Choose a topic from Vol 2:


Proof of God's existence
God's nature
Supreme control over all things and the problem of suffering and evil


Destiny of man
Immortality of man's soul
Pre-existence denied
The human free will
Determinism absurd


Necessity of religion
Salvation of the soul
Voice of science
Religious racketeers
Divine revelation
Revealed mysteries
Existence of miracles

The Religion of the Bible

Gospels historical
Missing Books of the Bible
The Bible inspired
Biblical account of creation
New Testament problems
Supposed contradictions in Sacred Scripture

The Christian Faith

Source of Christian teaching
Jewish rejection of Christ
Christianity a new religion
Rational foundation for belief
Causes of unbelief

A Definite Christian Faith

Divisions amongst Christians
Schisms unjustified
Facing the problem
The wrong approach
Is one religion as good as another?
Obligation of inquiry
Charity and tolerance

The Protestant Reformation

Meaning of "Protestant"
Causes of the Reformation
Catholic reaction
Reformers mistaken
The idealization of Protestantism
The Catholic estimate

The Truth of Catholicism

Meaning of the word "Church"
Origin of the Church
The Catholic claim
The Roman hierarchy
The Pope
The Petrine text
St. Peter's supremacy
St. Peter in Rome
Temporal power
Unity of the Church
Holiness of the Church
Catholicity of the Church
Apostolicity of the Church
Indefectibility of the Church
Obligation to be a Catholic

The Church and the Bible

Catholic attitude towards the Bible
Is Bible reading forbidden to Catholics?
Protestant Bibles
The Catholic Douay Version
Principle of private interpretation
Need of Tradition
The teaching authority of the Catholic Church

The Dogmas of the Church

Revolt against dogma
Value of a Creed
The divine gift of Faith
Faith and reason
The "Dark Ages"
The claims of science
The Holy Trinity
Creation and evolution
Grace and salvation
The Sacraments
Holy Eucharist
The Sacrifice of the Mass
Holy Communion
The Catholic Priesthood
Marriage and divorce
Extreme Unction
The resurrection of the body
The end of the world

The Church and Her Moral Teachings

The Inquisition
Other superstitions
Attendance at Mass
Sex education
Attitude to "Free Love"

The Church in Her Worship

Magnificent edifices
Lavish ritual
Women in Church
Catholics and "Mother's Day"
Liturgical Days
Burial rites
Candles and votive lamps
The rosary
Lourdes water
The Scapular

The Church and Social Welfare

Social influence of the Church
The education question
The Church and world distress
Catholic attitude towards Capitalism
The remedy for social ills
Communism condemned
The Fascist State
Morality of war
May individuals become soldiers?
The Church and peace
Capital punishment
Catholic Action

Comparative Study of Non-Catholic Denominations

Defections from the Catholic Church
Coptic Church
Greek Orthodox Church
Anglican Episcopal Church
The "Free" or "Nonconformist" Churches
Church of Christ
Seventh Day Adventists
Plymouth Brethren
Catholic Apostolic Church or Irvingites
Salvation Army
Christian Science
British Israelism
Liberal Catholics
Witnesses of Jehovah
Buchmanism or the "Oxford Group Movement"
From Protestantism to Catholicism

To and From Rome

Conversion of Cardinal Newman
Why Gladstone refrained
The peculiar case of Lord Halifax
Gibbon the historian
Secession of Father Chiniquy
Father Tyrrell, the modernist
Bishop Garrett's departure
Judgment on lapsed Catholics
Protestant apathy towards conversion of Catholics
Principles for converts to Catholicism
God's will that all should become Catholics

St. Peter in Rome

348. Is there any indication in Scripture that St.Peter was ever in Rome?

Yes. St. Peter ends his first Epistle with the words, "TheChurch which is in Babylon salutes you, and so doth my sonMark." Pagan Rome was called Babylon by the early Christians;and St. Peter was writing from that city. Also, St. Paul wrote hisEpistle to the Romans in the year 58 A. D. In it he says that hedoes not want to preach the Gospel where Christ is already known,because he would not build on "another man'sfoundation." Yet in the Epistle to the Romans he writes to aChurch already founded "whose faith was spoken of throughoutthe whole world." R. I., 8; declares that he himself had notyet visited Rome, R. I., 10-13; XV., 22-23; but that he hoped to doso when he later set out to visit Spain. R. XV., 24. Commenting onthese words, the Protestant Dr. B. J. Kidd writes, "Rome, inshort, was 'another man's foundation.' No allusion tothe 'other man' by name is wanted. The Romans knew wellenough whom he meant. Who, then, was the 'other man'? Theevidence is early and threefold in favor of St. Peter." Hist.of Ch., p. 52. The Rev. G. Edmundson, in his "Church in Romein the First Century," p. 28, writes: "There had been afounder of this great Church with whom St. Paul was wellacquainted. Who was he? All tradition answers with one voice thename of St. Peter."

349. Why did not Paul mention Peter in writing tothe Romans, of all people?

No such mention was necessary, and it would have been positivelyinexpedient. The most ordinary prudence would make St. Paul avoidmentioning St. Peter as Bishop of Rome in written documents whichmight fall into the hands of the enemies of the Church. TheChristians were most careful not to allow the movements andofficial acts of their Bishops to become known to the authoritiesof pagan society. Any hint that the head of the Church had taken uphis abode in Rome, or was founding his See in the very heart of theRoman Empire would be disastrous if it came into the hands ofenemies. St. Paul's remark that he was not going to build on"another man's foundation" was sufficient referencefor those to whom he was writing.

350. Can you prove that Peter was ever Bishop ofRome?

We have a host of early indications that he was, whilst not asingle early writer can be quoted as expressing the least doubt onthe subject. Heretics and schismatics, as well as Catholicsthemselves, acknowledged the Bishop of Rome as succeeding to thebishopric of St. Peter. Eusebius wrote as follows: "Peter theApostle, the first Pontiff of the Christians, when he had firstfounded the Church at Antioch, proceeds to Rome where, preachingthe Gospel, he continues for twenty-five years Bishop of thatcity." And he adds, "Linus was the first after Peter thatobtained the Episcopate of the Church of the Romans." TheProtestant Bishop Lightfoot says of Eusebius, "To Eusebius weare indebted for almost all that we know of the lost ecclesiasticalliterature of the second century ... in no instance that we cantest, does Eusebius give a doubtful testimony. ... I do not join inthe vulgar outcry against the dishonesty of Eusebius. Whenever Ihave been able to investigate this charge, I have found itbaseless."

351. Why should not Antioch, Peter's See, takepriority over Rome, Paul's See?

Rome was never the See of St. Paul. St. Paul himself, by hislater visit there, his preaching at Rome, and death in that city,earned the title of co-founder of the Mother-See of Christendom.But Rome was ever called the "Chair of Peter," never the"Chair of Paul"; and Eusebius rightly refers to Linussimply as "the first after Peter." The wonderfulorganization and faith of the Roman Church before St. Paul went there, and to which he alludes in his Epistle to theRomans, can be accounted for only by Apostolic foundation. And itwas undoubtedly St. Peter who founded the Church at Rome,organizing the scattered elements, and placing the Church on asolid basis. Antioch would have had priority had St. Peter remainedand died there. But he did not do so. He transferred to Rome, andhis successor was naturally the Bishop of Rome, not the Bishop ofAntioch.



Prefer a PRINT version?