“IF YOU CAN’T FIND JESUS, LOOK FOR HIS MOTHER”

I had seen bumper stickers of the title above and had also heard similar comments from certain Catholics.  I know that sometimes it may seem that God doesn’t hear our prayers, yet it is one of the most basic needs of a believer to have his prayers answered.  We all want to know that somebody’s listening.  I understand that, and I understand the seeming desperation that most of us have experienced at some point in our lives.    

But this title reminds me of the story of a man who fell off the edge of a cliff at night and managed to grab onto a small shrub on the way down, hanging on for dear life between Heaven and earth.  In the dark, he was unaware that safe and solid ground was only a couple of feet beneath him.  The desperate man calls out several times for help and no one answers.  Finally, he hears a loud voice from Heaven that says, “If you trust Me, let go!”  The desperate man pauses and thinks for a minute and then yells, “Is there anyone else out there?!!” 

Although the story is intended to be funny, there is a disturbing truth within it that causes some to want a “back-up” when praying.  What if God doesn’t answer your plea for help?  Is your need so strong that you are willing to compromise your spiritual walk with God?  Perhaps you, like King Saul, are desperate enough to go to a psychic or a fortune teller if God doesn’t answer? (1 Samuel 28:7-19)

Hopefully, you would never do such a thing, since this would have dire spiritual consequences (Leviticus 19:26, 31; 20:6, 27; 2 Kings 21:6; Isaiah 8:19-22).  You may never even consider such a thing… yet, you may feel like God is “uninterested” or “too busy,” therefore it’s ok, as a Catholic, to call on some other “positive” spiritual entity to help you, like Mary (Jesus’ mother). 

Surely, if Mary appeals to Jesus for you, He couldn’t turn her down, right?  After all, she is His mother, and as a kid, we know that if you wanted something, but you were afraid to ask your father, Mom would often step in to increase your chances of finding favor.  Therefore, it only seems fitting to call on Mary to do the same for you, right?

Several Assumptions

This slogan, “If you can’t find Jesus, look for His mother” assumes several things.  First, it assumes that one can have the ability to communicate with Mary to start with.  It also assumes that one has God’s permission, that it’s ok, to appeal to Mary and ask for her help.  And if it is ok, it assumes that she can actually hear us.  And if she hears us, it also assumes that she is able to help us in some way.

Furthermore, this slogan is assuming that sometimes we (perhaps “less spiritual”) believers just can’t “find” Jesus like we should.  But why would anyone who has any biblical understanding think that? (Matthew 7:7-8; 11:28; 1 Peter 5:6-7)

The slogan is also assuming that Jesus may not be touched by, or concerned with, our needs.  After all, He’s busy running the universe!  What makes us think that we are significant enough to even be on His “radar”?  But seriously, are Catholics really not aware that He is indeed conscious of our needs?

Hard to Find?

“Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.  For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.  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 4:14-16)

Jesus, Himself, as a human, had needs and was tempted to sin, so He knows what it’s like to be human and He knows our weaknesses.  Either, this passage is a lie or it is the truth.  Its message is very simple, nothing vague about it.  It is telling us that we can, indeed should, call on Him in time of need.  Trusting in Him is how we hold fast to our profession.

But appealing in prayer to someone else (even someone in Heaven, like Mary) is not “holding fast to our profession.”  In fact, doing so would deviate from our profession.  How so?  This passage is magnifying the person and role of our New Testament High Priest, Jesus Christ.  It is pointing to Him alone.

In the case of those who say, “If you can’t find Jesus, look for His mother,” their interpretation of Hebrews 4:14-16 would have to be: “Hey everyone, let’s give honor to Jesus, the Son of God, who has entered Heaven on our behalf and to whom we can directly and boldly come, without hesitation to help us in time of need (whether for salvation or anything else)… BUT, we will go to Mary first!”  I’m sorry, but that’s not giving Jesus the honor He deserves (Revelation 17:14, 19:16) and that’s not putting Him first and foremost.

But is Jesus ever really “hard to find”?  His offer to “come boldly unto the throne of grace” does not permit the idea of praying to someone else in order to get to Him.  It does not leave room for an appeal to another person in Heaven.  He doesn’t say, “Come boldly unto the throne of grace and if I have time, I’ll try to get to you.”  Or, “Come boldly unto the throne of grace by going through other ‘mediators’ first who can then get My attention.”  Or, “Come through My mother, who always puts in a good word for you and convinces Me to help you.  Otherwise, I might not be interested.” 

No, there is no guessing what Hebrews 4:14-16 is saying.  If you turn your heart toward Him and seek Him, you will find Him.  He will make Himself known to you without having to go through other “heavenly intercessors.”  That’s a promise.  To say that there are others to which one should pray is simply eisegesis (reading something into the text that is not there).

On Whom are You Really Depending?

Now, Catholics will say, “But we, just like you Protestants, also rely on people here on earth when we ask them to pray for us.  So why can’t we appeal to Mary or the saints in Heaven, who are far more spiritual than anyone on earth?  Their prayers are stronger than anyone else’s.”

But requesting prayer from others here on earth is perfectly fine.  That is totally biblical, while requesting prayer from others who are supposedly in Heaven is not.  Catholics just don’t seem to get the concept that there are absolutely no examples in the whole Bible of anyone praying to Mary or the saints, and there is nothing to suggest that we should.  That idea is utterly absent from the pages of Scripture.  Yet, that doesn’t stop Catholics from doing it.  This is because they are simply being a faithful son or daughter of “Holy Mother Church.”  You are doing what the Catholic Church tells you to do.

This whole concept of depending on Mary’s intercession appears to be saying that somehow, we can better depend on her than we can on Jesus.  So, I would have to ask, when addressing Mary in prayer, on whom are you really depending? 

A Purely Human Concept

Recently, a devout Catholic and I were having a nice discussion and the conversation led to Mary and the subject of praying to her.  At this point, the Catholic gave that familiar comment and said something along these lines: “If, for some reason, you find it hard to pray to Jesus, pray to His mother, instead.  She will surely hear you and appeal to her Son to help you.” 

Well, that sounds good, but this is purely a human (and unbiblical) mindset.  Yes, on earth, moms generally intercede for their kids when speaking to their fathers.  And that’s because many fathers may be harsh and unloving – nothing like the High Priest in Heaven to which we have access today.  But He is a gracious Savior who knows what you need before you even ask (Matthew 6:7-8).  He just wants you to admit your need and come humbly, yet confidently, to Him.  He wants you to come directly to the Savior, not to a relative of the Savior.

Pointing to Jesus

Catholics are quick to say that Mary always points to Christ.  For example, they love to use this particular verse:

“His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it” (John 2:5). 

And then they say, “See!  Approaching Mary is a good thing, since she always points to her Son.”  But every true Christian does that.  How does that separate Mary from other believers?  It doesn’t. 

And while we are on that topic, “pointing to Jesus” was exactly what John the baptist was doing when he said:

“He [Jesus] must increase, but I must decrease” (John 3:30). 

THAT is pointing to Jesus and honoring Him, and John did this while denying himself and lowering his own importance.  But, it’s funny, I have never seen a Catholic ever use this verse to apply to Mary decreasing.  Why do you think that is?  I’ll tell you why.  I believe that they will never accept any lowering of Mary’s status, never admitting that Mary must also decrease, because the Catholic Church will not let them. 

Interestingly, there are far, far more Catholic shrines that were built to honor her than there are to Jesus, and I’ve never seen a pope or any other Catholic official object to this.  The Catholic Church will turn its head the other way when there are large numbers of people who are giving Mary “excessive devotion” (using the Catholic Church’s own term).  No one seems to object to that.   But don’t you dare suggest that Mary diminish her own status!  The Church will simply not let that happen.  

A Bit Much!

For instance, look at this prayer from a doctor and “saint” of the Catholic Church named Liguori:

"Most Holy and Immaculate Virgin! O my Mother! Thou who art the Mother of my Lord, the Queen of the world, the Advocate, Hope, and Refuge of sinners! I, the most wretched among them, now come to thee. I worship thee, great Queen, and give thee thanks for the many favors thou hast bestowed on me in the past; most of all do I thank thee for having saved me from hell, which I had so often deserved.  I love thee, Lady most worthy of love, and, by the love which I bear thee, I promise ever in the future to serve thee, and to do what in me lies to win others to thy love.  In thee I put all my trust, all my hope of salvation…” (emphasis added)

See here:

http://laudatedominum.net/marian.php#sal

If this doesn’t offend you as a believer, there is something wrong with you.  These are things said of Mary that the true and biblical Mary would never accept or attribute to herself. 

Actually, the above prayer is from Liguori’s very popular book, The Glories of Mary.  You can find the book online here:

http://www.themostholyrosary.com/the-glories-of-mary.pdf

It’s funny that some will object that Liguori’s “worship” doesn’t really mean worship, yet the extravagant language they use exposes them.  As the old saying goes, “If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it is probably a duck!”  The activity around Mary is, by definition, worship, regardless of what the non-biblical detractors want it to mean. 

And this is only one of a multitude of blasphemous comments and prayers in his book. 

See also this article addressing Liguori’s book here:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2019/04/liguoris-idolatry-and-catholic-churchs.html

Furthermore, I think that another reason for not allowing Mary’s status to diminish is that the Catholic Church plans to use this unbiblical version of her as a tool in the global ecumenical arena to form a one-world religion as the Bible predicts (Revelation 13:8).  As one source describes it, she is:

“… rapidly becoming the ‘queen of ecumenism,’ someone whom diverse religions can honor, rally around, and even worship without offending their respective theologies.” 

Very well said!

See here:

https://www.thebereancall.org/content/mary-who?sapurl=Lys5MjZkL2xiL2xpLyt3dm44dWs4P2JyYW5kaW5nPXRydWUmZW1iZWQ9dHJ1ZSZyZWNlbnRSb3V0ZT1hcHAud2ViLWFwcC5saWJyYXJ5Lmxpc3QmcmVjZW50Um91dGVTbHVnPSUyQnd2bjh1azg=

Conclusion

It is critical to remember that there must be a clear distinction between mankind and the Savior of mankind.  The problem with the Catholic Church’s magnifying of Mary is that it causes this distinction to be blurred by such exalted language.

All this boils down to the fact that the Catholic Church wants Mary to remain exalted, even at the expense of Jesus losing status and staying in the background.  Of course they won’t say this out loud, but this is the logical consequence of a “continually increasing” Mary. 

It is also interesting that many pictures we see of Mary often have her holding the “baby Jesus.”  Folks, let’s not forget that He grew up and that He performed His ministry and death on the cross (the most important part of His life) as an adult, not while on His mom’s lap.  It’s as though there is a force in the Catholic Church that wants Mary to appear to be the one in control, to be the main figure, while Jesus is depicted as a toddler in need of guidance.

Now, I’m certainly not saying that Mary shouldn’t have honor, since the Bible says to give honor to whom honor is due (Romans 13:7).  But praying to someone other than God is not “honor” – it is worship.  All Christians will be exalted in due time, but never as the object of prayer. (Acts 10:25-26; Revelation 22:8-9)

Again, Mary was a wonderful, humble and godly handmaid, whom I believe is in Heaven today, but I’m sure that never did she expect to have such attention, devotion, veneration and idolization directed toward her.  But if God would allow her, from Heaven, to see all this attention directed toward her, I would bet that the humble Mary of the Bible would be utterly grieved and weep over it.  And I believe that she would say, “If you can’t find Jesus, humble yourself and continue seeking Him, since He is always nearby!” (Matthew 11:28; Acts 17:27)

SOLA SCRIPTURA AND JESUS

 

Then the devil taketh Him up into the holy city, and set Him on a pinnacle of the temple, and saith unto Him, “If Thou be the Son of God, cast Thyself down: for it is written, ‘He shall give His angels charge concerning Thee, and in their hands they shall bear Thee up, lest at any time Thou dash Thy foot against a stone.’”  Jesus said unto him, “It is written again, ‘thou shalt not tempt the Lord, thy God.’” (Matthew 4:5-7)

This is the second of the devil’s temptations of Jesus recorded in Matthew’s gospel.  I find this particular temptation very interesting in the way that Jesus responds to Satan.  The devil actually quotes Psalm 91:11-12 to Jesus in order to trick Him into doing something foolish.  But think of the irony – the arch-enemy of Jesus Christ is quoting the Word of God (Scripture) to the very Word of God, Himself, in the flesh (Jesus Christ).  I think that it is safe to say that Jesus was familiar enough with the written Word of God to answer the devil correctly.

Nevertheless, I want to point out what is actually happening here in Matthew, from a doctrinal standpoint.  Jesus is reinforcing a well established concept – “Scripture interprets Scripture.”  That is, we can take the simpler and clearer passages that we all agree on and we can use those to establish principles to help us understand the less understood passages.

Notice that Jesus overcame the devil all three times with the phrase “It is written,” that is, with Scripture (Matthew 4:1-10).  On this particular occasion, He tells the devil, “It is written again…”!  He doesn’t try to invoke tradition, or the authority of some kind of Jewish “magisterium” like the Sanhedrin, or some past Hebrew council to thwart the enemy of our soul.  No, He goes even farther into the Word of God, because Scripture interprets Scripture. 

When someone misuses Scripture in a debate with you, you don’t have to divert to some other source – you go deeper into Scripture to clear the air.  You tell them, “But it is also written…”  You counter with the whole counsel of God in Scripture, always using it in context. 

This is the concept of Sola Scriptura, which is basically defined in this way:

Scripture is the ultimate rule of faith for the church today because it is the only infallible one.  Other tools and sources can be used to help us in our Christian walk, but they are not infallible.  No other source is on the same level as Scripture.  We would do well to trust the church’s ultimate rule of faith.  

For a deeper understanding of the topic, the reader can type “Sola Scriptura” in the search bar in the upper left-hand corner of this page to view many articles on this topic.

A Much-Ignored Chapter

The apostle Paul reinforced this same concept in 2 Timothy 3.  This chapter is not in the Bible just to take up space.  It is an antidote to false teaching.  Second Timothy is the final epistle of the apostle Paul’s writings and there is certainly a sense of urgency in his message.  He knows that he will soon be martyred and he is leaving some very important “last words” for the church.  He warns that in the last days perilous times will come, doctrinally and otherwise (v. 1).  In the next few verses (v.2-9), he prophesies in graphic detail the circumstances with which the church will have to deal.  But many don’t realize that Paul was telling us that the threat would come from within the church!  We all know that the unbelieving world behaves in the way Paul describes, but Paul is talking about some who would be “having a form of godliness” (v. 5), coming to the “knowledge of the truth” (v. 7), and “reprobate concerning the faith” (v. 8).  So again, he is referring to some in the church whose doctrine and lives are perverted.  This is an apostasy, a falling from the faith, a spiritual cancer in the church and it must certainly be dealt with.  We can undeniably see much of this happening even today.

Paul continues and now switches his focus to the faithful:

“But thou hast fully known my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, charity, patience, persecutions, afflictions…”  (v. 10-12).  Notice the first thing listed here is doctrine. He goes on:

“But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived” (v. 13).

He is about to give Timothy a remedy for the great deception that is coming.

“But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them” (v. 14).

The apostle assures the faithful that his doctrine is the truth and that he is trustworthy.

But Catholics will insist that “the things thou hast learned” and “hast been assured of” refers to “Sacred Tradition.”  It is no doubt true that the precise words of Scripture were not the only words that Paul shared with them.  Obviously, he had also shared other things that were not specifically written down in the Word.  So, Catholics will say that Paul had to be referring to tradition.  But the fact that tradition is not specifically mentioned here (while Scripture will be), and what Paul goes on to tell them, clarifies his point.

The Solution

Now, the apostle will mention the cure for surviving these latter day trials and doctrinal problems:

“And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus” (v. 15).    

Ok, so he specifically lists Scripture as the answer to problems in doctrine and behavior.  Now, many Catholics will say that this passage only refers to the Old Testament Scriptures, and therefore, this (supposedly) refutes the “Bible only” doctrine, since it would actually mean “Old Testament only.”  But this idea is refuted in the next verse:

“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness” (v. 16). 

This verse (along with v. 17) is savagely attacked by many non-believers in Sola Scriptura, especially Catholics, and I believe it is because these two verses are so clear, and they don’t like what the text is saying.  Like I said above, most of the attacks are coming from those who claim to be Christians today, and the attack on this passage is a case in point.  But this passage’s detractors don’t want it to be true and will fight tooth and nail in attempting to destroy its clear and simple meaning. 

“Only” Scripture?

Many will claim that the text doesn’t say “ONLY Scripture is given by inspiration of God,” etc., etc., but all Scripture, therefore Sola Scriptura cannot be right.  While the word “only” is not used, a simple assessment of the context will show that the concept is indeed there, as we will soon see.  Just because specific phrases or words are absent, does not negate the idea of a given concept.  Context will determine the intended idea.  So, let’s not be so quick to rule out the concept of “only Scripture” as the ultimate rule of faith.  Keep reading.

The term “by inspiration of God” is rendered “God-breathed” in the Greek.  This would of course denote infallibility in that source.  Note that there is no other rule of faith mentioned in all of Scripture that is given the title “God-breathed.”

This fact alone leans heavily toward the concept of Scripture alone.  But there’s more…

“Merely” Profitable?

But many Catholics try to say that Scripture is only profitable, since it doesn’t use the term “sufficient.”  But why do Catholics focus on the supposed “weakness” of the word “profitable,” yet ignore the power and sufficiency of terms like “inspired” and “thoroughly furnished” (fully equipped) in the same context?  It seems as though there is a double standard here.

But the term “inspired” (or “God-breathed”) in this same passage does not allow for such a low view of the term “profitable.”  It’s like saying that God is “merely good” to us and nothing more.  But no one who is serious about serving God would say this.

As I mentioned above, they will say that all of Scripture was not yet written at the time of Paul’s epistle, so it couldn’t be referring to the New Testament, could it?  But, using that same line of reasoning, does anyone think that Paul really meant “All Scripture written up to this time, but not the rest of it” is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction and instruction in righteousness?  Absolutely not. 

That would be like a Catholic saying, “All infallible/ex-cathedra statements of the Catholic Church are true.”  And we could then ask, “Does that mean that ONLY the ones proclaimed UP TO THIS POINT are true and that future ones may be false?”  No, he would argue that “all” means all.  Remember, Paul was not just addressing the needs of the early church, but also those of the future church (v. 1), as well.  So, this argument doesn’t hold.

When Paul said “All Scripture,” he was looking ahead and including everything that God ever intended to be Scripture.  Otherwise, you’d have to say that not all of the New Testament was God-breathed! 

The Complete and Sufficient “Toolbox”

And finally:

“That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works” (v. 17).

So we see here that Scripture is able to make one perfect (i.e., mature and complete) and throughly [thoroughly] furnished for “all good works.”  Now, remember, starting from v. 10, Paul is focusing heavily on doctrine, and Scripture is the remedy for this great deception.  So, doctrinally speaking, if this book we call the Bible is 1) infallible, 2) able to keep us from deception, and 3) able to equip us for every/all good works, then we need no other infallible source.

To use an analogy, if you were an auto mechanic and your boss gave you a toolbox that equipped you for every auto mechanic’s job that you could possibly run into, wouldn’t that toolbox be sufficient?  Yes, it would.  Do you need another toolbox for foreign cars or pick-up trucks?  No, not if the one he gave you equips you for every mechanic’s job.  Again, this mechanic’s toolbox would suffice.

In the same way, Scripture is our rule of faith, our “toolbox” of doctrine which equips us for every good work.  Since this is true, there is no other source needed today TO FUNCTION AS AN INFALLIBLE RULE OF FAITH.  By definition, Scripture is all that is needed.  So the Bible necessarily and effectively eclipses and replaces any other source that claims to be an infallible rule of faith.

No tradition is on the same level as Scripture, unless that tradition is both 1) already part of the Bible and 2) in line with its principles.  For example, Jesus’ mention of the tradition of the Pharisees (Mark 15:1-13) is certainly referred to in the Bible, but it is excluded as an authoritative source because it doesn’t line up with the rest of Scripture.  And any other tradition whose concepts are not in line with the Bible’s are also rejected.

Not to mention the fact that the Catholic Church has never been able to clearly and exactly say what the contents of its tradition are in any meaningful way.  They will give us extremely vague definitions of tradition, or distract people by giving some examples of Sacred Tradition, but they can’t identify the whole of Catholic Tradition with certainty, and the Catholic Church’s weak attempts at doing so are an absolute joke.  See these articles:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2022/07/the-lonely-pilgrim-and-sacred-tradition.html

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2010/05/what-about-tradition.html

Conclusion

There are many who would want to add other “authorities” to the Bible, and even claim they are equal to it.  But it always happens that when something other than Scripture is introduced as an “equal supplement” (like tradition, councils or “magisteriums”), Scripture always gets put on the back burner, and truth takes a serious hit.

We see here in this article only a tiny portion of the writings of one of the greatest apostles who ever lived – a man whom God infallibly used to write one third of the New Testament.  Under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, this man was used to reveal (and unpack the details of) a most critical doctrine just before he was martyred by an evil and ungodly generation of men.  The apostle Paul gives us the clearest understanding of the concept of Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone as the ultimate and only infallible rule of faith for the church today).  Will the church in this modern day embrace and take advantage of this teaching?  Regretfully, the truth is that many will not, thus hastening the apostasy of which Paul spoke (2 Timothy 3:1-5).

Today, more than ever, we need to recognize the power of Scripture as our ultimate source for doctrine and guidance, and to guard against the inevitable deception and false teaching we’re seeing in the modern (and last days) church.  That is the purpose of Sola Scriptura.

 

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.