THE DANGER OF THE ECUMENICAL MOVEMENT

We already defined the Ecumenical Movement (EM) in a previous article – namely, that it is a movement headed by the Catholic Church, which will bring about the merging of all religions in the last days, that the Bible speaks of in Revelation 13:8, 12, 15. It will be the religion of the antichrist and it will be a perversion of Christianity. This coming together of all religions is being done today in the name of “peace” and “unity” and is actually a move toward the Catholic Church.

This EM is multi-faceted and it will appeal to all the world’s religions, even to many individuals within Christianity. We can see much of this movement in the church world today. It is attracting many, like Rick Warren’s “purpose driven” crowd, the “seeker sensitive” churches, the “emerging church,” the Church Growth Movement (CGM), and those promoting a “social gospel” (who are far more concerned with poverty, social change, civil rights, etc., than they are with saving souls through the gospel).

This ecumenical concept is also welcomed by the “unity at any cost” crowd, those looking for a “mystical” experience, the “contemplative prayer” types, “self-esteem” proponents and the “Evangelicals and Catholics Together” (ECT) crowd. There are even some who are pushing “Chrislam”, which is the merging of Christianity with Islam!

Other promoters of ecumenism are the Full Gospel Businessmen’s Fellowship, Promise Keepers, some in the “Positive Confession” and the “Word of Faith” arenas, and many Charismatics, as well. The EM also includes Freemasons, New Agers, nature worshipers / tree huggers / environmentalists and evolutionists. There will be something for everyone in this movement, even for atheists! It seems that one can find the ecumenical spirit almost everywhere today.

Those involved in the EM today are insisting that we put aside our differences and join hands. But consider this analogy:

Imagine a building with many people in it. Everyone in it is in poor health except for only one person, Bill, who happens to have the medicine that can cure everyone in the building. But the sick people complain that Bill is much too “exclusive” and thinks much too highly of himself and his medicine, and that he is always wanting to heal everybody. Bill always talks about his “cure” and wants to “push” it on everyone else. They say, “Who does he think he is? We like the way we are… after all, don’t we sick people also have some value? Let’s put aside the medicine and the good health, because it makes everybody else feel inferior.” So, they get together and demand that they all put their differences aside, tolerate each other, and consider everyone as an equal.

But wouldn’t this be silly? Shouldn’t they be thanking Bill that he has the cure and that he is willing to share it? But this is what the EM is doing with Christianity… they are trying to neutralize Christianity by making it equal to all other religions. Jesus Christ truly is the only cure for this sin-sick world, but the people within the EM don’t like any religion that is “exclusive,” that is, claiming to be the only one that has the answers. It makes others feel “inferior” and it hurts their feelings. When the ecumenists say they want us to “put aside our differences,” they want us to put aside DOCTRINE, so that no one is offended.

But it is this doctrine, this gospel of Jesus Christ, that is the answer to the world’s problems. It is the only “medicine” for solving the world’s hurts, and it is this exclusive nature of Christianity that is most important:

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. (John 14:6)

The message of Jesus Christ certainly is exclusive, and it would be senseless to abandon that which is our only hope.

Now, we’re NOT saying that we shouldn’t feed the hungry or help the poor or the sick, etc. But sharing the gospel and changing hearts should be the church’s MAIN priority. (Mark 16:15) We should not overlook man’s GREATEST need (i.e., salvation) by over-emphasizing his temporal needs. The gospel is God’s gift from which all other blessings flow.

But what could possibly be wrong with joining hands with others, or having a desire for world peace, or social justice? Aren’t these worthy goals? Yes, but they are not going to be achieved by the EM. On the surface, the EM sounds good, but it is a trap, a scheme of the devil. It is a rejection of Christianity and a denial of the gospel, and it is gaining momentum like a runaway freight train. The EM will give the church and the world a false sense of security, which will ultimately lead the majority of the world into apostasy and into the grip of the antichrist, who will be worshiped by the whole world and will cause them to take his mark… 666. (Revelation 13:16-18)

With this in mind, we are urging our Catholic friends to come out of the Catholic Church, and we are urging our Protestant friends to steer clear of these groups mentioned above and any group that embraces unbiblical ideas.

For more information, see this article, which is an online excerpt from chapter 12 of Dave Hunt’s book, “Global Peace and the Rise of Antichrist.” Go down to the section “Ecumenism and the Coming New World Order” in this article to find an eye-opening message about the EM:

http://bernsstories.wordpress.com/2011/01/04/the-berean-call-january-2011-newsletter/

Another article is by Roger Oakland and it carries a solemn warning and a heartfelt appeal to the Evangelical and Protestant pastors of the world to avoid the EM:

http://www.understandthetimes.org/commentary/c95.shtml

WAS MARY WITHOUT SIN?

For those who may not be familiar with the Catholic teaching of the "Immaculate Conception," it is not referring to the conception or sinlessness of Jesus Christ, but to Mary’s. The Catholic Church considers this teaching to be an infallible dogma that must be believed by all Catholics. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

Through the centuries the Church has become ever more aware that Mary, "full of grace" through God, was redeemed from the moment of her conception. That is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception confesses, as Pope Pius IX proclaimed in 1854:

The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin. (CCC #491)

But there are several problems with this concept of “Immaculate Conception” and sinlessness...

　

Not Biblical

First, it is an unscriptural concept - that is, except for Christ, Himself (1 Peter 2:22; 1 John 3:5; 2 Corinthians 5:21), a whole life of sinlessness applies to no human found in the Bible. However, the Catholic Church insists that it also applies to Mary in the passage in Luke chapter 1 where the angel Gabriel addresses Mary and tells her that she is to give birth to the Savior.

The great majority of Bible versions render verse 28 as the angel saying, “Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you”... or something very similar. But the Catholic Church leans toward the Latin Vulgate (Jerome’s translation of the Bible into Latin). Catholics translate verse 28 in the Vulgate as “Hail, full of grace...” which they take to mean that Mary was so “full” of grace that there was no room in her life for any sin, and she was this way since the moment of her own conception and throughout her whole life.

In spite of its plain context, Catholics will go to great lengths to explain how they believe this simple verse really means much more than it appears to be saying. They will attempt to take advantage of every possible nuance in the Greek grammar and stretch it into a new meaning altogether. They have attained an amazing level of special pleading in attempting to defend this teaching. But it is a giant and illogical leap to go from the Bible’s description of Mary as a humble handmaid whom God has highly favored... to a person whose own conception was “different from the conception of all other human beings," who has obtained “an entirely unique holiness,” who possessed “a sanctity surpassing... the combined holiness of all angels and other men...”, and was conceived without sin and remained so throughout her lifetime. That’s an awfully big jump.

But how trustworthy is the Catholic interpretation of the Vulgate? As we stated before, most Bible versions we have do not agree with the Vulgate’s “full of grace.” Even Catholic Bibles like the New American Bible (NAB) and the New Jerusalem Bible (NJB) do not use “full of grace” in Luke 1:28. But, try as they may, Catholics cannot use this verse as proof of the Immaculate Conception of Mary. Concerning the Greek word used for this phrase, one online Catholic source says:

But the term kecharitomene (full of grace) serves only as an illustration, not as a proof of the dogma. (New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia, under “Immaculate Conception”)

To further weaken the Catholic interpretation of Luke 1:28, we read in this Catholic source:

The words of Gabriel, “Hail, full of grace” (Lk. 1.28), have also been appealed to as a revelation of the Immaculate Conception, on the grounds that to be truly full of grace, Mary must have had it always. This interpretation, however, overlooks the fact that the Greek term κεχαριτωμένη [kecharitomene] is not nearly so explicit as the translation “full of grace” might suggest. It implies only that God’s favor has been lavished on Mary, without defining the degree of grace. (New Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume VII, Page 378)

So, by their own admission, this exaggerated interpretation of this simple passage in Luke is not at all what many Catholics are wanting us to believe.

　

Common Sense

But if we look at the context of Luke chapter 1, we can see that Mary is blessed among women (Luke 1:42; and in later manuscripts, 1:28). It is about childbearing. Elizabeth, Mary and the angel Gabriel all make significant statements here in chapter one, but NONE mention anything about Mary‘s “sinlessness” - ALL three refer to the special privilege of giving birth to the Messiah. THIS was how she was favored. No doubt, in those days, most every young Jewish woman would have given anything to have that honor.

But IF the angel is speaking here of Mary being “immaculately conceived,” why would he announce the news of these “special circumstances” surrounding her own conception so late in her lifetime (that is, so many years AFTER it happened)? This would be highly unusual. Why was this special news not announced at or around the time of her birth, like in the case of Jesus and John the Baptist? It seems that most every major announcement about someone in the Bible was “predictive” in nature (before it happens), not AFTER the fact. But this passage is about Jesus’ conception, not Mary’s.

　

All Have Sinned

The second problem is, not only is the Immaculate Conception not found in Scripture, but it is AGAINST the Scriptures. The Apostle John said:

If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves, and the truth is not in us. (1 John 1:8 - KJV)

Also, the Apostle Paul said:

... that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. (Romans 3:19 - KJV)

For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God. (Romans 3:23 - KJV)

The first three chapters of the book of Romans paint a very bleak picture for anyone who thinks he is free from sin, either Jew or Gentile (Romans 3:10-19).

“But,” the Catholic objects, “there are exceptions to this rule!” He will insist that the phrase “all have sinned” does not really mean all. He’ll say, “Is not Jesus, Himself, an exception?” Of course, He is, but this is Paul’s whole point in the opening chapters of Romans. It goes without saying that He is the only reason that we can be saved at all. This is the common theme throughout Scripture... every person is a sinner and Jesus is the “cure.” He is not AN exception, He is THE ONLY exception.

Some may say that Adam and Eve were exceptions because they were created without sin. Well, that may be true but they later fell into sin, so no one can suggest that they were sinless throughout their lives. They still fall into the category of “all have sinned.”

What about unborn children, babies, or the mentally handicapped? They don’t have any sin, do they? These, like everyone else, are born with the sin nature, and given the chance, they would inevitably sin somewhere down the line. But these are not proper exceptions. They are exceptions only in the sense that they are not responsible for what they do. When Catholics speak of Mary as an exception, they are referring to a person who is accountable. A baby or a mentally ill person may sin, but God, in His grace, does not hold it against them. According to James 4:17:

Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin. (KJV)

So, babies and the mentally handicapped who are not aware of sin are not accountable, and therefore, are not true exceptions to the rule. A true exception would be another human who was tempted in all things, yet victorious over sin, as Jesus was (Hebrews 4:15). Since Mary doesn’t fit into any of these categories, appealing to babies, the mentally handicapped, or Adam and Eve is useless and does not prove that she is (or can be) an exception.

　

Who Crushes/Bruises the Head of the Serpent?

With very little effort, one can find a multitude of images of Mary standing with her foot on the head of a serpent, because Catholics usually link the Immaculate Conception of Mary with Genesis 3:15, where God says to the serpent:

And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head, and you shall bruise him on the heel. (NASV)

Many Catholics reason something along these lines: Satan is the epitome of sin, but Mary had a perfect “enmity” (hostility or opposition) toward the devil. This perfect enmity could not exist if there was any sin in Mary. So, since enmity exists between her and Satan, she could not have any sin. Therefore, somehow she is the one who crushes the head of the serpent. But can this be true? No, it’s not. It is Jesus Who does the crushing. The New Catholic Encyclopedia says:

Much confusion has resulted from the fact that the second half of this verse [Genesis 3:15] was inaccurately translated in the Vulgate to read, “SHE shall crush your head.” This translation, which has strongly affected the traditional representations of the Blessed Virgin, is today generally recognized to be a mistake for “it [or “he,” i.e., the seed of the woman] shall crush...,” and consequently CAN NO LONGER BE CITED in favor of the Immaculate Conception. (New Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume VII, page 378 - emphasis added)

Most Catholics today seem to be unaware of this correction.

　

It Just Has to Be

The third problem is that the Catholic Church insists that the Immaculate Conception is not just “fitting,” but necessary:

If it was necessary that the precursor of the Lord [i.e., John the Baptist] should be so pure and "filled with the Holy Ghost" even from his mother’s womb, such a purity was assuredly not less befitting His Mother. (New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia, under “Immaculate Conception” - Emphasis added)

To become the Mother of the Savior, Mary, 'was enriched by God with gifts appropriate to such a role'. The angel Gabriel at the moment of the annunciation salutes her as 'full of grace.' In fact, in order for Mary to be able to give the free assent of her faith to the announcement of her vocation, it was necessary that she be wholly borne by God's grace. (CCC #490 - Emphasis added)

[Apparently, here, the writers of this Catechism seem to be unaware of the problems associated with “full of grace,” as mentioned above in the New Catholic Encyclopedia]

In one papal article, we read:

In order to be the irreconcilable enemy of the serpent and his offspring, Mary had to be free from all power of sin, and to be so from the first moment of her existence.”

AND

The absolute hostility put between the woman and the devil [Referring to Genesis 3:15] thus demands in Mary the Immaculate Conception, that is, a total absence of sin, from the very beginning of her life.

[Once again, even Pope John Paul II must also have been confused or unaware that Genesis 3:15 “can no longer be cited in favor of the Immaculate Conception," according to the New Catholic Encyclopedia (copyright 1967) above... which was, by the way, in circulation long before the pope uttered this statement]

AND

St Irenaeus presents Mary as the new Eve, who by her faith and obedience compensated for the disbelief and disobedience of Eve. Such a role in the economy of salvation requires the absence of sin. It was fitting that like Christ, the new Adam, Mary too, the new Eve did not know sin and was thus capable of co-operating in the Redemption.

(“MARY’S ENMITY TOWARDS SATAN WAS ABSOLUTE” - Pope John Paul 2 - The Pope's catechesis at the General Audience of Wednesday, 29 May (1996) - the 21st in the series on the Blessed Virgin - Emphasis added)

And in another papal article:

This great doctor of the Church [Augustine] certainly realized that Mary's status as Mother of a completely holy Son required total purity and an extraordinary holiness.”

AND

“...a fundamental insight of faith: the Mother of Christ had to be perfectly holy from the very beginning of her life."

(“CHRIST’S GRACE PRESERVED MARY FROM SIN” - Pope John Paul 2 - The Pope's catechesis at the General Audience of Wednesday, 5 June (1996) - the 22nd in the series on the Blessed Virgin - Emphasis added)

Having said all this, if it was absolutely necessary for Jesus (Who is sinless) to live in a sinless womb, then it was ALSO logically necessary that MARY must have been born in a sinless womb. In other words, if Mary had to be unstained by sin in order to carry Jesus in her womb, then Mary’s mother also had to be sinless in order to carry Mary, and her grandmother before that, and her great grandmother before her, etc, etc... But, of course, this would be absurd.

So, the Catholic has a dilemma: Either, 1) this absurd line of continual sinless pregnancies must have taken place, or 2) these official Catholic sources that insist that sinlessness was necessary, can’t be trusted. If anyone claims a third option here, he will have to show proof of it, from either logic or Scripture.

　

A Sinless Environment?

The fourth problem with the Immaculate Conception is, if Jesus had to be conceived and sustained in a sinless environment (like Mary’s body), then wouldn’t He also need to be born and raised in a sinless environment? One would think so.

Or does this great “need” to maintain such a pure environment when in the womb, suddenly become irrelevant after Jesus was born? Shouldn’t those places and people in His “outside environment” need to be just as sinless as Mary’s womb? If no, why not? One has to wonder... why would the Catholic Church insist that the only thing in His environment that needed to be sinless was His mother?

Catholics insist that a sinless womb was “deserved” and “fitting" for Him. But, was being born in a smelly stable (Luke 2:7) “fitting"? Did not the Savior of the world deserve better? Of course He did. Did He deserve to die on a cross like a hardened criminal? Absolutely not. But it was NOT His purpose in coming to this earth to receive what people thought He “deserved,” or to receive what “seemed fitting” to man. If that would have been His purpose, then He would not have suffered and died on the cross, and we would all be lost. The bottom line is, He didn’t need to live in a sinless womb, just as He didn’t need to live in a sinless atmosphere outside the womb. His sinlessness did not come from His mother - it came from Himself (being God), so it could not be tainted or defiled by His environment.

So what?

OK, so why would any of this matter to us as Christians? What possible harm could this teaching of the Immaculate Conception cause? Why do we Protestants “pick on Mary," do we hate her or something?

No, we don’t hate Mary and we are not trying to take anything away from her. We believe that Mary was a godly, humble servant who was chosen to give birth to and raise the Christ. But the Catholic Church gives her a role that the Bible does not. The Immaculate Conception of Mary is an extraordinary claim which demands extraordinary proof. Could God have made her sinless? Sure, God could have easily done it if He wanted to, but again, although they claim otherwise, we certainly find no biblical support for this teaching.

Ultimately, it is Catholic Tradition which has produced this teaching and not Scripture. But, unfortunately for the Catholic, Sacred Tradition has a special set of problems all its own. See here: http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2010/05/what-about-tradition.html

The idea of someone else being sinless violates one of the main distinctions between Jesus Christ and mere men. This distracts from our focus on the uniqueness of Christ - in fact, it seems that most of the Catholic teachings on Mary seem to blur His uniqueness - and thus will turn some away from Him to over-focus on Mary. For example, in the eyes of many Catholics, Mary seems to be “more approachable” than God. But this is an unbiblical, dangerous and slippery slope. Embracing this kind of mindset will make it much easier to fall victim to false apparitions (visions) of Mary, as well.

No doubt, what started out in the early church as a genuine and well-intentioned study into the life of Mary and how she fits into the scheme of things, has over the centuries gradually transformed into an out-of-control infatuation, obsession, and even idolatry, toward Mary. Catholics will try to downplay this and say that the teaching was always there from the beginning, but that it simply “developed” over the years, like many other Catholic teachings. But this excessive devotion was a result of ignoring scriptural truth and has caused multitudes to fall away from God through idolatry.

My friends, souls are at stake here. If we can’t trust the Catholic Church when she solemnly declares an infallible teaching, then which of her teachings CAN we trust? Let us, rather, learn to trust in the God-inspired Bible, and only those teachings that agree with its principles.

　

　

DID THE APOSTLES PRACTICE SOLA SCRIPTURA?

Having already dealt with the concept of Sola Scriptura (“Bible Alone”) in more detail elsewhere on this blog, this article will briefly address one particular Catholic argument against it.

Many, if not most, of us who believe in Sola Scriptura will admit that this doctrine did not apply during the time of Jesus or His apostles, since the apostolic period was definitely a time when they were still receiving new, infallible, “oral” revelation. But we believe Sola Scriptura came into play in the post-apostolic church, when the apostles were all gone and new divine revelation had ceased.

But some Catholic apologists will say, “For Sola Scriptura to be true, it must have been the norm all along. Jesus and the apostles did not observe it, so we shouldn’t practice it today.”

In other words, they are saying that if it was operating in the beginning of the church, it has to be operating now, and if it was not operating in the beginning, it can’t be operating now. If THEY (the apostles) didn’t practice it, then WE shouldn’t practice it.

But if that’s true, then can anyone show where Jesus or the apostles taught people to pray to the saints in Heaven? Did they believe in the Immaculate Conception of Mary or practice indulgences? Did they teach of miracles with no accompanying evidence (like bread and wine supposedly “changing” into flesh and blood)? Do we have any biblical evidence of any of these teachings at that time? No, we don’t. Then why are all of these teachings accepted in the Catholic Church? By their own standard, no one today should be doing these things either, since Jesus and the apostles didn’t teach them.

Catholics may say that these teachings somehow “developed” over time, but then we could also say Sola Scriptura “developed” and was, in fact, a process, a “transition.” Just as the Old Covenant transitioned into the New, just as Judaism is fulfilled in Christianity, just as the “types and shadows” of the Law had to give way to the “real thing,” so does Sola Scriptura emerge as the ultimate Rule of Faith.

Stop and think… if the Bible, as a Rule of Faith, really is “God-breathed” and able to equip the believer for EVERY GOOD WORK (2 Timothy 3:16-17), then it necessarily and effectively eclipses and replaces any other source that claims to be an infallible Rule of Faith. Thus, the transition from “oral plus written,” to “written only.”

In conclusion, the fact that the apostles didn’t practice Sola Scriptura does not nullify that teaching, but pointing out the practices of the apostles does not help the Catholic, since it undercuts his own position.

PRAYING TO SAINTS

When we are going through life’s problems and trials, it is very comforting to have family, friends and neighbors pray with us and for us. God expects us to pray for each other. But we need to ask an important question about prayer. Is it possible to get help from those who are in Heaven, like Mary or the saints / believers who have gone on before us? The Catholic Church teaches the concept of “the Communion of Saints” which includes the idea that you can indeed pray to, and receive help from, certain saints (and even angels) in Heaven. But is this true? Is this scriptural? Let us look deeper into this topic and respond to some of the Catholic arguments for praying to Mary, saints and angels.


CATHOLIC CLAIM – PROTESTANTS DON’T SEEM TO UNDERSTAND THE CATHOLIC CONCEPT OF PRAYER. TO PRAY SIMPLY MEANS “TO ASK” OR “TO BESEECH.” FOR INSTANCE, THE TERM “PRAY TELL” IS SIMPLY AN EXPRESSION THAT SOME WILL USE WHEN ASKING SOMETHING. EVEN IN THE BIBLE, WE SEE THE TERM “I PRAY THEE” WHEN ASKING FOR A FAVOR. SO, WHEN WE PRAY TO MARY OR THE SAINTS, WE ARE SIMPLY ASKING THEM TO PRAY TO GOD ON OUR BEHALF. SO PRAYER IS JUST ASKING.


First, if the word “pray” just means “to ask,” then the words of Jesus, “Ask in prayer” (Matthew 21:22) would simply be redundant.

Using the logic of this Catholic argument, if you “asked” me for any kind of help, wouldn’t you be praying to me? When Jesus “asked” the woman at the well for a drink (John 4:7), was the Son of God praying to her? Or, when Jesus “asked” His disciples for something to eat (Luke 24:41), was He praying to them? Of course not. That would be absurd.

Second, although asking is one component of prayer, Catholics should be well aware that the biblical concept of prayer cannot be reduced to merely asking, since prayer can include praise, thanksgiving, meditation, etc.

Third, the language involved in some of the common prayers to the saints certainly seems to be more than just “asking for prayer.” A brief search on the internet will reveal that much of the language used in praying to the saints seems to contain excessive devotion, and oftentimes appears to be asking the saint himself / herself to fill the need (instead of God), especially some of the prayers directed to Mary. After reading a number of these, it would become easy to completely miss the idea that one is simply “asking them to pray.”

Finally, we must remember that the Catholic Church teaches that there are three different levels of honor when a Catholic prays (which we will discuss further in just a minute). Each level carries with it a corresponding and increasing attitude of honor. To keep things simple for now, there is “praying with ‘little’ honor”, “praying with ‘bigger’ honor,” and “praying with ‘greatest’ honor.” All three are “asking,” but is all their asking, at each individual level, the same? If it is, then how is one level different from another? If “pray” only means ask, then having these different levels of honor is meaningless. The simple fact that Catholics recognize different levels of prayer destroys this silly notion that “pray just means ask.”

To be fair, I don’t know of any official Catholic sources that make this argument (I don’t think that they do), but let’s hope that the many Catholic apologists who do use this faulty “pray just means ask” argument would be more honest and stop using it.


CATHOLIC CLAIM – WHEN ADDRESSING MARY OR THE SAINTS, WE’RE NOT REALLY PRAYING *TO* THEM, WE’RE JUST ASKING THEM TO PRAY *FOR* US.

But note these statements from official Catholic sources:

Mary is the perfect Orans (pray-er), a figure of the Church. When we pray TO her, we are adhering with her to the plan of the Father, who sends his Son to save all men. Like the beloved disciple we welcome Jesus' mother into our homes, for she has become the mother of all the living. We can pray with and TO her. The prayer of the Church is sustained by the prayer of Mary and united with it in hope. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, CCC #2679 – Emphasis added)

One prays TO the Blessed Virgin, TO the angels and saints in heaven, but only in the sense that they may intercede before God for us. (New Catholic Encyclopedia [1967], Volume 11, page 673 –Emphasis added)

…the saints intercede for us in virtue of His merits, not their own. Consequently when we pray TO them, it is to ask for their intercession in our behalf, not to expect that they can bestow gifts on us of their own power, or obtain them in virtue of their own merit. (New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia, online, under the topic “Prayer” – Emphasis added)

Let all the children of the Catholic Church… continue to venerate, invoke and pray TO the most Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God… (Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus, Apostolic Constitution, December 8, 1854 - Emphasis added)

It is clear from these sources that Catholics can and do, indeed, pray TO Mary and the saints. In fact, the Church encourages it. To deny this is simply playing word games and ignoring official teaching. So, Catholics need to stop repeating this falsehood, also.

Ok, at this point many Catholics will say, “But our prayer to them is a ‘lesser’ type of prayer than what is offered to God”… which leads us to the next Catholic claim:

CATHOLIC CLAIM – YOU ARE CONFUSING PRAYER WITH WORSHIP. PROTESTANTS ARE UNABLE OR UNWILLING TO RECOGNIZE THAT THERE ARE DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN THE TYPES OF HONOR WE GIVE TO SAINTS, MARY, AND TO GOD. PRAYER TO THE SAINTS IS CALLED “DULIA.” PRAYER TO MARY IS ON A HIGHER LEVEL AND IS KNOWN AS “HYPERDULIA.” BUT WHEN WE PRAY TO GOD, WE USE “LATRIA,” THE HIGHEST FORM OF HONOR (i.e., WORSHIP). WE DO NOT *WORSHIP* MARY OR THE SAINTS, BUT ONLY GOD.

In the Bible, prayer is always an act of WORSHIP. All throughout Scripture, people worshipped through prayer and their prayers were always directed to God. We find not one single case of anyone in the Bible praying (with God’s approval) to anyone other than God. No angels, saints, elders, patriarchs, prophets, kings… no one. These may have been honored, but never were they prayed to. It is ok to give honor to whom honor is due (Romans 13:7), but praying to someone (dead or alive) is beyond honor; it is worship. In spite of Catholic claims to the contrary, prayer to saints is NOT the same as just asking a friend to pray for you. It is idolatry.

The Jews were God’s chosen people in the Old Testament, yet they continually fell into idolatry. What makes anyone think today that they can, while praying, easily distinguish between these three forms of “honor” (dulia, hyperdulia, latria) and move from one to the other without falling into the same problem that the Old Testament Jews did? Even in the case of Moses’ brazen serpent (which God had him erect for the people), we find that the honor that was first directed toward the statue turned into something more. It was later destroyed because it had become an idol to which the people burned incense. (2 Kings 18:4)

And just for the record, the Catholic Church admits that “dulia” and “hyperdulia” are forms of worship. (See the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia, under “Beatification and Canonization”)

CATHOLIC CLAIM – IF ALL WORSHIP MUST BE DIRECTED TO GOD ALONE, THEN WHAT ABOUT THE STATEMENT THAT SPOUSES MAKE TO EACH OTHER IN THE ANGLICAN WEDDING CEREMONY: “WITH MY BODY, I THEE WORSHIP”? (CHARLES AND DIANA REPORTEDLY USED THIS FORM IN THEIR WEDDING.) ALSO, IN THE UK, JUDGES ARE GIVEN WORSHIP AND ARE EVEN ADDRESSED, “MY WORSHIP.”

But we need to realize that the biblical concept of worship is not based on Anglican wedding vows or British courtroom practices. The biblical concept is that prayer is recognized as worship and is clearly illustrated by multiple examples of praying only to God.


ASSUMPTIONS

There are some basic underlying assumptions here with the concept of praying to saints:

1) That these saints which are being prayed to are actually in Heaven
2) That they can actually hear us when we pray
3) That they can actually do something about our situation (offer aid or intercession for us)

Concerning #1 above, how does one know with certainty if the person to whom they are praying is actually in Heaven? Suppose this “saint” is actually in Hell and therefore an enemy of God? Is it acceptable to pray to God’s enemies? Suppose that there was hidden “mortal sin” in this “saint’s” life that only God knew about? If this is indeed the case, then there are some serious repercussions. Remember, the Lord God is a jealous God (Exodus 20:5).

Concerning #2 and #3, maybe God allows all the saints to hear our prayers. Maybe only some of them can hear us, or maybe He allows none of them to hear us. We just don’t know. It would be speculation. Saints hearing prayer is simply an assumption for Catholics, and there is no clear biblical proof for it. Nor is there any biblical reason to believe that even if they could hear us, that they could do anything about it anyway.

CATHOLIC CLAIM – BUT THE SAINTS IN HEAVEN ARE NOT DEAD; THEY ARE MORE ALIVE AND RIGHTEOUS THAN ANY OF US HERE ON EARTH. AND SURELY, WITH THEIR EXALTED STATUS, GOD GIVES THEM SPECIAL POWER TO INTERCEDE FOR US. DON’T YOU THINK IT’S POSSIBLE FOR GOD TO GRANT THIS SPECIAL ABILITY? WHY DO YOU PROTESTANTS LIMIT GOD?

Yes, it’s possible, but “possible” does not make it true. It is also “possible” that God made the moon out of green cheese, but that doesn’t mean that He has. Of course, God is able to grant them “special powers,” but God’s ability is not the issue. The question is not, “What can God do?” It’s “What did God do?” Restricting our prayer life to the multitude of examples in Scripture (where prayer to saints is never found) is not “limiting” God.


But is it Biblical?

CATHOLIC CLAIM – PRAYING TO SAINTS IS INDEED A BIBLICAL PRACTICE. REVELATION 5:8 SAYS, “AND WHEN HE HAD TAKEN THE BOOK, THE FOUR LIVING CREATURES AND THE TWENTY-FOUR ELDERS FELL DOWN BEFORE THE LAMB, HAVING EACH ONE A HARP, AND GOLDEN BOWLS FULL OF INCENSE, WHICH ARE THE PRAYERS OF THE SAINTS.” (SEE ALSO REVELATION 8:3-4) IF THE SAINTS IN HEAVEN ARE OFFERING OUR PRAYERS TO GOD, THEN THEY MUST ALSO BE AWARE OF OUR PRAYERS AND ARE INTERCEDING FOR US.

Again, this conclusion is pure speculation. This does not mean that the saints (on earth) prayed to them, or that the saints in Heaven could even hear their prayers; it just means that God allowed them to “handle” the bowls of prayers. This says absolutely nothing about us being free to pray to Mary, angels, or to saints in Heaven. It never suggests that the prayers were ever directed to them.

According to Catholic logic, since the prayers in the bowls of Revelation 5:8 and 8:3-4 were (supposedly) directed to the beings who carried them, then the WRATH in the bowls of Revelation 16:1-12 must have ALSO been directed to the angels who carried those. But I don’t think that anyone would agree with this conclusion. So, this Catholic argument is another one that fails.

We see no reason to believe that there is anyone in Heaven to whom prayer is directed but God. Look what Psalm 73:25 says: "Whom have I in heaven BUT THEE? and there is none upon earth that I desire beside thee." In Scripture, we are never encouraged to pray to anyone in Heaven, except God. Not to saints, not to Mary, not to angels. There are hundreds of verses on prayer in the Bible, but there are absolutely none where a believer prays to anyone other than God. We are never told that heavenly saints intercede for us by their prayers. But we are told that Jesus Christ intercedes for us (Romans 8:34; Hebrews 7:25).

CATHOLIC CLAIM – ANOTHER VERSE IS PSALM 103:20-21, “BLESS THE LORD, YOU HIS ANGELS, MIGHTY IN STRENGTH, WHO PERFORM HIS WORD, OBEYING THE VOICE OF HIS WORD! BLESS THE LORD, ALL YOU HIS HOSTS, YOU WHO SERVE HIM DOING HIS WILL.” (SEE ALSO PSALM 148:2) THIS IS A CLEAR INDICATION THAT THE BIBLE DIRECTS US TO PRAY TO HIS ANGELS.

These verses are not directing us to pray to the angels, but the psalmist is just using a rhetorical device to exhort all (including the Heavenly hosts) to praise and exalt God, because He is worthy. Note the next verse (103:22), which encourages His "works" (not just living creatures) to also praise Him. Does that mean that we pray to all His "works" also? What about when people (on earth) are admonished to praise Him? Are we praying to those people?” Psalm 148:3 is telling the sun, moon and stars to praise Him, also. But no one is expected to pray to these.

CATHOLIC CLAIM – BUT HEBREWS 12:1 TELLS US OF THE “GREAT CLOUD OF WITNESSES” FROM HEAVEN THAT SURROUNDS US. THESE ARE THE SAINTS WHO ARE PRAYING FOR US. ALSO, IN VERSES 22-24, THE WRITER OF HEBREWS IS TELLING US TO NOT ONLY COME TO JESUS AND TO GOD, BUT ALSO TO ANGELS, TO THE CHURCH OF THE FIRSTBORN AND TO THE SPIRITS OF RIGHTEOUS MEN MADE PERFECT (i.e., THE SAINTS). SO, GOD EXPECTS US TO DIRECT OUR PRAYER TO ALL OF THESE.

Let’s first look at the verses mentioned:

Hebrews 12:1 - Therefore, since we have so great a cloud of witnesses surrounding us, let us also lay aside every encumbrance, and the sin which so easily entangles us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us.

Hebrews 12:22-24 - But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to myriads of angels, to the general assembly and church of the first-born who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the Judge of all, and to the spirits of righteous men made perfect, and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood, which speaks better than the blood of Abel.

Concerning Hebrews 12:1, this verse is a continuation of the previous chapter, and the context is not so much about the saints in Heaven “observing” our lives on earth as it is of their being “examples” to us on earth – they made it through in spite of persecutions, and we are encouraged to do the same, e.g., “let us run with endurance…”

It is true that the angels and saints in Heaven may be aware of some things here on earth, but if this passage really is about us praying to saints this would be a great time to mention their “intercession.” But we don’t see anything here about asking those saints for prayer, or anything about Noah (11:7) or Rahab (11:31) wanting to intercede for us. Once again, I am not aware of any Catholic who prays to any of these heroes of faith listed in chapter 11. So why do Catholics insist that this passage proves the concept of prayer to saints if they never pray to these?

Concerning Hebrews 12:22-24, and our “coming to” Jesus and the saints in prayer, this passage is speaking of our entering into the new and better covenant. It is not permitting us to pray to angels and saints. If you take this to its logical conclusion, then we should also ask the “Heavenly Jerusalem,” “Mount Zion” and the “sprinkled blood” for prayer, also. If we “come to” all of these equally in the sense you’re suggesting, then they should all be prayed to. Catholics take this totally out of context, since they are equating “come to” with “pray to.” But this is not the case. Once again, there is nothing here about prayer to, or intercession from, saints and angels.

CATHOLIC CLAIM – BUT WE HAVE EXAMPLES IN THE BIBLE OF THOSE WHO SPOKE TO PEOPLE WHO HAVE GONE ON BEFORE US TO HEAVEN. FOR INSTANCE, WHEN JESUS WAS UP ON THE MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION (MATTHEW 17:3), HE SPOKE TO MOSES AND ELIJAH. AREN’T WE TO FOLLOW HIS EXAMPLE?

First of all, this was a special and unique event. The lesson here is not that Jesus was giving them permission to pray to saints in Heaven. To the Jews, Moses and Elijah represent the Law and the Prophets. This event was simply to validate the ministry of Jesus in the eyes of the apostles. But as soon as Peter began to show an unhealthy interest in Moses and Elijah, they were taken away. There was no encouragement to “contact saints.” In fact there was nothing at all about prayer in this context.

Secondly, it is interesting to note that Catholics will use this argument in attempting to prove prayer to saints is ok, but (once again) I have never heard of any Catholic who actually prays to either Moses or Elijah.

By the way, when Peter asked to build tabernacles for Moses and Elijah, Jesus didn’t say, “Well, it’s ok, but only if you honor them with ‘dulia’.” No, there were no tabernacles intended for these great men of God, nor were prayers intended for them… the same goes for all saints.

CATHOLIC CLAIM – BUT WHAT ABOUT ALL THOSE PRAYERS TO THE SAINTS THAT HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN ANSWERED? SURELY, THERE IS A REASON FOR THIS. THESE PRAYERS ARE EFFECTIVE BECAUSE THE SAINTS IN HEAVEN ARE FAR MORE RIGHTEOUS THAN WE ARE.

Let’s assume that these prayers that were directed to saints have indeed been answered. Maybe (because of God’s grace) the prayer was answered in spite of your unbiblical prayer, rather than because of it. And of course, there is the possibility that it’s because others were praying directly to God for the same thing about the same time that you were praying to your saints.

Or perhaps, this “answered prayer” is just a deception of the enemy, specifically manifested to mislead people. If a teaching is false and unbiblical, yet seems to be "verified" by a miracle, then we must reject that miracle as evidence for that teaching. It is just like the sorcerers in Exodus 7:11, who produced a "miracle" similar to Aaron's rod turning into a serpent. Should we believe that these magicians were also from God just because they showed “signs and wonders?” They MUST have been from God, since they were able to duplicate Aaron’s miracle, right? No, not at all. Their “message” was not from God. The enemy can (to some extent, at least) duplicate (or counterfeit) miracles to deceive God's people. The Bible speaks of lying signs and wonders in the last days (2 Thessalonians 2:7-12), in order to deceive many. These “miracles” from the saints would fit in that very category.

We also see the unfortunate fate of the “prophet” in Deuteronomy 13:1-5, whose message does not line up with God’s commandments, even though he is exhibiting “signs and wonders.” Remember, you can’t depend on a “miracle” that confirms an UNBIBLICAL teaching.


How Does a Person Become Recognized as a “Saint”?

The Catholic Church teaches that a person today can only receive “sainthood” after his death. For the Church to recognize someone as a saint, his life must have been marked by “heroic virtue.” Furthermore, there must be (generally) at least two verified miracles attributed to him, “proving” that the saint has the power to intercede for those praying to him.

His life must be investigated by the Church and he must first go through the process of “beatification” and finally the process of “canonization.” Once he has been canonized, he is officially recognized by the Church as a “saint,” and the faithful are assured that he is in Heaven. Faithful Catholics can now pray to him publicly. By the way, many Catholics are not aware that all faithful Catholics are obligated to pray to “canonized” saints. The Church does not just encourage it, but commands public veneration for them. (See the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia, under “Beatification and Canonization”)

Note this official statement concerning whom Catholics are allowed to pray to:

It is permitted to reverence through public veneration only those servants of God whom the authority of the Church has recorded in the list of the saints or the blessed. (Code of Canon Law, Canon 1187)

In other words, only those saints who are declared saints by the Church are the ones to whom Catholics can pray publicly. Catholics are forbidden to give public veneration / honor to anyone who is not beatified or canonized as a saint.

But this question begs to be asked: For the Catholic, are there limits to private prayer to those believed to be in Heaven? As for as I can tell, there are no official Catholic sources that limit the number of people to whom the Catholic can pray in private. They seem to be free to pray to Uncle Harry or to Aunt Susie, or anyone whom they feel has led a holy life.

But what if Uncle Harry is NOT in Heaven? The Catholic has no certainty of this, since Uncle Harry is not on the official “list of saints.” Suppose he is in Hell. Does the Catholic Church allow prayer to someone in Hell? At this point, it doesn’t matter if one’s prayer is public or private! Would not the individual be guilty of praying to an enemy of God? Can the person praying simply plead ignorance and still be innocent? Is the Church responsible for giving Catholics too much liberty in private prayer? It would appear so. But the Catholic Church seems to be more concerned about canonizing saints than it is about warning its members against idolatry.


Excessive Devotion

Many Catholics are aware of, and admit to, certain abuses and “excessive devotion” to saints by some members of the Church (especially in “majority Catholic” countries), and the Church would agree that this is wrong. The pope has the authority and the responsibility to deal with these problems, but never seems to really address it. If excessive devotion really is a problem (and it is), then why does he allow such “devotion” to continue? Why does he not set an example and openly rebuke those who, even by Catholic standards, engage in idolatry? This lack of concern will only increase the level of sinful, idolatrous practices in the Catholic Church. It is our prayer that everyone would see the danger involved in praying to anyone but the Living God.

The Bible’s company of saints is not restricted to the group that the Catholic Church calls “saints.” The Bible calls all true believers saints (e.g., Romans 1:7; 1 Corinthians 1:2; Ephesians 1:1)… not just some special group in Heaven.

SACRAMENTS (God's Grace for Sale)

Today we will take a look at the concept of sacraments. The word “sacrament” comes from the Latin “sacramentum”, signifying something sacred, namely, an oath. It also denotes a “mystery.” Sacraments may be used differently by various groups and can be found in the Catholic Church, Orthodox Church, and even in some Protestant churches. But since they are most prominent in the Catholic Church, we will deal with the Catholic view of sacraments.


Portrait of a Sacrament

So what are Catholic sacraments, and how important are they?

There are many descriptions of them, e.g., sacraments are said to be visible signs of an invisible reality… visible signs instituted by Christ to give grace… signs that really effect what they symbolize… outward signs of inward grace… signs that accomplish what they signify… vehicles of grace… signs that cause us to be united to Christ in the deepest and greatest possible way... etc., etc.

Here are some statements from Catholic sources concerning their importance:

The whole liturgical life of the Church revolves around the Eucharistic sacrifice and the sacraments. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, #1113)

By His power He [Christ] is present in the sacraments… (Pope Paul VI, “Sacrosanctum Concilium,” a Constitution of the Second Vatican Council, Paragraph 7)

His purpose also was that they might accomplish the work of salvation which they had proclaimed, by means of sacrifice and sacraments, around which the entire liturgical life revolves. (Ibid., Paragraph 6)

Sacraments are "powers that come forth" from the Body of Christ, which is ever-living and life-giving. They are actions of the Holy Spirit at work in his Body, the Church. They are "the masterworks of God" in the new and everlasting covenant. (CCC #1116)

The Church affirms that for believers the sacraments of the New Covenant are necessary for salvation. (CCC #1129)

Therefore, sacraments are extremely important to the Catholic Church. They are foundational to its existence and welfare, since they are “necessary for salvation.”

So, according to the Catholic Church, how does a sacrament actually work?

Celebrated worthily in faith, the sacraments confer the grace that they signify. They are efficacious because in them Christ himself is at work: it is he who baptizes, he who acts in his sacraments in order to communicate the grace that each sacrament signifies. (CCC #1127)

The sacraments are efficacious signs of grace, instituted by Christ and entrusted to the Church, by which divine life is dispensed to us. The visible rites by which the sacraments are celebrated signify and make present the graces proper to each sacrament. They bear fruit in those who receive them with the required dispositions. (CCC #1131)

What the Catechism is saying is that sacraments are symbols that have the power to “confer” / furnish / supply grace and to actually do what they symbolize (e.g., baptism actually washes away sin, and the Eucharist actually becomes Jesus’ flesh and blood, etc.)


Warning

Finally, what happens if one does not believe it?

The Council of Trent declares:

If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law do not contain the grace which they signify; or, that they do not confer that grace on those who do not place an obstacle thereunto; as though they were merely outward signs of grace or justice received through faith, and certain marks of the Christian profession, whereby believers are distinguished amongst men from unbelievers; let him be anathema. (Session 7, Canon VI)

If any one saith, that by the said sacraments of the New Law grace is not conferred through the act performed, but that faith alone in the divine promise suffices for the obtaining of grace; let him be anathema. (Session 7, Canon VIII)

So, we see here that if one does not believe what the Catholic Church teaches about the sacraments, he is declared “anathema” by the Catholic Church. An anathema is the gravest (most severe) form of excommunication, where one is eternally condemned to Hell unless and until he does penance to the Church’s satisfaction (see the online New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia – under the topic, “anathema”).


Symbol or Reality?

There is a confusing problem with the Catholic idea of sacraments. In the Eucharist, for example, Catholics believe that Christ is somehow present in a “sacramental” way (whatever that means). But if sacraments “accomplish what they signify”, if they actually do what they symbolize, then why do they need to symbolize at all? Catholics believe the Eucharist is not JUST a symbol, but is both “the real thing” (i.e., Christ’s actual body and blood) and at the same time, a SYMBOL of the “real thing.” But a certain object cannot be BOTH a symbol of something else AND its reality. It is either one or the other. If it is a symbol of a particular thing, then it is not that particular thing. If it is literally the “real thing,” then there is no need for it to be a “symbol of itself.” You can’t have it both ways. This is simply equivocation. No such thing exists in Scripture, nor in the modern world that we live in.


A Biblical Concept?

The concept of sacraments with “special powers” that can earn (or control the amount of) grace given to someone is certainly not biblical. How can a person “control grace” by rituals, objects and ceremonies? How can grace be dependent on works (especially grace for salvation)? It isn’t. But this is a typical example of the works-based salvation of the Catholic Church.

But grace is not something you can buy through the performance of a ritual. By its very definition, grace excludes works. Grace is usually defined as “the UNMERITED favor of God.” It cannot be earned or bought.

Then how do we get grace, according to the Bible? Grace is received by FAITH, not by works, ceremonies or “sacraments.” (Romans 4:16; 5:2; 11:6; Ephesians 2:8-9) See also our three-part series on “Faith Alone” and our “Sola Fide Revisited” article, elsewhere on this blog.


Conclusion

Some may accuse us of being “anti-sacramental,” and automatically assume that we believe that “matter is evil.” But this is ridiculous and does not necessarily follow. We don’t think that matter is “evil,” nor do we make it a “spirit versus matter” issue.

And we are not against symbolism. Symbols are fine. Symbols help us to understand many concepts. They are very useful and meaningful in our everyday lives and in Scripture. But they don’t save anyone. One is saved by simply trusting in the work and the suffering of Jesus Christ on the cross for us, and that alone.

Not only is the Catholic concept of sacraments NOT IN SCRIPTURE, it is also AGAINST Scripture. It is a system of obtaining the priceless grace of God by works and rituals. Any system that can buy the grace of God is corrupt and anti-biblical, and anyone who believes in this view of sacraments is in serious doctrinal error, whether they claim to be Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant.

SOLA SCRIPTURA AND DIVISIONS

Sola Scriptura (Latin for “Bible Alone”) is the teaching that the Bible is the only infallible rule of faith for the church today (2 Timothy 3:16-17). Catholics reject this teaching for several reasons, but this particular article will address only one of those Catholic objections. That tired, overused, but ever-so-popular Catholic argument is this: Sola Scriptura is “unworkable” as a rule of faith because it uses “private interpretation,” and this causes divisions / arguments / disagreements in Protestantism. But is this sound reasoning? Is this a fair argument?

Well, it is no secret that there are many divisions within Protestantism. Some estimate that there are 25,000 different denominations, some 30,000, others 33,000, etc., etc. One popular Catholic apologist claims that there may even be MILLIONS of Protestant denominations. While we believe that all of these numbers are wildly exaggerated, the focus of this article will not be on how many denominations there really are, nor on who has “more unity.” The focus is on the hypocrisy of Catholics who make the claim that Sola Scriptura is false because of divisions within Protestantism, while knowing that they, too, have divisions.

The Catholic Church claims to be “one” (i.e., unified), yet there are also many divisions / arguments / disagreements within its own ranks. This fact is undeniable. A little time spent searching on the internet will demonstrate that point. And some of these disagreements are on major, essential issues… even between higher officials in the Church. Even some of the early church fathers had disagreements with each other. There have been disagreements on all levels in the Catholic Church, from amateur lay apologists, to priests, bishops, cardinals and popes. Some modern points of disagreement between Catholics include the issue of contraception, the significance and effects of Vatican II, the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), Traditionalists, Novus Ordo (New Mass), evolution, Charismatic Catholics, and the concept of “extra ecclesiam nulla salus” (Latin for “no salvation outside the [Catholic] Church”) … to name just a few.

So, if Sola Scriptura is disqualified as a rule of faith because Protestants have divisions, then the Catholic Magisterium must also be disqualified. If “Bible Alone” is negated due to the existence of disagreements, then so is Catholic Tradition. If divisions cancel out one rule of faith, they cancel out all of them, making this Catholic argument self-refuting. This is certainly a double standard.

Just because you may not have “physical” divisions (denominations with separate names) doesn’t mean you don’t have divisions. And if Sola Scriptura is the cause of disagreements, then how is it that YOU have them, also? Apparently, the Catholic rule of faith is not as “clear” as many Catholics claim it to be.

Someone may respond that Catholic divisions simply stem from those who disagree with the Church’s clear and official teaching and are thus actually heretics, and not true Catholics; therefore they “don’t count” when comparing disagreements.

But, first of all, Protestants could use this same argument and say that Protestant divisions also occur because of disobedience to the Bible’s clear teaching, and that those who disagree with us are not true Sola Scriptura believers, either.

Secondly, if these Catholic “heretics” are never excommunicated, and they continue to attend and participate in Catholic services, give financially to the Catholic Church, partake of the sacraments, and continue to identify with the Church, then it certainly does not appear that the Church, herself, considers them “heretics,” does it?

So, the “heretic” argument doesn’t prove anything, nor does it erase the fact that Catholicism has its divisions.

Catholics may say, “But we have a leader (the pope) who can decide infallibly for us when disagreements arise.”

And how many times have popes “infallibly” decided anything? It is an extremely rare event. But this just causes more confusion, because Catholics can’t even know exactly how many times this has happened in history. There is no “official” list of infallible statements, so an appeal to this supposed infallibility does little or nothing to help this Catholic argument.

CONCLUSION

Unfortunately, disagreements in interpretation are inevitable in this life; it’s something we just have to learn to live with. Remember, there were many who saw Jesus Christ, Himself, face to face, and they still disagreed among themselves on what He taught. Does this mean that Jesus’ teachings were also “unworkable”? Of course not. The ABUSE of a sufficient rule of faith does not void that rule of faith.

Dear Catholic friends, I am not trying to justify Protestant divisions, but I’m simply challenging the idea that disagreements cause a problem for the Protestant rule of faith, but not for the Catholic rule of faith. This idea is inconsistent on the part of Catholics.

Yes, of course Jesus wants Christians to have unity in the truth (John 17:11, 21-23), and we should always strive for it, yet we ALL fall short… some of us more than others. But, please don’t pretend you have no divisions in Catholicism, or that your rule of faith is somehow exempt when you use the “disagreements nullify Sola Scriptura” argument.

Catholics lose credibility each time this argument is used. So, let’s put this faulty and deceptive argument to rest, once and for all.

THE SAME GOD?

In her quest for “common ground” and unity with other religions, the Catholic Church assures Muslims that the God of Christianity and the god of Islam are one and the same. Lest anyone say that this is not an actual teaching of the Catholic Church, note these quotes from official sources:


“As I have often said in other meetings with Muslims, your God and ours is one and the same, and we are brothers and sisters in the faith of Abraham. Thus it is natural that we have much to discuss concerning true holiness in obedience and worship to God.” (Address of Pope John Paul II to the participants in the Colloquium on “Holiness in Christianity and Islam” in Rome, Thursday, 9 May 1985)

“Today I would like to repeat what I said to young Muslims some years ago in Casablanca: ‘We believe in the same God, the one God, the living God, the God who created the world and brings his creatures to their perfection’.” (John Paul II to a General Audience, Wednesday, 5 May 1999)

"This year is also the 40th anniversary of the conciliar Declaration Nostra Aetate, which has ushered in a new season of dialogue and spiritual solidarity between Jews and Christians, as well as esteem for the other great religious traditions. Islam occupies a special place among them. Its followers worship the same God and willingly refer to the Patriarch Abraham." (Benedict XVI, to a General Audience, World Youth Day in Cologne, Wednesday, 24 August 2005)

“The Church's relationship with the Muslims. ‘The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day.’” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, #841)


The above quote from the Catechism is referencing two major documents (Lumen Gentium and Nostra Aetate), both given by Pope Paul VI from the Second Vatican Council (a supposedly infallible Council of the Catholic Church). So, here we have the Catholic Catechism, three different popes, and an “infallible” Catholic council clearly telling us that Muslims and Christians worship the SAME God. But, can this possibly be true? Do Muslims really worship the God of the Bible? No, they don’t.

The Christian Bible teaches that God is a Trinity. The Muslim Bible (the Qur’an / Koran) teaches that Allah (the Muslim god) is NOT a Trinity (Surah 4:171). The God of Christianity has a Son. The god of Islam has NO SON (Surah 4:171). The Christian Bible teaches that God shares His Deity with His Son, Jesus Christ. The Qur’an DENIES the deity of Jesus Christ (Surah 23:91). The Christian Bible teaches that Jesus, the Son of God, was crucified and died on a cross. The Qur’an DENIES that Jesus died on a cross (Surah 4:157). And this is only a partial list of key differences. So, they can’t both be right, since they teach opposites. God does not have two sets of conflicting Scriptures.

Muslims claim to worship the God of Abraham, yet they reject God’s chosen lineage through Abraham (it is Isaac who possessed the covenant and the promises, not Ishmael - Genesis 21:12; Romans 9:3-8). It is interesting that the Pharisees ALSO claimed to be children of Abraham (John 8:33), but they certainly were NOT (Matt. 3:7-9). Although the Pharisees THOUGHT they were worshipping the God of Abraham, Jesus told them, “You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father” (John 8:44). Like the Pharisees, true Muslims worship the “god of this world” (2 Corinthians 4:4), and will never truly worship the God of Abraham until they renounce Islam.

The issue is not, “We worship the same God, but it’s just that Christians know God ‘more fully’ than Muslims.” No, the issue is the fact that Christians worship the God Who inspired the Bible, and Muslims worship the god who inspired the Qur’an. Surely, two different Gods.

Dear Catholic friends, this article is more about you than it is about the Muslims. You’re not helping Muslims when you claim that they are worshipping the God of the Bible… you’re deceiving them. As we said before, if Christians and Muslims worshipped the same God, our Bibles would not contradict each other. In your zeal to appease the Muslims, you’re not only deceiving them, but you are deceiving your fellow Catholics and your own selves, as well.

You can give two different people the same name, but that doesn’t make them the same person. Again, Christians and Muslims do NOT worship the same God, as the Catholic Church teaches. We want (and need) to reach out to Muslims, yes, but with the truth… with the gospel of Jesus Christ. Catholics, we sincerely urge you to not let your desire for “unity” override the simple truth.