Radio Replies Vol 1 - Catholic Apologetics Online

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Wesley was a good and sincere man, but he was mistaken in his notion of Christianity. It was evil that he should have created a further sect. Yet because he and his followers were sincere God blessed their goodwill in many things, drawing good from their work in spite of the undoubted evil of preaching erroneous doctrines as if they were indeed the true doctrines of Christ. Meantime God wills for Wesleyans the greater good still of a return to the Catholic Church.

The Baptist Church is certainly not mentioned in Scripture. The Catholic Church is most clearly described there. Meantime, do Baptists act as did the first Christians? Do they go to Confession? Have they the sacrifice of the Mass? Baptists, like other Protestants, insist upon one thing not commanded by Christ, and neglect mo3t of the things insisted upon by Him. Also, Christ said that His Church would be in the world all days from His time until the end of the world. But where was the Baptist Church before the 15th century? Christ certainly was not the Founder of the Baptist Church. It is subject to all the defects common to other forms of Protestantism.

If you were true to the Bible, no one could prove you wrong. But you are most unbiblical. Your very system leaves you without any real proof that the Bible is the inspired Word of God. It cannot say what is the real sense of all that is contained in the Bible. It concentrates upon a few misinterpreted texts, and ignores the whole trend of Scripture, although all Scripture is of equal value as God's Word. The Catholic Church alone can guarantee Scripture as the Word of God, and alone can guarantee its correct meaning.

I charitably say that their good works are often very pleasing to God, and they themselves also, for many of them have the utmost goodwill and devotion. But charity does not oblige me to say that the true Church of Jesus Christ was founded by General Booth. However well-intentioned these good people may be, they are mistaken. Christ gave us a definite set of truths to be believed and of precepts to be fulfilled. He is a true Christian who believes all that Christ taught, and does all that He commands. Members of the Salvation Army reject much of Christ's doctrine. Some say that Baptism is not really necessary. All reject Christ's teaching on the Eucharist, although Christ allowed the Jews to go their own way when they refused to accept this teaching. The Army says, "Believe in the Name of Christ and that you are saved by Him." The Catholic Church rightly says that that i3 not enough, and gives the advice, "Believe in Christ. Believe every single doctrine He taught, and believe that you can be saved by Him provided you try to obey sincerely His moral teachings." I admit that many members of the Salvation Army try just as sincerely to live up to their inadequate knowledge of Christianity as Catholics try to live up to the full truth. In that sense they are good people. But they are not true Christians in so far as they do not accept the full truth revealed by Christ

The "Witnesses of Jehovah" merely constitute a form of that sect known as the Russellites. They have no evidence whatever that Jehovah ever asked them to be His witnesses. The Russellites were named after Pastor Charles T. Russell, an American who started a new form of Protestantism. Their religion is based upon the conjecture that Christ's second coming is imminent. They pay little or no attention to the obvious things in Scripture, but concentrate upon one point in particular which Christ purposely left obscure, saying, "It is not given to man to know these things." They regard all organized churches and their clergy as agents of Satan, but entertain a special hatred of the Catholic Church, regarding the Pope as the Beast predicted by Daniel and St. John. Their exegetical gymnastics in the interpretation of mystical texts is astonishing. Meantime they claim to have originated in 1874, which is just 1874 years too late for one who seeks the Church actually established by Christ

Christian Science was founded by Mary Baker Eddy in 1875. Mary Baker was born in 1821. She married a Mr. Asa Gilbert Eddy, after securing a divorce from Mr. Patterson, whom she had married after the death of her first husband, Colonel Glover. Despite its title, her religion if really but an unscientific heresy. It denies the existence of suffering, matter, human beings, sin, death, and a whole lot of other things which we know quite well to exist.

I am afraid that it requires more belief in Mrs. Eddy than in Christ It relies also far more upon auto-suggestion and self-persuasion than upon prayer. After all, favors must be asked in the Name of Christ, and therefore in conformity with the Will of God. But God expects us to use the natural means He has put at our disposal. His ordinary law for our health is the use of natural remedies and medical aid. It is absurd to say that He provided these things uselessly, and does not intend us to use them. If we deliberately neglect God's ordinary means we cannot expect Him to help us in some extraordinary way of our own devising.

No. They exploit the natural powers of auto-suggestion, but no cure at Lourdes which could be due to auto-suggestion is ever accepted and registered officially as a miracle. Auto-suggestion will not mend a broken leg. Also it will not avail for infants who have not attained the age of reason. Yet Lourdes has seen the cure of broken and deformed bones, and the recovery of little children who could not possibly have suggested themselves back to health. Christian Science cannot produce any really authenticated miracles.

Theosophy is not a higher synthesis. It is an anti-Christian confusion of philosophical remnants. And whether it excludes Catholic adherents or not, the Catholic Church excludes Theosophy, prohibiting its doctrines as being utterly irreconcilable with the teachings of Christ. The doctrines were well weighed before the Church issued the decree of 1919, and that decree will never be withdrawn. By it the Catholic Church showed once more how conscious she is of her duty to preserve the exact doctrine of Christ just as He gave it to mankind.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Inquirers put their religious theories before me, and if they are illogical I say so, giving my reasons for saying so. This is not sarcasm, above all since I respect the sincerity of those whose theories are mistaken. Nor is it unkind. If you saw a sick man taking, not the medicine prescribed by the doctor, but some other drink by mistake, would it be kindness to keep quiet just to spare him the confusion of realizing his mistake?

Right. But whilst love may excuse the man who makes a mistake, it cannot say that the mistake is not a mistake. I deny that truth is error, or that error is truth. But I make every allowance for those who mistake error for truth.

We all wish, perhaps, to go to the same place. But the difficulty is as to the right road to that place. One man says one way; another maintains that another way is the correct path. All sick men wish to get better. But you do not argue, "After all, they all hope to attain the same health, therefore let this sick man drink anything, even the wrong medicine altogether." Is it immaterial as to the means one takes merely because all hope to attain the same health? There will be a distinction in Heaven, at least in degrees of happiness and glory. But we shall all be united in the same charity as I hope we are now, and also in the same truth as we are not now. For when you get to Heaven you will change your ideas, and accept all that Catholics now believe on earth. Thus you will be in perfect harmony with them throughout eternity. That is, of course, unless you become a Catholic still earlier in this life, as I hope and pray you will, for the sake of all that it would mean to you, both in time and in eternity.

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 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.

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.

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 XXVIIL, 3. But the miracle was ior the sake oi 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.

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 suflicient 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.

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.

In general, Christ terms His Church a kingdom, which supposes some organized authority. However the explicit steps in the establishing of an authoritative hierarchy are clear. Christ chose certain special men. "You have not chosen me: but I have chosen you." Jn. XV., 16. He gave them His own mission. "As the Father hath sent me, I also send you." Jn. XX., 21. This commission included His teaching authority: "Teach all nations . . . whatsoever I have commanded you." Matt. XXVTII., 19; His power to sanctify—"Baptising them," Matt. XXVIIL, 19—forgiving sin, "Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven," Jn. XX., 23—offering sacrifice, "Do this for a commemoration of me," I. Cor. XL, 24; His legislative or disciplinary p0wer—"He who hears you, hears me, and he who despises you despises me," Lk. X., 16; "Whatsoever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound also in Heaven," Matt. XVIII., 18. "If a man will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen," Matt. XVIIL, 17. The Apostles certainly exercised these powers from the beginning. Thus we read in the Acts of the Apostles, "They were all persevering in the doctrine of the Apostles," II., 42. St. Paul himself did not hesitate to excommunicate the incestuous Corinthian. I. Cor. V., 4. And he wrote to the Hebrewg, "Obey your prelates, and be subject to them," Heb. XIIL, 17.

There is no evidence of independent local churches in Scripture, nor in primitive documents. There is evidence that there were distinct groups of Christians in various places, just as there are Catholics in London under one Bishop, and Catholics in New York under another. All true Christians certainly formed a universal spiritual brotherhood, as Catholics do to-day; but local autonomy existed only in the sense that there were Bishops in charge of various localities, the Bishops themselves being subject to St. Peter, and after his death, to the successor of St. Peter.

No one wants you to be loyal to any supposed representatives on earth. But loyalty to Christ demands loyalty to those commissioned by Him to teach and guide in His name. Test the claims before you reject them on prejudice only.

You may say that you believe it unnecessary. But pay attention to the words of Christ I have just quoted. He thought it necessary, and He has the right to map out the kind of religion we are to accept. If Christians had to accept such disciplinary authority in the time of the Apostles, they must accept it now. Christianity is Christianity. It does not change with the ages. If it did, it would lose its character, and not remain the religion of Christ, to which religion alone He attached His promises. And remember His prediction that His flock would be one fold with one shepherd. Jn. X., 14. You would have sheep, not gathered into one fold, but straying anywhere and everywhere, having no shepherd with any real authority over them.

The Catholic method is not a method of human policy. We accept it because Christ imposed it. Yet the mere fact that Christ chose such a method is a guarantee of its wisdom. And the scepticism and irreligion which are the fruits of non-Catholic systems are but a further tribute to the wisdom of Christ.

Nowhere did Christ ever commission women to teach in His name and with His authority. St. Paul explicity forbids women to attempt to exercise such functions. I. Tim. II., 11-12; I. Cor. XIV., 34. People who would ordain women in the Church seem to believe that they know more about Christianity than St Paul.

The searchlight of science is doing good work in destroying superstition, and showing the fallacies of false religions which are due to the natural instinct of religion in all men, and the ignorance of the true religion revealed by God. But sound science is doing a great work for the Catholic Church and helping many towards her. What is called modern science and thought keep3 men away from the Catholic Church only when what is modern but not scientific is falsely supposed to be scientific, or when men, in their attempts at thinking mistake sophisms and fallacies for legitimate conclusions.

That idea may arise in the minds of those who do not personally ask their services. But you cannot argue that, because they do nothing according to your specifications, they do nothing at all. Earth worms might similarly argue that men do nothing because they don't burrow in the mud as they. Priests are regularly occupied in their own duties and studies. They would have less hours of employment in a worldly career. And if the Church allowed them to engage in secular business, our Catholic people would be uncared for, and religion would become a mockery. The man who slaves at some mechanical trade or in a commercial office, with little opportunity for regular prayer or continuous study, is not the man to teach religion to others and devote himself to the sanctification of their souls.

Society has no say in the matter. For two thousand years society—the world— has hated the Catholic Church and her Priests. But society has not made much progress against the Catholic Church. Nor have economics anything to do with it. The omnipotent power of God guarantees that the Church will last till the end of time, and as long as the Church lasts, the Sacrifice of the Mass will be offered, which means that there will be Priests to offer that Sacrifice.

It does not. It records that, at the request of the Pope, the Emperor made it illegal for any other Bishop to usurp the title which had always belonged to the Bishop of Rome. To forbid others to take a title which has ever been the rightful possession of one is not to confer the title upon that one. And if the Pope did not possess universal jurisdiction until 607, how could St. Clement, third successor of St Peter as Bishop of Rome, write to the Christians at Corinth, "If any disobey the words spoken by God through us, let them know that they will entangle themselves in transgression and no small danger, but we shall be clear of this sin." Thus the fourth Pope demanded obedience under pain of sin from Christians living abroad. Again, how could St. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons in Gaul, and who died in the year 202, say that all churches were subject to, and must agree with the Church at Rome, because St. Peter had founded the Church there, and the Bishops of that city were his lawful successors, beginning with Linus? Irenaeus died over 400 years before the date you give. The Council of Ephesus in 431, embracing all Bishops and not even held at Rome, decreed, "No one can doubt, indeed it is known to all ages, that Peter, Prince and Head of the Apostles and Foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from Christ our Redeemer, and that to this day and always he lives in his successors exercising judgment." This was 176 years earlier than the date you give.

No. Whatever abuses arose in later times, the early saintly Popes, nearly all of them martyrs for Christ, were not the men to seek after office, and dignities which they knew to be spurious.

God ratifies the choice of those who elect him. When Matthias was elected as an Apostle by the other Apostles he was elected by men, and not directly by God, but God ratified their choice and granted to him also apostolic power.

The Pope is the servant of the servants of God. He himself tells us that one is our master—Christ, whom he and all are bound to serve. He claims no authority independently of Christ. The text you quote forbids selfish tyranny in one's own name over members of the Church. It does not forbid the exercise of legitimate power. "Obey your prelates, and be subject to them," says St. Paul. Heb. XIII., 17.

Certainly not. He would be a very peculiar representative of the Beast, so given to the love of God and man, and to prayer. I have met the present Pope (Pius XI.) several times, and he is one of the gentlest men I have ever met. He scarcely opens his lips save to bless and praise God in the Name of Jesus Christ.

That interpretation is absurd, and rejected by all reputable scholars, Catholic and non-Catholic alike. In any case, St. John wrote in Greek, and there is no warrant whatever for the transition to the Latin language. Moreover, whatever be the true interpretation of this mystical number, it certainly refers to some one individual being. If it referred to one particular Pope, it could refer to none of the others. To which Pope will people refer it? To a past Pope? Then he is dead and gone, and we need not worry about him. To the present Pope? He is the very antithesis of all the conditions of the Beast as described by St. John. However, the number does not refer to any of the Popes at all.

Many fantastic interpretations have been given, but none have been proved. The vast majority of interpreters regard the number as a mystical symbol, designating some man who will be the chief agent of Satan towards the end of the world. Some people thought it was Mahomet, saying that he died in 666 A.D. But he died in 630 A.D. Calvin wished to attribute it to Pope Boniface III., or to the Popes in general. His only foundation was prejudice, and his theory is utterly rejected to-day. Martin Luther's name, and dozens of others have been made to signify the number in various languages, but in all these cases the wish was father to the thought, and was made to supply for the lack of reason. The true solution of this question cannot be given.

No. He desired to show us that he knew the future by revelation, but that he was not free to manifest all that he knew to us. He explicitly says, "Let him that hath understanding count the number." The understanding required is not merely human wisdom, but an understanding on the same high plane as was the very revelation given to St. John. Undeterred by this warning, those who are so confident that it refers to the Pope modestly rank themselves with St. John. But no special wisdom is shown in any answer yet given. When a man has practiced all the other good advice in the New Testament, more practical and more clear, he will be making some progress towards the wisdom necessary to understand such references. Possibly the text is intended for those who will be living in the times when it shall be clear from events themselves.

Do not be misled by mere words. Later designations of an office do not alter the office, and the office of the one whom we now call the Pope is clearly taught by Scripture. After all, the word Pope simply means father, or one with paternal authority over a household. And certainly, Scripture often likens the Church to the "Household of the Faith," and indicates one as being in supreme charge of that household.

Gregory was Pope, and knew that he was Pope. Far from refusing the title, he showed that he was universal Bishop by excommunicating John the Faster, over whom he could not have had such jurisdiction had he not the privilege of being universal Bishop. In his 21st Epistle Gregory writes, "As to what they say of the Church of Christ, who doubts that it is subject to the Apostolic See?"

The various Bishops of Rome who succeeded St. Peter—St. Peter having been head of the Apostles, and having died as Bishop of Rome.

The Apostles, as having been sent by Christ to all nations, had universal jurisdiction. But this universality of jurisdiction was extraordinary, and did not pass to those successors whom they consecrated for particular localities. Also, whilst the Apostles each rejoiced in jurisdiction over all regions, St. Peter had all authority centred in him. Hence St. Paul went to consult him at Jerusalem.

They were disputing as to who should be the greater in Heaven, not concerning their office on earth. The fact that Christ replied by teaching a lesson of interior humility shows that He knew them to be referring to their personal standing in God's eiteem.

You must remember the sense of the discussion. Peter was not necessarily the greater from an aspect of grace and holiness. Eternal rewards depend rather upon Christian virtue than upon earthly office. St. Peter was chief in earthly office, although we know that St. John was called the beloved disciple.

Christ warned the Apostles against exercising authority in unjust and domineering ways such as those of worldlings, who delight to be thought great, and who love tyranny. He forbade the evil method, but He deliberately gave His authority to the Apostles, and chiefly to St. Peter.

Since none of the Apostles disputed it, St. Peter had no need to insist upon it. All knew that Christ had said to him, "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church." Matt. XVI., 18. And again, "I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and do thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren." Lk. XXII., 32. They knew, too, that Christ's commission to St. Peter to feed both the lambs and the sheep of the flock included themselves. Jn. XXL, 15-17. Implicitly St. Peter claimed his right by being the first to announce the Gospel after Pentecost, by conducting the election of Matthias as an Apostle in place of Judas, by presiding at the Council of Jerusalem, etc. St. Paul wrote to the Galatians L, 18, that he went to Jerusalem to see Peter, and stayed there fifteen days with him. Why to Peter rather than to any other of the Apostles? And why does he add that, having gone to Jerusalem, he also saw James? He does not say that he went to see such Apostles as were at Jerusalem, or that he went to see James, and also happened to see Peter whilst there.

He did not. St. Peter presided. Acts XV., 7, says, "After much disputing Peter rose up and said"; he then solved the question. Verse 12 tells us that after Peter had spoken all held their peace. James then spoke in support of Peter'3 decision, as much as to say, "Peter is right. I too think that the Gentiles should not be disquieted." St. Jerome remarks, concerning this incident, "The whole multitude held their peace, and James the Apostle together with all the priests passed over to the judgment of Peter. . . . Peter was the prime mover in issuing the decree." St. John Chrysostom wrote, "See the care of the teacher towards his subjects! He has the first authority in the discussion because to him all were committed."

St. Peter was supreme head of the Church and infallible in his doctrinal teaching, but it does not follow that he would not be indiscreet in some act of administration. Now no doctrinal error was involved in this particular case. St. Peter indiscreetly ceased to eat with the Gentiles because of the presence of some Jews. But to cease from doing a lawful thing for fear lest others be scandalized is not a matter of doctrine. It is a question of prudence or imprudence. St. Paul did not act as if he were St. Peter's superior. Nor did he boast. To show the urgency of the matter, he practically said, "I had to resist even Peter—to whom chief authority belongs." And his words derive their full significance only from the fact that St. Peter was head of the Apostles. St. Cyprian, who lived in the third century, knew of this passage and certainly understood Christianity. Yet he did not perceive any objection against St. Peter's supremacy in this case. He writes, "Peter, whom the Lord chose to be first and upon whom He built His Church, did not proudly assert the primacy he possessed, nor despise Paul who had once been a persecutor of the Church; but he accepted meekly, giving us an example of patience." St. Hilary, in the fifth century, says, "Both Paul and Peter are to be admired; Paul because he did not fear to point out the right practice to his superior; Peter because, knowing that all acknowledged his primacy, he had too much humility to resent any reproach offered to himself."

St. Paul declares that he personally laid the foundations of a particular branch of the Church at Corinth. But Christ had founded the whole Church upon Peter. Each must take care how he builds, and St. Paul took care that the Church at Corinth would be in full accordance with the universal Church founded upon St. Peter. Anyone who departs from the authority of St. Peter is not taking care, but going outside the constitution of the Church as established by Christ, and severing himself from that Church.

If so, you are in a great difficulty. If the Church was thus divided and St. Paul was head of the Gentile section, where is St. Paul's successor to-day? We have the successors of St. Peter in the Popes, and the present Pope is head of the Church with over 400 millions of subjects, the vast majority of them Gentiles. In any case, St. Paul again and again addressed the Jews in their Synagogues, and St. Peter certainly ministered to the Gentiles in his turn, above all as Bishop of Rome.

No one claims that St. Peter was the principal foundation stone. But that Church which is in communion with St. Peter and his successors is the genuine Church built upon the foundation of Christ. Christ Himself said to Peter, "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church." Christ is the solid rock upon which the Church is built. But the first rock laid upon thi9 foundation is Peter, Christ being the principal foundation stone, Peter being the secondary foundation chosen by Christ.

That is erroneous. In Jn. I., 42, we find Christ saying to Peter, "Thou art Simon . . . thou shalt be called Cephas, Which is interpreted Peter." Christ had a special purpose in thus changing his name to Cephas or rock, a purpose manifested later on as recorded by Matt. XVI., 18, "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church." Let us put it this way. Supposing that your name were Brown, and I said to you, "They call you Brown, but I am going to call you Stone. And upon this stone I shall build up a special society I have in mind to establish," would you believe that I was alluding to you, or to myself? Now Peter's name was Simon, and Christ changed it to Peter, or in the original Aramaic language, Kepha, which was the word for rock or stone, and which was never used as a proper name in that language. Thus He said, "Thou art Kepha, and upon this Kepha I will build my Church." In modern English it would sound thus, "Thou art Mr. Stone, and upon this stone I will build my Church." The word could not possibly refer to Christ in this text

There is no value in pointing out the differences of form in this word according to the Latin or Greek languages, in which they are accommodated to the masculine for Peter as a man, and to the feminine for stone. Our Lord spoke in Aramaic, in which the form is the same in both cases, simply Kepha.

How can you appeal to the English form, if the English translation does not adequately express what Christ meant? Surely you want the exact teaching of Christ! The English version is not an infallible rendering, nor does anyone versed in these matters claim that the English language fully expresses the sense of the originals. But apparently you are content to be without the truth, if it is not to be discovered superficially by the reading of your talismanic English version.

That is an antiquated interpretation abandoned by all the best scholars, Protestants included. Christ did demand a profession of faith from Peter as a pre-required condition, after that, conferring the fundamental primacy upon him personally. But to say that the profession itself was the rock has not a single valid reason in its favor. Those who adopted such an interpretation did so from their desire to avoid the Catholic doctrine. Grammatically the Catholic interpretation is alone possible. Contextually the whole passage obviously refers to Peter's person. "Blessed art thou ... I say to thee . . . thou art Peter ... I will give to thee the keys, etc.," nor could the Church be built upon one article of faith. All the articles of faith are essential Christianity. The Protestant Scripture scholar Hastings says that the confession theory must undoubtedly be excluded. The German Protestant Kuinoel writes, "Those who wrongly interpret this passage as referring to the confession and not to Peter himself would never have taken refuge in this distorted interpretation if the Popes had not wrongly tried to claim for themselves the privilege that was given to Peter." You see, he does not believe that the Pope inherits Peter's privileges, but he does know that Peter was personally the foundation stone. Loisy, the French Rationalist, rejected the historical sense of the Gospels, but he says that it is absurd to accept that sense as do Protestants, and then violate that sense in order to avoid what they do not wish to admit.

Yes.

They were morally unanimous in that interpretation. Loisy, whose rationalizing tendencies are well known, wrote, "The confession interpretation was proposed by some Fathers in view of the moral application, and has been resurrected by Protestant exegetes in polemical interests. But if one takes the historical sense of the Gospels it is only a subtle distinction doing violence to the text."

The fact that the office was not withdrawn is clear from the later words of Christ to Peter, "And do thou, being converted, confirm thy bretliren." Lk. XXII., 32; and again, from the commission to feed the whole flock given to Peter after Our Lord's resurrection, as recorded in Jn. XXL, 15-18. Prompted by love and reverence for Christ, Peter had protested that Christ ought not to suffer. And Christ would have been the first to appreciate such motives. However harsh the English may seem to be, Christ really replied gently, as if to say, "Peter, you do not yet understand the plan of God. You are letting your human affection sway your judgment. But such thoughts are opposed to my vocation. Get thee behind me, Satan." The word Satan is not used personally here, as of the devil, but in the sense of adversary, Christ intending merely, "I cannot accept the natural promptings of your affection for me." No withdrawal of office is involved.

The connecting link is the fact that Peter journeyed to Rome, and died there as Bishop with universal jurisdiction over the whole Church.

You may have heard that stated, but you have never heard any proof advanced in its favor. It is simple history that St. Peter went to Rome about the year 43 A.D., went back to Jerusalem after a few years for a short time, and then returned to Rome until his death, save for very short absences. He died about the year 67, during the reign of Nero. Papias wrote, about 140 A.D., "Peter came and first by his salutary preaching of the Gospel and by his keys opened in the city of Rome the gates of the heavenly kingdom." Lanciani, the eminent archaeologist, wrote, "The presence of St. Peter in Rome is a fact demonstrated beyond a shadow of doubt by purely monumental evidence."

Catholic tradition is not a mere matter of rumor and report. It is down in black and white in documents as historical as any other documents, beginning from the year 97 with the declaration of the fact by Clement. It would not matter if Scripture did not give any evidence on this point. However it does. St. Peter ends his first Epistle with the words, "The Church which is in Babylon salutes you, and so doth my son, Mark." All reputable scholars admit that the first Christians called pagan Rome Babylon on account of its vices. St. Peter, therefore, was writing from Rome. St. Paul wrote to the Colossians from Rome, sending the kind wishes of Mark, thus also indicating Mark's presence in Rome.

The point is, have I succeeded in doing so? Anyway, not only Catholics admit the fact. No single writer ever denied it until the 13th century. Then it was denied by the Waldenses, heretics who had a purpose in view, yet who could produce no evidence that he died anywhere else. No other place has ever disputed this honor with Rome. Wycliffe, Luther, and other Protestants took up the Waldensian assertion, thinking it a good argument against Rome. But enlightened Protestant scholars to-day are ashamed that such an argument, with all the evidence against it, should ever have been used. Cave, a Protestant writer, says, "That Peter was at Rome we fearlessly affirm with the whole multitude of the ancients." Dean Milman admits the fact as incontestable. Dr. Lardner, in his history of the Apostles and Evangelists, says that it is the general uncontradicted and disinterested testimony of ancient writers. The Protestant Whiston, in his Memoirs, remarks, "It is a 6hame for any Protestant to have to confess that any Protestant ever denied it."

Scripture tells us that he was head of the Church, which implicitly demands that ie was universal Bishop, and it also tells us, as I have said, that he was in Rome.

The word Pope means Father or Head of the Church as an ordinary father is head of a family. St. Peter was certainly in Rome, and died there as Bishop. By legitimate succession the one who succeeded as Bishop of Rome after Peter's death inherited the office of Head of the Church, or if you wish, as Father of the whole Christian family he was Pope. All the Bishops of Rome right through the centuries have belonged to the Catholic Church. No one disputes that. They are known as the Popes, and as St. Peter was first of that long line, Catholics rightly regard him as the first Pope.

St. Irenaeus, writing in the second century, gives us the list of the Popes from St. Peter as follows:—Linus, Cletus, Clement, Anacletus, Evaristus, Alexander, Xystus, Telesphorus, Hyginus, Pius, Anicetus, Soter, Eleutherius. Eleutherius was reigning as Pope in the time of Irenaeus.

He was not told to establish the Church. Christ established the Church, choosing Peter as the foundation stone. The Apostles were told to propagate the Church Christ had established, and of course according to the constitution given it by Himself. Wherever Peter went he remained Head of that Church, and as he went to Rome and died there whilst still exercising his office, that office is necessarily attached to the See of Rome. This was not by mere accident. We have to admit the guidance of the Holy Spirit in the choice made by St Peter in a matter of such moment to the Church.

Protestants cannot make that claim. Protestantism is essentially a protest against the Catholic Church, and therefore supposes that Church as previously existing. If Peter had not consolidated and built up the Catholic Church there would be no Protestantism to oppose it. In any case, Protestantism was unheard of until over 1500 years after St. Peter's death.

As we do not claim that he succeeds to the power of working miracles such a criterion is quite irrelevant in this matter.

Christ is the one principal Mediator. But He Himself chooses to dispense His mediation through secondary agents. There is but one king of England, but that does not deny the existence of officials to whom the royal power is delegated. If fifty officials act in the name of the king, that does not make fifty kings. Now Christ delegated His power to Priests and, as the one Mediator, acts through many channels. St. Paul wrote to the Corinthians, "Let a mafc so account of us as of the ministers of Christ, and the dispensers of the mysteries of God." I. Cor. IV., 1. In the Epistle to the Hebrews we read that the Priest "ought, as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins." V., 3. This cannot refer to Christ, who certainly had not to offer for His own sins.

The Priesthood is a form of secondary mediation appointed by Christ. To ignore His provision for the Church is to ignore Christ. We do not say that Catholics cannot directly approach Christ. They may unite themselves to Him by private prayers whenever they wish. But in many matters they need also the other means appointed by Christ and committed officially to the administration of Priests. Remember, too, that Christ identifies Himself with His Church, and meant what He said when He declared of her, "He who hears you, hears Me." That implies the doctrine, "He who comes to you, comes to Me." In fact, when Saul was persecuting the Church, Christ appeared to him and said, not, "Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou the Church," but, "Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou Me."

Your rigid interpretation would forbid your calling an earthly parent father. Yet God Himself, in the commandments, terms one of your parents father, and tells you to honor him as such. Your text means simply, "Call no one your father as if you had no other father with rights over you." That is, you must realize that all paternity is of God, and that you owe your being, and all that you have, including your earthly father, to Him. Nor can any claims of an earthly father avail against our duties to God, our heavenly Father. Meantime, Catholics do not call a Priest "Father" in the same sense as that in which they call God their Father. A Priest, by God's Providence and by the authority of Christ, is a father in the spiritual sense, just as a natural parent is a father in an earthly sense. By administering Baptism he gives spiritual life to a soul; he nourishes that life by conferring the Sacraments; he warns, teaches, helps with his advice, corrects, and does all in the spiritual life that an earthly father does in the temporal order. So much so that St. Paul attributes a true paternity to himself, saying, "I admonish you as my dearest children ... for in Christ Jesus, by the Gospel, I have begotten you." I. Cor, IV., 14.

Will you go to Christ on His conditions, or on your own conditions? Christ decided that Priests were necessary to His religion, gave to His Church the Sacrament of Orders, and authority to His Priests. You profess to believe in Christ, yet regard His appointments as a nonsensical farce.

Even had it done so, that would not alter the fact that Christ willed its existence. But what precisely do you intend?

Remember that the Church has to exercise the authority of Christ in this world. To do this, she needs to be free to deal with Catholics of every nationality, Riid therefore to bs free from the political interference of any particular nation. Now she can be free either by being independent of all rulers, or by being subject to a king who guarantees absolute liberty of action at least to the Pope. Kings, however, have ever been jealous of their authority, and prone to abuse it. If they grant freedom, they always regard it as being by privilege, and there is ever the danger that, if they happen to be displeased, they would try to interfere in Church administration. Hence God's Providence arranged that certain early kings legally donated territory to the Church, rendering her independent of earthly authority altogether. After hundreds of years these states were illegally taken from the Church, and she certainly protested.

Pope Pius IX. was in just possession of the Papal States, and he was just in taking all ordinary precautions to preserve what lawfully belonged to the Church.

The Catholic Church is not a kingdom of this world. It is the Kingdom of Christ in this world. And the Pope as Pope is not monarch of the Church in any national sense. No national considerations sway his rule over the millions of Catholics of every race and clime. He has temporal authority to-day in Vatican City, but that is merely that he may secure complete immunity from the interference of worldly powers.

He did. And the Pope demands independence of any earthly king's authority precisely that Caesar, with his worldly power, may not interfere with the things that belong to God.

The Pope as Pope must forget his nationality. As a man his sympathies might be with Italy. But he could not favor Italy in his official capacity. Despite his national sympathies, the Pope has insisted upon being perfectly independent of Italian authority. If an English Pope had done this many would have ascribed it to anti-Italian prejudices. But when an Italian Pope insists upon it, whose national sympathies are all with Italy, there is no explanation except that in his official capacity the Pope refuses to be an Italian. If an mi just war broke out between Italy and England, and Italy was in the wrong, the Pope would condemn the unjust policy of Italy.

Catholics are human beings with souls devoted to the service of God according to their Catholic Faith, yet with bodies which link them with this world, and render them subject to social relations and duties. These duties are regulated to a great extent by civil law, and Catholics do their share as citizens in the making of those laws. But do not think that all their activities as citizens are necessarily to be attributed to them as Catholics, and to be regarded as due to the influence of the Catholic Church.

The majority of the people in the countries you mention happen to be Catholics, But that does not mean that the Catholic Church as a Church has political control. Meantime the Church does not want political control her*, and would absolutely refuse on principle to accept it, were it offered,

The Church devotes her energies to the assisting of men in their spiritual needs. But since they are human beings in this world, these spiritual needs are often bound up with earthly cares. For men's bodily needs the Church has inspired the construction of institutions, homes, orphanages, and hospitals, throughout the world. In national and civic matters also she tries to sway the conduct of men by some degree of political influence, since the politicians of this world so often trespass against God's laws. But the Church does not interfere in lawful political matters which are of civic moment only, and which involve no violation of moral principles.

Not necessarily. Tf an anti-Christian law is proposed the Priest would probably warn his people publicly from the pulpit. In such a case he should do his best to persuade them to be true to God and vote against any law which God would forbid, repeating the words of Christ, "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." If some individual wished for personal advice in the confessional, he could ask it there. But in ordinary matters Catholics are told neither in the confessional nor from the pulpit how to vote. They are told that they are free.

I do not think you know of many. In any case, if some Priest did so offend, that would not justify anyone in giving up his religion. We have a duty to offer public worship to God. The faults of the clergy could not be a reason, they could at best be an excuse for another's neglect of duty. It is a foolish argument to say, "The Priest does not serve God as he should, therefore I shall not serve God as I should." Each must fulfill his duties to God no matter what others do. But, as a matter of fact, I deny that Priests as a body offend in this way.

She does not. But the Catholic Church to-day is as it was in the time of the Apostles, "not many noble, not many of the worldly wise, not many powerful." Most of her children are drawn from the class Christ loved so much—the working class. And in civil life the majority of these workers happen to have Labor sympathies. But these men vote as workers, not precisely as Catholics.

Loyalty to the Catholic Church does not divide a man's loyalty from his country. In religious matters a Catholic obeys his Church; in temporal affairs, the laws of his country. They are services in two different spheres.

He did. And we Catholics have but one Master—Christ. And we are serving Him even by the fulfillment of our lesser civic duties in so far as we do them for the love of Him. It is the man who gives himself up to worldly affairs in such a way as to separate them from the service of God wTho is attempting to serve two masters,

To British Catholics the Church is not controlled by a foreigner. She is controlled by the Vicar of Christ. It would be just the same if St. Peter were still there to-day, and he was a Palestinian Jew. If a Frenchman or an Englishman were elected, no Italian Catholic would regard the Pope as Pope in the light of any foreign nationality. I cannot be at once subject to two opposed monarchs as national sovereigns, but I can be subject to my earthly ruler in temporals and to the representative of Christ in spirituals. Until the Reformation all Englishmen were subject to the Pope, yet were filled with great love for their country. You would not presume to say that there was not a single loyal Englishman in the time of Henry V. Yet all England was Catholic then, and any Catholic can do to-day what Catholics could do then. The only Catholics in the world who owe temporal allegiance to the Pope are those who actually reside in Vatican City, over which, and over which only, he has the full rights of a temporal ruler. If, through unjust ambition, the Vatican City State were to despatch an immense army to invade Australia, it would be the duty of Australian Catholics to join the Australian army and defend their country. That ought to make it clear that spiritual allegiance to the Pope does not interfere with our citizenship.

Catholics are perfectly loyal to the Protestant king. They admit that he is head of the Anglican Church as the law declares. Since by law he is head of that Church, every Catholic says, "Right. Then he is head of the Anglican Church." And loyalty demands no more. It certainly does not demand that I accept the Church of which he is the head. In religious matters my loyalty is concerned with God. In earthly matters I respect the laws of my nation. That law does not say, "And every citizen must belong to the Anglican Church." If it did, it would be an unjust law, at variance with God's laws, and not binding in conscience.

Catholics are subject to the Bishop of Rome on questions of religion. But they are not subject to him in national affairs. This distinction naturally flows from the doctrine that the religion of Christ is not an affair of the British Empire, but for all men. Britishers should be Christians, but Christianity is not necessarily British. We Catholics are not so foolish as to confuse these two things. As Catholics and as citizens we are content to remain under the British flag, and to shed our blood in defending it. Why should we not be? We are not Italians, or Frenchmen, or Germans. And we have as much right to love our country and die for it, if necessary, as any other citizen.

I do not. I am of purely English descent, and I acknowledge no other loyalty than that to the British Empire. I do not like English faults, but then, love of my own mother does not demand that I call her faults virtues. I am opposed to unjust laws which inflict disabilities on Catholics just because they are Catholics. I do not like the law which deprives the king of freedom of conscience, insisting upon his being a Protestant. But that does not affect my loyalty.

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

Catholic Apologetics in Question & Answer Form

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

QUESTIONS IN VOLUME 1

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

301. Christian conditions came to England with Protestantism.

302. England icould still be Catholic had not men taken to thinking.

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

304. 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.

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

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

307. How does the Greek Church differ from the Catholic Church?

308. What is your attitude towards John Wesley?

309. The Baptist Church is the true Church. It really acts as did the first Christians, whilst the Catholic Church is not mentioned in Scripture as the true Church.

310. Whatever you say of other churches, you will never he able to prove that toe Seventh Day Adventists are wrong whilst we remain true to the Bible.

311. Why not be charitable and admit that the Salvation Army with their good works are God's people?

312. Have you any reason for the rejection of the "Witnesses of Jehovah"?

313. What of Christian Science?

314. Does not Christian Science rely upon prayer through belief in Christ's words, "Whatever you ask in My name, it shall be granted"?

315. Do not Christian Scientists produce miracles just as at Lourdes?

316. The higher synthesis known as Theosophy at least does not exclude Catholics.

317. May Catholics assist at Spiritistic Seances?

318. Is there any truth in the claims of Spiritualism?

319. Why precisely does your Church condemn Spiritualism?

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

321. 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?

322. It is most unkind of you to speak so sarcastically of other religions.

323. God is love.

324. We are all going to the same place, and there will be no distinction there.

325. What is the Catholic idea of the Church?

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

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

328. You have given those tests from Chrisfs 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."

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

330. 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.

331. Where in Scripture does it mention that Christ founded any such system?

332. Cannot the Congregationalist make out an equally strong case for a universal spiritual brotherhood, but toith local independence of churches?

333. I am loyal to Christ, not to any supposed representatives on earth.

334. Whilst I walk in the spirit, I do not think it necessary to be subject to any visible organization.

335. I admit that the way Catholics are taught by their hierarchy is a most successful policy.

336. Why do you reserve the hierarchical authority to men? Why not give women a chance?

337. I don't agree with any of these priestly claims. Anyway, the search' light of modern science is gradually breaking them up.

338. Are not your priests a great army of drones who neither toil, nor spin?

339. Do you think society will allow them to continue in existence, despite their place in economics?

340. You claim, of course, that the Pope is supreme head of this organised hierarchy. Yet urns it not the Emperor Phocas who first gave the Pope his title and universal jurisdiction? History records this as having happened in 607 A.D.

341. Was not the title of Universal Bishop much sought after, the Bishop of Rome winning it because he had the largest number of adherents?

342. Who gives the Pope his jurisdiction, if he is elected by men and not by God?

343. Did not Christ say9 "Neither be ye masters, for one is your master, Christ." Matt. XXIII., 10.

344. The servant of the servants of God I Is not the Pope rather the Beast predicted by Dan. VII?

345. I have heard that he is Anti-Christ, and that he teas described by St. John as 666, the numerical equivalent of the Latin words of the Pope's title, Vicarius Filii Dei.

346. Who is 666, if not the Pope?

347. Why was St. John so obscure? Was it merely to give us a conundrum?

348. Anyway Scripture does not mention a Pope.

349. Gregory the Great, Bishop of Rome, refused the title of universal Bishop himself, and blamed John the Faster of Constantinople for his presumption in claiming such a title!

350. That was in the 7th century. Who was head of the Church for the first three hundred years?

351. St. Peter was not head of the Apostles. All the Apostles acted as having the same authority.