GREGORIAN CHANT: SACRED OR SINISTER?

Most of us have heard it before.  That weird, ominous chanting in the Catholic Church, sometimes even found in movie scenes.  What kind of music is that?  Why does it sound so haunting?  Does the Catholic Church really use this chanting in its services?

Not only do they use this chanting during Mass, but according to the official Vatican document, the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium, Solemnly promulgated by His Holiness Paul VI on December 4, 1963:

“The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as specially suited to the Roman liturgy.” (Chapter VI, paragraph 116 – Emphasis added)

See here:

https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html

So, it is not only used in its services, it is the official music of the Roman Catholic liturgy.

An Interesting Story

Roman Catholic priest Pellegrino Ernetti (1925-1994) was a popular musician/musicologist and physicist in the Church.  He was also the most famous exorcist in Venice in his time.

It is reported that Ernetti went to the Electroacoustics Laboratory of the Catholic University in Milan with fellow priest Agostino Gemelli in 1952 to make a tape recording of Gregorian chants.  They were attempting to filter harmonics from these chants, but the tape recorder microphone kept malfunctioning.  In frustration, Gemelli looked skyward and asked help from his deceased father.  A voice from within the tape recorder answered, “Of course, I shall help you.  I’m always with you.”

It was heard by both of the priests and Gemelli was shocked when he recognized his father’s voice.  He just knew it was his father speaking to him, since the voice used Gemelli’s childhood nickname (which no one else around there could have known).  The two priests then went directly to the pope at that time (Pius XII) to report what happened, and the pope answered him that the recording was “scientific fact,” and that this discovery could be “a cornerstone for building scientific studies which will strengthen people’s faith in the hereafter.”

See these links for different accounts of the story:

https://teakrulos.com/tag/chronovisor/

This Time Traveling Catholic Priest used Music to Talk to the Dead - NewEarth Media

http://www.itmightbepossible.com/2019/10/17/this-time-travel-device-may-have-been-confiscated-by-the-vatican/

https://allaboutheaven.org/observations/father-pellegrino-maria-ernetti-and-father-agostino-gemelli-inadvertently-use-epv-023139/221

Troubling Theology

The pope’s encouragement appeared to have been the impetus for Ernetti to take this “scientific fact” and, with the help of other scientists, (allegedly) invent a sort of “time machine,” or “time viewer” – the Chronovisor. 

You can read the accounts for yourself, but the purpose of this article is not to determine the authenticity or the falsity of this invention.  My intention is to point out that these men were highly trained Catholic priests and they were dabbling in something sinister in the course of their studies of this Gregorian chant.  In this process, they began hearing (and communicating with) the dead by requesting and accepting the priest’s dead father’s “help.”  These priests and the pope should have known better, since Scripture is clear concerning the sin of necromancy and similar sins (Leviticus 19:26, 31; 20:6, 27; 2 Kings 21:6; Isaiah 8:19-22). 

For the record, Scripture is also clear about “the hereafter” (Revelation chapters 19-21), and the pope should encourage Catholics to search the Scriptures if they want to strengthen their faith in life after death, rather than encourage them to flirt with disaster through necromancy.  But maybe that’s expecting too much from a pope who is obligated to promote Catholic concepts.

Equally troubling is Ernetti’s role in this, being a popular exorcist who was allegedly trained to combat spiritual darkness.  Did this “religious expert” not recognize the danger in what the pope said?  But then again, the Catholic Church is fine with the idea of its members communicating with, and praying to, the dead.  But this is certainly not something to flirt with.

Concerning Ernetti’s Chronovisor, Professor of Theology and priest Francois Brune was one of the few people that Ernetti had spoken to about his secret invention.  And Brune was convinced that this invention tied into something called Electronic Voice Phenomena (EVP), declaring EVP to be “one of the most significant religious events of the century.”  Apparently, he was another priest who was oblivious to the Bible’s warnings.  Yet, Brune went on to write three books about this topic. 

Interestingly, Electronic Voice Phenomena is linked to parapsychology, which is the study of alleged psychic and other paranormal claims.  And this chain of events all started with Gregorian chant.

See this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUaGZ90AVog

Again, this is not something that true followers of Christ should be associated with.

Ties That Bind

Someone could say, “But this is just hearsay.  This whole Chronovisor story could all be based on a lie.”  Ok, so let’s assume that this was all fabricated and there never was any “time viewer.”  But that’s not the point.  Regardless, this whole Gregorian chant study still ties into the realm of necromancy.  It seems that Gregorian chant was the doorway to all this confusion and spiritual danger from the start. 

It is also interesting that this music is often used by Hollywood and the film industry, especially in horror movies!  Now, it is true that Hollywood has certainly been known to abuse their cinematic liberty at times, but their choice of Gregorian chant in some of these creepy, haunting films is no coincidence.  Hollywood knows scary music when they hear it!  In the movies, music is almost always used to “set the mood,” and choosing Gregorian chant for this is not an accident.  This music is often a setting for some dark themes.  According to one source:

“Some chants have become standard melodies for films, in particular, the ‘Dies irae’ from the Roman Catholic Mass for the Dead. The ‘Dies irae’ is, in fact, one of the most frequently heard chants in film, used in television theme songs, commercials, and even a Christmas film (It’s a Wonderful Life). Death, danger or the supernatural are invariably part of the story or visual situation where it is used.” (Plainchant in Motion Pictures: The "Dies irae" in Film Scores, by Linda Schubert, p. 207)

“Perhaps more importantly, the meanings that have been coded into the ‘Dies irae’ over the last two centuries are, as we shall see, not tranquil but dramatic, disturbing, and threatening.” (ibid., p. 208)

“However sinister its associations in popular usage, the ‘Dies irae’ retains this ‘simple’ quality as well—which may make it all the more disturbing. Simplicity is often associated with innocence and lack of care. The ‘Dies irae's’ associations with death make it anything but carefree, and its connection with demons and the supernatural do not permit innocence. Yet an eerie impression of simplicity remains. One can argue that an audience does not need to know anything about chant to be affected by a score and to appreciate a film. On the other hand, film composers are aware of the associations attached to the pre-existent music they use.” (ibid., p. 208 – Emphasis in original)

See this link:

https://www.utpjournals.press/doi/abs/10.3138/flor.15.011

So, to recap, this source is telling us that Gregorian chant, especially the tune from ‘Dies irae,’ is indeed used in many of Hollywood’s movies.  Topics like death and danger are “invariably” a part of the story, and rather than being tranquil, its message is dramatic, disturbing, threatening, and even sinister.  And furthermore, it often appears to have a “connection” with demons and the dark supernatural world.  Hollywood is indeed very aware of Gregorian chant’s influence.

Relaxing and Peaceful?

Some claim that Gregorian chant is supposed to be peaceful and it relieves stress and relaxes those who hear it, but I think it is a false peace.  Personally, something in me cringes when I hear this type of “music.”  To me, it’s haunting, sinister and downright creepy.  Nothing “cheery” or relaxing about it.   

Furthermore, there are many websites that incorporate Gregorian chant in their occult and/or eastern mysticism themes.  Apparently, they see something in Gregorian chant that links to their dark views.  This connection is interesting and should not be ignored.

Excuses

Someone could say, “But that’s exactly what the “Dies irae” is all about in the Catholic Church… death!  It is a tune that specifically relates to the Mass for the dead.  Of course it is going to be eerie!”

But isn’t a Catholic funeral about celebrating hope?  Isn’t the Catholic who dies almost always referred to as now being in Heaven, or at least Purgatory (which promises Heaven)?  If he was a faithful Catholic, why would you want this disturbing and ominous-sounding music to accompany his passage into eternity?  Shouldn’t it be more upbeat and encouraging?  Why use chanting which has a connection with the demonic if it is supposed to suggest one’s glorious journey into Heaven?  No, the general feeling doesn’t seem to be about the Christian’s victory in death, but rather an ominous, foreboding presence.  The music seems to be more about despair than eternal life in Heaven.

The Catholic might respond, “But the ‘Dies irae’ is not the only chant used in the Catholic Church.  There are plenty others that are uplifting.”

Yeah, and there are plenty other of these Gregorian chants that are often used in creepy and disturbing websites, as well.  It just seems to have too many ties with eastern mysticism and possibly the occult and other strange things, so I wouldn’t be bragging about it, much less make it “official” church music.

Conclusion

Music does indeed have a “power” behind it.  David would play the harp for King Saul, soothing him and chasing the demonic forces from him (1 Samuel 16:23).  On the other hand, we know that some forms of music can invite demonic forces.

Jesus said, “By their fruits ye shall know them” (Matthew 7:16-20).  So, how music affects a person, how it makes him behave, is a very good indicator of the source of any music. 

For many, Gregorian chant encourages them to stay in the Catholic Church.  That alone makes me seriously question the “goodness” of that type of music.  If the Catholic Church only played such music every once in a blue moon, that would be different.  But Gregorian chant is the official music in the Catholic liturgy.  That causes me great concern, since the very existence of this blog is to warn of the false teachings of this Church.  If something keeps you in the Catholic Church, then I would have to seriously question its validity and it would be a good reason to reject that something.

The Bible does not contain a list of all songs that are godly, nor a list of all those that are ungodly.  God expects us to use discernment in such endeavors.  Maybe one’s view of music is somewhat subjective, but biblical discernment goes a long way (Hebrews 5:12-14).  Just because Gregorian chant may have some spiritual words and phrases in it does not make it godly.

I would certainly encourage Catholics to immerse themselves in Scripture and learn to exercise discernment.  I think they would find that Gregorian chant is not the “sacred” music they think it is.

THE SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST

 

Well folks, this is the last of the seven Catholic sacraments, and today we’re talking about what Catholics call the sacrament of “Holy Communion,” or the “Holy Eucharist.” 

This is the solemn ceremony where the Catholic priest blesses the bread and wine and it supposedly becomes the actual body and blood of Jesus Christ.  The priest then offers it to the members of the congregation for their spiritual nourishment.

I have addressed my objections to this topic before in great detail elsewhere on this blog.  See these links for detailed discussions and the ramifications involved:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2009/10/eucharist-part-1.html

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2009/11/eucharist-part-2.html

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2016/01/access-denied.html

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2021/02/eucharistic-wonders-miracles-or.html

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2018/04/the-catholic-time-machine.html

Source and Summit

How important is the Eucharist to Catholics?  The Catechism of the Catholic Church says:

“The Eucharist is ‘the source and summit of the Christian life.’  The other sacraments, and indeed all ecclesiastical ministries and works of the apostolate, are bound up with the Eucharist and are oriented toward it. For in the blessed Eucharist is contained the whole spiritual good of the Church, namely Christ himself, our Pasch." (CCC #1324 – Emphasis added)

Notice that all the other sacraments and “all ecclesiastical ministries and works” within the Catholic Church tie in with, and point to, the Eucharist.

As we can see, the Catholic Eucharist is extremely important in the Church.  In fact, it is EVERYTHING to them because it is the ultimate Catholic sacrament.  This is because:

“The mode of Christ's presence under the Eucharistic species is unique. It raises the Eucharist above all the sacraments as ‘the perfection of the spiritual life and the end to which all the sacraments tend.’  In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist ‘the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained’”…  (CCC #1374 – Emphasis in original).

Did you get that?  The wafer that the Catholic priest consecrates and gives to the members of the Church to eat is considered the actual BODY, BLOOD, SOUL and DIVINITY of Jesus Christ!  Yep, you’re eating His body and you’re eating His soul!  Literally!  Not sure how that works, but if you don’t believe that, this is what happens:

“If any one denieth, that, in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ; but saith that He is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or virtue; let him be anathema.” (Council of Trent, Session XIII, Canon I)

That’s right.  If you don’t believe their teaching on the Eucharist, you are under the Catholic Church’s anathema.  Anathema means that you will experience the severest and gravest form of excommunication, where you are eternally condemned to Hell, unless and until you do the required penance, to the Catholic Church’s satisfaction.  You can find this definition in the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia, under “Anathema.”

This is one reason why, in my first article on the Eucharist years ago on this blog, I said that this sacrament is either a very good thing, or a very bad thing.  If it is what the Church says it is, then it is the most wonderful sacrament of all and we (Protestants included) should all line up to enthusiastically “receive Jesus” by eating Him in the form of the Eucharist.  But if it is not what they say it is, if what they’re eating is not actually Jesus, and what they are worshipping is a mere piece of bread, they are guilty of outright idolatry, a severe sin throughout the Old and New Testament (e.g., 1 Kings 21:25-26; Jeremiah 7:16-19; 1 Corinthians 6:9; 10:14).

So, if you believe this bread and wine is the ACTUAL, LITERAL, PHYSICAL Jesus, you’d better be absolutely sure that it is what they claim it is, and not just take someone’s word for it.  You’d better be certain as to whether it is a biblical concept or not!

Absent Does Not Mean Present

Again, the claim is that the bread and wine are literally Jesus.  It says that His physical presence is with us today.  In fact, they call it the “Real Presence” of Christ in the Eucharist (CCC # 1378).  But note that the Bible is clear that Jesus’ physical presence here on earth is no longer the case:

Jesus therefore said, “Let her alone, in order that she may keep it for the day of My burial.  For the poor you always have with you, but you do not always have Me.” (John 12:7-8 – Emphasis added)

So tell me, what did Jesus mean when He said this?  In what sense do we NOT have Jesus today?  Does this passage mean that He is not here spiritually?  No, I think everyone would agree that we always have Him in a spiritual sense, right?  For example:

 

… and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the world (Matthew 28:20).

 

So, John 12:7-8 above is not talking about His presence in a spiritual sense.  So, again, if it is not in the spiritual sense, then in what way is He NOT present with us?

 

Now, Catholics will claim that He is present in a “sacramental” sense, but there is absolutely nothing in Scripture to suggest this concept.  The word “sacramental” (as an adjective) seems to be a conveniently flexible term in Catholicism, in fact, too flexible to have any real meaning.  The truth is, the whole idea of sacraments and “sacramental presence” is foreign to Scripture.  See here:

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

 

So that leaves a physical vacancy.  Jesus is no longer here physically.  And if that’s true, the Catholic Church is wrong about the “Real Presence.”

 

Again, in John 16:10, Jesus says:

And concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father, and you no longer behold Me.

How do we “no longer behold Jesus”?  Physically, of course.  He ascends to the Father and we don’t see Him anymore (at least, not until He returns).  It’s very simple.  Although Catholics will say that we see Jesus in the Eucharist, the Bible says that we don’t see Him in the Eucharist, i.e., we no longer behold Him.

Furthermore, in John 17:11, Jesus, when praying to the Father and about to leave, says:

And I am no more in the world; and yet they themselves are in the world, and I come to Thee…

If He is no longer in the world (after His ascension), then, by definition, He is not physically here, so He can’t physically be in the Eucharist.

You Can’t Handle His Presence!

Ok, another point I want to make is that the Catholic Church makes extreme claims, and then later has to backtrack or play word games when called out on it.

One very unsustainable claim they make is that according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, “the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained” in the Eucharist.  And furthermore, “because it is presence in the fullest sense: that is to say, it is a substantial presence by which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present.” (CCC #1374) 

By the way, it seems that some Catholics are hesitant to claim that Jesus is physically present in the Eucharist.  But terms like “the whole Christ,” “entirely present” and the “fullest sense” would appear to indicate otherwise.

But think about this.  What would happen to us if we were truly exposed to “the whole Christ” in all His glory?  The truth is, if we were ushered into His presence in the “fullest sense,” we would not be able to endure it, UNLESS we were in our heavenly bodies. 

Again, that level of exposure to Jesus Christ could only safely happen when we are in our glorified bodies.  Only then could we be able to endure His absolute fullness and glory.  Some saw Jesus in His new body right after His resurrection, but that was not the same thing.            

Why do I say this?  In the book of Revelation, the apostle John said:

And I turned to see the voice that spoke with me…

And when I saw Him, I fell at His feet as dead… (Revelation 1:12, 17)

Folks, THIS is what happens when a mere human sees “the whole Christ” in the “fullest sense.”  Even John, probably the closest friend of Jesus on earth, fell as a dead man in His “fullest” presence.  John was utterly stunned and unable to even look at Jesus.  He was overwhelmed, virtually paralyzed, by the majesty of the Son of God.  If the Eucharist was all that Catholics say it is, no man would be able to stand before it.  Therefore, they are promoting a false teaching.

So What is the Purpose of Communion?

Catholics will always point to John chapter 6 when discussing the Eucharist.  They’ll say that when Jesus said to “eat My flesh” and “drink My blood” (John 6:50-58), He was talking about the Communion service (Eucharist).  But when Jesus said this, He was simply speaking of “coming to Him” and “believing in Him,” as is plain in a previous verse in the same chapter (John 6:35).  This is obviously symbolic language and it was setting the stage for the rest of the passage.

The truth is, Communion is simply a holy memorial:

And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. (Luke 22:19 – Emphasis added)

The Catholic Church does rightly believe that there is a “memorial” aspect in celebrating Communion, but they also falsely believe that the priest’s consecrating of the bread and wine “actualizes” the event of Calvary (CCC #1104). 

 

The word “actualize” means “to make actual” or “to make something a reality.”  They also claim that the Eucharistic ritual “re-presents” (makes present) the event of Calvary.  That’s why they claim that the victim of the Mass (Jesus) and the victim of Calvary (2000 years ago) is “one and the same” (CCC #1367; Council of Trent, Session 22, Chapter 2).  The Eucharistic sacrifice (supposedly) brings the event of Calvary to the here and now.  The Catholic Church reads way too much into the biblical text, instead of letting it speak for itself.  But of course, this is all a “paschal mystery,” something that we non-Catholics just can’t seem to grasp.  Very often, when it comes to things that Catholics can’t verify biblically, it appears that another “mystery” is born in Catholic theology.  Convenient, huh?

 

But getting the benefits of Calvary is not “eating and drinking Jesus’ body and blood.”  Nor do these benefits include time-travel, where God makes the events of Calvary present (CCC # 1104, 1362, 1364, 1366), as though a past event is literally transferred into the present.

 

No, the benefits of Calvary are eternal salvation and a sanctified life, and these are simply received by faith, not by a ritual done by a priest of any kind.

 

One Sacrifice Offered, One Time, By One Person

 

Here’s another instance where the Catholic Church plays word games.  Catholics are sometimes accused of sacrificing Jesus over and over when the Eucharist is celebrated.  Of course, they deny this and claim that they are instead re-presenting that same one-time, once-for-all sacrifice at Calvary. 

 

Even though that may sound good, it cannot be the case.  If the Catholic priest is indeed offering a sacrifice (as they claim), it is not a legitimate one.  Why?  Because only Jesus Christ, Himself, was able to make this one-time offering/sacrifice of Calvary, and He will never, ever, do it again, much less offer it daily (Hebrews 10:11-12 – See CCC #1389).  That, by definition, is what a one-time offering means.  It was offered once and it was only offered BY JESUS.  No man can rightly claim that he is offering, re-offering or re-presenting the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.  It cannot and will not be done.  This Catholic “Eucharistic sacrifice” is not Jesus.  It is a REPLACEMENT of Him, a false offering (Hebrews 7:27; 9:12; 10:2, 10).

 

Using fancy verbs like “re-presenting” doesn’t help the Catholic case.  Actually, the verbs “sacrifice,” “offer,” and “present” are all synonyms in the Bible in the context of sacrifices.  They all mean basically the same thing and they are used interchangeably.  So you can’t say, “I’m not sacrificing Him again in the Eucharistic ritual, I’m only ‘re-presenting’ Him.”  But that ends up being the same thing.  Again, the words are interchangeable.  To “re-present” is to “re-offer” is to “re-sacrifice.”  There is no difference.

 

If a person successfully offered payment for an item, there would be no other offer.  The payment has been given and the debt is already paid for.  The transaction is completed.

 

Likewise, the event of Calvary is a successful payment/offering by Jesus to pay for the sin-debt of mankind.  Why would there ever be another offering of the same thing, since it is a completed transaction?   If something is paid for, there is no need for anyone else to present, RE-present or RE-offer that same payment. 

 

Stop and think, though: If the priest’s RE-offering or RE-presenting of payment is actually valid, that would mean that the original payment was illegitimate!  Would the Catholic Church ever admit that Jesus’ payment at the cross was invalid or illegitimate?  Because if the Eucharistic sacrifice is valid, then Jesus’ payment is indeed null and void.  The implications of this are blasphemous and totally unacceptable!

 

Conclusion

 

The purpose of the true biblical Communion service is not to point to the elements of the bread and wine.  That would be missing the whole point. It is not to physically “eat Jesus.”  The purpose of Communion is to use these signs/elements to remember the event of Calvary with heart-felt thankfulness to God for what Jesus did.  It is to point to the One who gave Himself willingly on the cross, who lovingly paid the penalty for mankind’s sins.  And that sacrifice is finished! (John 19:30)  The whole Communion service is about God’s offering to us, not about the church’s offering to God.

 

Well, folks, that’s the end of this brief address of this series on the seven Catholic sacraments.  Much more could be said and I know that many Catholics will disagree with me on at least some of my thoughts.  But I have endeavored to keep things biblically and logically sound, and I hope that this has been food for thought.

 

 

THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM

Ok, so we’ve gone through five of the seven Catholic sacraments so far.  These last two that I will be addressing would be considered “heavyweights” in the world of Catholic sacraments.  Today, I will deal with the sacrament of baptism and next time, the Eucharist.  Catholics would probably consider these two to be the most important of all the sacraments.

Anyway, I have dealt with the topic of baptism before, so you can go to these links to first get a good foundation:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2015/05/on-baptism-part-1-few-basics.html

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2015/06/on-baptism-part-2-bible-verses.html

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2015/07/on-baptism-part-3-more-verses.html

Differing Views

Of course, we (Protestants, Catholics and others) all recognize baptism as a very important and meaningful ritual. 

Most Protestants see baptism as a profound profession of faith.  It is an ordinance (not a sacrament) within the church, a symbol of what happens to a person when he first believed.  In the ceremony of baptism, he is immersed/buried in a “watery grave” in which he “dies to self.”  The “old man” (old self) is put to death, and coming up out of the water, the “new man” is resurrected to a new life:

Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life (Romans 6:4). 

With (most) Protestants, the idea is that a person is first saved and given a new heart from God… then, and ONLY then, should he be baptized, this being a symbolic gesture to declare to the world that he has voluntarily chosen to identify with the Lord Jesus Christ and thereafter, to live for Him. 

Catholics, on the other hand, also see the ritual of baptism as a profession of faith to identify with Christ, but also as a sacrament in which a person is “meriting grace” from God.  To them, it is a sacrament of regeneration.  It is not only symbolic to them, but it also “accomplishes what it signifies” (CCC #1155; 1215; 1234).  It is supposedly a “visible sign of a hidden reality.”  When the Catholic is baptized, he is literally having his original sins washed away.  According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

“Holy Baptism is the basis of the whole Christian life, the gateway to life in the Spirit… and the door which gives access to the other sacraments. Through Baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God; we become members of Christ, are incorporated into the Church and made sharers in her mission: ‘Baptism is the sacrament of regeneration through water in the word.’” (CCC #1213 – Emphasis added)

Notice the underlined portions of the quote above.  The Catholic Church is specifically saying that this event (baptism) is what saves them.  According to them, it is water baptism that makes them eligible to enter Heaven.

What About Infant Baptism?

Most people know that the Catholic Church baptizes babies, more so than adults.  But is this practice scriptural?  Can a mere infant make a profession of faith and identify with Christ.  No, he can’t. 

You won’t find any specific biblical examples where little children are baptized.  But some will argue that this concept is implied in the text of certain passages, for example Acts 16:33, where the Philippian jailer and his whole household were baptized.  But that is simply speculation.  We just don’t know if there were infants in this family or not.  

But Catholics (and even some Protestants) claim that baptism is valid for infants because it is based on the parents’ faith.  They will point to passages like 1 Corinthians 7:14, which says that the faith of the believer sanctifies (sets apart) the children and shows that you intend to raise your children in the Lord, but this doesn’t ultimately save them.  The child still has to become mature enough to understand what is going on.  An infant certainly can’t do that.  Until that time, he is innocent.

But even if it were true that they did baptize babies and little children (those who were not accountable due to their age/state/understanding), we would still have to deal with the concept of biblical salvation – where one is saved by faith, apart from works.

One might argue that baptism is not a work, and that the infant being baptized is doing nothing at all, since he is incapable.  But this does nothing to help the Catholic case.  Since the child is incapable, neither can he make a decision to follow Christ, a decision which is absolutely necessary for salvation.  As I just said, very young children are simply innocent (and safe) in the eyes of God, at least until the child can make such decisions in his life.

The concept of infant baptism leans heavily toward the idea that baptism saves a person.  And I believe that’s why the Catholic Church teaches this.  But whether this notion is promoted by Catholic, Protestant, or anyone else, this denies the biblical teaching of faith (apart from the merits of work) for salvation (Romans 3:28; 4:4-5; 11:6).  It denies that Christ’s work on the cross was sufficient.  In fact, any sacrament, ritual or celebration that claims to “merit grace” contradicts and denies the finished and perfect work of Jesus Christ.

An Oxymoron

So, once again, the question is, does baptism save a person?   You know, any unsaved person can potentially get baptized, but it does nothing to change his heart.  His heart has to be changed before he ever decides to get baptized.

Being a believer is synonymous with being saved.  There are no saved unbelievers, nor unsaved believers.  That would be an oxymoron.  If you are unsaved, then (by definition) you are not a believer, and if you are saved, you already are a believer.

So, if it is true that baptism saves you, then aren’t you (by definition) an unbeliever until the point that you are baptized?  Yes, you would be.  But the truth is, baptism is for believers only (Mark 16:16), and there are absolutely no unbelievers in Scripture who were baptized.  The point is, you must be born again BEFORE you are baptized, therefore baptism doesn’t save anyone.

Conclusion

Another oxymoron in the Catholic Church is, as I mentioned before, the concept of “meriting” grace.  This is supposedly what sacraments do, but not only is this unbiblical, it is also illogical.  No one can “merit” grace, since, by definition, grace is the unmerited favor of God (Romans 11:6).  Even Catholics agree with this definition (CCC #1996).

In the Catholic Church, baptism is one of the seven sacraments, and they certainly claim special power in these sacraments.  But I am sorry to tell my Catholic readers that sacraments do not “make present” the “graces” necessary to be saved, as the Catholic Church teaches (CCC #1131).  This is totally unscriptural.

To be sure, baptism is an important and significant ritual to all of us, rich in meaning for all who claim to follow Christ.  But again, Catholic sacraments do not and cannot do what Catholics claim they can do.

 

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.