THE SACRAMENT OF CONFIRMATION

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

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

Confirmation is a ritual of the Church that claims that:

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

-        It unites us more firmly to Christ;

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

-        It renders our bond with the Church more perfect

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reality

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

See also this link concerning sacraments:

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

And this link on the priesthood:

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

 

THE SACRAMENTS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH - (PART 1) CONFESSION

This article is the first in a series on the seven Catholic sacraments, which will not be covered in any particular order.  This particular one will be on the sacrament of Confession (also known as Penance or Reconciliation).

So, first of all, what exactly are sacraments?  Webster’s dictionary describes a sacrament as:

“a Christian rite (such as baptism or the Eucharist) that is believed to have been ordained by Christ and that is held to be a means of divine grace or to be a sign or symbol of a spiritual reality.”

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

“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)

So, what they are saying is that a sacrament is a ritual that one goes through to merit grace from God.  But that is an oxymoron.  No one can merit grace.  It is like saying that I will work for something so that it can be given to me as a free gift!  But it is either a gift or something you worked for – it is one or the other.  It can’t be both:

But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, since otherwise grace is no longer grace. (Romans 11:6 – NASB)

See this link on the sacraments:

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

A Little History

Over the centuries, simple biblical confession has evolved in the Catholic Church into an intricate system involving “penance” (which has all but replaced biblical repentance) by “meriting” grace from God by prayer, suffering, personal works, and even indulgences.  According to the following source, Catholics see Penance as “man’s effort to satisfy God for personal sin through one’s own works.”  See this link:

https://christiantruth.com/articles/penancehistory/

The Catholic Church teaches that private confession to a priest has been the norm from the beginning (Council of Trent, Fourteenth Session, Canon VI).  But this same link above points out the fact that “auricular confession” [private confession to a priest] and “judicial absolution” [official forgiveness granted by a priest] was NOT the practice of the church from the very beginning “since there was no general agreement in the Church about the nature and necessity of such an important issue to as late a period as the 13th century.  It was a matter of debate among Scholastic theologians, most of whom demonstrate that there were conflicting opinions even among the Church Fathers.”

It Must Be to the Priest

Protestants seem to have some serious reservations about Catholic Confession.  So, what’s wrong with confessing your sins?  Don’t Protestants believe in that?  Of course, any biblically-based Protestant believes in confessing his sins.  That’s not the issue.  But the first problem is that Catholics are required to confess any “mortal” sins to a priest.  The Catechism of the Catholic Church repeatedly tells us that confessing to a priest is “essential” or a “must.”  For example:

“It is called the sacrament of confession, since the disclosure or confession of sins to a priest is an essential element of this sacrament…” (CCC #1424)

“Confession to a priest is an essential part of the sacrament of Penance…” (CCC #1456)

“One who desires to obtain reconciliation with God and with the Church, must confess to a priest all the unconfessed grave sins he remembers after having carefully examined his conscience. The confession of venial faults, without being necessary in itself, is nevertheless strongly recommended by the Church.” (CCC #1493)

(See also CCC #1448 and CCC #1449)      

Misreading James

Ok, so what’s wrong with confessing to a priest?  Doesn’t the Bible tell us to confess our sins to the elders/priests in James 5:14-16:

Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him. Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.

First of all, the New Testament does not recognize ministerial priests, as the Old Testament does.  See this link:

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

Second, the New Testament Greek word for priest is “hiereus.”  This Greek word nowhere appears in the New Testament to describe a ministerial priest.  The word for elders in the passage above is “presbuteros,” a totally different term.  And in this context, it is not specifically talking about confessing your sins to get God’s forgiveness, to get a clean slate, as is done in Catholic Confession.  It is talking about “confessing your sins one to another,” that is, the local body of believers admitting their sins and wrongdoing toward each other, forgiving one another.  James 5:14-16 is about praying for the sick and about personal offenses toward other members of the local body. 

Third, the elders are not there to have members confess directly to them, as it is with priests in the Catholic Church.  The Bible never says to confess to a designated person, whether a priest, pastor, bishop, etc.  These can’t see the heart.  Only God can.  So, a man cannot conclusively tell another person that he (that person) is forgiven, since the man doesn’t know his heart; but he can tell him (according to the authority of Scripture) that he is forgiven IF, and only if, he repents and trusts in the gospel of Jesus Christ.  This is the New Testament requirement for salvation (Romans 1:16). 

Again, a man cannot give absolution to another, only God can, since He, and only He, knows all hearts.  Confessing to a priest, even one you trust, may make you feel good and may be comforting, but it is certainly not biblical.  See this link:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2011/08/hi-jacking-of-john-2023.html

Problems with the Box

Not only is private confession to a priest not scriptural, it has caused some serious problems within the Catholic Church.  There is an old (non-fiction) book titled The Woman, the Priest, and the Confessional, and it was written in 1875 by a former priest.  It outlines horror stories of women being betrayed, seduced and basically destroyed by perverted priests who coaxed them in the secrecy of the confessional (under penalty of eternal damnation, of course) to reveal their deepest, darkest secrets and their most sinful desires.  Some priests took full advantage of the opportunities afforded by that private confessional box.  The people trusted the priests going in, but were betrayed.  Not only did these encounters destroy many women, but many priests, as well. 

My Catholic friends, your sins and weaknesses just may be better kept unknown to most people… even your beloved priest!  With a repentant and contrite heart, confess them to God.  He will never betray you.

The book mentioned above is quite old, yet it reads like many of today’s headlines.  I firmly believe the author was telling the truth, but the scandalous and perverted sexual encounters of his day were only to get worse in time…

The Perversion is Far from Gone

A much more recent book, The Dark Box: A Secret History of Confession, by John Cornwell, is another eye-opener.  In a National Catholic Reporter review of his book, Cornwell is painted as possibly “our most gifted and persistent chronicler of Catholicism in the context of the modern world.”  Remember, this is an article by a Catholic news source, not Protestant, and it is worth noting that Cornwell, himself, is a Catholic.

The author of the review stated:

“Confession may be good for the soul -- at least sometimes -- but it has also been used to evil effect by those who would use the secrecy of the sacrament and the power of the priesthood to exploit the vulnerable.”

“In its best passages, The Dark Box connects the sexual obsessions of the earliest priestly celibates with the abuse of confession and the suffering of untold millions of everyday Catholics. For centuries, priests functioned as ‘forensic’ interrogators, coercing or merely persuading men, women and children to reveal the secrets for which they should feel most ashamed. The institutional obsession with sexual sin tells us that clergy were themselves tortured by guilt.”

See the link here:

https://www.ncronline.org/books/2022/06/history-confession-tale-sexual-obsession-exploitation

Conclusion

Confessing your sins is absolutely critical if you want to make it to Heaven.  If you want real forgiveness, confess them directly to God.  No need for a human mediator.  God understands better than anyone else and He knows all your sins before you even open your mouth, even your most secret sins!  Then why tell Him?  Because God wants you to be honest and to humble yourself and admit your sins and your rebellion against Him:

God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble. (James 4:6)

I’m not saying that a Catholic cannot ever be forgiven in the confessional, but he could still be forgiven IN SPITE OF this unbiblical ritual!

Mandatory confession to a priest tends to cause one to trust in a system, rather than in Jesus and His work on the cross.

But I have a question…

If you confess to a priest, then what happens between confessions?  What if you commit a sin after Confession (and you will), and then die before your next confession?  A Catholic may say that God is always fair and He will give you an opportunity to be saved.  Ok, so if that’s true, then what’s the purpose, what’s the need, for confessing to a priest in the first place?

We have a wonderful example in Scripture of the end of the mediation of the priesthood.  The moment that Jesus Christ died on the cross, the great veil in the temple that separated the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies was torn in half… exposing the Ark of the Covenant!  I can’t imagine the horror that was in the faces of the priests who were working in the temple at the time, conducting the evening sacrifice.  No doubt, they thought they were going to die on the spot, since the place of God’s very presence was exposed!

But no, God was making an incredible statement that would ring through time and eternity… WE CAN NOW APPROACH THE LIVING GOD OURSELVES, EVEN CONFIDENTLY, and know that He will hear us.  No more need for a ministerial priesthood to mediate for us:

Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need. (Hebrews 4:16)

Confession directly to God is part of the new and better covenant. (Hebrews 8:6)

 

  

THE POINT OF NO RETURN

 

Imagine yourself in a canoe, peacefully floating around on a large lake.  It’s a beautiful day and you haven’t a care in the world.  After a while, you begin to hear a sound, a continuous sound that is slowly getting louder and louder.  In horror, you finally realize the sound is a very large waterfall – and you’re headed straight toward it!  You franticly paddle, trying to move back to safety, but no, you realize that you are at the point of no return and you are sucked into the giant waterfall and perish on the rocks below.  If only someone had warned you.

Life is full of dangerous circumstances, some more serious than others.  You get it.  Those situations where you are in deep trouble (physically, financially, with relationships, etc.) and you are just unable to get out.  There is no turning back.  This point of no return is cold and ruthless.  It doesn’t care about your feelings.  It doesn’t care about your excuses or your careless attitude toward common sense rules, nor does it care about your poor decisions.  You messed up and you’re now paying the price. 

The “point of no return” concept is bad enough in the physical realm.  But it is even more terrifying in the spiritual realm.  There, it is eternal.  Death may bring relief for some who have suffered greatly, but for all those who have not surrendered to the Savior (Jesus Christ), for those who have rejected Him and His doctrine, there is no relief and there is no turning back.  They will fall paralyzed and speechless (Revelation 1:17) before Him on that day in utter horror (Revelation 6:16).  Once again, it will be too late.  But in this case, it will be the ULTIMATE point of no return!  You won’t have the time nor the chance to change your mind.  You will have made your choice.

Do We Really Love the Truth?

But what brings people to this point in their lives?  Here is a passage telling us exactly how we end up in this situation…

2 Thessalonians 2:8-12:

8 - And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: 

9 - Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, 

10 - And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 

11 - And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 

12 - That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

The context here is the last days when the antichrist comes on the scene.  At this time (and even now), the world will be so conditioned to believe false teachings that they will easily believe the antichrist’s lies.  They will be fully convinced through his lying signs and wonders.  These people will have had opportunity after opportunity to cling to the truth of the gospel, but they willfully continue to reject it.  They have loved and embraced false teachings so long that God is basically saying, “Ok, I won’t force you to come to Me, but if the life you’re living is what you really want, then stay there and live with your decision!”  Notice that in the passage above, they simply didn’t have a love for the truth, but favored a life of selfish pleasure and perverted doctrine, rather than godliness.

Especially for Catholics

Alright, many readers of this blog know that this blog is dedicated to articles about Catholicism.  One might ask what all this has to do with the Catholic Church.  Well, a lot, actually.  I strongly believe, and have firmly held to, the idea that the Catholic Church has always had a false gospel, one that has deceived millions and millions of its followers.  Furthermore, the Catholic Church not only has a false gospel, but it has multiple false doctrines. 

If all that I am saying is true, what will be the fate of these Catholics?  I believe that after being presented the truth of Scripture, if they continue to embrace unbiblical Catholic doctrines, their “canoe” will perish in the “waterfall,” metaphorically speaking.  To put it bluntly, they will perish in the Lake of Fire… eternally.  And they, too, will be saying, “If only someone had warned me!”  Well, I am just one of the many voices warning you now.

Common Ground

But one might ask, “But what if what the Catholic Church teaches is true?”  Well, if they really are teaching truth, then they don’t have anything to worry about.  But a little study will show that it is very obvious that they contradict many of the Scriptures, and they even contradict some of their own traditions!  See here:

 https://www.equip.org/articles/what-are-some-arguments-against-apostolic-tradition/

The question is, for Protestants and Catholics, who (if either of them) is right?  Catholics and Protestants have been debating for centuries, and of course both sides believe they are right.  Obviously, they can’t both be right, since both sides contradict each other in many areas.  The one thing both sides have in common is the fact that the Bible is God’s Word.  So I think we can use this common ground to get to the truth.  Jesus tells us that God’s Word is truth (John 17:17).

Conclusion

But the key issue is the gospel, which is the power of God for salvation (Romans 1:16).  And I believe that the Catholic Church has rejected that gospel. 

But how many times can you reject the gospel before God says “That’s enough!”?  Where is the point of no return, spiritually speaking?  I know that saying that the Catholic Church does not have the gospel of Jesus Christ may sound cruel and intolerant, but I’ve pointed out time after time on this blog that the Catholic Church has a different gospel (2 Corinthians 11:4) which has a works-based salvation, and that is an anti-biblical teaching (Romans 3:27-28; 4:4-5; Ephesians 2:8-10; Titus 3:5). 

This blog is full of warnings about many of the teachings of the Catholic Church.  There is something here on almost every major/significant Catholic doctrine.  And there are tons more in many other places on the internet by authors who are very knowledgeable in Catholic teachings and/or who were once Catholic themselves.

A Catholic may say, “But there are also many former Protestants who became Catholic, so this doesn’t prove anything!”  True, but those Protestants who have heard the gospel, but who now embrace the Catholic Church will have no excuse.  Again, we must look at the source of truth, i.e., Scripture, and we must take an honest look at the whole of Scripture, in its context!  I believe that if someone does this and is truly seeking after God, he will be saved.  For that person, the point of no return (i.e., eternity) is something to look forward to, and not a terror.

 

CATHOLICISM PORTRAYS GOD AS A FORMALIST

 

 

•      Formalism:   the practice or the doctrine of strict adherence to prescribed or external forms (as in religion or art)

In 1990, Matthew Hood was baptized in the Catholic Church as an infant.  Thirty years later, in August of 2020, while Hood was an ordained Catholic priest in the Archdiocese of Detroit, he decided to go back and watch his childhood baptism on video.  But something bothered him when he saw that video.  He realized that the wrong formula had been used in his baptism, therefore, according to the Church, he was not actually baptized!

So, exactly, what were the implications of that?  Would he have to be re-baptized?  Would this affect his ordination as a priest?  Or is it no big deal?

It turns out that, to the Catholic Church, it is indeed a big deal.  This caused quite a stir in the Catholic world.  According to one Catholic Answers article, this story “unleashed a torrent of anxieties and questions around the sacraments.”  See here:

Why the Fuss About Sacraments? | Catholic Answers

So What’s the Problem?

The person who performed Hood’s baptism was Mark Springer, a deacon in the Catholic Church at that time.  But according to his archdiocese, the deacon is now retired “and no longer in active ministry.”  The problem is not the fact that he was a deacon, but that the wording in the ritual was unacceptable.

So, what was this great deviation from the Catholic faith, this great error, in the prescribed formula in Matthew Hood’s infant baptism?  What exactly was it that was done wrong?

Well, according to the Church, Springer used the phrase, “We baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” rather than, “I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”  No kidding.  The Vatican said that using “we” is not acceptable, since it is not the congregation, nor the community that baptizes, but rather, Jesus, Himself, working through the person baptizing.  “I” is signifying that a baptism is done through the singular person of Jesus Christ.  Otherwise, the baptism is invalid, according to the Catholic Church.

Domino Effect

It is a Catholic rule that a man who wishes to become a priest must have been properly baptized.  Since Matthew Hood was not correctly baptized, that meant that his own ordination to the priesthood was null and void.  Furthermore, this brought into question the marriages of each and every couple that he had performed, and that all the confessions that he presided over were void (meaning that those confessing were not forgiven after all), all the masses that he celebrated were invalid, and no one was rightly “confirmed” under him.  All because of a faulty wording in his baptism ritual!

Questions

Worse yet, where was Hood’s soul in the meantime?  By the Catholic Church’s own standards, he was not even saved (CCC # 1257), much less was he an actual priest.  So, hypothetically, what about those individuals who went to (Catholic) Confession under Hood, but may have died shortly after, being supposedly absolved (forgiven of their sins)?  Apparently, they would not be forgiven after all, would they?  Do they end up in Hell because of a mis-wording in Hood’s childhood baptism?  What about those who were “married” under Hood and died since?  Were these living in sin (living together unmarried) and raising illegitimate children, only to be in Hell now?

Are these poor, unaware Catholics guilty due to the mistakes of their leaders?  Is God a formalist?  Is He so nitpicky and so hairsplitting in the Catholic Church’s eyes that He would (just because of a technicality) consign a person to Hell whose heart may have actually been right when he confessed his sins?  
Would God really eternally condemn those who are “illegally” married through no fault of their own?  All over a slight mis-wording of a sacrament ritual?  Didn’t Jesus say that God looks at the heart rather than a person’s performance of rituals (Mark 7:1-8; Luke 11:37-42; 18:9-14)?  Indeed He did.

Not God’s Nature

All this confusion is actually an insult to God.  It goes against His graceful, loving and merciful nature to intervene in mankind’s affairs when we are powerless to do anything (even when our hearts are right) - for example, like in the case of the thief on the cross (Luke 23:39-43).

But this puts Catholics in an awkward position.  On the one hand, it is an absolute necessity (for Catholics) to have the proper wording for sacraments.  But on the other hand, they’ll admit that this can’t limit God, since He is omnipotent.  So, to avoid the Catholic Church’s obvious contradiction toward God’s nature, Catholics will try to backpedal and say, “Well, God would do the right thing in the case of an invalid marriage or confession,” or they’ll say, “The person would still obtain SOME grace… although not the fullness of grace which sacraments normally provide.” 

But it is not in God’s nature to allow such a petty restriction to keep someone out of Heaven.  Catholics may claim that the people in these circumstances would go to Purgatory, and not Hell.  But this argument doesn’t fly, since there is no Purgatory.  It is not a biblical concept.  See here:

http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2015/02/the-false-doctrine-of-purgatory-part-1.html

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2015/03/the-false-doctrine-of-purgatory-part-2.html

Furthermore, there is no need for perfectly performed/worded sacraments in God’s eyes. 

Good Intentions, Bad Theology

One Catholic article stated:

“Yet in this case, Springer almost literally destroyed the village in order to save it.”

See here:

Priest baptism story offers memo for reformers: Look before you leap | Crux (cruxnow.com)

What the quote means is that Springer attempted to save everyone by baptizing them, but ended up endangering them through a not-so-carefully worded ritual. 

This is the mentality of the Catholic world.  But this is all a misunderstanding of biblical principles.

The truth is, baptism does not save anyone when done correctly, nor does it destroy anyone when done incorrectly!  See these relevant articles:

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

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

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

What About Sacraments?

To start with, the concept of sacraments is an unbiblical one.  Sacraments don’t save anyone, and grace doesn’t even come from sacraments (Proverbs 3:34; James 4:6)!  In fact, the performance of sacraments is actually trying to buy the grace of God, which is impossible (Romans 11:6). 

I have an article written specifically on that topic which I hope can be of help.  See here:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/search?q=sacraments

Apparently, if a sacramental ritual is not precise, it won’t “work.”  It almost appears that the Catholic Church sees the ritual of sacraments as akin to using a spell or incantation, where the wording has to be precise, rather than seeing baptism simply as a Christian ordinance (as intended by God). 

But there is no specific formula for baptism in Scripture, other than it being done in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19).  Furthermore, we see no babies being baptized in the Bible.  All the examples of baptism in Scripture show that it was only done for those who were of age, repentant, and who knew what they were doing (for example, Matthew 3:13-16; Acts 2:40-41; 8:12-13; 8:36-38; 9:17-18; 10:44-48; 16:29-33; 18:7-8; 19:3-5).

And by the way, nothing in Scripture says that Jesus is the one doing the baptism through the baptizer.  So the “I/we” distinction is irrelevant.  Baptism is simply a picture of what happened to you at salvation… you die to self, i.e., to the “old you” and are buried, putting to death the old man; and then you are raised to new life in Jesus Christ.

Repercussions  

Research by the Catholic Church showed that there were a total of 782 presumed invalid baptisms due to Hood’s ministry of 13 years, and the Church was still trying to remedy this.

See here:

https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/24/us/michigan-invalid-baptisms/index.html#:~:text=CNN%20Store-,Catholic%20church%20in%20Michigan%20still%20trying%20to%20remedy%20hundreds,baptisms%20performed%20over%2013%20years&text=Father%20Matthew%20Hood%2C%20a%20priest,the%20problem%20with%20the%20language.

By the way, this was not an isolated case.  A similar incident happened in Arizona (and Oklahoma, as well):

https://www.fox10phoenix.com/news/arizona-catholic-priest-resigns-over-wrongly-used-word-during-baptism-what-you-should-know-about-the-mix-up

Conclusion

One article I saw had a meme, a depiction of a priest about to give the last rites to a Catholic lying in bed.  The caption reads: “Father, before you hear my confession and give me last rites, I’d like to see video proof of your valid baptism.”

Of course this is silly, but it does address a valid point.  When one is about to die, he desperately needs to know that his soul is safe and he is going to Heaven.  If something as trivial as a slight mis-wording of a ritual can prevent him from getting into Heaven, he should not be in a church that teaches such and should call for someone who can share the true gospel (of salvation by faith alone) with him.

Catholics are consumed with the idea of grace coming through sacraments and rituals, but once you open that can of worms, it opens the door to all sorts of problems. 

Remember, it is Catholics who are the formalists, not God.  We should be thankful that He looks at the heart.

 

THE “QUEENSHIP” OF MARY

There are lots of Catholic-inspired articles out there on the idea that Mary (the mother of Jesus Christ) is some sort of queen, even the “Queen of the Universe,” or the “Queen of Heaven.”  But one would think that such a concept, if true, would have an abundance of solid evidence for it, since it is such an extraordinary claim and so heavily pushed by the Catholic Church.

So, where does this idea of Mary being a queen come from?  One Catholic source for this idea can be found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which calls Mary the “Queen over All Things” (CCC #966).  

Also, Lumen Gentium, a Dogmatic Constitution of the (Catholic) Church by Pope Paul VI, says that Mary is the “Queen of the Universe,” and she was “taken up body and soul into heavenly glory.” (Chapter VIII, paragraph 59)

Another source is a papal encyclical written by Pope Pius XII called Ad Caeli Reginam (Latin for “to the queen of heavens”).  In this encyclical, the pope not only refers to her as a queen, but he also speaks of her as the “Queen of the human race” (par. 17), “Queen of creation” (par. 50), and “Queen and Mother of Christendom” (par. 52).

According to paragraph 6 in this document, Pius XII said:

“In this matter We do not wish to propose a new truth to be believed by Christians, since the title and the arguments on which Mary's queenly dignity is based have already been clearly set forth, and are to be found in ancient documents of the Church and in the books of the sacred liturgy.”

Furthermore, another document to consider by Pope Pius XII is Munificentissimus Deus.   This Apostolic Constitution is about the dogma of the bodily Assumption of Mary, supposedly like Jesus’ assumption into Heaven (Mark 16:19).  It states that Mary is “the Queen entering triumphantly into the royal halls of heaven and sitting at the right hand of the divine Redeemer” and she is “that heavenly Queen and heavenly Spouse who has been lifted up to the courts of heaven with the divine Bridegroom” (par. 26).

But Is It Biblical?

Ok, first, I want to make a few comments about statements in these sources:

When one calls Mary “Queen over All Things,” what exactly does such a label entitle her to?  Does she now own the earth and everything in it?  Or maybe she owns the whole universe and all existing matter?  I could see someone saying this about Jesus, since He is the Creator and carries the title Kings of kings and Lord of lords (1 Timothy 6:15)… but not anyone else.

The same idea goes for the title “Queen of the Universe” and “Queen of Heaven.”

Concerning Pius XII’s statement about the “truth” about Mary found in the ancient documents of the Church and the sacred liturgy: I’m not exactly sure what all the “books of the sacred liturgy” includes, nor to which of the “ancient documents” he’s referring, but one thing is sure – if their claims don’t line up with Scripture, they are merely claims, that’s all.  It doesn’t matter what the church fathers thought about Mary if they contradict the principles of the Bible.

There are a few biblical references in the above encyclical (Ad Caeli Reginam), but absolutely none of these Scriptures refer to Mary being a queen.  Amazing!  It seems that an official document about the “queenship” of Mary, written by a pope, would have in it some kind of scriptural backing.  But no.

Ok, so let’s look now to some of the “biblical evidence” given by Catholics for Mary being a queen.

Bathsheba

Many Catholics will point to 1 Kings Chapter 2 and Bathsheba as evidence of Mary’s queenship:

1 Kings 2:19-20

19) So Bathsheba went to King Solomon to speak to him for Adonijah. The king stood up to greet her, bowed to her, and sat down on his throne. Then the king had a throne brought for his mother, who sat down at his right hand.

20) “I have just one small request of you,” she said. “Do not deny me.”  “Make your request, my mother,” the king replied, “for I will not deny you.”

According to one article, Catholics will say that Bathsheba is the one who most clearly illustrates the queen mother’s “royal prerogatives.”  

This author also says, concerning the Scripture passage above:

“Nowhere else in Scripture does the King honor someone as much as Solomon honors the queen mother in this scene.” 

See here:

Is Mary’s Queenship Biblical? | Edward Sri

These two quotes seem to be the consensus amongst Catholics everywhere.  So, with these two quotes in mind, let’s dig farther.

It seems that Catholics tie in the queen’s intercession in the Old Testament directly with a guarantee of her being granted a request.

Furthermore, Catholics see Solomon as an Old Testament type of Jesus and Bathsheba as a type of Mary (who will never be refused a request from Jesus). 

And since Solomon is about to grant Bathsheba’s petition in the passage above, we can be assured that Jesus will grant any petition of Mary’s… right?  Not so fast.

There are many Catholic articles about Mary’s queenship, but the great majority of Catholics who mention this passage in 1 Kings 2 don’t go all the way down to the part where the request is ACTUALLY DENIED.  They will take you as far as Solomon saying, “I will not deny you,” and no further, and they’ll say, “See!  Just as King Solomon will grant the requests of Bathsheba, King Jesus will grant the requests of Queen Mary.” 

But here is the rest of the passage:

1 Kings 2:21-25:

21-So Bathsheba said, “Let Abishag the Shunammite be given to your brother Adonijah as his wife.”

22-King Solomon answered his mother, “Why do you request Abishag the Shunammite for Adonijah? Since he is my older brother, you might as well request the kingdom for him and for Abiathar the priest and for Joab son of Zeruiah!”

23-Then King Solomon swore by the LORD: “May God punish me, and ever so severely, if Adonijah has not made this request at the expense of his life. 

24-And now, as surely as the LORD lives—the One who established me, who set me on the throne of my father David, and who founded for me a dynasty as He promised—surely Adonijah shall be put to death today!”

25-So King Solomon sent the order to Benaiah son of Jehoiada, who struck down Adonijah, and he died.

From the Catholic perspective, it should seem strange that the only request that we can find in Scripture from the queen mother toward King Solomon is one that was denied!  And Catholics want to use this passage as a model of Mary’s queenship?  Isn’t she supposed to be granted all her requests?

It seems that Queen Bathsheba’s “royal prerogatives” didn’t include such a guarantee after all!

Those few Catholic writers who do actually point out the denial of the king will say, “But this does not negate her position as queen!” 

But this is just begging the question.  The whole reason for Catholics pointing out that Bathsheba would supposedly gain the king’s favor in the first place was an attempt to prove Mary’s queenship!  So, they are assuming her queenship before proving it.  This logic backfires on them, since this in no way proves that MARY is a queen!

Typology

Question: So, if Catholics would ask Mary for something they shouldn’t, or for the wrong reason, i.e., asking amiss (James 4:3), is Jesus obligated to grant her request just because she is His mother?  The obvious answer is no.  So why is Mary needed in this equation at all?  She is not.  There is no biblical evidence whatsoever that she is a queen, or that she intercedes for us.

But even if Solomon would have granted Bathsheba’s petition, this is still a strained attempt at typology.  We must certainly give honor to whom honor is due (Romans 13:7), but Catholics take great liberties with typology, especially when it comes to Mary.  The Bible depicts Mary simply as a humble and faithful peasant girl who had the great honor of giving birth to the Jewish Messiah.  But once more, Scripture never implies that she would be a queen.

But the bottom line is that a king is not obligated to grant anyone’s specific request.  But the king must consider, is it God’s will?  And it is obvious that in the case of Bathsheba’s request, it was not.

Perhaps Catholics will say that Mary would never ask for something apart from God’s will… but again, that is just begging the question.  It’s an assertion that needs to be proven.

Conclusion

Ok, so what’s the big deal?  What if Mary would be a queen?  What does it hurt?

My answer is that I wouldn’t have an issue with it if it were a true biblical concept.  But it isn’t.  And if it isn’t, Catholics are making claims that put her in a fake category.

And the big deal is this:  If she isn’t all they say she is, there is the danger of idolatry, and idolatry has always been a big deal in God’s eyes!  If Catholics are praying to Mary and trusting in her to do spiritual things for them that only God can do, it is idolatry! 

Just as the rebellious, devil-inspired Israelites in the Old Testament lusted after the Asherim (female deities) and served them, there seems to be in Catholicism a similar desperate, devil-inspired need for a female deity.  Could this be why they are so anxious to make her a queen? 

Catholics may say, “But we don’t think that Mary is a deity!  The Catholic Church does not teach that.” 

Well, you can SAY that she’s not a deity, but it’s your actions that count.  Praying to someone and giving them that much “devotion” and attention puts that someone on a level with God.

Concerning idols, I don’t know of anyone who believes that their money is actually a deity, nor do I know anyone who prays to their money, but there certainly are those for whom money is their god (Matthew 6:24).  Even though they don’t consider their money as a deity, their devotion and attention given to riches reveal that they are idolaters at heart.

There are also other Catholic reasons for seeing Mary as a queen, but let me just mention one more.  In Revelation 12, we see a “woman” clothed with the sun and Catholics insist that this is Mary.  But a closer look will reveal that this is a picture of Israel, not Mary.  See here:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2015/09/is-mary-woman-clothed-with-sun.html