Catholic Apologetics in Question & Answer Form
QUESTIONS IN VOLUME 1
Click 
to view the answer
500. Is not Catholic Church broader in meaning than Roman Catholic Church? Catholic means universal, not Roman Catholic.
Catholic and Roman Catholic are alternative expressions. The Roman Catholic Church is the Church universal on earth. All Catholics in Europe, America, Asia, Africa, and Australia, and in the rest of the world, are subject to the present Bishop of Rome. Were you to stop any man indiscriminately in the street and ask him to direct you to the nearest Catholic Church, he would unhesitatingly point out what you term a Roman Catholic Church. The average man makes no mistake in practice on this point.
501. If the word Roman identifies your Church as the only Catholic Church, where do the other Churches come in?
They are man-made substitutes which do not come in, but which went out Modern Protestants do not advert to the fact that they have been robbed of membership in the true Church by their ancestors. Protestant Churches cannot claim to have been founded by Christ, yet they confuse many people. But the true Church may be discerned by finding out that one which goes back to St. Peter, and through him to Christ. And he who is subject to the Pope is in communion with the very successor of St. Peter.
502. Scripture mentions neither the word Roman nor Catholic in connection with Christ's Church.
It is not a question of a name, but of the thing. And the universal spiritual society now known as the Catholic Church is most clearly described in Scripture. Christ said clearly that His Church would be one fold under one shepherd, the fold embracing all nations, the shepherd being St. Peter, and his successors. Either the Catholic Church is the one Christ established, or His Church has altogether ceased to exist.
503. We Protestants say, "I believe in the Holy Catholic Church," when we recite the Creed.
The recitation of a formula does not make one a member of the true Church. A profession of belief in America would not make a man an American citizen. Citizenship in the Catholic Church involves actual reception into that Church and submission to her authority.
504. Would you say that Christ Himself was a Catholic?
Yes. The Founder of the Catholic Church was certainly a Catholic, and history proves that Christ founded the Catholic Church, and identified it with Himself. Thus St. Paul says, "God hath made Him head over all the church (not churches) which is His body, and the fullness of Him who is filled all in all." Eph. I., 22-23.
505. How could Christ be a Catholic when He existed before the Church?
His pre-existence did not prevent His founding a Church and identifying it with Himself. As the Son of God He existed before the Incarnation, but that did not prevent His being man from the moment of the Incarnation.
506. How could Christ be subject to the Bishop of Rome?
The Founder of the Church is not subject to the Church He founded. Rather the Church He founded is subject to Him. And the Church of which the Bishop of Rome is supreme head on earth is the only Church which is so subject to the authority of Christ that it can truly be called His. From our point of view the test of communion with Rome became valid as a mark of identification only from the day that St. Peter, under divine guidance, definitely established his See at Rome.
507. Christ was above sectarianism.
He was. And so is the Catholic Church. She is not a sect. Sect supposes section or cutting off. The Catholic Church has never been cut off from herself. The sects are those religious bodies which have cut themselves off from the Catholic Church, and the clippings from the tree are not the tree.
508. By their fruits ye shall know them. If your Church were truly Catholic she would long ago have preached to all nations!
The Church was just as Catholic in the time of the Apostles as it is to-day, by virtue of the divine commission to teach all nations. But you must give the mustard seed time to grow. You could hardly expect the Church to preach the Gospel in America or Australia prior to the discovery of these countries. But her missionaries have gone forth with the very explorers, and to-day she reaches practically all nations far more efficaciously than any other Christian body.
509. So the Catholic Church cannot claim to be the only missionary force?
She claims to be the only divinely accredited missionary force, the only one which has a truly innate and perpetual expansive power, and the only one which has actually gone to all nations. In fact, there would be no other Christian missionary bodies were it not for her own missionary expeditions to the ancestors of those sects which later broke away from her despite Christ's promise that He would never fail to protect her.
510. It is a well known fact that all real missionary enterprise is carried on by the Protestants of England and America.
That is untrue. For over three centuries Protestantism could not inspire the thought of foreign missions. The Catholic Church was missionary from the very beginning and has ever retained that characteristic. In any case where are the English and American Protestant missions in Italy, Spain, Germany, Austria, Russia, etc.? Do not these Europeans deserve the truth? The Catholic Church is in all these countries.
511. I don't agree with foreign missions at all. It is better to leave natives as they are. The missions do more harm than good9 causing physical sufferings and mental distress.
Your opinion cannot avail against Christ's command to the Church that she must go to teach all nations. Christianity, in its true form of Catholicity, gives many helps to the attaining of eternal salvation, and it is certainly better to have those helps than not to have them. Any harm which seems to follow missionary enterprise is due to the vices of so-called Christian traders and adventurers, to the introduction of false forms of Christianity, or to the mistakes of well-meaning men. But it is never due to the spreading of Catholic doctrine as such. Pagan and even cannibal tribes, noting the beneficial effects of the coming of the Catholic missionaries, again and again send requests that they too may receive a Priest to teach them.
512. In the name of Catholicity you often point out that your Church exceeds all others numerically. But that only disproves your case. Christ said that He scarcely expected to find faith on earth.
Christ said that His Church would teach all nations, and go to the uttermost parts of the earth, the tiniest of seeds growing into a great tree. His words, "When the Son of man cometh, shall He find, think you, faith upon earth?" refer not so much to numbers as to quality of belief, as the context shows. And He is referring to special conditions which will prevail towards the end of time when the charity of many shall have grown cold. Matt. XXIV., 12. The text in no way suggests that the body of believers through all the ages will necessarily be small.
513. Christ said, "Fear not, little flock."
The Church was a little flock at the time Christ spoke, for it was in the seedling stage. But even the vast grown tree can be called a little flock. The Catholic Church is little and despised by worldly-minded men because she consists chiefly of the poor and of the despised. And it is always little in spirit, insisting upon humility in accordance with Christ's words, "Unless you become as little children you cannot enter the kingdom of heaven."
514. The Catholic Church preaches democracy. How many non-Italians become Pope?
The Catholic Church preaches, not democracy, but Christian doctrine. In any case, democracy has nothing to do with your question. Democracy suggests that the lower classes are as equally considered as the so-called higher classes. And as far as the Papacy is concerned, democratic principles are observed. Pope Leo XIII. was a Prince by blood, whilst his successor, Pius X., was the son of a poverty-stricken fanner.
515. How can you call your Church Catholic ivhen all your Popes are Italians?
Catholicity is not measured by the nationality of a given Pope. The Church numbers some 400 millions. If all Italians in the world died to-morrow there would be 350 million Catholics left. If this vast Church becomes Italian because we happen to have an Italian Pope now, then it was Jewish when St. Peter was Pope, English when Hadrian IV. was Pope, French under the French Popes, etc.
516. Must not the Pope always be an Italian?
No. Hadrian IV. was an Englishman; Martin IV. a Frenchman; Zachary a Greek; Gregory III. a Syrian; Hadrian VI. a Dutchman. The present Pope happens to be an Italian, but the Cardinals could quite easily elect an Englishman next time, should they think fit.
517. How many of the Cardinals with power to elect the Pope are non-Italians?
As a rule, slightly more than half the College of Cardinals are non-Italian.
518. Then, as a rule, will they not elect an Italian Pope?
Not because so many of the Cardinals are themselves Italian. All the Cardinals, before the election, take an oath that they will vote for the one whom in conscience they believe to be the best fitted for the position, independently of all national considerations. Yet, although there is no law forbidding the election of a non-Italian, as a rule it is to be expected that an Italian will be elected, even by the choice of the non-Italian Cardinals. Why? Because the Pope is to be Bishop of Rome, an Italian diocese, and just as we usually wish an English-speaking Bishop for English-speaking peoples, so the Italians should normally have an Italian Bishop. There is a greater reason wanted why he should not be an Italian than why he should be. Again, the Pope must live in Italy, and if he has to make a stand against the encroachments of Italian civil power, a Pope of Italian nationality at least cannot be accused of anti-Italian national sympathies.
519. Ought not the Catholic Church to elect a Britisher as Pope sometimes, just to prove to the world its Catholicity?
There is no reason why the Church should elect a Britisher, and such an election would in no way prove the Catholicity of the Church. Once a Pope is elected he is the Vicar of Christ, and cannot behave as an Italian, or as an Englishman, or in virtue of any other nationality. The Pope must have an equal love for all his subjects, and the Catholics of any nation cannot benefit by having a Pope of their own nationality. To Catholics it does not matter of what nation the Pope may be. The Cardinals elect that man whom God wishes them to elect. You want them to elect a Britisher just to please the English nation. The Cardinals would elect an English Pope if they considered it for the good of the Church and the glory of God in the light of the circumstances prevailing at the time.
520. During all the centuries only one Englishman has been considered as "best fitted." Is not that a reflection on the learning and ability of our nation?
No. As I have said, all things else being equal, an Italian would be the more suitable for a position to be occupied in Italian territory. And as a rule Italian Cardinals are every bit as pious and learned as others. Being international, the Catholic Church abstracts from national considerations. All are equal on that score. For purely external reasons, in no way intrinsic to the office, and all things else being equal, account is taken of the people in whose midst the Pope must reside.
521. So the fact remains that you must submit to a foreigner?
You have entirely failed to grasp the Catholic position. There are no foreigners in the Catholic Church. A supernatural standard prevails, and natural standards are not valid. If you call the Pope a foreigner because he is an Italian by birth, whom would you put there? An Englishman? If so, on your principles, all other nations would have the right to call him a foreigner! It is absurd to speak of foreigners in the one universal spiritual family. In Christ, an Italian, who has been baptised, is my born brother. From an earthly national standpoint we may be foreign to one another. But Christ's kingdom is not of this world.
522. I cannot reconcile myself to the Irish element which prevails in your Church !
The Irish element does not prevail. If the ten million Irishmen in the world were to die to-morrow the Catholic Church would not be affected as a Church. In this country the majority of Catholics are of Irish descent. But to judge from these local conditions is as absurd as the conduct of an Italian who would regard the world as Italian because he had lived all his life in Italy. And if you cannot reconcile yourself to the fact that at least in this country the Irish element prevails, would you join the Church in some other country in which it does not prevail? Will you rather do without the truth because the majority of those who have it in this country are of Irish descent? Is your dislike of everything Irish stronger than your love for Christ? Or will you say, "0 God, I will accept the gift of Catholic faith, provided You do not ask me to share it with the Irish"? Imagine some Gentile saying in the early Church, "Really I am strongly attracted by this Christian religion, but I cannot reconcile myself to the Jewish element which so prevails amongst its present adherents."
523. The Irish do not welcome converts.
They do. You are outside the Church. I am within it. I am of purely English origin, and was instructed and received into the Church by an Irish Priest, and found myself more than welcome among the children of the Catholic Church. Nor was I expected to become a militant Irish sympathizer from any national point of view. I retain my own national ideals. But the glory of the Catholic Church is that she unites people in one Catholic ideal, yet does not interfere with national ideals. The 400 million Catholics love very many different lands from a national point of view, but all love the one Catholic Church of Christ, that only true Catholic Church whose every member is in communion with the Bishop of Rome, successor to St. Peter himself.
524. What do you mean when you say that the true Church must be Apostolic?
I mean that the true Church must be able to exhibit as an historical fact that she possesses lawful and uninterrupted succession of her Bishops from the Apostles, her faith, worship and discipline remaining ever the same in all essential things. Briefly, this means the identity of the Church to-day with that of the Apostles,
525. Are not the Greek Churches Apostolic?
No. The mere fact that they are in schism involves secession from the Church of the Apostles, and a direct violation of the constitution of the Church. Prior to their secession the Greeks admitted the absolute necessity of union in die bond of Apostolic authority. The early Greek ecclesiastical writers afford sufficient evidence of this.
526. What of Protestantism?
Protestantism is in a still worse plight, involving a more far-reaching constitutional change. Most forms of Protestantism do not even claim to inherit Apostolic authority.
527. The Anglican Church has retained Bishops.
Omitting for the time being the question of the validity of their episcopal consecration, Anglican Bishops are not even conscious of Apostolic authority, nor can they claim uninterrupted legitimate succession. To rebel against the lawful authority of the Church, abandon it, and set up for oneself is no way to succeed by lawful title to transmitted jurisdiction.
528. The Old Catholics are as Apostolic as your Church.
The Old Catholics are really new Protestants dating from 1870. Even though their Orders be correct, they lost Apostoiic jurisdiction by leaving the Catholic Church.
529. The very name of my Church is the "Catholic Apostolic Church."
Your difficulty would be to prove your right to that title. The name alone proves nothing. Your Church owes its origin to Rev. Edward Irving, an ex-Presbyterian minister, in the early part of the nineteenth century. It is neither Catholic nor Apostolic, despite its title and claims to be a revival of an Apostolic Church which had perished—an idea quite foreign to the true notion of Apostolicity. The Catholic Church alone is truly Apostolic, and she alone rejoices in all those notes, marks, or characteristics which Christ manifestly intended His true Church to possess. She alone, therefore, is the true Church.
530. You have often hinted that the Catholic Church is indefectible, and that she will last forever. Is she not rather in her death-throes?
No. She has scarcely ever been in a stronger position, and she will last till the end of the world. Even then, instead of going into oblivion, she will merge into the Church-Triumphant in Heaven.
531. You cannot know that the Church will last till the end of time!
If I relied solely upon my finite intelligence as you do, I would not know. But I know precisely because the Eternal and Omniscient God who made me, and the world, and the Church, tells us that that Church will indeed last till the end of time.
532. Your Church began in paganism^ has lasted but 2000 years, and can claim but a mere fraction of the time this world has existed !
The Catholic Church did not begin in paganism. It is, and ever was, the most bitter opponent of paganism, and paganism does not intend its own destruction. The Catholic Church was established by Christ, the Son of God, when the greater part of the world happened to be pagan. But this merely chronological connection does not prove derivation. Again, the fact that the world is much older than the Catholic Church proves nothing concerning the future of that Church. Your soul has been in existence a mere fraction of the time that this world has existed, yet it will last forever. As a matter of fact, if the Church has not the power to last till the end of this world, she would not have lasted till now. There can scarcely be greater obstacles for her in the future than those she has already met.
533. I don't see how the fact that your Church has stood for so long proves its truth. Other religions have stood longer, and have perished.
The mere fact that the Catholic Church has stood for so long does not prove its truth. The fact considered in the light of her teachings, moral obligations, and obstacles does. Indefectibility can be claimed as a proof for the Catholic Church alone. She demands humility, mortification, rigid duty, and subjection to God— things human nature dislikes. Protestantism abolished most of the things difficult for human nature, and is content with a more or less sentimental religion. Nor has any pagan religion demanded the consistent virtue demanded by the Catholic Church. Finally, reasons can be found for the life of non-Catholic religions, and for their death. But no natural reasons can be found for the continued vitality of the Catholic Church despite her difficult doctrines, and her enemies within and without. The protection of God alone accounts for her persistence.
534. How do you account for the perseverance of older pagan religions?
Religion is natural to man, almost as natural as breathing. Men are therefore naturally inclined to cling to the religion they already possess, until the truth is put before them and clearly apprehended by them. But these old religions have gone through many changes, and are essentially vague and imperfect. Nor can they be compared with Catholicity, which is so definite, and which makes such concrete demands upon the whole man.
535. Will not the Catholic Church have to part with many of its doctrines in deference to modern thought, if it is to last till the end of time?
No. The Catholic Church is living to-day precisely because she has ever refused to part with her doctrines, which are the doctrines of Christ. The heresies of the centuries parted with doctrines of Christian faith in deference to human opinions, and they died in turn through the ages. Protestantism is dying visibly to-day. Any attempt to adjust Christianity to men's fallible speculations is suicidal. The Catholic Church adjusts men's ideas to Christian doctrine, and she stands, and will stand. Catholic doctrines are offensive to modern thought only because modern thought has ceased to be Christian, and the Catholic Church refuses to cease to be Christian. If men insist upon walking along the wrong track, the only way the Catholic Church could keep in their company would be to take the wrong track with them. But she prefers the right track. If modern thought does not harmonize with the Catholic Church, so much the worse for modern thought. However, modern thought, as you call it, is chiefly the result of not thinking. Its authors are only too prone to ignore evidence and take that to be true which they would like to be true.
536. Do you maintain that one is obliged to join your infallible, one, holy, catholic, apostolic, end indefectible Church, if he wishes to be saved?
If a man realizes that the Catholic Church is the true Church, he must join it if he wishes to save his soul. That is the normal law. But if he does not realize this obligation, is true to his conscience, even though it be erroneous, and dies repenting of any violations of his conscience, he will get to Heaven. In such a case, it would not have been his fault that he was a non-Catholic and God makes every allowance for good faith.
537. So I deserve Hell because I am a non-Catholic?
If you say, "I know quite well that the Catholic Church is the true Church, which God obliges me to join, but what of that!" then you deserve Hell. That would be a serious sin. But apparently you do not realize this obligation. Your position is based upon insufficient or false information, and this leads you to a wrong if sincere conclusion.
538. If one has to be a Catholic to get to Heaven I shall be glad to Hay outside.
That is an absurd statement, for there is no eternal happiness outside Heaven. But I understand what you mean. You believe the Catholic Church to be wrong, and you will not do what you believe to be evil that good may come. But God does not want you to do that. Nor do I. As long as you believe the Catholic Church to be wrong, you are obliged not to join it. Yet if ever God gives you the grace to perceive its truth, you will be obliged to join it, no matter what the cost in renouncing your previous attachments.
539. If a Catholic leaves his Church, and outside that Church lives a good and devout life, could he be saved?
You give an impossible case. To live a devout life is to live a life devoted to God. Now no Catholic can have a really sufficient reason to doubt the truth of his Church. If doubts do come, he owes it to God to make sure of his position before he acts, and inquiry will show such doubts to be unfounded. If he leaves without such inquiry, he is to blame for throwing away the best of God's gifts. If he inquires sincerely, he stays.
540. But what if he be fully convinced that the Catholic Church is wrong, even though his conscience be erroneous, would you blame him for leaving rather than violate his conscience by remaining?
I would blame him for allowing his conscience to become so convinced by insufficient reasons, and for not studying the grounds which absolutely guarantee the Catholic Church as the only completely Christian Church. His first difficulties should have led him to seek advice from competent guides.
541. So if a Catholic becomes a Protestant, he has no liope?
Whilst there is life there is always hope. Such a man may return to the Catholic Church, or at least die sincerely repenting of ever having left it.
542. Are Protestants free to leave the Protestant Church, yet Catholics not free to leave the Catholic Church?
One may always renounce error for truth; but no one is free to forsake truth for error.
543. Christ died for all. He did not say that we must all be Catholics.
Since Christ died for all, it follows that He wants all to belong to the one Church He established and endowed with His authority.
544. Many clever men have examined the Roman claims and have rejected them. They do not think it necessary to join the Catholic Church.
Equally clever men are convinced of its necessity. After all, there are clever men who reject Christianity itself, but that does not make the truth of Christianity uncertain. We cannot argue from the degrees of intelligence in those who accept or reject the Catholic claim. Such differences of human thought prove nothing except that men differ. The real question is not affected. We must study carefully the value of the foundations upon which the claim rests.
545. You said that a Protestant in good faith could be saved. Does not that admit that his religion is sufficiently true?
No. Such Protestants are saved not because of, but in spite of their erroneous religion. They have simply been true to a conscience which was erroneous through no fault of their own.
546. What are the conditions for the salvation of such a good Protestant?
He must have Baptism at least of desire; he must be ignorant of the fact that the Catholic Church is the only true Church; he must not be responsible for that ignorance by deliberately neglecting to inquire when doubts have perhaps come to him about his position; and he must die with perfect contrition for his sins, and with sincere love of God. But such good dispositions are an implicit will to be a Catholic. For the will to do God's will is the will to fulfill all that He commands. Such a man would join the Catholic Church did he realize that that was part of God's will. In this sense the Catholic Church is the only road to Heaven, all who are saved belonging to her either actually or implicitly.
547. Since Protestants can be saved9 and it is ever so much easier to be aProtestant, where is the advantage in being a Catholic?
Firstly, remember the conditions of salvation for a Protestant. If he has never suspected his obligation to join the Catholic Church, it is possible for him to be saved. But it is necessary to become a Catholic or be lost if one has the claims of the Catholic Church sufficiently put before him. I myself could not attain salvation did I leave the Catholic Church, unless, of course, I repented sincerely of so sinful a step before I died. Secondly, it is easier to live up to Protestant requirements than to live up to Catholic requirements. Non-Catholic Churches do not exact so high a standard of their followers as does the Catholic Church of hers. But that is not the question. It is much easier to be a really good Christian in the full sense of the word as a Catholic than as a Protestant, and surely that is what we wish. What advantages contribute to this? They are really too many to enumerate in a brief reply. The Catholic is a member of the one true Church established by Christ. He has the glorious certainty of the true Faith, and complete knowledge of the whole of Christian truth is much better than partial information, if not erroneous information. By submission to the authority of Christ in His Church he has the advantage of doing God's will just as God desires. If he fails at times by sin, he has the certainty of forgiveness by sacramental absolution in the Confessional. He has the privilege of attending Holy Mass Sunday after Sunday, and the immense help of Holy Communion by which he may receive Our Lord Himself as the very food of his soul. He has the privilege of sharing in the sufferings of Christ, by observing the precepts of fasting and mortification. He receives innumerable graces from Sacramentals and from the special blessings of the Church. He may gain very useful indulgences, cancelling much of the expiation of his sins which would otherwise have to be endured in Purgatory. And he is more loved by God in virtue of his being a Catholic even as God loves the Catholic Church more than any other institution on the face of the earth. In short, even as there is an advantage in being a Christian rather than a pagan, so there is an immense advantage in being a true Christian and belonging to the one true Church rather than to some false form of Christianity. Thus a good Catholic has many advantages over and above those possessed by a good and sincere Protestant. But, as I have remarked, if a Protestant begins to suspect his own Church to be defective, inquires into the matter, and becomes convinced that the Catholic Church is the true Church, he has no option but to join that Church if he desires to avoid the risk of eternal loss.
548. Why is the Catholic Church antagonistic towards the Bible?
She is not. She protects and defends it. But she does teach that the private reading of the Bible with reliance solely upon one's own powers of comprehension is no sure way to arrive at the truth taught by Christ. And experience bears out her teaching.No. Beautifully illuminated copies of the Scriptures, wrought by the Monks, were in the charge of the Clergy and the Churches, and from these the Word of God was carefully preached to the people. Before the invention of the printing press, a wider diffusion was impossible.No. The Catholic Church would have been very foolish to have copies multiplied only to destroy them. When the printing press was invented by the German Catholic Gutenberg in 1445, the first book printed was a Bible, before Protestantism had come into existence.She condemns the principle that Bibles should be distributed indiscriminately to people on the understanding that they will be able to attain the truth without the guidance of the Church, and by their own unaided efforts. The wildest absurdities have resulted from the theory of private interpretation of Scripture, and if it is not dangerous to Christianity to have a new pretended Christian Church arising every ten years from some mad-cap reading of an isolated text, I would like to know your idea of what is really dangerous to Christianity.
549. Was not the Bible unknown to the people before the Reformation?
No. Beautifully illuminated copies of the Scriptures, wrought by the Monks, were in the charge of the Clergy and the Churches, and from these the Word of God was carefully preached to the people. Before the invention of the printing press, a wider diffusion was impossible.
550. Did not the Catholic Church bum all Bibles, and punish those who had copies?
No. The Catholic Church would have been very foolish to have copies multiplied only to destroy them. When the printing press was invented by the German Catholic Gutenberg in 1445, the first book printed was a Bible, before Protestantism had come into existence.
551. Yet does not the Catholic Church regard the work of the Bible Society as dangerous to Christianity?
She condemns the principle that Bibles should be distributed indiscriminately to people on the understanding that they will be able to attain the truth without the guidance of the Church, and by their own unaided efforts. The wildest absurdities have resulted from the theory of private interpretation of Scripture, and if it is not dangerous to Christianity to have a new pretended Christian Church arising every ten years from some mad-cap reading of an isolated text, I would like to know your idea of what is really dangerous to Christianity.
552. Does she herself forbid the reading of Scripture in the vernacular?
No. There are various Catholic societies for the diffusion of the Holy Gospels in the vernacular, such as the Society of St. Jerome, approved by the Church. Pope Pius X. granted special blessings to those who would read Scripture daily and recommend others to do so. But it is essential that the teachings of the living Church be kept in mind as a key to the true sense of the Bible.
553. Then why did Pope Clement XI. in 1713 condemn the doctrine that the Bible is for all to read?
He did not condemn the doctrine that it is good to read Scripture. He condemned the theory that it is necessary to do so in order to attain Christian knowledge. Christ's method was to establish a teaching Church, it being necessary to be taught by that Church. He did not order the Apostles to multiply and scatter copies of the Scriptures. If the reading of Scripture were necessary to salvation, what of the immense number of Christians through all the centuries prior to the invention of printing, when it was impossible to transcribe by hand sufficient copies for the multitudes? Could Christ make the possibility of His religion dependent upon the invention of the printing machine? And did He intend His religon to remain forever impossible as far as the illiterate are concerned? It is absurd to say that His religion essentially depends upon a printed book. The Pope wisely condemned the proposition that the reading of Scripture is necessary to all. Every reasonable man would condemn so unreasonable a proposition.
554. May a Catholic read the correct Word of God, or only the Bible as written to suit the Catholic Church?
He may read the correct Word of God in those translations which are approved by the Church. He is forbidden to read the Protestant versions in which there are many mistranslations, and in which the text is often distorted to suit the enemies of the Catholic Church. But then, distorted texts are no longer the Word of God.
555. You seem afraid that Catholics will be harmed by the reading of Scripture.
Even granted a correct version, thousands of people have been harmed by the reading of Scripture, thinking themselves capable of interpreting it aright. The Pharisees read Scripture, yet managed to use, or misuse, quotations from the Bible as an argument against Christ, just as men to-day quote Scripture as an argument against the true Church of Christ, the Catholic Church.
556. You say that Catholics may read the Bible. But do they do so?
Some do. Some do not. All are free to do so, but it is not absolutely necessary that they should give themselves to the private reading of Scripture.
557. Why do not Catholics have a Bible in the house?
Catholics are quite free to possess and read approved versions of the Bible. As you cannot have searched every Catholic home in the country I can but wonder at your credulity in thinking that Catholics do not have Bibles in their homes.
558. I have known Catholics to admit that they have never read the Bible. Why does not the Catholic Church teach it to them?
The doctrines of the Bible are taught to her people by the Catholic Church more faithfully than by any other Church. The Gospel is read to them, and explained every Sunday morning at Mass, and far more people are there to hear it than you will find in the Protestant Churches. Some Catholics do not read the Bible privately very much, but they know the doctrines taught by the Bible more clearly than any other people on earth. Non-Catholic Bible-readers may know many texts of Scripture, but they know very little doctrine. A Catholic may be at a loss when you quote some particular text, but he knows clearly what must be done to save one's soul—the true conditions required for this being simply unknown to hosts of non-Catholic Bible-readers.
559. In any case you have to admit that Protestants have more love for Scripture than Catholics. We owe the re-discovery of the Bible chiefly to the early Protestants.
I deny absolutely that Protestants love Scripture more than Catholics. Nor was the Bible ever re-discovered. Through all the centuries it had been carefully transcribed and preserved in Catholic monasteries, and was there already for Luther and others to broadcast.
560. To whom am I indebted for my English Bible?
You are indebted to many collaborators. Between 1525 and 1536 William Tindale translated into English various Greek and Latin copies of the Bible which had been made by Catholic monks, copies which could be traced back to the original Scriptures. Cromwell was not satisfied with Tindale's translation, so commissioned Miles Coverdale to make a new one. Coverdale used and perfected to some extent Tindale's version, and published the "Great Bible" in 1539. Not satisfied with this, a committee of Anglican Bishops revised it, and in 1568 published what is known as the "Bishops' Bible." This was also faulty, and King James 1st of England ordered a new revision. Taking as their basis the Bishops' Bible, a committee oi 47 revisers whose names are not known produced what is known as the "Authorized Version" in 1611. In 1881 a new revised version was published, correcting some 5,000 mistakes in the Authorized Version. Further revision of this "Revised Version" is being demanded. Thus you owe your English Bible to many unknown revisers, the Bishops of 1568, Miles Coverdale 1539, Tindale 1525, Monastic copyists through the ages, and thence to the originals.
561. Have Catholics a true copy of the Bible as used by Protestants?
Protestants have not a true copy. Their copy contains many mistranslations and omits complete Books. The Catholic Church provides a substantially true copy or version in English for her own subjects.
562. You speak of mistranslations. Do you accuse the Protestant translators of grossly infamous conduct in tampering with the text?
I do. Dixon, in his Introduction to Scripture says, "That the early Protestant translations were full of gross errors no unprejudiced Protestant will now deny, and that these errors were willful, Ward, in his Errata, satisfactorily proves." Bishop Ellicott, in his book, "Considerations on the Revision of the English Version," says that the translation "yields erroneous doctrinal inferences not to be drawn from the original." Blunt, in his "Key to the Knowledge and Use of the Bible," says, "The characters of the translators were not such as to command the respect of men." Robert Gell, chaplain to Archbishop Abbott, one of the revising committee, wrote of the discussions, "Truth was often outvoted. Dogmatic interests were in some cases allowed to bias the translation. The Calvinism of one party, the prelatic views of another, were both represented at the expense of accuracy."
563. What books are omitted from the Protestant Version?
Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, the two Books of Machabees, and the various sections of other Books.
564. Is not the Douay Version a poorer rendering into English than the Protestant Version, apart from its Romish viewpoint?
The Douay Version has not a "Romish" viewpoint in the sense of having been deliberately accommodated to Catholic teaching. It is a substantially true Version which, because true, necessarily indicates the Catholic Church as the true Church. For that is the truth of Scripture. From a literary point of view, it is a less beautiful translation than that of the Authorized Version. But why? Merely because it is a more exact translation. When a foreign language, classical or modern, is translated into English, the more one clings to the text, the less purely literary beauty one attains in the new language. To obtain a more beautiful rendering one must translate more freely, thus more or less forfeiting the exact sense of the original. But in the matter of God's Word, we want, not so much literary beauty, but just what God intended. And for that, the Douay Version far surpasses the Authorized Version, despite its rather awkward literary structure at times.
565. The Gospel of Christ is simplicity itself.
In one way it is. It tells us clearly that Christ established a definite Church which He commissioned to teach all nations. It is very simple from this point of view, for men have but to accept the Catholic Church, and be taught by that Church. But the Gospel is not simplicity itself in the way you intend. Men have devoted their lives to the study of the Gospels, preparing themselves for the task by profound research in the Hebrew, Syrian, Arabic, Greek, and Latin languages. And even then, many passages are most difficult to understand.
566. But at least the plan of salvation can be understood by the simplest person. We Protestants even tell our children to read their Bibles in order to discern it.
According to the findings of your simple readers there must be hundreds of conflicting plans of salvation, all revealed by the one Christ! As for the capacity of your children, you might as well give them the article in the Encyclopaedia Brittanica on Spectroscopic Analysis as the subject matter of their studies. But the Bible itself is against your theory. Thus St. Peter says that in Scripture there are certain things "hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures, to their own destruction." II. Pet. III., 16. To his mind the private interpretation of Scripture can be most dangerous.
567. God has given us brains to think for ourselves. We do not need Help to understand Scripture.
God had given men brains before He came to teach them Himself, and He came to teach them precisely because their brains could not succeed in finding out the things which were to their peace. If you say that His revealed teachings in the Scriptures together with our brains are enough, those very revealed teachings tell you that they are not. Even in the Old Law God said, "The lips of the Priest shall keep knowledge, and they shall seek the law at his mouth." Mai. II., 7. In the New Law Christ sent His Church to teach men, transferring to His Church that authority of God once possessed by the Priests of the Old Law. In the New Testament itself we find Philip the Deacon saying to the Ethiopian, who was reading the Scriptures, "Thinkest thou that thou understandest what thou readest?" and the Ethiopian replying, "And how can I unless some man show me?" Act VIII., 30. St. Peter, too, explicitly refutes your ideas. "No prophecy of Scripture," he writes, "is of any private interpretation." II. Pet. I., 20.
568. St. Peter means that the Prophets did not prophesy by their own will, but by the Holy Spirit. He does not refer to interpretation by us.
Your own Protestant Bishop Ellicott says of these verses, "The words private interpretation might seem to mean that the sacred writers did not get their prophecies by private interpretation, but by divine inspiration. But this is certainly not the meaning. The real meaning is that the reader must not presume to interpret privately that which is far more than ordinary human thought."
569. Any man who can think has the moral right to interpret anything.
He has not. The very laws of the state are not subject to the interpretation of each and every citizen. There is such a thing as thinking erroneously. In difficulties of civil law a man consults a lawyer who knows legal practice and parallel statutes. Who gives you the right to take greater liberties with divine legislation? A man who knows nothing of Hebrew or Greek, and is quite untrained in Scriptural exegesis, would misapprehend the sense of Scripture in hundreds of places.
570. Did not Christ promise that He would send the Holy Spirit to teach us all truth?
He did not promise that the Holy Spirit would teach each individual separately. If every individual were under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, all who read Scripture sincerely should come to the same conclusion. But they do not. The frightful chaos as to the meaning of Scripture is proof positive that the Holy Spirit has not chosen this way of leading men to the truth. It is blasphemy to say that the Holy Spirit does not know His own mind, and that He deliberately leads men into contradictory notions. Christ promised to preserve His Church as a Church by the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and the only Church which shows signs of having been preserved is the consistent Catholic Church. The individual is guided by the Holy Spirit to a certain extent in the ways of holiness, but in the knowledge of revealed truth he is to be guided by the Catholic Church which Christ sent to teach all nations.
571. I don't see the need of learning to understand a simple story for simple people.
The Bible is not a simple story for simple people. We live thousands of years after the Bible was written, and our language and customs are very different now. No book written at one age is easy for another age. The study of antiquities demands a knowledge oi primitive languages oi vrtnciv few ate eapabfe, and ioi vifeidv still fewer have the time. Anyway God never intended the Bible to be the sole guide to religion for all time. Christ taught orally and with authority, and He sent His Church to teach in the same way and with the same authority.
572. Hoiv does it help to know Hebrew or Creek?
Because one must know what the original words meant in the language in which Scripture was written. A knowledge of Hebrew and Greek soon shows that the translators do not always find an English word to express the exact sense of the original. God inspired the thoughts of the original writers, not the work oi the translators. And if you read a sense into Scripture which God did not intend at all, you no longer have God's Word.
573. Christ chose poor fishermen, not learned men.
He trained them personally, and infused into their minds an exact knowledge of His doctrine. We cannot claim to have received a similar revelation, that we should rank ourselves with them.
574. Then Catholics hare to believe just tchaf the Priest Ufees to tell them?
The Priest cannot tell the people just what he likes. He is obliged to teach just what Christ taught, and which has been taught him in the Name of Christ by the infallible Catholic Church.
575. Is your Church afraid that people will form opinions for themselves?
If we consider some of the opinions people have formed for themselves from their private reading of Scripture there is need to be afraid. Christ's method was to establish a teaching Church. Protestants have a peculiar method of their own, but you cannot blame the Catholic Church for not using the Protestant method, a method which has led to nothing but uncertainty and widespread unbelief.
576. Admitting the necessity of guidance, are not our Protestant ministers as capable as Catholic Priests in telling us what Scripture means?
They might be, if Priests had not an infallible Catholic Church to guide them. The Catholic Church rejoices in the special assistance of the Hoiy Spirit, and the Priest has the help of her defined doctrines and the constant Catholic tradition as a safeguard. But your Protestant ministers do not claim to be spokesmen of an in* fallible Church. On their own principles they have to admit that they are possibly wrong. And as a matter of fact, where all Priests are agreed in the essential teachings of Scripture, your ministers come to all kinds of contradictory conclusions. The unity of teaching among Catholic Priests is a greater indication of capability than the chaos which prevails outside the Catholic Church. But the capability of Catholic Priests has little to do with relative personal attainments. It is derived from the authority of the infallible Catholic Church.
577. You speak of the authority of the Church and the weight of tradition. But I have been taught that Scripture is the only rule of faith.
You have been taught wrongly. Scripture itself denies that it is the only rule of faith. The last verse of St. John's Gospel tells us that not all concerning Our Lord's work is contained in Scripture. St. Paul tells us over and over again that much of Christian teaching is to be found in tradition. One who clings to the reading of the Bible only might be able to cite hundreds of texts yet not know Christian doctrine by any means. In fact, the adoption of the Bible only has led to as many opinions as there are men amongst non-Catholics. Finally, Scripture tells us most clearly that the Catholic Church is the rule of faith, that Church which Christ sent to teach all nations and which He commanded men to hear and obey. He who believes in Scripture as his only guide ends by believing in his own mistaken interpretations of the Bible, and that means that he ends by believing in himself.
578. Is not the Church built on the knowledge it gets from the Bible?
No. The Catholic Church was built by Christ and upon Christ before a line of the New Testament was written. She received her doctrine immediately from the lips of Christ, and is safeguarded from error in her teaching by the Holy Spirit. Between 40 and 80 years after her foundation, some of her members wrote the Books of the New Testament. If the Gospels were the only rule of faith, then before they were written there could have been no Christian rule of faith at all!
579. Christ gave us the command to search the Scriptures. Jn. V.9 39.
That was a retort, not a command, and you cannot turn a particular rebuke into a universal law. Were it a universal law, it would have been impossible of fulfillment by the vast majority during the fourteen centuries prior to the invention of the printing press! But take the context. The Jews, who boasted of their fidelity to the Mosaic Law, would not believe in Christ. He challenged them: "(You) search the Scriptures, for you think in them to have life everlasting; and the same are they that give testimony of me." The Catholic Church could say in the same way to Protestants: "You are ever speaking of searching the Scriptures as opposed to my methods, and think in them to have everlasting life independently of me; yet the same are they that give testimony of me."
580. Do we not read that the early Christians searched the Scriptures daily? Act. XVIL, 11.
They first received the true doctrine from the teaching Church, and then merely checked it in the Scriptures. That is the right procedure, and Catholics to-day do the same. But your way is not first to be taught by the Church, and then verify, but to try to make out your own religion from the Bible with an untrained mind and by that private interpretation which Scripture itself forbids.
581. Well, I am afraid of nothing as long as I have the pure Word of God to fall back upon.
Without the Catholic Church you cannot prove it to be the pure Word of God. Nor need anyone be afraid of the pure Word of God. What we must fear is the Word of God adulterated by people who read into it whatever they like.
582. I object to the way you put human traditions on the same level as Scripture.
As a source of doctrine the Catholic Church relies upon divinely guaranteed tradition, not upon merely human tradition. This divine tradition is the teaching of Christ, given orally to the Apostles and handed down in the Church, although not written in the pages of the New Testament.
583. Then you appeal to tradition in addition to Scripture?
Yes, and I am quite Biblical in doing so. Christ sent the Apostles to teach all things that He had taught them. In the last verse of his Gospel St. John tells us that not all is written in Scripture. If all is to be taught, and all is not set down in Scripture, part of Christian doctrine must be elsewhere. Where? St. Paul tells us clearly. "Brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our Epistle." II. Thess. II, 14. "Hold the form of sound words whicn you have heard of me in faith." II. Tim. I, 13. "The things thou hast heard of me by many witnesses, the same commend to faithful men, who shall be fit to teach others also." II. Tim. II, 2. All Christians from the very beginning believed that Christian revelation was contained not only in Scripture, but also in tradition. Acts II, 42, tells us that "they were persevering in the doctrine of the Apostles," that is, in the oral teaching of the Apostles which they taught to one another, and handed on to their children. Those who repudiate tradition have lost the complete doctrine of Christ
584. I do not question traditions contained in Scripture. I object to the Roman traditions which are not in Scripture and which are against Scripture.
The Catholic Church rejects all traditions which are against Scripture. She accepts divine traditions which are complementary to Scripture, and which are in perfect harmony with the principles taught in Scripture. The traditions themselves cannot be in Scripture for the traditional Word of God cannot be the written Word of God. But Scripture itself says that tradition exists, and that it is of equal authority with that written Word of God.
585. Did not Christ blame the Pharisees, saying, "Why do you transgress the commandment of God for your tradition"? Matt. XV., 3.
He did, but he called it their tradition, condemning their erroneous and merely human tradition, not the right traditions to which, according to St. Paul, we must hold fast. You quote this text merely because it happens to contain the word tradition, and without any appreciation of its true sense.
586. St. Paul himself warns us, "Beware lest any man cheat you by philosophy and vain deceit; according to the tradition of men, according to the elements of the world, and not according to Christ." Coloss. II., 8.
The text warns us against wrong traditions, but in no way condemns traditions which are not merely of human invention, but which are according to Christ. St. Paul does not contradict his own teaching.
587. St. Peter condemns tradition, saying, "You were not redeemed by your vain conversation of the tradition of your fathers." I. Pet. 1., 18.
This is not a condemnation of Christian traditions, but of doctrines held by those to whom St. Peter wrote, and handed on to them by human tradition from their fathers. These were the traditions Our Lord condemned in Matt. XV., 3.
588. I admit the force of Apostolic traditions for the early Christians. But they could be sure of them as we cannot to-day.
That is a dreadful statement. Were the Apostolic traditions part of the Christian faith then? Is it therefore impossible to know the full Christian truth now? Did Christ mean it when He said that He would be with His Church all days till the very end of the world? Or would you suggest that He meant it, but could not accomplish it? He sent the Church to teach all things, yet you say that it is impossible to-day. Be sure that the Catholic Church has all necessary traditions embodied in her teachings. Within her fold each succeeding generation of Bishops have taught faithful men who have been fit to teach others also. But you refuse to be taught by that Church. You rely upon your own fallible judgment. And as long as you adopt that method you will never be sure, not only of the Christian traditions, but even of the true Christian doctrine to be derived from Scripture itself.
589. You keep insisting, not only upon tradition, but also upon the teaching authority of your Church. Why follow her interpretations?
Because we cannot safely follow the interpretation given by anybody else. All guides except the Catholic Church confess to being fallible. The Catholic Church alone claims infallibility, and proves her claim. I prefer to follow so sure a guide. Those who refuse to do so are at sixes and sevens as to the true meaning of Christianity.
590. Have not laymen as much intelligence as Priests?
Apart from the fact that Priests give, not their own human ideas, but the teachings of the Catholic Church, it is certain that the layman cannot know theological matters as do Priests, even as you are not as well acquainted with jurisprudence and urgery as lawyers and doctors. A specialist in a subject by years of study is bound to know more of that subject than the man in the street. If an average man is so liable to error in the interpretation of human law, how can he have the vanity to think himself expert in the interpretation of divine legislation?
591. What special qualifications has the Catholic Church in the interpretation of Scripture?
Very many.
1. The New Testament was written by members of the Catholic Church. She existed before a line of the New Testament was written. Protestantism came on the scene centuries afterwards. The Gospels are really the family papers of the Catholic Church, and she alone, possessing the family traditions, can interpret what those family papers really mean.
2. The Catholic Church carefully and jealously preserved the Bible through the ages, so that Protestants would have no Gospel were it not for her.
3. She has been much more faithful to Scripture than any of the Protestant Churches. Whilst many Protestant leaders are prepared to sacrifice the Bible in order to appear scientific and modern, the Catholic Church consistently demands that every jot and tittle of God's Word must be accepted in the original sense intended by God.
4. The Protestant Churches owe their separate existences to the fact that each denies that the others really know what Scripture means.
5. The Catholic Church was established by Christ as the rule of faith, and He declared that a man is to be regarded as a heathen if he will not hear the Church. The Catholic Church is the only qualified interpreter of Scripture.
592. The Bible tells us to prove all things. I. Thess. V., 21. The Catholic Church demands that her adherents prove nothing, accepting all on her authority, and without question.
Have you proved all things? Your own fantastic interpretations show that you have not. The text you quote has a meaning very different from that you attribute to it. It refers to conduct. The full text is, "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. From all appearance of evil refrain yourselves." In other words, "Reflect, test, examine your conscience before you act, and do the right thing." In the same way, St. Paul said that one who desires to receive the Holy Eucharist must "prove himself, and so let him eat, for he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself." I. Cor. XL, 28. Your interpretation of Catholic requirements is just as fantastic. The Catholic Church does not demand that her adherents prove nothing. She wants them to examine the reasons for their Catholic faith, and prove the claims of their Church. We prove that she is the only possible Church historically, Scripturally, and logically, and that she must be infallible. Then when she speaks in the Name of Christ we reasonably accept her teachings. If I consult a doctor whom I know to be competent, I accept his decisions. I do not fight every inch of the way, disputing, arguing, and challenging his statements. So, once I know that the Catholic Church is divinely qualified to speak the truth in religious matters, I accept her decisions and definitions. Nothing could be more wise than that, In fact, it would be sheer folly to do otherwise.
593. Being tied to dogmas, are you not the least fitted of all men to speak about religion?
No. Other men give their own personal opinions, which are not necessarily any better than the opinions of their fellow men. I am able to give the exact doctrine of Christ, and Christ said, "My doctrine is not mine, but His that sent me." The Catholic Church also says, "My doctrine is not mine, but that of the Christ who sent me." One who has the infallible Catholic Church, as guide to save him from mistakes is the best fitted of all men to speak about religion.
594. Do you honestly give your own opinion, or the opinion of your Church?
In matters of history, I state historical facts, and since they are facts they ere my own belief. On questions of faith and morals, if the Church has given any definite teaching I give that teaching, and since it is true, it is of course my own conviction. Where the Church has given no definite teaching but leaves it a free matter, I give what I consider the most probable explanation.
595. Why not preach charity, instead of speaking always with self-satisfaction of your "only right dogmas"?
With so many conflicting Churches in existence, it is a vital matter to find the truth. If the Catholic Church were self-satisfied, she would be content to have the truth herself and not bother about those without it. As for charity, it is better to exercise charity than talk about it, and there can be no greater charity than to point out the right road to those who have missed the track.
596. What is truth?
Truth is an exact knowledge of things just as they are.
597. Authority bears no relation to truth.
It bears a tremendous relation to truth. The whole system of educating to truth supposes authority in a body of teachers. God is truth itself and the source of all truth. When God speaks, what He says has authority, and the authority of His words is an absolute guarantee of the truth of what He says.
598. Truth is too big a thing for one religion to corner?
Reason should tell you that the God who made both the universe and man must blow the truth about both. It should tell you that if God definitely tells man anything, the information must be sound. It would justify the fact that God has spoken, if you would but examine the credentials of the Catholic Church. And finally, it would show you that the Catholic Church is big enough to contain all the truth revealed by God on the subject of religion.
599. Dogma will not save a single soul.
Alone it will not. But since the Catholic Church is the true Church which Christ commands us to hear, the conscious and deliberate rejection of her dogmas can forfeit salvation.