Catholic Apologetics Online

Choose a topic from Vol 1:

God

Man

Religion

The Religion of the Bible

The Christian Faith

A Definite Christian Faith

The Failure of Protestantism

The Truth of Catholicism

The Catholic Church and the Bible

The Church and Her Dogmas

The Church in Her Moral Teachings

The Church in Her Worship

The Church and Social Welfare

These are the results of your search:

• Num ↑ / Num ↓ (Sorted.)

1538. The Church worships the rulers as gods, and stands for their authority.

The Church does not worship rulers, but she gives those in lawful authority the respect due to them. St. Peter knew the law of God quite well, and wrote, "Be ye therefore subject for God's sake, whether it be to the king as excelling, or to governors as sent by…

The Church does not worship rulers, but she gives those in lawful authority the respect due to them. St. Peter knew the law of God quite well, and wrote, "Be ye therefore subject for God's sake, whether it be to the king as excelling, or to governors as sent by him. Fear God. Honor the king." I. Peter, 11-13.

Topic: "" in Vol 1.

1472. If Catholics are so narrow-minded, they deserve to pay for their ownschools.

Even if the government returned Catholic taxes, Catholics would be paying for their own schools. The Catholic position is not unreasonable in this matter. If to have a conscience is to be narrow-minded, then Catholics are narrow-minded. They can never be broad-minded enough to say that education omitting religion and…

Even if the government returned Catholic taxes, Catholics would be paying for their own schools. The Catholic position is not unreasonable in this matter. If to have a conscience is to be narrow-minded, then Catholics are narrow-minded. They can never be broad-minded enough to say that education omitting religion and a knowledge of the truth taught by Christ is good enough. A one time Anglican Bishop of Melbourne, Dr. Moorhouse, said in reference to this matter, "I will not join in the howls against Rome. . . . Can I forget that Roman Catholics, with all their errors, love my Redeemer, and that, having such love, they are nearer to my heart than the most enlightened Secularist who reviles or disowns Him? Let others do as they please; I will never unite with the Secularists against Rome, to keep Christ out of the schools of this colony. I still advocate, therefore, the making in some form a grant to Roman Catholics for secular results. I seek this change, not as a Churchman, but as a Christian and a citizen."

Topic: "The Church and education" in Vol 1.

1449. Look at Catholic countries where Rome has power!

Yes, look at them, but with open eyes. The temporal administration of these countries is not in the hands of the Church. And, in any case, as I have said, Spain had the Catholic religion when she was the first power in Europe. Meantime, remember that the Catholic Church is…

Yes, look at them, but with open eyes. The temporal administration of these countries is not in the hands of the Church. And, in any case, as I have said, Spain had the Catholic religion when she was the first power in Europe. Meantime, remember that the Catholic Church is the mother of civilization. She preserved literature, and but for the transcriptions of her monks, you would have scarcely a single classical author of ancient times. The Catholic faith has inspired the loftiest works of art, architecture, and music. The economic fluctuations are simply irrelevant.

Topic: "Catholic and Protestant countries" in Vol 1.

1446. All the same Catholicism keeps the people poor, for Father Martindale bewailed the fact that the Catholic religion is looked upon as the religion of the kitchen.

That does not mean that it is the religion of the kitchen. Nor was Father Martindale alluding to the qualities of the religion. He was rebuking the dispositions of those who so regarded Catholicism. He was blaming men who are so blind to the real facts that, because many of…

That does not mean that it is the religion of the kitchen. Nor was Father Martindale alluding to the qualities of the religion. He was rebuking the dispositions of those who so regarded Catholicism. He was blaming men who are so blind to the real facts that, because many of the lower classes do happen to be Catholics, they look down upon Catholicism with prejudice and snobbishness. Such men would have despised Christianity in the first days of its existence because preached by a common fisherman, Peter.

Topic: "Poverty of Catholics" in Vol 1.

1376. In Acts X,. 26, Peter refused to let a man kneel before him.Why does not the Pope behave as did St. Peter?

The passage you quote tells us that "When Peter was come in, Cornelius came to meet him, and falling at his feet, adored." Peter saw that Cornelius was giving him a worship more than could be permitted, and said, "Arise. I myself am also a man." If the Pope detected…

The passage you quote tells us that "When Peter was come in, Cornelius came to meet him, and falling at his feet, adored." Peter saw that Cornelius was giving him a worship more than could be permitted, and said, "Arise. I myself am also a man." If the Pope detected the same dispositions in those who came to honor him he would utter a similar warning. He would be the first to say, "I too am but a creature of God. You must not worship me like this." But kneeling is a sign of respect and reverence. When Sir Francis Drake knelt before Queen Elizabeth, he was not adoring her. In the good old days of chivalry, men proposed to the ladies of their choice on their knees, but that did not imply divine worship! Kneeling, therefore, can be a sign of ordinary respect, or of divine worship according to the intentions of the one offering such a tribute. As divine worship it cannot be offered to anyone less than God, and in this sense the Pope would forbid it as did St. Peter. But the same act can be offered as a sign of respect for the authority vested in the minister of Christ, and the utmost respect is due to Christ's Vicar, the Pope.

Topic: "Liturgical ceremonial" in Vol 1.

1371. Does crawling up the Scala Santa at Rome on one's knees help save one's soul?

The Scala Santa, or Holy Staircase, consists of twenty-eight marble steps. They are said to have been brought to Rome from Jerusalem by St. Helena, the mother of Constantine, in 326 A.D. At Jerusalem they led up to the one-time court of Pilate, and the feet of Jesus had trodden…

The Scala Santa, or Holy Staircase, consists of twenty-eight marble steps. They are said to have been brought to Rome from Jerusalem by St. Helena, the mother of Constantine, in 326 A.D. At Jerusalem they led up to the one-time court of Pilate, and the feet of Jesus had trodden them as He went down to be crucified by men. With no idea that such an act will of itself save his soul, the Catholic ascends them on his knees out of reverence for Christ, and you have not much reverence and love for Him if you ridicule such a tribute. We Catholics, after all, believe that He is God. We are quite prepared to kiss the very ground whereon He stood. The Pharisees once ridiculed a woman who went on her knees and washed His feet with her tears. But Christ justified her act of loving reverence. Cold Protestantism will never understand the warm-hearted love of Catholicism for the Person of Christ and of all connected with Him. I do not belong to the emotional and demonstrative Latin race. I do not live in the middle ages. I do not suppose I would be ranked as illiterate. Yet whilst in Rome I myself ascended those same stairs on my knees, and I experience no flush of shame as I say so. I have seen a Protestant kiss the pages of the Gospel. He kissed a printed sheet of paper. I admired him for it, and so would you, for we know what it meant to him. I certainly would not ridicule him and ask him sarcastically whether he thought that the smearing of his lips on a piece of paper would help to save his soul! Yet such a remark would be similar to that of a Protestant who suggests that Catholics believe they can be saved by crawling up a staircase on their knees. However you would not have asked such a question had you realized the nature of the subject and the motives prompting such reverence for Christ.

Topic: "Liturgical ceremonial" in Vol 1.

1305. Is it not only recently that the Catholic Church forbade it?

No. But the recent publicity and advocacy given to this wretched vice have led to new statements of the permanent Catholic doctrine. This vice ruined pagan Rome, and Origen wrote against the pagan Celsus in the third century, "At least the more our people obey Christian doctrine, the more they…

No. But the recent publicity and advocacy given to this wretched vice have led to new statements of the permanent Catholic doctrine. This vice ruined pagan Rome, and Origen wrote against the pagan Celsus in the third century, "At least the more our people obey Christian doctrine, the more they love purity, abstaining from even lawful sex-pleasure that they may the more purely worship God. Christians marry as do others, and they have children; but they do not stifle their offspring. They are in bodies of flesh, but they do not live according to the flesh." In the fourth century St. Augustine wrote, "Relations with one's wife when conception is deliberately prevented are as unlawful and impure as the conduct of Onan who was slain." St. Thomas Aquinas, in the thirteenth century, taught clearly the constant doctrine of the Christian religion that birth-control is a grave sin. He writes, "Next to murder, by which an actually existent human being is destroyed, we rank this sin by which the generation of a human being is prevented." Contra Gent., Bk. III., c. 122. It is not a new law by any means.

Topic: "Birth control" in Vol 1.

1119. I deny that Masonry is opposed to the Catholic Church.

Senator Delpech, President of the Grand Orient in France, said on September 20th, 1902, "The triumph of the Galilean has lasted many centuries, but now He dies in His turn. He passes away to join the dust of the ages with the other divinities of India, Greece, and Rome, who…

Senator Delpech, President of the Grand Orient in France, said on September 20th, 1902, "The triumph of the Galilean has lasted many centuries, but now He dies in His turn. He passes away to join the dust of the ages with the other divinities of India, Greece, and Rome, who saw so many deceived creatures prostrate before their altars. Brother Masons, we rejoice that we are not without our share in this overthrow of false prophets. The Romish Church began to decay from the day the Masonic association was established/' The Swiss Lodge declared, "We have one irreconcilable enemy—the Pope and clericalism." Masonic documents seized by the Government of Italy declared that the ultimate idea of Masonry there was to destroy Catholicism and even the Christian idea altogether. Again in 1913 the Grand Orient of France said, "The aim of the Grand Orient is to crush Roman Catholicism in France first, and then elsewhere." Masonic journals in England replied to these quotations by saying that English Masonry did not sympathize with such extravagant utterances, and that it had no opinions, political or religious. But the American Pike replied, "It is idle to protest. We are Masons, and we recognize the French brotherhood as Freemasons in virtue of solidarity. Ours is a universal fraternity." The list of Grand Lodges published in 1907 shows that the United Grand Lodge of England recognizes practically all the Grand Lodges of the world. As the Ancient Scottish Rite for the installment of a Grand Master says, "There is a sacred bond uniting all the brethren of our Craft. However scattered over the earth, they all compose one body." Masonry as such is opposed to the Catholic Church. I know that there are many fine, broad, and tolerant men, who rather admire the Catholic Church, if anything. But the fact remains that no Catholic may become a Mason without renouncing his religion, and no Mason can become a Catholic without severing his connection with the Masonic Lodge.

Topic: "Freemasonry" in Vol 1.

1077. Giordano Bruno was burned for saying that the earth moved round the sun. He died in 1600.

Bruno was not burned for that. His history would surprise, I think, even you. He apostatized from the Catholic Church and first joined the Calvinists. In 1580 he was excommunicated by them at Geneva. He went to England, but in 1584 had to leave because he proved to be a…

Bruno was not burned for that. His history would surprise, I think, even you. He apostatized from the Catholic Church and first joined the Calvinists. In 1580 he was excommunicated by them at Geneva. He went to England, but in 1584 had to leave because he proved to be a disturber of the peace, having among other things insulted the professors at Oxford by saying publicly that they knew more about beer than about Greek. He migrated to Germany, and was there excommunicated by the Lutherans in 1590. Returning to Rome he was excommunicated again by the Catholic Church, not for teaching the theory of Copernicus, but for blasphemy and heresy by denying the Divinity of Christ and asserting that He was but a magician. He was handed over to the secular authorities, and burned in the gentle style of those times as a traitor and as dangerous to the welfare of the state. Such, briefly, is the story of Giordano Bruno.

Topic: "The Inquisition" in Vol 1.

1076. Did the Catholic Church protest against the massacre of Huguenots on St. Bartholomew's Day, Aug. 23, 1572?

Yes. That massacre had no connection whatever with the Catholic Church. The Church did not instigate the massacre, nor did the Pope have any knowledge of it beforehand. It was a purely political and deplorable murder engineered by Catherine de Medici, a woman almost completely irreligious. After its occurrence a…

Yes. That massacre had no connection whatever with the Catholic Church. The Church did not instigate the massacre, nor did the Pope have any knowledge of it beforehand. It was a purely political and deplorable murder engineered by Catherine de Medici, a woman almost completely irreligious. After its occurrence a lying report was sent to the Pope that it was a successful repression of a plot to murder the king. In thanksgiving for the king's safety, the Pope ordered a Te Deum to be sung in Rome. But when Gregory XIII. heard the real story he expressed his horror and condemnation, and refused to allow one of the leaders of the attack to be presented to him, saying, "I will not receive a murderer."

Topic: "The Inquisition" in Vol 1.

1020. Did not Christ Himself believe that the end of the world was at hand? I refer you to Lk. iX. 27.

In that text Christ says, "I tell you of a truth: There are some standing here that shall not taste death till they see the kingdom of God." But those words have no reference to the end of the world. Christ often called His Church His Kingdom. When He said…

In that text Christ says, "I tell you of a truth: There are some standing here that shall not taste death till they see the kingdom of God." But those words have no reference to the end of the world. Christ often called His Church His Kingdom. When He said to St. Peter, "I will build my Church . . . and give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven," He identified the two notions. Again, when He said that His kingdom was to be as a net holding good and bad fish He obviously referred to His Church in this world. And within thirty years of His death, that kingdom of Christ had spread throughout the known world, many, who had heard Christ, living to see its establishment. Meantime Christ's prediction that His Church would go to all nations, even to the uttermost parts of the earth, and His promise to be with it all days even to the end of the world, show that He did not expect the end of that world to be at hand. Also, He proved abundantly His divinity and knowledge of the future. It is absurd to say that He was not aware of the subsequent history of the world as it has actually unfolded itself.

Topic: "The End of the World" in Vol 1.

1000. Pope Leo X. sold indulgences in Germany to get money for St. Peter\\\'s. Do you think it right to sell pardons for sins?

An indulgence is not a pardon for sin. It can be gained only by one who is not in a state of sin, and who has previously secured forgiveness of his sins by repentance by long public penance, sometimes for days, at other times for years. But the Church was…

An indulgence is not a pardon for sin. It can be gained only by one who is not in a state of sin, and who has previously secured forgiveness of his sins by repentance by long public penance, sometimes for days, at other times for years. But the Church was often indulgent, and loosed or freed Christians from all or part of their public penance, if they showed other good dispositions, or performed certain works of charity. The Church had that power in the name of God as surely as the state has the power in its own name to commute a sentence or even release a criminal altogether under certain circumstances. Christ said to the Church, "Whatsoever you shall loose upon earth shall be loosed also in heaven." Matt. XVIII, 18. That the merits of Christ and of the Martyrs and Saints of the ages are at the disposal of the Church is also a consequence of the doctrine of the Communion of the Saints. And that power of commuting or even of remitting penances and expiations exists in the Church to-day, being exercised by the granting of indulgences.

Topic: "Indulgences" in Vol 1.

904. It looks as if money had weight with Rome.

Not at all. Not all the money in the Bank of England would be of any avail to secure an annulment from the Church if the first marriage had ever been valid. Meantime the trial at Southwark, with three judges and two other officials, lasting three months, cost $40 in…

Not at all. Not all the money in the Bank of England would be of any avail to secure an annulment from the Church if the first marriage had ever been valid. Meantime the trial at Southwark, with three judges and two other officials, lasting three months, cost $40 in expenses. The retrial in Rome lasted six months. There was much more expense in securing sworn testimonies from America and England, and in the number of legal men employed. This trial cost $200 in expenses; not a very great burden to the parties concerned. Moreover, the law of the Church is that litigants bear expenses only if they are able to afford them. In the ten years between 1920 and 1930 some 120 matrimonial cases were tried in Rome. In 69 cases the litigants paid expenses. In nine cases a nominal fee only was paid. In 39 cases the expenses were totally remitted. Nor did the offerings make any difference in the decisions given. Sixty-six per cent, of those who paid, and 89 per cent, of those who could not pay, obtained favorable decisions.

Topic: "Divorce" in Vol 1.

903. Why was the Duke's first marriage invalid?

On November 6th, 1895, the Duke of Marlborough went through a marriage ceremony with an American girl, Consuelo Vanderbilt. Both were Protestants, and normally such a marriage would have been valid. However, Miss Vanderbilt had secretly promised to marry another man of her own choice, but the mother forced the…

On November 6th, 1895, the Duke of Marlborough went through a marriage ceremony with an American girl, Consuelo Vanderbilt. Both were Protestants, and normally such a marriage would have been valid. However, Miss Vanderbilt had secretly promised to marry another man of her own choice, but the mother forced the girl to marry the Duke. The marriage was not a success, and they separated in 1905, by mutual consent. In 1920 they secured a civil divorce, and both married again. In 1925 the decision of the Catholic Church was sought as to whether the first marriage had ever been valid according to Christian principles. Rome sought all the evidence possible. Miss Vanderbilt's mother deposed on oath, "I forced my daughter to marry the Duke, thinking her objections merely those of an inexperienced girl." Her aunt deposed on oath, "This marriage was forced on the girl, who desired to marry someone else altogether." Another friend of the mother deposed that "it was no question of persuasion, but of absolute constraint." Rome could not but decide that, abstracting altogether from the civil decree of divorce, the parties had never really been married at all.

Topic: "Divorce" in Vol 1.

902. The Duke became a Catholic and promptly secured an annulment.

The Duke was a Protestant when the decision was given. Nor was it promptly given. The application was made to the Southwark diocesan court in 1925. This court, after scrutinizing all the evidence, gave judgment in February, 1926, that the first marriage was invalid from the beginning. Rome, not opposing…

The Duke was a Protestant when the decision was given. Nor was it promptly given. The application was made to the Southwark diocesan court in 1925. This court, after scrutinizing all the evidence, gave judgment in February, 1926, that the first marriage was invalid from the beginning. Rome, not opposing the decision, but lest it might have been given too easily, called the case to the Holy See. The whole matter was reviewed, sworn testimony being obtained in America and England. The Holy See arrived at the same decision as Southwark and decreed nullity accordingly, six months later. You can hardly call that promptly.

Topic: "Divorce" in Vol 1.

901. After being refused a divorce by the civil courts did not the Duke of Marlborough secure one from the Pope?

No. A civil divorce was granted in 1920, and both parties had married again before the case was put to Rome in 1926.…

No. A civil divorce was granted in 1920, and both parties had married again before the case was put to Rome in 1926.

Topic: "Divorce" in Vol 1.

897. Did not the Pope grant divorces to Louis XII. and Henry IV. of France, and very nearly to Henry VIII. of England, being prevented in this case by fear of Charles V.?

The two prior marriages you mention were declared to have been null and void from the beginning. Therefore no true marriage had ever existed. Louis XII. proved conclusively that he had not been a free agent, having been compelled by his father, Louis XI, to submit to the ceremony. So…

The two prior marriages you mention were declared to have been null and void from the beginning. Therefore no true marriage had ever existed. Louis XII. proved conclusively that he had not been a free agent, having been compelled by his father, Louis XI, to submit to the ceremony. So too, the first marriage of Henry IV. was declared null and void because Marguerite de Valois had been forced into the marriage by her mother, Queen Catherine, for political purposes. The free consent of both parties is necessary for a true and binding marriage contract. In the case of Henry VIII, the power of Charles V. was a motive why his marriage with Catherine of Aragon should not be declared null without rigid proof of its invalidity. At the same time, the enmity of Henry was to be avoided if at all possible, and theologians did all they could to see whether the first marriage were really null and void. But it was impossible, and at the risk of losing England to the Holy See a negative decision had to be given. Henry promptly declared himself head of the Church in England, and took the divorce Rome refused to grant.

Topic: "Divorce" in Vol 1.

886. Does not St. Peter say that all Christians are a holy priesthood?

Yes, and in a certain sense it is true. Baptism implies a certain consecration to God, and the obligation to offer the sacrifice of praise by a sincere life of prayer and of good works. He points out that, as the Jews were a chosen race, so the baptized are…

Yes, and in a certain sense it is true. Baptism implies a certain consecration to God, and the obligation to offer the sacrifice of praise by a sincere life of prayer and of good works. He points out that, as the Jews were a chosen race, so the baptized are the chosen race to day. But the Jews had in addition specially chosen men consecrated as Priests among themselves. Thus, whilst Christians are a chosen race now, offering the sacrifice of praise and of a pure life to God, certain men must be chosen from among them to offer the special Sacrifice of Christ's Body and Blood, and to forgive sins. In this sense not all Christians are Priests.

Topic: "Priesthood" in Vol 1.

809. By relinquishing immersion you lose the significance of the original rite.

Immersion was never thought necessary in the Christian Church. After St. Peter's first sermon three thousand people were baptized, and it is most unlikely that it could have been by immersion, above all in the light of recent research into the water supply available in Jerusalem itself at that time.…

Immersion was never thought necessary in the Christian Church. After St. Peter's first sermon three thousand people were baptized, and it is most unlikely that it could have been by immersion, above all in the light of recent research into the water supply available in Jerusalem itself at that time. The Didache, or Teaching of the Twelve, written about the year 90, says, "Thus baptize ... If you have not fresh water, baptize in other water. If you cannot do it in cold, use warm. If you have neither, pour out on the head water three times in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." Either form then is valid. If immersion were necessary, what would you do with bed-ridden invalids and the dying? Nor is the significance lost by pouring. The true significance is that grace washes the soul as water washes the body. The true sign of washing is retained by any true ablutions. Washing does not always imply the taking of a plunge-bath. Burial with Christ is signified by washing away the death of sin and the resurrection to the new life of grace. In any case Christ left the practical application of such matters to His Church, saying, "Whatsoever you shall bind upon earth shall be bound also in Heaven." Matt. XVIII., 18. And He promised to be with His Church, preserving her from any misuse of this power.

Topic: "Baptism" in Vol 1.

785. Row do you Drove Mary's bodily assumption into Heaven?

No Christian could dispute the fact that Mary's soul is in Heaven. Christ certainly did not suffer the soul of His own mother to be lost. The doctrine of her bodily assumption after her death is not contained in Scripture, but is guaranteed by tradition and by the teaching of…

No Christian could dispute the fact that Mary's soul is in Heaven. Christ certainly did not suffer the soul of His own mother to be lost. The doctrine of her bodily assumption after her death is not contained in Scripture, but is guaranteed by tradition and by the teaching of the Catholic Church. That Scripture omits to record the fact is no argument against it. Omission is not denial. Meantime early traditions positively record the fact, and negatively we note that, whilst the mortal remains of a St. Peter and of a St. Paul are jealously possessed and honored in Rome, no city or Christian center has ever claimed to possess the mortal remains of Our Lady. Certainly relics of Our Lady would be regarded as having greater value than those of any Saint or Apostle, so nearly was she related to Christ. And it was most fitting that the body of Mary, who had been preserved even from the taint of original sin, should not have been allowed to corrupt After all, it was just as easy for God to take her glorified body to Heaven at once as it will be to take the glorified bodies of all the saved at the last day. However the definite sanction of this doctrine by the Catholic Church is sufficient assurance of the fact.

Topic: "Mary" in Vol 1.

Results 1 to 20 of 89.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Next »

"The hardest thing to find in the world today is an argument. Because so few are thinking, naturally there are found but few to argue. Prejudice there is in abundance and sentiment too, for these things are born of enthusiasms without the pain of labour. Thinking, on the contrary, is a difficult task; it is the hardest work a man can do - that is perhaps why so few indulge in it."
- Mgsr Fulton Sheen in Preface to Vol 3 (1942)

Copyright