Radio Replies Vol 3 - Catholic Apologetics Online

That is true. I would expect to be excommunicated if I rejected it also. You see, once a doctrine has been defined by the Church as a dogma, no Catholic can deny it without being guilty of heresy. A man who denies a dogma of the Catholic Church renounces his belief in that Church, and cannot still belong to it. The Catholic Church was sent by Christ to teach all nations. If, in the course of her duty, she teaches us solemnly and with her supreme authority that this doctrine is undoubtedly part of the teaching given by Christ, then any man who rejects her teaching denies her essential authority, and a truth revealed by Christ. Dollinger had no excuse for refusing to follow the example of others by accepting the definition. Nor does his denial prove the doctrine wrong. The definition of the dogma absolutely proves that Dr. Dollinger was wrong.

Those who refused to accept the dogma were no longer Catholics. Though they called themselves the "Old Catholics," they were in reality the "New Protestants." It is to be remarked that Dr. Dollinger himself protested strongly against the new organization his admirers desired to establish. He declared that he would have nothing to do with the formation of a new schism. At the very Congress of September, 1871, he protested against the motion that an independent Church opposed to Rome should be formed. The attitude of these "Old Catholics" was a constant source of irritation to him. When he heard, in 1878, that they had abolished the celibacy of their clergy, he despaired altogether of their future. On Oct. 12th, 1887, he wrote, "I have no wish to be a member of a schismatic Church. I am alone." But the defection of Dr. Dollinger and of his adherents has not affected the Catholic Church. The "Old Catholics," few at any time, are disintegrating. The Catholic Church is more solid than ever, and her 400 million of adherents have no doubts whatever on the subject. We all believe in the infallibility of the Pope as firmly as we believe in the Incarnation of the Eternal Son of God. The doctrine is a dogma of our faith.

In every necessary way. In their efforts to refute the Catholic doctrine, enemies of the Church have ransacked history in the hope of finding a Pope who has taught heretical ideas. They thought they had found such a Pope in Liberius, urging that he subscribed to the Arian heresy condemned by the Council of Nicea in 325 A. D. But let us take the facts. Liberius became Pope in the year 352. From the outset he fought against the continued efforts of the Arians to corrupt the faith. The Emperior Constantius, himself an Arian, seized Pope Liberius by force and exiled him to Berea, in Thrace. It is said that, to escape this exile, and induced by fraud and threats, Pope Liberius signed a formula drawn up by the Arians. But historical research has shown that it is doubtful whether he signed the document at all. If he did sign, he was not a sufficiently free agent for a lawful exercise of his duty. And in any case, the document he is supposed to have signed was not directly heretical, but ambiguous, admitting of an orthodox as well as a heterodox interpretation according to the viewpoint taken by the reader. St. Athanasius and St. Hilary, who thought he did sign, insist that no charge of heresy could be made against Liberius, on the score that the document was not necessarily heretical. Moreover, the absolute orthodoxy of Liberius is so well known from other sources that it is impossible to say that he ever entertained heretical Arian views, and so erred in matters of faith. On his return from exile he defended the Nicene decisions against Arianism, and remained a most uncompromising defender of the orthodox doctrine until his death in 366 A. D. To all this you can add one point. Even if Liberius signed the document, and even if that document were heretical, and even if Liberius personally held and believed heretical doctrine, no argument even then could be drawn from the case against the Catholic doctrine of papal infallibility. For the Catholic Church has never defined that the Popes are always infallible in all that they personally believe. The Catholic Church declares that the Pope is infallible when he gives an official definition of doctrine concerning faith or morals, it being required that he acts freely, that he declares himself to be acting in his capacity as head of the whole Church, and that he intends his definition to be binding upon all the faithful throughout the world. Not one of these last requirements was verified in the case of Liberius, and whatever view one takes of the case historically, it is invalid as a test of infallibility.

Nothing that Pope Honorius ever said or did in his life conflicts in any way with the Catholic doctrine of infallibility. He has been accused of having taught the Monothelite heresy in two letters to Sergius, Patriarch of Constantinople. Sergius favored the Monothelite heresy, or the doctrine that there was only one will in Christ, not two wills, the one Divine, and the other human. He wrote a very deceptive letter to Pope Honorius begging him not to condemn the doctrine, since such a condemnation would greatly disturb the peace of the Church. Honorius wrote to Sergius, praising him for his good intentions, and sanctioning his explanations, though interpreting them in a perfectly orthodox way which Sergius did not accept for a moment. But Sergius had got all he wanted, staving off papal condemnation. If there is one thing clear, it is that Honorius neither taught heresy in either of his letters to Sergius (nor anywhere else), and that he gave no dogmatic definition on the subject. This case, also, therefore, is beside the point where infallibility is concerned.

After the death of Honorius in 638 A. D. the Monothelites continued their heretical teachings, and in 680, the Sixth General Council was convoked to deal with them. The assembled bishops condemned the heresy together with Sergius and his supporters, including the name of Pope Honorius with them. They sent their decisions to Pope Agathon saying, "We leave it to you to decide what is to be done in your capacity as Bishop of the First See in the Universal Church." But Pope Agathon died before he could ratify the decrees, and was succeeded by Pope Leo II. Pope Leo approved and ratified the decisions. Later, writing to the bishops in Spain, he said that he had no intention of condemning Honorius for any heretical teaching, but because he was negligent in dealing with the Monothelites, fostering their heresy by his very inactivity. Even when he saw that the bishops of the Council had condemned Honorius for supporting the teachings of Sergius, Pope Leo II corrected their decree by saying that he unbecomingly permitted them to flourish. Far from being condemned as a heretic, then, Pope Honorius was condemned for not using his supreme and infallible authority to settle the dispute.

The statement that the Sixth General Council had condemned the Monothelite heresy together with Sergius, Cyrus, Honorius, Pyrrhus, and others who supported it, used to appear in the ancient Roman Breviaries. No one paid much attention to it until the sixteenth century, when a new impetus was given to historical research. The discovery of the special qualifications Pope Leo II. had made when approving the decisions of the Sixth General Council made it clear that the name of Honorius was unjustly bracketed with that of Sergius, and those of the others; and his name was rightly deleted in future editions of the Breviary.

It is a fact. But here once moreI must point out that, even if Pope Honorius had been guilty of heresy in his writings (as he was not) papal infallibility would not be affected. For he was not pronouncing an official definition in virtue of his supreme office in the Church and with the intention of obliging the whole Church to accept his teaching under pain of heresy. But where these historical cases are concerned, surely you do not think that the bishops of the world assembled at the Vatican Council would be so foolish as to define the doctrine without deeply considering the facts of history? You can be quite sure that they knew all the facts about Pope Honorius, even as they knew that those facts were available to the world. Do you think that they would have defined infallibility, knowing that hostile critics had only to quote Honorius to prove them utterly wrong?

Another "therefore" suggests itself: and that is that you have not correctly grasped the facts. Surely you should suspect that Pope John XXII. was quite aware of the decision given by Nicholas III and would never have dreamed of defining the exact opposite! As a matter of fact, Pope John XXII. was not even dealing with the same subject as Pope Nicholas III. The question submitted to Pope John XXII. was this: Was the poverty of Christ so absolute that He retained no personal possessions whatever? The Pope replied: No; for it would be quite against Scripture and heretical to maintain such poverty in Christ. But now, what was the question submitted to Pope Nicholas III.? It was this: Is it in keeping with the ideals of poverty taught by Christ that members of Religious Orders should vow absolute poverty and possess nothing? This Pope said: Yes; and to deny that would be heretical. Pope John XXII., therefore, said that it would be heretical to assert the absolute personal poverty of Christ. Pope Nicholas III. said that it would be heretical to assert that members of Religious Orders may not vow absolute poverty, despite the fact that Christ Himself did not personally practice such absolute poverty. There is no trace of contradiction between those two definitions.

Yes. Christ predicted that His Church would be characterized by unity. The Catholic Church is one throughout the world under the one supreme head on earth, the Pope as successor of St. Peter. Our Lord said, "There shall be one fold, and one shepherd." That prediction is verified in the Catholic Church." She is one in teaching, worship, and authority wherever she may extend her activities.

That cannot rightly be said. There was a natural tendency amongst some of the first Christians to manifest an exaggerated loyalty towards particular Apostles and teachers; and St. Paul himself corrected this tendency from the very beginning. Thus he wrote to the Corinthians, "One saith, I indeed am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollo. But what is Apollo, and what is Paul? The ministers of Him whom you have received ... I have planted, Apollo watered, but God gave the increase . . . Let no man therefore glory in men. Whether it be Paul, or Apollo, or Cephas ... all are yours, and you are Christ's, and Christ is God's." 1 Cor. 4-6, 22-23. Thus St. Paul forbade from the very beginning any development of two distinct and rival Pauline and Petrine factions. St. Peter also excludes any possibility of a rival Pauline faction, urging Christians of the first century to be diligent in the sanctifying of their lives, and adding, "As our dear brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, hath written to you." 2 Pet. III., 15.

That is a probability. But these sections were not rival factions. For example, one section of the Catholic Church consists of Catholics in Southwark diocese in London under Archbishop Amigo; another section in Westminster diocese under Cardinal Hinsley. But these sections in the same city are not rival factions. It is certain that both St. Peter and St. Paul labored in Rome, and that both enjoyed Apostolic jurisdiction. Each would retain the particular loyalty of his own converts, Gentiles predominating among the converts of St. Paul, and Jews among those of St. Peter. But in no way can this be construed as evidence for rival factions of "Peterites" and "Paulites."

St. Peter and St. Paul were not less orthodox, nor less gentle for that matter, than St. Clement. And all were quite united in the one Church. Under Clement it was not so much the union of two sections as the union of the two jurisdictions in the one man Clement, which both sections automatically accepted, as they would not have done had they not been united in the one faith.

I could be content with asking you simply to what period of the history of the Church you refer. However, as the longest period during which there was confusion as to which of three claimants was the true Pope, occurred at the time of the Great Western Schism, I will deal with that case. Although there were three rival claimants to the office of Pope at that time, each with his own following, it is clear that, as a matter of fact, Catholics were not subject to one single Pope. But, as a matter of law, they were. And that makes all the difference. No Catholic said that there ought to be three Popes. All admitted that there should be only one, and that only one of the three could be the lawful Pope. There was, then a lawful Pope, however confused people may have been as to which one was the lawful Pope. The office for which the claimants were contending was the office of St. Peter. And it was to this office that the authority of St. Peter was annexed. In the civil order, no one will admit that the authority attached to the throne in some given kingdom is lost because some pretender wins the allegiance of a certain number of subjects. And when the pretender dies, or renounces his claim, and the subjects revert to a single king whom all acknowledge as lawful ruler, no one holds that his authority is due to the return of the subjects who were deceived. The authority all along was inherent in his office. So the authority annexed to the office of the Pope persisted continuously and in unbroken descent from St. Peter. Subsequent endorsement of that authority by parties who had been led astray did not confer that authority, but merely acknowledged it as possessed by one particular Pope to the exclusion of all pretenders.

If you believe the Catholic religion to be right, the infidelity of some who profess it does not justify your infidelity in refusing to join it and live up to it.

Were your judgment right, the question of the truth of the Church would not be affected. A right belief does not necessarily mean right behavior in all who possess it. Nor does wrong behavior necessarily mean a wrong belief. If a Catholic did wrong, and the Catholic Church told him that it was right, there would be a case for consideration. But the Catholic Church will never say that what is wrong is right. For the rest, things are not always as they seem; and most Catholics are not so worldly in outlook as you imagine.

You have not the right to demand the fruit of holiness in every single member of the Catholic Church. For, as I have said, such fruit depends on the free cooperation of each soul with the grace of God. But whilst each has the power to check the influence of grace, the Catholic Church herself is holy and sanctifying. However, whilst you have not the right to demand holiness in every Catholic, holiness will, as a matter of fact, be manifest in a large number of Catholics. Not all men are evil and negligent. There will always be great souls of genuine good will; and these will exhibit visible fruits of holiness as a result of living up to their faith. The Catholic Church has always had Saints. In fact, all the great Saints of history have belonged to her, and have never dreamed of leaving her.

If you believe that, it is your duty to be the other. Instead of that, so long as you refuse to fulfill your own obligations, you take your place amongst the crucifiers.

Because everything is well with the Catholic Church. But I do not say that everything is well with all the members of the Church. Repeatedly I have quoted our Lord's words that His Church is like a net holding good and bad fish. It is wrong to have eyes only for the bad fish, and to make that an excuse for remaining a bad fish oneself. It is necessary to see the good fish as well as the bad fish, and to insist on the necessity of turning the bad fish into good ones.

You wrongly interpret both my attitude and your own. It is I who sees the actual Church in the world, with all her beauty and all her defects. You see only defects, and concentrate on those as if there were no other aspects to be considered. There is a human element in the Church, and that human element is ever liable to fail. But there is also a Divine element which can never fail. But whilst admitting the human element, I do not intend to admit every single charge evil people choose to make against the members of the Church. There are types of people who cannot see any good in Catholicism. They see any amount of evil where there is none; or if they do see some, they persuade themselves that all are evil, and that no good exists in the Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church has the identical mission of Christ who said, "I come to call, not the just who need not repentance, but sinners." Also He said that He came to save that which was lost. How could the Church cry, "Come to me, all ye holy people of good quality-no sinners need apply?" Then, too, the Church was sent to teach all nations, seeking as many souls as possible. There is a touch of hardness and pride in your very question. Hardness upon the frailties of others almost to the point of denying to them the mercy of Christ is foreign to the spirit of Christ. And it is pride that suggests the notion that you would perhaps become a Catholic if only she would concentrate on souls of quality. Is it that you are a soul of quality? That mere thought could be an obstacle to your salvation. Our Lord knew this, and He insisted upon humility as being absolutely fundamental. He was vehement about it. "Unless you become as little children you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven." "He that will be the greatest, let him be as the least." He condemned the proud Pharisee and praised the Publican who was a sinner. I am sure you will not mind my recommending to you the humility and gentle charity Christ so insisted upon.

That is unreasonable. For, firstly, unless you meet every single person who belongs to some given Church, you will be judging all by some. In the second place, if you did meet some bad Catholic, he would not be living up to his belief; and the fault would be in himself, not in the Church whose teachings he neglected. Thirdly, we are forbidden to judge people, and, therefore, to base further judgments on our judgement of them. "Judge not, and you shall not be judged" is the law. And again, "Charity thinketh no evil." We must abstract from the faults of individuals, and study a religion in itself and on its own merits. In other words, we take the official teachings of a religion and ask, "Would these teachings of their very nature tend to make one who observed them good or bad?"

Have you ever looked for anything in them that you would care to emulate? In every one of your fellow men you will find good and bad, virtues and faults. But people usually see only what they want to see. Sympathies and antipathies have an extraordinary effect upon one's judgment. We easily blind ourselves to faults in those we happen to like, whilst we refuse to understand those whom we dislike, putting an evil construction upon all that they do. Now you intensely dislike the Catholic Church. You do not know why, but you do. And that dislike affects your outlook upon all who profess the Catholic religion. I do not say that all Catholics are without their faults. But I do say that a good deal of your trouble finds its source within yourself.

Genuine history does not lie. But those who claim the name of historians certainly can falsify their accounts; and they have often done so. It is true, however, that a few Popes have been unworthy of their office, had illegitimate children, and endowed them with titles and property. But there was no question of bribing them to secrecy. Secrecy was not necessary in the ages when these things occurred. Public opinion was at so low a stage that moral laxity was condoned in an extraordinary way. Illegitimate children were not held in less honor than legitimate offspring. The Popes who provided for their children did so through paternal interest, not in order to secure secrecy. The matter was public knowledge. The evils, of course, have been magnified by legend, idle gossip, and calumny; but the historical foundation for charges against these Popes exists. And these internal disorders in the Church were far more dangerous to her welfare than any external forces. But, under the protection of Christ, the Church survived, and has been purified of such abuses in the Papacy.

Defense of the Church does not demand a denial for everything we do not like. The Church has nothing whatever to fear from the simple truth. If a thing is historical, it is historical. We must, of course, sift what is legendary from what is said to be history. But once a thing is proved to be history, it must be admitted. It does not follow, however, that every interpretation based upon it is necessarily true. I have no desire to convince you that any facts are not facts. But I do say that you would be wrong if you regarded the disgraceful conduct of any individual Pope in his personal life as an argument against the truth of the Catholic Church. Meantime, if you turn your attention to those good Popes who have been canonized by the Catholic Church as Saints, and who really did exhibit an example of all that the Church expects a Pope to be, you will find that there is nothing whatever wrong with the Catholic ideal.

I do. They afford a condemnation, not of the Catholic Church, but of themselves. A criminal who breaks the laws of his country does not brand his country as a land whose legislation makes criminals. If he had observed the laws he would have been a good citizen. In the same way, if a man breaks the laws of God, that is no argument against God. Then why should a man who breaks the laws of the Catholic Church be an argument against the Catholic Church? It is not just, of course, to continue pointing to a small minority of bad Popes, whilst ignoring the majority of good ones. But as regards their official duties the personal wickedness even of bad Popes will not necessarily make them bad administrators. Just as a judge could be guilty of much evil in his personal life, yet give excellent decisions in his official capacity, so a bad Pope in his private life could quite well fulfill his public duties well.

Christ promised to be with His Church all days, and that the gates of hell would not prevail against it. Those forces of evil can be external or internal; that is, there can be persecution of the Church by open enemies, or internal evils by the sinful lives of its very officials. It was in virtue of Christ's promise that not even the personal wickedness of an Alexander VI. could do any lasting harm to the Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church is not afraid of facts; nor that any facts will ever afford any valid argument against her historical foundation by Christ and His protection of her as a Church, whatever individuals may or may not do. If it be a fact that an Alexander VI. was a wicked man, the Church says, "Well, then, he was wicked; such conduct was reprehensible; I only hope he repented before he died. If not, he is in hell." As you say, I am quite familiar with all these things, and my faith in the Catholic Church, far from being shaken, is but strengthened. A Church which could survive such internal enemies as Alexander VI. has the protection of God. And the teaching of the Catholic Church not only does not bid me imitate the conduct of Alexander VI.; it forbids me absolutely to do so.

Because bad Popes did not pretend to be the founders of new religions, as did Luther. The one Founder of the Catholic Church remained, and He was undoubtedly holy, for He was Jesus Christ Himself. But the Protestantism founded by Luther is not holy in its founder. Again, no bad Pope ever pretended that his sins were in accordance with the teachings of Christ and of the Catholic Church; nor did any Pope teach officially that the members of the Church were free to behave in such a way. But Luther corrupted the very doctrines of Christ, and gave permission to others to sin. Finally, the Popes who did not live good private lives did possess Apostolic authority for their official legislation in the name of the Church- legislation which in itself was quite all right. But Luther had no Apostolic authority for his heretical and schismatical innovations.

There were good and bad priests even then. Some of the present-day priests are as good as the best of them then; some are not.

No.

If one perseveres in a good life, he will die a good death. If one lives an evil life, it is always possible that he will meet with an evil fate in eternity. I say that it is always possible, because allowance must always be made for the mercy of God.

No. It would be absurd to assume that men who believe sufficiently in the necessity of salvation to devote their lives to the eternal welfare of their fellow men would be so foolish as not to live in such a way as to secure their own salvation. I oppose that to your wholesale suggestion. I do not deny the possibility that a priest who began well could end badly, forgetting his ideals and disgracing his vocation. But such a case is exceptional, and would not warrant your generalization.

At times there may be something in some particular charge against some particular priest. But all know that a bad priest is the exception. There are bad doctors, judges, and lawyers. But you have not the same prejudice against others who fail to live up to their ideals. There is a certain dishonesty in the attitude of critics towards priests. Men blame them for being what they ought to be, and blame them for not being what they ought to be. If a priest violates his obligations, some Protestants will praise and defend him; others will blame him merely in order to attack all priests, even good ones. But apart from individual cases, when I consider all the charges against priests, I do deny that there is anything in them. Everywhere charges are made according to popular prejudices, and they perpetually change from age to age. It is because they are false that it is necessary to abandon old charges and find new ones. Present prejudices will provoke smiles in future generations, but they will be replaced by others. The chief value of these charges as a weapon against Catholicism is not their truth, but their novelty.

It is true that the Vatican, besides containing offices for various departments of ecclesiastical administration, does contain great libraries, museums, and art galleries-these in turn containing a wealth of valuable books, manuscripts, sculptures, paintings, and other treasures, historical and artistic. And the Catholic Church has rendered a distinct service to culture and civilization, and consequently to the welfare and progress of the human race by, thus preserving through centuries such masterpieces. She has gathered them and kept them, where otherwise they would have been dispersed and lost. Christ would no more object to the Vatican Library and Museum than He would object to the public libraries of England and the British Museum. Would you argue that, since the state should exist for the welfare of its people, England is not doing her duty so long as she preserves all those treasures in the British Museum and Art Gallery, instead of selling them and scattering them in order to feed the poor? "Not by bread alone does man live," said Christ. Food is not the only thing which contributes to the welfare of humanity. If the Catholic Church suddenly did sell and dissipate her great library and museum and art gallery at the Vatican, losing all these evidences of progressive culture, the charge would at once come that she was as ever the enemy of learning, history, art, and culture, and opposed to the true welfare of man.

Were the Vatican to sell all its treasures, and distribute their value to the poor, no appreciable difference of a lasting character would be made to the poor of "every country." After their one meal each, if they got that much, their poverty would still be there-and the Church without its most necessary administrative buildings. And Catholics throughout the world would be called upon to make provision in one generation for headquarters which have grown up gradually with the growth of the Church during 1900 years. What you suggest would be no cure for the poverty of the world. Christ Himself said, "The poor you will always have with you."

And the Pope, too, must be poor in spirit. However vast the Vatican, which has been built during generations and to last for generations, the Pope must live a simple, humble, and Christ-like life within its walls. And he does so. Not for a moment does he regard the Vatican as his own personal property; and he will make no attempt to will it away to people of his choice when he comes to die. When Pope Pius X. died in 1914, he was able to write, "I was born poor; I have lived poor; and I wish to die poor. I ask the Holy See to grant a monthly allowance-not to exceed 300 lire-to my sisters Anna and Mary." He had nothing to leave directly to them himself. One anti-Catholic paper grudgingly admitted, "The sum which Pius X. asked for his sisters is barely sufficient for food and clothing-less than five dollars a week; and even so, is subject to the approval of his successor. He regards all as belonging to the Church, nothing to himself personally."

The humility of Christ did not prevent Him from accepting the tribute of reverence and respect paid Him by the woman who lavished precious ointment upon Him, nor His acceptance of the adoration due to His Divinity and offered by St. Thomas with the words, "My Lord and my God." The Pope is personally a very humble man, and not for a moment does he attribute to himself the reverence and respect the faithful show towards his office as supreme head of the Church. He knows that, were he not Pope, none of it would be his; and that it is a tribute to the authority of Christ vested in the office as such. Would you quarrel with Christ for telling St. John to write to the Bishop of Philadelphia, "Behold I will make them come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee"? You will find that in Rev. III. 9. Meantime, the Pope does not sit in majesty and comfort. His office is majestic, if you wish. But that is not his fault. Would you accuse a lawfully constituted judge of arrogance because, in virtue of his office, he speaks with authority? In person, that judge could be the most unassuming of men. As for comfort, the Pope has the most uncomfortable of positions. I have lived in Rome and I know. I would not be Pope for anything this world could offer me.

That is merely because you are unfamiliar with the proceedings, and because your outlook does not allow for a ceremonial proper to Catholicism. Unfamiliar things usually astonish us; and if they be not in accordance with our own ideas of what is fitting and proper, they may even jar upon us. Thus an Englishman traveling abroad for the first time is apt to experience a shock when he finds Frenchmen eating frog's legs. Within his limited experience of English ways such a thing is not done. And he probably takes it for granted that, because he does not do it, it ought not to be done. In your own case you must realize that a thing is not necessarily wrong because unfamiliar to you. The meeting with the unfamiliar merely broadens one's education. Nor is a thing necessarily wrong because it does not fit in with our own ideas of what is fitting and proper. We must ask ourselves whether our own ideas be right. In religious matters, if I am a Protestant, I know that my ideas reflect the Protestant outlook. I should not be surprised that things dictated by the Catholic outlook are foreign to me. But before I pass judgment, my duty is to ask myself whether my Protestant outlook can be justified. Only provided I satisfy myself on this point can I condemn Catholic ways on the score that they do not appeal to me.

There is a regulation dress which ladies are expected to wear when visiting the Pope. It demands a black or dark colored dress of full length, and the wearing of a black lace veil for the covering of the head. The article you send mentions that one woman was turned away because her dress was cut too low at the neck. That was her own fault. On the very invitation cards a sketch is printed indicating the attire to be worn. If she desired the privilege of a Papal audience, she should have had the courtesy to comply with the regulations. You are surprised that the Pope should prescribe the dress to be worn, and suggest that he should be content provided the dress were simple and refined. But ideas of what is simple and refined differ amongst women to an incredible extent; and when women come from every possible nation, things are still more complicated. The only procedure possible is to prescribe a uniform standard of modest attire for such audiences. At least you will appreciate the Pope's anxiety for Christian modesty in the dress of such women as desire to meet him. If he were so evil a being as so many non-Catholics like to believe, he would not be concerned about any traditions of modesty.

Your choice of the word "bothered" is excellent. There is nothing new and entertaining for the Pope in his daily duty of interviews with the thousands who desire audiences throughout the year. Were he not a man of duty, he would not be bothered with the ever-recurring ceremonial routine his office demands. If he forfeits his own leisure to give happiness to thousands of people according to the time-honored ceremonial of the Vatican, there must be something more in it than any merely personal interest on the part of the Pope. For him it must be most irksome at times. I certainly would not like to be Pope. Happily I need not entertain the least fear that the Cardinals will want to elect me.

Now we arrive at the crux of the whole problem. Our Lord was poor and simple, although so great in virtue of His Divinity. Yet He loved the beauty of His Father's house, the glorious temple at Jerusalem. He loved ceremony. He constantly made use of ceremony in His personal actions. When men rebuked those who met Him with waving palms, and who cast their garments down as a carpet in His way, Christ defended those celebrating His approach, and said that if they did not do so, the very stones would cry out.Our Lord, then, sanctioned the principle of ceremony as an expression of religion. And the Catholic Church is justified in principle. But, on the principle that nothing is too good for God, the Church says that, if we are going to have ceremony, let it be as dignified and beautiful as possible.If a Protestant tourist in Rome sees only the pomp and ceremony without perceiving the significance and the spirit of these things, then all might seem vain and empty show. And the average non-Catholic tourist does perceive only the external proceedings, not discerning the significance and the spirit. The significance of the wonderful pageantry is that Christ and His religion constitute the most wonderful thing in the world-greater than all earthly courts and kings and politics in existence. It is all very well to say that Christ humbled Himself. But it is not for us to humble Him. God humbled Himself in becoming man, but it is for man to glorify Him as being God. He that humbleth himself shall be exalted. We exalt Christ our Lord. If we so honor the Pope, it is not for what he is in himself, but for what he is in his office as head of Christ's Church and representative of Christ. The Pope knows this, and takes none of it to himself personally. There is pomp, if you like, but no pomposity. And the Catholic Church, so rich in expression for the glory of God's house, is poor in spirit where the humility of her members is concerned. The more we magnify God, the less we magnify self. The more a man magnifies himself, the less he magnifies God. Remember that it took the magnificent Catholic Church to inspire the simplicity of a St. Francis of Assisi. There may be less pomp, but there is far more pride in Protestantism than in Catholicism. It is Protestantism which is ever speaking of man's independence and self-sufficiency. Yet even Protestants do not really object to ceremony. They protest against the ceremonies of the Catholic Church not because they are ceremonies, but because they are Catholic. They have invented ceremonies of their own, but ceremonies which are merely not so inspiring. If Catholics violate Christian principles, so do Protestants. If Protestants do not, neither do Catholics. And in this latter case, Catholics exhibit a far greater appreciation of the dignity and majesty of God's worship than do all Protestants put together.

The luxurious time is a product of your own imagination. Bishops have a very heavy responsibility, great anxieties, and little rest. It is a full-time occupation to be a bishop of the Catholic Church, and few indeed are anxious to attain to episcopal rank. Our Catholic people certainly wish their bishops to live in a state in keeping with the dignity of their office. But that state does not mean personal luxury. Again, you let your imagination run away with you when you say sweepingly that their "fellow creatures starve," as if all men except bishops had nothing to eat. If that were the case, nothing would be gained by the few bishops starving also. That would not feed the multitudes. Those who are too poor to do so are not asked to contribute towards the support of the bishop; and the bishops of the Catholic Church give far more away in charity than you suspect.

The temporal needs of priests have to be provided for, as well as their future, should sickness or old age compel their retirement. They are entitled to their support. And certainly, if a man devotes his whole life to the welfare of his parishioners, those parishioners between them should share the burden of keeping him alive, and providing for all his lawful needs.

Such wills do not often appear. The vast majority of those devoted to the cause of the Church leave so little that the press finds no interest in their wills. For the rest, priests should not amass thousands of dollars accumulated during their work for the cause of religion. And if a few do so, they themselves are to blame for so dishonoring their obligations in this matter.

It is a contemptible vice, and one of the most dangerous of sins. Men given up to this vice insult God by practically making a god of the money they possess or hope to get. They are led into many other sins against their fellow men, often violating not only charity but justice also. And they ruin their own characters, which become hard and dry, strangers to generosity, mercy, and remorse. If we take Judas as an example, we see how avarice undermines even fidelity to one's best friends. And that this sin as few others will endanger a man's salvation is evident from our Lord's words, "Woe to you rich"; and, "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." That is why Christ advised those who do possess wealth to use it in charity towards the poor for the sake of their own very salvation. Thus you have my opinion of avarice. But it is another question altogether as to who are or who are not avaricious. Of that I am not the judge.

Rectories are built in proportion to the needs of the respective parishes. And priests don't have them. Apart from the fact that many rectories are small, even the larger rectories in big city parishes do not belong to the priests. They are parochial property. If the priest is removed elsewhere, he cannot sell the buildings to whom he pleases. If he dies, he cannot will them away. Priests come and go, but the parochial buildings remain. Both buildings and priests are the provision made by the parishioners for their own religious needs.

Imagination, of course, could make the rectories bigger and bigger, and the working men poorer and poorer. Not all rectories are large. In densely populated parishes, where several priests are required, they are larger than in small parishes where but one priest suffices. But in the densely populated parishes, the expense is more widely distributed. Nor are "poor working people" the only people in the world. Not all the parishioners are working men, nor are all working men poor. Those of the parishioners who are "poor working men" may or may not contribute their modest offerings towards parochial buildings; but that does not mean that they pay for them. The debt is distributed, and falls proportionately on all classes. And those who give, do not mind giving. They are happy to do what they can for their religion.

There are multitudes of the poor who will deny that on my behalf. But if you regard the rich as evil and in danger of eternal damnation, you ought to blame the priest if he neglected to do his utmost for such unfortunate people. If you say that the rich support the priest well, I can but say that that is news to me. But even were it true, you should be glad that the priest who serves both rich and poor should be supported mainly by the rich.

I deny the distinction between the rich and poor as if money means nobility, and poverty creates the common herd. But if you love the poor, why do you do so? You will say that you have a heart. But have not priests hearts as well as you? And are they not children of the people as well as you? And does not religion give them a greater obligation to love the people than you possess? Priests do not stifle their natural sympathies. They fulfill their religious obligations towards the poor.

You allot the blame in the wrong place, and it is a mistake. If some given preacher does not practice what he preaches, you should conclude, not to the hollowness of what is taught, but to the hollowness of the individual who is teaching it. For example, Christ certainly practiced what He taught. And if some man preaches exactly what Christ taught, he is preaching a good doctrine however badly he personally behaves. His bad behavior makes him bad, but it does not make the doctrine of Christ bad. If that doctrine was good when preached by Jesus Himself, it is still good, no matter by whom it is preached.

I say that it is no argument against the truth of the Catholic religion that Catholics, and even officials at times, have failed to observe its precepts. Judas was no argument against the truth preached by the Apostles.

Your last two points do not affect the value of the analogy. The whole point of the analogy lies in the fact that the bad behavior of Judas was a violation of the teachings of Christ, and, therefore, no indication that those teachings were evil. Had Judas gone on preaching Christ's doctrine, that would have been no argument against Christ's doctrine. Truth is not less truth because preached by a bad man who makes no effort to live up to it. Nor would it be an argument against Christ's doctrine had the other Apostles condoned the treachery of Judas in betraying Christ. For Christ's doctrine would not have bidden them to sanction evil. It would be they who would also have failed to be true to the principles of Christ. So, too, the Catholic religion is true. Nothing in its teachings can be used to sanction evil. If those professing the Catholic religion do wrong, they are to be blamed.

In the middle ages means of communication were not nearly so advanced as nowadays. Many abuses remained undenounced to Rome. On the other hand, when abuses were denounced, many of the individuals were disciplined. If abuses were known and higher officials took no notice, it was either because those higher officials wished to avoid still greater evils which their interference would provoke, or because they too were guilty of a neglect of duty. But whatever the possibilities, the blame must rest with unfaithful officials of the Church, not with the religion they served so badly.

I will be only too happy to express my own mind on the subject.

The priest who instructed me in the Catholic religion instructed me in the Catholic religion. And scandals are not part of the Catholic religion. They are the result of infidelity to its teachings. A priest must explain what the Catholic Church does teach, not what bad Catholics do not do. The bright colors were the true colors; and the high spiritual ideals were the only ones sanctioned by the Catholic Church.

They did. The ideals put before me filled me with reverence for all things Catholic; and I too easily took it for granted that what all Catholics ought to be could be taken as a sure indication of what all Catholics were in reality. I overlooked the fact that God will compel no man to be good, and I had not the knowledge of human frailty later experience gave.

I certainly do not think that. There are individual Catholics today giving scandal in various parts of the world; and probably this will always be the case. Christ Himself said: "It must needs be that scandals will come." He knew the lack of good will in men, and their capacity for evil if they neglect vigilance and prayer. But He added: "Nevertheless, woe to that man by whom the scandal cometh." And He very much meant those words, for He knew that, not the Church, but such people themselves would be responsible for their own evil conduct.

I did. But their goodness is due to the elements of truth contained in their religion-elements of truth drawn from the Catholic Church, and retained side by side with the errors of the various Protestant reformers. But, instead of the partial truth, the full truth is to be found in the Catholic Church.

No. Nor would it be logical to do so. One can compare the good with the good, or the bad with the bad. But it is wrong to select good Protestants as if there were no bad Protestants; and bad Catholics as if there were no good Catholics. In reality, however, we must take the Catholic system of religion, and the Protestant systems as our terms of comparison, and see which is the better religion in itself. But if you do compare Protestants with Catholics you must do so en masse. And if you do this, you will find at least that irreligion is far more prevalent amongst Protestants than amongst Catholics. It is quite a normal thing for Protestant clergymen to urge the fidelity of Catholics to their religion as an example to Protestants, whose empty churches are a byword.

Never. I know absolutely that it is for their good, provided they do their best to live up to their new-found faith. Granted generous good will, the convert to the Catholic Church will find himself better, holier, and happier from every possible point of view in the spiritual order. Cardinal Newman wrote, "From the time I became a Catholic, I have been at perfect peace and contentment. It was like coming into port after a rough sea." Robert Hugh Benson, the convert son of the Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury, wrote, "The Church promises a great deal, but my experience is that she gives ten times more. The Catholic Church is supremely what she promises to be. She is the priceless pearl for which the greatest sacrifice is not too great." Those two quotations express exactly my own frame of mind; and I leave it to you to ponder over them. And at least you will credit me with the determination to give candid replies to all inquirers.

He said that His Church would differ from the Synagogue chiefly by the fact that it would be for all nations, and not for one chosen nation only. By this He meant that His Church would be universal, a word which is rendered in Greek as Katholicos. The word "Catholic," therefore, rightly describes the Church Christ established. It is the thing that matters, not the mere term used to describe it. Catholicity was declared by Christ to be a main characteristic of His one true Church.And there is but one Church today truly Catholic, the Church of which the Bishop of Rome is the head in this world.

If there are a hundred conflicting Churches, it is certain that if one is right, the others are wrong. Every other Church save the Catholic Church has been commenced by some merely earthly founder in ages subsequent to Christ. Cardinal Newman rightly said, "I became a Catholic because, if the Catholic Church be not the Church of Christ, there never was a Church established by Him." The Catholic Church alone can prove that she is right. And the duty of charity will not permit the Catholic Church to allow non-Catholics to continue in error on so important a matter whilst she just keeps silent about it.

On the grounds of Scripture, history, and logic. Scripture tells us that Christ's Church would go to all nations, yet be one fold under one shepherd. Other Churches have separated from the Catholic Church and refused to be under the one shepherd appointed by Christ. Therefore they ceased to belong to the Catholic Church, and became non-Catholics. Historically, of course, those other Churches have not existed as such through all the centuries since Christ. And logically, since Catholic means universal, no Church except the one to which I belong is really supra-national, found as one and the same in all nations, whether France, Italy, Germany, England, America, Ireland, Australia, etc.

There are multitudes of Protestants who neither know the Apostles' Creed, nor say it. Of those who do say it, many have no idea of what they mean when they use the words you quote. Others, realizing at least the meaning of the words, say them uneasily and with quite a sense of guilt. They hurry over them, and dismiss them quickly, as if they should not be there; or, at any rate, as if they should not be saying them. Others, again, say them and mean them, but mean them in a peculiar sense. In order to believe that they do belong to the Holy Catholic Church, they persuade themselves that all the different Christian Churches in the world really constitute one holy Catholic Church. It is all very confusing. I but state the truth when I say that, although many Protestants think they believe in the Holy Catholic Church, they do not do so in reality. And they cannot do so whilst they continue to believe in any form of Protestantism.

It means universal. Applied to the Church it means one and the same Church found everywhere in the world, teaching men of all nations exactly the same religion, and uniting them under one and the same religious authority.

It is the adjective derived from the city of Rome, which is the capital of Italy. But its religious significance lies in the fact that the Pope, who is supreme head of the Catholic Church on earth, happens to be the bishop of that city.

Such a description is as inappropriate as would be the description of the British Empire as the "London British Empire" because the king lives in London.

It is simply the locality in which the head of the universal Church resides, The Church must be linked with the center of unity in the Apostolic group-Peter.And Peter died in Rome, his office being transmitted to his successors in the Bishopric of Rome. To say that the Church is "Roman" is to say that it is the Apostolic Church. Rome stands for concentrated Apostolicity.

It was by God's providence that the Church transferred her own headquarters to Rome. Rome in the time of the Apostles was for the world what Peter himself was for the Church-the head and center. The Church had to go to the world, and the roads were already prepared for her by the secular power. The Church therefore used the pulsating heart and blood streams of organized society. As in individuals grace cooperates with nature, so the very society established for the diffusion of grace cooperated with the natural social framework of the Roman Empire. And as St. Peter died in Rome, the successive Bishops of Rome necessarily remain the head and center of the Christian Church.

The use of the phrase by Catholics is no more than an unthinking concession to prevailing custom in a non-Catholic social environment. But always Catholics have in mind the correct sense of the Catholic Church whose head is the Bishop of Rome. It is from the Protestant viewpoint that the expression is ambiguous, since they wish to imply that there are other kinds of Churches entitled to be called Catholic. This is a ridiculous theory which they do not dream of applying in practice; for if you were to ask any Protestant in the street: "Could you tell me where the Catholic Church is in this district?", he would not dream of directing you to his own Church, or to any Protestant Church. It is owing to this theoretical ambiguity that it is better to describe ourselves simply as Catholics, and avoid the expression "Roman Catholics."

Surely you can see that the Catholic Faith cannot be any or all faiths! Will you include Shintoism, Buddhism, or Mahometanism? Or, if you want to restrict it to professing Christians, can you say that one and the same Catholic Faith denies the necessity of bishops with Congregationalists, and affirms it with Anglicans? Or that it is equally of Catholic Faith that Christ is really present in the Eucharist, and yet really absent? The Catholic Faith must be one and the same Faith universally diffused-as it is in that Catholic Church which alone has a genuine claim to the title.

You do not say what type of Protestantism you profess. But no single type of Protestantism can possibly be Catholic. The Catholic Faith is one Faith believed universally. The Catholic Church means one world-wide united body. Protestantism as a whole is a conglomerate of conflicting bodies. And no single form of Protestantism is world-wide in any sense of the word. You must face the difficulties of your position. Let us suppose that you are an Anglican. What are you going to do with the Greek Orthodox, Wesleyans, Presbyterians, Congregationalists and others? Are they "Catholics"? Or will you call them Greek Catholics, Wesleyan Catholics, Presbyterian Catholics, etc? Are Anglicans alone to be straight-out Catholics? Or are each and all of these conflicting religions Catholic-Roman Catholics alone not being Catholics? Also, turn to history. It is said by Anglicans that the Pope had falsely usurped jurisdiction over the whole Church. England had to leave the Pope, but intended to remain Catholic. But if that were so, on its own principles it should have joined the Greek Church which had already renounced the Pope. Yet it did not. England separated from any kind of union with all other bishops in the world! Again, no Anglican will deny that the Church in England prior to the Reformation was the Catholic Church. If the present Church of England is the same why was the Mass abolished, and a new Prayer Book and Communion Service unheard of till then in Christendom introduced? Edward VI. abolished the Mass; Mary the Catholic restored the Mass; Elizabeth the Protestant abolished the Mass. The Church of England adopted the word Protestant; and the king has to swear that he is a faithful Protestant as opposed to the Catholic religion. James II. could have remained king had he ceased to be a Catholic. He was deposed and William of Orange was brought in to secure the Protestant succession. How can Anglicans turn round now and say that they are Catholics? You yourself now wish to remain a Protestant, yet be a Catholic. We are Roman Catholics. No one in Spain is a Catholic-all there are Spanish Roman Catholics. No one in France is a Catholic. They are French Roman Catholics. The "Catholics" in the United States are not Catholics. They are American Roman Catholics. Pure and undefiled Catholics are to be found only in Anglicanism. If you want to find a genuine Catholic, you must look for him in an English Protestant! No sane man in the world would admit this. But I have said enough. Those only are Catholics who belong to that Catholic Church which is discerned from the fact of its union with the Bishop of Rome.

He is our Pope as much as he is theirs. Nor do the Italians regard the Pope as an Italian. On the occasion of the election of Pope Pius XII. Signor Farinacci wrote an article in his paper, the "Regime Fascista." Farinacci was a violent Fascist, who wrote strongly against Pope Pius XI's condemnation of the Fascist attitude to the Jews and to Catholic Action. Yet he wrote as follows: "We have no candidate to the Papacy, because we are quite sure that if some are found amongst the Cardinals whose opinions are too favorable to democratic ideas, there are others, the great majority, who give their thoughts to nothing but the religious problem, and whose lives are made of Christian charity, without other care or preoccupation. God will not fail to give His faithful, the real Catholics, their Pastor, a real Pope. Will he be Italian? Portuguese? Swiss? It matters nothing to us. To our way of thinking, religion has no frontiers; and 'politics' are our exclusive business. We are making them our exclusive business."

They appreciate all converts who come with sincere conviction, and who are determined to live up to their Catholic obligations. No one expects all converts to be saints, of course. They will have their human faults. But the Church will help them to overcome their faults; and with good will on their part, converts will gradually grow out of those faults. All Catholics, however, who retain a trace of their own faith, will be genuinely happy in the thought that some convert has received the same great gift of the Catholic Faith. People who think of becoming Catholics from any motive other than sincere conviction, and who will not attempt to live up to the requirements of the Catholic religion, are definitely not welcome. They will only give disedification to others, and bring contempt on the Faith which is dearer to all sincere Catholics than anything else in this world.

Good Catholics do. Even some careless Catholics, who believe in their religion but do not practice it often show converts in a most remarkable- way genuine joy and happiness in the great grace the new comers have received. Some bad Catholics do not manifest any appreciation. A few bad Catholics even go so far as to manifest displeasure, and speak only with discouragement and contempt.

Not in any extraordinary and demonstrative way; nor by conducting an intensive search for converts in order to fling their arms round their necks and embrace them. Should a Catholic happen to discover that another is a convert, he should treat him exactly as he would treat any other Catholic, making him feel that he is accepted as just as much a Catholic as others who have never been anything else. If the circumstances warrant it, a few words of appreciation and congratulation may be expressed, and some additional signs of kindness and friendship exhibited, in order to make the convert feel quite at home with fellow Catholics.

A conversion to the Catholic Church merely for the sake of marriage is of very little value, and can even be sinful. If a person were still convinced that the Catholic Church is wrong, yet became a Catholic and embraced what he believed to be a wrong religion, that person would be guilty of a grave violation of conscience before God. Religion is between a man's soul and his God. And no one is justified in embracing this or that religion for any merely human considerations. Yet if a Protestant cannot become a Catholic for the sake of the one he wants to marry, he can at least study the Catholic religion, and receive instructions in that religion for the sake of the one he loves. At the end of his instructions he can become a Catholic if he believes in the Catholic Church; he cannot, if he does not. Sincere conversions to the Catholic Church after instructions undertaken in the first place for the sake of marrying a Catholic are as valuable as any others. God has various ways of bringing souls into contact with the Catholic Church, and many a non-Catholic has blessed God that he ever met his future partner, and far more for the gift of the Faith than for the gift of the partner. Needless to say, I advise very thorough instruction, and a sincere testing of motives. Often when, at the end of their instructions, prospective converts have told me that they are willing to become Catholics, I have swung round on them and said, "That is not enough. You must want to become a Catholic. If the girl broke off the engagement tomorrow, would you still be determined to become a Catholic?" Such questions steady them into a realization of the step they are taking. The Catholic Church is not out to lassoo people and rake them in against their will. People have to beg of her the privilege of becoming members of her fold. And those to whom God's grace has given the sincere and earnest desire to be Catholics make good converts, whatever the occasion which, in His providence, first started them on their way towards the Faith.

It is not so strange for one who perceives all the facts. What would be strange would be the failure of a universal Church in which millions drawn from all nations are united in a doctrine, worship, and discipline of two thousand years' standing- in a Church ever accompanied by a most remarkable spiritual power and fruitfulness in works of charity. Writing in the 12th century, Richard of St. Victor rightly said that a Catholic could say to God at his judgment, "If I was wrong, thenO my God You Yourself are responsible. For my religion was accompanied by signs and characteristics which could only come from You." That judgment, written nearly 800 years ago, is valid today.

The Jewish religion as a religion was quite all right, and so too is the Catholic Church as the Church of Christ. Not all the Jews rejected Christ, even though the majority did. But keep in mind that the Jewish religion as a religion did not fail. It was essentially a preparatory religion, meant of its very nature to merge into its perfect fulfilment when the Messiah should come. Christ was that Messiah, and He rightly said, "I have come, not to destroy the Law, but to fulfill it." He gave us the perfect religion which the Jewish religion foreshadowed, and declared that His religion was not a preparation for a further and more perfect revelation, but that it would last, just as He had given it, till the end of the world. It has lasted in the Catholic Church which alone has existed all days since His time and which alone gives signs of perpetuity.

It is true that perverse individuals have forsaken the ways of God. But if God wants to keep His religion in this world, it is absurd to say that He cannot manage to do so. Even if a man be evil, God can see to it that at least he teaches others the truth. False prophets wishing to curse have been constrained by Him to bless. And in the New Testament we find Christ defending the orthodoxy of the teaching of the Scribes and Pharisees even whilst He condemned their personal conduct. In St. Matthew, XXIII., 2-3, Christ says, "The Scribes and Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses. All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do; but according to their works, do ye not; for they say and do not."

To say that is but to repeat the remnant of a Protestant tradition which was dying in mid-Victorian days, and is dead today amongst all thinking men. I will quote here only the "Cambridge Bible," with introduction and notes by the Rev. W. H. Simcox, M.A., an Anglican scholar. In the Introduction, p. 41, he says that the presumptuous confidence with which controversialists interpreted the Book of Revelations has now produced a reaction. On p. 57 he says, "It is most unjust and unreasonable, in fact hardly less than blasphemy, to treat the Papacy as the champion and representative of Antichrist. In fact the identification of the Papacy with Antichrist admits of direct refutation. 'He is Antichrist,' says St. John, 'who denieth the Father and the Son.' He defines the spirit of Antichrist as the 'spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh.' Now, whatever the errors of the Papacy and of the Roman Church, it is certain that no Pope has ever denied the truth of the doctrines of the Trinity and of the Incarnation." That quotation from a Cambridge scholar who obviously has no leanings towards Rome, yet who rejects absolutely charges prompted by ignorance and prejudice should suffice for any thinking man.

Protestants are rapidly forsaking that conviction. The attack on the Catholic Church is not now that she is false, but that she is not the "only" true Church. As an offset to the Eucharistic Congress in Sydney in 1928 the Rev. Dr. Burgess, a Presbyterian, published a book entitled "The Protestant Faith." In it he disputed the exclusive claims of the Catholic Church. On p. 149 he wrote, "The Church of Rome is not 'the' Catholic Church; it is only a branch of the Catholic Church. In the Creed the expression 'the Holy Catholic Church' is explained by the phrase 'the communion of saints.' " So, for him, the Roman Church is a branch of the communion of saints. He could scarcely admit her to be Antichrist after that! If the Roman branch of the Church be the "Beast," a Protestant saying "I believe in the Holy Catholic Church" would include in his profession of faith, "I believe in the Beast." And that would not do.

No man who believes that Christ founded the Catholic Church, and that Christ is God, could grant what you suggest. Christ promised that the gates of hell would never prevail against His Church. If the Church He founded ever did become the organization of Satan, the forces of evil would have prevailed against her. In that case we would have to say that Christ could neither preserve His Church intact, nor could keep His promise to be with her all days till the end of the world. And that implies a complete denial of His divinity. If Christ could not do what He said He would do, He was not God at all. And if not God, then He was either an imposter or mad. We are forced either to be Catholics or else to give up professing to be Christians altogether. That is, if we are going to be logical. However, Christ did prove His claims to divinity; and the only conclusion that fits in with the facts is the admission that the Catholic Church is the one true Church, possessing the right to teach all nations, and the power to last till the end of time.

One has to be blind not to see that it is a miracle. When we think of the frailty of human nature, the striking establishment of the Catholic Church, her expansion and preservation by such apparently useless means and despite such obstacles, her succession through the ages with such unity and fruitfulness, we see an incomparable argument in favor of her divine mission. No merely human society, under the same conditions, would last for 2000 years, and spread throughout the world with the same results.

Natural causes have certainly contributed towards the welfare of the Catholic Church. But they do not account for the facts we perceive. History notes certain causes, but it cannot explain how the causes are ready to hand at the opportune moment-and always at hand when wanted, always successful in keeping the Church going where other institutions fail, always surviving the work of other causes which would tend to destroy the Church. You must not lose sight of the adverse causes-long and terrible persecutions, heresies, schisms, political opposition, the frailties and crimes of Catholics themselves, even of bishops and priests, barbarian invasions of Christendom, the Protestant Reformation, various revolutions and wars, suppression of Catholic countries, scientific and philosophical propaganda against her. These are only the principal headings. Yet the Catholic Church survives with extraordinary vitality, and the world cannot ignore her. How is it to be explained? You attempt a solution by saying that natural genius and power have been at her disposal. But natural genius and power have been available to other organizations. Why do they die whilst the Catholic Church still lives?

You have to account for the very rigidity and fidelity. But also note this. If the civil state wants to perish, it has only to decide to be rigid and immutable. If it wants to live, it has to be perpetually adjusting itself to changing conditions. Civil society preserves itself by constant yielding to necessity. But the Catholic Church lives inflexibly. She is certainly more than merely natural and human. She is a divine society.

Good non-Catholics who, through no fault of their own, have never known the Catholic Church to be the true Church, and who die sincerely repentant of such sins as they have committed will save their souls. But once they leave this life they will see the truth and gladly admit their mistake. They will then realize that the Catholic Church is indeed the true Church. In that sense all in heaven will profess the truth of the Catholic religion, whatever form of religion they mistakenly professed in this life. They will also, as is clear, admit that it would have been far better for them to have known the full truth whilst on earth, and to have had the use of so many more means of grace than they knew. Anyone who does realize the truth of the Catholic Church whilst he is in this life is obliged of course to become a Catholic even now.

It means that non-Catholics who attain heaven will cease to be non-Catholics once they are there. The Catholic Church teaches that non-Catholics in this world are mistaken in their religious views in so far as they diverge from Catholic teaching. She could not believe herself right without believing other and opposed Churches wrong. But though Protestants are mistaken, it does not follow that they realize this. If their lack of full knowledge be no fault of their own, their sincerity may save them. And in heaven they will see the full truth as they did not see it on earth. But it is surely better to be saved by doing the right thing, than to have to be excused from it on the plea of ignorance.

I mean that a man forfeits his right to salvation if his ignorance of his obligations be really through guilty neglect on his part. For example, a man might suspect that the Catholic Church is the true Church, yet deliberately put the thought aside and refuse to inquire further into the matter for fear lest he should become convinced of its truth. That man would, to say the least, be running a great risk, for he has not the will to find out God's will, let alone do it, in a serious matter.

Speaking in the name of the Pope as supreme head of the Church and the instrument of Christ's authority over men in spiritual things, Cardinal Manning said, "I acknowledge no civil power. I am the subject of no prince. And I claim more than this. I claim to be supreme judge and director of the consciences of men; of the peasants that till the fields, and the prince that sits upon the throne; of the household that lives in the shade of privacy, and the legislator that makes laws for kingdoms. I am the sole, last, and supreme judge of what is right and wrong. Moreover, we declare, affirm, define, and pronounce it to be necessary to salvation to every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff." Such are the words you send, and I subscribe to every one of them. They are but the logical application of Christ's decree, "If a man will not hear the Church, let him be as the heathen." Once one grants that the Catholic Church is the true Church, and that the Pope is the supreme court of appeal in that Church, the conviction embodied in the words you quote at once follows.

No. Cardinal Manning fully agreed that, if non-Catholics did not perceive an obligation to become Catholics, they would not be condemned for that for which they were not responsible; and that if they die repenting of such sins as they did consciously commit, they would save their souls.

In Proposition 17, Pope Pius IX. condemned this doctrine: "At least there is a well-founded hope for the salvation of all those who have never belonged to the true Church." By condemning that proposition the Pope says that there is not a well-founded hope for the salvation of all those who have never been Catholics. But that does not mean that all non-Catholics are necessarily lost, and that none can be saved. The statement condemned' by the Pope practically said, "Anyway, there is no real obligation to join the Catholic Church. One can be saved without that." The Pope replies, "That won't do. We cannot hold out hope of salvation to all who have refused to join the Catholic Church. If a man has never realized the obligation; God may overlook his mistake, and grant him salvation. But if a man has realized the obligation, and willfully refuses to join the Catholic Church, there is certainly no well-founded hope for the salvation of that man."

Let me quote his own words from his Encyclical Letter on Indifferentism, Aug. 10th, 1863. "The Catholic dogma that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church is well known. Those who obstinately and knowingly reject the authority and definitions of the Church, and persist willfully in remaining separated from the unity of the Church and from the Bishop of Rome, successor of St. Peter to whom the charge of the vineyard was committed by Christ, those cannot be saved." Yet in the same letter he says, "We know that those who are invincibly ignorant of our holy religion, and who are prepared to obey God, earnestly observing the natural moral law engraven in the hearts of all men by God, can be saved by living an honest and just life with the help of divine light and grace. For God, who clearly discerns the minds and souls, thoughts and habits of all men, will not, in His goodness and mercy, permit anyone to be punished eternally who is not guilty of voluntary sin." The Pope himself, therefore, clearly distinguishes between those who knowingly and willfully refuse to join the Catholic Church, and those who do not do so merely because they are not aware of the obligation to do so. And he admits that these latter can be saved.

Only for the Catholic Church you would not have the Gospels; and without the Catholic Church you cannot prove that they ought to be accepted as divinely inspired. The Gospels were written after the Church had commenced preaching the truth; and before they were written, Christians got along well enough without them. Jesus Himself commanded no Gospels to be written. He established the Catholic Church and sent that Church to teach all nations. Later on, the Church had the Gospels written, to preserve a record of our Lord's life and teachings. And they belong to her. Those who left the Catholic Church took the Gospels with them, and claimed the "family documents" as their own. And they have made those Gospels mean just what they have wanted them to mean, opposing them to the very Church from which they took them!

"So many gods; so many creeds;So many paths that wind and wind. Whilst just the art of being kind Is all the sad world needs." That is certainly not Christianity. If just the art of being kind is all the sad world needs, there is no need of Christ at all. Men would be their own saviors. The world would, of course, be happier if people were kinder to one another. But human kindness is not the be-all and end-all of Christianity. The Christian religion cannot be defined as a mere relationship between man and man. First and foremost, it is a relationship between man and God, implying faith in the complete teaching given by God, and obedience to the Church established by God. One effect of the Christian religion is that, for the love of God, we shall be kind to our fellow men. But to mistake the effect for the Christian religion itself is inexcusable in one who professes to know what Christianity is.

That the Catholic Church saves her members does not mean that they are saved from without. Society is never outside its members. They are the constituent elements of the society they form. Then, too, the Holy Spirit who works in the Church is the same Author of the work in individual souls. What the Catholic Church says to our ears, God says to our hearts by the Spirit of Truth and of Love. It is the same wind which fills the sails of the great ship, the Bark of Peter, and provides for the breathing of the passengers.

Religion is not an individual matter. Man is a social being, and in religion more than in anything else. If, humanly, we need completing by others, much more so do we need it in divine things. The most fundamental thing of all is that which unites us most, and best prevents our division from one another. And Christ employed this greatest social force by establishing a Church which He commanded to remain undivided forever, and to gather all men to itself. Religion should not be an individual drop of water to be evaporated. It must express itself in a Church as a vast ocean which resists opposing forces by its very mass. Socially we live in groups, finding both utility and safety in numbers. Spiritually also we Catholics form a group in unbreakable unity. Our religion is not a mere theory or vague sentiment. It is a life - a family life - with Jesus at the head. And as the one true family, so it forms the one true Church or assembly of the faithful. In fact, the Church is but the association of souls united to God. It is impossible for the organization to come between the soul and God. For the very social grace brings the soul to God. The Church is commissioned to communicate the divine life to men. That is her ministry in the name of Christ. She is but the luminous atmosphere bringing us the light and warmth from the Sun of Truth, Jesus Christ Himself.

It is. For she gives every sign of divine authority and protection. Christianity is a divine religion, and Christ put the whole of Christianity into the Catholic Church. She is divine in her proofs, supreme by her authority, infallible in her religious teaching, venerable in her centuried history, one in her universality. The Pope has no legions at his disposal to make men obey the sound of his voice. A sheet of parchment with the seal of the fisherman is enough to make the whole Church obey. Such is the power of divine faith. If you can believe yourself and make others believe you can sway millions. The Pope believes, and commands belief in others; and he rules millions. He would be entirely unable to do so were the Church not divine. The Catholic Church teaches and rules in the name of God; and in believing and obeying the Catholic Church, we believe and obey God, whose mouthpiece she is.

Yes. It is in vain to talk of obeying Christ but not the Church. The Catholic Church has an absolute authority without appeal. She declares her own authority under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and Jesus supports it. "Tell the Church," He says, "and if a man will not hear the Church, let him be as the heathen." He shows that the last appeal is to the Church. If she condemns, there is no appeal to God. Jesus does not say, "If a man offends me, treat him as a pagan-as none of mine." Such a person is simply a sinner, to be forgiven on repentance. So long as he does not rebel openly against the Church there is hope. But if he rebels against the Church all is broken, and Christ tells us to treat him as a stranger to Christianity. It is not that rebellion against the Church is worse than revolt against God. It is disobedience to God in a supreme degree. Christ entrusted His Church to the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and to ignore or despise the Church is to sin against the Holy Spirit.

One with Protestant ideas necessarily finds it difficult to understand the Catholic outlook. There are many differences between Protestantism and Catholicism. But the most fundamental of all is precisely the one we are dealing with when treating of the nature of the Church. Protestantism is really religious individualism. It gives to each the right of private judgment and self-management. Its groupings or Churches, therefore, are only of secondary importance; and they are limited by national considerations. Catholicism regards the religious society or assembly as basic; a society which, through Christ and under His protection, gives and regulates divine gifts. Again, by its very principles, Protestantism ends in diversity, and an infinite number of varying doctrines according to the individual outlook. But Catholicism is an agent of unity, rigid as life in its eternal laws, yet as adjustable as life to growth and development within the bounds of one and the same type.

God

Man

Religion

The Religion of the Bible

The Christian Religion

A Definite Christian Faith

The Problem of Reunion

The Truth of Catholicism

The Church and the Bible

The Dogmas of the Catholic Church

Moral Teachings of the Catholic Church

The Church in Her Worship

The Church and Social Welfare

Catholic Apologetics in Question & Answer Form

God

Man

Religion

The Religion of the Bible

The Christian Religion

A Definite Christian Faith

The Problem of Reunion

The Truth of Catholicism

The Church and the Bible

The Dogmas of the Catholic Church

Moral Teachings of the Catholic Church

The Church in Her Worship

The Church and Social Welfare

QUESTIONS IN VOLUME 3

401. For this he was excommunicated.

402. In September, 1871, Dr. Dollinger's followers held a Congress, and formed the "Old Catholic" Church for those who could not conscientiously accept the definition of papal infallibility.

403. If the Popes were always infallible, how does Pope Liberius measure up to the doctrine?

404. How does Pope Honorius measure up to infallibility?

405. Honorius was condemned as a heretic by subsequent Councils, a condemnation ratified by Pope Leo II.

406. Why was the anathema repeated till 1590, and then dropped?

407. Is papal infallibility still possible?

408. Pope John XXII. declared that the doctrine of the poverty of Christ was heretical. But his predecessor, Nicholas III had declared that the doctrine of the poverty of Christ was the true doctrine, and that to deny it was heresy. Therefore, if one Pope was infallible, the other was not.

409. In speaking of infallibility, you said that it was necessary to the unity of the Church. But is unity necessary to the Church?

410. In the very first century there were two factions known as the Peterites and the Paulites.

411. Scholars admit that in early Rome there were two sections amongst the Christians, a Jewish section adhering to Peter, and a Gentile section adhering to Paul.

412. History says that the two factions were united under the gentle and orthodox Clement.

413. For a confused term, much longer than the then expectancy of human life, the Church, however much it did owe, certainly did not owe allegiance to a single Pope. How, then, can any subsequent endorsement of a particular line prove an unbroken descent?

414. The Catholic religion may be all right in itself; but I could not join it, because it is not carried out as Christ intended.

415. Most believing Catholics seem to me as worldly as anyone else.

416. We have the right to demand fruits. "By their fruits ye shall know them."

417. There was only one Christian, and He was crucified.

418. Why do you pretend that everything is well with the Catholic Church?

419. You talk about an ideal spiritual Church as it should be. But I face the actual Church as she really is.

420. It is a pity that the Catholic Church does not retain only those possessing quality, and not concentrate on quantity as at present.

421. I always judge an organization, religious or otherwise, by the people who belong to it.

422. I see nothing in Roman Catholics that I would care to emulate.

423. History cannot lie. And history tells us that certain Popes were immoral, had illegitimate children, and honored them with titles and property as bribes for silence.

424. I am surprised that you did not deny the charge, and try to convince me that I was wrong.

425. You still insist that bad Popes are no argument against the truth of the Catholic Church?

426. They could not but do harm to the Church.

427. It is incredible that you should know the facts, as you seem to do, yet that you do not see their significance!

428. I have no desire to defend Martin Luther, but why should his evil character be an argument against the Protestant Church, yet bad Popes be no argument against the Catholic Church?

429. Leaving the question of the Popes, do you believe that the clergy of today are as good as the clergy in the early Christian Church?

430. Will you agree that there has been a steady downgrade through the centuries?

431. Do you agree that "as you live, so you shall die"?

432. Then would it not be fair to assume that hell is filled with priests as trophies of Satan's collection?

433. Considering all the charges against priests, you cannot pretend that there is nothing in them.

434. Is not the Vatican stored with riches which could be sold and given to the poor?

435. Meantime the poor in every country cry out for enough to eat!

436. Christ chose poverty.

437. Christ was humble, whilst the Pope sits in majesty and comfort expecting everyone to reverence him.

438. I was shocked when I recently read in a book a lady traveler's account of her visit to the Vatican and the Pope.

439. Even the dress she had to wear was prescribed. Why should the Pope mind how one is dressed, so long as it is simple and refined?

440. Also, as I read on, I thought the Pope would not be bothered with so much pomp and ceremony.

441. Our Lord was so poor and simple.

442. The bishops at least seem to have a luxurious time whilst their fellow creatures starve.

443. Every priest has his own personal revenue.

444. Why should they amass thousands of dollars, as one often notices when their wills appear in the press?

445. What is your opinion of avarice?

446. Why should priests have big rectories?

447. It is the poor working man who has to pay for these huge rectories.

448. Priests have no care for any save the rich, however evil they may be.

449. Why do priests take so little interest in the common people?

450. I am a Wesleyan, but I realize the hollowness of preachings which are not practiced by the teachers thereof.

451. You insist, on that principle, that the Catholic Church should not bear the odium connected with individuals who err.

452. I cannot accept the analogy of Judas. He did not continue preaching, and his fellow Apostles did not condone his act.