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.

 

YES, CATHOLICS DO WORSHIP MARY (Part 4)

This is the fourth and final article in this series on Mary and why I say that Catholics actually worship her.

There seems to be a silly false dichotomy that is common in Catholicism: Either 1) Protestants should pray to Mary, or 2) if they don’t, they must hate her!

First of all, I want to emphasize that no Protestant that I know hates Mary and we are in no way trying to denigrate her.  In fact, I am glad that God chose her for this great distinction and we know that God knows what He’s doing.  She proved to be a humble, faithful servant of God and a fitting mother and nurturer to bear the Savior.  All of us should agree on that.  This was a great honor and indeed all generations are calling her blessed, as Mary stated (Luke 1:48).  Yes, she had a definite, God-given role in history, but that does not justify praying to her.  As I said in the beginning, the only recipient of prayer should be God.

Putting Things into Perspective

Catholics love to stress that Mary “cooperated” with God by saying “Yes” to Him and agreeing to bear the Savior.  But what if she had said “No”?  Would the will of God have been frustrated?  Would we now be without a Savior?  Of course not.

God is not limited, but Catholics act as though the Messiah coming to earth would have been absolutely impossible if it weren’t for this one humble virgin!  But I’m sure there were very many young, godly and capable virgins in that day who would have done anything to have the honor of bearing the Messiah.  Catholics need to quit acting like God’s hands would have been tied without Mary accepting this honor.  They act as though Mary came to the rescue and saved the day when no one else was willing or able.  In this way, Catholics are almost making her the Savior.  But the truth is that God could have used someone else!

“Mother” of the Church?

In John 19:26-27, Catholics find an interesting concept.  Jesus, from the cross, told the apostle John, “Behold your mother.”  From this statement, Catholics deduce that this is intended to convey the idea that Mary is now going to be the “Mother” of the whole church.  And from this idea, there are a multitude of privileges and special honors that follow her. 

But if that’s true, then what about the second half of the equation?  Does this also mean that John is the “son” of the whole church, since Jesus also told Mary, “Woman, behold your son”?  Why doesn’t the Catholic Church make a big deal over that, as well?  No, Jesus was not giving Mary a new exalted role here, but was simply putting His mother into the care of the apostle as she grew old.  Just as there is no universal “son of the church,” neither is there a universal “Mother of the church.”

Spirit Over Family

“And it came to pass, as He spoke these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto Him, ‘Blessed is the womb that bare Thee, and the paps which Thou hast sucked.’  But He said, ‘Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it.’”  (Luke 11:27-28)

No, Jesus was not being rude to His mother here, as some suggest.  But in this passage, Jesus is showing everyone here how it is more blessed to be a follower of Christ than to be the physical mother of Christ!  Jesus emphasizes the importance of the spiritual aspect of the believer’s relationship with Him, over the familial aspect between Him and His mother. 

Abusing James

“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 5:16)

Catholics almost always point to this passage when appealing to the Catholic teaching of praying to Mary and the saints in Heaven.  They’ll eagerly point out the fact that “… The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much,” and that Mary and the saints in Heaven are far more righteous than we are.  Therefore (according to Catholics), we should ask for their intercession, i.e., for their prayers for us. 

But if Catholics want to be consistent in their use of James 5:16, they should also obey the part that says (“… pray one for another”).  So, if that’s true, Catholics on earth should also have to pray FOR Mary and FOR those same saints in Heaven who are (supposedly) praying for those on earth!  The context of this verse is clearly not just one-way prayer, but RECIPROCAL PRAYER (… pray one for another…)! 

But why would anyone need to pray for Mary and the saints in Heaven?  They have need of nothing in the presence of Jesus!  But this is the logical conclusion when trying to use the context of this passage to prove prayers to Mary/saints.  It just doesn’t work.

Again, James is talking about reciprocal prayer – he is actually telling the saints on earth to pray for one another here on earth!  This passage fails to support the teaching of prayer to Mary and the saints.

Marian Mantras

I would like to address some very common sayings that Catholics have of Mary.  These are like mindless mantras and are often blurted out without even thinking:

• A Catholic once said, “We never give more honor to Jesus than when we honor His mother.”

So, let’s take that idea to its logical conclusion.  According to this logic, the more we honor Mary, the more we honor Christ.  If that’s true, then maybe we should whole-heartedly adore/latria/worship Mary as God, so that Jesus can then be super-duper worshipped!  He would be getting absolutely unlimited honor and worship, right?  But something tells me that Catholics would take issue with this idea.

No, Catholics think that this “more-honor-to-Mary” equals “more-honor-to-Jesus” idea sounds good, but it is utterly false and absurd.

• Another false mantra is that “Mary always points to Jesus!” 

This was true of the biblical Mary, but not with the “Catholic Mary.”  According to one of the popular visions of Fatima, “Mary” gave instructions to pray the rosary every day “to bring peace to the world and the end of the War” [WW1].  But why the rosary, since its prayers to Mary far outnumber those directed to God/Jesus?  This is pointing more toward her. 

This “Mary” also told the children that God wished for “devotion to her Immaculate Heart for world peace and the salvation of souls.”  Again, she requested that they pray that Russia would be consecrated to her Immaculate Heart.  Is this pointing to Jesus or to “Mary”?  Furthermore, she asked that a chapel be built in her honor!  It is her exaltation that seems to be the goal here, not Jesus.’

Amazingly, she also said that peace with Russia would be granted and that “ONLY I CAN HELP YOU.  My Immaculate Heart will be your refuge and the way that will lead you to God.” (Emphasis added)

See this article:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-visions-of-fatima.html

It is clear that the “Mary” to whom Catholics pray does not always point to Jesus.

• Mary is a “shortcut to Jesus”!

While this might sound good, the Scriptures tell us that we can go directly to God through Jesus (Hebrews 4:14-16), since He is fully able to sympathize with our needs and weaknesses, and that we can approach the throne of grace with confidence.  Was the author of Hebrews lying when he said this?  No, but adding Mary to the list only adds one more layer to the process.  Some “shortcut”!

• Mary is “the surest way to her Son”!

If we come to Jesus humbly for salvation, we are saved by grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8-10).  If we come to Him with other needs, it is the same.  But Mary is needed in neither case.  Again, I would repeat what I said just above: Hebrews 4:14-16 assures us that we will be heard, if we approach Him with confidence and with humility.   The surest way to Jesus is by faith in His word, not faith in His mother.

“The Bible Doesn’t Say…”

When Protestants claim that praying to Mary is wrong, Catholics will often say, “But the Bible doesn’t say NOT to pray to Mary, does it?”

But there are countless things that the Bible doesn’t address specifically.  For example, it never says, “Don’t throw your trash over your neighbor’s fence into his yard,” or “Don’t slash your co-worker’s tires.”  There is nothing in the Bible that specifically addresses these things.  But we all know that these things are prohibited because of the command to “love your neighbor” (Leviticus 19:18; Matthew 22:39).  That is a general principle found throughout Scripture that overrides any act that would violate that command.

The Bible may not specifically say, “Don’t pray to Mary,” or “Never address the saints or angels in prayer,” but there is a way that we can know if these things are allowed.  We have biblical principles throughout the Scriptures, and patterns in which to cling when there is no specific instruction.  We should look to examples of what the people of God did, and what they avoided.  And the continuous pattern throughout Scripture is very simple – it is that people prayed to God alone!

Conclusion

It seems that Mary is the only mother in history who has been dignified with such incredible titles of exaltation from the Catholic Church.  Granted, her Son is indeed the Savior and is of immeasurable worth.  But one would think that other mothers of great children would also be dignified in a similar manner for their child’s sake.

For example, Moses is recognized as the greatest Old Testament prophet ever.  Few people are as revered by the Jews as Moses was.  Yet, his mother, Jochebed, was never considered to be:

“Co-Mediatrix between God and the Jews,” Co-Redemptrix of the Jews,” “Mother of the Jews,” “Mother of the Mosaic Law,” “Queen over the Red Sea,” “Co-Provider of manna,” “Sovereign Princess of plagues,” “Mother of the brazen serpent,” “Co-Intercessor of the Israelites,” or “Queen of the Promised Land.”

Someone might say, “But that’s ridiculous!”  But why is it ridiculous for Jochebed when the same thing is being done for Mary?  None of Moses’ exploits, prophecies and great miracles would have been done if Jochebed had not given birth to him.  That seems to be the criteria for Mary’s exaltation, so why not Jochebed, as well?  After all, she literally saved Moses’ life, as a child, when she kept him from the Egyptians and placed him in a basket in the Nile River.  So why is Jochebed not also sharing the attributes of her son, Moses, and the honor he held? 

Funny, but we see very little of Jochebed in the Scriptures, in spite of the great exploits of her son.  The truth is, we also see very little of Mary in the Scriptures, yet her titles, honor and attributes of Jesus abound.

You have to wonder, how many other godly, humble and faithful mothers out there are being deprived by the Catholic Church of the honor and veneration they deserve?  Is it because the Church would see this as usurping the honor their sons deserve?  Yes, it should be.  Then how much more is the Catholic Church usurping the honor and uniqueness of the Savior of mankind when giving Mary the honor and attributes that only her Son should have?

Once again, I would have to say that Mary, by biblical standards, is being worshipped and this is the sin of idolatry.  There is no other way to see it.  And the Catholic Church seems to have no problem with that.

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

See also these links:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2021/03/excessive-devotion-to-mary-in-catholic.html

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

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

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2024/01/if-you-cant-find-jesus-look-for-his.html