There’s the Roman Catholic teaching priests play a role in saving the souls of men. I could remember a Catholic children’s Bible that says that priests have tremendous responsibilities in administering the sacraments. I remembered how I was once sprinkled with “holy water” so my behavior will change. Nothing worked. They say that I simply left the Catholic church because I left too early (and I stopped going to Mass at 12 years old having a faith crisis). The doctrine priests save souls has been a serious hindrance.
The Catholic institution’s view on the sacraments
From the Berean Beacon, this is what’s said about salvation and the sacraments. I’d like to share this excerpt about how dangerous the teaching of Rome about the sacraments can be:
Rome’s necessary physical Sacraments
In spite of clear Biblical teaching, the Catholic Church claims that the actions and rituals of men are the effective means of grace. The sacraments are declared to be necessary for salvation and the means of grace. This teaching is so emphatic that Sacramental grace through their physical sacraments is declared to be the grace of the Holy Spirit. Thus the Church of Rome officially teaches,
“The Church affirms that for believers, the sacraments of the New Covenant are necessary for salvation. ‘Sacramental grace’ is the grace of the Holy Spirit, given by Christ and proper to each sacrament.”
“The whole liturgical life of the [Roman Catholic] Church revolves around the Eucharistic sacrifice and the sacraments. There are seven sacraments in the Church: Baptism, Confirmation or Chrismation, Eucharist, Penance, Anointing of the Sick, Holy Orders, and Matrimony.”
I even remembered a Catholic fake defender who said the keys of the Church are the seven sacraments. Once again, that’s a really loose interpretation. As far as I’m concerned, I’d focus on refuting the arguments of professional apologists like Trent Horn, Taylor Marshall, and Bryan Mercier over arrogant fake defenders. It has added works to grace rather than teaching grace results to works. There’s really a big difference there. To get salvation through the sacraments rather than participating in sacraments because one’s saved is different. That’s why I reject the idea that Catholics and born-again Christians just “pray the same prayer” and it’s just “another interpretation”. If you get one sequence wrong, everything goes wrong.
Everything goes from infant baptism, first communion (which I had), confirmation (which I was never able to pursue because of my crisis of faith), penance (which I had my first confession before first communion), anointing of the sick, and the other two are marriage and pursuing a celibate priesthood. From the book Faith of Millions, we can even read from Anthony O’ Brien this statement that even has the Catholic seal of approval:
When the priest pronounces the tremendous words of consecration, he reaches up into the heavens, brings Christ down from His throne, and places Him upon our altar to be offered up again as the Victim for the sins of man. It is a power greater than that of monarchs and emperors: it is greater than that of saints and angels, greater than that of Seraphim and Cherubim. Indeed it is greater even than the power of the Virgin Mary. While the Blessed Virgin was the human agency by which Christ became incarnate a single time, the priest brings Christ down from heaven, and renders Him present on our altar as the eternal Victim for the sins of man—not once but a thousand times! The priest speaks and lo! Christ, the eternal and omnipotent God, bows His head in humble obedience to the priest’s command.
What a tremendous blasphemy! It’s taught that the priest hast this tremendous responsibility to save souls, not to preach about the One who saves souls! There’s a big difference between the Word of God to reach people to salvation vs. claiming one can save the souls of people! Such is the wickedness of human pride. Yet, it happens anyway because of man’s pride. It’s pretty much like how the Pharisees shut the door of Heaven from people yet they never enter themselves (Matthew 23:13). Even worse, the sacramental system of Rome can be best described in Matthew 23:4.
How the doctrine of priests save souls makes it very easy to hide those multiple scandals
It was hard to fight against the Pharisees because the people thought those phonies were the best. However, it was time to expose their religious machine like never before. It was necessary for Jesus to expose them before He would be subjected to be crucified on Friday. Jesus did His entire job perfectly. The Pharisees were exposed for the phonies they were. Now, Roman Catholicism has really done a good job of controlling people. The Pharisees of Rome claim to have the ability to “bind and loose”. What does to bind and to loosen mean? We must understand everything in the context or we lose everything!
Got Questions provides this detail to at least help understand the concept:
The concept of “binding and loosing” is taught in the Bible in Matthew 16:19: “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” In this verse, Jesus is speaking directly to the apostle Peter and indirectly to the other apostles. Jesus’ words meant that Peter would have the right to enter the kingdom himself, that he would have general authority symbolized by the possession of the keys, and that preaching the gospel would be the means of opening the kingdom of heaven to all believers and shutting it against unbelievers. The book of Acts shows us this process at work. By his sermon on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:14-40), Peter opened the door of the kingdom for the first time. The expressions “bind” and “loose” were common to Jewish legal phraseology meaning to declare something forbidden or to declare it allowed.
Peter and the other disciples were to continue Christ’s work on earth in preaching the gospel and declaring God’s will to men, and they were armed with the same authority as He possessed. In Matthew 18:18, there is also a definite reference to the binding and loosing in the context of church discipline. The apostles do not usurp Christ’s lordship and authority over individual believers and their eternal destiny, but they do exercise the authority to discipline and, if necessary, excommunicate disobedient church members.
Christ in heaven ratifies what is done in His name and in obedience to His Word on earth. In both Matthew 16:19 and 18:18, the syntax of the Greek text makes the meaning clear. What you bind on earth will have already been bound in heaven. What you loose on earth will have already been loosed in heaven. In other words, Jesus in heaven looses the authority of His Word as it goes forth on earth for the fulfillment of its purpose.
The authority of the pastor is to be limited by the Bible. What the Catholic priest is now doing is to even blasphemously claim that they save souls. It can become something where the Catholic priest can declare, “You better do as I say or you’ll lose your precious souls.” It can also be like, “You better follow the priest obediently or they can withdraw your sacraments and you’ll burn in Hell.” This also reminds me of a rather crude song called “Priest” by atheist Stephen Lynch. As much as the song also blasphemes Jesus in the process, there’s also the line that the priest blackmails the altar boy. Sadly, that filthy song reveals a harsh truth about altar boys and sex scandals. What has seriously caused a lot of cover-ups is when the Catholic priest now can hypothetically declare excommunication on anybody who exposes their sins.
What always disturbs me is how often scandals done by pastors are often trumpeted while Catholic scandals are often swept under the rug. I’m not going to deny that sex scandals have been covered up by the Southern Baptist Convention, that some Independent Fundamental Baptist churches have a series of long scandals (ex. the late Jack Hyles and his legacy is anything to be proud of), and that some pastors are just plain not fit for the job. What’s ignored is that some sexually immoral pastors like the late Martin Luther King Jr. are all allies of the Vatican. Prosperity gospel preacher Benny Hinn even attended the wake of the late John Paul II.
The big difference (and my objections) would be as follows:
- No Evangelical leader is ever allowed to be the infallible “Vicar of Christ” or a savior of the souls of men. If any Protestant pastor claims similar titles or claims that he can save the souls of sinners then he is automatically labeled as a false preacher.
- Evangelical leaders who fall into scandalous sin (or doctrinal error) are usually given their immediate chastising by their church or exposed as false preachers. It just reminds me of how pastors who have well-documented sex scandals are usually listed as such. Not to mention, some so-called Evangelical leaders involved in sex scandals are also allies of the Vatican.
The big issue is that claiming that Catholic priests save souls is really something. The credibility of their claim is how can sinful men administer soul-saving sacraments? Even worse, using the teaching that priests save souls to blackmail people into silence about priestly scandals is just plain blasphemous. What’s the use of criticizing pastors to deserve to be criticized for their scandals if Rome’s cover-ups are even much worse?
Reformed Baptist Christian Blogger 