IS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH’S UNITY BETTER THAN THAT OF OTHER CHURCHES?

When Catholics debate issues about Bible teaching with Protestants, they will often say, “That’s just your opinion, and just your interpretation of the passage.  You Protestants can’t really know what the Bible says in many cases, since there are so many differences and divisions when interpreting Scripture within Protestantism.  You guys can’t agree on anything!” 

The Catholic Church claims that they are the one true church, specifically, “the one Church of Christ” which is “one, holy, catholic and apostolic” (Dogmatic Constitution of the Church, Lumen Gentium, paragraph 8).

But when Protestants point out the fact that there are many arguments within Catholicism (sometimes even about doctrine), Catholics will backtrack and are forced to admit it, but they’ll say that the Catholic Church is truly unified because it can “officially” settle disputes within its ranks.  They have the pope to do that, and he can do it “infallibly”!

But if that’s true, why do Catholics still have so many arguments with each other?  That fact is undeniable.  In just one recent example, there was an issue about Pope Francis complaining about a prominent Catholic television network (EWTN) that was attacking and insulting him. 

See these links for details:

https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2021/09/21/pope-francis-says-attacks-and-insults-against-him-are-work-of-the-devil/

https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2021/09/21/pope-francis-ewtn-critics-241472

https://www.ncronline.org/news/vatican/pope-francis-issues-thinly-veiled-criticism-ewtn-comments-gender-ideology

In these articles, the pope claims that he doesn’t mind so much EWTN’s criticism of him – what he claims to be against is this Catholic network attacking the Church.  However, it seems that the problems EWTN has with the Catholic Church revolve largely around what the pope, himself, is allowing in the Church!  After all, as the sole “human head” and “Vicar” of the Church, isn’t he the one ultimately responsible for the things going on within the Church?  And isn’t he the one who is supposed to discipline leaders, clarify misunderstandings and establish Catholic teaching?  If Pope Francis is the answer to the problem of disagreements in the Church, then why is there still such major division in Catholic circles today?

It is true that EWTN has had some strong things to say, especially about the liberal-leaning Church leaders, and the way the church is being run.  Some critics are claiming that the pope said that EWTN was a “work of the devil.”

Catholic writer and apologist Dave Armstrong (as well as other pope supporters) claims that Pope Francis did not say EWTN was a “work of the devil,” but that criticizing the Church is.  Maybe the pope meant that, or maybe he didn’t, but isn’t that pretty much the same thing?  If EWTN is attacking the Catholic Church, wouldn’t that also reflect on the pope who runs it?

Furthermore, in his article, Armstrong also names several prominent Catholic people/teachers/publishers with whom he disagrees.  You can find Armstrong’s article here:

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2021/09/pope-francis-did-not-say-ewtn-work-of-the-devil.html

So we can see that this “unique” harmony and unity that the Catholic Church claims to enjoy simply does not exist. 

It’s deceptive to claim a “final human authority” who can settle all disputes, when this pope, himself, is chiefly responsible for causing so many of the divisions within his own Church, including contradicting traditional Catholic beliefs that were deeply held for centuries.

Look, divisions are inevitable (1 Corinthians 11:18-19), especially when such large groups are involved.  We Protestants are not complaining about the Catholic Church because it has divisions; every church has them.  We are simply protesting the hypocrisy and pretension involved on the part of Catholic accusations of Protestant divisions, as though Catholics don’t have them.

This whole issue of divisions is simply a distraction used by Catholics to deny the doctrine of “Sola Scriptura” (the Bible alone).  This just means that the Bible is the only infallible rule of faith for the Christian church today.  The idea is not complicated.

Protestants assert that the principles of Scripture are clear enough to settle arguments within the body if simple interpretation principles and common sense are used.  See these links:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2013/07/quick-notes-on-sola-scriptura-part-6.html

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

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2009/12/dialogue-on-bible-interpretation.html

Yes, we must strive for unity in the church (John 17:20-21) – but God wants us to have unity in the TRUTH (John 17:17), not just an external, cosmetic type of unity where everyone says the exact same prayer at the same time and everyone uses the same gestures.

A small church that is unified in biblical truth is vastly superior to a billion-member church that is unified in error.  If we really want unbelievers to be drawn by our unity (John 17:22-23), then this unity must be based on scriptural truth.  A “unity” based on error is worse than irrelevant.  True unity may not come easy, but it is better to be honestly divided, than to have an artificial unity.

So, to answer the question first posed in the title of this article, no, Catholicism’s unity is not any better than anyone else’s.

 

DAVE ARMSTRONG ON PRAYING TO SAINTS

Popular Catholic apologist Dave Armstrong has written an article defending the practice of praying to, and praying for, the saints.  The “saints” to which Catholic theology refers in these cases are certain persons who lived especially holy lives and who have died and (it is assumed) went on to Heaven.  They are not referring to the biblical definiton, which says that every true believer is a saint (e.g., 2 Corinthians 1:1; Ephesians 1:1; Philippians 1:1), but rather, the Catholic definiton.  How they know that these “saints” are really in Heaven to begin with is altogether another issue.  But Armstrong’s defense of the saints giving and receiving prayer can be found here:

http://www.ncregister.com/blog/darmstrong/4-biblical-proofs-for-prayers-to-saints-and-for-the-dead

The first example that Armstrong uses in an attempt to make his case is the story of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16:19-31.  He first points to the fact that in the King James Version of the Bible, the rich man used the term “I pray thee” (v. 27) and implies that this is evidence that the rich man was “praying” to Abraham.  Therefore, praying to a saint.

But we have to remember that this was “King James talk,” which was the common way to speak in the day the King James Bible was written.  The term “I pray thee” can indeed be used while in prayer, but it does not necessarily mean that one is praying.  It simply means, “I ask of you,” or “I beg of you.”  

Also, biblically speaking, prayer is only to someone who is in another realm, different than your own, for example, from earth to Heaven, and more specifically, from people on earth to God in Heaven (which is the only biblical example).  In Luke 16, Abraham and the rich man were in the same realm, near to each other.  They were certainly in two different places, but in the same realm (Hades).  So, two people in Hades communicating with each other is no different than two people in Heaven communicating with each other, or two people on earth communicating with each other – they are simply talking face to face, not praying.

Toward the end of this point, Armstrong says:

“Thus we can only conclude that human beings in the afterlife can be prayed to and that they have the power… to fulfill the requests… exactly what the Catholic communion of saints / invocation of saints holds…”

No, sorry Dave, but this is not the “only” conclusion that we can come to concerning prayer in this passage.  Actually, there is nothing at all in this passage about prayer.  Not only is yours not the only conclusion, it is not even a valid conclusion, according to the Bible.  Throughout Scripture, the only God-approved prayer is directed to God alone, not to Mary, not to saints, and not to angels.

Armstrong’s second example is King Saul “petitioning” the prophet Samuel after Samuel died (1 Samuel 28:15-16).  Actually, this is the story of how Saul, acting against God’s law, sought out the witch of Endor (1 Samuel 28:7) to conjure up Samuel to help him.  It was (and is) a sin to be involved in necromancy or to use mediums to communicate with the dead (Leviticus 19:31; Deuteronomy 18:10-12).  Even the witch knew that! (1 Samuel 28:3, 9)

It is interesting that Catholics will complain when Protestants compare praying to saints with necromancy, using mediums, or seances (all communicating with the dead), yet here, Dave Armstrong uses that very thing (the services of a medium) as an example of praying to saints!

Armstrong then states, “The Bible casually assumes that great prophets like Moses and Samuel would be praying for those on earth after they died.”  And then he uses Jeremiah 15:1 to try and support his claim:

Then the LORD said to me, “Though Moses and Samuel stood before me, yet my heart would not turn toward this people.  Send them out of my sight, and let them go!”

But any “casual assumptions” about the dead praying for us in this passage are made by Catholics, not Scripture.  God is not saying that Moses and Samuel actually stood before Him and interceded for the people.  He was making the point that even if they would have, He wouldn’t answer even their request.  God also says something similar to the verse above in Ezekiel 14:14: 

Though these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they should deliver but their own souls by their righteousness, saith the Lord God.

He then repeats this concept in verses 16, 18, and 20.  But in each case God is merely saying that EVEN IF great men of God like Moses, Samuel, Noah, Daniel, or Job would try to intervene (great intercessors as they were), God STILL would not answer their prayers, because of the great sin of Israel.  That’s the point God is making here.  He certainly was not endorsing the idea of prayer from these men after death.  Nowhere in Scripture do we see anyone in God’s will praying to anyone but God, nor do we see any departed saints praying for us.

Next, Dave points out that the bystanders at Jesus’ crucifixion believed that He was asking (praying to) Elijah to come and save Him.  Supposedly, “This type of petition was commonly believed at the time.”  But these Jews had no biblical reason whatsoever to believe that one could pray to anyone other than God.  

Dave Armstrong’s third example is the apostle Paul supposedly praying for the dead in 2 Timothy 1:16-18: 

[16] May the Lord grant mercy to the household of Onesiphorus, for he often refreshed me; he was not ashamed of my chains, [17] but when he arrived in Rome he searched for me eagerly and found me – [18] may the Lord grant him to find mercy from the Lord on that Day – and you well know all the service he rendered at Ephesus.

Notice that this is merely an assumption on Dave’s part.  There is no mention of anyone dead here.  It is possible that Onesiphorus was simply away from home, so maybe that is why Paul prayed for his household (2 Timothy 1:16; 4:19). 

 

But even if Onesiphorus was indeed dead when Paul wrote this, the final destiny of Onesiphorus was fixed, it was already decided (Luke 16:19-23; 2 Corinthians 5:6, 8; Hebrews 9:27).  No amount of prayer from anyone, even an apostle, could help his state after death.  

But obviously, Onesiphorus was a godly man, or Paul would not have spoken so highly of him.  Therefore, if he was dead, there was no need to ask God for mercy for Onesiphorus, since he had already obtained that final mercy.  But there was something else going on here.  If Onesiphorus was actually dead, Paul’s “prayer” for him to find mercy in that day was not specifically a petition to “help” him, but rather, a pious wish, an expression of a heart-felt desire toward him.  Like when we say “May you rest in peace” to someone who is dead.  It is not really praying for him or to him, but it is simply a sentiment toward the dearly departed, a commending of them to God.

But Catholics may ask, “But what about Purgatory?  Couldn’t Paul have been praying for Onesiphorus’ well-being in Purgatory?”  No, Scripture does not speak of such a place.  After death, there is only Heaven or Hell.  See here:

http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2015/02/the-false-doctrine-of-purgatory-part-1.html

http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2015/03/the-false-doctrine-of-purgatory-part-2.html

And the fourth example Armstrong gives us is both Jesus and Peter supposedly “praying to saints and for the dead.”  He points to Acts 9:36-41 where a girl named Tabitha had died.  And elsewhere, Jesus raises Lazarus from the dead (John 11:41-42), speaking “directly to a dead man (in effect, ‘praying’ to him).”

This is desperation.  There is a difference between 1) praying to a dead person who is supposedly in Heaven to help someone on earth, and 2) authoritatively and miraculously speaking to a dead body to raise it from the dead.  Neither Jesus nor Peter was asking these dead persons for help, i.e., they were not praying “to” them.  And neither were they praying “for” them in the Catholic sense of praying to aid them in Purgatory.  Again, this is a ridiculous attempt by Dave Armstrong to validate the Catholic practice of praying to the dead to help the one praying, and praying for the dead to help them to get out of Purgatory.  This is a desperate, shameful, and irresponsible manipulating of Holy Scripture, confusing and deceiving multitudes of Catholics.

For more information on praying to saints, see these links:

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

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