MARY’S PERPETUAL VIRGINITY… REALLY?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church tells us:

“The deepening of faith in the virginal motherhood led the Church to confess Mary’s real and perpetual virginity even in the act of giving birth to the Son of God made man.  In fact, Christ’s birth ‘did not diminish his mother’s virginal integrity but sanctified it.’  And so the liturgy of the Church celebrates Mary as Aeiparthenos, the ‘Ever-virgin.’” (CCC #499)

The doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity teaches that Mary was a virgin before Christ was born, during His birth, and even afterward, all the days of her life.  It is considered a dogma of the Catholic Church and therefore must be believed by the faithful Catholic.  It is not optional.

By the way, the perpetual virginity of Mary is believed by both the Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox Church, as well.

Origin

The earliest witness to the idea of the perpetual virginity of Mary seems to appear in the apocryphal (“hidden,” non-canonical writing) Protoevangelium of James at around 150 A.D.  By the way, this is not one of the seven Apocryphal books in the Catholic Bible.

The New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia also admits that the Protoevangelium of James is apocryphal, is of Catholic origin and that it contains “legendary and imaginative elements, which are sometimes puerile [childishly foolish or immature] or fantastic [remote from reality].”  Yet, this Catholic encyclopedia claims that this apocryphal book is “based on the canonical gospels.” It also says that this book is the source of “various traditions current among the faithful,” and these traditions “are of value in indicating the veneration paid to Mary at a very early age.”  So, in spite of its failings, the book is by no means rejected by the Catholic Church.  See here:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01601a.htm

According to J. Warner Wallace, author, speaker and Adjunct Professor of Apologetics at Biola University, the Protoevangelium of James cannot be trusted.  It is considered to be written too late to be attributed to James or to any eyewitness of the things described.  Wallace states that the author of the Protoevangelium “appears to know little or nothing about the Jewish customs of the 1^st century.”  The writing is even condemned by Pope Gelasius as one of the books to be avoided by Catholics.  See here:

https://coldcasechristianity.com/writings/why-shouldnt-we-trust-the-non-canonical-gospels-attributed-to-james/

So why do Catholics believe in Mary’s perpetual virginity?  On what basis do they accept this unusual belief?  Here are some of the reasons…

“Because We Want it to Be True…”

An article by Catholic Answers (the largest apostolate of Catholic apologetics and evangelization in the U.S. run by lay people) says:

“According to the world-renowned patristics scholar, Johannes Quasten:  ‘The principal aim of the whole writing [Protoevangelium of James] is to prove the perpetual and inviolate virginity of Mary before, in, and after the birth of Christ’ (Patrology 1:120-1).”  See here:

https://www.catholic.com/tract/mary-ever-virgin

Again, the book’s principal aim, its very purpose, is to promote one of the Marian doctrines, no matter how many errors are found in it, no matter how much inconsistency can be found in it, no matter how unbiblical it is - the Catholic Church will use this volume to continue pushing its false teachings on Mary. 

The Vow

One of the reasons that the Catholic Church accepts the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary is at least partly because of the information found in the Protoevangelium of James.  It tells us that Mary had taken a lifetime vow of virginity.

It states that Mary’s mother (since she was supposedly barren), made a vow to God and promised to dedicate her child to Him if He chose to give her one, much like Samuel’s mother, Hannah, did in the Old Testament (1 Samuel 1:10-11).  Supposedly, Mary’s parents brought her to the temple at age three and she mounted the temple steps and she, herself, made a vow of virginity at this time. 

But how much does a three-year-old know about human anatomy and virginity?  Or about sexual activity within the marriage relationship?  A Catholic might say, “Maybe this knowledge was given to her supernaturally.  Don’t you Protestants think that God is able to do this?”  But that’s just begging the question, as this whole “perpetual virginity” issue does.  We should not be expected to prove that it wasn’t supernatural.  The Catholic Church bears the burden of proof to demonstrate that it was as they say.

Luke 1:34 – When Mary was told by the angel of her soon conception, she stated, “How can this be… since I am a virgin?”

Catholics take Mary’s statement here, as well, to somehow mean that a vow was in place beforehand, and they cling tightly to this idea.

It’s important to note what Mary didn’t say.  She never said, “How can this be, since I will never know a man?”  That would remove all doubt.  And why would Mary ever pledge to be married to Joseph to start with if she had already made a vow of virginity for life?  It just doesn’t make sense. 

Besides, there was no such thing in that culture, historically or biblically, as a married continuous virgin.

Matthew 1:18 – Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: when his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit.

If Mary had made a lifelong vow to remain a virgin, why would the phrase “before they came together” even be there in this context if they never intended to come together in their marriage?  It would just be pointless and would not make sense.  In the gospels, as a whole, there appears to at least be an intent to consummate the marriage.

 

Furthermore, why not just say that Joseph NEVER knew her?  But it doesn’t say that.  We are left with the impression that they went on to have a normal marriage, which would include sex.  Again, it is the burden of the Catholic Church to show her perpetual virginity.

According to an article in the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia:

“One might ask why Mary consented to her betrothal, though she was bound by her vow of virginity.  As she had obeyed God’s inspiration in making her vow, so she obeyed God’s inspiration in becoming the affianced bride of Joseph.”  

See here:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15464b.htm

Notice here the statement, “As she had obeyed God’s inspiration in making her vow…”  The New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia is begging the question.  They are not only assuming the vow was actually made in the first place, but they are also assuming that Mary’s supposed vow of virginity was under the inspiration of God.   Yet, they admit that this same information is from these highly questionable “puerile” and “fantastic” apocryphal writings.  Sorry, my Catholic friends, but I’m not buying it.

Matthew 1:24-25 - And Joseph awoke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took Mary as his wife, but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a son; and he called his name Jesus.

 

This particular passage has seen much debate over the years, but the word “until” is unnecessary and doesn’t make sense if there was a vow of virginity in place.  If there was a vow, the sentence should simply read “…but kept her a virgin and she gave birth to a son.”

Moreover, there is a definite biblical responsibility for the husband in Jewish culture to, as the King James Version puts it, render “due benevolence,” i.e., to “fulfill his duty,” to his wife:

1 Corinthians 7:3-4 – The husband must fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband.  The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does, and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.

So this “Mary was a lifelong virgin” argument falls flat.

The Church Fathers

Besides the “support” for this doctrine from the Protoevangelium of James, the Catholic Church will also appeal to certain early fathers in the Church.  But establishing doctrine through the teachings of the fathers is not always an accurate way to determine truth.  Biblical evidence far outweighs tradition (Matthew 15:1-9).  The church fathers got some things right and they got some things wrong.  And they did not always agree with each other.  Sometimes a certain church father would even disagree with himself, that is, he changed his mind on certain teachings.  That’s because they were not inspired like the authors of Scripture were.  Scripture tells us we need to test all things (1 Thessalonians 5:21), even the teachings of the fathers.  See this article on the church fathers:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/search?q=the+church+fathers

“Biblical” Catholic Arguments Versus the Bible

Catholics will also appeal to Scripture in an attempt to prove the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity.  Here are some examples of their “biblical” arguments and my response:

Argument 1 – They will say that the brothers of Jesus mentioned in the Bible were actually cousins, and not blood brothers of Jesus.  According to Catholics, these children were not born of Mary but were really close relatives. After all, that’s the way Jews spoke back then.  For example, Lot was called Abraham’s brother (Genesis 14:16), even though Lot was actually his nephew.  The Jews had no word for “cousin” and the word that was used for “brothers” in the New Testament (Greek “adelphos”) had a wide range of meanings.  It could mean an actual blood brother, a step brother, a cousin, or a spiritual brother.

Response - While it is true that the Jews (who spoke mostly Hebrew and Aramaic) had no specific word for “cousin,” the Greek DOES have a couple of words that mean cousin, e.g., “suggenes” in Luke 1:36 or “anepsios” in Colossians 4:10).  And it was in the Greek language that the inspired New Testament was written.  So, if the biblical authors really meant to say “cousins,” these Greek words could have easily been used.  But since they didn’t use them, the authors very likely meant to say that these children were actual blood brothers of Jesus, i.e., sons of Mary.

Just because a word has multiple meanings does not mean that you can simply transfer any one of those meanings to any other text which uses that same word.  We must always consider the context in which it is used.

Matthew 13:55 – Is not this the carpenter’s son?  Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?

If these four brothers named here are actually cousins, then why just name four of them?  Surely, He had more cousins that that!  Does anyone really think that he had only four male cousins?

Furthermore, if “brothers” means spiritual brothers here, we have to ask the same question.  Did Jesus have only four believers following Him and all the rest of His followers were unbelievers?

Luke 21:16 – But you will be betrayed even by parents and brothers and relatives and friends, and they will put some of you to death.

Notice that both “brothers” and “relatives” are in the same sentence here.  Why would the author do this if he means the same thing?  If there is no distinction between the words, why is there a distinction here?

Argument 2 – Catholics will also claim that these brothers of Jesus were actually sons from Joseph’s previous marriage before he met Mary.

Luke 2:41-51 – This is the story of Jesus at 12 years old when He was questioning the teachers in the Temple, when His family was worried and looking for Him.  So, Catholics will ask, why is there no mention of these younger siblings here?

Response - But we can say the same thing:  “Why are they (the older brothers from Joseph) not mentioned in the flight to Egypt (Matthew 2:13-15) or when Jesus stayed behind in the Temple in Luke 2:44? This argument cuts both ways.

If he knew Mary had made a lifelong vow of virginity, what was Joseph’s intent in this betrothal?  Was he only interested in finding a “babysitter” for all his children from his (supposed) previous marriage?  That doesn’t seem likely.

Argument 3

John 19:26-27 – When Jesus then saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing nearby, He said to His mother, “Woman, behold, your son!” Then He said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother…” 

Here, Jesus, while on the cross, hands His mother over to the care of the apostle John.  Catholics will ask Protestants, “But why would Jesus turn Mary over to John if Mary really had children of her own?  Therefore, they must have not been actual siblings from the same womb.”

Response - Why indeed?!!!  Good question.  Why would Jesus favor John (a non-relative) over actual relatives, whether they came from Mary’s womb or whether they came from Joseph’s former marriage?  Why turn her over to someone who was not even kin to her?  It was for spiritual reasons.  It was because Jesus wanted her to be with believers, not unbelievers.  At this point, Jesus’ family was not believing in Him (Matthew 13:57; John 7:5).  So, this argument doesn’t prove either side.

Furthermore, there seems to be no solid historical evidence that Joseph had children from a previous marriage.  According to the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia:

“The chief sources of information on the life of St. Joseph are the first chapters of our first and third Gospels; they are practically the only reliable sources… whilst… the apocryphal literature is full of details, the non-admittance of these works into the Canon of the Sacred Books casts a strong suspicion upon their contents… it is in most instances next to impossible to discern and sift these particles of true history from the fancies with which they are associated.” (Emphasis added)  See here:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08504a.htm

So, we don’t know much about the life of Joseph with certainty.  All we know with certainty about him is what we find in Scripture.  And there is no mention here of children from a previous marriage.

Argument 4 – Catholics try to say that Ezekiel 44:1-3 is referring to Mary when it speaks of the “gate” that is never to be opened again.  Ezekiel sees a vision in the temple where the east gate is entered by the Lord and it has been shut after this, never to be entered into again.  This is pointing to Mary Ever-Virgin.

Response – To say this is to take liberties with typology.  What about the other gates?  Do these have anything to do with Mary, as well?  That is highly doubtful.

This, I think is desperation by someone with an agenda.  Old Testament typology can be, and often is, certainly abused.  And many believe that this is one case.

Argument 5 – Catholics will sometimes place the brothers of Jesus as sons, not of Mary (Jesus’ mother), but of Mary, the wife of Clopas (John 19:25).  These brothers were named James and Joseph (Matthew 27:56).  Some also believe that the other two brothers, Simon and Judas were sons of Clopas from another wife.  So this would explain why these four names of Jesus’ “brothers” demonstrate that they were sons of someone else, not Mary. 

Response – But even if the wives of Clopas did have sons by the names of James, Joseph, Simon and Judas, this proves nothing about Mary’s virginity.  It only proves that the names Mary, James, Joseph, Simon and Judas were very common names in that society.

Conclusion

Ok, let’s say that someone does a casual reading of Mark 1:16 with no agenda in mind.  It says:

As He was going along by the Sea of Galilee, He saw Simon and Andrew, the brother of Simon, casting a net in the Sea; for they were fishermen.

Let’s be realistic.  In this verse, would anyone automatically assume that Simon and Andrew were cousins?  Of course not.  There is nothing in this context to suggest that.  What about this verse:

Matthew 12:46-47 – While He was still speaking to the crowds, behold, His mother and brothers were standing outside, seeking to speak to Him.  Someone said to Him, “Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You.”

If someone told you this, would your first instinct be to believe that your cousins were waiting for you?  This passage seems to forcefully suggest the actual immediate family of Jesus.  When “brothers and sisters” are used in direct connection with father / mother, it would strongly imply closest relationship, i.e., blood brothers and sisters (e.g., Mark 6:3-4).

Now consider these last two quotes.  If read apart from the context of the perpetual virginity of Mary, no one would question that these were blood brothers.  The idea of relatives or cousins would almost have to be read into the context, i.e., injected from outside (this is called eisegesis).

Once again, it is those people (Catholics and Orthodox) who insist that Mary remained a perpetual virgin that bear the burden of proof.

Catholics will claim that the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity was not created to glorify and exalt Mary, but to actually highlight the uniqueness and holiness of Jesus. Ok, if that’s true, why stop there?  Why not believe that God had given Mary’s mother the gift of perpetual virginity, as well?  Why not believe that God made sure that ten generations of perpetual virgins in Mary’s line existed, with Mary as the grand finale?  What would stop anyone from believing that?  Wouldn’t that highlight even more the uniqueness and holiness of the Savior if perpetual virginity is the means of super holiness?

The Protestant idea of Mary having a normal marriage and a normal sex life with her lawful husband after the birth of Jesus is not a crime or an unbiblical idea.  It is perfectly logical and the only reason to deny this normal relationship after the birth of Jesus seems to be to exalt Mary to a similar status to Jesus.  But Catholics will say that when Protestants attack Mary’s perpetual virginity, they are attacking Jesus’ divinity.  But Catholics don’t have to worry because denying the perpetual virginity of Mary does not deny the divinity of Jesus Christ, nor demean Him in any way.

Personally, it doesn’t matter to me either way.  If she had a natural sex life after Jesus was born, then fine.  If she really was a virgin all her life, that’s ok.  If there’s no way for us to know, that’s not a problem.  The problem comes when someone makes great claims with no solid proof.

There is sometimes a desperation in Catholic attempts to prove this teaching.  For example, I recently heard a Catholic say that even if Mary DID have other children besides Jesus, she could have STILL remained a virgin, since God is able. 

Well, we’re not denying God’s ability.  But you know the old saying, “You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink.”  In other words, you can present evidence against a teaching, but if the Catholic insists that it’s true, there’s not much you can do.  And that’s often the case with the Marian doctrines.  This doctrine of the Perpetual virginity of Mary is special pleading at its finest.

THE BROWN SCAPULAR

The Catholic Church has many things that they call “sacramentals.”  These are not sacraments as the Catechism of the Catholic Church explains (CCC #1667), but sacramentals are associated with the Church’s rituals and are said to put the user of the sacramental in the right frame of mind to receive the sacraments.  One type of sacramental is the scapular, which comes in different sizes, shapes and colors.  Probably the most popular one is the brown scapular.

What is the brown scapular?  It is made up of two small pieces of rectangular brown (sometimes black) pieces of wool cloth connected by a cord or string, worn by Catholics over their shoulders (thus the name “scapular,” which means “shoulder blade”).  One piece is placed in the front on the chest and the other to the back.  This scapular is said to ensure its wearer that he will make it to Heaven if he dies with it on.

Enter Simon Stock

This story of the brown scapular begins with an interesting but little known character, one “Saint” Simon Stock.  He was given the name Stock (which means “tree trunk”) because when he was twelve years old he began living as a hermit in a hollow tree trunk.  Many years later, on July 16, 1251, in Cambridge England, he allegedly received a vision from Mary, the mother of Jesus Christ, and claimed that she appeared to him, holding a brown scapular in her hand and she said to him:

“Take this Scapular, it shall be a sign of salvation, a protection in danger and a pledge of peace.  Whosoever dies wearing this Scapular shall not suffer eternal fire.”  

See here:

https://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/put-on-our-ladys-protection-with-the-brown-scapular

The Pope’s Vision

According to another source, Mary also later appeared to Pope John XXII, and told him:

“I, the Mother of Grace, shall descend on the Saturday after their death and whomsoever I shall find in Purgatory I shall free so that I may lead them to the holy mountain of life everlasting.” (Sacratissimo Uti Culmine, a papal bull [i.e., an official public decree] of Pope John XXII, in 1322)

And this source also claimed:

“The Blessed Virgin of Mount Carmel has promised to save those who wear the scapular from the fires of hell; She will also shorten their stay in Purgatory if they should pass from this world still owing some debt of punishment.”  

See here:

https://www.sistersofcarmel.com/brown-scapular-information.php

This promise from Mary to release Catholics from Purgatory on the first Saturday after their death (for those who have faithfully worn the scapular) became known as the “Sabbatine Privilege.”

Entrust Yourself Totally to Mary?

According to the Vatican’s Congregation for Divine Worship, the brown scapular is “an external sign of the filial relationship established between the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother and Queen of Mount Carmel, and the faithful who entrust themselves totally to her protection, who have recourse to her maternal intercession, who are mindful of the primacy of the spiritual life and the need for prayer.” (Emphasis added)

See here:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20020513_vers-direttorio_en.html

One source says that the scapular is used as a silent prayer and that “[A] prayer offered while holding the Scapular is as perfect as a prayer can be.” It also states that “[T]he evil spirit is utterly powerless when the wearer of a scapular faces temptation…”  

See here:

https://www.sistersofcarmel.com/brown-scapular-information.php

Indulgences

There are also indulgences (ways to reduce the amount of punishment for one’s sins) connected with the wearing of this scapular. 

On the day that the scapular is received, there is a plenary (full) indulgence if one goes to Confession and Communion in the Catholic Church.

 

One is promised a plenary indulgence at the moment of death if he has gone to Catholic Confession and Communion and if he devoutly utters the name of Jesus.

Devoutly reciting the prayer known as the “Office of the Blessed Virgin Mary,” gets one a 100 day indulgence. 

And each time the scapular is kissed one gets a 500 day indulgence!  See here:

https://www.sistersofcarmel.com/faqs-the-brown-scapular/

Ratified by Popes

The New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia (online) admits that the bull of Pope John XXII containing the Sabbatine Privilege was later ratified by some popes in the sixteenth century.  See here:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13289b.htm

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines “ratify” as “to approve and sanction formally; to confirm.”

One source says that the Sabbatine Privilege was “approved and confirmed” by sixteen different popes.

https://www.traditioninaction.org/religious/d026_Sabbatine.htm

At least one source says that the Sabbatine Privilege was an official teaching of the Catholic Church until 1613:

“Pope John XXII claimed that the ‘Blessed Virgin’ came to him in Rome in the year 1322, confirming to him the scapular promise made to Simon Stock and adding the ‘Sabbatine Privilege’ in which she promised to personally descend into purgatory every Saturday and free those who had died wearing her scapular.  This was an official church doctrine until the year 1613.  At that time Pope Paul V modified the Sabbatine Privilege, saying that Mary did not necessarily free the souls in purgatory on Saturday but only aided them and eased their suffering.” (Emphasis added)

https://fdocuments.us/document/a-timeline-of-anti-church-history-first-bible-mystery-of-iniquitypdf.html

Tell Me It Aint So!

But there are some sources that say that the Sabbatine Privilege and Pope John XXII’s bull was a forgery. 

According to the Catholic Dictionary (online):

“There was an earlier version of the Sabbatine Privilege that is now considered certainly erroneous, based on an alleged bull of Pope John XXII, supposedly published in 1322.  This apocryphal document has the Pope say that Carmelites and others who wear the scapular would be delivered by the ‘Blessed Virgin’ from Purgatory on the Saturday after their death.”

https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=36174

According to the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia (online), the Sabbatine Privilege is “universally regarded by scholars as inauthentic.”

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13289b.htm

Concluding Thoughts

Ok, so there seem to be some conflicting ideas, even among Catholics, concerning the brown scapular and its “Sabbatine Privilege.”  What should be far more worrisome for our Catholic friends is the fact that none of this is biblical, including the concept of indulgences, Purgatory and the supposed visions of “Mary” (2 Corinthians 11:14). 

The doctrine of Purgatory denies the sufficiency of the perfect and finished work / suffering of the Savior on the cross (John 19:30, Hebrews 10:10).  There is no need for Christians to suffer any kind of punishment after this life is over.  And if there is no Purgatory, there are no indulgences.

 

Also, special articles of clothing do nothing to help save us.  God looks at the heart.  We are saved by grace, through faith, not by any works of righteousness (Ephesians 2:8-9; Titus 3:5).  The term “grace” screams UNMERITED favor from God (Matthew 18:23-27; Romans 4:4-5; Galatians 2:21).

There is a definite link between the asceticism (severe religious self-discipline) in the early life of “Saint” Simon Stock (who lived in a hollow tree) and the wearing of the brown scapular.  They are both an intrinsic part of a works-based salvation and God will have no part of that.

Concerning the Sabbatine Privilege, if it was indeed a forgery, or an “un-Catholic” idea, how could it be ratified and endorsed by multiple popes over such a long period?  Does not the Catholic Church have the knowledge or the resources to detect forgeries within a short time?  What happened to those poor souls who believed Pope John XXII until 1613 who expected to be released from Purgatory on the first Saturday?  Did all those popes ratify a false teaching?  If yes, then what does this say about truth in the Catholic Church?  If no, then why did they change the teaching in 1613?

The story of the brown scapular is one containing ridiculous concepts like perfect prayer while holding the scapular, rendering demons powerless in the face of temptation while wearing it, and obtaining time off from Purgatory by kissing this inanimate object. 

Who does the scapular glorify the most?  The whole emphasis of this teaching of the brown scapular seems to be that Catholics must entrust themselves to Mary.  It is (supposedly) Mary that introduced it, and it is Mary who “sustains” it.  It is about her, not about Jesus.  Mary is the star in this story, but let us learn a critical lesson from John the baptist, who said, “He [Jesus] must increase, but I [John] must decrease” (John 3:30).  It appears here (as it often does in the Catholic Church) that, in the teaching of the brown scapular, Jesus has taken a back seat to Mary.

POPE FRANCIS SPEAKS WITH FORKED TONGUE

When I was a kid, we watched many “cowboy and Indian” television shows.  One of the phrases that the Indians would sometimes use was, “White man speak with forked tongue.”  They would say this when someone would speak out of both sides of his mouth, i.e., when he would say one thing and then say something that contradicts what he first said.

Double Standard

Recently, Pope Francis has done exactly this when speaking to two different groups.  On November 5, 2019, an article from Catholic News Service, states that the pope recently said, “The Catholic Church must follow Jesus’ command to preach the gospel to every person, otherwise it will not fulfill its mission of bearing witness to Christ.” 

He also said in that article, “Either she [the Church] evangelizes or she is not (the) Church.”  And again, “…to evangelize means to deliver Christ’s teachings ‘in simple and precise words like the apostles did.’”  See here:

https://cruxnow.com/vatican/2019/11/if-church-does-not-evangelize-it-will-decay-pope-says/

Ok, assuming that the Catholic Church did evangelize with the true gospel, the pope’s comments sound pretty good, but a month later in December, 2019, at Pilo Albertell high school in Rome, Pope Francis had a totally different message for the students there.  Here are a couple of articles that cover the pope’s statements:

https://www.breitbart.com/faith/2019/12/22/pope-francis-tells-christians-not-to-try-to-convert-nonbelievers/

https://disrn.com/news/pope-says-christians-should-never-try-to-convert-unbelievers-anyone-who-proselytizes-is-not-a-disciple-of-jesus

These are some of his comments:

•           After being asked by a student about people of other faiths, the pope said, “We are all the same, all children of God.
•   "If someone says they are a disciple of Jesus and comes to you with proselytism [sharing his faith or attempting to convert], they are not a disciple of Jesus.”
•       “In front of an unbeliever, the last thing I have to do is try to convince him.  Never.  The last thing I have to do is speak.  I have to live consistent with my faith.  And it will be my testimony to awaken the curiosity of the other who says: ‘But why do you do this?’  And yes, I can speak then.”
•       “Never, never bring the gospel by proselytizing.”
•       “Proselytism is not done, the church does not grow by proselytism.”
•       “We are not in the time of the Crusades.”
•       He stated that football teams and political parties proselytize, but there is no proselytizing with the faith.

So, to sum up his message to these high school students, a believer should never approach anyone to share his faith (proselytize) to win him over to the truth.  He must first live out his faith in front of that person for an undetermined amount of time, and wait until the person comes up to him and asks him about his beliefs.  Then (and only then) should he share the truth with him.  Anyone who does share his faith before he is approached is NOT a disciple of Jesus Christ.  Never try to convince anyone of the truth of Jesus Christ by speaking first.  One must awaken their curiosity first.

Wow!  This is so anti-biblical, it is unbelievable.  Neither Jesus nor any of His apostles evangelized this way. The early church certainly lived out the gospel before others, but they didn’t wait until someone questioned them before verbally sharing the gospel with them.

God’s Commandment to the Church

Jesus gave us the “Great Commission” in Matthew 28:18-20:

And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, “All power is given unto Me in Heaven and in earth.  Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.  Amen.”

I would think that Jesus’ parting words to mankind were pretty important, but He says nothing whatsoever about waiting for people to approach you first.  On the contrary, there is a sense of urgency in His words.

Peter, the supposed “first pope,” boldly proclaimed the gospel to a large and mixed crowd (Acts 2:14-40).  But notice that Peter approached THEM with the truth – the truth that they were sinners who cooperated in the death of Jesus, the Messiah – and after this, the crowds asked Peter what they should do (v. 37).  He then continues to share how they could get saved.  But he did not wait around for them to approach him first.   And there are many other cases in Scripture that refute the pope’s method of witnessing (e.g., Matthew 4:17, 23; John 4:7-26; Acts 8:4-5, 26-35; 13:4-5;14:1; 18:24-28, etc.).

If we really believe that many are going to Hell (Matthew 7:13), how can we delay?  If you have the message of eternal life, shouldn’t you be quick to share it, both passionately and often?

 

Yes, as the pope suggests, we should be so faithful and obedient to live out the gospel message that unbelievers would take notice and approach us to ask about the gospel.  But we dare not remain silent until that day comes!

And today, there should be an even greater urgency to verbally and clearly share the gospel, seeing that the time is short before Jesus’ return (Matthew 24; 1 Timothy 4:1; 2 Timothy 3:1-5).

The world would never have been turned upside down by Christianity if the apostles had taken the pope’s advice.

Defining the Term

But in an attempt to defend the pope’s comments, some Catholics have said the issue has to do with the pope’s use of the term, “proselytize,” and that he uses the word to mean a forced conversion.  Thus, the reference to “we are not in the times of the Crusades” (when forced conversions were common).

But that doesn’t seem to be a good argument.  According to the Meriam-Webster dictionary, “proselytize” means:

“To induce someone to convert to one’s faith; to recruit someone to join one’s party, institution, or cause.”

Cambridge English Dictionary:

“To try to persuade someone to change his or her religious beliefs, political party, etc., to your own.”

Dictionary.com:

“To convert or attempt to convert as a proselyte; recruit.”

There is no hint of a forced conversion in these definitions.  Even more authoritative, the New Testament uses the word “proselyte” four times, and it simply refers to one who is the result of proselytizing… a convert.  Nowhere in the New Testament are proselytes shown to be forced converts. (Matthew 23:15, Acts 2:10, 6:5, and 13:43)

I just want to remind the reader that the pope had said above that football teams and political parties “proselytize,” and he also said that this shouldn’t happen in the church.  Does he mean that football teams and political parties FORCE their members to join, under threat of penalty or death?  This is highly unlikely, but to be consistent, he would have to say this.  But I doubt seriously that political parties and football teams use this method to obtain members.

 

Furthermore, since the word “proselyte” is a biblical term, it should be agreed upon by all who follow Christ.  The biblical concept of “proselyte / proselytism” cannot properly mean one thing in English and something else in Italian, or Russian, or Japanese.  For Christians, our understanding of it should always line up with the biblical use of it, since the Bible is inspired.  It doesn’t matter how the Vatican defines the term, nor the World Council of Churches, nor any individual church.  The God-breathed Scriptures are greater than all of these (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

Conclusion

The pope’s “evangelizing” method is neither practical nor biblical.  Ironically, we should actually welcome the pope’s desire to NOT share his Catholic gospel, since this false, works-based gospel has done enough spiritual damage already.  But for true believers, it is imperative to share the biblical gospel message as often and as fervently as possible, using any good (and biblical) means to open doors, and to take advantage of every opportunity – not wait for the lost to approach us. 

We should all agree that our witnessing should not involve force, deception, threats, manipulation, etc.  Anyone who does that is not acting as a Christian, just as the Catholic Church was not acting Christ-like in the Crusades.  But the pope is now going to the other extreme.

 

I believe that what is happening is that, in the Catholic Church’s ongoing quest to promote the ecumenical movement, Pope Francis is playing both sides.  On the one hand, to his own people, he wants to appear biblical by insisting that the gospel is preached (as we saw in the very first article linked above), but on the other hand, he wants to appear friendly and willing to cooperate with, and accept, all other religious groups.  But this is very dangerous.  There is such a thing as spiritual unity, but only unity in the TRUTH is biblical. 

Remember at the beginning of this article when the pope was asked about people of other faiths, and he said that “We are all the same, all children of God”?  This is an extremely irresponsible and false claim.  We are all created by God, but we are certainly not all His children (Matthew 13:38; John 8:44; Acts 13:10; 1 John 3:10).  It seems that no one wants to say it, but the truth is that all non-Christians (whether atheist, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Jew, etc.) need to be evangelized.  This is the greatest love we can show them.

I believe that most people in Christianity understand the terms “proselytize,” “evangelize,” and “convert” to be synonyms.  According to the dictionary and the Bible, they all mean basically the same thing.  And since the pope’s message to these high schoolers will be made known to the whole world, don’t you think that there will be very much confusion because of it?  The evidence shows that there is indeed.  Did he believe that everyone would automatically think that “proselytize” means to “force” a conversion?  This pope is very controversial and has a knack for not being very clear on some key spiritual issues.  It almost appears that he is doing this on purpose.

So, my Catholic friends, what is it that the pope is asking you to do?  Does he want you to “follow Jesus’ command to preach the gospel to every creature”?  Or does he want you to just live the Christian life while waiting to “awaken the curiosity” of others until they question you about your faith?

How can Pope Francis be trusted if he can’t be consistent with what he said just a month before on a key spiritual issue?  This man is indeed highly intelligent, but he speaks with a forked tongue.  

FLINGING ANATHEMAS

There is a big push today in the Catholic Church for ecumenism.  According to the Oxford dictionary of English, ecumenism is “the principle or aim of promoting unity among the world’s Christian churches.”  In fact, not only are they interested in uniting with Christian denominations, but with those in other world religions, as well.  So, how would this unity with other religions affect the groups involved?  Would they each be able to keep their respective beliefs or would they have to change their doctrines in order to unify?

A Schoolyard Story

There were several elementary school kids playing a game together on the schoolyard.  One of them was older, bigger and stronger than all the others.  Although all the kids knew the rules of the game, the big kid was cheating.  Not only was it quite obvious that the big kid was cheating, but his cheating was getting worse and worse.  But no one dared to point out his dishonesty, since they were afraid of him and didn’t want to be kicked out of the game.  Finally, a few of the other kids had enough!  They must face this cheating giant and confront his dishonesty.  

The group was relieved that someone finally spoke up.  But after their protest (which humiliated him) the big kid not only continued cheating, but he began to create ridiculous new rules for the game to his advantage, while all the others were harshly treated when they didn’t give in to his unfair demands and his new rules.  He was showing his true colors by demonstrating his childishness.  In any case, no one wants to play with a deceiving cheater.

An Analogy

The story above is an analogy (although not perfect) of something that actually happened in history.  The Catholic Church was a large and powerful force in the 1500’s.  She had no equal in the religious world.  Not only was she corrupt, but the corruption kept increasing.  It seemed that no one dared to point out her corruption, lest they be kicked out of the church (excommunicated), and therefore, be unable to partake of her sacraments and lose “access to Heaven.”  Finally, a few men (later known as reformers) had had enough of this corrupt giant.  They were going to confront the Catholic Church concerning her unbiblical teachings and her corruption, thus starting the Protestant Reformation.  The people were relieved that someone finally spoke up and this movement caused many to leave the Catholic Church after hearing biblical truth.

But the Catholic Church didn’t take this lying down.  After the reformers’ protest, which humiliated and angered the Church, she began to persecute the reformers and made ridiculous and unscriptural demands on these “protesters.”  The Catholic Church didn’t want to play by the biblical rules, so she started the “Counter Reformation” and established the Council of Trent in 1545.  In this council, she issued multiple “anathemas” (formal curses) to those who refused to play by the Church’s rules, thus demonstrating her childishness and her unwillingness to abide by Scripture.  Again, no one wants to play with a deceiving cheater.

“Let Him be Anathema!”

But what exactly were these anathemas with which the Catholic Church was threatening these protesters?  According to the Oxford Dictionary of English, an anathema is:

“A formal curse by a pope or a council of the Church, excommunicating a person or denouncing a doctrine.”

According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, it is:

“A ban or curse solemnly pronounced by ecclesiastical authority and accompanied by excommunication.”

According to the online New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia, an anathema from the Church is declaring the gravest, most serious, form of excommunication possible within the Catholic Church… an excommunication which eternally condemns the person to Hell… unless and until he does penance to the Church’s satisfaction.

The word “anathema” is used 150 times in the Council of Trent (including a couple of times using the variant, “anathematize”).  The anathemas of the Council of Trent pertain to, and protected, teachings like the canon (list of Bible books) of the Catholic Bible, veneration of saints, relics and “sacred images,” indulgences, the Catholic priesthood, the Mass, the Eucharist, sacraments, the Catholic view of justification (salvation), and original sin.  Interestingly, they seemed to focus their anathemas on those who were against these mostly Catholic ideas, desiring to maintain their unbiblical teachings and (through the power of anathema) force people into accepting them.

Catholics will tell us today that these anathemas were intended only for Catholics, since it is an excommunication (they can’t excommunicate non-members), but in practice it is obvious that the anathemas were directed toward the protesters and their biblical arguments.

But what about the unity that we mentioned at the beginning of the article, and this desire in the Catholic Church for “peace” and “cooperation” with other religions?  How can any group enjoy peace while having anathemas hanging over their heads?  How can all these different religions cooperate if they don’t even believe in these teachings?

Catholics will sometimes tell us that all these anathemas were canceled in the 1983 Code of Canon Law.  So, does this mean that there are no more anathemas?  You mean to tell me that these anathemas were all just a big mistake, after all?  Do they not count today?  If this is the case, this change in policy is little comfort for those profoundly affected by these anathemas in the past.  What about those who refused to comply and ended up persecuted or killed?  Would an apology hundreds of years later help them?  Because of this “change” in 1983, are those who perished because of these anathemas now released from Hell? 

The Catholic Church likes to brag that it has not changed its doctrine for 2000 years.  But if these “infallibly pronounced” anathemas are wrong or somehow unacceptable now, they must have also been wrong back then!  So much for an “infallible” church.  I pray that Catholics will see and understand this deception.

Conclusion

The Catholic Church has been flinging anathemas for a long time now.  If they really are considered to be in force today by the Church, it is irrelevant because many, if not most, of the Council of Trent’s anathemas were not even biblical to start with, therefore, were never binding.  If they are considered to be no longer in force today, then the Catholic Church’s supposed “infallibility” has been exposed as fraudulent.  Either way, she has a problem.

Worst of all, it is ironic that the Catholic Church anathematizes HERSELF by preaching a false gospel, according to Galatians 1:8-9.