Catholic Fiction: Responding to Myths & Half-Truths

The true Church

2012-01-18T19:26:00.001Z

What positive proof have you that the Catholic Church is the only true Church?

The proof lies in the fact that the Catholic Church alone corresponds exactly to the exact religion established by Christ. Now the Christian religion is that religion which— (a) Was founded by Christ personally; (b) Has existed continuously since the time of Christ; (c) Is Catholic or universal, in accordance with Christ's command to go to all the world and teach all nations; (d) Demands that all her members admit the same doctrine; (e) Exercises divine authority over her subjects, since Christ said that if a man would not hear the Church he would be as the heathen. Now the Catholic Church alone can claim— (a) To have been founded by Christ personally. All other Churches disappear as you go back through history. Christ said, "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church." There are many claimants to the honor of being Christ's Church. But among all non-Catholic Churches, we find one built on a John Wesley; another on a Martin Luther; another on a Mrs. Eddy, etc. But the Catholic Church alone can possibly claim to have been built on Peter, the chief of the Apostles, and one-time Bishop of Rome. (b) To have existed in all the centuries since Christ. (c) That every one of her members admits exactly the same essential doctrines. (d) To be Catholic or universal. (e) To speak with a voice of true authority in the name of God.

You have given those tests from Christ's predictions and intentions. What of the test given by Mark XVI., 17? "These signs shall follow those who believe; they shall take up serpents; and if they shall drink any deadly thing it shall not hurt them."

The passage you quote was never meant to indicate a permanent test of the true Church. Christ predicted that certain signs would occur to justify the preaching of His followers. He did not say that they would occur continuously, nor that every individual follower would be endowed with such miraculous powers. The signs did occur in the case of some followers of Christ in the early Church, and thus Christ's prophecy was fulfilled. Thus St. Paul himself was bitten by a deadly viper and suffered no harm, to the astonishment of the people around him. Acts XXVIII, 3. But the miracle was for the sake of the unbelievers who had no other external sign. But now that the Church has been solidly established and propagated, such extraordinary signs are not necessary. You have plenty of external evidence, now that the Church exists throughout the world and stares you in the face.

Let me have you bitten by a poisonous serpent, and if nothing happens to you, I will believe!

You are asking me to do that which is sinful in order to prove God's religion true! Satan said to Christ, "Throw thyself down," and Christ replied, "It is written, thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God." It is wrong to try to force God to do even things we believe that He has promised—for Satan quoted a promise of God. Above all, it is wrong when you want God to do always what He has promised to do on some particular occasions only. The Jews cried, "Come down from the cross, and we shall believe." You would have watched Him die for your salvation, and then refused to believe because He did so! You have sufficient evidence, and if you refuse to look at that, you would not believe even if one rose from the dead before your very eyes. I do not fear death. I do fear sin. But your logic in promising to believe that I am a true successor of the Apostles provided I indulge in sinful conduct is baffling.

I admit your tests of a Church founded by Christ, continuously existing, united, universal, and authoritative. But I cannot admit the machine made organization with its hard and fast rules, which you call the Catholic Church, to be that Church.

If the Catholic Church is not it, no other can be it. However, the Catholic Church is not a machine-made organization. It is just as established by Christ Were the Catholic Church a man-made system, it would have gone the way of all man-made kingdoms and empires which have come and gone, whereas it has serenely kept going with a humanly inexplicable vitality.

The true Church, Questions 327-330 from Radio Replies Volume I Copyright © 1938 (by Rev. Dr. Leslie Rumble, M.S.C. and Rev. Charles Mortimer Carty).

Catholic idea of the Church

2012-01-18T11:44:00.000Z

What is the Catholic idea of the Church?

The Church is that visible society of men upon earth which was founded by Jesus Christ, guaranteed by Him to exist all days until the end of the world, and sent by Him to teach all nations with His own authority. It is one definite society for man's spiritual good, and its members are bound together by the profession of the same and complete Christian faith, by the same Sacraments and worship, and by submission to the same spiritual authority vested in the successors of St. Peter— the present successor being the Bishop of Rome.

The Church means an assembly of men united in prayer, not a building.

The word Church has a twofold sense. Its proper meaning is a union or assembly of men united not only in prayer, but also in a definite creed, worship, and obedience. In that sense I speak of the Catholic Church. Or again, it can refer to a building erected for purposes of worship by members of the Catholic Church, and in that sense I speak of a Catholic Church.

Nature of the Church, Questions 325-326 from Radio Replies Volume I Copyright © 1938 (by Rev. Dr. Leslie Rumble, M.S.C. and Rev. Charles Mortimer Carty).

The Hail Mary and Saint Thomas Aquinas

2012-01-17T14:33:00.000Z

Saint Thomas Aquinas on THE ANGELIC SALUTATION

This salutation has three parts. The Angel gave one part, namely: "Hail,
full of grace, the Lord is with thee, blessed art thou among women."[1] The
other part was given by Elizabeth, the mother of John the Baptist, namely:
"Blessed is the fruit of thy womb."[2] The Church adds the third part, that
is, "Mary," because the Angel did not say, "Hail, Mary," but "Hail, full of
grace." But, as we shall see, this name, "Mary," according to its meaning
agrees with the words of the Angels.[3]

"HAIL MARY"

We must now consider concerning the first part of this prayer that in
ancient times it was no small event when Angels appeared to men; and that
man should show them reverence was especially praiseworthy. Thus, it is
written to the praise of Abraham that he received the Angels with all
courtesy and showed them reverence. But that an Angel should show reverence
to a man was never heard of until the Angel reverently greeted the Blessed
Virgin saying: "Hail."

THE ANGEL'S DIGNITY

In olden time an Angel would not show reverence to a man, but a man would
deeply revere an Angel. This is because Angels are greater than men, and
indeed in three ways. First, they are greater than men in dignity. This is
because the Angel is of a spiritual nature: "Who makest Thy angels
spirits."[4] But, on the other hand, man is of a corruptible nature, for
Abraham said: "I will speak to my Lord, whereas I am dust and ashes."[5] It
was not fitting, therefore, that a spiritual and incorruptible creature
should show reverence to one that is corruptible as is a man. Secondly, an
Angel is closer to God. The Angel, indeed, is of the family of God, and as
it were stands ever by Him: "Thousands of thousands ministered to Him, and
ten thousand times a hundred thousand stood before Him."[6] Man, on the other
hand, is rather a stranger and afar off from God because of sin: "I have
gone afar off."[7] Therefore, it is fitting that man should reverence an
Angel who is an intimate and one of the household of the King.

Then, thirdly, the Angels far exceed men in the fullness of the splendor of
divine grace. For Angels participate in the highest degree in the divine
light: "Is there any numbering of His soldiers? And upon whom shall not His
light arise?"[8] Hence, the Angels always appear among men clothed in light,
hut men on the contrary, although they partake somewhat of the light of
grace, nevertheless do so in a much slighter degree and with a certain
obscurity. It was, therefore, not fitting that an Angel should show
reverence to a man until it should come to pass that one would be found in
human nature who exceeded the Angels in these three points in which we have
seen that they excel over men--and this was the Blessed Virgin. To show
that she excelled the Angels in these, the Angel desired to show her
reverence, and so he said: "Ave (Hail)."

"FULL OF GRACE"

The Blessed Virgin was superior to any of the Angels in the fullness of
grace, and as an indication of this the Angel showed reverence to her by
saying: "Full of grace." This is as if he said: "I show thee reverence
because thou dost excel me in the fullness of grace."

The Blessed Virgin is said to be full of grace in three ways. First, as
regards her soul she was full of grace. The grace of God is given for two
chief purposes, namely, to do good and to avoid evil. The Blessed Virgin,
then, received grace in the most perfect degree, because she had avoided
every sin more than any other Saint after Christ. Thus it is said: "Thou
art fair, My beloved, and there is not a spot in thee."[9] St. Augustine
says: "If we could bring together all the Saints and ask them if they were
entirely without sin, all of them, with the exception of the Blessed
Virgin, would say with one voice: 'If we say that we have no sin, we
deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.'[10] I except, however, this
holy Virgin of whom, because of the honor of God, I wish to omit all
mention of sin."[11] For we know that to her was granted grace to overcome
every kind of sin by Him whom she merited to conceive and bring forth, and
He certainly was wholly without sin.

VIRTUES OF THE BLESSED VIRGIN

Christ excelled the Blessed Virgin in this, that He was conceived and born
without original sin, while the Blessed Virgin was conceived in original
sin, but was not born in it.[12] She exercised the works of all the virtues,
whereas the Saints are conspicuous for the exercise of certain special
virtues. Thus, one excelled in humility, another in chastity, another in
mercy, to the extent that they are the special exemplars of these virtues--
as, for example, St. Nicholas is an exemplar of the virtue of mercy. The
Blessed Virgin is the exemplar of all the virtues.

In her is the fullness of the virtue of humility: "Behold the handmaid of
the Lord."[13] And again: "He hath regarded the humility of his handmaid."[14]
So she is also exemplar of the virtue of chastity: "Because I know not
man."[15] And thus it is with all the virtues, as is evident. Mary was full
of grace not only in the performance of all good, but also in the avoidance
of all evil. Again, the Blessed Virgin was full of grace in the overflowing
effect of this grace upon her flesh or body. For while it is a great thing
in the Saints that the abundance of grace sanctified their souls, yet,
moreover, the soul of the holy Virgin was so filled with grace that from
her soul grace poured into her flesh from which was conceived the Son of
God. Hugh of St. Victor says of this: "Because the love of the Holy Spirit
so inflamed her soul, He worked a wonder in her flesh, in that from it was
born God made Man." "And therefore also the Holy which shall be born of
thee shall be called the Son of God."[16]

MARY, HELP OF CHRISTIANS

The plenitude of grace in Mary was such that its effects overflow upon all
men. It is a great thing in a Saint when he has grace to bring about the
salvation of many, but it is exceedingly wonderful when grace is of such
abundance as to be sufficient for the salvation of all men in the world,
and this is true of Christ and of the Blessed Virgin. Thus, "a thousand
bucklers," that is, remedies against dangers, "hang therefrom."[17] Likewise,
in every work of virtue one can have her as one's helper. Of her it was
spoken: "In me is all grace of the way and of the truth, in me is all hope
of life and of virtue."[18] Therefore, Mary is full of grace, exceeding the
Angels in this fullness and very fittingly is she called "Mary" which means
"in herself enlightened": "The Lord will fill thy soul with brightness."[19]
And she will illumine others throughout the world for which reason she is
compared to the sun and to the moon.[20]

"THE LORD IS WITH THEE"

The Blessed Virgin excels the Angels in her closeness to God. The Angel
Gabriel indicated this when he said: "The Lord is with thee"--as if to say:
"I reverence thee because thou art nearer to God than I, because the Lord
is with thee." By the Lord; he means the Father with the Son and the Holy
Spirit, who in like manner are not with any Angel or any other spirit: "The
Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God."[21] God the
Son was in her womb: "Rejoice and praise, O thou habitation of Sion; for
great is He that is in the midst of thee, the Holy One of Israel."[22]

The Lord is not with the Angel in the same manner as with the Blessed
Virgin; for with her He is as a Son, and with the Angel He is the Lord. The
Lord, the Holy Ghost, is in her as in a temple, so that it is said: "The
temple of the Lord, the sanctuary of the Holy Spirit,"[23] because she
conceived by the Holy Ghost. "The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee."[24] The
Blessed Virgin is closer to God than is an Angel, because with her are the
Lord the Father, the Lord the Son, and the Lord the Holy Ghost--in a word,
the Holy Trinity. Indeed of her we sing: "Noble resting place of the Triune
God."[25] "The Lord is with thee" are the most praiseladen words that the
Angel could have uttered; and, hence, he so profoundly reverenced the
Blessed Virgin because she is the Mother of the Lord and Our Lady.
Accordingly she is very well named "Mary," which in the Syrian tongue means
"Lady."

"BLESSED ART THOU AMONG WOMEN"

The Blessed Virgin exceeds the Angels in purity. She is not only pure, but
she obtains purity for others. She is purity itself, wholly lacking in
every guilt of sin, for she never incurred either mortal or venial sin. So,
too, she was free from the penalties of sin. Sinful man, on the contrary,
incurs a threefold curse on account of sin. The first fell upon woman who
conceives in corruption, bears her child with difficulty, and brings it
forth in pain. The Blessed Virgin was wholly free from this, since she
conceived without corruption, bore her Child in comfort, and brought Him
forth in joy: "It shall bud forth and blossom, and shall rejoice with joy
and praise."[26]

The second penalty was inflicted upon man in that he shall earn his bread
by the sweat of his brow. The Blessed Virgin was also immune from this
because, as the Apostle says, virgins are free from the cares of this world
and are occupied wholly with the things of the Lord.[27]

The third curse is common both to man and woman in that both shall one day
return to dust. The Blessed Virgin was spared this penalty, for her body
was raised up into heaven, and so we believe that after her death she was
revived and transported into heaven: "Arise, O Lord, into Thy resting
place, Thou and the ark which Thou hast sanctified."[28] Because the Blessed
Virgin was immune from these punishments, she is "blessed among women."
Moreover, she alone escaped the curse of sin, brought forth the Source of
blessing, and opened the gate of heaven. It is surely fitting that her name
is "Mary," which is akin to the Star of the Sea ("Maria--maris stella"),
for just as sailors are directed to port by the star of the sea, so also
Christians are by Mary guided to glory.

"BLESSED IS THE FRUIT OF THY WOMB"

The sinner often seeks for something which he does not find; but to the
just man it is given to find what he seeks: "The substance of the sinner is
kept for the just."[29] Thus, Eve sought the fruit of the tree (of good and
evil), but she did not find in it that which she sought. Everything Eve
desired, however, was given to the Blessed Virgin.[30] Eve sought that which
the devil falsely promised her, namely, that she and Adam would be as gods,
knowing good and evil. "You shall be," says this liar, "as gods."[31] But he
lied, because "he is a liar and the father of lies."[32] Eve was not made
like God after having eaten of the fruit, but rather she was unlike God in
that by her sin she withdrew from God and was driven out of paradise. The
Blessed Virgin, however, and all Christians found in the Fruit of her womb
Him whereby we are all united to God and are made like to Him: "When He
shall appear, we shall be like to Him, because we shall see Him as He
is."[33]

Eve looked for pleasure in the fruit of the tree because it was good to
eat. But she did not find this pleasure in it, and, on the contrary, she at
once discovered she was naked and was stricken with sorrow. In the Fruit of
the Blessed Virgin we find sweetness and salvation: "He that eateth My
flesh . . . hath eternal life."[34]

The fruit which Eve desired was beautiful to look upon, but that Fruit of
the Blessed Virgin is far more beautiful, for the Angels desire to look
upon Him: "Thou art beautiful above the sons of men."[35] He is the splendor
of the glory of the Father. Eve, therefore, looked in vain for that which
she sought in the fruit of the tree, just as the sinner is disappointed in
his sins. We must seek in the Fruit of the womb of the Virgin Mary
whatsoever we desire. This is He who is the Fruit blessed by God, who has
filled Him with every grace, which in turn is poured out upon us who adore
Him: "Blessed be God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath
blessed us with spiritual blessings in Christ."[36] He, too, is revered by
the Angels: "Benediction and glory and wisdom and thanksgiving, honor and
power and strength, to our God."[37] And He is glorified by men: "Every
tongue should confess that the Lord Jesus Christ is in the glory of God the
Father."[38] The Blessed Virgin is indeed blessed, but far more blessed is
the Fruit of her womb: "Blessed is He who cometh in the name of the
Lord."[39]

ENDNOTES

1. Luke i. 28.

2. "Ibid.," 42.

3. The Hail Mary or Angelical Salutation or Ave Maria in the time of St.
Thomas consisted only of the present first part of the prayer. The words,
"Mary" and "Jesus," were added by the Church to the first part, and the
second part--"Holy Mary, Mother of God, etc."--was also added by the Church
later. "Most fittingly has the Holy Church of God added to this
thanksgiving [i.e., the Hail Mary] a petition also and an invocation to the
most holy Mother of God. This is to impress upon us the need to have
recourse to her in order that by her intercession she may reconcile God
with us sinners, and obtain for us the blessings necessary for this life
and for life eternal" ("Roman Catechism," "On Prayer," Chapter V, 8).

4. Ps. ciii. 4.

5. Gen., xviii. 27.

6. Dan. vii. 10.

7. Ps. liv. 8.

8. Job, xxv. 3.

9. Cant., iv. 7.

10. I John, i. 8.

11. "De natura et gratia," c. xxxvi. Elsewhere St. Thomas says: "In the
Angelic Salutation is shown forth the worthiness of the Blessed virgin for
this conception when it says, 'Full of grace;; it expresses the Conception
itself in the words, 'The Lord is with thee'; and it foretells the honor
which will follow with the words, 'Blessed art thou among women' " ("Summa
Theol.," III, Q. xxx, art. 4).

12. St. Thomas wrote before the solemn definition of the Immaculate
conception by the Church and at a time when the subject was still a matter
of controversy among theologians. In an earlier work, however, he
pronounced in favor of the doctrine (I Sent., c. 44 Q. i, ad. 3), although
he seemingly concluded against it in the "Summa Theologica." "Yet much
discussion has arisen as to whether St. Thomas did or did not deny that the
Blessed virgin was immaculate at the instant of her animation ("Catholic
Encyclopedia." art. "Immaculate Conception"). On December 8, 1854, Pope
Pius IX settled the question in the following definition: "Mary. ever
blessed Virgin in the first instant of her conception, by a singular
privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ,
the Saviour of the human race, was preserved exempt from all stain of
original sin."

13. Luke, i. 38.

14. "Ibid.," 48.

15. "Ibid.," 34.

16. "Ibid.," 35.

17. Cant., iv. 4.

18. Eccl., xxiv. 25.

19. Isa., lviii. 11.

20. "The Blessed Virgin Mary obtained such a plenitude of grace that she
was closest of all creatures to the Author of Grace; and thus she received
in her womb Him who is full of grace. and by giving Him birth she is in a
certain manner the source of grace for all men" ("Summa Theol.," III, Q.
xxvii, art. 5). St. Bernard says: "It is God's will that we should receive
all graces through Mary" ("Serm. de aquaeductu," n. vii). Mary is called
the "Mediatrix of all Graces," and her mediation is immediate and
universal, subordinate however to that of Jesus.

21. Luke. i. 35

22. Isa., xii. 6.

23. Antiphon from the Little Office of Blessed Virgin.

24. Luke. i. 35

25. "Totius Trinitatis nobile Triclinium."

26. Isa., xxxv. 2.

27. I Cor., vii. 34.

28. Ps. cxxxi. 8.

29. Prov., xiii. 22.

30. Here St. Thomas compares the fruit of the forbidden tree for Eve with
the Fruit of Mary's womb for all Christians.

31. Gen., iii 5

32. John, viii. 44.

33. I John, iii. 2.

34. John, vi. 55.

35. Ps. xliv. 3.

36. Eph., i. 3.

37. Apoc., vii. 12.

38. Phil., ii. 11.

39. Ps. cxvii. 26.

Why is the Catholic Church antagonistic towards the Bible?

2012-01-16T00:04:00.000Z

Was not the Bible unknown to the people before the Reformation?

No. Beautifully illuminated copies of the Scriptures, wrought by the Monks, were in the charge of the Clergy and the Churches, and from these the Word of God was carefully preached to the people. Before the invention of the printing press, a wider diffusion was impossible.

Did not the Catholic Church bum all Bibles, and punish those who had copies?

No. The Catholic Church would have been very foolish to have copies multiplied only to destroy them. When the printing press was invented by the German Catholic Gutenberg in 1445, the first book printed was a Bible, before Protestantism had come into existence.

Yet does not the Catholic Church regard the work of the Bible Society as dangerous to Christianity?

She condemns the principle that Bibles should be distributed indiscriminately to people on the understanding that they will be able to attain the truth without the guidance of the Church, and by their own unaided efforts. The wildest absurdities have resulted from the theory of private interpretation of Scripture, and if it is not dangerous to Christianity to have a new pretended Christian Church arising every ten years from some mad-cap reading of an isolated text, I would like to know your idea of what is really dangerous to Christianity.

Not opposed to the Bible, Questions 549-551 from Radio Replies Volume I Copyright © 1938 (by Rev. Dr. Leslie Rumble, M.S.C. and Rev. Charles Mortimer Carty).

Spiritualism and Spiritistic Seances

2012-01-15T22:27:00.004Z

May Catholics assist at Spiritistic Seances?

No. In 1917, the Church decreed as follows: "It is not lawful to assist at Spiritistic Seances or manifestations whether with or without a medium, even though such meetings seem to be honest and religious." Spiritualism claims to be a new religion, and therefore meets with the same fate as all other religions invented by men since the time of Christ. The only true religion is that established by Christ, and in the form in which He established it. It is little use to call oneself a Christian, and reject the Church as Christ built it, accepting any form of religion men would like to substitute for it.

Is there any truth in the claims of Spiritualism?

There is truth in the claim that the soul is distinct from, and can survive the body. All men instinctively know this, and as they lose faith in Protestantism, this fundamental truth of reason remains. Many of them therefore turn to Spiritualism. Thus this new phase gains ground among non-Catholics. As a religious system Spiritualism is the outcome of human effort, and is in vogue among certain men for a time. But it is valueless as a religion in the sight of God. It will die out in due course, possibly to give place to some other extravagant form of religious excitement. Man is constitutionally religious, and if deprived of Catholic truth will grasp at anything for a time. But substitutes are bound to disappoint in the end.

Why precisely does your Church condemn Spiritualism?

The Catholic Church certainly believes in the existence of the spiritual world, of God, of good and evil created spirits, and in the continued existence of the souls of men. But the phenomena of Spiritualism are due at best to natural causes; at times to imposture; very often to evil spirits. Certainly any effects due to the influence of spirits are not due to the intervention of good spirits. The medium acts under uncanny and feverish excitement; the effects are evil only too often; and messages received, as well as the methods adopted, are openly blasphemous and immoral, and quite unworthy of God. God Himself says, "Neither let there be found among you . . . one that seeketh the truth from the dead." Deut. XVIII., 10-11.

Has the Catholic Church ever been in communication with spirit beings from the next world?

In the history of the Catholic Church there are many accounts of messages received from the souls of the departed. The truth of these accounts is subject to the ordinary laws of historical criticism, and some accounts have certainly been proved doubtful. Others leave no room for prudent doubt. As a rule, God permits a soul only occasionally to communicate momentarily a warning, or a request for prayers, but nothing fantastical. Likewise, the messages are spontaneous, and not due to the curious efforts of people seeking the truth from the dead. The Church tests the messages received, or claimed as received, in order to discern whether good or evil spirits are responsible for the communication. (1) The message must in no way conflict with Catholic teaching or moral principles. Gal. I., 9. (2) The person who claims to have received such a communication must be characterized by sound common sense, and even be undesirous of such occurrences. (3) The effects of the message must be good, the recipient being moved to a holier life, and to nothing indecent, shameful, or contrary to Christian standards.

Spirits have told Spiritualists that we shall not see God face to face, and that we shall have only natural happiness in Heaven. Is there any truth in this?

The idea of merely natural happiness in Heaven is nonsense. The supreme happiness of Heaven is totally different from any happiness we know on earth. "Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard . . . what things God hath prepared for them that love Him." I. Cor. II., 9. An eternity of the things we know here, and of life as we experience it would soon become blank misery, and not Heaven at all. God Himself tells us that we shall see Him face to face, and it is better to believe the God who made us than the Spiritualist who would only unmake us as regards our rational nature.

Spiritualism, Questions 317-321 from Radio Replies Volume I Copyright © 1938 (by Rev. Dr. Leslie Rumble, M.S.C. and Rev. Charles Mortimer Carty).

Errors of the Greek Orthodox Church

2012-01-15T16:18:00.002Z

Does the Catholic Church recognise the Greek Orthodox Church as part of itself?

No. As a matter of fact there is no one Greek Orthodox Church. There are many independent Greek Churches. They originated by rebellion against the Catholic Church in the ninth century, and have split up into many different allegiances. As long as they refuse to submit to the authority of the Catholic Church they are as much outside the Catholic Church as the Protestant variations.

How does the Greek Church differ from the Catholic Church?

The Greek Churches are both schismatical and heretical. They are separated from the obedience due to the authority of Christ in His true Church. They acknowledge no infallible head. They may retain valid orders and the Mass—things which Protestantism lost—but they have fallen into errors concerning the Holy Trinity, the Immaculate Conception, Purgatory, and various other points of Christian doctrine.

Greek Orthodox Church, Questions 306-307 from Radio Replies Volume I Copyright © 1938 (by Rev. Dr. Leslie Rumble, M.S.C. and Rev. Charles Mortimer Carty).

Fourth Century False Religious Denominations

2012-01-12T11:34:00.000Z

DONATISTS: Heretical followers of Donatus the Great, an African Bishop, who played a prominent part in the Donatist schism (named after another Donatus) of the fourth century, which preceded and paved the way for the heresy of the same name. He succeeded Majorinus in 315 as Bishop of Carthage, and being a man of forceful character gave a great impetus to the Donatist movement. They held that the true Church consisted only of the elect, and declared baptism to be invalid unless conferred by a Donatist.

AUDAEANS: A sect that took its rise and name from Audaeus, a native of Mesopotamia, who was banished to Scythia in 338 and died about 370 in the country of the Goths. He incurred the enmity of the clergy by censuring their luxuries and vices.

The Audaeans held that God has a human form, and taught erroneous opinions concerning the administration of the Sacrament of Penance.

ARIANS: The strongest heretical sect with which the early Church had to contend. Its leader was Arius, an Alexandrian priest, theologian and controversialist. Arius was ordained deacon by Peter, Bishop of Alexandria, but was subsequently excommunicated by him for joining in with the Meletian schism. He later repented and was restored, being advanced to the priesthood and given sole charge of a Church. After some time he was excommunicated again for his heretical views. He was a rigorous ascetic, a persuasive speaker and ardent propagandist. Tall, gloomy, fanatical, with down-cast eyes and tangled hair, he went about singing his doctrines, which he had set to the music of the theaters. Before long they were being sung by priests, boatmen, bakers and all sorts of people. The first ecumenical council, that of Nicea, was convened to condemn the heresy. Arius was banished to Illyria but later succeeded in returning in order to replace Athanasius, his chief opponent, as Bishop of Alexandria, but the popular up-roar did not allow him actually to do so. He died in his errors.

The Arians denied the divinity of Christ, and taught that God the Son was not eternal, Christ being made the partaker of the divine nature as a reward for the work of the redemption.

MACEDONIANS: The followers of Macedonius, who was intruded into the See of Constantinople by the Arians (342), and enthroned by Constantius, who had for the second time expelled Paul, the Catholic Bishop. Macedonius is known in history for his most cruel persecution of the Catholics and Novatians. Subsequently he fell into disgrace. Constantius caused him to be deposed and succeeded by Eudoxius in 360. He died about 364.

The Macedonians denied the divinity of the Holy Ghost.

MASSALIANS: A sect founded by a native of Mesopotamia named Adelphus.

They were a kind of vagrant quietists. Sacraments they held to be useless, though harmless, the only spiritual power being prayer, by which one drove out the evil spirit which baptism had not expelled, received the indwelling of the Holy Ghost, and arrived at union with God, becoming so perfect that the passions ceased to trouble. They disregarded regulations in the matter of fasting; wandered from place to place, and in summer were accustomed to sleep in the streets. They engaged in no occupations.

AERIANS: Adherents of Aerius, a priest ordained by Eustathius, Bishop of Sebaste (355) and placed over the hospital or asylum in that city. He soon fell out with Eustathius, began to preach a doctrine of his own and for a time had many followers.

He insisted that there was no sacred character distinguishing bishops and priests from laymen; taught that the observance of the feast of Easter was a Jewish superstition; that it was wrong to prescribe fasts or abstinence by law, and held that it was useless to pray for the dead.

APOLLINARISTS: The sect started by Apollinaris, Bishop of Laodicea. At first this prelate was highly esteemed by such men as St. Athansius, St. Basil, and St. Jerome for his classical culture, his biblical learning, his defense of Christianity and his loyalty to the Nicene faith. But later, having fallen into heresy, he failed to submit to the solemn condemnation of his doctrine by the Council of Constantinople in 381, and died in his error about 392. Apollinaris taught that Christ had a human body and a human sensitive soul, but no human rational mind, the Divine Logus taking the place of this last; held that there were three different degrees of dignity in the Trinity itself; and maintained erroneous views on the Incarnation, one of which was that the Divine Substance of the Word was converted into flesh.

PRISCILLIANISTS: A sect originally founded by an Egyptian from Memphis by the name of Mark. One of his early disciples was Priscillian, a man of noble birth, great riches, bold, restless, eloquent, learned and ready at debate and discussion, who soon became leader of the sect which now bears his name. He was ordained to the priesthood and appointed Bishop of Avila by his heretical followers, among whom were two bishops. About 383 he was condemned to death. His errors were condemned in the Council of Saragossa by St. Damasus.

The Priscillianists held that angels and the souls of men were severed from the substance of the Deity; that Christ only appeared to be a man and that His death was only apparent; prohibited meat; r ejected the narrative of creation in the Old Testament, and denied the Trinity.

ELVIDIANS: Disciples of Elvidius, who himself was a disciple of the Arian Auxentius, who was intruded into the See of Milan by the Emperor Constans when he banis hed St. Dionysius. Elvidius, who was a poor peasant with scarcely any education, began to disseminate his heretical doctrines about 382.

The Elvidians denied the virginity of Mary.

JOVINIANS: Followers of Jovinianus, a monk for a while but subsequently an advocate of anti-ascetical tendencies. His views, pro mulgated mostly by writing, were condemned by Pope Siricius in a Council held at Rome in the year 390, and soon after in another Council held by St. Ambrose in Milan. In the end Jovinianus was exiled by the Emperor Theodosius, and afterwards by Honorius, to Boas, a maritime town of Dalmatia, where he died in misery in the year 412.

He taught that a virgin, as such, is no better in the sight of God than a wife; held abstinence to be no better than the taking of food in the proper disposition; that a per son baptized with the Spirit as well as with water cannot sin; that all sins are equal; that there is but one grade of punishment and one of reward in the future state, and denied the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

VIGILANTIANS: A sect started by Vigilantius, a Gallic writer and priest of the last years of the fourth century. He was born in Western Gaul and became an inn-keeper, but about 395, through the influence of Sulpicius Severus, was ordained to the priesthood. He went to visit St. Jerome and immediately quarreled with him on religious matters, accusing him of being a heretic. St. Jerome later refuted his errors.

Vigilantius condemned the veneration of images and relics; the invocation of the Saints; the celibacy of the clergy; and monasticism; and held it useless to pray for the dead.

Third Century False Religious Denominations

2012-01-12T10:53:00.001Z

TERTULLIANISTS: A sect that flourished in Carthage for 200 years after the death of Tertullian, whom they claimed as their founder. This man was the most eminent Latin ecclesiastical writer of the early Church. He was born at Carthage about 160, was converted to Christianity and later ordained to the priesthood. His over-severe views and austerity caused him to break with the regular Church authorities and he fell into the errors of Montanism. He is famous for many works, apologetical, doctrinal and ethicopractical, and is considered the most fecund, original and powerful genius in all the history of Christian Latin literature. He was a priest for 40 years and died at a very advanced age.

The errors of Tertullian were a belief that the Church could not absolve adulterers; that those who married a second time were adulterers, and that it was not lawful to fly from persecution.

ORIGENISTS: Named after Origen, one of the most learned and spirited men of his time, born at Alexandria in 185. His father was St. Leonidas, the martyr, who had him educated in every branch of sacred and profane literature. So great was the zeal of Origen for Christianity that he besought his mother to allow him to join his father when he was in prison during the persecution that he too might shed his blood for Christ. His earlier years were devoted to intensive study and successful teaching, and as time went on his fame for learning and wisdom grew so that all the priests and doctors consulted him in any difficult matter. He was one of the most voluminous writers the world has ever seen. He was ordained to the priesthood at Caesarea, but the Bishop of Alexandria, provoked for some reason or other, refused to recognize him. In spite of his great learning some of Origen’s views got him into trouble, and he was deposed and excommunicated by an Alexandrian council. He found refuge at Caesarea where he reopened his school with great success. During the persecution under Maximinus he fled to Cappadocia where he lived for two years. Under Gordianus he returned and continued his activities, but the suffering and torture he endured under the Decian persecution broke his strength, and he died at Tyre in 254.

Origen held that from their beginning all rational creatures were pure spirits; taught that after the universal restoration, which was to be accomplished by a second crucifixion of Christ, all, even the damned in hell, would be pure spirits; and believed that the blessed in heaven could be expelled from that abode for faults committed there. These errors were condemned by the Second Council of Constantinople in 553.

NOVATIANS: A schismatical sect which took its name from Novatus (Novatian), a Roman priest who made himself anti-pope. He was a learned and eloquent man but of a melancholy temperament, and, according to St. Cyprian, was turbulent, seditious and avaricious. St. Cornelius states that Novatus was possessed by Satan for a season, apparently while a catechumen. He was baptized by aspersion as he lay on a bed of sickness, but apparently was never confirmed. How he became a priest is not clear. He was accused by Cornelius of cowardice during the persecution of Decius. At the beginning of 251 the persecution relaxed and St. Cornelius was elected Pope. Some days later Novatus set himself up as a rival pope and had himself consecrated bishop. A council of sixty bishops was assembled under Pope Cornelius before the end of 251 in which Novatus was excommunicated.

The Novatians held that idolatry was an unpardonable sin, that confirmation was no sacrament, that mortal sins committed after baptism could not be forgiven; condemned second marriages, and refused Communion to those who had contracted them, even at the time of death.

MANICHEANS: Followers of Manes (Mani), a Persian, born in 216 in the village of Mardinu in Babylonia. In 242 he stood before the people of his native village as a religious teacher, but, being unsuccessful there, he lived the life of a wanderer for forty years. He announced himself as the “Messenger of the True God,” and amongst Christians as the promised Paraclete. Returning to Persia, he made at first a favorable impression upon the king, Ormuzd I. Ormuzd’s favour, however, was of little avail, as he occupied the Persian throne only a single year, and Bahram I., his successor, caused Manes to be crucified, had the corpse flayed, and the skin stuffed and hung up at the city gate as a terrifying spectacle to his followers, whom he persecuted with relentless severity. Manes’ death is fixed at about 276-277.

The Manicheans believed in a plurality of gods; rejected the Old Testament absolutely, and of the New they retained only what had been revised and redacted by Manes; they held that Christ had no real body; denied free-will; recognized no baptism or marriage; believed in the transmigration of souls, and
held that each man had two souls.

MILLENARIANS: Advocates of an old heresy that was revived by Nipos (Nepos), Bishop of Egypt during the third century. His energy in defending the doctrines of this sect nearly brought about a schism in the Church, but unity was preserved by the prudent and moderate policy of Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria.

The fundamental idea of millenarianism may be set forth as follows. At the end of time Christ will return in all His splendor to gather the just, to annihilate hostile powers, and to found a glorious kingdom on earth for the enjoyment of the highest spiritual and material blessings. He Himself will reign as its King, and all the just, including the Saints recalled to life, will participate in it. At the close of this kingdom the Saints will enter heaven with Christ, while the wicked, who have also been resuscitated, will be condemned to eternal damnation. The duration of this glorious reign of Christ with His Saints on earth is frequently given as 1000 year s. Hence the name Millenarianism.

Second Century False Religious Denominations

2012-01-12T10:24:00.000Z

BASILIDIANS: So-called after Basilides, a native of Alexandria who flourished under the Emperors Hadrian and Antonius Pius from about 120 to 140. Of his life we know nothing except that he had a son Isidore who followed in his footsteps. One of the maxi ms of Basilides was: “Know others, but let no one know you”.

The Basilidians held fabulous views on the Deity; rejected Revelation and claimed the God of the Jews to be only an angel; held that angels created the world; denied the humanity and miracles of Jesus; denied the resurrection of the body, and believed that Simon of Cyrene was crucified in place of Christ who returned to His Father unharmed.

CARPOCRATIANS: Followers of Carpocrates, an Alexandrian philosopher, who flourished during the reign of the Emperor Hadrian (117-138). They are also called “gnostics”, that is, learned or enlightened.

The Carpocratians held that everyone has two souls; believed in the transmigration of souls; maintained that the world was created by angels; denied the divinity of Christ, and advocated the practice of immorality as a means of union with God.

VALENTINIANS: A sect named after Valentine, an Egyptian, who separated himself from the Church because he was disappointed in not obtaining a bishopric. He came to Rome during the pontificate of Hyginus (136-140) and remained until the pontificate of Anicetus (155-166). At first he abjured his errors but again embraced them, and persevered in them until his death, which occur red in Cyprus about 160. The religious system of Valentine was extremely comprehensive and the most widely diffused of all the forms of Gnosticism. His school was divided into two branches, the Oriental and the Italian. The former was spread through Egypt, Syria and Asia Minor; the latter in Rome, Italy and Southern Gaul.

Valentine invented an absurd genealogy of Eons and gods; denied that Mary was the Mother of God; taught justification by faith alone; held matter to be eternal, and denied free-will and the resurrection of the body.

MARCIONITES: Followers of Marcion, the son of the Bishop of Sinope in Pontus, born about 110. For some fault not definitely known to history he was excommunicated by his father. At this time it appears that he was suffragan bishop to his father, to whom he appealed for re-admission into the Church. Reconciliation being refused him, he traveled to Rome where he united with Cerdo and began propagating heretical doctrines. Tertullian relates in 207 that Marcion professed penitence and accepted as condition for his re-admission into the Church that he should bring back to the fold those whom he had led astray. But he died before he could carry out his good intentions. Marcion taught the existence of two gods, the one good and the other evil; denied the Incarnation of Christ, and rejected the Old Testament.

CERDONIANS: Disciples of Cerdo, a Syrian, who came to Rome about the year 139 under the pontificate of Hyginus (136-140). He taught that there were two gods, one good, the other evil; denied the resurrection of the body, and prohibited marriage, wine and the eating of flesh.

EBIONITES: Followers of what modern critics hold to be a suppositious character known as Ebion. It is doubtful whether such a person ever existed.

The Ebionites denied the divinity of Christ; rejected all the New Testament except the Gospel of St. Matthew, which they mutilated; taught that some men were created by good angels, others by bad ones; considered St. Paul a heretic, and practiced free-love.

DOCETAE: According to Clement of Alexandria a distinct religious sect founded by one Julius Cassianus, about whom little is known except that he was a disciple of Valentine.

They practically denied the Incarnation of God in Christ. Some affirmed the body of Christ to have been a mere deceptive appearance, others only denied its fleshly character, but the object of all was to render the conceptions of Christ’s life on earth less material and more spiritual.

MONTANISTS: So-called after Montanus, a Phrygian who appears to have been a priest of Cybele. He was converted about the year 150 and soon after began to fall into fits of ecstacy and to utter “prophecies”. He was joined by two women of wealth and high social position, Maximilla and Priscilla, who deserted their husbands and became “prophetesses”. Expelled from the Church, Montanus set up for himself, organizing a body of preachers to be supported by the voluntary contributions of his followers. Eusebius says that he died miserably by hanging himself.

Montanus claimed to have received a new revelation from God, the Mosaic and Christian dispensations having failed. He prescribed at first two, and afterwards three, annual fasts of a week instead of one such fast; forbade all second marriages; refused restoration to all such as had been guilty of murder, adultery or idolatry; required the veiling of virgins in the assemblies of the Church. The novelty of Montanus’ teaching was not so much in the things themselves as his prescribing them under obedience to a new express revelation.

ENCRATITES: A religious sect supported by Tatian, a Christian apologist, who was born in Assyria about 110. Later he went to Rome where he taught rhetoric. He enjoyed the friendship of Justin Martyr and was converted by him to Christianity about 152. His work, “An Address to the Greeks”, is one of the earliest apologies directed against the pagan philosophers. After the death of Justin, about 167, Tatian returned to the East and adopted very strange ideas of the gnostic variety, identifying himself with the Encratites. One of his best known disciples was Sever us, Bishop of Gabala in Spain, who added new life and strength to the sect as well as differed from his master in a few essential points. Due to him the Encratites are sometimes called “Severians”.

They held that matter was uncreated and eternal; attributed creation of some things to God, but only through the instrumentality on an inferior Eon; denied the resurrection of the dead and free-will; rejected the Law of Moses; condemned matrimony, the use of flesh and wine, and used only water in the Eucharistic rite. For this reason they are sometimes called “Aquarii”.

ALOGI: The members of this sect rejected John’s authorship of the Fourth Gospel and the Apocalypse, and in general all writings in which the Logos is mentioned. Hence their name, which, according to their enemies, also proclaimed them to be without reason. It is difficult to trace their origin to any one individual.

MONARCHIANS: The word “Monarchian” was first used by Tertullian as a nickname for a group of heretics known as Patripassionists in the West and Sabellians in the East, but was seldom used by the ancients. In modern times it has been extended to include an earlier group of heretics known as Theodotians. Thus there are two branches of what are now known as Monarchians, the Theodotians and the group comprised of the Patripassionists and the Sabellians. These two branches are also sometimes classified as Dynamistic and Modalist Monarchians respectively, and at other times are united under the single name of Antitrinitarians. Their founder was Praxeas, a native of Phrygia and an early anti- Montanist. He is known to us only through Tertullian’s book “Adversus Praxeam”, where he is described as being inflated with pride as a Confessor of the Faith because he had spent a short time in prison. He was probably the first of the Monarchians to visit Rome, where he was well received by the Pope about 190-198, with whom he used his influence against the Montanists. The Modalist Monarchians, the Monarchians properly so-called denied the Mystery of the Trinity, and held that God the Father and God the Son were one and the same person.

ADOPTIONISTS: The sect originally called Theodotians after their leader, a leather-seller of Byzantium, who came to Rome under Pope Victor about 190- 200, or earlier. In later years they have been called “Adoptionists”, or, as stated under “Monarchians”, are sometimes classified as Dynamistic Monarchians, though they have no logical claim to the latter title. The Adoptionists denied the divinity of Christ and apparently made a distinction between Jesus and Christ.

ADAMITES: A very immoral sect whose origin is traced to a certain Prodicus. They rejected the worship of an invisible God; practiced idolatry, condemned marriage and believed their church to be Paradise.

ANTIDICOMARIANTITES: An eastern sect which has been so designated because they were opponents of Mary. It is difficult to trace their origin to any particular individual.

They denied that Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Christ.

First Century False Religious Denominations

2012-01-12T09:31:00.000Z

SIMONIANS: Followers of Simon Magus, a magician of Apostolic times who claimed to be a sort of emanation of the Eternal. Since he was the first to oppose the teachings of the Apostles he is sometimes called “The Father of Heretics”. According to St. Justin, Simon came from Gitta in the country of the Samaritans. He was baptized a Christian, but his conversion was evidently not sincere as he attempted to purchase from the Apostles what he regarded as their magical power. Hence the word “simony” signifying traffic in sacred things. According to St. Ambrose, St. Augustine and others, Simon died in Rome as the result of an attempted ascent to heaven.

The Simonians denied free-will; taught that the world was created by angels; believed in the transmigration of souls, and denied the humanity of Jesus Christ.

CERINTHIANS: Disciples of Cerinthus, a contemporary of St. John against whose errors on the divinity of Christ the Apostle is said by some to have written the Fourth Gospel. According to Theodoret, Cerinthus was an Egyptian. In Asia he founded a school and gathered about him a number of disciples. Of these we know almost nothing except that they flourished in Asia and Galatia.

The Cerinthians denied that God was the creator of the world; asserted that the Law of Moses was necessary for salvation; held that after the Resurrection Jesus Christ would establish a terrestrial kingdom where the just would spend a thousand years in the enjoyment of sensual pleasure; and denied the divinity of Jesus Christ.

Are You among the Enemies of Christ?

2012-01-10T22:36:00.000Z

Jesus Christ established only one Church. He said, "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church." Notice He does not say Churches. He said, "There shall be made one fold and one shepherd." In His prayer at the last supper He said, "I pray for them also who through their word shall believe in Me; that they all may be one, as Thou, Father, in Me and I in Thee, that they also may be one in Us; that the world may believe that Thou hast sent Me."

Today we see many Churches. We see Catholic, Lutheran, Baptist, Methodist, Episcopalian, Presbyterian, and many other kinds of Churches. But Christ founded one Church, therefore all these different denominations cannot be His. If you invite a friend to dine at your house and many guests come, having invitations, you know that these invitations are false, because you only wrote one. Christ founded only one Church. Therefore, there is only one true Church. Consequently, all other Churches must be false.

Christ said, "He that is not with Me is against Me." Therefore, those who do not belong to that one Church of Christ, are against Him. They are associated with the enemies of Christ. They may not mean to be against Him, yet they are against Him. Is it not deplorable to be against Christ, to be among they enemies of God! How said to die amongst the enemies of God! How miserable the condition of those who die in that state!

How can it be avoided? By immediately becoming a friend of God. By joining the one true Church of Christ. That is the only way. But what is that one true Church? Christ speaking to His followers, said, "You are the light of the world. A city seated on a Mountain cannot be his" His Church, therefore cannot be hard to find!

Which Church goes back to Jesus Christ and the twelve Apostles. A family is Irish if of Irish descent. Similarly, that Church is the true Church of Christ, which goes back to Christ. The only Church which goes back to Christ is the Catholic Church. Therefore, it is the only true Church of Christ. All others, started by men, are impostures.

The Lutheran Church was founded by Luther. It is Luther's Church not Christ's. The Baptist Church was started in our own country in the year 1639, less than three hundred years ago, by Roger Williams. It is not the Church of Christ, but of Roger Williams. The Methodist Church was started in England in the year 1739, less than two hundred years ago, by John Wesley. It cannot be the Church of Christ. So likewise all the Protestant Churches were started by men. None of them existed four hundred years ago. Therefore, not one of them founded by Christ. Christ founded His Church in Palestine, almost two thousand years ago. The Catholic Church alone existed since the days of Christ. It alone goes back to Christ and the Apostles. It is of Divine descent from Christ Himself.

It is the same Church that Christ built upon a rock. He said, "The gates of hell shall not prevail against it." "Behold I am with you you all days even to the consummation of the world." That is, His Church will last in all its purity, until the end of time. He did His work well. Men cannot build new and better Churches than the one Christ built!

"He that is not with Me is against Me." If you love Jesus, you will prefer any evil, even death itself, to being against Him; to being a help to His enemies. "He that gathereth not with Me, scattereth." What sacrifices did you not make in the late war because you loved America! Will you not do something to show that you love God? Would you have loved America if you had belonged to the army of her enemy? Do you love God by remaining among the enemies of Christ?

But you may say you are to old to change. To be a Christian and to love God is good enough. But you must love God in the way He wants to be loved. You do not love God the way he wants to be loved unless you do what He demands, unless you belong to the Church He founded for your welfare.

It is never to late to begin. The twelve Apostles were born in the Jewish religion. Their forefathers had been Jews more than a thousand years. Yet they left the old Jewish religion to be true followers of Christ.

A sensible man will gladly return to the right road from which he has wondered. Thousands have done so and found supreme happiness in the Catholic Church, the true Church of Jesus Christ.

From Father John P. Markoe, S.J.'s book "The Triumph of the Church"

Gamaliel and the One True Church

2012-01-10T21:37:00.001Z

On Gamaliel And The One True Church

When the Apostles first began publicly to preach the religion of Jesus Christ in Jerusalem, great indignation was stirred up among the Jews that rejected Christ. The Apostles were arrested and brought before the High Priest of the Temple for examination and trial. While the Jewish tribunal was considering putting them to death, one of the council rose up, a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a doctor of Law and much respected by all the people, and commanded the Apostles to be put forth, and then said wisely to their judges:

"Fellow Israelites, be careful what you are about to do to these men. Some time ago, Theudas appeared, claiming to be someone important, and about four hundred men joined him, but he was killed, and all those who were loyal to him were disbanded and came to nothing. After him came Judas the Galilean at the time of the census. He also drew people after him, but he too perished and all who were loyal to him were scattered. So now I tell you, have nothing to do with these men, and let them go. For if this endeavor or this activity is of human origin, it will destroy itself. But if it comes from God, you will not be able to destroy them; you may even find yourselves fighting against God" Acts 5: 35-39

Almost nineteen-hundred years have rolled by since these words were spoken. Gamaliel has long been dead and gone, preaching of the Apostles has echoed down the centuries with an ever increasing force and effectiveness. The tiny group of disciples that constitute the Catholic Church in those early days in Jerusalem has so spread the and increased that it now forms a vast organization that covers the entire earth and numbers over 324 million members. Time after time hostile powers have thrown obstacles in the way of the way of its development. Persecutions almost without number have been hurled against it, with no avail. Christ has remained true to His promise ever to be with the Church, and as it has in the past, so it will be in the future until the end of time. "The gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Gamaliel, the Catholic Church has proved itself the work of God.

From Father John P. Markoe, S.J.'s book "The Triumph of the Church"

Church of England and the Catholic Church

2011-12-11T20:19:00.001Z

I want to know the difference between the English Catholic Church and the Roman Catholic Church?

If you mean by the English Catholic Church that Catholic Church in England which is under the jurisdiction of the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster, there is no difference. But if you mean the Church of England I can only reply that that Church is not Catholic at all.

The Church of England is Catholic because she is sending missionaries throughout the whole world as far as possible.

Other Protestant Churches are doing as much as the Church of England in this matter, yet you will not admit that they are Catholic because of that. But apart from that, what does the word Catholic really mean in its technical Christian sense? It does not refer to area alone. To be really Catholic a Church must have originated with Christ; must have existed in all ages since Christ; must be suitable for all nations and be ever expanding amongst them; must possess all the doctrine of Christ; and must ever retain all its members within the same unity of authoritative discipline. The Church of England fails in all these requirements. In origin, it was by British law established, and remains subject to the crown of England. In time, it dates from the 16th century, and therefore has certainly not existed in all ages since Christ. Nor is the Church of England adapted to all peoples. If a man seriously accepts the Church of England Prayer Book, he has to accept the King of England as the supreme head and governor of the Anglican Church. How could you ask a Frenchman to accept the President of France as his civil ruler, yet the decisions of the British parliament as his rule of faith? If we turn to facts, we find no trace of a truly Catholic expansive principle in Anglicanism. In spite of its belated and isolated missionary efforts since the 18th century, some hundreds of years after its establishment, it is not even attempting to convert all peoples. I have never met any body of Italian Anglicans, or Spanish, or German, or French, or Austrian Anglicans. No European nation accepts your Church except the British. Why does the Church of England make no effort for these peoples? Have they not the right to the truth taught by Christ? Or is it because the Catholic Church is quite all right for them? Yet if this be the case, why does the Church of England plant missions in newer lands where the Catholic Church already exists? The fact that it neglects other European countries shows that it has not a truly Catholic spirit, whilst the fact that it does set up isolated missions in opposition to already existing Catholic missions shows that it is not really conscious of being part of the Catholic Church at all. But let us turn from origin, time, and extent, to doctrine. Catholic doctrine demands that all members of the Church accept the same truths. Otherwise it cannot be a question of the same religion everywhere. Now the Church of England does not accept all the doctrines of Christ It terms many of them fables and blasphemies. Nor only that. In such part of Christian doctrine as it does accept, Anglicanism is a house of confusion. Bishop Barnes and Lord Halifax claim to belong to the same Church, yet would cheerfully excommunicate each other as heretics. A low-church missionary will establish a Church in Papua which can scarcely be recognized as being of the same religion as that established by a high-church man in Fiji. Finally, I need scarcely speak of unity in discipline. There is hardly any such unity within the Anglican Church in practice, and whilst some Anglicans claim unity with the Catholic Church, that Church denies any such bond. So great is the difference between the Church of England and the Catholic Church that we can safely say that, if the Anglican Church be the true Church, then the Catholic Church is certainly wrong, and vice-versa.

You have said that Henry VIII. started the Church of England in the sixteenth century. But history shows that the Church was in England long before Henry VIII.

History shows that the Catholic Church was in England before the time of Henry VIII. To-day we have the Catholic Church and the Anglican Church, in addition, of course, to many others. The Anglican Church was unheard of, until Henry VIII. determined to establish it. Previously, he had been as subject to the Pope as I am. The Church which history records as being in England before Henry corresponds exactly with the Catholic Church in England to-day under the Archbishop of Westminster. Anglicanism is the intruder.

Henry reformed the Church giving back to England a purified Church. If you remove foreign matter from the eye, the eye is not destroyed.

Henry gave no Church back to England. To give back is to restore what was possessed before. But nothing like the Anglican Church had previously existed in England. You cannot term Henry's action the removing of foreign matter from an eye. Rather he removed the eye, and filled up the cavity with foreign matter. The Catholic Church was suppressed, and a new Church of England was created.

But the very word reformation supposes a continuously existing body.

Historians use the word reformation to designate the religious changes of the 16th century, but the radical change cannot be called reform. The Church of England began with a new constitution altogether, with Caesar as supreme in the things which should belong to God. Before the Reformation the Mass was the very centre and essence of religion, yet before very long it was banished and ridiculed. The new religion meant a change in both worship and discipline.

The Roman Church has often changed its constitution.

Never. The Catholic Church, subject to the Bishop of Rome, has the same constitution as that given her by Christ when He said to St. Peter, "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I shall build my Church." She has the same foundation as the one and only Church in England until the substitution of himself by Henry VIII. as the foundation stone of the Church of England. The Anglican Church came into existence by a complete change of constitution which every previous Archbishop of Canterbury from the time of Augustine would have rejected with horror.

The constitution was changed by that very Augustine. The Church in England before him was not in communion with Rome.

Your statement is erroneous, and in any case you cannot claim that the present Church of England has any connection with the Church which was in England prior to the coming of St. Augustine. Let us put it this way. There are two sets of Bishops in England to-day. There are the Bishops of the Church of England, and the Bishops of the Roman Catholic Church—if you like such a phrase. The Anglican Bishops are not subject to the Pope—the Catholic Bishops are. Now in the year 1500—we need not go back to the pre-Augustine Church, though the same thing was true then—there was but one set of Bishops in England. Which of the two sets of Bishops now corresponds with the one set of Bishops then? If we can solve that, we shall be able to find the intruder.Without dwelling upon probable traditions concerning the sending of missionaries by Pope Eleutherius about the year 170 A.D., it is certain that the very first elements of Christianity came to England from the Continent, where all true Christians were subject to the Pope. In 314 A.D., English Bishops were present at the Council of Aries, in Gaul. This was over 200 years before St. Augustine set foot in England. Now every Bishop of the Council of Aries was in communion with Rome. The Council was held under authority from Pope Sylvester, who sent his legates, and who received from the assembled Bishops this greeting, "In the unity of our mother the Catholic Church, we salute thee, most glorious Pope, with the reverence due." No Anglican Bishops to-day would be invited to sit in Council with the Bishops of Italy, Spain, France, Africa, Germany, and other regions, as those early English Bishops did at the Council of Aries. Something has gone wrong somewhere!In 596 Pope Gregory sent St. Augustine to England, giving him authority over all the Bishops already in England. They must all have been Roman Catholics for the Bishop of Rome to use such words as these: "We give you no authority over the Bishops of Gaul. But as for all the Bishops of Britain, we commit them to your care, that the unlearned may be taught, the weak strengthened by persuasion, the perverse corrected by authority."In 735 the Venerable Bede wrote, "The Pope bears pontifical power over the whole world." St. Anselm of Canterbury wrote, in the 11th century, "It is certain that he who does not obey the Roman Pontiff is disobedient to the Apostle Peter, nor is he of that flock given to Peter by God." In 1154 a member of the Church in England at that time was elected Pope. His name was Nicholas Breakspeare. You cannot imagine a member of the Anglican Hierarchy to-day being elected Pope! In 1170 St. Thomas, Archbishop of Canterbury, wrote, "Who doubts that the Roman Church is the head of all Churches, and the source of doctrine." In 1208, Stephen Langton, Archbishop of Canterbury, wrote, "Pope Alexander, possessing plenitude of power, gave back this Archbishopric to Thomas independently of the royal assent." This was the one set of Bishops in England before the reformation, and the Catholic Bishops in England to-day are their corresponding Bishops. Where were the Anglican Bishops before the reformation? They did not exist. Or take this simple reasoning. St. Thomas More was beheaded because he refused to give up the old religion. Then whatever religion he was clinging to, was the old religion. But he was clinging to what you would call the Roman Catholic religion, refusing the oath of supremacy which Henry VIII. claimed over the new Church of his own creation. If this new Church of England was the same as the old Church in England, St. Thomas More was a fool indeed to lose his life. Yet he was an exceedingly good and wise man.

Does the present Archbishop of Canterbury enjoy the jurisdiction granted to his pre-reformation predecessors by the Pope, or is he linked with them only by orders?

He has no link with them either by jurisdiction or by Holy Orders. He merely retains the name without the reality, and owes his position to the crown. All the privileges once granted to the Archbishops of Canterbury by Rome are now granted to the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster. If the present Archbishop of Canterbury were converted to the Catholic Church, and wished to exercise priestly functions in that Church, he would have to be ordained as if he had never claimed to be a cleric of any description previously.

How can you deny the Orders of Anglican Bishops? They go back to the Bishops of the Reformation period.

There have been Anglican Bishops continuously since the Reformation, but valid Orders have not been continuously handed on. Henry VIII began the Church of England in 1534. The Bishops who submitted to him were validly consecrated, and validity lasted until 1550. But in that year, under Edward VI, a great effort was made to protestantize still more the Church of England both in doctrine and in practice. The form of Ordination was deliberately changed, all reference to priesthood in the true Christian sense of the word being eliminated. This defective form, utterly useless for the true ordination of priests, remained unchanged until 1662 - 112 years later. Then the mistake was realized and the form was corrected. But the correction was too late, for those with correct Orders had died, and only those who had been invalidly consecrated remained to hand on their pretended Orders. Not a few Anglicans have tried to make sure of Orders by re-ordination at the hands of schismatical Bishops. The Anglican Bishop Knox, writing in the National Review for September, 1925, said correctly, "The Pope refused absolutely to recognize our Anglican Orders on the ground that our Church does not ordain priests to offer the Sacrifice of the Mass. In spite of attempts made by our Archbishop to conceal this defect, the Pope from his point of view was unquestionably right. It is true that certain priests of the Church of England offer so-called Masses, but as they were not ordained by the Church with the intention that they should offer the Body and Blood of Christ to the Father, the Sacrament of their Ordination is for this purpose a failure. The Prayer Book and Ordinal are simply un-Catholic, since they show no sign of fulfilling the most important of all Catholic functions."

Have not the Patriarchs of the Orthodox Church admitted our Orders?

Firstly, there is no such thing as a united Orthodox Church. Nor can the admissions of one or two sections of that Church be quoted as the universal judgment of the Greek Church.Secondly, the Greek Bishops do not claim infallibility. They may say, "This is our opinion," but they cannot add, "And our opinion is certainly true." In other words, the admissions of some isolated Greek Patriarchs prove nothing.Thirdly, such opinion as some Patriarchs may have expressed was based upon defective information. They could judge only upon the information given them. But the true facts were not put before them. High-Church men submitted an exposition of the case against which Anglican newspapers in England protested strongly as being a most distorted view of Church of England principles. The verdict of a misinformed Greek Bishop cannot avail against the verdict of a well-informed Anglican Bishop, such as Bishop Knox.

Is the decision of Rome regarding Anglican Orders irrevocable?

Yes. It is an infallible decision concerning a secondary object connected with and necessary for the defence of revealed dogma. We have to accept the decision, not from a motive of divine faith, but because of the infallible authority of the Church. The question was submitted to a thorough and even sympathetic consideration, the Pope knowing that if Anglican Orders could be admitted as valid the road to re-union would be much easier. But the evidence compelled the Pope to declare them invalid. Pope Leo XIII. definitely adopted the decision of die appointed Commission, and published the condemnation with his own infallible authority to support it. No Anglican clergyman could officiate in the Catholic Church without being ordained by a Catholic Bishop.

At least you cannot quarrel with Anglican teaching.

I am afraid I would have to ask you to tell me what you believe to be the teaching of the Anglican Church. Anglicans hold all kinds of conflicting beliefs. Dr. Gore writes a book on Church of England doctrine, and Bishop Barnes flatly contradicts it I have a dozen Anglican books on Church of England doctrine, and all explain it differently. Anglican teachings, however, do contradict those of Christ.

Could you tell me how?

All Anglicans at least accept an Erastian Church subject to political and parliamentary authority in England, and throughout the world they deny the necessity of submission to the lawful authority of the successor of St. Peter, the present Bishop of Rome. Again, half the members of the Anglican Church say that they believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and half say that they do not. Now Christ said, "Hear the Church." If the Anglican Church were the true Church, which half must men hear? As a teaching Church Anglicanism fails, and is compelled to tolerate such men as Bishop Barnes, who openly deny the explicit doctrines of Christ.

We Anglicans have the same Apostles' Creed as you Catholics.

You recite the same Creed, but you do not believe in it in the true Catholic sense. Catholics recite and accept the Apostles' Creed in practice. Anglicans recite it. All Anglicans say, "I believe in Jesus Christ, His only Son, Our Lord." Many Anglicans do not believe that He is truly the Son of God. All Anglicans say, "Born of the Virgin Mary." Many deny the Virginity of Mary. All Anglicans say, "I believe in the Holy Catholic Church." But none of them joins it, or if he does, he ceases to be an Anglican. All Anglicans say, "I believe in the Communion of the Saints," but few dare enter into communication with the Saints. All say, "I believe in the forgiveness of sins," but the vast majority ignore the Sacrament of Confession. Anglicans may recite the Creed, but most Anglicans certainly do not realize what the words imply.

Would you say that the Archbishop of Canterbury is preaching an anti-Christian doctrine?

He preaches the doctrine of the Church of England as he understands it, and being in good faith, no fault probably attaches to him. But the real question is, "Are the doctrines of the Church of England anti-Christian?" The reply is, "Not in every single matter. Various groups within the Anglican Church have kept some parts of Christ's teaching intact. But in many things all Anglicans reject certain doctrines without warrant. The present Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury is, of course, a heretic and a schismatic objectively. Catholic Bishops throughout the world will enter into no official relations whatever with those Anglican Bishops who have appeared on the scene only since the 16th century."

Are not Anglo-Catholics passing slowly to Catholic ways?

Why should they have to do so, if the Anglican Church is right, and has ever been right? But, even so, Anglo-Catholics are not passing to Catholic ways. The Catholic way is obedience to the God-given authority of the Catholic Church, and Anglo-Catholics are as far off from that as ever.

They are practically the same in their services.

They imitate many of our external practices. But even this attempt is in defiance of their own Bishops. Nor does their imitation of Catholic worship make them Catholics. If some stranger were my double in appearance, that would not make him my blood brother. The only way to be a Catholic is to be one. We went from God by disobedience, and the one way back is by obedience. Obedience is the very essence of religion, and it is obedience to the Catholic Church in belief and practice which makes a man a Catholic.

I am an Anglican, and I was present in the Anglican Church of St. James in Sydney where a Requiem Mass was celebrated for the repose of the soul of one of our deceased priests. This occurred in 1930.

The Clergy of that Church wish to adopt the titles and ceremonies of the Catholic Church, but not the obligations of Catholics. No Requiem Mass was really celebrated. A service was held, and called a Requiem Mass. At the Synod held shortly after this event Bishop D'Arcy Irvine protested most strongly against the whole affair. Here are his words, as reported in the Daily Guardian, October 13th, 1930, "Requiem Masses are in direct contrariety to the plain and emphatic statements both of the Articles and also of the devotional language of the Book of Common Prayer. They are repugnant to Anglican theology; they are repugnant to Anglican authority; they are repugnant to the Anglican Liturgy and worship. From the fable, or deceit, or folly—from the practice and doctrine of Requiem Masses may God preserve the Church of England. From cover to cover the Book of Common Prayer has no place for Requiem Masses."

I belong to the High Church party, but I think it is wrong to criticize other parties.

I presume you are High Church because you think it right, and not Low Church because you think that wrong. If you think them equally right there is no reason why you should insist that you are High Church rather than Low Church. You could not defend your own position without criticizing the position you cannot accept.

In spite of all that you say, I still believe that Henry VIII was justified in establishing the Church of England. He purified English religion

Had he left the Catholic Church in order to become a better man himself, and in order to make his people better, you might have a case. But he did not.

He left the Church merely because he was not going to be told by the Pope what to do.

You have said it. Henry was not going to be told even by the Pope to keep God's law, so he rebelled, and his rebellion was the genesis of Anglicanism. It began in disobedience, even as all the world's troubles began in the cry of Satan, "I will not serve." When men refused to obey God, they found everything else refusing to obey them, even their own passions. And when Anglicanism refused to obey the Catholic Church, it lost the power to secure obedience even from its own clergy.

Old England still stands under the Protestant flag of liberty !

The Protestant flag of what liberty? You are dealing with a very dangerous word. There is no absolute liberty. Liberty always implies relative restriction. If I am free from truth, I am subject to error; if free from virtue, subject to vice. When science proved the world round, it took away my liberty to believe it to be flat. But I do not want to be free to believe it flat. When God revealed His law, that revelation took away my liberty to do what that law forbade. When He revealed a definite religion, He took away my liberty to belong to any religion I might wish. His law takes away the liberty of divorce and re-marriage. Good old England gives her subjects the liberty to have it. But that is the liberty of the devil and refusal of submission to God. A man can be free from God and be the servant of Satan, or be free from Satan and be the servant of God. Choose which liberty you will have. But quite a lot of England's liberty is liberty from the law of God. I am of purely English descent, and there is no national prejudice in what I say. But if my own mother commits murder, I refuse to be so blinded by my love for her as to deny that it is a crime.

Since the opening of the Bible to her people, God has favored England as no other nation since Israel.

England has progressed materially, but no argument can be deduced from that. God gives temporal benefits to good and bad alike. Spiritual blessings are the real blessings. England is rapidly drifting to irreligion altogether, and the Book you say she has opened to her people is being torn to shreds and ridiculed by Englishmen in a way which Catholic reverence for the Word of God could never tolerate.

Christian conditions came to England with Protestantism.

Christian conditions are rapidly fading in England as a result of Protestantism. Protestantism gave men so-called liberty to think for themselves, and men have interpreted it as license to think whatever they please.

England could still be Catholic had not men taken to thinking.

Englishmen left the Catholic Church originally through fear for their property and their lives. Not many desired to share the fate of St. Thomas More, and dear old Henry VIII. had the delightful habit of confiscating all the possessions of those who would not transfer their allegiance from the Pope to himself. Four hundred years have dimmed the memory of these things, and no real thought is given to the matter by the average Englishman. But those who can and do think are rapidly giving up Protestantism, and becoming either Agnostics or Catholics. Unfortunately there is no particular prejudice against becoming an Agnostic, whilst there is still a strong lingering prejudice against becoming a Catholic. Also to become a Catholic requires more thinking than to become an Agnostic, and thinking is too much like hard work on such an unimportant matter as the rights of God over mankind.

Could you give me six short reasons why you left Anglicanism?

Certainly. (1) It is a national Church. (2) It has no Apostolic succession. (3) It has no spiritual authority. (4) It omits much Biblical teaching. (5) It is chaotic and contradictory in so much as it does retain. (6) It has produced no Saints of its own. There are many other reasons, but you ask for six.

The Roman Church is built upon one interpretation of Scripture, the Anglican Church upon another. The latter may be as equally right as the former, for all we know.

Since the Anglican Church is a contradiction of the Catholic Church, it could not possibly be equally as right. If one of the two is right, the other must be wrong. Meantime, the Anglican Church is not based upon Scripture. It is based upon the revolt of Henry VIII. from the Catholic Church. Later on interpretations were read into Scripture to suit the Church he founded. That is a matter of history. Many other non-Catholic churches have been originally based upon peculiar misinterpretations of Scripture, and it would be possible to build up hundreds of other churches upon further such misinterpretations. The Catholic Church, however, whilst in full accord with the true sense of Scripture, is not built upon it She existed before a line of the New Testament was written. Her members wrote the New Testament, and she tells us what they really meant when they wrote them. She is built upon the historical Person of Christ, and proves her divine commission by her continued possession of the attributes Christ conferred upon her. Now that the Gospels are written they confirm her claims when rightly interpreted—but that is all H not a Ifns of the New Testament had ever been written, the Catholic Church would still be here.

Anglican ministers are just as good and intelligent as you are, and have studied the Bible just as deeply.

For the sake of argument, let us suppose that to be true. But that does not make the Anglican Church true. If they are just as learned as Catholic priests, so also Catholic priests are just as learned as they. So too, they are just as good. And if the learning and character of Anglican ministers make the Anglican Church true, so the learning and character of Catholic priests would make the Catholic Church true. You are forced to the conclusion that the Anglican Church is the only true Church, and that the Catholic Church is also the only true Church. But you cannot have two only true churches.

Anglicanism, Questions 278-305 from Radio Replies Volume I Copyright © 1938 (by Rev. Dr. Leslie Rumble, M.S.C. and Rev. Charles Mortimer Carty).

Martin Luther and the Protestant Reformation

2011-12-11T19:38:00.001Z

Did not Luther give ninety reasons for leaving the Catholic Church?

He gave many excuses, but no real reasons. Before he left the Church, he was a member of a religious order, vowed for the love of Christ to poverty, chastity, and obedience. He broke all three vows. Vices, whether intellectual or moral, are excuses, not reasons, for leaving the Church.

Was not Luther a brave man to follow his convictions despite the opposition of the Catholic Church?

He had a certain natural courage. But that was no more a virtue than the courage often found in evil-doers. I do not maintain that merely human courage is the monopoly of good Christian men. However, I deny that Luther was following his sincere convictions. Rather he followed his passions.

Luther knew that his love for God did not forbid his entering the state of matrimony which Jesus had blessed at Cana.

Luther knew that it was certainly contrary to his duty to God to violate the solemn vows he had made to God, and still more so, to take a Nun from her Convent as his wife. As for love of God, Jesus invited His Apostles to love Him so much as to leave aside all attachment to father, mother, wife, or children, in order the more closely to follow Him. He blessed marriage for such as are called to that state. But He Himself did not marry, nor did His Apostles after they were called to the ministry.

Luther believed that he is happy whose conscience alloweth the thing that he doth.

The only lawful sense of such a saying is, "Happy is he whose conduct never goes against what a right conscience allows." With Luther it meant, "Happy is he whose conscience is twisted and distorted until it allows whatever one wishes to do." If a Catholic Priest to day did what Luther did then, the Protestant world would hold up its hands in horror, and the newspapers would broadcast it as yet another scandal in the Catholic Church. Picture the heading, "Priest runs away with Nun!" Yet you pretend that it is edifying in Luther. No one who has an elementary knowledge of the life of Christ and of that of Luther could possibly reconcile them. The majority of those who glorify Luther know little or nothing about him save his name. They believe in a legendary Luther, accepting it on trust that he tried to follow the pure Gospel. Sincere Protestants to-day do wish to follow Christ, but the more they do so, the less like Luther they become.

Do you know of any good in Luther?

Intellectually, not much. He declared that reason was of the devil, and that the Christian must regard it as his greatest enemy. Morally, less still. St. Paul says that those who are Christ's have crucified their flesh with its vices and concupiscences. Gal. V., 24. That Luther indulged his vices and concupiscences is clear from his writings, where he gives disgraceful descriptions of his own indulgence in everything passionate. His diaries record shocking excesses of sensuality, which could not be printed in any decent book to-day. A true Apostle of Christ does not give vent to such expressions as, "To be continent and chaste is not in me," or, "Why do I sit soaked in wine." I do not say these things merely to detract from the memory of Luther. But it is not right that people should be duped by the thought that Luther was a well-balanced and saintly reformer. He was not entirely devoid of good qualities. He was endowed with a certain kindness and generosity. But this does not compensate for his vices. He should have controlled his sentimentality and emotional nature in the light of Christian principles. He did not, but gave free rein to his lower passions, calmly saying that a man has to do so, and will not be responsible for such conduct.

Was the Diet of Spires held under Catholic or Protestant auspices?

Under Catholic auspices. It was convened by Charles V., a Catholic sovereign, chiefly to secure temporal peace. In 1517 Luther had broken into open revolt against the Catholic Church, preaching new and heretical doctrines. Charles V. became Emperor in 1520. Many German states, anxious to revolt politically against Charles, followed the new religious revolt of Luther. Chaos reigned in Germany. The Emperor was anxious for political peace; the Pope was anxious to stop the corruption of Catholicism by the preaching of these new doctrines. Charles, therefore, called a Diet or general assembly of all the lesser German princes at Spires in 1529. Pope Clement VII. urged Charles to take up the cause of the Catholic religion at the same time, and in reference to religion, the Diet made three main propositions. The celebration of Mass was to be permitted in those states where Protestants had forbidden it. The reformers were to be free to practice their new religion in those states where it had already been accepted, but it was not to be propagated beyond those states. No sect which denied the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist could be tolerated. The vast majority of Protestants at the Diet approved these laws, but the evangelical minority, whilst accepting the third law, refused to permit Mass, and to refrain from preaching Protestantism to still Catholic peoples. They formally protested that the religion of the people in a given place must be the religion of the temporal ruler of the country, and it is from this protest at the Diet of Spires in 1529 that the word Protestant is derived. It was a protest against freedom of conscience, and against the spiritual authority of the Catholic Church, as well as against the temporal authority of Charles V.

Did not the Diet of Spires profoundly affect the history of human thought?

It did, but rather for evil than for good. It led to dire results and the wrecking of the Catholic faith in many unthinking people. I am speaking, of course, of those delegates at the Diet who protested against its decisions, and am dealing with religious thought. Scientific thought would have gone on in any case. It is not to Protestantism that we owe the scientific and mechanical progress of modern times. That would have come just the same. But in religion Protestantism has given us only chaos, dreary contradictions, and several millions of would-be infallible individual authorities on religious questions. It was a regression from the authority of God to that of erratic man. And where Protestantism began by pretending to defend the rights of the Bible, it has ended by practically declaring the Bible to be worthless.

Luther, Questions 265-271 from Radio Replies Volume I Copyright © 1938 (by Rev. Dr. Leslie Rumble, M.S.C. and Rev. Charles Mortimer Carty).

The Inquisition: Facts and Fiction on the Spanish Inquisition

2011-12-08T23:59:00.001Z

The inquisitions were instituted to protect both guilty and innocent people from the gross injustice of secular leaders and mob rule thus initiating an unprecedented level of justice and order throughout much of Europe.

Pope Benedict XVI arrives in Benin

2011-11-18T23:08:00.001Z

After a nearly six hour flight, Pope Benedict XVI arrived at Benin’s international airport, where he was greeted by president Thomas Yayi Boni and his wife Chantal. When shall he visit Ghana too?

Why do Catholics believe that good works are necessary for salvation?

2011-11-18T13:22:00.001Z

Why do Catholics believe that good works are necessary for salvation! Does not Paul say in Romans 3:28 that faith alone justifies!

Catholics believe that faith and good works are both necessary for salvation, because such is the teaching of Jesus Christ. What Our Lord demands is "faith that worketh by charity ." (Gal. 5 :6). Read Matthew 25:31-46, which describes the Last Judgment as being based on works of charity. The first and greatest commandment, as given by Our Lord Himself, is to love the Lord God with all one's heart, mind, soul, and strength; and the second great commandment is to love one's neighbor as oneself. (Mark 12:30-31). When the rich young man asked Our Lord what he must do to gain eternal life, Our Lord answered: "Keep the commandments." (Matt. 19:17). Thus, although faith is the beginning, it is not the complete fulfillment of the will of God. Nowhere in the Bible is it written that faith alone justifies. When St. Paul wrote, "For we account a man to be justified by faith, without the works of the law," he was referring to works peculiar to the old Jewish Law, and he cited circumcision as an example.

The Catholic Church does NOT teach that purely human good works are meritorious for salvation; such works are NOT meritorious for salvation, according to her teaching. Only those good works performed when a person is in the state of grace – that is, as a branch drawing its spiritual life from the Vine which is Christ (John 15:4-6) – only these good deeds work toward our salvation, and they do so only by the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ. These good works, offered to God by a soul in the state of grace (i.e., free of mortal sin, with the Blessed Trinity dwelling in the soul), are thereby supernaturally meritorious because they share in the work and in the merits of Christ. Such supernatural good works will not only be rewarded by God, but are necessary for salvation.

St. Paul shows how the neglect of certain good works will send even a Christian believer to damnation: "But if any man have not care of his own, and especially of those of his house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel." (1 Tim. 5:8). Our Lord tells us that if the Master (God) returns and finds His servant sinning, rather than performing works of obedience, He "shall separate him, and shall appoint him his portion with unbelievers." (Luke 12:46).

Furthermore, Catholics know they will be rewarded in Heaven for their good works. Our Lord Himself said: "For the Son of man . . . will render to every man according to his works." (Matt. 16:27). "And whosoever shall give to drink to one of these little ones a cup of cold water only in the name of a disciple, amen I say to you, he shall not lose his reward." (Matt. 10:42). Catholics believe, following the Apostle Paul, that "every man shall receive his own reward, according to his own labor." (1 Cor. 3:8). "For God is not unjust, that he should forget your work, and the love which you have shown in his name, you who have ministered, and do minister to the saints." (Heb. 6:10). "I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith. As to the rest, there is laid up for me a crown of justice, which the Lord the just judge will render to me in that day: and not only to me, but to them also that love his coming." (2 Tim. 4:7-8).

Still, Catholics know that, strictly speaking, God never owes us anything. Even after obeying all God's commandments, we must still say: "We are unprofitable servants; we have done that which we ought to do." (Luke 17:10). As St. Augustine (5th century) stated: "All our good merits are wrought through grace, so that God, in crowning our merits, is crowning nothing but His gifts."

Had St. Paul meant that faith ruled out the necessity of good works for salvation, he would not have written: ". . . and if I should have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing." (1 Cor. 13:2). If faith ruled out the necessity of good works for salvation, the Apostle James would not have written: "Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only'? . . . For even as the body without the spirit is dead; so also faith without works is dead." (James 2:24-26). Or: "What shall it profit, my brethren, if a man say he hath faith, but hath not works? Shall faith be able to save him?" (James 2:14). If faith ruled out the necessity of good works for salvation, the Apostle Peter would not have written: "Wherefore, brethren, labor the more, that by good works you may make sure your calling and election. For doing these things, you shall not sin at any time. For so an entrance shall be ministered to you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ." (2 Peter 1:10-11). If faith ruled out the necessity of good works for salvation, the primitive Christian Fathers would not have advocated good works in such powerful words. Wrote St. Irenaeus, one of the most illustrious of the primitive Christian Fathers: "For what is the use of knowing the truth in word, while defiling the body and accomplishing the works of evil? Or what real good at all can bodily holiness do. If truth be not in the soul? For these two, faith and good works, rejoice in each other's company, and agree together and fight side by side to set man in the Presence of God." (Proof of the Apostolic Preaching). Justification by faith alone is a new doctrine; it was unheard of in the Christian community before the sixteenth century.

The Catholic Church has the Answer
By: Fr. Paul Whitcomb

Nihil Obstat: Rev. Edmund J. Bradley Censor Deputatus
Imprimatur: + Timothy Manning, Auxiliary Bishop of Los Angeles, Vicar General
April 13, 1961

Catholics try to earn their own salvation?

2011-11-18T13:16:00.001Z

Why do Catholics try to earn their own salvation, despite the fact that salvation can only come as a free gift from Jesus Christ?

Catholics fully recognize that Jesus Christ died on the Cross for their sins and thus "opened the gates of Heaven," and that salvation is a free gift which no amount of human good deeds could ever earn. Catholics receive Christ's saving and sanctifying grace, and Christ Himself, into their souls when they are baptized. Yet they also know that Christ has established certain conditions for entry into eternal happiness in Heaven – for example, receiving His true Flesh and Blood (John 6:54) and keeping the commandments (Matt. 19:17). If a Christian refuses or neglects to obey Our Lord's commands in a grave matter (that is, if he commits a mortal sin), Our Lord will not remain dwelling in his soul; and if a Christian dies in that state, having driven his Lord from his soul by serious sin, he will not be saved. As St. Paul warned the Galatians with regard to certain sins: "They who do such things shall not obtain the kingdom of God." (Gal. 5:21). It must be added that Christ will always forgive and return to a sinner who approaches Him with sincerity in the Sacrament of Penance.

Catholics follow St. Paul, who did not think that his salvation was guaranteed once and for all at the moment he first received Christ into his soul; for he wrote: "I chastise my body, and bring it into subjection: lest perhaps, when I have preached to others, I myself should become a castaway." (I Cor. 9:27). Also: "With fear and trembling work out your salvation. For it is God who worketh in you..." (Phil. 2:12-13). "And unto whomsoever much is given, of him much shall be required." (Luke 12:48). "He that shall persevere unto the end, he shall be saved." (Matt. 10:22). Nevertheless, Catholics realize that even the fulfilling of Our Lord's requirements for salvation is impossible without the free gift of His grace.

The Catholic Church has the Answer
By: Fr. Paul Whitcomb

Nihil Obstat: Rev. Edmund J. Bradley Censor Deputatus
Imprimatur: + Timothy Manning, Auxiliary Bishop of Los Angeles, Vicar General
April 13, 1961

Why Catholic Traditions?

2011-11-18T13:10:00.001Z

Why does the Catholic Church base some of her doctrines on tradition instead of basing them all on the Bible? Did Christ not tell the Pharisees that in holding to tradition they were transgressing the commandment of God? (Matt. 15:3, Mark 7:9).

Observe that in the Bible there are two kinds of religious tradition – human and divine. Observe that when Christ accused the Pharisees He was referring to "precepts of men" (Mark 7:7), to their human traditions. Christ wanted divine tradition preserved and honored because He made it part and parcel of the Christian deposit of faith – as the Apostle Paul affirmed: "Stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle." (2 Thess. 2:14. Also see 2 Thess. 3:6). This divine tradition to which Paul refers – this revealed truth which was handed down by word rather than by letter – is the tradition upon which, along with Sacred Scripture, the Catholic Church bases her tenets of faith – as the primitive Christian Fathers affirmed. Wrote St. Augustine: "These traditions of the Christian name, therefore, so numerous, so powerful, and most dear, justly keep a believing man in the Catholic Church." The New Testament itself is a product of Christian tradition. Nowhere in the New Testament is there any mention of a New Testament.

The Catholic Church has the Answer
By: Fr. Paul Whitcomb

Nihil Obstat: Rev. Edmund J. Bradley Censor Deputatus
Imprimatur: + Timothy Manning, Auxiliary Bishop of Los Angeles, Vicar General
April 13, 1961

Why confiscate and burn so many Bibles?

2011-11-18T13:06:00.001Z

If the Catholic Church really honors the Bible as the holy Word of God – if she really wants her members to become familiar with its truth – why in times past did she confiscate and burn so many Bibles?

The Bibles which were collected and burned by the Catholic Church in times past – notably the Wycliff and Tyndale Bibles – were faulty translations, and therefore, were not the holy Word of God. In other words, the Catholic Church collected and burned those "Bibles" precisely because she does honor the Bible, the true Bible, as the holy Word of God and wants her members to become familiar with its truths. Proof of this is seen in the fact that after those Bibles were collected and burned, they were replaced by accurate editions. There can be no doubt that the Wycliff and Tyndale translations were corrupt and therefore deserving of extinction, for no church has ever attempted to resurrect them. Nor can there be any doubt that the Bibles which replaced them were correct translations, because they have long been honored by both Protestants and Catholics.

The Catholic Church has the Answer
By: Fr. Paul Whitcomb

Nihil Obstat: Rev. Edmund J. Bradley Censor Deputatus
Imprimatur: + Timothy Manning, Auxiliary Bishop of Los Angeles, Vicar General
April 13, 1961

Does the Catholic Church discourage Bible reading?

2011-11-18T12:45:00.001Z

Why does the Catholic Church discourage Bible reading when, according to the Apostle, "All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach...[and] to instruct in justice"? (2 Tim. 3:16).

If the Catholic Church discourages Bible reading, the Pope, the thousands of Catholic Bishops, and the many millions of Catholic lay people, are not aware of it. For the Popes have issued pastoral letters to the whole Church, called encyclicals, on the edifying effects of Bible reading. The Catholic Bible far outsells all other Christian Bibles worldwide. In fact, it has always been thus. The very first Christian Bible was produced by the Catholic Church – compiled by Catholic scholars of the 2nd and 3rd century and approved for general Christian use by the Catholic Councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397). The very first printed Bible was produced under the auspices of the Catholic Church – printed by the Catholic inventor of the printing press, Johannes Gutenberg. And the very first Bible with chapters and numbered verses was produced by the Catholic Church – the work of Stephen Langton, Cardinal Archbishop of Canterbury. It was this perennial Catholic devotion to the Bible which prompted Martin Luther – who certainly cannot be accused of Catholic favoritism – to write in his Commentary on St. John: "We are compelled to concede to the Papists that they have the Word of God, that we received it from them, and that without them we should have no knowledge of it at all."

The Catholic Church has the Answer
By: Fr. Paul Whitcomb

Nihil Obstat: Rev. Edmund J. Bradley Censor Deputatus
Imprimatur: + Timothy Manning, Auxiliary Bishop of Los Angeles, Vicar General
April 13, 1961

Why do Catholics believe in seven sacraments?

2011-11-18T12:39:00.001Z

Why do Catholics believe in seven sacraments, while Protestants believe in only two? Exactly what is a sacrament, and what does it do for a person?

Catholics believe in seven sacraments because Christ instituted seven; because the Apostles and Church Fathers believed in seven; because the second Ecumenical Council of Lyons (1274) defined seven; and because the Ecumenical Council of Trent (1545-1563) confirmed seven. In short, the enumeration, seven, arises from the perpetual tradition of Christian belief – which explains why that enumeration is accepted not only by Catholics, but by all of the other ancient and semi-ancient Christian communities – Egyptian Coptic, Ethiopian Monophysite, Syrian Jacobite, Greek Orthodox and Russian Orthodox.

To understand what a sacrament is, and what it does for a person, one must know the correct, the traditional Christian, definition of a sacrament. Properly defined, a sacrament is "an outward sign instituted by Christ to give grace" (holiness) to the soul . . . that is to say, it is a divinely prescribed ceremony of the Church in which the words and action combine to form what is at the same time both a sign of divine grace and a fount of divine grace. When this special grace – distinct from ordinary, inspirational grace – is imparted to the soul, the Holy Spirit of God is imparted to the soul, imbuing the soul with divine life, uniting the soul to Christ.

As the Scriptures point out, this grace is the grace of salvation – without it man is, in a very real sense, isolated from Christ. And as the Scriptures point out, Christ gave His Church seven sacraments to serve as well-springs of this ineffable, soul-saving grace, the grace which flows from His sacrifice on Calvary:

BAPTISM – the sacrament of spiritual rebirth through which we are made children of God and heirs of Heaven: "Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." (John 3:5. Also see Acts 2:38, Rom. 6:2-6).

CONFIRMATION – the sacrament which confers the Holy Spirit to make us strong and perfect Christians and soldiers of Jesus Christ: "Now when the apostles, who were in Jerusalem, had heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John. Who, when they were come, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost. . . . Then they laid their hands upon them, and they received the Holy Ghost." (Acts 8:14-17. Also see Acts 19:6).

The EUCHARIST – the sacrament, also known as Holy Communion, which nourishes the soul with the true Flesh and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus, under the appearance, or sacramental veil, of bread and wine: "And whilst they were eating, Jesus took bread; and blessing, broke, and gave to them, and said: Take ye. This is my body. And having taken the chalice, giving thanks, he gave it to them. And they all drank of it. And he said to them: This is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many." (Mark 14:22-24. Also see Matt. 26:26-28, Luke 22:19-20, John 6:52-54, 1 Cor. 10:16).

PENANCE – the sacrament, also known as Confession, through which Christ forgives sin and restores the soul to grace: "Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained." (John 20:22-23. Also see Matt. 18:18).

EXTREME UNCTION – the sacrament, sometimes called the Last Anointing, which strengthens the sick and sanctifies the dying: "Is any man sick among you? Let him bring in the priests of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord . . . and if he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him." (James 5:14-15. Also see Mark 6:12-13).

HOLY ORDERS – the sacrament of ordination which empowers priests to offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, administer the sacraments, and officiate over all the other proper affairs of the Church: "For every high priest taken from among men, is ordained for men in the things that appertain to God, that he may offer up gifts and sacrifices for sins . . . Neither doth any man take the honor to himself, but he that is called by God, as Aaron was." (Heb. 5:1-4. Also see Acts 20:28, 1 Tim. 4:14). Also: "And taking bread, he gave thanks, and broke; and gave to them, saying: This is my body, which is given for you. Do this for a commemoration of me." (Luke 22:19).

MATRIMONY – the sacrament which unites a man and woman in a holy and indissoluble bond: "For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh. Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder." (Matt. 19:5-6. Also see Mark 10:7-9, Eph. 5:22-32).

There you have it, the Word of Christ and the example of the Apostles attesting both to the validity and the efficacy of the seven Sacraments of the Catholic Church. In truth, every one of them is an integral part of Christ's plan for man's eternal salvation.

The Catholic Church has the Answer
By: Fr. Paul Whitcomb

Nihil Obstat: Rev. Edmund J. Bradley Censor Deputatus
Imprimatur: + Timothy Manning, Auxiliary Bishop of Los Angeles, Vicar General
April 13, 1961

Why do Catholics believe the Pope is infallible?

2011-11-18T12:25:00.001Z

Why do Catholics believe the Pope is infallible in his teachings when he is a human being, with a finite human intellect, like the rest of us? What is the scriptural basis for this belief?

The doctrine of Papal Infallibility does not mean the Pope is always right in all his personal teachings. Catholics are quite aware that, despite his great learning, the Pope is very much a human being and therefore liable to commit human error. On some subjects, like sports and manufacturing, his judgment is liable to be very faulty. The doctrine simply means that the Pope is divinely protected from error when, acting in his official capacity as chief shepherd of the Catholic fold, he promulgates a decision which is binding on the conscience of all Catholics throughout the world. In other words, his infallibility is limited to his specialty– the Faith of Jesus Christ.

In order for the Pope to be infallible on a particular statement, however, four conditions must apply: 1) he must be speaking ex cathedra . . . that is, "from the Chair" of Peter, or in other words, officially, as head of the entire Church; 2) the decision must be for the whole Church; 3) it must be on a matter of faith or morals; 4) the Pope must have the intention of making a final decision on a teaching of faith or morals, so that it is to be held by all the faithful. It must be interpretive, not originative; the Pope has no authority to originate new doctrine. He is not the author of revelation – only its guardian and expounder. He has no power to distort a single word of Scripture, or change one iota of divine tradition. His infallibility is limited strictly to the province of doctrinal interpretation, and it is used quite rarely. It is used in order to clarify, to "define," some point of the ancient Christian tradition. It is the infallibility of which Christ spoke when He said to Peter, the first Pope: "I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven." (Matt. 16:19). Certainly Christ would not have admonished His followers to "hear the church" (Matt. 18:17) without somehow making certain that what they heard was the truth – without somehow making the teaching magisterium of His Church infallible.

For a complete understanding of the Pope's infallibility, however, one more thing should be known: His ex cathedra decisions are not the result of his own private deliberations. They are the result of many years – sometimes hundreds of years – of consultation with the other bishops and theologians of the Church. He is, in effect, voicing the belief of the whole Church. His infallibility is not his own private endowment, but rather an endowment of the entire Mystical Body of Christ. Indeed, the Pope's hands are tied with regard to the changing of Christian doctrine. No Pope has ever used his infallibility to change, add, or subtract any Christian teaching; this is because Our Lord promised to be with His Church until the end of the world. (Matt. 28:20). Protestant denominations, on the other hand, feel free to change their doctrines. For example, all Protestant denominations once taught that contraception was gravely sinful; but since 1930, when the Church of England's Lambeth Conference decided contraception was no longer a sin, virtually all Protestant ministers in the world have accepted this human decision and changed their teaching.

The Catholic Church has the Answer
By: Fr. Paul Whitcomb

Nihil Obstat: Rev. Edmund J. Bradley Censor Deputatus
Imprimatur: + Timothy Manning, Auxiliary Bishop of Los Angeles, Vicar General
April 13, 1961

Why believe Peter was the first Pope?

2011-11-18T12:16:00.001Z

Why do Catholics believe that Peter the Apostle was the first Pope, when the word "Pope" doesn't even appear in Catholic Bibles? Just where does the Pope get his authority to rule over the Catholic Church?

True, the word "Pope" doesn't appear in the Bible – but then neither do the words "Trinity," "Incarnation," "Ascension" and "Bible" appear in the Bible. However, they are referred to by other names. The Bible, for example, is referred to as "Scripture." The Pope, which means head bishop of the Church, is referred to as the "rock" of the Church, or as the "shepherd" of the Church. Christ used that terminology when He appointed the Apostle Peter the first head bishop of His Church, saying: "Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona . . . Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church." (Matt. 16:17-19). "There shall be one fold and one shepherd." (John 10:16). "Feed my lambs . . . feed my sheep." (John 21:15-17). The words "rock" and "shepherd" must apply to Peter, and they must distinguish him as the head Apostle, otherwise Christ's statements are so ambiguous as to be meaningless. Certainly the other Apostles understood that Peter had authority from Christ to lead the Church, for they gave him the presiding place every time they assembled in council (Acts 1:15, 5:1-10), and they placed his name first every time they listed the names of the Apostles. (Matt. 10:2, Mark 3:16, Luke 6:13-14, Acts 1:13).

In addition, there is the testimony of the Church Fathers. In the second century St. Hegessipus compiled a list of Popes to the time of Anicetus (eleventh Pope) which contained the name of St. Peter as first. Early in the third century the historian Caius wrote that Pope Victor was "the thirteenth Bishop of Rome from Peter." In the middle of the third century St. Cyprian related that Cornelius (twenty-first Pope) "mounted the lofty summit of the priesthood . . . the place of Peter." Even Protestant historians have attested to Peter's role as first Bishop of Rome, first Pope of the Catholic Church. Wrote the eminent Protestant historian Cave in his Historia Literaria: "That Peter was at Rome, and held the See there for some time, we fearlessly affirm with the whole multitude of the ancients." Hence the source of the Pope's authority to rule over the Catholic Church is quite obvious: It was given him by none other than Jesus Christ – by God Himself.

The Catholic Church has the Answer
By: Fr. Paul Whitcomb

Nihil Obstat: Rev. Edmund J. Bradley Censor Deputatus
Imprimatur: + Timothy Manning, Auxiliary Bishop of Los Angeles, Vicar General
April 13, 1961

Worldly Popes, the bloody Inquisitions, the selling of indulgences and the invention of new doctrines?

2011-11-18T12:05:00.001Z

If the Catholic Church never fell into error, how does one explain the worldly Popes, the bloody Inquisitions, the selling of indulgences and the invention of new doctrines?

A careful, objective investigation of Catholic history will disclose these facts: The so-called worldly popes of the Middle Ages – three in number – were certainly guilty of extravagant pomposity, nepotism and other indiscretions and sins which were not in keeping with the dignity of their high church office – but they certainly were not guilty of licentious conduct while in office, nor were they guilty of altering any part of the Church's Christ-given deposit of faith. The so-called bloody Inquisitions, which were initiated by the civil governments of France and Spain for the purpose of ferreting out Moslems and Jews who were causing social havoc by posing as faithful Catholic citizens – even as priests and bishops – were indeed approved by the Church. (Non-Catholics who admitted they were non-Catholics were left alone by the Inquisition.) And the vast majority of those questioned by the Inquisition (including St. Teresa of Avila) were completely cleared. Nevertheless, the popes roundly condemned the proceedings when they saw justice giving way to cruel abuses, and it was this insistent condemnation by the popes which finally put an end to the Inquisitions.

The so-called selling of indulgences positively did not involve any "selling" – it involved the granting of the spiritual favor of an indulgence (which is the remission of the debt of temporal punishment for already-forgiven sins) in return for the giving of alms to the Church for the building of Christendom's greatest house of prayer – St. Peter's Basilica in Rome. One must understand with regard to indulgences that there are always two acts to be fulfilled by the one gaining the indulgence: 1) doing the deed (e.g., alms-giving) and 2) saying of some prescribed prayers with proper spiritual dispositions. In the case in point, the first act for gaining the indulgence was "giving alms." If the almsgiver thereafter failed to say the requisite prayers, he would not receive the indulgence because he had failed to fulfill both required acts. The indulgences therefore were not "sold"; the very giving of money was itself the first of two requisite acts for gaining the indulgence in question.

The so-called invention of new doctrines, which refers to the Church's proclamation of new dogmas, is the most baseless and ridiculous charge of all – for those "new" dogmas of the Church were actually old doctrines dating back to the beginning of Christianity. In proclaiming them to be dogmas, the Church merely emphasized their importance to the Faith and affirmed that they are, in truth, part and parcel of divine revelation. The Catholic Church followed the same procedure when, in the fourth century, she proclaimed the New Testament to be divinely revealed. Hence it is obvious that the Catholic Church did NOT fall into error during the Middle Ages as some people allege, for if she had, she could not have produced those hundreds of medieval saints – saints the caliber of St. Francis, St. Bernard, St. Bonaventure, St. Clare, St. Anthony, St. John of the Cross, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Elizabeth and St. Vincent Ferrer (who performed an estimated 40,000 miracles).

The Catholic Church has the Answer
By: Fr. Paul Whitcomb

Nihil Obstat: Rev. Edmund J. Bradley Censor Deputatus
Imprimatur: + Timothy Manning, Auxiliary Bishop of Los Angeles, Vicar General
April 13, 1961