True
Church Quizzes
A Catholic Response to Protestant Objections concerning The
One True Church
By Fathers Leslie Rumble and Charles Mortimer Carty
Radio Replies Press, St. Paul, MN, 1943
IMPRIMATUR
Joannes Gregorius Murray
Archiepiscopus Sancti Pauli
1. What Is the Catholic idea of the Church of Christ?
The Church is that visible society of men upon earth which was founded by
Jesus Christ, guaranteed by Him to exist all days until the end of the world,
and sent by Him to teach all nations with His own authority. It is one
definite society for man’s spiritual good, and its members are bound together
by the profession of the same and complete Christian faith, by the same
Sacraments and worship, and by submission to the same spiritual authority
vested in the successors of St. Peter- the present successor being the Bishop
of Rome.
2. When did the Church established by Christ get the name Catholic?
Christ left the adoption of a name for His Church to those whom He
commissioned to teach all nations. Christ called the spiritual society He
established, "My Church" (Mt. xvi, 18), "the Church" (Mt. xviii, 17). In order
to make a distinction between the Church and the Synagogue and to have a
distinguishing name from those embracing Judaic and Gnostic errors we find St.
Ignatius (50-107 A.D.) using the Greek word "Katholicos" (universal) to
describe the universality of the Church established by Christ. St. Ignatius
was appointed Bishop of Antioch by St. Peter, the Bishop of Rome. It is in his
writings that we find the word Catholic used for the first time. St.
Augustine, when speaking about the Church of Christ, calls it the Catholic
Church 240 times in his writings.
3. What positive proof have you that the Catholic Church is the only true
Church ?
The proof, lies in the fact that the Catholic Church alone corresponds exactly
to the exact religion established by Christ. Now the Christian religion is
that religion which—
(a) Was founded by Christ personally;
(b) Has existed continuously since the time of Christ;
(c) Is Catholic or universal, in accordance with Christ's command to go to all
the world and teach all nations;
(d) Demands that all her members admit the same doctrine;
(e) Exercises divine authority over her subjects,
since Christ said that if a man would not hear the
Church he would be as the heathen.
Now the Catholic Church alone can claim—
(a) To have been founded by Christ personally. All other Churches disappear as
you go back through history. Christ said, "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock
I will build My Church" (Matt. XVI, 18). There are many claimants to the honor
of being Christ's Church. But among all non-Catholic Churches, we find one
built on a John Wesley; another on a Martin Luther; another on a Mrs. Eddy,
etc. But the Catholic Church alone can possibly claim to have been built on
Peter, the chief of the Apostles, and one-time Bishop of Rome.
(b) To have existed in all the centuries since Christ.
(c) That every one of her members admits exactly the same essential doctrines.
(d) To be Catholic or universal.
(e) To speak with a voice of true authority in the name of God.
4. Where in Scripture does it mention that Christ founded any such system ?
In general, Christ terms His Church a kingdom which supposes some organized
authority. However, the explicit steps in the establishing of an
authoritative hierarchy are clear. Christ chose certain special men. "You
have not chosen Me: but I have chosen you” ( Jn. XV., 16). He gave them His
own mission. "As the Father hath sent Me, I also send you" (Jn. XX., 21). This
commission included His teaching authority: "Teach all nations . . .
whatsoever I have commanded you," (Matt. XXVIII, 19-20); His power to
sanctify—"Baptizing them," (Matt. XXVIII., 19-) forgiving sin, "Whose sins you
shall forgive, they are forgiven," (Jn. XX., 23)—offering sacrifice, "Do this
for a commemoration of Me" (1 Cor, XI., 24); His legislative or disciplinary
power—"He who hears you, hears Me, and he who despises you despises Me," (Lk.
X., 16); "Whatsoever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound also in Heaven,"
(Matt. XVIII.,18). "If a man will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as
the heathen," (Matt. XVIII, 17). The Apostles certainly exercised these powers
from the beginning. Thus we read in the Acts of the Apostles, "They were all
persevering in the doctrine of the Apostles," ( II., 42). St. Paul himself did
not hesitate to excommunicate the incestuous Corinthian (1 ,Cor. V, 3-5). And
he wrote to the Hebrews, "Obey your prelates, and be subject to them"(Heb.
XIIII, 17.)
5. Cannot the Congregationalist make out an equally strong case for a
universal Spiritual Brotherhood, but with local independence of churches ?
There is no evidence of independent local churches in Scripture, nor in
primitive documents. There is evidence that there were distinct groups of
Christians in various places, just as there are Catholics in New York under
one Bishop, and Catholics in London under another. All true Christians
certainly formed a universal spiritual brotherhood, as Catholics do today; but
local autonomy existed only in the sense that there were Bishops in charge of
various localities, the Bishops themselves being subject to St. Peter, and
after his death, to the successor of St. Peter.
6. Whilst I walk In the Spirit, I do not think it necessary to be subject
to any visible organization.
You may say that you believe it unnecessary. But pay attention to the words of
Christ I have just quoted. He thought it necessary, and He has the right to
map out the kind of religion we accept. If Christians had to accept such
disciplinary authority in the time of the Apostles, they must accept it now.
Christianity is Christianity. It does not change with the ages. If it did, it
would lose its character, and not remain the religion of Christ, to which
religion alone He attached His promises. And remember His prediction that His
flock would be one fold with one shepherd (Jn. X, 14 -16). You would have
sheep, not gathered into one fold, but straying anywhere and everywhere,
having no shepherd with any real authority over them.
7. Why do you reserve the Hierarchical authority to men? Why not give women
a chance?
Nowhere did Christ ever commission women to teach in His name and with His
authority. St. Paul explicitly forbids women to attempt to exercise such
functions. People who would ordain women in the Church seem to believe that
they know more about Christianity than St. Paul. 1 Cor. XIV,34 -35, says: "Let
women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted them to speak, but
to be subject, as also the law saith. But if they would learn anything, let
them ask their husbands at home. For it is a shame for a woman to speak in the
Church." America is today a marvelous example of how people obey the Bible. 1
Tim. II, 11-12 says, "Let the woman learn in silence, with all subjection. But
I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to use authority over the man; but to be in
silence."
8. Protestant principles demand that the Catholic Church is wrong.
They must say that the Catholic Church is wrong or else why are they
Protestants? Yet they must also admit that not one of their denominations has
any right to declare itself to be the one True Church. And that, for the
simple reason that Christ did not establish any institution which could be
known by men to be His Church.
9. You Catholics claim to see what cannot be seen.
We Catholics claim that Christ did establish a visible and discoverable
Church. You Protestants do not deny that Christ established a church of some
kind. But you must deny that the Catholic Church is the True Church prior to
the Reformation, or there could be no excuse for setting up the Protestant
Churches. Yet since these Protestant Churches did not exist priori to the
Reformation, where was the True Church then? There is but one way out. It was
there invisible! And it is here today—invisible.
10. Luther said that the True Church consisted of the Saints, the Saints
being true believers whose sins are not imputed to them, but who have the
merits of Christ imputed to them instead. People belong to the True Church by
the invisible bond of grace. And as no man can judge who are in God's grace
and who are not, no man can definitely locate the True Church in this world.
From this we can say that the Catholic Church must be wrong in her claim to be
the True Church precisely because she can be identified and located in this
world. The Protestant Churches must at least be more right because they don't
claim to be right. For although the Church is for men, it is undiscoverable by
men. The only right answer to the question, "Where is the True Church?" is
that nobody can say. Luther's idea is not antiquated by any means. Recently I
read a Protestant clergyman's article in a Sunday newspaper, maintaining that
"the Church does not make saints; saints make the Church." But alas for the
theory! Those alone would then be members of the Church who are in a state of
grace. "Fall into sin and you fall out of the Church" would then be the rule!
Yet Christ says clearly that many not in the grace and friendship of God will
belong to His Church. He likened that Church to a net holding good and bad
fish (Matt. XIII, 47-48). The net was to be quite good, but there would be bad
fish within it. It was to be as field with cockle and wheat growing side by
side (XIII, 24-30). Or again, the members of the Church would be like the ten
virgins, five with oil in their lamps, and five, without (Matt. XXV, 1-12). It
is certain then, that the Church is not composed only of those with God's
grace within their souls. Some other bond must be found which unites men
within the fold of the Church of Christ.
11. How about the invisible theory?
The invisible theory is useless, unreasonable, and against the teachings of
Christ. That any Protestant Church is the visible Church of Christ, the
authorized guide of all nations, directly established, commissioned, and
guaranteed by Him, will not bear examination. The Catholic Church alone
fulfills the requirements. Christ certainly intended that men of good will
should be able to find and become members of the True Church of this world.
His Church was to be a visible organization.
12. What do you mean by a visible organization?
When I say that the True Church must be a visible Church I intend the word in
a very special sense. As I can find the visible brick building representing a
Presbyterian, Episcopalian or Lutheran Church in the same sense I can
certainly discover the visible building used by the community. But that is
not the sense I intend when speaking of the visibility of the True Church. I
mean that the True Church must be obviously existent in this world, and that
it must always have obvious signs distinguishing it as the True Church from
all other claimants.
13. Did Christ establish any Church?
Christ certainly intended His Church to be visible and discoverable, not only
as an existent fact in this world but as being His. Talk of a purely invisible
bond of grace fails utterly in the presence of Christ's words likening His
Church to a city which, set upon a hill, "cannot be hidden" (Matt. V, 14.). If
He establishes a Church to which He invites all men to come, it must be a
Church discernible as His. The Apostles and the early Fathers condemn schism,
which can only mean separation from a visible, historical, and organized
Church. Were the Church not a discernible Church, the forbidding of schism
would be absurd. No man would know whether he had left the True Church or not.
St. Cyprian who died as early as 258 A. D. had no misgivings on the subject.
"Whoever is separated from the Church," he wrote, "is separated from the
promises of Christ; nor will he who leaves the Church of Christ obtain the
salvation of Christ. He becomes a foreigner and an enemy. One cannot have God
as a Father who has not the Church as his mother." If a man who is separated
from the Church is separated from the promises of Christ, it is of the utmost
importance that he should be able to know which is the True Church to which
he must cling.
14. You Catholics seem to be dead sure that the Catholic Church is the one
Church of Christ and that all others are mistaken.
I can reply that they do not only seem to be so, but that they actually are
dead sure. What would be the use of any bureau for the dispensing of authentic
information, if the officials had to warn inquirers that there was not even
certainty as to whether they had gone to the right inquiry office! No. The
True Church, which is really Christ's own bureau for the dispensing of
authentic information to mankind in His name, must be visibly discernible as
His. The invisible and indiscernible Church theory is impossible, and, as I
have said, opposed to the will of Christ.
15. Are not Protestants brought up with the Idea that it is not possible
for any human being to locate the True Church?
Yes, they are all brought up with that impression and so they continue in
religious matters to wander where they will, like people in a forest, who
follow any line of tracks without bothering to ask where it leads. And they so
love the risky adventure of experimenting for themselves that they search
Scripture for every possible text which they think will support them.
16. Give us a sample of their Scriptural texts.
They will say that the Church is to be like, "a treasure hidden in the field"
(Matt.XIII, 44), quite overlooking the fact that Christ was not then speaking
of the nature of the Church, but of the zeal one should have in searching for
it. And the treasure was certainly visibly discernible when the digger came
across it, or he would dig forever in vain. Again, they will cry in triumph,
"Christ said that His kingdom is not of this world," as though that denies its
existence in this world. They have urged too, that the Church must be
essentially a spiritual society, and that a spiritual society is not visible.
But they speak as if the Church were a society of purely spiritual beings such
as angels. The Church is spiritual in its origin, means, and purpose, to a
great extent. But it is composed of visible, human beings, united by external
profession of the same worship and submission to the same discipline. Those
who are united with these things within the Catholic Church are alone members
of the visible Church established by Christ. Those who are not, are outside
the True Church. Infidels and pagans who have never been baptized are outside
the True Church. So also are heretics who do not profess externally the same
faith with the Catholics. Schismatics, too, who reject the discipline of the
Catholic Church, are outside of the True Fold. The True Church can be
discovered and there are external tests by which we can discover who do and
who do not belong to it.
17. Is not one religion as good as another?
That seems like a nice broad-minded principle. Common logic tells us that it
is unsound. I could better understand the ignorance of all religion. I know,
too, that very few of those who use the explanation really believe that one
religion is as good as another. Non-believers usually meant that one religion
is as bad as another, generally intending that Catholicism was the worst of
the lot. But Christ in His wisdom foresaw the rise of false Christs and
substituted forms of professing Christianity. He must have endowed His Church
with certain notable characteristics.
18. Then what are the certain distinguishing signs and characteristics of a
True Church?
Unity, Holiness. Catholicity, and Apostolicity are the signs of a True Church.
There can be no doubt that Christ at least intended Unity to be one of the
outstanding signs of His True Church. Even Protestants admit that. Yet, since
they want to be regarded as members of Christ's Church, even while they are
divided externally from each other, and above all from the Catholic Church,
they have to think out a special scheme of Unity adjusted to their
circumstances. If only we can believe that all Christ's references to Unity
are concerned with invisible bonds of grace, and love, and good intentions all
will be well. So they kept repeating such expressions as, "We all intended to
serve Christ," or, "We are all going the one road," as though the one Christ
or the one road idea perfectly safeguarded the unity intended by the Founder
of Christianity. Let us be one in the desire to serve Christ, and we need not
bother about the way in which we do so. Unity in belief does not matter. The
Episcopalian who believes in Episcopacy and the Presbyterian who emphatically
does not believe in Episcopacy rejoices in all the unity that is required.
The Seventh Day Adventist who believes that the Pope is the 666 of Revelation,
and the Catholic who believes that he is the very Vicar of Christ— but no,
that won't do. It is hardly fair to bring the Catholic Church into it. Our
Protestant forefathers had to leave Roman Catholicism, and any talk of unity
with Catholicism is, of course, absurd. We Protestants mean unity amongst
ourselves only,—and in that unity, unity of belief does not matter.
19. Does unity in faith imply unity in worship?
If we turn from unity in faith to unity in worship, we find the same loose
principles. Catholics may believe that the essential form of Christian
worship consists in the offering of the sacrifice of the Mass; Protestants
may believe that that is essentially wrong, and that the preaching of the Word
of God is the essential thing. Yet, despite this, the acceptance of neither
the one nor of the other is important to unity. Let us be kind to each other,
united with good intentions, and it matters not whether we go north, south,
east, or west in the matters of worship.
20. How about discipline?
The same idea holds good where discipline is concerned. Unity does not
require subjection to the same religious authority. Rome insists upon telling
her subjects what they are to do. It is fatal to freedom when all Catholics
are held down in intellectual slavery with a Pope doing all the thinking for
the entire Catholic world. How can a man wander where he pleases if tied by
obedience to a guide? Catholics seem to think that unity means negation in a
desire to get to Heaven, without our having to walk along any particular road
to get there! Let each man be a law to himself. If a man wishes to lose his
way, he must be free to lose his way. Where is the element of "glorious
adventure" in submitting to the cut and dried discipline of the Catholic
Church?
21. Did Christ intend a unity?
All Christians admit that Christ intended a unity of some kind to prevail
amongst His followers. But we cannot deny for ourselves what type of unity
must prevail. The "all going the one way" type of unity, whilst each goes his
own way, is useless if it be quite foreign to the mind of Christ. Who can
accept the invention of Protestants who, noting the numberless ways in which
they are divided, define the unity required to suit themselves in their
present circumstances and in such a way that they may remain where they are.
22. What then is the unity insisted upon by Christ?
Christ commissioned His Church to teach all things whatsoever He commanded,
(Matt. XXVIII, 20), and He taught a definite something, not a bundle of
contradictions. Those who believed all that He had taught would at least be
one in faith. Again, He demanded unity in worship. "One Lord, one faith, one
baptism," (Eph. IV, 4-6), was to be the rule and baptism belongs to worship.
The early Christians were told distinctly by St. Paul that participation in
the same Eucharistic worship probably was essential to the unity. "We, being
many, are one bread, one body; all that partake of one bread" (1 Cor. X, 17).
In other words, "The one Christ is to be found in Holy Communion, and we,
however numerous we may be, are one in Him if we partake of the same Holy
Communion."
23. Has discipline in government anything to do with unity?
Unity in discipline in government stands out above all. Our Lord has said, "I
will build My Church" (Matt. XVI, 18), not "My Churches." He had expressed His
view of divisions when He said. "Every kingdom divided against itself shall be
made desolate," (Matt. XII, 25), and in establishing His own Kingdom, the
Church, He took good care to insist upon the authority necessary for the
continued existence of any society. His prayer "that they may be one as Thou,
Father, in Me, and I in Thee," (Jn. XVII, 21), and His prediction, "There
shall be one fold and one shepherd," (John X, 16), leave no room for doubt as
to His mind.
24. You believe therefore in unity of faith, worship, and discipline?
Yes, we do, and Protestants proclaim their divergence from the Catholic Church
in all three points and even among themselves. Yet no one can deny the
existence, of this unity within the Catholic fold. Catholics of all
nationalities receive exactly the same teachings; their worship is essentially
the same in all countries; they obey the same authority. I have heard men
condemning this rigid unity of the Catholic Church, and I have heard others
admire it. "Poor Catholics," people will say, "they have to follow
instructions." Or again, men have said to me, "Your Church is a marvelous
piece of organization."
25. How do you preserve your unity of faith, worship and discipline?
That question awakens the obvious reply that it is just too marvelous to have
done it at all. The formation of the unity of intelligences and wills among
men of various nationalities, perpetually antagonistic and contending about
everything but the faith, worship, and discipline demanded by the Catholic
Church is a work self-evidently divine. Robert Hugh Benson wisely remarked,
"It is impossible to make men of one nation agree, even on political matters;
yet the Catholic Church makes men of all nations agree on religious
doctrines. As a student at Cambridge University I found in one lecture hall
men of one nation and ten religions. As a student at the University in Rome I
found men of ten nations and one religion. Is it conceivable that merely
human power makes such a thing possible?"
26. Has the Catholic Church alone this remarkable unity?
I have studied Protestantism through and through. It has no efficacious
principle of unity. In falling back on the Bible as each may interpret it for
himself, it is falling back, not upon a cause of unity but upon the very cause
of divisions. Thus we find a different Protestantism in countries, and even in
the same countries. And within the same individual Protestant denominations we
find diversity amongst members as regards doctrine, worship, and discipline.
The only unity which one can concede to Protestantism is a negative unity, in
so far as its supporters unite in rejecting the Catholic Church. The
difference is in the unity Christ promises, and it could not possibly identify
Protestantism as the true form of Christianity since it is common to
Protestants, Jews, Schismatics, Atheists, and Pagans the world over. It is
only by positive unity in faith and discipline that we have one of the signs
by which Christ's True Church can be located in this world.
27. Would you say that Catholicism is all holy and Protestantism is unholy?
I cannot but maintain that Protestantism is devoid of that holiness which
Christ appointed as one of the signs of the True Church. Christ certainly
intended a quite evident holiness to be a sign whereby men might surely locate
the genuine institution He established. "I sanctify Myself," He said, "that
they may be sanctified in truth," (Jn. XVII, 19.) "I have appointed you, that
you should bring forth fruit" (Jn, XV, 16.). St. Paul' tells us very clearly
of our Lord's intention. "Christ loved the Church and delivered Himself up for
it, that He might sanctify it, cleansing it by the laver of water in the word
of life; that He might present it to Himself a glorious Church not having spot
or wrinkle or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish"
(Eph. V, 25-27.). Holiness, therefore, is to be a sign of the True Church.
28. And so the Catholic Church is the only holy church?
Yes, I am not saying this because I feel that I have to justify the Catholic
Church by hook or by crook. Truth for its own sake compels me to say so. But
today I see the Catholic Church as the one great guardian of morality and
virtue. There is not a single dogma in her teaching which does not tend to
confirm in us the will to serve God, whether It be the dogma of our creation
by God, or of our redemption by His Son, or of our going back
to God and to our
judgment. The dogma of hell certainly has never yet been an inducement to sin;
nor has the desire to serve God ever prompted its denial. The dogma of
Purgatory is a constant reminder of the necessity of purifying ourselves from
all traces of sin by Christian mortification and self-denial. If we turn from
dogmatic teachings to moral laws, I challenge any man to keep the laws of the
Catholic Church, and not be the better man for it; or to violate them without
degenerating. No one sincerely joins the Catholic Church without desiring a
loftier standard of living; no one leaves save for a lower standard. People
point to ex-Priests and to lapsed Catholics. But why have they gone? It is not
that they have found the Church untrue, but because they were untrue to their
own obligations. They do not leave because they understand her, for the Church
today is suffering most from intellectual opposition. The Catholic Church has
labored as no other to lift men above the natural and the sensual, fighting
for purity of morals, the holiness of marriage, and the rights of God and
conscience in every department of life. Outward respectability and mere
humanitarianism can never, in her eyes, replace that true supernatural virtue
and charity which demand that the daily life of a Christian, personal,
domestic, and social, must be inspired by love of God.
29. Do you claim that all Catholics are saints?
It would be a lie to say that every Catholic individual is necessarily better
than every individual Protestant. But the Catholic Church is holy in her
teachings and principles, and in a remarkable way in her members in general.
At least ordinary holiness is evident from the fact that Catholics do try to
keep God's laws conscientiously, often making great sacrifices to do so. They
are often ridiculed as fools for their efforts to do so, by those who regard
themselves as advocates of liberty. If, through frailty, they sin, they are
aware of their sin, and are uneasy until they recover God's grace and
friendship. They can never accept the idea of being in sin with equanimity.
30. If Catholicism is so good, what of bad Catholics?
And if Protestantism is evil, what of good Protestants? Yet the solution of
this problem is not so very difficult. As regards bad Catholics, it is not
necessary to the holiness of the Catholic Church that every single member must
be holy. Christ predicted that sinners would be found in the True Church.
There will be bad fish in the good net. Worthless cockle will be found growing
side by side with the good wheat. But bad Catholics are those who are not
living tip to the teachings of their Church. I can account for the bad
Catholics without injury to the holiness of the Church. I cannot account for
the canonized Saints without admitting that holiness. The Saints themselves
will attribute their goodness to the influence of the Church. Not a Saint has
ever wished to leave the Church. No Catholic ever leaves the Catholic Church
to join another Church that will make him more holy. That would have been the
very last thought which could have entered his head. If Catholics are evil,
then, it is in spite of their Church, not because of it. On the other hand, if
Protestants are good, as so many undoubtedly are, it is in spite of their
Protestantism, not because of it.
31. Why do you say Protestantism is devoid of the holiness indicated by
Christ for His Church?
I am setting down the simple truth. Even today, Protestantism cannot preserve
Christian standards intact. Articles of faith have gone overboard.
Mortification and fasting are not required. The evangelical counsels of
poverty, chastity, and obedience, with their consequent inspiration of
monastic life are ignored. Protestant writings excuse, and even approve,
laxity in moral practice. Protestantism has not produced anything equivalent
to the canonized Catholic Saint. Many of the Sacraments of Christ are not even
acknowledged by Protestantism, whilst the heart has been torn out of its
worship by the loss of Christ's presence in the Blessed Eucharist. Of
spiritual authority there is scarcely a trace. The very clergy are not trained
in moral law, and cannot advise the laity as they should, even were the laity
willing to accept advice. The prevalent notion, "Believe on Christ and be
saved," tends of its very nature to lessen the sense of necessity of personal
virtue.
32. What about good holy Protestants?
I say that their goodness was not due to their
Protestantism, but was due precisely to their refusal to follow Protestant
principles. They were illogically good.
33. Was Catholicism flourishing as a Holy Church when Protestantism began?
Protestantism was a movement of heated dissent. Error and rebellion took the
first Protestants from the Catholic Church, the various forms of error, or the
various countries in which the rebellion occurred, giving rise to the various
sects. But any goodness which the first Protestants took as doctrinal baggage
with them was derived from the Church they left. And any apparent goodness in
the teachings of Protestantism is still to be found in the Catholic Church.
Where, in the Catholic Church, cockle sown by the enemy is found here and
there amidst the wheat, Satan was wise enough to allow some wheat here and
there to remain amidst the cockle of Protestantism. And it is the presence of
this wheat which accounts for the continued existence of Protestantism. But
the wheat does not really belong to Protestantism. It is a relic of
Catholicism growing in alien soil. A Catholic is good when he lives up to
Catholic principles, refusing to depart from them. A Protestant is good when
he unconsciously acts on Catholic principles, departing from those which are
purely Protestant.
34. Do you deny any kind of movement for holiness in Protestantism?
If any Protestant Church makes any move toward the higher and more heroic life
by establishing, for instance. Religious Orders and Sisterhoods, it is due to
the reluctant admission into Protestantism of Catholic doctrines and
practices. It is due to an infiltration of Catholic ideals. Catholicism, and
not Protestantism, is responsible for such aspirations. In fact, the loftier
their aspirations, the less Protestant becomes the outlook of these people
upon Christianity; so much so, that the real Protestant protests that such
ideas are out of harmony with Protestantism altogether.
35. You trace the goodness of Protestants, then, to things not essentially
Protestant.
Fidelity to the promptings of natural conscience partly accounts for it, but
that is not essentially Protestant. It is common to all good men. The study
of the Gospels, leading to a love of Christ and a desire of virtue contributes
its share also. But the Gospel is not proper to Protestantism. It was not
written by Protestants nor committed to their keeping. But for the Catholic
Church they would never have had the Gospels. The goodness of Protestants,
too, is partly due to God's grace, given to them not because they are
Protestants, but because they know no better, and are of goodwill. God's mercy
will not deprive them of the necessary means of salvation when the fault is
not their own.
36. You admit then that the really Protestant thing in Protestantism is its
spirit of independence of, and rebellion against, the authority of Christ
vested by Him In the Catholic Church.
Protestants who by God's grace, become Catholics, have not to renounce a
single good principle. They renounce only what is evil, the principles proper
to Protestantism as such. They renounce its basic element of protest, and
submit to the directions of the Catholic Church. They enter that one fold
under one shepherd, which has inspired the lives of the Saints, and which is
ever urging all her members to bring forth that fruit of holiness which she
herself possesses. As the mother of spirituality, and the agent of
supernatural holiness in this world, the Catholic Church stands out as the one
accredited ambassador of Christ.
37. What do you mean by Apostolicity of the True Church?
We feel instinctively that the True Church ought, to be Apostolic in origin.
Unfortunately, however, most non-Catholics just take their religion for
granted, and do not see the difficulties of their own position until they are
pointed out to them. Above all is this the case with Apostolicity. Yet there
are few of them who do not see the difficulty when it is pointed out. The
thought that Protestantism did not begin until the year 1517, which is just
1517 years too late for the man looking for the religion founded by Christ
Himself, can never lose its weight. But that simple statement of the problem
does not do full justice to the idea of Apostolicity, and we must go more
deeply into it.
38. Then how would you define the sign of Apostolicity?
Apostolicity is "That special characteristic by which the lawful, public, and
uninterrupted succession of Bishops from the Apostles is continued in the
Church; faith, worship, and discipline remaining ever the same in all
essential matters." Without this it is impossible to maintain the identity of
any given Church today with that of the Apostles. Episcopal succession must be
legitimate as opposed to unlawful usurpation. It must be public, because we
are dealing with a public and visible society. It must be uninterrupted,
because any gaps would destroy all hopes of validly transmitted supernatural
power. How futile would be the attempts of a man to transmit a power confided
to the Apostles, if he himself had never received it!
39. What is the opinion of the early Fathers on Apostolicity?
St. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, who died in the year 202 A. D., had no doubts
on this subject. "We must obey those in the Church," he wrote, "who have true
succession from the Apostles; for with their Episcopal succession they have
received the gift of certainty in the truth according to God's holy will. We
must suspect all those who are cut off from this original succession, whoever
they may be." The mere fact that history speaks of such things as schisms is a
constant testimony to the necessity of submission to Apostolic authority in
the Church established by Christ. Schism or division, is absolutely
unintelligible without the admission of a lawful authority from which it
implies separation.
40. Does the Greek Church and the Anglican Church admit the necessity of
Apostolicity?
Yes, but they ignore the conditions of true succession in order to maintain
their possession of it. But neither the Greeks nor Anglicans deny the
Apostolic succession of the Catholic Church. That Church rejoices in a public,
historically evident, and lawful continuation of power and authority derived
from the Apostles. A regressive study of history shows that she can trace
herself back through all the ages to the Apostles. Every single name of the
Bishops of Rome, from the present reigning Pontiff, Pius XI, to St. Peter
stands out in clear relief. Since the Pope is the head of the Church, and
those Bishops alone are lawful successors of the Apostles who are in communion
with him, the documentary history of Papal succession is, sufficient of itself
to prove the Catholic position.
41. But those who wish above all to be free from the "irksome restraint" of
Papal jurisdiction will not so easily accept it.
I have read with deep curiosity and interest the efforts of Protestant writers
to escape the logical conclusion. They have employed all their power and
research in their attempts to account for the origin of the Catholic Church in
times subsequent to the Apostles. Some were wont to say that the present
Catholic Church is but a corruption of the original Apostolic Church, a
corruption which occurred in the middle ages, and which led to the
Reformation. This is the prevalent view amongst the uncritical but it is quite
untenable theologically and historically. Theologically the plain blunt
Catholic wharf laborer was right when he said, "What's the good of telling me
that the Catholic Church ever went bung when Christ said that it wouldn't go
bung? He said He would be with His Church all days till the end of the world,
and being God, He could do what He said He would do. And in any case your
Protestantism hasn't been all days in the world." If the Church were guilty of
teaching error for hundreds of years before the Reformation reformed the
Church then we must admit the world was 1,500 years without a True Church and
Christ failed to live up to his promise of not allowing the gates of hell (the
gates of error) to prevail against His Church (Matt. XVI, 18).
42. Has history forced Protestant scholars to change opinions?
Historically, critical scholars of
Protestantism have been compelled to "shift camp." History scouts the idea
that the Catholic Church at the time of the Reformation was but a corruption
brought about in the middle ages. Age after age prior to that time reveals an
identical Church. Harnack, the German critic, was forced back to the second
century, and said that the Catholic Church acquired its present form then.
Seeberg, another of the German critics, said that the idea of the Catholic
Church as we know it now arose with the Apostles themselves, but quite
independently of the will of Christ. They without warrant, imposed their
Jewish notions of authority upon the Christian Church. These theories are
denials of documentary evidence, or are supported by distortions of the sense
of the evidence. The one motive is ever present. Somehow or other, submission
to the Apostolic authority of the Catholic Church must be avoided! Few
non-Catholics, however, go so deeply into history as these more learned men.
They are content with more shallow objections, and cling to the idea of
corruption in the middle ages despite the abandoning of that position by their
own Protestant scholars as historically unsound. The average Protestant will
accuse the Catholic Church of the crime of change, of having added dogmas, and
of having built up a complex and superstitious worship. He does not understand
that a dogma is not a new doctrine, but simply a new and definite statement of
the original Apostolic doctrine. He does not see that worship need not be
absolutely immutable in every least secondary detail. And he quite misses the
question of lawful, public, and uninterrupted transmission of Apostolic
jurisdiction and authority.
43. Has the Church changed in her essential principles of faith, worship,
and discipline?
In her essential principles of faith, worship, and discipline, of course, the
Church is unchangeable. But she is a vital and organic society. She must grow
and develop even as a tree from a mustard seed. And the foliage and blossoms
of the tree do not interfere with its continuity from, and identity with, the
original seed. Such objections merely prove that the Catholic Church is not
dead and stagnant. But I have always found such objections, very strange in
these days, from people who are always insisting upon progress. Of course, I
know where the trouble lies. They really do want progress without the
retention of identity, and that is where they part company with the Catholic
position. The Catholic Church insists upon identity with the Apostolic Church,
steadily keeping her vital evolution within the limits of principles laid down
by Christ and the Apostles.
44. Has Protestantism reformed Catholicism?
Protestantism involved an essential constitutional change. At best it claims
to have resuscitated an Apostolic Church which had perished—an idea quite
foreign to the notion of Apostolicity. Apostolic doctrine has suffered sadly,
also, at its hands. Protestants deny today what they taught yesterday.
Episcopalians may have retained Hierarchical form, but Episcopalian Bishops
are not in the least conscious of Apostolic authority, nor can they claim
uninterrupted legitimate succession. To rebel against the lawful authority of
the Church, abandon it, and set up for oneself, is no way to succeed by
legitimate title to transmitted jurisdiction.
45. What do you mean by the schism of the Greek Church?
The very schism of the Greek Church means secession from the Universal Church
in direct violation of the constitution of that Church. Prior to then-
secession, the Greeks admitted the absolute necessity of union in the bond of
Apostolic authority with Rome. They admitted it at the Council of Lyons in
1274. and again at the Council of Florence in 1439. But national pride and
political reasons accounted both for the original schism and the refusal to
heal it.
46. What does the term "Road to Rome" mean?
"The Road to Rome" means the "Apostolic Road" which leads only to the Catholic
Church, and one who desires to find the True Church rapidly should take that
road. For the True Church is Apostolic in origin and continuity, and must
remain so till the end of time. Protestants broke with the Apostolic authority
of the Catholic Church on the score of corruptions in teachings and practices.
Yet more and more we notice Protestants borrowing Catholic teachings and
practices, urging that it was a great mistake to abandon them at the
Reformation! What they fail to see is this—the more they prove that the
Reformation was not justified, the more they increase the guilt of their
separation from the Apostolic Jurisdiction legitimately transmitted in the
Catholic Church. Nor will the borrowing of Catholic externals ever succeed in
making them Catholics. There is no Catholicity without genuine Apostolicity.
There is but one way to be Catholic, and that is to submit to the Apostolic
authority of the Catholic Church. To be a Catholic, a man must become one; and
no attempts which wander from the "Apostolic Road" will ever succeed in
leading anyone to the True Church of Jesus Christ.
47. The fourth sign of the True Church is universality. Do you mean by that
"Catholicity"?
Minds are becoming less clouded. The old anti-Catholic bitterness is dying.
The word "Catholic" in the Creed is awakening a vague idea that somehow or
other we ought to be Catholics. Protestants, therefore, are beginning to take
their profession of belief in the Holy Catholic Church seriously. And great is
the confusion. Imagine the confusion if men came in the night and planted at
some crossroads a dozen sign posts with the same inscription, but pointing in
as many different directions, where hitherto there had been but one! The
wayfarer could not but be bewildered, unless he managed to detect the more
recently planted posts, and was thus able to discover the direction indicated
by the original sign post.
48. Has Catholicity lost its value as a sign of the True Church?
It cannot do so. And non-Catholic Churches which fondly believe that they can
share the privilege of inclusion in the Catholic Church can base their claim
only upon a misinterpretation of all that the word means. In its right
meaning, it can apply only to the Church of which I am a priest at the present
moment, and as I shall be for the rest of my life, of course. Protestants have
protested against our restricting the word to the "Roman Catholic Church," and
they ask indignantly, "Where do we come in?" to which we can make but one
sincere reply, "You don't come in. You went out, and one doesn't come in by
going out!" The sign still exists, and but one Church can rightly lay claim to
It.
49. Did our Lord intend His Church to be Catholic?
By "Catholicity" I mean that characteristic of the True Church by which,
whilst remaining ever one and the same, it is adapted to the needs of all
nations, and has become conspicuously numerous and universal in this world.
That our Lord intended His Church to be Catholic in this sense is most evident
in Scripture. He died for all men, and His Church must be for all men. His
Commission to the Apostles was that they should teach all nations, being
witnesses to Him to the uttermost parts of the earth (Acts I, 8). "This
Gospel," He said, "will be preached in the whole world for a testimony to all
nations" (Matt. 24:14). St. Paul expressly declares the intention of the
Church to obey Christ by preaching to all nationalities, and no longer in a
restricted way to the Jews alone. But always he insisted upon the retention of
strict unity, forbidding heresy and schism. "Let. there be no schisms among
you," (I Cor. 1: 10), and, "a man that is a heretic avoid," (Titus III, 10),
leave no doubts as to his mind.
50. Is universal diffusion necessary as a sign of the True Church?
A universal diffusion of a united Church will be a distinctive sign of the
True Church. The actual diffusion, of course, had to be gradual. Christ
Himself indicated this by His parables of the mustard seed, and of the leaven
in the bread. But always the Church had the right and the power of universal
expansion as surely within herself as the acorn contains all the principles
necessary for its evolution into an oak tree. Actual expansion commenced on
the very day of Pentecost, and has been going on ever since. Indeed the
promises of Christ imply that His Church will be conspicuously numerous—more
numerous, and more widespread than any rival institution set up by the false
Christ's of the ages.
51. How many belong to your Church?
Our Church has practically 431 million subjects, a number not attained by all
the Greek and Protestant Churches taken together. And today we are confronted
by the spectacle of the Catholic Church still expanding, whilst even in
Protestant countries. Protestantism is losing its power over the souls of men.
In the Catholic Church God has inspired an ever-burning interest in the
foreign missions, and the Pope is insisting upon the training and
consolidating of a native clergy as soon as possible, that missionaries may be
free to move on to yet other regions. And always identity of faith and worship
is preserved. Such a unified dispersion Is of its very nature a miracle, for
the greater the diffusion, the more humanly impossible becomes the task of
preservation from corruptions of doctrine.
52. Do not
Protestants resent the reservation of the word "Catholic" to the Church of
Rome?
I know that this reservation of the word "Catholic" to the Church of Rome is
resented by many Protestants. They insist that ours is the "Roman Catholic
Church." And they read into this expression a meaning of their own, as if
there were other kinds of Catholic Churches. But "Rome" does not mean any
sense of limitation. It is rather a mark of identification. The genuine
Catholic Church is that which has its administrative center at Rome. And,
after all, that center has to be somewhere! However, they are driven to regard
our allegiance to the Bishop of Rome as a restriction, because if it be not so
they are excluded from the one True Church of Jesus Christ. "To be Catholic,"
they say to us. "you should not exclude Christians who merely interpret
Christian doctrine in a different way!" Forgetting their one-time desire to be
entirely separated from the Roman Church, they wish now to be one with her.
But they have to water down the sense of the word Catholic, forgetting that
it is an attribute of a Church which must be one and the same everywhere. It
is necessarily linked with unity. Christ never intended His Church to be the
mother of error. He intended it to be the teacher and preserver of truth.
Heretical movements may carry off multitudes, but they cannot reject the
Catholic Church and still belong to it. And it is absurd to say that the True
Church must still include those who left it.
53. Did the early Christians make any distinction between the words
"Christian" and "Catholic"?
The term, "The Catholic Church," appears in extant Christian literature for
the first time in the letter of St. Ignatius of Antioch who succeeded St.
Polycarp who in turn was the immediate successor of St. John the Apostle. In a
letter written to the people of Smyrna in the year 110 he says, "Wheresoever
the bishop is found there likewise let the people be found, even as where
Jesus may be, there is the Catholic Church.” In the fourth century Pacian had
declared that he possessed two names, “Christian” and “Catholic.” He did not
wish to be mistaken for one of those who protested against the True Church,
yet who still called themselves Christians. “if you want to know what I am,”
he said, “Christian is may name, Catholic is my surname.” Yet would heretics
leave him in possession of this distinction? In the 4th century we find St.
Augustine writing, “All heretics want to call themselves Catholics, but ask
any one of them to direct you to the Catholic Church, and he will not direct
you to his own Church.” How history is repeating itself! Those early heretical
sects went through the same phases as the modern sects are experiencing. And
the modern sects will die even as the ancient heresies have disappeared,
leaving the Catholic church still in this world, even though she will have to
deal with yet new forms of error to come.
54. Is there any similarity between the modern sect and ancient heresies?
Those very modern sects reflect all the characteristics of the ancient
heresies. They vary with national tendencies, and nationality in religion is
opposed to Catholicity. St. Augustine said, “There are heretics everywhere,
but the heretics of one region have nothing to do with the heretics of another
region. There are some heretics in Africa; quite others in Palestine, or in
Egypt, etc.” So also we can say today, “There are some heretics in America,
quite others in Germany and England, etc.”
55. Cannot great numbers signify Catholicity?
Let us take all the protestant sects together. Even though they embrace 285
millions collectively, such numbers cannot indicate Cathlolicity. Apart from
the multitude of those who are merely nominal members of their Churches, it is
not possible to see anything supernatural, or any need of divine power, in a
multitude of men disagreeing with the Catholic Church and amongst themselves.
Nor can confusion and diversity be attributed to the prayer of Christ for the
unity of His Church.
56. It was the Catholic Church which early departed from the doctrines of
Christ, and thus forfeited the claim to be the true Church.
If you think that, by departing form the truth, the Catholic Church forfeited
the claim to be the True Church, then you believe that the infallible
retention of the teachings of Christ must be a mark of the True Church. Is
your own Church, therefore, infallible? Does It even claim to be so? I admit
that if the Catholic Church has failed in witnessing to the truth she is not
true, and I would at once leave her. But as this would mean that Christ was
unable to keep His promise, I would also abandon belief hi Christ. Certainly,
wherever else I might go, I would not return to a Protestant Church based upon
the doctrine that Christ has failed to keep His promise.
57. We Protestants believe that Christian doctrine has kept pure as long as
the Apostles lived, but after their deaths, errors crept in.
You err both in fact and in doctrine. In fact, for the Apostles complained of
errors, not of the Church, but of individual professing Christians even in
their own days. In doctrine, because you practically assert that Christ failed
to preserve His Church, Matt. 28: 20; that the Holy Spirit did not remain with
her, John 14:16-17; and that the gates of hell did prevail against her, Matt.
16:18. In other words, your doctrine Is that Christ could not do what He said
He would do. No. 'Individuals in all ages have befallen into error insofar as
they departed from the teachings of the Church, even as the Protestant
Reformers themselves.
58. But you cannot tell me that the Catholic religion is carried out today
in accordance, with the quite simple teachings of Jesus.
Catholicity does not differ from what you call
the simple teachings of Jesus, although they were not so simple as you
suppose. However, the Catholic Church teaches all that Christ taught, whether
His teaching was explicit or implicit. Essentially she exists just as He would
have her exist. There may have been many secondary developments during the
ages, but they were all foreseen and approved by Christ. After all, Christ
established a living Church, and a living -Church grows. He likened it to a
seed. Even as a boy grows into a man with exactly the same personality, yet
with many secondary changes in size, knowledge, and manners, so, too, has the
Church rightly developed.
59. The constantly changing laws of the Catholic Church show that her
principles are man-made.
The principles of the Catholic Church are not
man-made, nor can her constitution, given her by Christ, ever be changed. But
just as many small by-laws can be made and repealed in a country without any
essential constitutional change, so in the Catholic Church special
disciplinary laws can be enacted at special times to meet special needs
without any constitutional change of the religion. At the Reformation,
however, men left the Catholic Church and set up new constitutions for
themselves, and their sects can be called indeed man-made religions.
60. I don't see how the fact that your Church has stood for so long proves
its truth. Other religions have stood longer, and have perished.
The mere fact that the Catholic Church has
stood for so long does not prove its truth. The fact considered in the light
of her teachings, moral obligations, and obstacles does. Indefectibility can
be claimed as a proof for the Catholic Church alone. She demands humility,
mortification, rigid duty, and subjection to God—things human nature dislikes.
Protestantism abolished most of the things difficult for human nature, and is
content with a more or less sentimental religion. Nor has any pagan religion
demanded the consistent virtue demanded by the Catholic Church. Finally,
reasons can be found for the life of non-Catholic religions, and for their
death. But no natural reasons can be found for the continued vitality of the
Catholic Church despite her difficult doctrines, and her enemies within and
without. The protection of God alone accounts for her persistence.
61. The Catholic Church Is Satan's organization.
Then she is a very poor agent indeed. She
would be far more efficient If she cried out, "Sin does not matter —go ahead.
Confession is nonsense. Eat anything you like on Fridays, the day on which
Christ died. Marriage does not bind, divorce yourselves whenever you like.
Continence is absurd. Artificial birth-control is progress. Don't believe in
Christ, or God. or Heaven, or Hell. Away with religion in the schools. The
chief thing is to be comfortable. Eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow you
die. Then get cremated, and that ends everything." Don't you see how
ridiculous your statement is? All these things are the exact opposite of
Catholic teaching.
62. Then where was the protection of Christ if your Church was led by bad
Popes?
With His Church, preserving her as a Church,
in spite of the personal iniquity of these men, I have never claimed that the
Pope can do no wrong. As a man he will have temptations like other men, and he
will be free to resist those temptations, or consent to them. After all, he
must save his soul like anyone else. He is not going to be preserved from sin
in spite of himself. Why should he be compelled to be good? Goodness results
in Heaven, and Heaven must be earned. Every man, infallible or not, must have
his own struggle to be good and to save his soul. The Pope is not, and has
never claimed to be impeccable. But for our sake, not for his own, God endows
him with infallibility that he may tell us with certainty what we must believe
and do in order to save ourselves; whether he lives up to it himself is quite
another matter and his own business. It is quite possible to give splendid
advice and not live up to it oneself.
63. Will not the Catholic Church have to part with many of its doctrines in
deference to modern thought, if it is to last till the end of time?
No. The Catholic Church is living today
precisely because she has never refused to part with her doctrines, which are
the doctrines of Christ. The heresies of the centuries parted with doctrines
of Christian faith in deference to human opinions, and they died in turn
through the ages. Protestantism is dying visibly today. Any attempt to adjust
Christianity to men's fallible speculations is suicidal. The Catholic Church
adjusts men's ideas to Christian doctrine, and she stands, and will stand.
Catholic doctrines are offensive to modern thought only because modern thought
has ceased to be Christian, and the Catholic Church refuses to cease to be
Christian. If men insist upon walking along the wrong track, the only way the
Catholic Church could keep in their right company would be to take the wrong
track with them. But she prefers the right track. If modern thought does not
harmonize with the Catholic Church, so much the worse for modern thought.
However, modern thought, as you call it, is chiefly the result of not
thinking. Its authors are only too prone to ignore evidence and take that to
be true which they would like to be true.
64. Do you maintain that one is obliged to Join your infallible, one, holy,
Catholic, Apostolic, and indefectible Church, if he wished to be saved?
If a man realizes that the Catholic Church is
the True Church, he must join it if he wishes to save his soul. That is the
normal law. But if he does not realize this obligation, is true to his
conscience, even though it be erroneous, and dies repenting of any violations
of his conscience, he will get to Heaven. In such a case, it would not have
been his fault that he was a non-Catholic and God makes every allowance for
good faith.
65. What are the conditions for the salvation of such a good Protestant?
He must have Baptism at least of desire; he
must be ignorant of the fact that the Catholic Church is the only True Church;
he must not be responsible for that ignorance by deliberately neglecting to
inquire when doubts have perhaps come to him about his position; and he must
die with perfect contrition for his sins, and with sincere love of God. But
such good dispositions are an implicit will to be a Catholic. For the will to
do God's will is the will to fulfill all that He commands. Such a man would
join the Catholic Church did he realize that was part of God's will. In this
sense the Catholic Church is the only road to Heaven, all who are saved
belonging to her either actually or implicitly.
66. Since Protestants can be saved, and it is ever so much easier to be a
Protestant, where is the advantage in being Catholic?
Firstly, remember the conditions of salvation
for a Protestant. If he has never suspected his obligation to join the
Catholic Church, it is possible for him to be saved. But it is necessary to
become a Catholic or be lost if one has the claims of the Catholic Church
sufficiently put before him. I myself could not attain salvation did I leave
the Catholic Church, unless, of course, I repented sincerely of so sinful a
step before I died.
Secondly, it is easier to live up to Protestant requirements than to live up
to Catholic requirements. Non-Catholic Churches do not exact so high a
standard of their followers as does the Catholic Church of hers. But that is
not the question. It is much easier to be a really good Christian in the full
sense of the word as a Catholic than as a Protestant, and surely that is what
we wish. What advantages contribute to this? They are really too many to
enumerate in a brief reply. The Catholic is a member of the one True Church
established by Christ. He has the glorious certainty of the true Faith, and
complete knowledge of the whole of Christian truth is much better than partial
information, if not erroneous information. By submission to the authority of
Christ in His Church he has the advantage of doing God's will just as God
desires. If he fails at times by sin, he has the certainty of forgiveness by
sacramental absolution in the Confessional. He has the privilege of attending
Holy Mass Sunday after Sunday, and the Immense help of Holy Communion by which
he may receive our Lord Himself as the food of his soul. He has the privilege
of sharing in the sufferings of Christ, by observing the precepts of fasting
and mortification. He receives innumerable graces from Sacramentals and from
the special blessings of the Church. He may gain very useful indulgences, and
canceling much of the expiation of his sins which would otherwise have to be
endured in Purgatory. And he is more loved by God in virtue of his being a
Christian rather than a pagan, so there is an immense advantage in being a
true Christian and belonging to the one True Church rather than to some false
form of Christianity. Thus a good Catholic has many advantages over and above
those possessed by a good and sincere Protestant. But, as I have remarked, if
a Protestant begins to suspect his own Church to be defective, inquires into
the matter, and becomes convinced that the Catholic Church is the True Church,
he has no option but to join that Church if he desires to avoid the risk of
eternal loss.
67. I cannot believe that the Church was founded upon Peter. It was built
upon Christ, who Is the true foundation stone.
No one claims that St. Peter was the principal
foundation stone. But that Church which is in communion with St. Peter and
his successors is the genuine Church built upon the foundation of Christ.
Christ Himself said to Peter, "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build
My Church," Christ is the solid rock upon which the Church is built. But the
first rock laid upon this foundation is Peter, Christ being the principal
foundation stone, Peter being the secondary foundation chosen by Christ.
68. Christ said, "Upon this rock," meaning Himself, not Peter.
That is erroneous. In Jn, I, 42, we find
Christ saying to Peter, "Thou art Simon . . . thou shalt be called Cephas,
which is interpreted Peter." Christ had a special purpose in thus changing his
name to Cephas or rock, a purpose manifested later on as recorded by Matt.
XVI, 18, "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church." Let us
put it this way. Supposing that your name were Brown, and I said to you,
"They call you Brown, but I am going to call you Stone. And upon this stone I
shall build up a special society I have in mind to establish," would you
believe that I was alluding to you, or to myself? Now Peter's name was Simon,
and Christ changed it to Peter, or in the original Aramaic language, Kepha,
which was the word for rock or stone, and which was never used as a proper
name in that language. Thus He said, 'Thou art Kepha, and upon this Kepha I
will build My Church." In modern English it would sound like this, "Thou art
Mr. Stone, and upon this stone I will build My Church." The word could not
possibly refer to Christ in this text.
69. But in the Greek text the word for Peter is Petros, and for stone,
Petra. They are not the same.
There is no value in pointing out the
differences of form in this word according to the Latin or Greek languages, in
which they are accommodated to the masculine for Peter as a man, and to the
feminine for stone. Our Lord spoke in Aramaic, in which the form is the same
in both cases, simply Kepha.
70. You appeal to the Aramaic. I know nothing of that, nor of the Latin,
nor of the Greek, I accept the Bible in its English form, in which the two
words are Peter and rock, and nothing whatever alike.
How can you appeal to the English form, if the
English translation does not adequately express what Christ meant? Surely you
want the exact teaching of Christ! The English version is not an infallible
rendering, nor does anyone versed in these matters claim that the English
language fully expressed the sense of the originals. But apparently you are
content to be without the truth, if it is not to be discovered superficially
by the reading of your talismanic English version.
71. Have not many authorities held that Christ intended to build His Church
not upon Peter, but Peter's confession of faith in His divinity?
That is an antiquated, interpretation
abandoned by all the best scholars, Protestants included. Christ did demand a
profession of faith from Peter
as
a pre-required condition, after that, conferring the fundamental primacy upon
him personally. But to say that the profession itself was the rock has not a
single valid reason in its favor. Those who adopted such an interpretation
did so from their desire to avoid the Catholic doctrine. Grammatically the
Catholic interpretation is alone possible. Contextually the whole passage
obviously refers to Peter's person. "Blessed art Thou . . . I say to Thee . .
. Thou art Peter ... I will give to thee the keys, etc.," nor could the Church
be built upon one article of faith. All the articles of faith are essential
Christianity. The Protestant Scripture scholar Hastings, says that the
confession theory must undoubtedly be excluded. The German Protestant Kuinoel
writes, "Those who wrongly interpret this passage as referring to the
confession and not to "Peter himself would have never taken refuge in this
distorted interpretation if the Popes had not wrongly tried to claim for
themselves the privilege that was given to Peter," You see, he does not
believe that the Pope inherits Peter's privileges, but he does know that Peter
was personally the foundation stone. Loisy, the French Rationalist, rejected
the historical sense of the Gospels, but he says that it is absurd to accept
that sense as do Protestants and then violate that sense in order to avoid
what they do not wish to admit.
72. Even were the office of head of the Church conferred in Matt. 16:18,
surely it was withdrawn in Matt. 16:23, where Christ said to Peter, "Get thee
behind Me, Satan!"
The fact that the office was not withdrawn is
clear from the later words of Christ to Peter, "And do thou, being converted,
confirm thy brethren” (Lk. 12: 32); and again, from the commission to feed the
whole flock given to Peter after our Lord's resurrection, as recorded in Jn.
21:15-18. Prompted by love and reverence for Christ, Peter had protested that
Christ ought not to suffer. And Christ would have been the first to appreciate
such motives. However harsh the English may seem to be, Christ really replied
gently, as if to say, "Peter, you do not yet understand the plan of God, You
are letting your human affection sway your judgment. But such thoughts are
opposed to My vocation. Get thee behind Me, Satan." The word Satan is not used
personally here, as of the devil, but in the sense of adversary, Christ
intending merely, "I cannot accept the natural promptings of your affection
for me." No withdrawal of office is involved.
73. I have heard it said that St. Peter never was in Rome.
You may have heard that stated, but you have
never heard any proof advanced in its favor. It is simple history that St.
Peter went to Rome about the year 43 A. D., went back to Jerusalem after a few
years for a short time, and then returned to Rome until his death, save for
very short absences. He died about the year 67, during the reign of Nero.
Papias wrote, about 140 A. D., "Peter came and first by his salutary preaching
of the Gospel and by his keys opened in the city of Rome the gates of the
heavenly kingdom." Lanciani, the eminent archaeologist, wrote, "The presence
of St. Peter in Rome is a fact demonstrated beyond a shadow of doubt by purely
monumental evidence."
74. I want proof outside your Catholic tradition. Does Scripture say
that St. Peter was ever in Rome?
Catholic tradition is not a mere matter of rumor and report. It is down in black and white in documents as historical as any other documents, beginning from the year 91 with the declaration of the fact by Clement. It would not matter if Scripture did not give any evidence on this point. However, it does. St. Peter ends his first Epistle with the words, "The Church which is in Babylon salutes you, and so doth my son, Mark." All reputable scholars admit that the first Christians called pagan Rome Babylon on account of its vices. St. Peter, therefore, was writing from Rome. St. Paul wrote to the Colossians from Rome, sending the kind wishes of Mark, thus also indicating Mark’s presence in Rome.
75. Of course, as a Catholic, you have to try to prove it.
The point is, have I succeeded in doing so?
Anyway, not only Catholics admit the fact. No single writer ever denied it
until the 13th century. Then it was denied by the Waldenscs, heretics who had
a purpose in view, yet who could produce no evidence that he died anywhere
else. No other place has ever disputed this honor with Rome. Wyclifie, Luther,
and other Protestants took up the Waldensian assertion, thinking it a good
argument against Rome. But enlightened Protestant scholars today are ashamed
that such an argument, with all the evidence against it, should ever have been
used. Cave, a Protestant writer, says, "That Peter was at Rome we fearlessly
affirm with the whole multitude of the ancients." Dean Milman admits the fact
as incontestable. Dr. Lardner, in his history of the Apostles and Evangelists,
says that, it is the general uncontradicted and disinterested testimony of
ancient writers. The Protestant Whiston, in his memoirs, remarks, "It Is a
shame for any Protestant to have to confess that any Protestant ever denied
it."
76. Does Scripture say that Peter was ever Bishop of Rome?
Scripture tells us that he was head of the Church, which implicitly demands
that he was universal Bishop, and it also tells us, as I have said, that he
was in Rome.
77. How can you prove that he was the first Pope?
The word Pope means Father or Head of the
Church as an ordinary father is head of a family. St. Peter was certainly in
Rome, and died there as Bishop. By legitimate succession the one who succeeded
as Bishop of Rome after Peter's death inherited the office of Head of the
Church, or if you wish, as Father of the whole Christian family he was Pope.
All the Bishops of Rome right through the centuries have belonged to the
Catholic Church. No one disputes that. They are known as the Popes and as St.
Peter was first of that long line, Catholics rightly regard him as the first
Pope.
78. Was Peter told by Christ to establish a Roman Catholic Church?
He was not told to establish the Church.
Christ established the Church, choosing Peter as the foundation stone. The
Apostles were told to propagate the Church Christ had established, and, of
course, according to the constitution given it by Himself. Wherever Peter went
he remained Head of that Church, and as he went to Rome and died there whilst
still exercising his office, that office is necessarily attached, to the See
of Rome. This was not by mere accident. We have to admit the guidance of the
Holy Spirit in the choice made by St. Peter in a matter of such moment to the
Church.
79. We Protestants can equally claim Peter with Catholics.
Protestants cannot make that claim.
Protestantism is essentially a protest against the Catholic Church, and
therefore supposes that Church, as previously existing. If Peter had not
consolidated and built up the Catholic Church there would be no Protestantism
to oppose it. In any case, Protestantism was unheard of until over 1,500 years
after St. Peter's death.
80. Anyway, I want no Pope or priest.
Will you go to Christ on His conditions, or on
your own conditions? Christ decided that priests were necessary to His
religion, gave to His Church the Sacrament of Orders, and authority to His
priests. You profess to believe in Christ, yet regard His appointments as a
nonsensical farce.
81. But you cannot escape the fact that the Catholic Church is a kingdom of
this world, although Christ said that His kingdom was not of this world.
The Catholic Church is not a kingdom of this
world. It is the Kingdom of Christ in this world. And the Pope as Pope is not
monarch of the Church in any national sense. No national considerations sway
his rule over the millions of Catholics of every race and clime. He has
temporal authority today in Vatican City, but that is merely that he may
secure complete immunity from the interference of worldly powers.
82. You say that the Pope is not swayed by national considerations. In a
war between Italy and England, would not his sympathies be with Italy?
The Pope as Pope must forget his nationality.
As a man his sympathies might be with Italy. But he could not favor Italy in
his official capacity. Despite his national sympathies, the Pope has insisted
upon being perfectly independent of Italian authority. If an English Pope had
done this many would have ascribed it to anti-Italian prejudices. But when an
Italian Pope insists upon it, whose national sympathies are all with Italy,
there is no explanation except that in his official capacity the Pope refuses
to be an Italian. If an unjust war broke out between Italy and England, and
Italy was in the wrong, the Pope would condemn the unjust policy of Italy.
83. But the great objection to your Church remains, in that it divides a
man's loyalty from his country.
Loyalty to the Catholic Church does not divide
a man's loyalty from his country. In religious matters a Catholic obeys his
Church; in temporal affairs, the laws of his country. They are services in two
different spheres.
84. Did not Christ say, "No man can serve two masters"?
He did. And we Catholics have but one Master—Christ.
And we are serving Him even by the fulfillment of our lesser civic duties
insofar as we do them for the love of Him. It is the man who gives himself up
to worldly affairs in such a way as to separate them from the service of God
who is attempting to serve two masters.
85. The Church means an assembly of men united in prayer, not a building.
The word Church has a twofold sense. Its
proper meaning is a union or assembly of men united not only in prayer, but
also in a definite creed, worship, and obedience. In that sense I speak of the
Catholic Church. Or again, it can refer to a building erected for purposes of
worship by members of the Catholic Church, and in that sense I speak of a
Catholic Church.
86. I admit your tests of a Church founded by Christ, continuously
existing, united, universal, and authoritative. But I cannot admit the
machine-made organization with its hard and fast rules, which you call the
Catholic Church, to be that Church.
If the Catholic Church is not it, no
other can be it. However, the Catholic Church is not a machine-made
organization. It is just as established by Christ. Were the Catholic Church a
man-made system, it would have gone the way of all man-made kingdoms and
empires which have come and gone, whereas it has serenely kept going with a
humanly inexplicable vitality.
87. I admit that the way Catholics are taught by their Hierarchy is a most
successful policy.
The Catholic method is not a method of human
policy. We accept it because Christ imposed it. Yet the mere fact that Christ
chose such a method is a guarantee of its wisdom. And the skepticism and,
irreligion which are the fruits of non-Catholic systems are but a further
tribute to the wisdom of Christ.
88. You claim, of course, that the Pope is supreme head of this organized
Hierarchy. Yet was it not the Emperor Phocas who first gave the Pope his title
and universal jurisdiction? History records this as having happened in 607 A.
D.
It does not. It records that, at the request
of the Pope, the Emperor made it illegal for any other Bishop to usurp the
title which had always belonged to the Bishop of Rome. To forbid others to
take a title which has ever been the rightful possession of one is not to
confer the title upon that one. And if the Pope did not possess universal
jurisdiction until 607, how could St. Clement, third successor of St. Peter as
Bishop of Rome, write to the Christians at Corinth, "If any disobey the words
spoken by God through- us, let them know that they will entangle themselves in
transgression and no small danger, but we shall be clear of this sin." Thus
the fourth Pope demanded obedience under pain of sin from Christians living
abroad. Again, how could St. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons in Gaul, and who died
in the year 202, say that all churches were subject to, and must agree with
the Church at Rome, because St. Peter had founded the Church there, and the
Bishops of that city were his lawful successors, beginning with Linus?
Irenaeus died over 400 years before the date you give. The Council of Ephesus
in 431, embracing all Bishops and not even held at Rome, decreed, "No one can
doubt, indeed it is known to all ages, that Peter, Prince and Head of the
Apostles and Foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the
kingdom from Christ our Redeemer, and that to this day and always he lives in
his successors exercising judgment." This was 170 years earlier than the date
you give.
89. Was not the title of universal Bishop much sought after, the Bishop of
Rome winning it because he had the largest number of adherents?
No. Whatever abuse arose in later times, the
early saintly Popes, nearly all of them martyrs for Christ, were not the men
to seek after office, and dignities which they knew to be spurious.
90. Who gives the Pope his jurisdiction, if he is elected by men and not by
God?
God ratifies the choice of those who elect him. When Matthias was elected as an Apostle by the other Apostles he was elected by men, and not directly by God, but God ratified their choice and granted to him also Apostolic power.
