THE SACRAMENT OF ANOINTING OF THE SICK

 

Today, we will continue our series on the Catholic sacraments.  This is the fifth one that I’ll be addressing and it is called Anointing of the Sick, sometimes referred to as “Extreme Unction” (CCC #1512).

As you can tell by the name, it deals with anointing a sick person with oil in order for him to be healed.  Now, Protestants don’t normally have an issue with this concept, since it is a biblical one:

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: 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.  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)

And Catholics claim to base this sacrament mainly on this particular passage.  But according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, they claim a special power in this sacrament, the effects being:

·         The Anointing of the Sick unites the sick person to the passion of Christ, for his own good and that of the whole Church;

·         gives the person the strength, peace, and courage to endure in a Christian manner the sufferings of illness or old age;

·         imparts the forgiveness of sins, if the sick person was not able to obtain it through the sacrament of Penance;

·         provides for the restoration of health, if it is conducive to the salvation of his soul;

·         helps the sick person in the preparation for passing over to eternal life. (CCC #1532)

 

Preparing for the Final Journey?

In the Catholic Church, the Anointing of the Sick is also associated with a practice called the “Last Rites,” which is actually a collection of prayers and sacraments given to a person who may be in grave danger of dying.  The sacraments involved in the Last Rites are the Anointing of the Sick, Confession and the reception of the Eucharist (Holy Communion).

CCC #1523 talks of preparing for the final journey.  CCC #1525 says:

“Thus, just as the sacraments of Baptism, Confirmation, and the Eucharist form a unity called ‘the sacraments of Christian initiation,’ so too it can be said that Penance, the Anointing of the Sick and the Eucharist as viaticum constitute at the end of Christian life ‘the sacraments that prepare for our heavenly homeland’ or the sacraments that complete the earthly pilgrimage.”

But this is deceptive in the sense that it teaches that there are rituals that must be done to enter Heaven.  We don’t get saved by works, sacraments, or rituals and we don’t maintain our salvation by works, sacraments, or rituals.  We get there, and stay there, by faith, that is, faith in the work and suffering of Jesus Christ on the cross of Calvary (Galatians 3:1-5).  Trusting in that alone will save us in our “final journey.”

Priests or Elders?

In CCC #1519, the Catechism specifically mentions the “priests of the Church” as one of the principal elements in this sacrament (Anointing of the Sick), and it footnotes James 5:14, which tells us to call for the elders of the church. 

I’ve covered this several times on this blog, and I want to emphasize it again: the word for “elders” in James 5:14 is the Greek “presbuteros.”  It is NOT the same biblical term used for “priests.”   The biblical term for “priest” in the New Testament is the Greek “hiereus.”  “Hiereus” is the same Greek word used for Old Testament priests, as well (e.g., Matthew 12:4-5; Luke 17:14; John 1:19; Acts 4:1and 6:7; Hebrews 8:4).  Furthermore, “hiereus” is also used of the universal priesthood of all believers (Revelation 1:6; 5:10; 20:6).  Even in the Old Testament, “elders” and priests were two different groups.  So, according to the God-breathed Scriptures, an elder is not the same thing as a priest.  This is a constant diversion used by Catholics.  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

Authority to Forgive?

When the elders in the local church pray for someone according to James 5:14-16, the person can have a reasonable expectation to be healed, and even forgiven (v. 15).  I actually like the way the Catechism puts it:

“… the liturgy has never failed to beg the Lord that the sick person may recover his health if it would be conducive to his salvation.” (CCC #1512 – Emphasis added)

There is nothing wrong with praying for someone’s health, and it is certainly not wrong to pray for his forgiveness.  But the forgiveness does not come from the elders, nor does it come from any ritual that they perform.  They don’t have special power to grant forgiveness.  That is a Catholic misunderstanding of Scripture.  We can indeed forgive one another for personal sins committed against each other, but absolution (a “clean slate” or total forgiveness of sins) is something that God alone can do.  Furthermore, any Christian can biblically recognize and declare that someone is forgiven (absolved), but only based on the person’s positive response to the gospel of Jesus Christ, not on any special authority of a man.

Conclusion

As I said earlier, Protestants don’t (generally) have an issue with the concept of anointing of the sick (which is biblical), but Extreme Unction is a different and non-biblical issue.  Extreme Unction is a very dangerous concept that many people (even some non-Catholics) believe.  It is dangerous because they are trusting that this last-minute Catholic ritual can save the soul of the dying person!  But once again, this is not so.  Priestly rituals are works, and no works can save an individual.  But the Catholic Church wants its priests involved in all areas of the lives of its members.  Please remember that the Catholic Church intends to impose itself upon all Catholics through dependence on the Church (priesthood) from cradle to grave.  In this system, it is the priests (not Jesus) who are the mediators between man and God (1 Timothy 2:5).  

But Extreme Unction is a false hope.  It would be far more advantageous (and biblical) for someone to share the simple gospel with the person on his death bed.  They say that the last thing to go before death (concerning our five senses) is our hearing.  I believe that this is so the gospel can be shared with them, even if they seem unresponsive.  If one can hear the gospel, he can respond (at least internally) and be saved.  The Bible promises that whosoever will call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved (Romans 10:13).

The repentant thief on the cross next to Jesus (Luke 23:39-43) was a good example of this simple salvation.  He could do no good works – he could not come down from his cross and get baptized, give to the poor, or help anyone cross the street.  All he could do was call on Jesus… and he did!  He is now memorialized in the sacred Scriptures as an eternal witness and example to all – obtaining salvation is free to all who come to Jesus.  It is simply a matter of a changed heart when you surrender to God and trust in His Son, Jesus Christ. (Ezekiel 36:26; John 3:16; 11:25; James 4:7)

This sacrament, this Catholic version of Anointing of the Sick is ultimately an unbiblical false hope and a twisting of the Scriptures.

 

THE SACRAMENT OF HOLY ORDERS

 

As I stated in previous articles, the Catholic Church has seven sacraments, and today’s topic will be the Sacrament of Holy Orders, also called the Rite of Ordination.  As most people know, the Catholic Church has a hierarchy, the lower ranks consisting of deacon, priest and bishop – in that order.  One must be a deacon before he becomes a priest and one must be a priest before he becomes a bishop. 

Supposedly, through the leadership of these three ranks, they help continue Jesus’ presence on earth in the tradition of the apostles.  At least, that’s what the Church claims (CCC #1549, 1575). 

They also claim that when a man goes through the rite of ordination, he receives a permanent spiritual mark, called a character, which helps him represent Jesus in the Church (CCC #1558, 1563).  It goes without saying that the seven sacraments are extremely important to the Catholic Church, and they claim that the other six sacraments could not even exist without this particular sacrament (Holy Orders).

The Magnitude of the Priest’s Office

So, how important are the priests in this Church?  The priests are responsible for conducting the Mass, or celebration of the Eucharist, which is the heart of the Catholic service.  Priests are exalted in the eyes of the people, sometimes astoundingly so.  For example, in the very popular book, The Faith of Millions: the Credentials of the Catholic Religion, by Catholic priest John Obrien, he says:

“When the priest announces the tremendous words of consecration, he reaches up into the heavens, brings Christ down from His throne and places Him upon our altar to be offered up again as the Victim for the sins of man… not once but a thousand times!  The priest speaks and lo!  Christ, the eternal and omnipotent God, bows His head in humble obedience to the priest’s command.”  See the online book here (Page 270):

https://ia903106.us.archive.org/1/items/FaithOfMillions/Faith%20of%20Millions.pdf

I don’t know about you, but this deeply offends me.  The glorified Jesus Christ does not humble himself in order to “obey” any human being.  He is the Second Person of the Trinity and no one can command Him to do anything.  This is utter blasphemy!

By the way, if someone says that this is only one man’s (O’brien’s) opinion, notice that this is a Catholic book by a Catholic priest with the Catholic seals of approval, i.e., the Church officially declaring that this book is “free of doctrinal and moral error.”  O’brien’s book is a Catholic best seller and it was reprinted in 27 editions and translated into 10 languages.  If they didn’t approve of it, they had plenty opportunity to get rid of it or put it on the Forbidden Index of books.  Instead, they openly promote it, so this blasphemy appears to be fully accepted by the Church. 

Furthermore, according to the Catechism of Trent, the priest is “justly” called a god:

“… it is evident that no nobler function than theirs can be imagined. Justly, therefore, are they called not only Angels, but even gods, because of the fact that they exercise in our midst the power and prerogatives of the immortal God.”(Under “Dignity of this Sacrament,” page 194-195, online).  See here:

https://www.catholicsociety.com/documents/Catechism_of_the_Council%20of_Trent.pdf

Which Priesthood is for Today?

The priest is not a god.  Not only is he not a god, and not only can he not call Jesus down from His throne, but the fact is, according to Scripture, the Catholic priest’s office does not even exist in the New Testament!   

The Catholic Church claims that in the Old Testament there were three types of priesthoods: a high priesthood, a ministerial priesthood and a universal priesthood of all believers.  And they say that the New Testament reflects all three of the same offices/positions.

But I would heartily disagree and point out that there are only two priesthoods in both the Old and the New Testament.  We would agree with Catholics that there was a high priesthood and a ministerial priesthood in the Old Testament, but not a universal priesthood of all believers.  Catholics will say, “But what about Exodus 19:6?   Ok, let’s take a look at this verse:

And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.

Ok, sounds like the Catholic might have a point, right?  No, not if you observe the CONTEXT.  Let’s look at the previous verse:

Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: (Exodus 19:5)

Well, that changes things, doesn’t it?  Yes, God promised Israel that they would be a “kingdom of priests” and a “holy nation.” But, this is a yet UNFULFILLED promise to the Jews. Notice that God’s promise to Israel was CONDITIONAL; that this would happen IF (and ONLY if) they would obey God’s voice and keep His covenant (Exodus 19:5). But they didn’t.  Over and over, Israel had broken God’s covenant and disobeyed His commands (e.g., Jeremiah chapter 11, 13, 22, 34, etc.). This continued even until the very end of the Old Testament period, where even the ministerial priests had profaned the covenant (Malachi 2:7-10). Even to this day, Israel (as a nation) is disobedient and blinded to the truth (2 Corinthians 3:12-14; Romans 11:25, 31).

So, there was no universal priesthood back then.  Funny how verse 5 never seems to be mentioned when Catholics quote Exodus 19:6!  That’s because it doesn’t support their view.

No Veil, No Priesthood

Moving to the New Testament, we certainly see Jesus as the High Priest (Hebrews 4:14-16), and we see all Christians designated as the universal priesthood of all believers (1 Peter 2:5, 9; Revelation 1:6), but what is obviously missing from the New Testament is “ministerial priests” – those specifically ordained to stand and mediate between man and God, as they did in the Old Testament.  But God has shown us that the veil in the temple is torn down (Matthew 27:51), signifying that we now have direct access to God.  This doesn’t mean we don’t need leaders in the church, it just means we have no need of mediating priests.  That particular priesthood of the Old Testament has been replaced today by the universal priesthood of all believers.  So, as I said earlier, there are only two priesthoods in the Old Testament (high and ministerial) and only two in the New (high and universal).  Catholics will claim there is a ministerial priesthood in the church today (CCC #1547, #1551, #1592)…  Scripture doesn’t.

Twisting Scripture

In the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC #1590), they try to use certain Scripture verses to prove the Catholic concept of Holy Orders, using passages like 1 Timothy 3:1, 2 Timothy 1:6 and Titus 1:5, but NONE of these passages refer to an office of “priest.”  If the office of priest is so critical today, why does Scripture not even mention it?

Conclusion

While I believe that the office of deacon (Acts 6:1-6) and the office of bishop (1Timothy 3:1) are indeed biblical, again, there is no scriptural evidence for the office of “priest” in the New Testament, and no one in the Bible was ever ordained as such.  Therefore, the “Holy Orders” of the Catholic priesthood are null and void – not only the priesthood of the Catholic Church, but also any priesthood in Protestant denominations and the Orthodox Church, as well.

See these links:

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

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

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

 

THE SACRAMENT OF MATRIMONY

 

Marriage (or matrimony) is a wonderful thing and I think that most cultures around the world would agree.  After all, it’s been around since the beginning of mankind, specifically ordained by God in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 2:21-25).  Marriage is one of the main foundations of a healthy society.

The Catholic Church considers Holy Matrimony as one of its seven sacraments, and they acknowledge that marriage was given to us by God – a holy institution where one man is bound together with one woman for life and in many (if not most) cases they produce children.  The Catholic Church also rightly recognizes that Holy Matrimony is a symbol of the bond between Christ and His people (CCC # 1661).

Qualified?

First of all, I agree with most of the things the Catholic Church teaches about marriage.  But I do have to wonder though, is anyone in the Catholic hierarchy qualified to give quality personal marriage advice when the great majority of them (at least in the “Latin rite”) are unmarried?  What private intimate advice can a celibate priest/bishop/cardinal offer, having no first-hand experience in actual married life?  Wouldn’t he just be sort of an “armchair quarterback,” either critiquing or trying to help marriages when he has no practical understanding in this field?

Vows

Be that as it may, we must understand that marriage is a special and holy covenant, not just a human contract.  In the wedding ceremony, the man and woman stand before God Almighty and pledge/vow/promise to love each other unconditionally, live with each other and be faithful (sexually) to each other, and respect, honor and cherish each other.  These vows also include protection and provision in good times and in bad.

The vows may not always be exactly the same in each wedding, but the above summary is generally what is agreed upon, and these vows are reflected in Scripture.  Furthermore, there are multiple human witnesses in each wedding, as well, so your marriage vows are not to be taken lightly on any level.  Of course, there will be good times in your new life together, but there will also be disagreements and trying times, as well. 

What About Divorce?

Marriage is a beautiful institution, but since there are sometimes problems in marriage, the topic of divorce will come up from time to time.

While I commend the Catholic Church for their strong stance against “easy divorce” and divorce, in general, I would like for them (and every other church – Protestant, Orthodox, etc.) to take a closer look at the biblical evidence for marriage and divorce.

From the very beginning, God’s intent for marriage was to have one man and one woman come together in Christian love and the two would become one (Genesis 2:24).  He intended for them to be ever faithful and loving toward each other, and live under His Word and His authority, each with their own role (Ephesians 5:22-33) in a wonderful lifelong relationship.  They would never part until death.  That was the plan.  That was God’s perfect intention.

But sin entered the picture through Adam and Eve.  This did not catch God by surprise, of course, but in His foreknowledge He allowed for divorce, even though it was never intended to be the norm.  In the gospel of Matthew, the hard-hearted Pharisees approached Jesus to ask Him about divorce, trying to trap Him.  In His day, the Jews were all familiar with a sort of “no-fault” divorce which they called “divorce for any reason” (Matthew 19:3).  And for some, divorce was indeed allowed for almost any “violation.”  But Jesus goes back to the very beginning and told them:

“Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?  Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” (Matthew 19:4-6)

The Pharisees, thinking they had cornered Jesus with a hard question, asked:

“Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?” (Matthew 19:7)

Jesus then humiliated them with His response:

“Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.”  (Matthew 19:8)

Then Jesus seems to give what many believe to be the only exception for allowing divorce:

“And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.” (Matthew 19:9 - emphasis added)

Ok, so Jesus says that “fornication” (sexual sin/adultery) is the exception.  Does that mean that absolutely no other reason can be allowed for divorce?

Whose Favor?

So, what exactly did Jesus mean when He said, “Because of the hardness of your hearts” (Matthew 19:8)?

First of all, divorce was tolerated and not God’s perfect will.  The Jews of Jesus’ day certainly seemed to enjoy this concession, since a man could simply “trade in” a wife for frivolous reasons (for example, bad breath, burning his supper, or not liking her friends).  But ask yourself, would God reward these hard-hearted Jews for putting away their wives for such trivial “offences”?  Wouldn’t it make more sense that the concession (divorce) was to give relief to wives who were trying hard to be faithful, but who were abused by these intolerant men?  So, divorce was certainly not given as a favor to the hard-hearted Jews/Pharisees, but as a favor to the WIVES, so they would not have been trapped in a marriage by husbands acting like ruthless dictators!  It was an act of mercy from God in an imperfect world of sinful humans.

Apologist, church historian, and Professor of Bible and Theology William Luck seems to agree with this sentiment in an article in the link below:

“The phrase ‘because of your hardness of heart’ is [sometimes wrongly] interpreted as saying something like: ‘Well, God knows that divorce will take place, so He made a concession to you, allowing you to do what you wanted.’

“…What then? For whom is the concession? For the wives whom these hard-hearted men have been divorcing since before the days of Moses… Knowing that they will be treacherous and turn their backs on their covenant partner, God has provided a law that will minimize the abuse. He will wink temporarily at hard hearted husbands putting away innocent wives so that these wives will be saved from their husbands, who would perhaps physically abuse them if forced to keep them. So the permission to divorce has nothing to do with condescending to wicked men, but everything to do with preserving innocent women.”

 

William F. Luck, Divorce and Re-Marriage: Recovering the Biblical View, 2^nd ed. (Richardson, TX: Biblical Studies Press, 2008), 157.

 

See here:

 

https://dwightgingrich.com/why-hardness-heart-cause-god-allow-divorce-jdr-9/

Biblical Principles

Many Christians are not aware that God has given some general principles concerning divorce back in the Old Testament, principles that we can apply today, for example, Exodus 21:9-11.  In this passage, God (through Moses) points out that certain necessities for the wife (food, clothing and love, or marital rights) must be provided, or she is free to leave.  The husband is not to neglect or abuse her.  It is true that this is in the context of slavery and polygamy, but the point remains that even a lowly slave-wife had minimum standards of provision that must be met.  The apostle Paul reinforces that same principle in 1 Timothy 5:8:

But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel. (1 Timothy 5:8)

A close Christian brother and I were recently speaking about divorce.  We both realize that divorce is out of hand in America and that it should not be taken lightly.  But he said that if a woman is habitually and physically abused by her husband she should separate, rather than divorce.  The brother pointed out that while separated, the man (if unrepentant) will almost always feel justified to seek an adulterous affair, trapping himself.  Then, and only then, would the wife have a biblical reason to divorce.

I mostly agree with my Christian brother.  This seems like sound advice.  But suppose that this husband (who has been beating her) would never cheat on his wife?  And suppose that he warns her that separation would deprive him of his conjugal rights (i.e., the right to marital sex – 1 Corinthians 7:3), and that she would therefore be breaking her marriage vows if she separated?  What then?  Would she be obligated to come back to him and sustain even more physical abuse toward her and their children simply because he has conjugal rights? 

But what about his own obvious breaking of his marriage vows when he abuses her?  The marriage covenant is not just about sexual fidelity.  Just because a spouse hasn’t committed adultery does not give him permission to break the marriage covenant in other ways.  Not to mention the husband’s God-given duty to provide safety and protection for his wife.  Periodically beating your wife is not honoring the marriage vows that you proclaimed before God and men. 

The apostle Paul says:

Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it. (Ephesians 5:25)

So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.  For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church. (Ephesians 5:28-29)

Again, beating your wife is far from “loving her as Christ loves the church.”  Would this abusive husband also be willing to present his own body to be beaten?  Not likely.  That’s because he loves his own flesh and nourishes it.  So, why does he not love and cherish his wife’s flesh like he does his own, as Paul commanded?  Remember, marriage is a God-given covenant where both sides (whether saved or not) have responsibilities and benefits.  This is not a one-way street.   

For Better, For Worse?

Again, physically abusing your spouse is breaking the marriage covenant and so is abandonment.  According to the apostle Paul, if an unbelieving spouse wants to leave, the believing spouse should not force the unbelieving spouse to stay.  Divorce is acceptable in this case.  The unbeliever is free to leave if he does not want to stay (1 Corinthians 7:12-15).

Someone may say, “Hey, you got married ‘for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer,’ so you need to hang in there and tough it out (even if your husband is beating you)!” 

Well, that’s easy for someone who is NOT suffering from abuse to say, but the husband providing security for his own family (especially his wife and children) is mandated.  So how about rebuking the perpetrator, rather than the victim!  Again, physical abuse is a breach of the marriage covenant.  Security and safety are two of the things that men have always rightly provided for their wives throughout the centuries.  There is no question that protection for the wife is God’s will.

I just can’t imagine God forcing a physically abused spouse to remain in a marriage where the other spouse continually breaks the covenant, taking advantage of the one who desires to be faithful.

So perhaps divorce can be a biblical answer for some marriage circumstances for a violation other than adultery (like abuse and abandonment/neglect).  The evidence of Scripture seems to indeed indicate that.  God’s purpose in allowing divorce is to protect victims (vulnerable spouses).  By the way, it’s not just women who can be abused in marriage.  It is possible for the reverse to happen.

The Unpardonable Sin?

In light of all this, I’m still not going to be dogmatic about it, but I would strongly encourage everyone to take a long, prayerful look at the biblical evidence for divorce, both Old Testament and New Testament.  Don’t ignore what Jesus said, but also don’t ignore the principles found in the rest of the Scriptures, either.

Ultimately, this is between the offended spouse and God.  So, I’m not going to be the one to tell a woman to divorce her husband… but I will also not be the one to tell an often-abused/severely neglected/cheated-on/abandoned wife – who fears for her own life and the lives of her children – to stay with such a man.  Only she can determine what to ultimately do, and she will have to live with the consequences.

Remember, divorce can certainly be a sin, but it is NOT the unpardonable sin!  The message of Scripture is that divorce is allowed in just a few limited cases, but whenever possible, it should be avoided.  By the way, divorce is not mandatory, even in the case of adultery.  Divorce should be done only as a last resort and should only be considered after much prayer and Bible study, and after great effort is made to reconcile the marriage.

Agreement and Disagreement

Getting back to the issue of the Catholic Church, they agree that the Law of God “aims at protecting the wife from arbitrary domination by the husband” (CCC #1610).  They also agree that physical separation can be part of the answer to an unsafe marriage (CCC #1649).  Kudos to them for recognizing these things.  But one issue I have with them is their idea that marriage is always “indissoluble” (CCC #1614).  According to Webster’s Dictionary, this means:

“Not dissoluble; incapable of being annulled, undone, or broken; permanent.”

I would say, yes, that indissolubility was indeed God’s original intent for marriage.  But the truth is marriage can still be “broken.”  We can all agree that Jesus, Himself, allowed divorce for adultery.  In this case, the marriage union is officially broken and the (innocent) spouse can remarry.  Furthermore, if it is true that marriage is absolutely indissoluble, then not even death can “break” it and the remaining spouse would not be free to remarry.  But Scripture says differently (Romans 7:2-3).  So, their argument is with God on that topic, not me.

 

Annulments

Ok, so what about annulments?  An annulment is when a Catholic tribunal (church court) decides whether a couple who wants to split up has met the legal conditions to do so. 

Well, this sounds like divorce, doesn’t it?  But the Catholic Church says no, that this is simply a process to determine whether a marriage actually existed in the first place.  If the Church investigates and finds that the couple meets any one of the criteria, they can formally annul the marriage and the couple can go their separate ways and even remarry.  They don’t consider this to be a divorce, but just a marriage that was never valid from the beginning.

Just to be clear, annulments are not just a Catholic thing – it is not just the Catholic Church who performs annulments – Other religious groups and secular lawyers do so, as well.

So, what are the criteria for having an annulment?  You can find many reasons in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (Code of Canon Law, Chapter IV, Canon 1095 through Canon 1123).  See here:

 https://www.vatican.va/archive/cod-iuris-canonici/eng/documents/cic_lib4-cann998-1165_en.html

But this article from Catholic Answers breaks it down into three main categories:

1 – Lack of Capacity, 2 – Lack of Consent, and 3 – Lack of Form

See the article here:

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/what-are-grounds-for-annulment

Examples of reasons to get an annulment include things that were wrong that existed at the time of the wedding/marriage – like mental incompetence, being underage without parental consent, coercion (e.g., “shotgun wedding”), fraud, incest, one spouse still being legally married, intent to be unfaithful in the future, etc.  There are many more.

But the Catholic Church pushing annulments is just like the Pharisees getting divorces – it is simply a loophole to “legally” get out of a marriage.  The bottom line is that this is indeed a divorce – it just has another name.  The result is the same, except that annulments in the Catholic Church almost always offer the possibility of remarriage, while divorce doesn’t always offer it.

An annulment from the Catholic Church is an admission that the Church has failed to fully explain to the couple what marriage is all about before the wedding!  The Church can’t claim that the resources to do so are not available, since the Catholic Church offers marriage preparation courses, counceling, marriage workshops, conferences, retreats, etc., etc.

If all the right questions are asked up front, before the wedding, and if all the necessary information is given to the couple, and if they have had enough time to process all the information, there should never be any reason for an annulment.  This is simply a convenient way to give the unsatisfied couple what they want without the stigma of divorce.

And why do these problems always seem to come out so late in life (even after many years of marriage)?  Funny how these issues only seem to be “discovered” when the couple wants out of the marriage!  Only then do they realize that there was fraud, mental issues, intent to be unfaithful, etc.  How convenient!  And interestingly, it only takes one of these criterion to dissolve the marriage. 

But notice the Webster’s dictionary definition above, that the word indissoluble means “incapable of being annulled.”  Can anyone see the problem here?  “Indissoluble” is the Catholic Church’s choice of words.  It literally means that a marriage cannot be annulled!  But loopholes are very convenient to have around, aren’t they?

As I said before, there are other religious systems and legal groups who use annulments, and my condemnation of promoting annulments extends to them, as well.

Gay Marriage

Another troubling issue concerning marriage in the Catholic Church is “same-sex-union,” or gay marriage.  It seems that controversial Pope Francis is leaning toward this unbiblical trend.  Having this in mind, is the Catholic Church losing sight of the origin and intent of marriage?  This is certainly not what the Catholic Church has traditionally supported.  But the pope seems to be taking the Church in that direction.

See here:

https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/pope-francis-supports-same-sex-civil-unions-but-the-church-must-do-more

Conclusion

Again, I agree with a lot of things that the Catholic Church teaches about marriage, but there are certainly some exceptions, also.

And one last thing: Marriage/matrimony is not a “sacrament.”  It does not “merit” grace.  We dealt with this in our last two articles on the sacraments of the Catholic Church.

THE SACRAMENT OF CONFIRMATION

Today, we will be dealing with the second in our series on the seven sacraments of the Catholic Church, again in no particular order.  In this one, I am addressing the sacrament of Confirmation, sometimes called the “Sacrament of Christian Maturity.”  This is certainly not the most talked-about sacrament, and even many Catholics are prone to misunderstand it.

So, what is Catholic Confirmation, actually?  The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that Confirmation is one of three “sacraments of initiation,” baptism and Holy Communion being the other two.  It also claims that Confirmation is necessary for the “completion of baptismal grace.” (CCC #1285)

Confirmation is a ritual of the Church that claims that:

-        It roots us more deeply in the divine filiation which makes us cry, “Abba! Father!"  

-        It unites us more firmly to Christ;

-        It increases the gifts of the Holy Spirit in us;

-        It renders our bond with the Church more perfect

-        It gives us a special strength of the Holy Spirit to spread and defend the faith by word and action as true witnesses of Christ, to confess the name of Christ boldly, and never to be ashamed of the Cross. (CCC #1303)

Not only that, but the Catechism claims that “… the effect of the sacrament of Confirmation IS the special outpouring of the Holy Spirit as once granted to the apostles on the day of Pentecost.” (CCC #1302 – Emphasis added)

The Catholic Catechism also states that Confirmation causes the seal of the Holy Spirit to be given to the Catholic. (CCC #1293 and CCC #1295)

Is it important for the Catholic to believe in Confirmation?  Very much so.  The Council of Trent states that if a person says that Confirmation is not instituted by Christ, that person is considered “anathema.” (Session VII, Canon I, “On the Sacraments in General”)

By the way, an anathema is the severest form of excommunication in the Catholic Church, where one is eternally condemned to Hell unless and until he does penance to the Church’s satisfaction.

Well, at least these things are what the Catholic Church claims about Confirmation.  Ok, so that’s a pretty weighty teaching, being mandatory and all for every Catholic to believe.  But does Catholic Confirmation actually do all those things listed above?  And if it does, how?  And, most importantly, is it indeed established by Jesus Christ?

So what does Jesus say about this Confirmation event?  If you look in the pages of the New Testament, you will not find any such ritual.  You will find that there is no single specific event that does all these things mentioned above.  Every Christian’s journey starts with salvation, that is, when justification is imputed to him by faith and his heart is changed by God.  After this happens, sanctification is the process where we are, over time, “rooted more deeply” and “united more firmly” to Christ, as we strive to please Him.  If a person is truly saved, the process of sanctification will indeed happen, whether there is a particular ceremony or not.

As far as the gifts of the Holy Spirit being increased in someone, Scripture tells us that these gifts are given as God wills (1 Corinthians 12:11) – He, alone, does the choosing of the gift(s), and He alone decides at what point in life to give them to you.  There is nothing in Scripture about them coming from a formal church ritual.

Catholic statements about Confirmation are indeed tall claims, and since the Catholic Church claims that there is a special outpouring of the Holy Spirit in the Confirmation event, akin to the event on the Day of Pentecost, it must necessarily be a miracle, right?  If this is true, is there any real evidence that the person confirmed is any closer to Christ, or that His gifts have, on that day, increased in that person’s life?  Have all the recipients of Confirmation spoken in other languages as they did on the Day of Pentecost?  Has it caused them to do miracles like those in the early church?  You see, real miracles, like those found in the Bible, always had clear evidence to back them up, and were not just empty claims.

To have a group go through a formal ritual like Confirmation and tell them that a special miracle had to have happened (without proof) is deceptive.     

Reality

In reality, the bottom line is this: the Catholic Church has, in the ceremony of Confirmation, a powerless person in an unbiblical role, performing an empty ritual, conferring fake gifts to a (more often than not) clueless recipient.

That may sound unkind, but let me explain.  The powerless person is the Catholic priest or bishop and he is powerless because there is no biblical backing for this “sacrament.”  Furthermore, his is indeed an unbiblical role, since there is no ministerial priesthood in the New Testament.  The ritual is empty because there is no such thing as a ritual, ceremony or ordinance that provides grace for a person.  Rituals are works, and grace does not come through works (1 Peter 5:5-6), therefore, this ceremony’s “gifts” are fake.  Concerning the recipient being clueless, most of the time, these are young, pre-teen children, who can hardly be considered “mature” when receiving this sacrament, even though it is often called the sacrament of maturity.  The Catholic may say that Confirmation is just the beginning of his walk of maturity.  Well, perhaps so, but there is no biblical evidence that Catholic Confirmation is the starting point.

Now, I’m not saying that the ritual of Confirmation has never had any meaning for the “confirmand” (the person being confirmed), but that it simply does not provide grace, as it claims.  I’m also not saying that the Holy Spirit could never work in the heart of any recipient during this ceremony.  It is possible.  I am not limiting the Holy Spirit’s ability to work in someone whose heart is right, but the Holy Spirit does not give grace to a person because he goes through a particular ceremony, especially an unbiblical one.

Again, grace is not obtained through rituals (Proverbs 3:34; James 4:6) and therefore, sacraments cannot be a means of grace (Romans 11:6).

Conclusion

Catholics will claim that their Confirmation is biblical, since its ceremony uses the laying on of hands and anointing oil.  But that doesn’t prove anything.  Any unbiblical group can do the same.

The apostle Paul does mention that Jesus Christ will “confirm” the believer until the end.  But this is an ongoing thing, not a one-time ritual.  Paul is simply saying that the Christian needs to be “confirmed” in the sense that he is strengthened, established, kept and sustained in the faith (1 Corinthians 1:6-8).  THAT is biblical confirmation.

The Catholic Church has a system of many rituals that its members depend on from cradle to grave.  This system supposedly doles out God’s grace through sacraments, piece by piece, in periodic installments.  And they claim that it is only through the Church that one can get these saving sacraments, thus shackling its members to “Mother Church.”  Catholic Confirmation is only one of those sacraments.

But remember, real and biblical salvation doesn’t come in installments or rituals.  It simply comes by FAITH in the Person and work of Jesus Christ on the cross of Calvary (John 3:16; Romans 4:4-5; Ephesians 2:8-9).

See also this link concerning sacraments:

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

And this link on the priesthood:

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