament Jews by faith, apart from the merit of any works in the Mosaic Law, has been reasonably made.  Assuming that Catholics will accept the argument presented so far, they are, in essence, agreeing with Paul (and Protestants in general) that the works of the Mosaic Law could not save the Jew (as I have shown).  

So, if no part of the Mosaic Law could save, then this means that the Jews were saved by their faith and not by the works that were introduced to them through Moses.  The simple truth is, for the Jew of the Old Testament, their salvation came by faith in the sacrificial system, which pointed forward to the cross of Calvary.  They were, in effect, trusting in God’s future provision, which is Jesus Christ and His suffering on the cross. 

So, if the Jews were not saved by the works of the law – not even the moral law – then Catholic apologists are forced to agree that the Jews of the Old Testament must have lived by the same view that Protestants embrace today – “faith alone.”

The Question

Once again, Catholics deny the doctrine of Sola Fide and think that Protestants are wrong for believing that today.  Yet, this was the salvation model for the Jews, as shown above.  This was indeed the case – and I would ask:

“If the Catholic Church is right and there is no Sola Fide today, why would the Jews of the Mosaic Covenant be the ONLY people in the history of mankind to believe and practice ‘faith alone’?” 

It just doesn’t seem to make sense.  It seems it should be that either:

1) “faith alone” was never the case for anyone in history… or

2) it was always the case for all believers throughout history. 

And I believe the latter is correct.  Here’s why…

The Answer

First of all, the ever-present theme in the background of Romans 4 is “How is man made right with God?”  This chapter is part of the most comprehensive, clearest, longest-running and continuous passage in all of Scripture that specifically deals with (and defines and explains) the doctrine of justification.  Over and over in this chapter, this question of how to be right with God is answered.

And in answering that question, the apostle Paul was speaking of believers in three different groups:

1) Those who came before the Mosaic Law (like Abraham – v.1-3, 9, 12-13, 16, 18, 23)

2) Those who lived during the Mosaic Law (like David – v. 6) and

3) Those who lived after the Mosaic Law (like the New Testament Roman Christians to whom Paul was now writing this epistle). 

Why would the Holy Spirit stress over and over that salvation was “apart from law”?  And why would the Holy Spirit bring up Abraham and David in the same context of justification if they were not saved in the same way? 

So, it was not just the people under the Mosaic Law that were living by “faith alone.”  But it was also those living before and after the Law of Moses, and for ALL of these, Paul points to faith alone, apart from the merit of works. 

Abraham was not saved by faith plus his works; David was not saved by faith plus his works; and the New Covenant saints in the Roman church were not saved by faith plus their works.  Therefore, the message of Paul is that a person is saved by faith apart from the merit of ANY good works.  

Therefore, Sola Fide is a universal fact of salvation throughout church history.  According to God-ordained Scripture, salvation was always by believing/faith, without the addition of works, all along (Genesis 15:6).  That’s why Paul quoted Genesis 15:6 in the New Testament (Romans 4:2-3) to make his point.

These passages at the very beginning of this article reflect a clear contrast of “free gift vs. debt,” “grace vs. works” and “grace vs. law.”

Again, it is undeniable that this chapter (Romans 4) is very clearly dealing with the question, “By what means must a person be saved?”  But Catholics (and others) don’t like the answer that the apostle gives them. 

I will now leave you with something very profound from the apostle Paul:

“I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died needlessly.” (Galatians 2:21 – NASV)

Here are some other articles on this topic:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2010/08/sola-fide-revisited.html

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

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2017/11/tim-staples-missing-forest-for-trees.html

 

CATHOLIC APOLOGISTS ABUSE JOHN 16:13

 

“Howbeit when He, the Spirit of truth, is come, He will guide you into all truth: for He shall not speak of Himself; but whatsoever He shall hear, that shall He speak: and He will shew you things to come.” (John 16:13)

What exactly did Jesus mean when He said the Holy Spirit would guide His audience “into all truth”?  Is He talking about the truth found in science, logic or math?  Is He referring to the great mysteries of space and the universe? 

No, He is speaking of spiritual and eternal truths, i.e., the things of God, morality and how He expects one to live.  But someone could say that everything that God knows is the truth, so does this mean that the Holy Spirit is going to show us all things that God Himself knows?  Of course not.  There is no person or group of people that could possibly contain all the spiritual knowledge that God possesses.  So, “guide you into all truth” simply means that the Holy Spirit will give you all the truth that you need in a particular circumstance, for example: 

“And when they bring you unto the synagogues, and unto magistrates, and powers, take ye no thought how or what thing ye shall answer, or what ye shall say: for the Holy Ghost shall teach you in the same hour what ye ought to say.” (Luke 12:11-12)

“But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in My name, He shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.” (John 14:26)

He will give you all the wisdom and direction you need and bring that which is necessary to the believer’s remembrance.  The meaning of John 16:13 is that simple.

Catholic Apologists vs. the Catholic Catechism

But there are many attempts today by Catholic apologists to use this particular verse to buttress the concept of the supposed infallibility of the Catholic Church.  They will say the Holy Spirit, through the promise of Jesus, will give Peter and the apostles (and by extension, the Catholic Church) the authority to teach infallibly and to never be able to teach error or false doctrine when “officially” addressing and teaching the whole church.  They believe that the term “guide you into all truth” applies to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church and offers a “negative charism,” i.e., an infallible gift of protection from error.  In this way, the “chair of Peter” would always fail to promote false doctrine.  

But this passage does not at all support this idea of infallibility for the Church or the popes.  In fact, the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that Jesus’ words (“guide you into all truth”) do not only apply to the Magisterium, but also to individuals:

“All the faithful share in understanding and handing on revealed truth.  They have received the anointing of the Holy Spirit, who instructs them and guides them into all truth.” (CCC #91 – emphasis added)

This paragraph from the Catechism contains a footnote specifically pointing to John 16:13, so there is no doubt that it is speaking of this passage.  Therefore, the Catechism is teaching that this applies to “all the faithful” individuals in the Church.

So, what does this mean?  It means that if Catholic apologists want to claim that Jesus’ words (“guide you into all truth”) offer special protection from error for the Magisterium, they must also believe that the individual believer is specially protected from error in the same way.  And I know they don’t want to say that!

But you can’t have it both ways.  It either provides infallible protection from error for both the Church leadership AND for the individual, or it is for neither.  I will assert it is for neither.  I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: In Scripture, there is no guarantee of infallibility for anyone in the post-apostolic church. 

So, what is this “all truth” that Jesus was speaking of in this passage?  How exactly will the Holy Spirit guide us?  He tells us clearly in the very next chapter of John:

“Sanctify them through Thy truth: Thy word is truth.” (John 17:17)

God tells us in no uncertain terms, and He tells us throughout the Bible that truth lives in His Word – Scripture (e.g., see Psalm 119).

First Example

Is it really true that Catholic apologists claim that John 16:13 means that the (Catholic) Church is infallible?  For anyone who may deny this, I would like to offer a few examples.  For the first, see this article written by Jason Evert on the Catholic Answers website:

https://www.bing.com/search?q=catholic%20answers%2C%20john%2016%3A13%2C%20infallibility&qs=n&form=QBRE&sp=-1&lq=0&pq=catholic%20answers%2C%20john%2016%3A13%2C%20infallibility&sc=0-43&sk=&cvid=68F12749BE6440778C7EE5D7A52959E7

In this write-up, Evert has a short paragraph in which John 16:13 is pressed into service in an attempt to affirm the idea of the infallibility of the Catholic Church.  He says:

“The early Christians knew that they could turn to the apostolic teaching of the Church as a norm for the truth.” 

Ok, so far, so good.  Apostolic teaching is indeed a norm for the truth, but we must make sure that what we are talking about is indeed apostolic teaching.  And we determine that by looking to Scripture.

He then says, “For whoever heard the Church heard Christ (Luke 10:16), and Christ cannot teach error.”

Again, when Catholic apologists use the term “the Church,” it is almost always used to mean specifically the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.  But this is simply reading into the context of Scripture an idea that isn’t there. 

Furthermore, the reference to Luke 10:16 is forced here.  In this verse, Jesus is addressing the seventy-two disciples whom He had sent out ahead of Himself to preach the gospel (the good news) to the surrounding towns and cities.  They were sent out as ambassadors of Christ, preaching truth.  So, whoever “heard” these ambassadors were, in effect, “hearing Christ” because these preachers were faithfully sharing His message.  So, if you want to apply Luke 10:16 to your church, you’d better make sure that your message is indeed His message.  But unfortunately, not every teaching that the Catholic Church promotes is what Jesus says.

Getting back to Jason’s quote, it is certainly true that “Christ cannot teach error.”  But to equate Jesus’ infallibility with the Catholic Church (or ANY church) is ridiculous and is usurping Jesus’ authority.  Jesus shares His infallibility with no one but the other two members of the Trinity.  The only time He has shared it with man is when He stirred them to write Scripture, which is “God-breathed” (2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Peter 1:20-21).

Evert then says:

“So the question should not be ‘where is infallibility in the Bible,’ but where in the Bible is the idea that Christ’s Church would teach error?”

No, Jason, I’m sorry, but you guys are the ones making the positive assertion that not only is the Catholic Church infallible, but that this information can be found, at least partially, in the Bible.  So it is up to YOU to prove your assertion and you certainly didn’t do that in your article.

Also, concerning the church teaching error, it is true that the gates of Hell will not prevail against the true church (Matthew 16:18).  Catholics use this verse all the time to point to infallibility.  But this has nothing at all to do with church leaders being exempt from teaching error.  The sad truth is that Hell will indeed prevail against MANY who claim to be part of the church (Matthew 7:21-23).  But it will not prevail over those who trust in (and keep the words of) Jesus.  

Furthermore, note that the apostle Paul sternly warned the Ephesian elders/leaders to “keep watch over yourselves and the entire flock,” and that some “from among your own selves” would draw disciples away with false teaching (Acts 20:28-30). 

That doesn’t sound like a guarantee that the church leadership has a promise to avoid false teaching.  Why would they need to “keep watch” if they had no possibility of error?  The bottom line is there is no gift of infallibility for the post-apostolic church – showing that no one is safe if he deviates from God’s Word.  This demonstrates that Catholic apologists are abusing John 16:13 and it does not prove their case.

Second Example

In the “Question Corner” of the Catholic Courier (November 7, 2013) a Catholic priest named Kenneth Doyle answers a discerning patron who is asking about infallible teachings of the Church.  Doyle points out that the doctrine of infallibility is “founded on Christ’s promise to the apostles that He would send the Holy Spirit, ‘who will guide you to all truth’ (John 16:13).”

See the question here:

https://catholiccourier.com/articles/what-teachings-are-declared-infallible/

So, again, we see a Catholic leader try to use John 16:13 as support for the Church’s so-called infallibility.  He then says:

“That secure sense of protection from error on fundamental teachings was part of the early history of the church and is reflected in St. Augustine’s fifth-century statement, ‘Rome has spoken; the case is concluded.’”

Concerning the Church’s “secure sense of protection from error,” see this article on the “Rome has spoken” quote by Doyle, which is so often abused by Catholics, and is thoroughly debunked here:

Catholic Legends And How They Get Started: An Example (Sermon 131) - Alpha and Omega Ministries

Just saying that the verse refers to infallibility does not make it so.  Again, the Catholic Church has a false sense of protection from error when they try to use John 16:13 to teach papal infallibility.

Third Example

In an article written by Kevin Noles at the Catholic 365 Website, Noles mentions John 14:16-17 together with John 16:13 to promote Catholic infallibility.  He says:

“It is clear in these two passages that there is a promise of infallibility… Since the Holy Spirit is the third person of the Trinity this makes the Holy Spirit’s teaching necessarily infallible.”

Yes, the Holy Spirit’s teaching is indeed infallible – no argument there.  But Catholic apologists are greatly distorting that promise to be led into truth and are usurping that promise to refer to only one institution/organization – to themselves – rather than to all true believers.  There is nothing in the context of John 16:13 about either infallibility or about a particular church.

Simply mentioning the two verses he noted and saying “it is clear” that they include a promise of infallibility does not magically keep the Catholic Church from error.

Once again, skewed interpretations of the Bible do not prove an infallible post-apostolic church.  These apologists are guilty of eisegesis, that is, they are just reading that idea back into Scripture.  But a faithful look at the whole of Scripture will demonstrate their error.

More Examples

Catholic Online website:

https://www.catholic.org/news/hf/faith/story.php?id=42151

Catholic Share website:

https://www.catholicshare.com/what-is-papal-infallibility-and-when-does-it-apply/

Catholic Stand website:

https://catholicstand.com/doesnt-church-just-infallibly-interpret-every-verse-scripture/

Archdiocese of Boston website:

https://www.bostoncatholic.org/papal-infallibility

Catholic Company website:

https://www.catholiccompany.com/getfed/catholics-believe-everything-the-pope-says/

You get the idea.  This is just a small sampling of Catholic sources on the internet who wrongly tie papal infallibility to John 16:13.  It was my purpose here to focus specifically on this one passage and to show the world that these Catholic apologists, whether intentionally or not, are deceiving their audience.

Conclusion

I know that Catholics have a number of other Bible verses and other arguments for Church infallibility, but in order to avoid a multitude of links, I will not list them here, but there are also plenty articles in this blog that deal with the Catholic Church’s claim of infallibility.  You can type the words “infallible” or “infallibility” in the search bar in the upper left corner of the blog to see some of the Protestant arguments.

The consistent abuse of John 16:13 by many Catholic apologists to “prove” papal infallibility/Church infallibility is either dishonest or attempted by poorly informed Catholics.  Either way, it does not help the image of the Catholic Church, but rather weakens it.