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 ↓

110. How do you make out that the successors of the other Apostles did not inherit their authority?

They naturally did so to a certain extent; but it was in a limited degree. Where all the Apostles had universal authority in the Church, the Bishops they appointed were given authority only over particular localities, as Titus in Crete and Timothy in Ephesus. Also these successors did not share…

They naturally did so to a certain extent; but it was in a limited degree. Where all the Apostles had universal authority in the Church, the Bishops they appointed were given authority only over particular localities, as Titus in Crete and Timothy in Ephesus. Also these successors did not share in the personal and individual infallibility of the Apostles. It was otherwise, however, with the successors of St. Peter, the head of the Church, in Rome. And it is a remarkable fact that St. Irenaeus, writing in the 2nd century, declared that as a test of orthodoxy it was enough to enumerate the succession of the Bishops of Rome and ask whether or not any given Church was in communion with those Bishops. He then gave a list of those Bishops in order, from Linus, the first after Peter, to Eleutherius, the twelfth from the Apostles, who occupied the See of Rome in his own day. The succession from the other Apostles had not the same importance at all for St. Irenaeus; nor, of course, for anyone else in the Church. And the test laid down by St. Irenaeus in 185 A.D. is as valid in 1954 A.D. as it was then. If we want to belong to the true Church we must be in union with the living successor of St. Peter in the Bishopric of Rome in our own day.

Topic: "Papal supremacy" in Vol 4.

246. This paper, "The Evangelical Christian", said that the present Pope was not even sure whether he is number 256, 257, 258, 259, or 260 in your unbroken chain.

There is no need for him to be sure of that. Protestant papers are hard put to it when they have to fall back on such supposed arguments against the Catholic Church! The fact that the Vatican itself published its own correction of previous lists of the Popes should have…

There is no need for him to be sure of that. Protestant papers are hard put to it when they have to fall back on such supposed arguments against the Catholic Church! The fact that the Vatican itself published its own correction of previous lists of the Popes should have made the editor of "The Evangelical Christian" realize that the matter was merely one of historical research, with no bearing on the question of the truth of the Catholic Church and its claim to an unbroken succession of Papal authority from St. Peter himself. Catholics have never been required to believe in the infallibility of historians and copyists in recording or transcribing previous records of names and dates belonging to different periods of history! No intelligent scholar or theologian would dream of basing an argument against the Catholic Church on such considerations.

Topic: "Apostolic succession" in Vol 4.

279. You\'re taking a terrible lot for granted when you hold that the Catholic Church is infallible; for that\'s what it comes to.

Before asking anyone to believe in the infallibility of the Catholic Church we presuppose that he believes in the Divinity of Christ and in the power of Christ to do what He said He would do�preserve His Church from the possibility of error where divinely revealed truth is concerned. Granted…

Before asking anyone to believe in the infallibility of the Catholic Church we presuppose that he believes in the Divinity of Christ and in the power of Christ to do what He said He would do�preserve His Church from the possibility of error where divinely revealed truth is concerned. Granted the Divinity of Christ, the terrible thing would be to imagine that, though God, He left no authoritative and infallible Church to safeguard the truth, abandoning men to their own resources so that they would not only fall into doubt, uncertainty and error, but even into despair of ever being able to know with certainty whether they possessed the true religion or not!

Topic: "Catholic Church infallible" in Vol 4.

280. Such infallibility of the Catholic Church would in itself be a miracle.

Since the infallibility of the Catholic Church cannot possibly be due to any merely human efforts or wisdom, but is due entirely to the power of God, it can in a true sense be called a miracle.. For indeed without God's miraculous protection the Catholic Church could not have remained…

Since the infallibility of the Catholic Church cannot possibly be due to any merely human efforts or wisdom, but is due entirely to the power of God, it can in a true sense be called a miracle.. For indeed without God's miraculous protection the Catholic Church could not have remained infallible as Christ predicted it would. As it is, the Catholic Church today is still as St. Paul described it in I Tim., Ill, 15: "The Church of the living God, the pillar and the ground of truth." Catholics who accept the infallible teaching-authority of the Catholic Church know exactly where they stand, whilst others who reject that teaching-authority are not only without certainty, but can never hope to have certainty. Christ never intended His followers to be reduced to such a sad plight.

Topic: "Catholic Church infallible" in Vol 4.

281. The claim to infallibility is a pretentious one, in very truth.

If it were but self-made, with none but natural and human resources to rely upon, it would indeed be pretentious. But it is not a self-made claim, nor does the Church pretend that merely natural and human resources account for her infallibility. She owes that to the influence of the…

If it were but self-made, with none but natural and human resources to rely upon, it would indeed be pretentious. But it is not a self-made claim, nor does the Church pretend that merely natural and human resources account for her infallibility. She owes that to the influence of the Holy Spirit, and offers historical evidence to prove that Christ commissioned and guaranteed her in her mission to teach all nations. If I claimed to be able to sentence you to prison it would be a pretentious claim indeed. But if an accredited judge makes the claim it is not pretentious for his claim is, not that he is doing it, but that the State is doing it through him. All he has to do is to prove that he is an authorized agent of the State. And the Catholic Church is quite prepared to prove that she is the authorized agent of Christ in this world.

Topic: "Catholic Church infallible" in Vol 4.

296. Was there a Bishop Strossmeyer at the Council?

There was. And he was strongly opposed, not to the doctrine of Papal infallibility, but to the advisability of defining it at that particular time. He was a Croatian who had great hopes of winning back to Catholic unity the schismatic Orthodox Churches in the Balkans, and he felt that…

There was. And he was strongly opposed, not to the doctrine of Papal infallibility, but to the advisability of defining it at that particular time. He was a Croatian who had great hopes of winning back to Catholic unity the schismatic Orthodox Churches in the Balkans, and he felt that the definition of Papal infallibility might prejudice his efforts. He therefore spoke against the proposal; but he said nothing resembling the forged speech unscrupulous enemies of the Church have branded with his name.

Topic: "The Pope infallible" in Vol 4.

300. It practically means that, by electing a man Pope, the Cardinals make him a quasi-divine being.

Not at all. The Cardinals merely elect him as Pope. The office to which he is elected carries with it divine protection against error in the Pope's official definitions of doctrine in matters of faith and morals. It is the protection of the Pope on such occasions, not the person…

Not at all. The Cardinals merely elect him as Pope. The office to which he is elected carries with it divine protection against error in the Pope's official definitions of doctrine in matters of faith and morals. It is the protection of the Pope on such occasions, not the person of the Pope, that is divine. The infallibility of the writers of Holy Scripture, in recording the Word of God for us, did not make them quasi-divine. You yourself would admit that it was the infallibility conferred on them by God for the work entrusted to them which is to be regarded as divine, not the writers themselves.

Topic: "The Pope infallible" in Vol 4.

301. No mere theories can stand against the facts of history, and history shows that the Popes have been anything but infallible.

No facts can be produced from history which show that the Popes have not been infallible in the true sense of the definition as given by the Vatican Council. In every case so far produced either the facts are not as they have been alleged to be, or the doctrine…

No facts can be produced from history which show that the Popes have not been infallible in the true sense of the definition as given by the Vatican Council. In every case so far produced either the facts are not as they have been alleged to be, or the doctrine of infallibility as defined by the Church has not been involved at all.

Topic: "The Pope infallible" in Vol 4.

312. Of what use is the doctrine of the infallibility of the Pope when he speaks officially "ex cathedraif no one can tell us what are "ex cathedra" Papal utterances?

It is not true that such utterances cannot be known. Normally, of course, the doctrines of the Catholic Church are made sufficiently clear in the Creeds, in the Liturgy, and in the ordinary teachings of the Church. It is only rarely that individual Popes have made use of their own…

It is not true that such utterances cannot be known. Normally, of course, the doctrines of the Catholic Church are made sufficiently clear in the Creeds, in the Liturgy, and in the ordinary teachings of the Church. It is only rarely that individual Popes have made use of their own special and personal infallibility to define particular doctrines which they have thought it necessary to stress.

Topic: "The Pope infallible" in Vol 4.

286. Being the product of human thoughts and ideas, there would always be the possibility of error.

If the official teachings of the Catholic Church resulted only from the thinking of human beings left to themselves you would be right. If there were no more than that to it, no one could reasonably be asked to make an act of faith in such teachings. Even the best…

If the official teachings of the Catholic Church resulted only from the thinking of human beings left to themselves you would be right. If there were no more than that to it, no one could reasonably be asked to make an act of faith in such teachings. Even the best of Catholic theologians is not infallible. Even the Pope, merely as a theologian, is not infallible. The Pope is infallible only when acting as the supreme and official spokesman on behalf of the Catholic Church. Then there is the infallibility of the Catholic Church, exercised through him, the Holy Spirit Himself preserving the Pope from error for the sake of the whole Church. Our faith in the infallibility of the Church, therefore, is not based on the reliability of any merely human thinking, but on the guidance and protection of the Holy Spirit which Christ promised to His Church precisely to preserve it from all error in such vital matters.

Topic: "Catholic Church infallible" in Vol 4.

287. Even the Apostles themselves never claimed such a thing as infallibility !

I have already quoted St. Paul's words to Timothy (n. 280) that the Church is the "pillar and the ground of truth"; and to the Galatians that an angel from heaven would be wrong were he to preach anything contrary to the Apostolic teaching (n. 282). St. John claimed infallibility…

I have already quoted St. Paul's words to Timothy (n. 280) that the Church is the "pillar and the ground of truth"; and to the Galatians that an angel from heaven would be wrong were he to preach anything contrary to the Apostolic teaching (n. 282). St. John claimed infallibility for all the Apostles when he wrote: "He that is not of God heareth us not. By this you know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error." I Jn., IV, 6. And that the Apostles were conscious of the assistance of the Holy Spirit in their official decisions on behalf of the Church is evident from their declaration at the Council of Jerusalem: "It hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us." Acts, XV, 28.

Topic: "Catholic Church infallible" in Vol 4.

288. You have said that the Pope as head of the Catholic Church, even though not as a private theologian, is infallible today. On what grounds?

There are three classical passages in Scripture showing that infallibility belonged in a very special way to St. Peter, and to the Pope as his successor. In Matt., XVI, 18-19, we find Christ saying to St. Peter: "Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build My Church, and…

There are three classical passages in Scripture showing that infallibility belonged in a very special way to St. Peter, and to the Pope as his successor. In Matt., XVI, 18-19, we find Christ saying to St. Peter: "Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, it shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven." In St. Luke, XXII, 31-32, we read: "And the Lord said: Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you that he may sift you as wheat. But I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not; and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren." In St. John, XXI, 15-17, we find our Lord commissioning St. Peter to feed His lambs and to feed His sheep; i.e., to provide for His whole flock, preserving all in the true religion. The office granted to St. Peter, with its prerogatives, has continued in the Church all days since then, even as Christ promised to be with His Church all days till the end of the world. And the Pope, as successor of St. Peter, succeeds to the supremacy and infallibility conferred upon that Apostle. From the viewpoint of reason, the infallibility of the Church demands that the final court of appeal in the Church must itself be infallible; and the final court of appeal is the See of St. Peter, occupied by the Pope. If the Pope, as final court of appeal, were not infallible, then the Church itself could go astray in its duty of teaching the truth; and if that happened, then the gates of hell would have prevailed against the Church despite Christ's assurance that such a thing will never happen. It all comes back to faith in Christ. Those who really believe in Christ know that He could and has done what He said He would do. He has rendered His Church, and therefore the Pope as official head of the Church and successor of St. Peter, unable to teach error in His name.

Topic: "The Pope infallible" in Vol 4.

289. Will you tell us exactly in what sense you claim infallibility for -the Pope?

We claim that the Pope is infallible only in his official capacity when declaring a truth essentially connected with divinely revealed religion, and intending his decision to be binding upon all members of the Church throughout the world. He is not infallible in his private capacity. So infallibility does not…

We claim that the Pope is infallible only in his official capacity when declaring a truth essentially connected with divinely revealed religion, and intending his decision to be binding upon all members of the Church throughout the world. He is not infallible in his private capacity. So infallibility does not mean that he cannot be mistaken when not acting officially as supreme teacher in the Church. It does not mean that the Pope could not commit sin in his personal life, as though he were impeccable. It does not mean that he can teach what he likes, or that he cannot go wrong on matters of science, or history, or economics or politics. It means only that God will not permit him to define officially for the whole Church any religious doctrine opposed to the teaching of Christ. For the Christian religion must be preserved intact in this world.

Topic: "The Pope infallible" in Vol 4.

1366. You do not seem to understand how little such a claim commends itself to the modern mind.

Surely the problem is not whether the claim commends itself to the modern mind, but whether it is true. If the claim be true and the modern mind all at sea, then the modern mind must adjust itself to the Catholic religion. Or would you have the Catholic Church follow…

Surely the problem is not whether the claim commends itself to the modern mind, but whether it is true. If the claim be true and the modern mind all at sea, then the modern mind must adjust itself to the Catholic religion. Or would you have the Catholic Church follow the modern mind into error also? That would be to renounce the infallibility of the Catholic Church for the infallibility of a multitude of muddled thinkers just because they happen to be many, and modern. But a thing is not true merely because a lot of people happen to think it, or because it happens to be a recent phase of thought. Truth is truth, however few the people who hold it and however long ago they held it.

Topic: "The "Only True Church" claims" in Vol 4.

293. At the Vatican Council itself some of the Bishops objected to the proposed definition of it.

There would be reason to complain if, when the Bishops had assembled at the Vatican Council to discuss the matter, freedom had not been granted to them to voice their opinions both for and against the proposal. A minority of the Bishops present disagreed with those who advocated it, and…

There would be reason to complain if, when the Bishops had assembled at the Vatican Council to discuss the matter, freedom had not been granted to them to voice their opinions both for and against the proposal. A minority of the Bishops present disagreed with those who advocated it, and protested against the proposal. All held that the doctrine of the infallibility of the Pope was a perfectly lawful opinion in the Church. But some of the minority thought that it was not the kind of doctrine that could be defined in accordance with sound principles; whilst others held that, although it could be defined, it would be more prudent to leave it undefined. In the event, the majority of the Bishops decided that it could and should be defined. And that was that. No point of any value is made against the truth of the dogma by pointing to the fact that before it was defined and while they were quite free to do so, a minority of the Bishops expressed views unfavorable to the definition being made.

Topic: "The Pope infallible" in Vol 4.

291. When Papal infallibility was defined by the Vatican Council in 1870 at least one American Archbishop protested against the dogma.

Not when it was defined; before it was defined. At the Vatican Council in 1870 all the Bishops present were quite free to express their opinions in the discussions preceding the definition. The American Archbishop Kenrick, as he had a perfect right to do, expressed his opposition to the doctrine…

Not when it was defined; before it was defined. At the Vatican Council in 1870 all the Bishops present were quite free to express their opinions in the discussions preceding the definition. The American Archbishop Kenrick, as he had a perfect right to do, expressed his opposition to the doctrine of Papal infallibility being defined as a dogma of the Faith. But the majority of the Bishops present voted for the definition; and once it was defined all accepted it. Archbishop Kenrick publicly proclaimed the dogma in his cathedral as soon as he arrived back in his Archdiocese in America; and when asked afterwards whether he disowned all his previous arguments against the dogma declared that his public proclamation of it sufficiently indicated their lack of value. Certainly, as Archbishop Kenrick did not regard the definition as any reason for abandoning the Catholic Church, his attitude in the matter cannot afford any reason for not joining the Catholic Church, on whatever other grounds one might be reluctant to do so.

Topic: "The Pope infallible" in Vol 4.

299. I believe absolutely in the Bible, but I do not believe that the Pope who is only human can possibly be infallible.

No human being, even the Pope, could be infallible by any of his own merely natural and human powers. But God Himself, by His divine power, can if He thinks fit to do so render a human being infallible for any given purposes of His own. If, as you say,…

No human being, even the Pope, could be infallible by any of his own merely natural and human powers. But God Himself, by His divine power, can if He thinks fit to do so render a human being infallible for any given purposes of His own. If, as you say, you believe absolutely in the Bible then you must admit that the writers of the various books in the Bible were preserved from the possibility of error; and that means that they received from God the gift of infallibility at least for that purpose. Yet they were "only human." One may reasonably ask for proof of the Catholic doctrine of Papal infallibility; but no argument against it can be drawn from the fact that the Pope is "only human," any more than one who believes in the Bible can argue that the writers of its various books could not have been infallible because they, too, were "only human."

Topic: "The Pope infallible" in Vol 4.

302. Was not Pope Marcellinus guilty of sacrificing to idols?

If he had been, that would in no way be opposed to the doctrine of Papal infallibility. At least he did not define officially that everybody else | ought to fall into idolatry! But in any case, the charge against him is a false one. Marcellinus was Pope from 296…

If he had been, that would in no way be opposed to the doctrine of Papal infallibility. At least he did not define officially that everybody else | ought to fall into idolatry! But in any case, the charge against him is a false one. Marcellinus was Pope from 296 A.D. till 304 A.D. That was during the severe persecution of Christians under the pagan Roman Emperor Diocletian. The most that can be said against Marcellinus is that he was too lenient in his treatment of lapsed Christians who, under the stress of persecution, had renounced their faith, gone over to paganism, and then sought reconciliation with the Church. Marcellinus himself died a martyr for the faith and is a canonized Saint of the Catholic Church. The Donatist heretics in Africa later put round the story that he himself had lapsed into idolatry, and said that he had confessed his guilt at the "Synod of Sinuessa." But historical research has shown that that Synod never took place.

Topic: "The Pope infallible" in Vol 4.

303. Did not Sylverius and Vigilius obtain the Popedom by simony, buying their election with money?

No. Even if they did - which would be highly irregular - that would not affect the infallibility of their office once they had been validly elected. Sylverius, who is honored by the Catholic Church as a Saint and a Martyr, was Pope from 536 A.D. till 537 A.D. It…

No. Even if they did - which would be highly irregular - that would not affect the infallibility of their office once they had been validly elected. Sylverius, who is honored by the Catholic Church as a Saint and a Martyr, was Pope from 536 A.D. till 537 A.D. It is true that his election was due to political pressure, to prevent the Empress Theodora from intruding an Eastern Bishop into the Roman See. But there was no question of simony on the part of Sylverius. The Empress Theodora revenged herself by having Sylverius arrested and put to death. Vigilius then became Pope, and held office from 537 A.D. till 555 A.D. His election was due to the influence of Belisarius, the General of Theodora's army. But there was no simony on the part of Vigilius. Belisarius thought Vigilius would be ready to comply with all Theodora's wishes; but both Belisarius and Theodora were very disappointed in that. However, Vigilius, though not unworthy of his office in his personal life, was not a strong Pope, and was altogether too weak in dealing with heresies. But nothing in any of his transactions was in any way opposed to Papal infallibility as defined by the Church.

Topic: "The Pope infallible" in Vol 4.

304. How does Pope Alexander VI, in his debaucheries, measure up to infallibility?

Without granting any notions you may have about his debauchery after his election as Pope, to which period alone infallibility could apply, I must simply point out that no debauchery on his part could affect the question. infallibility and impeccability are not the same thing. We claim that the Pope…

Without granting any notions you may have about his debauchery after his election as Pope, to which period alone infallibility could apply, I must simply point out that no debauchery on his part could affect the question. infallibility and impeccability are not the same thing. We claim that the Pope is infallible in his official teaching capacity. We do not claim that he is impeccable in his personal conduct. Bad personal conduct on the part of a Pope is indeed reprehensible. But it cannot be urged as an argument against infallibility as that doctrine is taught by the Catholic Church. From the viewpoint of infallibility in its true sense no official utterance of Pope Alexander VI affords the least difficulty.

Topic: "The Pope infallible" in Vol 4.

Results 1 to 20 of 30.

1 | 2 | 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