Radio Replies Vol 2 - Catholic Apologetics Online

Because it is for God to say by what path we will come to Him, and not for man to tell God to be content with whatever men choose to do. How far would you extend your principle? You are a professing Christian. Will you admit the right of every individual to reject Christ and choose his own path to God, even though it be opposed to that prescribed by the very Son of God? If not, then you abandon the principle that every individual has the right to choose his own path. And if you make any restrictions, you cannot object on principle to the restrictions made by the Catholic Church. All you can ask is why the Catholic Church should draw the line in a different place from that chosen by yourself.

That is a half-truth, and a half-truth is nearly always most dangerous. If, as Christians believe, God has revealed a religion, people are obliged to accept that religion, and no other. They are no longer entitled to their own religious beliefs once God has dictated what they must believe. On the other hand, people are entitled to follow their own conscience, even though their ideas be defective or mistaken. In fact, they are obliged to live according to what they honestly deem to be true and right. Thus, for example, a Protestant, so long as he really thinks his Protestantism to be correct, is entitled and obliged to remain a Protestant. But should he discover the truth of Catholicism, he is certainly no longer entitled to remain a Protestant.

It must matter, or Christ would not have taught a new and very definite religion. After all, the Jews were aiming at the same destination as ourselves, eternal salvation, and happiness with God. Yet Christ did not say that their road was good enough. Again, if God not only appoints the destination, but also the road by which we must travel, we cannot say that any other road is just as good. The Catholic Church declares hers to be the only right road. Other Churches dispute that, and maintain that any religion will do. It is evident that the Catholic claim, if true, is most important. Study the evidence for it.

Do you really believe that Christ is the Son of God who came down from heaven to teach us the truth in the name of our Creator, and yet that it does not matter whether our ideas of that truth be right or wrong? Is it quite all right for a Church to claim to be that of Christ, yet to teach a whole lot of errors in His name? Do you seriously mean that there is no need to worry about that? And if it does not matter whether one is a Catholic or a Methodist because both Churches are striving for the one end--to serve God, does it matter whether one be a Christian or a Mahometan?Mahometans also believe in the true God and try to serve Him in their own way. Now just as you would insist that one must strive in the Christian way rather than in the Mahometan way, so I insist that it must be in the Catholic way rather than in the Methodist or any other way. In other words, there is need to worry as to who is right and who is wrong.

We cannot concentrate on identity of aim only. The Catholic Church will never blame anyone for aiming at teaching Christian principles. But, besides considering the good intention, she also and very wisely considers the principles taught. And she says that, however good the aim or intention of other Churches, that does not alter the fact that they teach many wrong principles.

Because God is Love, He must love the good and the true. And that excludes the bad and the false. As a Christian, too, you cannot expect God to be tolerant of insults directed against His only-begotten Son. He must be partial to the doctrine taught by His own Son, and He cannot be indifferent to blasphemous denials of the veracity of Christ. Moreover, God must be partial to the exact and complete doctrine of Christ, and not to incomplete or distorted doctrines proposed by men who, with no right to do so, tampered with the teachings of Christ. If you admit this, you admit that God is partial to the Catholic Church, and that He is not pleased with the other Churches which cannot agree amongst themselves save in their opposition to the greatest Church of all--the Catholic Church.

He wants all to follow His principles. But if you think that His principles were vague and indefinite, allowing people to believe all kinds of contradictory lings, and to indulge in a kind of religious go-as-you-please race, you are very much in error. And you really insult Christ's wisdom as a Teacher.

If you believe it necessary to accept that teaching of Christ, do not forget that taught much else. And all else that He taught has the same authority.

He bade the Apostles teach all nations all things whatsoever He had commanded them. In those words we see that He excepts nothing. He also said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; he that believeth not shall be condemned." Mk. XVI., 16. Therefore once men have had the Gospel of Christ sufficiently put before them, they have to believe it absolutely and completely, under pain of eternal loss. In St. Matthew XVIII., 17, He says, "If a man will not hear the Church, let him be as the heathen." There is then a Church to which we must submit if we wish to belong to Christ. Which is that Church? It is the Church you yourself call the Roman Catholic Church. If you do not think so, you have a twofold duty. You must prove that that Church is not the one intended by Christ, and you must find the Church He did intend.

Why make it necessary to worship Christ? If all are not obliged to adopt the Catholic faith, why should all be obliged to accept Christ? If, in order to escape becoming a Catholic, you argue that one religion is as good as another, you cut the ground from under your feet when it comes to a question of defending the Christian religion against all other forms of religion.

It might, or it might not. If they know that it is merely their own way, and not His way, then they cannot be sincere if they say that they follow Christ as their Master. For then He would not be their Master. They would be their own masters. If, however, they really believed that the way in which they were trying to follow Christ is indeed the exact way Christ Himself has prescribed, then they could be sincere, even though mistaken.

It is true that people belonging to different Churches can be equally sincere in their efforts to be good. But that cannot alter the fact that the religions they profess are different. And a man who is seeking the truth will say, "Let me reflect, not on the point in which these good people do not differ, but on the points in which they do differ." In other words, we must abstract from the persons professing the religions, and consider the religions they profess. For it is certain that God, the Supreme Truth, could not have revealed contradictory teachings. Take, for example, the infallibility of the Church.I believe that Christ meant His Church to be infallible. You do not. We cannot both be right. And as we both profess to believe in Christ, the burning problem is whether indeed Christ intended His Church to be infallible. That problem must be solved.

Christ said, "Everyone therefore that shall confess Me before men, I will confess him before My Father who is in heaven; but he that shall deny Me before men I will also deny him before My Father who is in heaven." Matt. X., 10. Evidently it does matter as to whether we profess faith in Christ or not. And that rules out the idea that any non-Christian religions are as good as the Christian religion. Again, if Christ wants His followers to be Catholics and not Protestants, then it can not be just as good to be a Protestant as a Catholic.

As with Greek Orthodoxy, so with Protestantism--there is no such thing in reality as the Protestant Church. Protestantism is a generic name covering many different sects which agree in protesting against the claims of the Catholic Church.

The Rev. Dr. Goudge, a Protestant, and Regius professor of Divinity at Oxford, writes, "The number of meanings given to the word Protestant is astonishing, as the great Oxford dictionary will show us. It suggests a person whose main interest is opposition to Rome, and possibly there may be such persons. The best use of the word today may be the Roman Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox use, in which a Protestant means a Western Christian who remains outside the Roman Church."

I deny that what Protestants think to be the erroneous doctrines of Rome are really erroneous, if indeed they be the teachings of the Catholic Church. I add that last condition because many doctrines are attributed to Rome which Rome has never taught. In this case, Protestants simply do not understand the religion they attack. It must be noted, too, that Protestants are anything but agreed amongst themselves as to what should be condemned in Catholic teaching. What one Protestant condemns, another Protestant will vehemently defend.

That is a modern interpretation of the word which departs from the historical sense.

Those words refer to the ill will of the Jews who would not listen to the prophets sent by God to protest against their evil practices. They have no reference to the meaning of the word Protestant as applied to the Reformation. It is a dreadful anachronism to connect a word used in a fourth century translation of the Old Testament with a Protestantism which arose only in the sixteenth century. No one could lay that St. Jerome had the Protestant Reformation in mind when he translated theOld Testament into Latin so many centuries earlier.

That is correct. Here, of course, we approach the real problem. It is the historic meaning of the word according to the events of the period when it arose that really counts, not possible meanings of the word in more remote ages.

So spoke the German princes. But what did the Decree demand? These princes had taken advantage of the religious revolt of Luther to secure the political independence of their States. Naturally, in turn, they supported Lutheranism as a great force amongst their people for the breaking of old ties; and they commenced the suppression of Catholic worship in their domains. Now the Decree of the Diet of Spires granted religious liberty to such as had already embraced Lutheranism in the States of the German princes, but demanded toleration for Catholics dwelling within their boundaries. The Lutheran princes protested that they would not grant toleration to Catholics, and said that the religion of their people must be the same as that of their princes. "Cuius regio, illius religio," said these princes. "Whoever is the ruler, his must be the religion." In other words, the German princes demanded the right to impose whatever religion they might please upon their subjects. And their protest was against any obligation to tolerate Catholics. The word Protestant, therefore, according to its historical and religious meaning, was born of a denial of freedom of conscience; and those who thus protested against liberty of worship for Catholics were termed Protestants.

Martin Luther is undoubtedly an outstanding figure in history. But the immortal memory of Luther will become less and less pleasant as the facts concerning him become known. Those who idealize Luther can do so only by ignoring an immense amount of inconvenient information. He was a priest of the Catholic Church, but one who was not faithful to his obligations even as a Christian. On his own admissions he was a victim of both immorality and drunkenness; and he was the most intolerant of men. Far from granting liberty of conscience, he refused to allow anyone to think differently from himself, and coolly said, "Whoever teaches otherwise than I teach is a child of hell."

In the sixteenth century. Luther, in Germany, broke away from the Catholic Church in 1517, and began to set up a new Church for himself. Henry VIII., in England, abandoned the Catholic Church in 1534, when he brought in the law of his own supremacy over the Church in his own realm. It would take too long to narrate how each of the first Protestants broke away. In various ways, each rebelled against the authority of the Church and was excommunicated by the Church. Luther denied her teaching by preaching heretical doctrines. Henry VIII defended her teachings, but violated the discipline of the Church.

Lutheranism was imposed on both peoples by their rulers. The princes wanted control of the Church independently of the Pope. In breaking with Rome, they took the nearest form of Protestantism at hand--Lutheranism. Frederic I. of Denmark imposed Lutheranism upon Norway. In Sweden, Gustavus Vasa led a revolt against Denmark, and was crowned king of Sweden. He himself was a Catholic, and the people were much attached to the Catholic faith. But Gustavus needed money for his new kingdom, and to get it he decided to confiscate the estates of the Church. Not from religious conviction, but solely through political expediency, he decided to impose Lutheranism also by civil authority.

There were three chief causes: Firstly, most of the people were not instructed in their religion, and were greatly disaffected towards the Catholic Church by the scandalous laxity of the Scottish clergy of the time. The clergy made little pretense at a life in accordance with what they preached, and their disedifying lives left the people ready to back up any preacher who seemed sincere, whether he was right or wrong in matters of doctrine. Secondly, John Knox eventually came from Geneva to preach straight-out Calvinism with a zeal and energy which stood out in marked contrast with the apathy of the Catholic clergy in the cause of the old religion. Thirdly, John Knox had the armed support of the nobles who sought to possess themselves of Church property.

I give it as one of the reasons, and even as the main reason. In his book on the "Counter-Reformation in Scotland," Father Pollen says that the depravity and laxity of the clergy were unquestionably the main reasons why the faith of Catholics fell away so suddenly and so completely before the Protestant preachers. This is no argument against the Catholic Church; but it is a terrible indictment of the Catholic clergy in Scotland immediately prior to the advent of Protestantism. As Mr. Joseph Clayton has pointed out, no mass of people will ever be persuaded for long that priests and clerics can justly be exempted from the moral standards prescribed for the laity.

They have maintained, and still maintain, that the Protestant Reformation can never be justified. But I admit that most history books written in the past by Catholics have exhibited a good deal of bias against the Protestant Reformers, even as the history books written by Protestants have given a distorted view of the Catholic position--and to a far greater extent.

You leave out the fact that historians do not always tell the truth. I admit that the writing of history is a very difficult thing. For, firstly, a man must get the facts, testing his sources rigidly at every stage. Secondly, since no one book can give all the facts, some must be left out. And here the mentality of the writer will decide the omissions. If he has any prejudices, the tendency will be to leave out the facts that tell against his theories. "What has the historian left out?" is one of the first questions to be put in estimating the worth of a textbook. Thirdly, if we consider such undisputed facts as he does give, the question arises as to the interpretation and significance of those facts. Now the textbooks of history in the English language have for the most part been written by men whole-heartedly Protestant, or by conviction anti-Catholic; or at least by those infected by the Protestant tradition, however impartial they may think themselves to be. If only unconsciously, bias and prejudice creep into their writings, and the real truth is not to be found in their works. Our complaint is not against history, but against the historians.

We can correct those memories. We can point out that textbooks perpetuating false views of history do not give a genuine knowledge of the past, and persuade them to to cease pulling the bandage off old sores, giving them no chance to heal. In histories of the Protestant Reformation, feeling and sentimental loyalties have again and again got the better of dispassionate reason. And the education in history which they have provided has accounted for millions of professing Christians fearing and hating the Catholic Church, and that in a way which is simply baffling to Catholics.

Undoubtedly many have done so. On both sides history has been written in a partisan spirit. Bias, of course, may be quite unconscious. Nevertheless it results in distorted and inadequate presentations of history, and I agree with Mr. Joseph Clayton's advice that, if there is to be any bias where history is concerned, it should be, in both writer and reader, to the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth--and that, both in the presentation of the facts, and in the interpretation of those facts. Of one thing I am certain: the Catholic Church has nothing whatever to fear from the results of such historical research. Truth cannot contradict truth; and the Catholic religion, being the truth, will never find itself in any way disturbed by any facts that history can reveal.

Those in a position to give a reliable verdict do so. I have quoted Mr. Clayton, a Catholic writer. In support let me quote a Protestant, Rev. Dr. Goudge, Regius professor of Divinity at Oxford. In a plea for a better understanding between Protestants and Catholics, he begs us to drop the prejudices of the sixteenth century when the Reformation occurred. "The whole spirit of the controversies then," he writes, "was wrong. They were black with hatred and misrepresentation, and largely conducted in theological Billingsgate. If we base our statements upon sixteenth century sources, we generally base them upon poisoned sources. At best they leave out half the truth; and at worst, they are lying." Again he says, "Much of the history written then was not history, but controversy under a thin disguise. Even if the facts recorded are indeed facts--which is not always the case--they are so selected, and so presented, as to give a false idea of what took place. Here there has happily been a great change. The best Catholic and Protestant historians are not far today from agreement about the facts, though they do not regard them in the same way. No instructed Roman Catholic now denies the appalling condition of Western Christendom at the beginning of the sixteenth century, or the failure of the Conciliar and other reforming movements to deal successfully with it. No instructed Protestant now denies that political and personal motives bulked very large in the Protestant Reformation. It is the duty of the better-informed members of all Communions to correct the errors of the less-informed, especially when these errors lead them to misjudge those from whom they are separated." So speaks Dr. Goudge, and I agree with every one of his words in this matter.

No one with a knowledge of human psychology, and of the conditions of the period, would find it a mystery.

The Catholic Church did not fall. Many of her members had fallen from her standards of virtue, and this was made the excuse for their conduct by multitudes who fell from the faith into heresy. And the children of those who then fell away from Catholicism are today falling into indifference to all religion and almost complete unbelief, whilst the Catholic Church is the one great stronghold of Christianity in the world. Even in his own day Luther admitted that the more his teachings progressed, the worse the people became. "It is clear," he wrote, "how much more greedy, cruel, immodest, shameless, and wicked the people now are than they were under the Papacy."

I deny that. I do not deny that there was a widespread laxity corrupting the lives of many of the clergy and laity alike. St. Thomas More knew the society of his day very well, and he put things pithily when he said, "The world is tired of the clergy, but the clergy are not tired of the world." Yet St. Thomas More did not make the mistake of blaming the Church of Christ for the lax members in it. He blamed the lax members. And it would be a mistake to think that there was nothing but laxity in the Church in the times immediately prior to the Reformation. There were Saints in those days side by side with the sinners. Read that marvellous little book, "The Imitation of Christ," by Thomas a Kempis; and try to realize that that treasure of spirituality was written by a Catholic monk during those very years of supposed universal corruption. That book represents the true ideals of the Catholic Church, and is a strong condemnation of the unchristian lives of those who were a disgrace to the Christian name.

It is a mistake to restrict the predictions of Revelations to any particular class, or to any particular age. St. John sees the forces of evil ever reviving and renewing their attack against Christ and His Church. Only with the end of the world itself will the influence of antichrist or the Beast come to an end. Through the ages surge upon surge of evil will attack the Church; now prevailing in a greater degree; now beaten back. But we need not go to the Book of Revelations for predictions of evil amongst members of the Church. Christ Himself predicted them. "It must needs be," He said, "that scandals come. But woe to that man by whom the scandal cometh." Matt. XVIII., 7. And He did not make any distinction between clergy and laity. In fact He seems almost to have permitted the fall of Judas, one of the Apostolic hierarchy, to warn us of the possibility of such things, and to preserve us from undue dismay.

Be it so. But notice that Pope Innocent III, whilst aware of the abuses on the part of prelates, did not sanction them. He spoke to condemn them as not in keeping with Catholic ideals. And the obvious cure was the reform of the prelates, and the stamping out of their abuses; not the dynamiting of the whole Church established by Christ, and the creation of new Churches by men who had no authority from God to do so. Certainly Pope Innocent himself never dreamed that such abuses could afford any excuse for leaving the Catholic Church, and setting up other Churches.

Despite the exaggerated suggestion of current evils, the admission that reform after reform was attempted shows that the Catholic Church was definitely not evil in itself, but good; that she could not accept with equanimity the violation of her ideals; and that she never remained passive under the sufferings inflicted on her by her own subjects. As a matter of fact, the reforms instituted were not in vain, though in many cases they failed owing to lack of goodwill in the subjects. Eventually the Church did succeed in securing her own internal reform consisting of human beings so far as that is possible in a Church.

There was nothing whatever wrong with the Catholic religion in itself. But there were a good many things wrong with great numbers of Catholics, or the Reformation would have been impossible. No one simple cause can explain it. The conduct of those who left the Church must be attributed firstly to their infidelity to the grace of God in their own personal lives, and to their own pride and passions. But that so many should follow these leaders demands explanation. Mass defections from the Church were possible only in a given atmosphere. And unfortunately many factors were at hand to contribute to the disaster. Political causes had weakened the authority of the Pope. Their personal ambitions made the German princes of the various small States welcome a movement which would free them from their discordant relations with the Pope altogether--even religiously. The covetous and avaricious also saw the possibility of loot and plunder in the confiscation of Church property. So they supported the Protestant rebellion even by force of arms. In England the Tudor kings had immense power, and Henry VIII, when he could not get his divorce from the Pope, found it comparatively easy to impose his ideas on his subjects, robbing them of the Catholic inheritance. We must remember, too, that the Renaissance had brought the revival of the pagan Greek and Latin classics, and these had corrupted the minds and the hearts of the educated classes. Moreover, many of the bishops and priests, far removed from Rome, had been too subservient to secular authority, and had neglected to enforce the discipline of the Church, thus weakening their hold upon the people. Laxity amongst the clergy had given great disedification; and the delay in their reformation had paved the way for a wrong reformation by breaking away from the Church. Careless priests had left the faithful uninstructed, and incredibly ignorant of their religion; and, not knowing their own faith, great numbers of simple Catholics did not discern the real evil of the separatist movement. Not knowing the truth, they were swayed by the ideas of the Reformers, who denounced Rome without demanding any higher standard of virtue than that which had prevailed. And when the temporal rulers backed up the campaign with violence and oppression, the people simply found themselves Protestants. There were many other factors also, which a brief reply can scarcely describe. But I have said enough to show the possibility of a Reformation, with its disastrous division of Christendom amongst an ignorant, dissatisfied, and disedified laity, above all under pressure by ruling princes, and grasping dukes and earls.

Undoubtedly. But there was no need for what is popularly called "The Reformation." Any abuses amongst the members of the Church will always cry out urgently for reform. But Protestantism was not a movement of real reform. It made prevalent abuses an excuse to abandon the Church altogether, instead of remaining with it, and trying to effect the conversion of its lax members to better ways. Moreover, Protestantism retained many of the very abuses, and merely sought to justify them by denying that they were wrong. That the Catholic Church will never do. She may have to admit sadly that her children sin; but she will never say that what is sin, is not sin, as did many of the Reformers.

Not with well-instructed and sincere Catholics who are genuinely trying to live up to their religion. Ignorant and careless Catholics would be quite likely to fall away, above all when a less-exacting religion was proposed to them, and if the civil power were employed on behalf of the would-be Reformers. Mexico, Germany, Russia, and Austria, are proof enough of that in recent times. Where good Catholics have made an heroic stand, and even died for their faith, careless Catholics have fallen away. History contains many useful lessons for all Catholics. The Catholic Church cannot fail. But its members can and do fail. And their greatest safeguards against doing so are a thorough knowledge of their religion, and a life of virtue in accordance with its teachings. Sound education, integrity of character, and a genuine effort to live a life of Christian holiness--and that on the part of both clergy and laity--are necessary for the growth and well-being of the Catholic Church in whatever country it may be established. Catholics can look back with unwavering faith at past ages; but they would be very foolish if they did not profit by the vision of the nemesis that overtook Catholics in those past ages.

The multitudes swept from the Catholic Church by Protestantism certainly brought home to her leaders the urgent need for real reform; and that real reform was effected by the Council of Trent. The severe legislation and disciplinary decrees of that Council eradicated the pronounced abuses which gave occasion to the Protestant landslide from the Church; and there has been no such movement since. Protestantism spent its force, so far as the Catholic Church is concerned, in the first years of revolt; and it has not been any real danger to the faith of Catholics since. The notable tendency today is for Protestants to become Catholics; not for Catholics to become Protestants.

Luther we cannot respect. He had no right to leave the Catholic Church, and commence a Church of his own under the pretense of reform. He should have remained in the true Church and labored to reform lax Catholics within it. You wash a plate that needs cleansing; you do not smash it. As a matter of fact, in 1521, the worldly-minded Pope Leo X died, and was succeeded by the German Pope Adrian VI. Adrian was just such a Pope as Luther pretended to demand. He was austere and holy, and at once set to work to reform the members of the Church, beginning with the Cardinals themselves, and battling against Italian laxity. The brave old Pope would have been vastly aided by German support, and the closing of the Northern Schism. But Luther made no effort to help a true reformer set in the very See whence reform ought to have come. Instead of rushing to the aid of a compatriot who was just such a head of the Church as he had declared necessary, he continued to pour forth abuse against the Pope as if he were the devil. Blind passion, and not reason, was Luther's guide. Adrian VI died broken-hearted, and the real Counter-Reformation came with the Council of Trent nearly twenty years later. The widespread chaos compelled action then; but reform was due to the innate power of the living Catholic Church to renew her own vitality.

Yes. Any moral evils which have ever crept in amongst the members of the Catholic Church are a proof, not that the Catholic Church is wrong, but only that her members are human beings ever liable to temptation, and to a lack of generosity in corresponding with the dictates of conscience and the inspirations of divine grace.

The mere fact that men were ordered to carry on the work of Christ Himself shows that they were not free to form new Churches according to their own ideas. That would be their own work, not Christ's work. Delegates are free to act within the jurisdiction given them by their principals, not to go beyond it. St. Paul denied that he, Apostle though he was, had any right to form a new and different Church. "Though we," he wrote to the Galatians, "or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel differing from what you have received, let him be anathema." Gal. I., 8. And to the Corinthians he wrote, "Let there be no schisms amongst you." 1 Cor. XII., 25. If the Apostles themselves had no right to set up new and independent Churches, they could not possibly have transmitted such a right to others.

Yes. They had no divine authority to commence their new forms of religion, and they did so in opposition to the clear teaching of the New Testament. A reform, not a repudiation of the Church, was needed. Our Lord said that His Church would be like a net holding good and bad fish. At the time of the Reformation there were altogether too many bad fish. But bad fish do not make a bad net. And instead of laboring to turn the bad fish into good ones, the Reformers began to make new nets. That was their mistake. Christ had made the original net, and had said that it would never fail. And it has not failed. The Catholic Church is as vital as ever. It is she today who defends the Bible against Protestant critics; who stands for all the fundamental Christian doctrines; who refuses all compromise where the moral law is in question. But the new nets or Churches made by the Reformers are rapidly going to pieces. The strands are all broken, and the fish are swimming off in any direction they please, losing their faith in Christianity altogether. Those who want the full Christian truth will find it only by returning to that Catholic Church their forefathers should never have left, and from which they themselves are separated through no fault of their own.

Many Protestants speak like that, having their own Churches only in mind. They would not do so, if they knew anything of the Catholic Church. Far from being subject to dry rot, that Church is very much alive. Her influence upon souls is exceedingly great. Her Churches are crowded with worshippers four and five times over in the cities, and as often as Mass can be celebrated in country centers. Her schools are crowded with children being taught their religious obligations; and tribute after tribute is paid to her spiritual vitality by people from whom such tributes might least be expected.

The claim cannot be sustained. That Church alone can be truly Apostolic which reaches back to the Apostles by the historical, spiritual, and social bond of uninterrupted succession. Jesus chose and commissioned the Apostles, and they formed the authoritative body in the Church. And in the same Church today there must still be an authoritative body derived from them. This derivation must be historically and socially evident in a visible Church. The whole chain depends on the first link, for that links the Church to Christ.

So it is said. But Protestants do not claim an Apostolic character for their Churches in the right sense of the word. As a rule, they seek to attach themselves to Christ directly, without any intermediary society possessing historical continuity. They rather claim to have a religion "like" that of the Apostles, than one given them "by" the Apostles and their lawful successors. The true Christian and Catholic doctrine is that the Eternal Son of God became man in the Incarnation, thus commencing a life at once divine and human. And this life of Christ continues its activity by the Church, which is a kind of permanent social incarnation. As there is one continuous life of humanity by heredity, so the life of the Church is continuous by succession and tradition.

You mean that you have the same doctrines as the Apostles. That is not really true. But even were it true, it would not be enough. To profess someone's doctrine on the grounds of one's own approval of them does not mean social continuity with him. The Church is a society, and its life is collective and organized under one authority. Protestantism has no central authority, and no priesthood properly so-called. It has not an apostolicity such as the true Christian Church requires.

Do all the Protestant Churches constitute the one "Reformed Church"? If so, would Methodists or Presbyterians admit that they are one with Judge Rutherford's Witnesses of Jehovah? After all, Judge Rutherford has as much, or as little right to set up his new Protestant sect as John Knox had to set up Presbyterianism. And it is not true, of course, that the Protestant Churches have always acknowledged the Roman Church as an important branch of the Church Catholic. The first Reformers rejected the Catholic Church as antichrist, and spoke of it with the utmost horror. Preaching in Edinburgh, in 1565, John Knox, the founder of Presbyterianism, declared that the Church is limited to those who profess the Lord Jesus, and have rejected papistry." The Catholic Church must be forgiven for refusing to admit relationship with Protestant Churches which originated with men who denounced her, and left her, and never returned to her. Is it reasonable to suppose that the new Churches set up by the Reformers are really in union with the Church they left? History and logic leave no room for the modern claim of Protestants to belong also to the Catholic Church.

They have various systems of government. In some, as the Congregationalists, the members of each congregation are a law to themselves. In others, as the Presbyterians, authority is vested by the members in elected office-bearers, different assemblies prevailing in various localities. In these cases there is no universal bond of unity in the strict sense of the word. In Churches which have bishops, as the Catholic, Orthodox Greek, and Episcopal or Anglican, power is vested in those bishops. In the Greek Church the power is ultimately traced back to one or other of almost a dozen different Patriarchs. There is no such thing as one united Greek Church. In the Anglican Church the final authority is traced back to the Crown of England. In the Catholic Church all authority on earth centers in one supreme bishop independent of any national rulers--the Bishop of Rome. Thus we have a genuine ecclesiastical unity side by side with the required universality of one and the same Church throughout the world.

They may have what may be termed "agencies" in some of those countries to cater for English-speaking tourists of the different denominations. But, insofar as any nationals of these countries profess Protestantism, they usually profess a type of Protestantism peculiar to themselves. Where the Catholic Church unites men of different nationalities in one and the same Christian doctrine, Protestantism permits variations in doctrine to suit the national differences of outlook amongst men.

Either ours is the Catholic Church, or there is no Catholic Church. The expression "Roman Catholic," though frequently used, is really meaningless. Grammatically it involves a contradiction in terms. For the word Catholic means universal or "not limited." To use the word "Roman" as a qualifying adjective of limitation or restriction is like speaking of the "limited unlimited." Again, geographically, the Catholic Church is that Church which exists in all the different countries of the world for members of those different countries. And our Church is alone truly Catholic in that sense of the word. The Church subject to the Bishop of Rome exists in every country precisely for the people of each different country. No other Church is universal in this sense of the word.

I am not blind to the good to be found in Protestantism side by side with its errors. But I am concerned with the Reformation movement as such; and I say that it was not justified.

The Catholic Church never abandoned the teachings of the Gospel. The laxity of many of her members in practice was made one of the excuses for the Protestant Reformation. But the Protestant defection from the Church was a great mistake.

You would find it very difficult to set out clearly the teachings of the Protestant Reformers which you believe to harmonize with those of the Apostles. For the Reformers themselves were anything but agreed as to what should be believed. They fought against each other's teachings bitterly, indulging in violent mutual recriminations.

It used to witness to some of them. But unfortunately it is allowing most of them nowadays to be denied without protest, and even by its official teachers and ministers.

Many of their leading exponents dispute that today. But even amongst those who still accept the Bible, there is little agreement as to what the Bible means. The Catholic Church defends the Bible as the very Word of God, and is alone capable of giving the authentic interpretation of the sense intended by God.

The Bible nowhere gives freedom to believe as one pleases, or to worship as one pleases. It demands our submission to the truth that we may be free from error, and obedience to the Church that we may be free from false forms of religion.

It abolished the priestly office, limiting the ministry to the preaching of the Word of God and the administration of some of the Sacraments.

It is true that there were many evils amongst the clergy at the time of the Reformation.I will go so far as to say that, had the Catholic clergy of the time been all they should have been, the disaster would not have occurred. At the same time, if many were not true to their obligations, many also were strictly faithful, and some were saints fit for canonization. Nor did any really holy priest dream of leaving the Church. I deny, of course, that the ministry was purified by abandoning the priesthood, abolishing its obligations, and adopting definitely lower standards. However, as I have admitted, if the Reformation did not itself purify the ministry, it did occasion a vast movement of reform strictly so-called within the Catholic Church; and the Council of Trent made the most stringent legislation for the better formation of future candidates for the priesthood, and the elimination of abuses. Whilst the Reformation, then, did not purify the ministerial office, it did challenge the Catholic Church to do so.

The Catholic Church does not exclude personal trust in our Lord. She insists upon it. And Catholics are perfectly free to seek union with Him in prayer whenever they wish. But the Catholic Church rightly forbids Catholics to seek union with the assemblies of others who profess doctrines other than hers. Whatever charity we have for the persons of others, we cannot extend approval to their erroneous teachings and forms of religious worship. You may be my friend; but your religion is not my religion; and you should not expect me to behave as if it were.

It liberated people from the Catholic Church. But that was a liberation from the restraints of the truth revealed by Christ, and from His moral laws. In his excellent book on "Luther and His Work," Mr. Joseph Clayton, F.R.H.S. writes, "Whither has Luther led his followers? Into what promised land, after the years of wandering outside the Catholic unity, are now brought the Protestants who date their emancipation from Martin Luther? Four centuries of journeying since Luther started the exodus, and yet the promised land of the Lutheran evangel, so often emergent, fades from sight even as the mirage vanishes in the desert. It is the wasteland of doubt that Protestants have reached--a wasteland littered with abandoned hopes and discarded creeds."

Such a sneer at those who consecrated their lives to God in the Religious Orders is unworthy of a Christian. Meantime, whilst the suppression of the monasteries meant the suppression of the worship offered to God within them in the name of the whole Church, what have people made of the duty and privilege of public prayer? Protestant clergymen complain regularly of lost congregations, empty Churches, and the neglect of public worship. That scarcely sounds like the restoration of public prayer to its proper place as the right and duty of all the faithful. On the other hand, Catholic Churches are filled to overflowing.

In what way? The Catholic Church certainly cannot be blamed for the growth of loose ideas of marriage, easy divorce, the widespread plague of contraceptive birth control, and other acknowledged evils tending to break down family life.

I deny that its success is evident, at least from the genuinely Christian point of view. Genuine Christianity leads to supernatural rather than to merely natural ideals. Christ said that His kingdom was not of this world, and definitely bade us "love not the world." A spiritual and unworldly outlook is therefore the outstanding characteristic of the Catholic religion. I do not say that it is the outlook of all individual Catholics. But insofar as he has not a spiritual and unworldly outlook, a Catholic has drifted from Catholic ideals. On the other hand, Protestantism does not, of its very nature, lead to a spiritual and unworldly outlook. If some good Protestants are truly spiritual, it is in spite of their religion, not because of it. The contrast is evident in the fact that Catholicism will propose as one of her heroes a St. Francis of Assisi who utterly rejected worldly goods, sought poverty and holiness of life, and ended up as a canonized Saint. But the heroes of the Protestant tradition grow from penniless boys into millionaires, or travel from log cabin to White House.

Yes. But you must keep in mind the full text. Christ did not merely say that He had other sheep. He said, "Other sheep I have that are not of this fold." And He added, "Them also I must bring, and they shall hear My voice, and there shall be one fold and one shepherd." Jn. X., 16. That one fold under one shepherd is the Catholic Church only.

No. God may give the grace of an interior and spiritual conversion to a non-Catholic; but not the impulse to join a non-Catholic Church. The joining of a non-Catholic Church is due to the inadequate knowledge of the person in question. Men can misunderstand the promptings of grace in this matter just as in others. God's ways are mysterious, and beyond our understanding. And it takes two to fulfill His plan--Himself and the individual soul. God patiently allows for the dispositions of each soul, and the realization of His plan is gradual, accordingly. But undoubtedly it is His will that those who seek Him should do so in the Catholic Church, and according to the faith, worship, and discipline prevailing in that Church.

Since we cannot approve of Protestantism, we cannot approve of the fact that natives are taught this or that Protestant form of Christianity. But, granted that in certain localities the choice is between their being left in their paganism or converted to Protestantism, I have no hesitation in saying that it would be better for them to be converted to Protestantism. After all, Protestantism preaches the necessity of salvation, and Christ as the means of salvation. This element of truth may be mixed up with many errors. But the element of truth may mean the salvation of souls, whilst the errors are robbed to a great extent of their danger by the ignorance of their character on the part of those who hold them. And half a loaf is better than no bread.

There can be no doubt that Protestant missions have done much good. They have improved the morals of the natives, lifted them to higher aspirations, and in many cases inspired genuine virtue and holiness both as ideals and in practice. From Protestant missionaries natives have learned to believe in Christ, to love Him sincerely, and to serve Him most generously. For that, one could not but rejoice.

No. We are genuinely happy that native pagans are taught to know and love Christ, however inadequately it may be. As a matter of fact, to my mind, the so-called benefits of civilization are the least of the benefits a mission in the name of Christ can confer--if it can be called a benefit at all in some cases! The chief thing is to teach them of God, and how to love and serve God through Jesus Christ, and thus to save their souls. And it is precisely from this viewpoint that we rejoice at such good as Protestant missions accomplish. Undoubtedly we would prefer that the natives should receive the full Catholic truth. But we are discussing the case where natives will be taught Protestantism, or never hear of Christianity at all. To a Catholic, Protestantism includes heresy, and heresy is an evil. But paganism is a greater evil than unconscious heresy. So of two evils we prefer the lesser, and that natives should be Christians unconscious of the heretical elements in the doctrines taught them than that they should remain pagans.

If the right form is used with the normal Christian intention, Protestant baptisms are valid. But here a peculiar position arises. All the Sacraments, of course, were instituted by Christ, and belong to Christ. But He founded the Catholic Church, and committed His religion to her only. Therefore the Sacraments without exception belong to her. Not a single valid Sacrament is proper to any of the Protestant Churches. There is but one Lord, one faith, one baptism. If Protestants can administer baptism validly, it is because one need not be a priest, nor even a Christian, to administer that Sacrament validly, whereas confirmation, confession, the eucharist, extreme unction, and holy orders, require a valid priesthood. Meantime, if baptism administered by Protestants be valid, the subject, though baptized in the Protestant Church, is not baptized into the Protestant Church. Christ instituted baptism into the Catholic Church, not baptism into the Protestant Church. If a child is baptized in a Protestant Church, and the baptism is validly administered, the child is a Catholic, and remains a Catholic until it comes to the age of reason and adopts Protestantism for itself. If I receive an adult Protestant into the Catholic Church together with his infant son, and it is certain that both have been baptized validly, I have to make the father abjure heresy and formally profess his submission to the Catholic Church; but nothing is done as regards the infant son. It is simply taught Catholic doctrine and brought up as a Catholic just as any other Catholic child. Its baptism, although administered in a Protestant Church, made it a member of the Catholic Church.

Yes. For here again, since those who make the contract are the real ministers of the Sacrament, no valid priesthood is required for its administration. The Catholic Church has the right to regulate the conditions governing this Sacrament; and she says that an authorized Catholic priest must be present as her official witness at the marriages of Catholics. But the priest does not administer the Sacrament. The contracting parties minister it mutually by their consent. Validly baptized Protestants therefore contract sacramental marriage amongst themselves as often as they enter into the matrimonial contract, whether it be in their own Church, or in a civil court. (I am speaking of first marriages, not of marriages subsequent to divorce, with the former wife still living.) Here again, as a valid Sacrament, such a marriage is subject to the legislative power of the Catholic Church. But because the parties are in good faith, and unaware of this fact, the Catholic Church exempts Protestants from her own prescriptions for Catholics. Yet they cannot be exempted from the essential prescriptions of Christ. That is why the Catholic Church insists that a valid sacramental marriage between two Protestants can be broken only by the death of one of the parties. Even for them, divorce does not break the bond of marriage and give the right to remarry, in the sight of God.

Our Lord Himself said, "If a man will not hear the Church, let him be as the heathen." Matt. XVIII., 17. But that obviously applies to people who have realized the authority of the Church, yet have deliberately rejected it. Non-Catholics who have never been Catholics, nor have understood and acknowledged the claims of the Catholic Church, are not guilty of personal sin in their refusal of obedience. They cannot therefore be said to be abandoned as the heathen. In 1927 the late Pope Pius XI. spoke as follows on the Catholic attitude towards the separated Churches: "Catholics are sometimes lacking in a right appreciation of their separated brethren, and are even wanting in brotherly love, because they do not know enough about them. People do not realize how much faith, goodness, and Christianity there is in these bodies now detached from the age-long Catholic truth. But pieces broken from gold-bearing rock themselves bear gold." Those words of the Pope were followed by insistence on the duty of charity towards the separated Churches; which shows that we do not apply to them the words of Christ, "let him be to thee as the heathen."

Yes, but here I must ask you to try to view things from the Catholic standpoint. If someone asked you to join in an important enterprise, and declared that he did so in the name of the State, you would want him to prove that he had the authority of the State, and that the enterprise was within the conditions laid down by the State. If he had no authority from the State, or did not comply with its conditions, you would deny that he was acting in the name of the State. Even though he mistakenly thought he was authorized by the State, he would not really be so authorized. Now a Catholic believes that Christ entrusted the care and administration of His religion to the Catholic Church. If we want to assemble for religious purposes in His name, it must be according to the sanction and direction of His Church, this being one of the conditions laid down by Him. People assembling in the name of other religions are not really assembled in the name of Christ however sincerely they may think it to be so. And a Catholic, granted Catholic principles, cannot sanction by his presence those religious functions organized independently of the authority of Christ, and of the conditions He imposed.

It should not be so difficult. A good Protestant, convinced of the truth of Christianity as he perceives it, has principles which would prevent him from joining in pagan worship. I am not saying that as paganism is to Protestantism, so Protestantism is to Catholicism. I merely want to bring out that Protestants have similar principles to which they will adhere, and that they should make allowances for a Catholic acting on principles which forbid participation in any other forms of worship than those prescribed by the Catholic religion. Every man who has principles and adjusts his conduct to them is liable to be called narrow-minded by others who do not accept those same principles. A Protestant should say to a Catholic, "If you believe that Protestantism is a departure from the Christian religion as intended by Christ, then I cannot blame you for refusing to attend Protestant services. But let us discuss the question as to whether Protestantism is a departure from the precepts of Christ."

Love for people of other religions does not exclude acknowledgment of the authority of one's own Church and obedience to it. In fact the very love of Christ which bids us love others also bids us to love His own authority in the Catholic Church and to keep her laws. You, of course, do not see that the authority of the Catholic Church is that of Christ. But if you know that Catholics take that view, you should not blame them for fidelity to the laws of their Church. And you should not blame the Church for making laws to safeguard the religion of Christ, and her own subjects in its profession and practice.

Catholic exclusiveness is not a matter of not trusting Catholics. It vindicates the right of Jesus Christ to be worshipped only in accordance with the rules of the Church He established.

I admit that the Protestants of today are merely the children of those who broke away from the Catholic Church four centuries ago. But still it is their duty to study the question, and to return to the Church the first Protestants should never have left.Editor's note: Question #279 does not appear in the original text.

I intend that organized religious society of all Catholics throughout the world under the Pope as their one visible head on earth.

Originally in Greek the word "ecclesia" meant anassembly of people brought together by a public crier. In BiblicalGreek it has many meanings, one of them being that which I usuallyintend. Thus, in the Old Testament, the Greek word"ecclesia" is used, not to designate a mere assembly, butthe whole theocratic society of the Jews as the chosen nation ofGod. In the New Testament, the word is used also in this same senseof a united and organized body, but transferred to the followers ofChrist. It is in this sense that Jesus said, "I will build myChurch." Matt. XVI., 18.

That would be quite a correct use of the word. St. Paul uses the word in several senses, knowing that sensible people will be preserved from ambiguity by the context. Sometimes he uses the word to signify a Christian household, as in Col. IV., 15. At other times he uses it to signify all the Christians in a given city, as when he speaks of "the Church which is at Corinth." ICor., 1, 2. Again he uses the word of the whole body of Christians in general as opposed to non-Christians. Thus he writes, "Be without offense to the Jews, and to the Gentiles, and to the Church of God." I Cor. X., 32. Finally he uses the word to signify the Church as a teaching authority in its divinely appointed officials. Thus he speaks of the "Church of the Living God" as "the pillar and ground of truth." I. Tim.III., 15.

When Jesus called the Apostles to follow Him. They were taught by Him, given various necessary powers to act in His name, and finally sent to all the world on Pentecost Sunday, after having received a special communication of the Holy Spirit.

Modernists dare not admit that Christ actually founded a visible and definite Church. If they did they would have no excuse for not submitting to the Catholic Church. Therefore, so long as they are bent on remaining non-Catholics, they must find some other solution. The concession that Jesus did intend to call into being a community of faith is a suggestion that Christ merely taught some nice moral principles, and that independently of Christ's will, later Christians were led by practical needs to adopt a discipline and establish a visible organization. So the origin of the Catholic Church can be explained by historical and natural evolution--and of course no one is obliged to accept that in the name of Christ!

The texts in which Jesus speaks of the Church are not of doubtful validity. It is a modernist trick to hint that troublesome texts are either spurious, or at least of doubtful validity. The texts in question are perfectly sound and authentic; and if modernists reject or doubt them, it is merely because they don't like them. And if modernists do find it tempting to identify the Church with the kingdom, the sooner they yield to that temptation the better, for then they may discover the true Church at last.

That is the modernist conclusion. But it is based on the false premise that Christ gave only some nice beliefs and moral teachings and did not establish a definite Church. The kingdom of Christ was not anarchy. He organized it, sending the Apostles as a corporate body to teach the nations and rule them in His name. The denial of this imputes to the early Bishops, trained by the very Apostles themselves, the gravest of sins--the deliberate distorting and perverting of the work of Christ. Those Bishops, most of whom died martyrs for the love of Christ, would have imposed upon the faithful a constitution invented by themselves, yet masquerading as the will of Christ, and to be accepted by an act of divine faith. Moreover, such a denial imputes to the faithful of those early times a bland indifference and a crass folly which would submit without a murmur to so fraudulent and lying an imposition. When St. Paul told the early Christians to obey their prelates, they would have asked what prelates! St. Paul knew that they knew and accepted the constitutional authority he preached. The kingdom of Christ is necessarily identifiable with the Catholic Church today.

He predicted the advent of His Church, saying, "I must preach the kingdom of God, for therefore am I sent." Lk. IV., 43. He called twelve Apostles, distinct from the rulers of the Synagogue, and appointed them as teachers and rulers in His Church. "Teach men to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you," He said, "and behold I am with you all days even to the end of the world." Matt. XXVIII., 20. He constituted Peter as head. "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven." Matt. XVI., 18. That kingdom was to be a visible kingdom--as a city set on a hill which cannot be hid. However Christ planted a seed which was to develop. The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, the smallest of seeds, but which grows into a great tree. But it is enough to say that Christ established a Church, prescribed its essential constitution of teachers and taught, rulers and subjects. "Teach what I have taught you. Whatever you bind on earth is bound in heaven--make what further legislation you deem necessary. The gates of hell will not prevail against my Church--I will be with it all days till the end." Such is the message of Christ to the Apostles. Now the only Church which has been all days in the world since Christ is the Catholic Church, and if He did not establish that Church, He established none. If that Church failed, then the gates of hell have prevailed against Christ's Church, and He has not been with her all days since His time until now. The Catholic Church alone has the essential constitution prescribed by Christ, and alone behaves as if possessing the magisterial, sanctifying, and disciplinary authority He conferred upon His Church. There are external differences insofar as the grown tree differs from the seed, but the development is in full accordance with the nature and principles of the seed. And Christ knew that just such a tree as the Catholic Church is today would develop from the seed He planted.

The Apostles were called to follow Christ, and they left all to follow Him prior to any sight of His miracles. And later on, not all who witnessed miracles were converted to Christ by any means. The Pharisees witnessed miracles, and when Christ asked them for which of His good works they desired to stone Him, they replied, "Not for thy good works, but because being a man thou makest thyself God." Jn. X., 33. And even when the Jews, who had hitherto followed Him, abandoned Him, Jesus said, "No man can come to me unless it be given him by my Father." Jn. VI., 66. Miracles do not convert people. Conversion supposes interior consent to an interior grace. Christ said to St. Peter, "Blessed art thou, because flesh and blood have not revealed it to thee, but My Father who is in heaven." Matt. XVI., 17. In any case, the Church herself is a simple fact confronting mankind, and demanding explanation from every thinking human being. The Catholic Church, though composed of poor humanity so liable to human frailty, is so striking in her establishment, her expansion, her unity, and fruitfulness in good works, that she cannot but be of God. No merely human organization could last for two thousand years under the same conditions, and spread through the whole world with the same results. Her preservation has been despite long and terrible persecutions, heresies, schisms, political enemies; frailties and crimes even of Catholics themselves, whether laity, Priests, or Bishops; barbarian invasions, the Reformation, various revolutions, attacks by rationalistic philosophers, and the forces of materialism. The forces of growth and progress in this living Catholic Church can only be from God. She is a divine fact in this world, and if a man does not find this enough, all conceivable miracles will be unable to convert him. Christ said once, "If they hear not Moses and the Prophets, neither will they believe if one rise from the dead." Lk. XVI., 31. And I say that one who is not impressed by the simple fact of the Catholic Church, staring him in the face wherever he goes in this world, would not be moved to take a practical interest in religion even did he see special and occasional miracles.

The constitution of the Catholic Church is undoubtedly monarchial. And you are wrong in supposing that it ought to be democratic. The Pope rules the whole Church, and each Bishop is a supreme spiritual ruler in his own diocese. Of course even a democracy must have its officials. But the Catholic Church differs very greatly from any merely human society. It is a society which includes God, who really governs the Church through the Pope and the Bishops. For Christ, God the Son made man, appointed a hierarchy or sacred body of rulers to teach and to regulate the conduct of Christians in His name and with His authority. And the whole Church on earth was to be subject to the supreme authority of St. Peter and his successors. That constitution appointed by Christ cannot be changed by men.

That may be the logical position from the Protestant viewpoint. But it is not so in the Church as Christ intended it to be. The true Church is a living organism. In a living human body, next to the soul comes the central nervous system, not the distant cells. In the Catholic Church, Christ is the Head; the Holy Spirit is the soul; and next to the soul comes the Catholic hierarchy. Under the influence of the Holy Spirit, the Pope and the Bishops are the center of thought and discipline, regulating the activity of the multitude of living cells.

That is true. But He also sent the Apostles to teach all nations in His name. If we are going to accept one thing Jesus said, we must accept all. It is the Holy Spirit who teaches us through the Church, and always in accordance with the doctrines of the Church. God does not contradict Himself. He does not send the Holy Spirit to teach us one thing, and the Church to teach us another. If we find ourselves in opposition to the Catholic Church, we can be quite sure that the Holy Spirit is not responsible for our ideas. One thing is certain. The Holy Spirit could not possibly have inspired all the contradictory ideas people insist on attributing to Him.

The Apostles were ordained by Jesus Christ. He personally called them apart from other men to fulfill the sacred duties of the ministry He established. He endowed them with the priestly power to preach, to forgive sin in His name, to offer the Sacrifice of the Mass, and to rule His Church on earth. He also endowed them with the power to ordain other priests to continue the ministry of the Christian religion. They were to be "Bishops" or "Shepherds" of the Christian flock. The "Bishops" are simply those who have received by transmission from the Apostles and from Christ the plenitude of the Christian priesthood. Jesus Himself was the Great High Priest with an absolute plenitude of priestly power. In the First Epistle of St. Peter, II., 25, we find that great Apostle teaching us that Jesus Himself was indeed a Bishop. "Christ," he writes, "suffered for us . . . and you are now converted to the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls." Jesus Himself, therefore, the supreme Bishop of souls, ordained the Apostles and originated episcopal power in the first representatives of the Christian priesthood as we know it today. And the Apostles ordained others to continue the work of the Church. So St. Paul wrote to Titus, "For this cause I left thee in Crete, that thou shouldst ordain priests in every city as I also appointed thee." Titus, I., 5.

Firstly, by becoming a Catholic, one does not put oneself under the domination of priests in any sense such as that you have in mind. Secondly, you are evidently laboring under the superstition that the middle ages were dark, dismal, and dominated by priestcraft. But educated people have long since grown out of that antiquated notion. Mr. Douglas Jerrold has recently written a book called "England." He may not be a Catholic, but he is not blind to the facts of history. "It is hard," he writes, "in this age of unsatisfied desires to recapture the atmosphere of a century of fulfillment. The faith of the thirteenth century was not our faith; the belief in God had not given place to the belief in man as the mainspring of human hopes. Its economy was not ours. The means of production were, as compared with today, ludicrously poor; but on the other hand, they were in the hands of the many, not of the few. Even its politics were different, for the taxpayer was still a free agent with an effective right to decide the limits of his contribution. In the thirteenth century were laid the intellectual foundations of most of what human wisdom has to tell us of the rights of man and the order of nature, and all that modern wisdom has forgotten of man's duty to God." Such is the estimate of Douglas Jerrold, a writer who does know his subject. And he has indicated the real reasons why people do not wish to become Catholics. It is not really, as you suggest, fear of putting themselves under the ''domination of priests." They are at least too sensible to believe in the fears that dread word enkindles in some timid souls. The real reasons are that belief in God has given way to belief in man as the mainspring of human hopes, and that man's duty to God has been forgotten by multitudes who, despite their profession of Christianity, are really indifferent to religion altogether.

A close examination of history will reveal that ecclesiastics are not the only ones with a skeleton in the cupboard. All groups, classes, and professions, have a past history which is not without blemish. But, confining ourselves to ecclesiastics, if indeed the historical ecclesiastic has much to live down, it is equally true that he has much more that redounds to his credit. The holy, gentle Christ-like priest appears much more frequently on the stage of this world than the one who has proved unworthy of his calling. But the good ecclesiastic is not "news." He is merely what he is expected to be. It is the occasional bad ecclesiastic who is "news" to a world which delights in the abnormal and unexpected. Moreover, evil men resent the goodness of others, if only for the reason that goodness wherever it appears is the condemnation of evil conduct. And as the evilly-disposed do not like being condemned, they watch the Church with malicious eyes, ready to pounce on anything to her discredit, exaggerate it out of bounds, and broadcast it to all who are willing to listen. It is an indictment of our poor human race that the scandalous can always get much more publicity than the edifying.

It has not. An operation involving the complete removal of ecclesiasticism from its midst would not benefit the patient in the least. Its condition would become rapidly worse.

It would undoubtedly be to the great advantage to the Church were all priests saintly men, though even in that case there is no guarantee that all Catholics would be equally submissive to the directions of those angelic priests. Yet it would not really be ideal for the Church to have only angelic priests. We must face the realities of life, and the essential frailties of human nature. The only way in which all priests could be rendered angelic always would be for God to render them either absolutely immune from all temptations or incapable of yielding to temptation. But surely, even though one is a priest, he should have to meet his own temptations just as any other man, and should be capable of losing his soul as well as of saving it. It is not ideal that a man should have a through-ticket to heaven just because he has been ordained a priest. Priests are subject to the same laws of virtue as all other men. They have to fight for it, doing violence to themselves, and resisting the temptations life itself carries with it. And on the law of averages, it is to be expected that some will fail even whilst some fight their way to the heights of holiness. Others will remain fair average quality. But the Catholic Church remains ever the same, whatever be the variations in the personal holiness of her priests. We cannot say that the Catholic Church is right when we meet a saintly priest, and then say that the same Church is wrong when we meet a careless priest. An unworthy priest may not practice what he preaches; but at least he will not dare to preach what he practices, in those matters at least where he falls short of Christian virtue. And the Church must be judged by those who do live up to her teachings, not by those who do not.

You are not alone in doing so. In fact, if you did not do so, you would not still profess to be a Protestant.

Because we need the Church Christ thought fit to establish, with just the very constitution He gave it. And since He arranged that we should have a Pope, we need a Pope.

One does not accept Jesus Christ who refuses to accept the provision made by Jesus Christ for the guidance of His followers through the ages.

The Church was never without a Pope. From its very foundation St. Peter had been appointed Pope by Christ Himself when He uttered the words: "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church . . . and I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven." Matt. XVI., 18-19.

Converts to Christ, therefore, submitted to the Church Christ had established. And that Church included its constitution under the primacy of St. Peter. All accepted that.

God

Man

Religion

The Religion of the Bible

The Christian Faith

A Definite Christian Faith

The Protestant Reformation

The Truth of Catholicism

The Church and the Bible

The Dogmas of the Church

The Church and Her Moral Teachings

The Church in Her Worship

The Church and Social Welfare

Comparative Study of Non-Catholic Denominations

To and From Rome

Catholic Apologetics in Question & Answer Form

God

Man

Religion

The Religion of the Bible

The Christian Faith

A Definite Christian Faith

The Protestant Reformation

The Truth of Catholicism

The Church and the Bible

The Dogmas of the Church

The Church and Her Moral Teachings

The Church in Her Worship

The Church and Social Welfare

Comparative Study of Non-Catholic Denominations

To and From Rome

QUESTIONS IN VOLUME 2

201. Why can't each choose his own path to God?

202. Every individual must be entitled to his own religious beliefs.

203. Since we all aim at the one destination, it cannot matter by what road we travel.

204. Provided we all strive for the one end, why worry as to who is right or wrong?

205. All the Churches aim at teaching Christian principles.

206. God is Love, and therefore must be tolerant and impartial.

207. Christ gave broad principles for all to follow.

208. He taught us all to love one another.

209. He did not say that if one is not a Roman Catholic he will not enter heaven.

210. So long as we worship Christ, we will be saved in the end.

211. Does it make any difference to people's sincerity, if they follow the Master in their own way?

212. If a man is sincere, won't he attain to goodness, no matter what Church he attends?

213. So long as a man tries to be good and to do good, does it really matter what he believes or what religion he accepts?

214. What is your attitude towards the Protestant Church?

215. That Protestant means one who protests against Rome is a popularly accepted idea, but it is erroneous.

216. Naturally we protest against the errors of Rome.

217. But in reality the word Protestant is positive and means that one witnesses for the great ideals of the Gospel. The prefix "pro" means "for," whilst "testor" means "I witness."

218. In the Latin Vulgate translation of the Bible we find the words, "Quos protestantes illi audire nolebant," meaning, "They would not hear them when they protested." 2 Par. XXIV., 19.

219. Historically the word was derived from the celebrated "Protest" read by the German princes at the Diet of Spires.

220. The German princes said, "We protest and declare that we neither consent nor adhere in any manner whatsoever to the proposed Decree in anything contrary to God, to His holy Word, to our right conscience, and to the salvation of our souls."

221. The power of Romanism was shattered by Martin Luther, of immortal memory.

222. When did the Protestant Movement begin?

223. Did not Norway and Sweden adopt Protestantism?

224. What made Scotland abandon the Catholic faith?

225. So you blame the depravity of the clergy?

226. This seems to be new history from Catholic lips. Do not most Catholic writers paint the Protestant Reformation in the blackest colors?

227. History is history, and the record of truth.

228. You will never undo memories of the past in Protestant minds.

229. Have not Catholic writers distorted history also?

230. Not many people, either Catholic or Protestant, will agree with these views.

231. Don't you find it a mystery that so many millions should fall away from the Catholic Church during the Reformation?

232. Was not the fall of the Roman Catholic Church due to the vilest practices ever recorded against any Church?

233. Do you deny that the Church was in a state of decay prior to the Reformation?

234. The Book of Revelations revealed that many of the hierarchy would fall into gross sins in the Middle Ages. History tells us that they did so.

235. Pope Innocent III said that the Church of his day suffered from five evils, and that the first of all was the evil conduct of prelates.

236. Reform after reform was instituted by the Popes, only to fail because of strong vested interests.

237. Will you set out what you consider the main causes for the loss of such multitudes to the Church at the Reformation?

238. In view of all this, was not a Reformation necessary?

239. Would the Reformers have had any success had they been dealing with present-day Catholics?

240. Did not Martin Luther force the Catholic Church to reform herself?

241. Surely, then, you owe some thanks to Martin Luther.

242. Despite the evils amongst her members, you still insist that the Catholic Church is the true Church?

243. Since Christ commanded men to carry on His work, were not men free to form new Churches if necessary?

244. You deny that the Reformers had any divine authority for their work?

245. Dry rot seems to have set in amongst Christians, and to my mind the Church is dying.

246. Protestants claim to belong to the Apostolic Church.

247. The Reformation was to restore the Apostolic Church.

248. We cling to the traditions of the Apostles.