CATHOLIC APOLOGISTS’ MISUSE OF JAMES 5:16

 

(v. 14) Is any sick among you?  Let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord:

(v. 15) And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him.

(v. 16) Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed.  The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much. (James 5:14-16)

[For the record, the word “faults” in v. 16 is translated as “sins” in the majority of our Bibles, including Catholic versions.]

James 5:16 is very often used by Catholic apologists to promote certain Catholic teachings.  In fact, there are two different teachings in which this passage is usually pressed into service. 

I will address two major points in this article, concerning the misuse of this passage, but before moving on, I want to say that I am not aware if any official Catholic sources, like the Catechism of the Catholic Church or papal encyclicals or other documents actually use this Scripture passage to promote the following teachings, but I have indeed seen certain Catholic apologists use this passage on numerous occasions to bolster these Catholic doctrines.

First Major Point – Confession to a Priest

Ok, the first major point is that one of the foundational teachings of the Catholic Church is the sacrament of Confession (also known as Penance or Reconciliation).  This sacrament normally consists of a member of the Catholic Church confessing his sins privately to a priest in order to have all his sins forgiven/absolved.  This is also called “auricular confession” by the Church. 

But Protestants will often object and say that a person can, and should, confess his sins directly to God (Hebrews 4:16).  And the Catholic will normally respond with the previously mentioned James 5 passage, especially v. 16.

But there are serious problems with trying to use this passage to support the idea of confession to a priest.  First of all, the Bible does not even recognize a “ministerial” priesthood in the New Testament church like the one in the Old Testament.  See these links:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2010/03/priesthood.html

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2018/07/where-are-all-priests-in-new-testament.html

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2016/05/does-exodus-196-support-catholic.html

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2016/06/martignoni-and-korahs-rebellion.html

Secondly, the New Testament never says to confess your sins to an elder, priest, rabbi or any specifically-designated person at all. 

Thirdly, James 5:16 says to “Confess your faults/sins ONE TO ANOTHER.”  The context is the local body of believers confessing their sins which they may have committed against each other.  It is about praying for the sick and about rectifying personal offenses toward other members in the local body.

But if this really is about confessing to a priest (as Catholics suggest), then why would James tell the local body to confess to “one another”?  If a priest is there to hear sins, shouldn’t this priest also confess his own sins to members of the laity, just as the laity confesses to him?  After all, that’s what “confessing one to another” means, right?  The context of James 5:16 is calling for reciprocal confession.  After absolving the sins of the lay person, would the priest then be willing to use the confessional box to allow a lay person be in charge of absolving his (the priest’s) sins also?  I don’t think so.  The context of this passage will not let this interaction be limited to “one-way confession.”

So I don’t think that this passage suggests auricular confession to a priest, as is found in the Catholic Church.  So James 5:16 cannot be used to promote the doctrine of confession to a priesthood.

Footnote in the Douay-Rheims

The (Catholic) Douay-Rheims Bible has this in its footnotes for James 5:16:

“[16] “Confess therefore your sins one to another”: that is, to the priests of the church, whom (ver. 14) he had ordered to be called for, and brought in to the sick; moreover, to confess to persons who had no power to forgive sins, would be useless.  Hence the precept here means, that we must confess to men whom God hath appointed, and who, by their ordination and jurisdiction, have received the power of remitting sins in his name.”

See here:

https://www.drbo.org/chapter/66005.htm

The publishers of the Douay-Rheims Bible are missing the whole point.  They are automatically assuming up front that just because the word “confess” is present in the text, it is about Catholic auricular confession, i.e., confessing to a specific person (a priest) in order to get a “clean slate.”

But the New Testament elders (Greek, “presbyterous”), not priests (which is “hiereis” in the Greek), were there to help pray for the sick, not to “hear confessions” from the “laity.”  The publishers of this Catholic Bible obviously assume that there are priests in the post-apostolic New Testament era who have the “power to forgive sins,” but this is without biblical warrant. 

If modern “priests” have the power to absolve sins at will (like Jesus did), then they would also have the power to heal people at will (like Jesus did in Luke 5:20-26).  But they can’t, and again, there is no biblical evidence for a designated (human) person to whom one must go to be forgiven.  But on the other hand, we are always free to go directly to God for forgiveness (Psalm 73:25) – even “Pope Peter” said this! (Acts 8:20-22)

Catholics wrongly turn to John 20:23 to try and justify auricular confession, believing that Jesus gave men the power to forgive sins in the confessional box.  But this is not the case.  See this link:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2011/08/hi-jacking-of-john-2023.html

Again, there is no New Testament “ministerial” priesthood to start with, as indicated in the four links I listed together above.

Second Major Point – Praying to Saints

It also seems that this passage (James 5:16) is often used by Catholic apologists to promote prayer to Mary, saints and angels.  Apparently, this would involve the concept of “communion of saints,” i.e., that spiritual union of all the saints on earth and all the saints in Heaven.  Catholics will emphasize the latter half of the verse that reads, “… The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.”

They do this to stress the righteousness of those saints who are in Heaven.  After all, those in Heaven are certainly far more righteous than we are here on earth, so (according to Catholics) their prayers would have to be very effective, and we on earth should be eager to seek their intercession! 

Catholic apologists use this particular passage, but it backfires on them, because once again, James is telling them to pray for one another, which would mean reciprocal prayers.  

So, if the saints (including Mary and angels) in Heaven are (supposedly) praying for us, then likewise, we must need to reciprocate and pray for them, as well, right?  Once more, isn’t that what “pray one for another” means? 

But if that’s the case, why in the world would we (on earth) need to pray for THEM?  If they are indeed in Heaven, they are complete in Christ – they don’t NEED our prayers.  In fact, they have need of nothing!  Why would James be telling us to pray for them?  The point is, he’s NOT.

Ahhh, then maybe James is NOT referring at all to those in Heaven in this context.  James recognizes that there are some people on earth who can pray effectual and fervent prayers.  He is simply telling the saints on earth (in the local body) to pray for other saints on earth (in that same local body).  That’s the reciprocal prayer he’s talking about.  He is actually telling them to pray (along with the elders) for each other for healing (v. 6) and for when they have offended one another.  This is about both physical and spiritual restoration for the local body.  I would assert that this is exactly what is happening here in this context.  There is nothing here suggesting prayers to Mary, saints or angels.  See also these links:

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

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

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2014/11/praying-to-saints-revisited.html

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2023/10/worship-and-prayer.html

So, this is another misuse of James 5:16 by Catholic apologists.

Conclusion

I know that James 5:14-16 is not the only passage that Catholic apologists use to promote auricular confession to a priest or to promote prayer to saints.  I am aware of that, but I wanted to specifically address these Catholic teachings in relation to this Bible passage (which they themselves use).  I think that it is clear that James 5 does not support either of these teachings.

For more detailed arguments against these particular Catholic topics, see the links I posted in this article.

 

ARE CATHOLICS CHRISTIANS?

I remember as a child in elementary school going to one of my Catholic catechism classes.  We were reading from one of the books that we were using with the Catechism at the time, and this word kept popping up… the word “Christian.”  I was young and naïve and I asked the teacher what that word meant.  And she responded by saying, “It means Catholic.”  I didn’t know any better, but I kept that in mind over the years.  But later on, I realized that the two terms (“Catholic” and “Christian”) are certainly not the same thing.  A person can be a Catholic and not be a Christian, or he can be a Christian and not be a Catholic.  It seems that she was either ignorant of the difference, or she was just brushing me off.  Either way, as a catechism teacher, she should have been clearer.  At the very best, she failed to explain the correlation between the two terms.

Of course, the word “Christian” means a follower of Christ, a person who is saved – one who is serving God and headed for Heaven.  On the other hand, a “Catholic” is one who is a member of the Catholic Church, which is considered by most people a branch, denomination, or subset of Christianity. 

So, the question arises, “Are Catholics saved, are they Christians?”  I hear it often, but this question requires more than just a simple “yes” or “no.”  The answer to the question certainly has to be nuanced. 

The Heart Matters

Of course, the question can also be asked of Protestants – are they saved?  And of course, the answer is that some are and some aren’t.  The bottom line is that God looks at the heart.   It is not just being part of a certain group – just being a Lutheran, or Assembly of God, or Baptist, or Presbyterian, etc., doesn’t make one a true follower of Christ.  What does is a changed life/heart, one that is surrendered to God, believing and trusting in the work and suffering of Jesus Christ on the cross for salvation and trusting nothing else (John 3:16; Galatians 3:1-3). 

But What About Catholics?

The biblical requirement for salvation (articulated just above) is the same for everyone.  But Catholics believe that the requirement(s) for making it to Heaven are different than what some (or maybe most) Protestants believe. 

First and most important, Catholics believe in a “faith plus works” system to be saved (CCC #2068; #1129), just like the Judaizers did in the book of Galatians, but the apostle Paul harshly rebuked the Galatian church for starting to accept this false teaching (Galatians 1:8-9; 3:1-3).  Adding the merits of any kind of work/sacrament/suffering to the cross is a direct violation of the gospel of Jesus Christ, an attack on the very core of the Christian faith.  Faith, apart from the merit of works (Romans 3:28; 4:6; 4:4-5), is a non-negotiable condition of salvation. 

See this link on the concept of merit in Catholicism:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2022/02/the-concept-of-merit-in-catholicism.html

But this system of salvation through works is not the only problem with the teachings of Catholicism.  There are also many other false teachings in the Catholic Church, as well, as is demonstrated throughout this blog.

If a Catholic person truly trusts in Jesus and gets saved, it is vitally important for him to then embrace correct doctrine to maintain his faith, because doctrine can (and will) affect your relationship with God.  If one believes in any kind of false doctrine, this will skew his understanding of the nature, purpose and instructions of the God of the Bible.  And this can certainly put him in grave spiritual danger.  I personally believe that the less you trust in the tenets of Catholicism, the better off you are.  The longer you stay in this church, the more likely you will betray the Scriptures.  For a “more sure word” (2 Peter 1:19), you must stick to the principles of the Bible.

I often say that a Catholic can indeed be saved, but his salvation would be IN SPITE OF being in the Catholic Church, not BECAUSE OF IT!

God’s Grace and Man’s Accountability

God is so gracious and patient with us, even when we are being foolish and participating in an unbiblical church (whether Catholic, Protestant, or otherwise), but this kindness must not be abused or taken for granted (Romans 2:4).  There are probably many people in these churches today, honestly seeking for truth, and who are still innocent, not yet irrevocably tainted by one of these churches or its doctrines.  Perhaps they are there through no fault of their own, but how long can one be in one of these unbiblical churches before he is corrupted by the false doctrine taught within?

Only God knows that answer, but we should never put ourselves in that position to start with!  Each one of us is ultimately responsible for our own spiritual well-being.  The Bible tells us to “Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15).  If we are already very familiar with the Scriptures, we are far more likely to find a good, Bible-based church.

Again, each believer is ultimately responsible for his own soul and no one will be able to say on Judgment Day, “Hey, I was just obeying the Church, like they told me I must do!  It is all THEIR fault if I believed the wrong things” (Romans 14:12; 2 Corinthians 5:10)!  I actually had a co-worker that told me this and she was very serious about it.  I tried to convince her otherwise, but she would not listen.

“But We have So Much in Common…”

In fairness, I want to say that the Catholic Church does have many teachings that are orthodox (i.e., generally accepted as right or true), for example, the resurrection, the doctrine of the Trinity, Heaven and Hell, and the Bible’s inspiration are things that Protestants and Catholics can agree on.

But I want to emphatically state that it is not how many teachings Protestants and Catholics have in common that matter most, but there are certain critical differences which corrupt the essential teaching of salvation that remove Catholics from biblical orthodoxy!

For example, I once heard a great analogy by Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason where he draws two small circles on a blackboard.  By one, he writes the word “aspirin.”  By the other, he writes the word “arsenic.”  He then asks the audience, “What do these two have in common?”  Greg points out that they are both small and they are both round, and they both start with the letter “a”.  Therefore, should we treat them the same, since they have more in common than they do differences?  Absolutely not!  The problem is obviously that one will cure your headache, but the other would kill you!  The point being that their one difference is far more important than any similarities they may have. 

And that’s how it is with the Catholic Church.  Even though Protestants may agree with them about some (or maybe even many) things, there are some teachings in the Catholic Church that are far too spiritually dangerous to embrace.  This fact greatly affects the answer to the question of “Are Catholics Christians?” 

Truth vs. False Doctrine

For those who would say that Catholics really are Christians, what exactly is it that convinces them of this?  Is it because that they are the largest single group in the world claiming to be Christian?  But we know that “majority rule” has not always been a good test for veracity.

Is it because Catholicism claims that they have a lawful and unbroken line of successors tracing all the way back to the apostles?  Most Catholics would say yes, but this has been shown to be false:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2017/08/those-nagging-gaps.html

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2009/12/apostolic-succession.html

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2025/02/the-mythical-chain.html

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

Is it because the Catholic Church claims to have as its foundation/authority, a “three-legged stool” [i.e., 1) Scripture, 2) the Magisterium, and 3) Sacred Tradition]?

Many Catholics will say yes, but I find it interesting that 1) many of their teachings contradict the Scriptures, 2) there is no papal Magisterium in the New Testament, and 3) they vehemently claim to be true to the Sacred Traditions of the Church, yet they find it so hard to be able to tell us exactly what all this Sacred Tradition is.  See these links on Sacred Tradition:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2022/07/the-lonely-pilgrim-and-sacred-tradition.html

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2010/05/what-about-tradition.html

We could go on and on like this, but the main issue is that there are so many unbiblical teachings within the Catholic Church.

Also, I think that another problematic issue with the Church is the fact that Catholics love to invite outsiders to “Come home to the Catholic Church,” as though joining the Church is the ultimate goal of Catholic evangelism.  We Protestants don’t ask people to specifically pursue “Protestantism” or Lutheranism, or the Baptist Church, etc., but we usually invite them to have a relationship with Jesus.  No church institution is the final destination, but Jesus Christ is!

Conclusion

So, to ask the question again, “Can a Catholic be saved?”  Yes, he can be.  But let’s ask it in a different way: “Can a devout Catholic be saved?”  That’s a different question.  If the person is a devout Catholic and is unapologetically entrenched in the Catholic Church and refuses to let go of Catholic teaching (especially if he is presented with what the Bible teaches) – then the possibility of him being saved is greatly reduced.

I am not making an ultimate spiritual judgment here.  No one can absolutely conclude that a person (Catholic, Protestant, or otherwise) is eternally lost – only God knows their heart perfectly. 

Yet, God has given us (Christians) the ability to imperfectly see the state of a person’s heart through his actions and his fruit (Matthew 7:15-17).  For those who claim to be Christians, but do not have the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23), or they are steeped in false doctrine, we must warn.  That is, we are obligated to prayerfully and lovingly point to the spiritual danger in which one may be living.  It is not an act of love to allow someone to continue down a road that will obviously lead to disaster!

We are obligated to let Catholics know that theirs is a false gospel.  And a false gospel certainly excludes one from true Christianity.

May the words of John, the prophet and apostle, be heeded:

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