VENIAL AND MORTAL SIN

 

In Catholic theology, there are two categories of sin: “venial” and “mortal.”  According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

“Mortal sin destroys charity in the heart of man by a grave violation of God's law; it turns man away from God, who is his ultimate end and his beatitude, by preferring an inferior good to him.” (CCC #1855)

“For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: ‘Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent.’" (CCC #1857 – emphasis in original)

On the other hand, they believe that venial sin is not as serious:

“One commits venial sin when, in a less serious matter, he does not observe the standard prescribed by the moral law, or when he disobeys the moral law in a grave matter, but without full knowledge or without complete consent.” (CCC #1862 – emphasis in original)

“Venial sin weakens charity; it manifests a disordered affection for created goods; it impedes the soul's progress in the exercise of the virtues and the practice of the moral good; it merits temporal punishment. Deliberate and unrepented venial sin disposes us little by little to commit mortal sin. However venial sin does not break the covenant with God. With God's grace it is humanly reparable. ‘Venial sin does not deprive the sinner of sanctifying grace, friendship with God, charity, and consequently eternal happiness.’” (CCC #1863)

Notice the term “humanly reparable.”  I’ll come back to that later.

Is All Sin the Same?

Since Protestants don’t generally believe in the categories of “mortal” and “venial” sins, many Catholics will therefore say that Protestants believe “all sin is the same.”

But to clear the air, let me assure you that all sin is not equal.  God is just and His punishment for stealing a candy bar is not the same as it is for randomly killing someone.  Yet, the person stealing the candy bar (if unrepentant) will be in the same Lake of Fire as the person who murders (if unrepentant).  God sends them both to Hell.  They’ll just be eternally suffering on different levels.

All sin is indeed equal in terms of your final destination, but not in terms of intensity of punishment.  So, your “little” (venial) sins are still incredibly serious and must be dealt with.  People are often taught that a “little white lie” is no big deal, but again, we should treat all sin with the same sense of urgency.

The “seven deadly sins” that the Bible speaks of (Proverbs 6:16-19) are not the only ones that are deadly!  All sin, if not repented of, is mortal.

From Whence Cometh This Doctrine?

So, where does the Catholic Church get this idea of two categories of sin?  Well, there is a footnote in CCC #1854 that points to a Scripture passage that seems to be the pivotal reason that they believe in venial and mortal sin:

If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it.  All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death. (1 John 5:16-17)

Catholics claim that the apostle John is saying here that some sins are not deadly.  But Scripture is clear that ALL sin kills – EVERY sin makes you eligible for Hell:

For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. (James 2:10)

For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. (Galatians 3:10 – Emphasis added)

These two verses just above are saying that the law is a package deal.  If you break only one of His commandments, you are guilty of breaking God’s law as a whole.  If you are in court for breaking a law, the judge will not let you go simply because you got most of them right.  You are still guilty of breaking the law of the land.  We must realize that God’s law is not just a random assortment of loose principles and ideas, it should be taken very seriously because it is the essence of His character and desire.

I believe that 1 John 5:16-17 above is actually talking about the unpardonable sin that Jesus spoke of in Matthew 12:31-32.  The unpardonable sin is not just one particular sin – it is the end result of a continual hardening process of a person’s unrepentant heart over time.  Every individual sin can be forgiven, but Jesus is alluding to the fact that a person’s heart has reached a certain level of coldness and hostility where there is no turning back.  He is sinning against the Holy Spirit, the member of the Trinity whose work it is to convict us of sin and to lead us to repentance (John 16:8; Romans 2:4) – and this sin is a complete rejection, a despising of that work of the Spirit. 

Concerning blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, if someone fears that he has crossed the line and is worried that he may have committed this sin, the chances are very good that he hasn’t, because the person who is guilty of this sin is not concerned about it and will not want anything to do with God.  He is beyond help.  It is the point of no return, where grace is no longer available.  That is a terrifying place to be!  I think that this is the point in 1 John 5:16-17, it is not describing “mortal” versus “venial” sins.  All sins are mortal (deadly) – until you repent of them!  None are mortal if they are confessed and forgiven.

Error in the Catechism

I want to point out a couple of things from the Catechism quote that that I mentioned at the beginning of this article (CCC #1863).  First, it says:

“Deliberate and unrepented venial sin disposes us little by little to commit mortal sin…” 

I pretty much agree with this statement in the sense that your “little” sins, if unconfessed and the person remains unrepentant, can lead to a hardening of the heart, and ultimately destroy you.  So, this just proves our point that “venial” sins are also dangerous and can lead to eternal damnation.  So, there is no separate category.  Every sin is a “grave matter.”

The second point of the Catechism quote that I want to address is this:

“With God's grace it [venial sin] is humanly reparable.”

This suggests some sort of “restitution” that the sinner is able to pay.  In the Catholic scheme of things, forgiveness can be applied to the sinner only after some sort of work is done (penance).  But there is absolutely no sin that is reparable by any mere human in Christianity.  The only “repairing” needed has already been done by Jesus Christ on His cross.  This is the absolute cure for the effects of sin.  John the baptist so eloquently said about Jesus, “Behold the Lamb of God who TAKES AWAY the sin of the world” (John 1:29).  Jesus didn’t just cover our sins, as was done in the Old Testament. He takes them away, past, present and even future sins (if we repent and confess them).

To gain salvation, all we can do is surrender to Him and believe/trust in His suffering and work on that cruel cross.  That is the gospel – that is the good news.  We don’t have to constantly worry if we have done enough.  There are no rituals or works of charity that can repair, improve, or restore our broken relationship with God.  Only the cross and only through Jesus.

Martin Luther

There is a story about Martin Luther, the Protestant Reformer and former Catholic priest.  As a Catholic, he became extremely aware of his sin and was so tormented by it that as soon as he finished his confession and came out of the Catholic confessional, he would remember another sin and immediately rush back into the confessional to confess it.  Sometimes he would spend hours in the confessional.  This was torture for both Luther and the priest!  The priest, wearied by Luther’s obsession, reportedly told him that if he wanted to confess a sin, go out and commit something worthy of confession.

The Catholic Church had Luther (and all its members) thinking that he must merit his salvation through works of some kind or another.  But this was sheer torture for him.  He seemed to never be able to do enough.  He rightly understood God’s hatred of sin (while most people don’t), but he was utterly helpless.  His sins terrorized him daily, but in the Catholic system there was no relief. 

But one day he finally came to fully understand the phrase, “… the just shall live by faith” (Romans 1:17), whereupon he finally achieved the peace of God – and it revolutionized the history of the medieval church.

We have to commend Luther for his zeal and his fear of God.  This is good.  But there is a balance – we also need God’s peace to be able to live the Christian life.  The problem is that he was desperately trying to rid himself of sin through a works-based salvation.  Luther misunderstood the power of God’s grace and the sufficiency of the work that Jesus did on the cross.  We must remember Jesus’ last words, “It is finished!” (John 19:30). 

See these articles on Luther and his battle with sin:

https://www.placefortruth.org/blog/justification-and-martin-luther

https://www.pbs.org/empires/martinluther/monk_penance.html#:~:text=Priests%20took%20confession%20from%20their,in%20to%20repent%20further%20sins.

https://worldlysaints.wordpress.com/2017/01/04/martin-luther-his-confessions-and-battle-against-sin/

Also, the practice of confession to a priest is not a biblical one.  See these articles:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2023/01/the-sacraments-of-catholic-church-part.html

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

Conclusion

The question to ask is, “WHY is the sin in 1 John 5 a “sin not unto death,” and the other a “sin unto death”?  The answer is simply because the first one is FORGIVEN/FORGIVABLE and the second is NOT!  This erroneous Catholic concept of venial and mortal sins goes against clear biblical teaching elsewhere that says, “The wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23), or “The soul that sins, it shall die” (Ezekiel 18:4), or “He which converteth the sinner… shall save a soul from death” (James 5:20), or “And you… who were dead in trespasses and sin…” (Ephesians 2:1).  Therefore, any and all sin (apart from a repentant heart) brings spiritual death.

Now, this doesn’t mean that a Christian loses and gains his salvation every time he sins and repents, over and over.  No, as long as he maintains his trust in Christ and his attitude is one of continual repentance, his sin is washed away.  This applies to even those secret sins of which he may be unaware (Psalm 90:8). 

Biblical confession is not a ritualistic or robotic procedure in which every single personal thought has to be remembered and painstakingly processed into a system where we can infallibly identify every single sin in our lives – and then “formally” confess them to a priest.  No, remember the thief on the cross?  He simply said from the heart, “…Lord, remember me when Thou comest into Thy kingdom” (Luke 23:42).  Jesus knew his heart and immediately forgave him.

We must be careful when attempting to categorize sins as venial or mortal, as people might tend to view some of their sins as “minor” and be casual about them.  These two distinctions have certainly caused confusion in the body of Christ.

So let us take care to be biblical with our view of sin.  In the end, we must have balance – a healthy fear of God, yet a firm peace in our hearts, knowing the sufficiency of Jesus’ work. 

 

WORSHIP AND PRAYER

 Catholics believe that it is ok, and even beneficial, to pray to “saints,” i.e., those who have lived exemplary and honorable lives on earth, but are now in Heaven (Catechism of the Catholic Church, #2683).  Likewise, they believe that it is very profitable to pray to Mary, the mother of Jesus Christ (CCC #2769).  They also believe that it is ok to pray to angels (New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Vol.11, p. 673).  However, Protestants seem to have a problem with all this.  But Catholics may wonder why.  After all, we need all the help we can get when it comes to prayer, right?

Well, the problem is our understanding of the similarities and differences between worship and prayer in Scripture.  We Protestants contend that 1) prayer is actually a form of worship and 2) therefore, only God should receive prayer.  We believe that prayer to anyone or anything else is idolatry and we should have nothing to do with this sin:

“Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry.” (1 Corinthians 10:14)  

Unfortunately, Catholics have a different understanding of worship and prayer than that which is in the Bible.

Inseparable

There are many different words for “worship” in the Bible.  But there is nothing in the context of any of these passages where the idea of prayer is expected to be divorced or detached from any form of worship.  Worship is not only an external action you do, but it is also an attitude.

Obviously, God can be worshipped in many ways – in your relationships, your job, your praise and singing, your finances, your good works, in all aspects of your life.  But an attitude of prayer is always connected to proper forms of worship.  Prayer should never be reduced to mean mere “conversation,” or the act of simply “asking” for something, as many Catholics argue.  But to divorce worship from prayer is to destroy the very essence of both terms!  There is certainly an “overlap” between the two.

Invariably, the term “pray” or “prayer” in Scripture is automatically assumed by its authors to be an act of worship.  Proper prayer is only and always directed toward God.  Please let this sink in.  There are NO examples in Holy Writ of acceptable prayer to ANYONE other than God:

“Whom have I in heaven but thee? and there is none upon earth that I desire beside thee.” (Psalm 73:25).

Now, please understand that prayer and worship are not the same things, but are vitally dependent on each other.  On the one hand, true prayer depends on worship, since your prayer to God is useless apart from an attitude of worship (Matthew 15:8).  As I said just above, if there is no worship involved, praying would be just “conversation” or “asking.”  On the other hand, true worship depends on a prayerful attitude.  After all, who can say that they are exercising true worship apart from communing with God?

Thus, prayer and worship are distinct, but inseparable. 

“I Pray Thee…”?

There are multiple arguments from Catholics for praying to Mary and the saints.  One such argument is by Catholic apologist Tim Staples, who wrote an article attempting to justify this type of prayer. 

See his article here:

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/is-prayer-synonymous-with-worship

In this article, Staples strives to demonstrate that prayer to saints is not adoration (worship), and he uses the extremely weak argument that the term “I pray thee” is actually a prayer (entreaty) to the person addressed, even if it is another human!  He then refers to 1 Kings 2:20 as an example, where Bathsheba addresses her son, King Solomon, and asks a request of him, which begins with the words:

“I pray thee, say me not nay…” 

And she goes on to make her request of him.

But again, Staples considers this to be authentic prayer and says:

“There was never a question here of whether the King James Bible was presenting Bathsheba as adoring her son as God, or praying to him in a way that was forbidden.  It was not.  Nor are Catholics when we pray to saints.” (Emphasis in original)

Of course no one with the slightest bit of biblical understanding would say that Bathsheba was “adoring” her son in the same way she would adore God.  And her entreaty was not in the least a prayer in any biblical sense.  Staples is using a Catholic “straw man” argument here and it crashes and burns.

Notice he says above:

“… or praying to him in a way that was forbidden.” 

What?!!  The only thing that should be “forbidden” here is Staples trying to inject the idea of prayer in the context of 1 Kings 2:20.  He is trying to imply that there is a correct way to pray to a person, but the multitude of prayer examples in Scripture will not permit him to suggest praying to anyone but God!  He either doesn’t see it or he refuses to see it.  I suspect it is the latter.

Tim Staples goes on to say that “The Catholic Church has gone to great lengths to define the essential difference between prayer to God and prayer to saints.”  Yes, they have, but we can successfully sum it up much quicker: Prayer to God is biblical and prayer to saints is not.

Assumptions and Scripture Twisting

I think the whole point is that Catholics start out assuming that it is ok to pray to the dead because the Church encourages such prayer.

Tim Staples qualifies the practice of praying to saints and says:

“We certainly honor them when we pray to them.  In other words, we do not talk to them like we talk to the boys at the local bar and grill.  We show great respect and reverence for them.  But we do not adore them as we adore God alone.” (Emphasis in original) 

There is nothing wrong with giving honor to whom honor is due (Romans 13:7), but praying to someone is far more than showing mere respect or simple human reverence.

Furthermore, he says:

“And we also petition them for their prayers because Scripture makes very clear that we need each other as members of the body of Christ.” (Emphasis in original) 

For this, he appeals to 1 Corinthians 12:12-27, which is about the diversity and necessity of everyone participating in the local body.  But the members of the body that the apostle Paul is referring to are the ones that are living.  Paul never implies that we need the help of those saints who have gone on before us.  There is no passage in all of Scripture to suggest this. 

Building a Case?

I’ve seen Catholics suggest that there is a cumulative, or collective, argument for prayer to Mary and the saints.  In other words, there is this long string of evidence for praying to these saints and it goes something like this:

1) Christians can help one another through their prayers.

2)   We are one body of believers (both dead and alive).

3) Some people’s prayers are stronger than others.

4) The saints are more alive now than they ever were (because they are in Heaven).

5) We have a “cloud of witnesses” in Heaven (Hebrews 12:1), and they pray for us.

6) In Revelation 6:9-10, there is intercession by those in Heaven for those on earth.

7) Mary had the closest relationship with Jesus, more than anyone.  So, her prayers must be the strongest.

Ok, so this is supposed to be a cumulative argument, but it just takes one weak link to collapse this whole line of thinking.

Weak Links in the Chain

So let’s break this down. 

1) Their first point is that Christians can help one another through their prayers.  Absolutely.  This is scriptural.  We have no problem with this idea.

2) Second, the assertion is that both living and dead Christians are part of the one body.  True, but we (the living) now have no more dealings with those who have gone on before us.  We will be re-united with them at our death (or the Rapture), but until then, there is no indication in the Bible that we can communicate with them or pray to them.

3) Third, yes, the prayers of some are more effective than those of others (James 5:16).  But there is nothing here at all about the prayers of the dead.

4) Those who have gone on before us (to Heaven) are more alive than they ever were before.  In a sense, that is true, but they are still in the category of “the dead” (Isaiah 26:19; Luke 20:37; Acts 23:6; 1 Thessalonians 4:16).  Just because they are “more alive than ever” doesn’t mean that we can pray to them or that they can communicate with us.  This gets dangerously close to necromancy (Deuteronomy 18:10-13).

5) The “cloud of witnesses” passage (Hebrews 12:1) is all about the Old Testament believers’ EXAMPLE OF FAITH to us.  This statement is a continuation of the context of Hebrews chapter 11.  The author’s point is NOT that they are now spectators, and that they are all watching what is happening to us on earth (although it is possible that God can allow them to).  But the whole point of the passage is that they are witnesses of the same message of faith and hope and that we should follow their lead (…let us [also] run with patience the race that is set before us – 12:1b); they encourage us as role models of the faith.  This is in no way a “proof” that those in Heaven are watching us.  And if they are watching us, so what?  We are never told in Scripture that they can pray for us.  It is another Catholic assumption.

6) Concerning the souls who cry out for vengeance on their enemies in Revelation 6, this is another weak attempt to “prove” that those in Heaven are watching us.  Maybe they are or maybe they aren’t, but it still doesn’t mean they should be prayed to.  This passage just means that they were waiting for retribution on their enemies.

7) Ok, Mary certainly had a close relationship with her Son, Jesus.  That’s obvious.  But it is an illogical leap to go from that idea to her being able to pray for us after her death, when there is absolutely no biblical evidence for that.

So this “cumulative argument,” this “long string of evidence for praying to saints” has several weak links within and therefore, collapses upon itself.  This does not prove that we can pray to Mary or the saints or that they are able to help us, or intercede for us.  But we do know living saints, here on earth can pray for each other (Colossians 4:3; 1 Thessalonians 5:25; Hebrews 13:18) and that Jesus, Himself, intercedes for us (Romans 8:34) and so does the Holy Spirit (Romans 8:26).

Prayer – the Highest Form of Worship

Some pastors, like John MacArthur, believe that prayer is the highest form of worship.  I don’t agree with everything he says (e.g., his Calvinism), but I do agree with his view of prayer and worship:

“Godly prayer is worship, acknowledging His sovereign will and our utter dependence…”

“If prayer is anything, it is the highest form of worship that an individual can participate in, because prayer is saying, ‘God, Your name, Your kingdom, Your will be elevated, not my will, not my kingdom, not my name.’”

“True prayer is the distilled essence of worship…”

I certainly agree.

See his article here:

https://www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/90-447/prayer-the-highest-form-of-worship

Conclusion

The Catholic Church claims that there are three “levels” of prayer: Dulia (toward the “saints”), Hyperdulia (toward Mary) and Latria (toward God).  This is certainly not a biblical concept and it seems a little complicated.  For example, how do you know when you have crossed the line from dulia into hyperdulia?  Or from hyperdulia into latria?  It seems pretty subjective and dangerous to me.

Catholics may claim that they can “discern” the differences, yet they can’t see the utter absence of this type of prayer in the multitude of examples of acceptable prayer in Scripture.  In this way, they are much like the religious Pharisees in Jesus’ day, who would filter out a gnat, yet swallow a camel (Matthew 23:24).  How could they miss something so obvious? 

If there were indeed examples of prayer to saints in Scripture, you can bet that the Catholic Church would be pointing to them.  This is very telling indeed.  The “elephant in the room” has always been the fact that there are NO EXAMPLES in the Bible of anyone (rightly) praying to anyone but God.

Catholic apologists tell us Protestants that we shouldn’t confuse worship and prayer.  But according to the Bible, it is obvious that the confusion is on their part.  Prayer is not just “asking” for something, or “conversing” with a lesser being.  Prayer is a form (possibly the highest form) of worship.  Both worship and prayer belong to God alone.

 

THE POPE ON HOMOSEXUALITY

 

Jorge Mario Bergoglio, also known as Pope Francis, is from Argentina and is recognized as the first Jesuit pope the Catholic Church has ever had.  He has been in office now for about ten and a half years and his reign has been a highly controversial one.  For one thing, his views on homosexuality have been in dispute.

In an interview with the Associated Press on January 25, 2023, concerning gays, he stated:

“We are all children of God, and God loves us as we are and for the strength that each of us fights for our dignity.  Being homosexual is not a crime.  It is not a crime.” 

The pope does acknowledge that homosexuality is a sin, but He added:

“It’s also a sin to lack charity with one another.”  See this link:

https://www.usccb.org/news/2023/pope-clarifies-remarks-about-homosexuality-and-sin

But let’s unpack his comments to see what the pope is really saying. 

Child of God or Child of the Devil?

First of all:

He says that “we are all children of God.”  But that’s just false.  We are indeed all part of His creation, but so is the devil.  So, by that same reasoning, shouldn’t God be obligated to love the devil and call him His child, as well?  Of course not. 

It is also true that humans are made in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-27), and we have to recognize and respect that truth, but simply being made in the image of God doesn’t stop the majority of humans from missing Heaven (Matthew 7:13-14).

So, no, we are not all children of God.  The apostle John tells us:

“But as many as received Him, to them gave He power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on His name.” (John 1:12)

Just because you were born into the human race doesn’t mean you are a child of God.  Those who have NOT received Him nor believed on Him are NOT His children.

No Need to Change?

The second point: 

Pope Francis says that “God loves us as we are.”

Yes, He loves us all in the general sense; that’s why He came to die for the sins of mankind:

“For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son…” (John 3:16). 

But you are not an object of His affection (in the sense of being His child) if you insist on staying in your sins.  He is longsuffering and loves you enough to chastise you for your sin and to give you time to seek Him.  But Jesus also tells us that we are to repent of (turn away from) our sins (Luke 13:1-5), not look for an excuse to stay in them.  Yet, the pope seems to be “helping” homosexuals to do exactly that – to find an excuse to continue in that lifestyle.

Yes, God loved us “while we were yet sinners, and died for us” (Romans 5:8), but that love can, and will, turn to judgment if we ignore or trivialize God’s commandments.

Twisted Honor

Third point:

The pope said that God loves us “for the strength that each of us fights for our dignity.”

The word “dignity” means “the state or quality of being worthy of honor or respect” (Oxford dictionary, online):

https://www.google.com/search?client=avast-a-1&q=dignity+definition&oq=dignity&aqs=avast.1.69i57j0l7.506323276j0j15&ie=UTF-8

But there is nothing “honorable” or “respectable” about unrepentant sin, whether it is homosexuality or any other sin.  What the pope is saying sounds good, but it is deceptive and, due to his worldwide influence, will certainly cause many to end up in Hell.

So You’re Not a Criminal…

Fourth point:

He says that “being homosexual is not a crime.”  That’s true (in America, at least), but you can’t always defend something simply on the basis of it being “legal.” 

Because of the pope’s statements, many people will no doubt reason in their hearts that if it’s not a crime, then it’s ok to do.  But that line of reasoning fails when considering the sin of abortion.  Abortion (until just recently) had not been considered a crime since 1973 when it became legal in the U.S.  Ever since then, the Catholic Church rightly seems to have been officially against it.  Actually, most Catholics would have been up in arms if someone had said that abortion was ok since it was “not a crime.”

Consider also Adolf Hitler’s reign of terror in Germany.  He “legally” established the Holocaust, and it was the law of the land to turn Jews (and others, including homosexuals) over to the authorities to be exterminated.  But the great majority of people today see that as greatly sinful, even if it was “legal” in Germany.

So, you can’t soften the impact that homosexuality has on society simply by saying it’s “not a crime.”  In fact, it is indeed a sin/crime in God’s eyes, just like every other sin. 

True Love Corrects

And the fifth and final point:

Pope Francis said, “It’s also a sin to lack charity with one another.”

Here, the pope is basically saying “You are a Christian and you are supposed to be showing love to gays instead of condemning them!”  This is usually the type of response that people use when their sin is exposed and then they demand, “Don’t you judge me!  Even Jesus said not to judge!”  But we don’t want to see people in error, and see them pay the consequences.  The fact is, if we really love them, we will try to correct them.

Ok, so why does the sin of homosexuality seem to demand more “charity” from Christians than other sins?  It seems that you don’t see nearly as many adulterers, drunkards, or thieves go out of their way to demand that you show them charity, doesn’t it?  I think that this is because they know what’s expected of them and they know that what they’re doing is wrong – that’s why they try to hide it.  But it seems that many in the homosexual community just don’t want to admit the “wrongness” of their lifestyle.  They no longer hide it, and continue in their sin openly, even cheering others on who do the same:

“Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.” (Romans 1:32)

Yes, Christians are indeed supposed to show mercy and love (charity) to those who are caught up in this sin (or any sin), lest we ourselves fail to live up to God’s standards (1 Corinthians 10:12).  But if there is no repentance involved, there is no obligation for the church to coddle them in their sins.  Again, Jesus gave us a model to follow in dealing with unrepentant people in the church (Matthew 18:15-17).  And we should use this model for all types of sin, homosexuality included.

Many people still don’t believe that the LGBT lifestyle is actually a sin.  So right now I will turn to the Scriptures to demonstrate the sinfulness of homosexuality, lesbianism, bi-sexuality, the transvestite lifestyle, etc, etc.  I know that there are other designated letters/numbers to add to the LGBT title, but I am simply using “LGBT” to cover all the bases.

Homosexuality is Indeed a Sin

At the risk of sounding cliché, I want to be clear that we should love the sinner, but hate the sin, as the Bible tells us.  I, personally, have a number of friends who are gay/lesbian.  Most of them are basically “good” people (according to worldly standards), some of whom would help you any time you asked.  They are generally nice, friendly and giving.  To their credit, the ones that I am friends with do not try to shove their sinful lifestyle down anyone’s throats.  They mind their own business and mostly remain friendly.  I have had discussions with them concerning their lifestyle.  Some are less open than others, and it grieves me that they don’t always want to listen to the gospel.  But I pray that every single person in that lifestyle who reads this, does so prayerfully and with an open mind, to remove any doubt as to whether God sees homosexuality as sin or not.

Genesis 18:20 – The angels who visited Abraham tell him that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah (homosexuality) is great, and they go to visit the city of Sodom.

Genesis 19:1-10 – We all know the story of how God destroys the two cities of Sodom and Gomorrah (and their neighboring cities – Jude 7).  It is obvious what the sin is: the men of the city want to have relations with the two newcomers in town (angels mistaken for men), and they threaten Lot if he doesn’t turn the two over to them.  The city is then completely destroyed and only righteous Lot and his two daughters escape safely.

Some people argue that the sin of Sodom was not homosexuality, but a refusal to be hospitable to the angels.  They’ll say that the people were only guilty of wanting to FORCE themselves onto their targets.  They tell us that it would have been ok if it would have been CONSENSUAL homosexual sex.  But Scripture, taken together as a whole, tells us otherwise.

Leviticus 18:22 – Male to male sex is an abomination to God.

Leviticus 20:13 – Same as above, but adds the death penalty for both of them.  Note that no one is advocating the legal killing of homosexuals today (at least they shouldn’t be).  These civil laws were specifically given for the Jews, and for that specific period in history (the Old Testament).  It does not mean that they must be punished civilly today in the same way as they were back then.  Thank God for grace! 

However, not only was this sin condemned in the Old Testament, but the recognition of its depravity is also carried over into the New Testament.  Yes, God still considers this sin an abomination, just as He did then. 

First of all, Jesus was very clear concerning God’s intention for mankind and sexuality from the beginning:

Matthew 19:3-6

v. 3 - “The Pharisees also came unto Him, tempting Him, and saying unto Him, ‘Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?’ 

v. 4 - “And He answered and said unto them, ‘Have ye not read, that He which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

v. 5 - “And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

v. 6 - “Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh.  What therefore God has joined together, let no man put asunder.”

Again, Jesus makes it clear that God’s intention from the very start was for one husband (male) to have one wife (female).  These two would be “one flesh,” joined together by God.  Two males (or two females) will never be considered “one flesh” in the eyes of God, nor can they produce children.  This sin is totally unnatural and would eventually cause society to unravel and crumble, as it has already done in other cultures.

Romans 1:26-27 – Clearly talks about forbidden sexual relations between men with men, and women with women – calling it unnatural /indecent/shameful acts and dishonorable/degrading/vile passions.  It doesn’t get much clearer than this.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 – This passage lists homosexuality with many other sins (fornication, sodomy, idolatry, adultery, theft, drunkenness, reviling, covetousness and extortion).  They are deceived and unrighteous and THEY WILL NOT INHERIT THE KINGDOM OF GOD.  Their destiny is very clear.

1 Timothy 1:9-10 – Again, homosexuals are listed with the lawless, rebellious, ungodly, sinners, unholy, worldly, murderers (even of parents), sexually immoral, slave traders, liars, perjurers, and whatever is contrary to sound doctrine.  Note that the sin of homosexuality (considered “mild” today) is in the same camp as murder!  You cannot say it is not sinful!

Jude 7 – It says that Sodom and Gomorrah indulged in sexual immorality/perversion/fornication/unnatural vice and they went after “strange flesh.”  They (the people who engage in this sin) are headed for eternal fire.  Note that Jude 4-14 is speaking of the condemnation of those who rebel against God’s stated design and purpose.  This is exactly what homosexuality is about.

There may be more verses on this issue, but these pretty much sum up God’s attitude on this topic.

The Church is a Hospital for Sinners

It would be different if a person is struggling with the sin of homosexuality, and trying to get out of that lifestyle.  Then we (the church) should have mercy on him and do what we can to help him.  Just like any other sin, a person may occasionally have a lapse and fall into that sin, but if he is indeed a Christian, he will definitely have an inner conflict and be earnestly fighting to overcome that sin. 

But if he loves the sin and doesn’t really care what God thinks about it, willing to stay in it and even do it openly, then that’s a problem.  The rest of the church should approach him and treat him as an outsider (if he remains unrepentant), as Jesus instructed (Matthew 18:15-17). 

But if he is indeed repentant, the rest of the church should lovingly help and encourage him, to get him back on the right path (Galatians 6:1; James 5:19-20).

Conclusion

According to one source, the pope wants gays to feel welcome in the (Catholic) Church.  Furthermore, the pope has even told one gay man, “God made you like this.” 

See here:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/may/20/pope-juan-carlos-cruz

We just saw the list of sins of which homosexuals are a part.  Would the pope also say to the murderer, “God made you like this”?  Or to the liar, idolater, or drunkard?  God does not make a person gay, just as he doesn’t make him with any other sinful characteristics.  Sin is something each of us chooses to do.  You can’t blame God for your sinful condition.  If God “made them that way” then why should they feel the need to repent?

It looks as though the pope is trying hard to protect unrepentant homosexuals and let them feel ok about their sin.  There is plenty homosexuality within his own Church and he knows it.  He knows that this is a sin, but it seems to bother him that the Church has always (officially, at least) been against homosexuality.

Again, what the pope is saying is deceptive, and he will have to answer for that.  And so will many others who live in and promote this sin.

 

GREGORIAN CHANT: SACRED OR SINISTER?

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

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

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

See here:

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

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

An Interesting Story

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

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

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

See these links for different accounts of the story:

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

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

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

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

Troubling Theology

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

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

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

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

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

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

See this video:

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

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

Ties That Bind

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

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

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

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

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

See this link:

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

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

Relaxing and Peaceful?

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

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

Excuses

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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