|
|
An Open Letter To Non-Catholics
My Dear Friend,
More than likely, if you have
managed to keep your sanity in today's sad and sinful world, you may
have been scandalized even at what has been happening in the
Catholic Church. At the present time, she seems to have fallen prey
to all the snares of Satan set to trap not only the weakest of men
but also the most brilliant of theologians.
How is it,
you may well ask, that as a Catholic I can still profess allegiance
to my Church? With the help of our dear Lord, and that of His most
blessed Mother, I will try to explain. To begin with:
THE
CATHOLIC CHURCH WAS FOUNDED DIRECTLY BY CHRIST
In the Old
Testament the Jewish Tabernacle was the work of God - not man. It
was God who drew up its plan, giving its exact dimensions,
stipulating the materials to be used in its construction, describing
its sacred furnishings and vessels for the service, and the
vestments and ornaments for the priests who would minister therein.
He gave it a suitable constitution, appointed its rulers, and
defined the extent of their power. (See Book of Exodus, chapters 25
through 31, entire Book of Leviticus; Book of Numbers, chapters 1, 3
through 8, and 17 and 18.) 50, since the Tabernacle of the Old
Law (which was but a shadow, a figure, of the
Church to come) was the work of God, surely the Church of the New
Testament (the substance, the reality) must
likewise be the work of God.
It is easily
shown that it was Christ Himself, not His followers, not even His
Apostles, who established the Church: Christ declared His
intention of founding a Church, by the institution of a living
authority, when He said to Simon Peter: "And
so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my
church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against
it." (Matt.
16:18). Now, if Christ intends personally to build His Church,
it is not to be the work of man. Christ Himself will therefore give
it all the necessary elements of a true social body, and,
consequently, a ruling authority. And, that there might be no room
for doubt, He added: "I will give you the keys
to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound
in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in
heaven." (Matt.
16:19). This authority was actually established and the
Church founded, when Our Lord after His resurrection said to Peter:
"When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said
to Simon Peter, 'Simon, son of John, do you love me more than
these?' He said to him, 'Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.' He
said to him, 'Feed my lambs.' He then said to him a second time,
'Simon, son of John, do you love me?' He said to him, 'Yes, Lord,
you know that I love you.' He said to him, 'Tend my sheep.' He said
to him the third time, 'Simon, son of John, do you love me?' Peter
was distressed that he had said to him a third time, 'Do you love
me?' and he said to him, 'Lord, you know everything; you know that I
love you.' (Jesus) said to him, 'Feed my sheep.'" (John
21:15,17). Many also feel this was Christ's way of healing Peter
after Peter had denied him three times. He allowed him to affirm
himself three times. During His mortal life Christ Himself was the
visible head of the infant Church, but after His Resurrection the
office of visibly feeding the flock was to be discharged by another,
to whom Christ gave the necessary authority and office. And as the
followers of the Law of Moses under the Old Testament formed one
compact body, so too were the followers of Christ to be One Body: 'One
Lord, one faith, one baptism" (Ephesians
4:5). From the moment when first the Church, after the descent
of the Holy Ghost, appeared before the world, we find a compact,
fully organized society, with the apostles at its head. "Those
who accepted his (Peter's) message were
baptized, and about three thousand persons were added that day. They
devoted themselves to the teaching of the apostles and to the
communal life, to the breaking of the bread and to the prayers."
(Acts
2:41-42).
It was by
the preaching of the apostles, it is true, that the faithful were
gained for the Church; but it was not the apostles who devised the
plan of this body, made baptism the condition of membership,
appointed the first supreme head, and invested him with authority.
It was Christ Himself who did all this, and by so doing founded the
Church. A "church of the future" is, therefore, no less absurd than
a Christian religion of the future, for the founder of the Christian
religion was at the same time the immediate founder of the Church.
Being outside the Church was considered by the early Church Fathers
as being a non-Christian. 'He is no Christian," says St. Cyprian
(died 258), "who is not within the Church of Christ" (Ep. ad
Antonian, 55, n.24).
CHRIST
ESTABLISHED A VISIBLE CHURCH
In the New
Testament we learn that Christ was visibly on earth but a very short
time; that the term of His public teaching comprised only three
years, which was occupied chiefly with the instruction of twelve
men, who, under a chief, were to constitute His first representative
corporate teaching body; they would be commissioned by the Son of
God: "All power in heaven and on earth has
been given to me. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations,
baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the
holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.
And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age."
(Matt.
28:18-19). And though Jesus would return to Heaven, He would not
be disassociated from His visible teaching body: "And
behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age." (Matt.
28:20). If men employ every means in their power for the
perpetuation of their work, can we imagine that God left His great
work to drift along unguided and unprotected? If the Bible teaches
anything plainly it is the visibility of Christ's Church. It is
composed of rulers and subjects: "Keep watch
over yourselves and over the whole flock of which the holy Spirit
has appointed you overseers, in which you tend the church of God
that he acquired with his own blood." (Acts
20:28). Its members are admitted by a visible, external rite
(Baptism); they must hear, and obey: "Whoever
listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And
whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me." (Luke
10:16). Christ compares His Church only to things visible: a "flock"
(John
21:15-17), "a sheepfold" (John
10:16), a "city seated on a mountain"
(Matt.
5:14), a "kingdom" (Matt.
13). He calls it "My Church" (Matt.
16:18), (not "Churches") "The
Church" (Matt.
18:17). Fittingly, then, does this Kingdom of God upon earth
merit the designation of St. Paul: "The Church
of the living God" (1
Tim 3:15).
Pope Pius XI
in an encyclical of January 6, 1928 on "Fostering True Religious
Unity" states: "The Church thus wonderfully instituted could not
cease to exist with the death of its Founder and of the Apostles,
the pioneers of its propagation, for its mission was to lead all men
to salvation without distinction of time or place. 'Going
therefore, teach ye all nations' (Matt.
28:19). Nor could the Church ever lack the effective strength
necessary for the continued accomplishment of its task, since Christ
Himself is perpetually present with it, according to His promise: 'Behold,
I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world'
(Matt.
28:20). Hence not only must the Church still exist today and
continue always to exist, but it must ever be exactly the same as it
was in the days of the Apostles. Otherwise we must say - which God
forbid - that Christ has failed in His purpose, or that He erred
when He asserted of His Church that "the gates
of hell should never prevail against it" (Matt.
16:18).
Forty-seven
times the word "Church" is found in the Old Testament, and in each
passage it means but one Church, one way of worshiping
the Lord before the coming of Christ. That was the Jewish Church -
the religion and the Law of Moses established by God. From no other
altars did God receive the sacrifice of prayer. They were all
abominations to Him. "He who turneth away his
ears from hearing the law, his prayer shall be an abomination"
(Proverbs
28:9). In the New Testament, twenty-four times "the Church" is
mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles, and you find but one Church
mentioned. Sixty-eight times St. Paul speaks of "the Church" in his
Epistles, everywhere meaning but the one Church of God. St. John
speaks of "the Church at Ephesus," "at Smyrna," "at Philadelphia,"
etc., but these were different dioceses. They all belonged to the
Catholic Church under Peter.
CHRIST
FOUNDED AN APOSTOLIC TEACHING BODY
After Christ
appointed Apostles to carry on the work He had begun, He bade them
go and teach all nations, baptizing those who would believe, and
teaching them to observe whatsoever He had commanded. The Apostles
were sent, not as mere messengers, but as ambassadors bearing
Christ's authority and power, and teaching and ministering in His
name and person, so that in hearing them men were hearing Him, and
in despising them they were despising Him (Matt. 28:1&20; Luke
10:16). In order that they might carry out this commission, Christ
promised them the Spirit of Truth. "I will ask the Father, and he
shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you
forever. The spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because
it seeth him not, nor knoweth him: but you shall know him, because
he shall abide with you, and shall be in you. He will teach you all
things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have
said to you" (John 14:16,17,26). Finally, He promised to be with
them, not for a few years or a generation, but for all days, thereby
indicating that the apostolic order should last beyond the lives of
its present members, even to the end of time. "Behold I am with you
all days, even to the consummation of the world" (Matt. 28:20). In
thus constituting the apostolic body, Christ was in reality
constituting His Church. The Church was no mere collection of
individual believers, but a definite organization, which was to be
the pillar and ground of truth: "I write these things to thee hoping
to come to thee shortly, but in order that thou mayest know, if I am
delayed, how to conduct thyself in the house of God, which is
the Church of the living God, the pillar and mainstay of the
truth" (1 Tim. 3:14,15). It was to be founded on a rock. "Thou
art Peter; and upon this rock I will build My Church" (Matt. 16:18).
The Church taken as a whole comprises teachers and believers, but
its essential constitution lies in the existence of a teaching
authority, guaranteed by Christ to be infallible. "Thou art
Peter; and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates
of hell shall not prevail against it, (Matt. 16:18).
Such was the original
constitution of the Church; and as the Church was to last for
all ages, it is natural to suppose that it should always continue to
exist according to its original constitution - that is to say, as an
apostolic teaching body. There are no signs that this organization
was a temporary expedient, to die out after a few years and leave a
totally different system in its place. He did not say to His
Apostles: "Lo! I am with you even to the end of your lives;"
but "Lo! I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the
world." So that those to whom He addressed Himself were to live
to the end of the world! What does this mean, but that the Apostles
were to have successors, in whom their rights were to be
perpetuated? Successors whom Jesus would ever assist by His presence
and uphold by His power. The work founded by a God,out of His
love for man, and at the price of His own precious Blood, must
surely be imperishable!
PETER IS MADE CHIEF SHEPHERD
OF CHRIST'S CHURCH;
THE POPES SUCCEED PETER
The unique place of primacy
Peter enjoyed among Jesus' apostles is especially evident from three
Bible texts: Matt. 16:1~19; Luke 22:31 sqq, and John 21:15 sqq. The
first passage tells us how our Savior changed Peter's name, by
calling him "Kepha," the Aramaic word for "rock," which in Latin is
"Petros," from which derives the English "Peter." So "Peter" means
"rock." (Formerly he had been known as "Simon.") By this symbolic
act, the Lord meant to designate Peter as the foundation of the
Church He intended to establish; Peter was to be the sign of
stability, permanence, and unity. In this same passage, moreover,
Peter is promised both the keys to heaven's Kingdom and the power to
bind and to loose. Luke 22:2~32 is the text relating a controversy
among the disciples. On this occasion Christ foretold that Peter was
about to be put to the test by Satan: "Simon, Simon, behold Satan
hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat" Luke
22:31). This test occurred, of course, at the hour of Calvary. "I
tell you, Peter . . . that the cock shall not crow today, until you
have three times denied that you know Me" (Luke 22:34). But the
prayer of Christ, said for Peter in particular, would save him, so
that he in turn might "confirm his brethren" in faith: "But I have
prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once
converted, confirm thy brethren" (Luke 22:32). Again, therefore,
Peter is the rock and bulwark of the faith. In John 21:15 sqq, Jesus
fulfills His pledge to give Peter the keys of heaven. This is the
beautiful passage in which Peter is made shepherd of Christ's
universal flock. The Acts of the Apostles show us how Peter
functioned in his role of chief shepherd. He is the primary
spokesman for the apostles; even though we read of Peter's "standing
with the Eleven," it is Peter who speaks. He is the principal
preacher, the pacesetter for apostolic endeavor. Read, for example,
Acts 1:1~26; 2:1440; 3:1-26; 4:8; 5:1-11; 5:29; 8:1~17; etc. That
Peter eventually went to Rome - clearly through the Spirit's
guidance - is the testimony of St. Ignatius of Antioch (died 107),
as well as several other ancient chroniclers. As early as the first
century, too, Pope St. Clement I, a successor of Peter in Rome (even
though St. John the Apostle still lived), demonstrates possession of
full responsibility for the whole Church in a dispute involving the
Corinthians. Tertullian and Hippolytus, both second Century
witnesses, acknowledged Peter as the first in the succession of
Bishops of Rome; St. Cyprian, in the third century, views the unity
of the Church as originating from Peter. And from the second century
on, the Bishop of Rome was asked for judgment in controversial
ecclesial issues. (St. Peter and St. Paul's relics are in St. John
Lateran Basilica in Rome.)
THE APOSTOLIC TEACHING BODY
CONTINUES TO THE PRESENT DAY
Passing through the ages, we
find the same Apostolic system of teaching. Down to the sixteenth
century, there existed in Christendom no other than this idea. The
Bishops were looked upon as successors of the Apostles, and their
unanimous teaching under the Pope was regarded as absolutely
trustworthy - as truly representing the doctrine of Christ. The
Church as a whole could not possibly fall into error - this was
guaranteed by the promises of Christ: "The gates of hell shall not
prevail against it" (Matt 16:18); and those who claimed scripture in
support of new doctrines, and against the prevailing doctrine of the
Church, were regarded as heretics and rebels against Christ, and
against His authority delegated to the Church.
THE CHURCH CAME TO BE KNOWN
AS THE "CATHOLIC" CHURCH
The following is quoted from
the book "Outlines of European History" by James Breasted and James
Robinson, copyright 1914, which was used as a textbook at Classen
Public High School in Oklahoma City in the 1930's. (So it is not a
Catholic school history book.): "It was not until about the
third century that Christians came to call their Church Catholic'
(meaning 'universal'). The Catholic Church embraced all true
believers in Christ, wherever they might be. To this one universal
Church all must belong who hoped to be saved" (page 308). And then
it quotes St. Cyprian (died 258) as follows: "whoever separates
himself from the Church is separated from the promises of the
Church... He is an alien, he is profane, he is an enemy; he can no
longer have God for his father who has not the Church for his
mother. If any one could escape who was outside the Ark of Noah, so
also may he escape who shall be outside the bounds of the Church."
(Note: Breasted & Robinson's text errs, however, as to the date the
Church came to be called "Catholic." St. Ignatius of Antioch (died
107) called the Church "Catholic" in his writings.)
So until the Sixteenth Century
when Martin Luther broke away from the Catholic Church, the
overwhelming majority of Christians were Roman Catholics.
THE
PROTESTANT REBELLION
The
Protestant rebellion continues to be in fact what its adherents call
it today - a protest, and themselves Protest-ants, Protestants. A
protest against what? Against Christ's divinely constituted
teaching authority in the world
- His
Church - and the substitution of the Bible, interpreted by each
individual, in its place. This ran counter to the almost unanimous
conviction of Christendom for fifteen hundred years!
WHAT WERE
THE CAUSES OF THE PROTESTANT REBELLION?
First, there
had been a gradual relaxation of discipline, which had weakened
authority and opened the way to many scandals and unpunished abuses
in the ranks of the clergy. "At the close of the Middle Ages and
dawn of the new era, the Papacy had been too eager in the pursuit of
humanistic aims, had cultivated too exclusively merely human ideals
of art and learning, and at the same time had become entangled in
secular business and politics, and was altogether too worldly" (Grisar,
"LUTHER", V. p.427). Moreover, in Germany at this time the Bishops
were mostly younger sons of princely or noble houses who were quite
unfitted for their spiritual work. And as for the lower clergy,
secular and religious, while many were zealous to diffuse religious
knowledge by catechetical teaching, sermons, instructive
publications and educational work in the elementary and middle
schools, many others were quite neglectful of these sacred duties.
So there
were abuses in the Church then, as there are today, and as there
always will be. But "Blessed is he who shall not be scandalized in
Me" (Luke 7:23). Christ did not guarantee His Church from scandal,
but from error: "When He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He
will teach you all truth" (John 16:13). There were scandals
in the Church even while Jesus was with it. Judas was a
thief, a traitor, and a suicide; Peter, the head, swore to a
falsehood; James and John quarreled over supremacy; St. Peter and
St. Paul were at variance over circumcision, and St. Paul
excommunicated one of the faithful for unspeakable lust. The Church
is made up of men, not angels. The triumph of the
Church is not in being composed of sinless mortals, but in supplying
sinful men with means to carry on the struggle against their vicious
tendencies. But Jesus by His divine power granted that His Church,
even though composed of weak and sinful men, would never teach
error. The Church may have needed house cleaning in the
sixteenth century, but the way to clean house is not to dynamite it.
A child may have a very dirty face and yet be absolutely pure in
body and soul. "I am black but beautiful," sings the Church to all
men in the words of Solomon (Canticles 1:4); that is, although the
Catholic Church, the very Body of Jesus Christ in time and space,
may appear to the eyes of men as it were black and contemptible; but
inwardly, that is, in its faith and morals, fair and beautiful in
the eyes of God.
You cannot
heal a diseased member of the body by cutting it off. Cut away a
member of the body from the heart's blood, and it dies. The spark of
life animating the body does not follow the severed member. The
spark of life remains with the body, and the severed member begins
to disintegrate and decay. This is precisely what happened to the
followers of the revolution of the sixteenth century, as we shall
soon see. "It follows that those who are divided in faith and in
government cannot be living in one and cannot be living the life of
its one divine Spirit" (Encyclical of Pope Pius XII, "The Mystical
Body of Christ").
No people
can form by themselves a congregation or church, claiming that they
follow the teachings of Christ. Christ did not say: "Thou art Luther
and upon this rock I will build my Church" (or "Thou art Calvin,
Knox, King "Among you there will be lying teachers who will bring in
Henry VIII," etc.). Numberless are the false churches, destructive
sects . . . and many will follow . . . "(2 Peter 2:1,2)... "and by
pleasing speeches, and good words, seduce the hearts of the
innocent" (Romans 16:18). "In the last times, some shall depart from
the faith, giving heed to spirits of error and doctrines of devils .
. . " (1 Tim. 4:1-2); "For there shall be a time, when they will not
endure sound doctrine: but according to their own desires, they will
heap to themselves teachers, having to themselves itching ears: and
will turn away their hearing from the truth" (2 Tim. 4:34)."They
received not the love of truth that they might be saved. Therefore
God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying" (2
Thess. 2:1~11). "There is a way that seemethjust to a man,
but the ends thereof lead to death" (Proverbs 14:12).
CAUSE OF
THE RAPID SPREAD AND ESTABLISHMENT OF PROTESTANTISM
How was it
possible that the Revolution became so widespread in such a short
period of time, and that whole nations gave up the faith of their
forefathers? One cause which greatly contributed to the defection
was that the civil rulers in Germany, Scandinavia, England, and
elsewhere, took advantage of the disorder, seeing in the rebellion a
coveted opportunity of gaining absolute control over the people and
of confiscating the property of the Church; and they gave to the
leaders of the rebellion a support without which the revolt
everywhere would have failed utterly.
The
traitorous political ambition of France helped set up Protestantism
permanently in Europe. It was Cardinal Richelieu (1585-1642), Prime
Minister and real ruler of France under Louis XIII, who, to ensure
the political victory of France in Europe, took the side of the
Protestant princes of Germany against the Catholic Emperor,
Ferdinand II, at the most critical moment of the Thirty Years' War
between the forces of Protestantism and Catholicism. Cardinal
Richelieti hired the Protestant military genius, Gustavus Adolphus,
for five tubs of gold, to enter the war against the Catholics. The
defeat of Ferdinand made impossible his dream of a Europe united
again as one family by the Faith, so close to realization but for
the treachery of the French Cardinal.
Another
cause was the popular unrest and love of novelty, which
characterized the sixteenth century, and the discontent and evil
elements that are present at all times in every society.
Furthermore, the recent invention of printing enabled the
Protestants to circulate their teachings, thus confusing and
deceiving the minds of simple folk.
THE
CATHOLIC COUNTER-REFORMATION
Long before
the Protestant revolt, all serious-minded Catholic men and women
were convinced that a purification of the Church in her hierarchy
and in her members was needed. Not the Catholic religion, as
the Protestants maintained, but the people who professed that
religion required reformation. "Men must be changed by religion," as
one of the champions of True Reform remarked, "not religion by men."
Our Lord told us not to be scandalized when we see "cockle and wheat
in His Church" (Matt. 13:2-3O). But why blame the Church for bad
Catholics? All the bad Catholics in the world are not the Catholic
Church. The Catholic Church holds the "deposit of Faith," spoken of
by St. Paul (1 Tim. 6:2O~21). The bad Catholics are bad not because
of being Catholic, but because they neglect their Catholic duties
and disgrace their exalted condition. "The Church is a perfect
body, composed of imperfect men. This is the mystery of
faith which is a stumbling block to those outside it" (St.
Augustine).
So the first
goal of the counter-reformation was the purification of the Church
in her hierarchy, and in her members. The spread of error by
Protestants, who attacked the Divine Constitution of the Church and
her fundamental doctrines, also imposed upon the Catholic leaders
the duty of setting forth in unmistakable and authoritative terms
the true doctrine of Christianity contained in Scripture and
Tradition. For this purpose, an ecumenical council was convened (The
Council of Trent, the Nineteenth Council of the Church) in the year
1545. The Council set up a vast program to restore religious
discipline, revive Faith, and check the spread of Protestantism by
defining dogmatically the doctrines under attack and censuring the
errors of the rebellion.
There is no
better proof for the divine origin and guidance of the Church than
the fact that she not only survived the great Protestant Revolt of
the Sixteenth Century, but emerged from the conflict rejuvenated and
prepared to meet new ones.
With regard
to the teachings of the "reformers":
WHICH WAS
APPOINTED BY CHRIST TO TEACH MANKIND THE TRUE RELIGION -THE CHURCH
OR THE BIBLE?
When our
Divine Savior sent His Apostles throughout the world to preach the
Gospel to every creature, He laid down the conditions of salvation
thus: "He who believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he who
believeth not shall be condemned" (Mark 16:16). Here, then, our
Blessed Lord laid down two absolute and universal conditions - Faith
and Baptism. What is this Divine Faith which we must have in order
to be saved? It is to believe, upon the authority of God,
"all things whatsoever" (Matt: 28:20) He has revealed. Therefore if
a man would be saved he must profess the true Religion. Now
if God commands me under pain of damnation to believe what He has
taught, He is bound to give me the means to know what He has taught.
What is this means?" "The Bible," say the Protestants. But we
Catholics say, "No, not the Bible, but the Church of God." For if
God had intended that man should learn his religion from the Bible,
surely God would have given that book to man. But He did not do so.
Christ sent His apostles throughout the earth and said: "Go ye
therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to
observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you" (Matt.
28:19,20). Christ did not say, sit down and write Bibles, and then
let every man read and judge for himself Since the sixteenth century
we have seen the result of such thinking in the founding of hundreds
of religions by men, all quarreling with one another about the
interpretation of the Bible. Jesus never wrote a line of scripture
nor did He command His Apostles to do so, except when He directed
St. John to write the Apocalypse (Book of Revelations 1:11), but
ordered them to "teach all nations" (Matt. 28:19). In Matt. 18:17,
He does not say, "He who will not read the scriptures," but "he who
will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and the
publican." The Apostles never circulated a single volume of
scripture, but going forth, preached everywhere ()&ark 16:20). It is
true that our Lord said on one occasion, "Search the Scriptures for
in them ye think ye have eternal life, and the same are they that
give testimony of me" (John 5:39). This passage is quoted by
Protestants in favor of private interpretation but proves nothing of
the kind. Our Savior speaks here only of the Old Testament,
because the New Testament was not yet written. He addressed, not the
Apostles, but the Pharisees, and reproaches them for not admitting
His Divinity, clearly known and shown by the prophets of the Old
Testament.
The Church
established by Christ existed about 65 years before St. John wrote
the last book of the Bible. During these years how did the people
know what they had to do to save their souls? Was it from the Bible
they learned it? No, because the Bible as such was not yet composed.
They knew it precisely as we know it, from the teaching of the
Church of God. The New Testament writings were not gathered together
and declared to be divinely inspired until late in the fourth
century. Moreover, these witnesses were Catholics, and accepted the
Scriptures as divinely inspired because their Church declared them
to be so. Protestants hold that the writings, known as the Sacred
Scriptures, are inspired. But it is on the Catholic Church's word
that they hold this truth! They take for granted that followers of
the Catholic Church transcribed and translated the original writings
without making any errors, that they never altered a line, that they
preserved them until the sixteenth century in their original purity
and integrity. Unless they grant all this, they cannot logically
appeal to the Scriptures as divine authority. Thus Protestants are
breaking away from their theory of "Nothing but the Bible" and
basing their arguments on Tradition, or on the authority of the
Catholic Church, which, on principle, they repudiate!
The Jewish
religion existed before the Old Testament was written, just as the
Christian Church existed before the New Testament was written. Peter
converted three thousand before the first word of the New Testament
was put on paper. Paul had converted hundreds of Romans,
Corinthians, Galatians and Thessalonians before he wrote his
epistles to those congregations; and all the Apostles were dead, and
millions had died Catholic martyrs, before St. John wrote the last
part of the New Testament. Until the end of the first century the
"Word of God" could have been delivered only by word of mouth.
HOW THE
APOSTLES REGARDED THE NEW TESTAMENT
The
Apostles seem to think it an important matter to leave us their
recollections of Christ's life and character, but they make no
pretense of giving us a complete written account of His teaching.
They show no signs of regarding it as a duty to leave behind them
full written particulars. St. John himself declares the
impossibility of writing anything like an exhaustive account of all
that Christ did (John 21:25). As far as we can gather, nearly all
the Apostles were dead or dispersed before half the New Testament
was written. None of the Apostles ever saw the Gospel of St. John,
except the author himself. Only St. John lived long enough to have
seen the whole series which made up the New Testament; but there is
no evidence to show that he actually did see it. The only clear
reference made by one Apostle to another Apostle's writings is that
of St. Peter, who tells us how hard St. Paul's epistles were to
understand, and how some had wrested them to their own destruction
(2 Peter 3:16). Scripture was regarded as a witness to
the Church's teaching, not as a sole and adequate Rule of Faith to
be substituted in its place.
ST. PAUL
USED THE SCRIPTURES
In the Acts
of the Apostles 17:2, we are told that St. Paul reasoned with the
Thessalonians on three Sabbath days "out of the Scriptures," and in
verse 11, Paul says that Bereans "searched the Scriptures." Verse 2
implies that St. Paul used the Bible and verse 11 that the Bereans
had it; but this was not the NewTestament, for very little of
it had been written at that time. Bead verse 3, and it will be clear
That he was appealing to the prophetic writings of the Old
testament, showing them that Christ was to suffer and to again. He
didn't prove from the Scriptures that Christ ad already suffered.
The same applies to verse 11.
THE FIRST
CHRISTIANS WERE NOT "BIBLE" CHRISTIANS
The
various parts which now make up the New Testament were carefully
treasured and read in the local churches where they had been
received, but it was only by degrees that copies were spread to
other places and the whole came to be circulated throughout
Christendom. It was late in the fourth century before the present
New Testament writings were gathered together into one book. It was
this late in the Christian era before the Catholic Church declared
which of the many doubtfully inspired writings scattered throughout
the world were really inspired.
HOW THE
EARLY CHRISTIANS RECEIVED THEIR FAITH
We find
in the New Testament many references to Christian doctrine as
derived from oral teaching. The Thessalonians are told to "hold
fast the traditions which they had been taught, whether by word
or by epistle" (2 Thess. 2:15). Timothy, who had been ordained
Bishop of Ephesus by St. Paul is instructed to "Hold fast the form
of sound words which he had heard from his teacher among many
witnesses"; "to continue in the things learnt" (that is, "the gospel
which was committed to his trust"), "knowing from whom he had learnt
them," "and to commit the same to faithful men who shall be able to
teach others" (1 Tim. 1-11; 4:11-16; 6:20; 2 Tim 1:6, 13; 2:2, 3:10,
14; 4:2, etc.) - all of which certainly stands in favor of the
Catholic doctrine of apostolic authority in a line of successors,
for an oral transmission of Faith, and against the Protestant idea
of substituting the Bible as the sole and adequate guide to
salvation. The Bishops were universally regarded as the
authoritative successors to the Apostles responsible for the
preservation of Christian doctrine. The New Testament was not
completed until 65 years after Peter and Paul and most of the other
Apostles were dead; many of their immediate successors had been
martyred, and it is likely that the third or fourth successors of
the several Apostles were converting souls without the Bible when
St. John completed his writings. In fact, the whole Roman Empire was
Christian, at least ten million people remained true to Christ and
suffered a martyr's death, and the Church was enjoying her golden
age, before anybody ever saw the New Testament bound up into one
volume. For four centuries people received their faith only by
hearing it preached in Catholic churches.
Most
Protestants enter the Protestant religion through family ties or
evangelistic services - not by Bible reading. Very few people are
led to embrace this or that religion by "searching the Scriptures."
Nine times out of ten, they enter a religion first, and do their
Bible reading afterwards.
The Bible
was not given from Heaven like the Ten Commandments were - as the
Christian's sole rule of faith; and Christ did not write the New
Testament; and the Apostles were not ordered to write it as a
textbook. "Tradition is also a rule of faith; for "Faith
cometh by hearing"(Rom 10:17).
IS
SCRIPTURE INHERENTLY CLEAR?
Suppose: an
Episcopal minister reads the Bible in a prayerful spirit and says it
is clear and evident that there must be "bishops." The Presbyterian,
a sincere and well-meaning man, deduces from the Bible that there
should be no bishops, only "Presbyters." A number of religions hold
that baptism by immersion is correct, while others approve of
baptism by sprinkling. Next comes the Unitarian who calls them all a
pack of idolaters, worshiping a man for a God, and he quotes several
texts from the Bible to prove it. So we have here a number of
denominations understanding the Bible in different ways. What then,
if we bring together 500 denominations all differing? One says there
is no hell; another says there is. One says Christ is God; another
says He is not, etc. Is baptism necessary for salvation? Must
infants be baptized? Are good works necessary, or is faith alone
sufficient? The correct answer to these questions is surely
essential, but zealous Bible readers do not agree concerning them.
Is anyone foolish enough to believe that the changeless and eternal
Holy Spirit is directing those five hundred denominations, telling
one Yes and another No; declaring a thing to be black and white,
false and true, at the same time? If the Bible were intended as the
guide and teacher of man, would St. Peter have declared that "In the
scriptures are things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and
unstable wrest to their own destruction" (2 Peter 3:16)?
On the
contrary, the Bible itself declares that it contains many passages,
the meaning of which is not clear. Read Acts 8:27-35; Luke 24:25-27;
2 Peter 3:16. Moreover, if the Bible is the Protestants' authority
for everything, how is it that they cannot quote the Bible in favor
of the "private judgment" theory? Not only can it not be found, but
you will find this declaration in the holy book: "No prophecy of
Scripture is made by private interpretation" (2 Peter 1:20). St.
Paul warned Titus not to concede to anyone the right of private
judgment (Titus 8:9-11). In "RATIONALISM IN EUROPE," Vol. II, p.
174, states: "It has been most abundantly proved that from
Scripture, honest and able men have derived and do derive arguments
in support of the most opposite opinions." And from "The London
Times" of January 13, 1884: "England alone is reputed to contain
some 700 sects, each of which proves a whole system of theology and
morals from the Bible"
THE
MAJORITY OF CHRISTIANS DID NOT HAVE THE BIBLE BEFORE THE FIFTEENTH
CENTURY
Not only was
the Bible not the Christian's written Rule of Faith during the first
four centuries, but it was not during the next thousand years, for
the simple reason that there was no widespread use of paper to print
on until the thirteenth century, and the moveable type printing
press itself was not invented until the year 1450, more than one
thousand years after the true canon of the Bible (the collection of
books which were considered inspired) was determined. Without the
printing presses, it was impossible to distribute Bibles by hundreds
of thousands. It required several years of work, distributed over
many hours of the day, to produce onecopy of the Bible. Every page
had to be handmade, with pen upon parchment. Who copied these Bibles
by hand? In most monasteries, from the early centuries, the daily
occupation of many thousands of monks consisted in copying the
scriptures for the benefit of the world. Some excellent specimens
exist, one of them now being displayed at the Congressional Library,
in Washington, D.C. A copy of the manuscript-Bible was usually
placed on a large table in church, where the people who could read
might have the benefit of it. Some Protestant Churches spread the
falsehood that the Catholic Church chained the Bible so that people
might not learn anything from it. That is an anti-Catholic fable.
The thick cover of the Bible was chained to the table (or podium) so
that no one might steal the valuable work. In those days a Bible
would have cost over $10,000.00. The Bible was displayed in the
church, wide open, precisely that it might he read. Not one in
50,000 had a Bible. Would our Divine Lord have left the world for
1500 years without that hook if it were necessary to man's
salvation? Most assuredly not. But suppose everyone had Bibles? What
good will that book be, even today, to the one-half of the people of
the world who cannot read?
THE FIRST
PROTESTANTS TOOK OUR BIBLE, THEIRS
The printing
press was invented 65 years before Luther's revolt; and according to
Hallam, a Protestant historian, the Catholic Bible was the first
hook ever printed. In 1877 there were exhibited hundreds of old
Bibles, at South Kensington, England; it was called the “Caxton
Exhibition," and among them were nine German editions of the Bible,
printed in Germany before Luther was horn; and there were more than
one hundred editions of the Latin Bible, the very thing Luther is
pretended to have "discovered." This disproves the popular lie about
Luther finding the Bible at Erfurt in 1507. Many Protestant
historians have repudiated this charge. To name a few: Dr. McGilfert
in MAN LUTHER AND HIS WORK, page 273, says: "If Luther was ignorant
of the Bible, it was his own fault. The notion that Bible reading
was frowned upon by ecclesiastical authorities of that age is quite
unfounded." And Dr. Preserve Smith in LIFE AND LETTERS OF MARTIN
LUTHER, page 14, writes: "The book was a very common one, there
having been no less than one hundred editions of the Latin Vulgate
published before 1500, as well as a number of German translations."
And Murzel in HISTORY OF GERMANY, Vol.11, p.223, says: "Before the
time of Luther, the Bible had already been translated and printed in
both High and Low Dutch."
OUR LORD
SET UP A SUPREME COURT
When the
Constitution of the United States was written, its writers did not
leave it to the people to interpret as they saw fit. They knew
better than that. They set up a Supreme Court for that purpose. And
do you think that the all-wise God would be less careful in a matter
of even greater importance where the salvation of millions of
immortal souls is at stake? Most assuredly not. He, too, set up a
"Supreme Court," to guide and teach His people, and to interpret the
law for them. In the Old Testament, God chose Moses to deliver His
people, the Israelites, from the Egyptians, and to rule over them
during their 40 years of wandering in the desert towards the
promised land. In the Book of Numbers, Chap. 27, verses 12-23, as
the time of his death approaches, Moses asks God to "provide a man
that may be over this multitude and may lead them out, or bring them
in: lest the people of the Lord be as sheep without a shepherd. And
the Lord said to him: Take Joshua- a man in whom is the Spirit - and
put thy hand upon him ... and thou shalt give him precepts in the
sight of all... that all the congregation of the children of Israel
may hear him... he and all the children of Israel with him, and the
rest of the multitude shall go out and go in at his word."
And in the Book of Deuteronomy, Moses was repeating and expounding
to the Israelites the ordinances given on Mt. Sinai, with other
precepts not expressed before. In Chapter 17, verses &12, he states:
"If thou perceive that there he among you a hard and doubtful matter
in judgment... and thou see that the words of the judges within thy
gates do vary: arise, and go up to the place, which the Lord thy
God shall choose. And thou shall come to the priests of
the Levitical race, and to the judge that shall be at that time. And
thou shalt ask of them. And they shall shew thee the truth of the
judgment. And thou shalt do whatsoever they shall say, that preside
in the place, which the Lord shall choose, and what they shall teach
thee, according to His law. And thou shalt follow their sentence:
neither shalt thou decline to the right hand nor to the left hand.
But he that will be proud, and refuse to obey the commandment
ofthe priest, who ministereth at that time to the Lord thy God
(i.e., the high priest), and the decree of the judge: that man shall
die . . ." And the footnote, Douay Bible, to this Ordinance states:
"Here we see what authority God was pleased to give to the church
guides of the Old Testament, in deciding without appeal, all
controversies relating to the law, promising that they should not
err therein; and surely he has not done less for the church
guides of the New Testament."
Christ set
up that teaching organism called "the Church," with St. Peter and
his successors as Chief Shepherd (that is, "high priest"), to be His
official Custodian and interpreter under the New Law. And He
promised to safeguard the Church from error. Read John 1:14; 14:6; 1
John 5:20; John 14:17; 15:26; 16:13; John 8:32; 17:17; 2 John 1:3.
To that Church alone, and not to any bookor private
individual did He say "Teach ye all nations ... I will be with
you" (Matt. 28:20). And "He who will not hear the Church, let
him be to thee as the heathen and the publican" (Matt. 18:17).
THE
CATHOLIC CHURCH URGES ITS MEMBERS TO READ THE BIBLE
"At a time
when a great number of bad hooks . . . are circulated among the
unlearned..., the faithful should be excited to the reading of the
Bible; for this is the most abundant source which ought to be left
open to every one to draw from it purity of morals and of doctrine"
(Pope Pius VI, 1778). And Pope Leo XIII, elected in 1878, did much
to promote the reading of the Holy Scriptures. He founded a
congregation for the advancement of biblical studies; he addressed a
letter to the whole Church on the subject of the reading and study
of Holy Writ; and he granted special blessings to those who devoutly
read the Holy Scriptures daily. The Church authorities at the Synod
of Oxford, in 1408, forbade the laity to read unauthorized
versions of the Scriptures. In other words, she forbade them to
accept as Scripture what really was not Scripture. For example, the
Albigensians of the thirteenth century made a translation of the
Bible, which would square with their erroneous teachings. (See
Hallam, MIDDLE AGES, Chapter IX). And Sir Thomas More says "Wycliffe
took upon himself to translate the Bible anew. In this translation
he purposely corrupted the holy text, maliciously planting in it
such words as might, in the reader's ears, serve to prove such
heresies as he 'went about to sow.' " (EVE OF THE REFORMATION,
Gasquet, Chapter VIII). The Lollards changed the text still more,
and made the Bible support the anarchy which they later preached
throughout England.
HISTORY
OF THE PROTESTANT ENGLISH BIBLE
"Tyndale's
New Testament" was published under King Henry VIII; the "Bishop's
Bible" in 1568; "The King James" or "Authorized Version" in 1611;
"The Revised Version" in 1881. Each of these was brought out
because the previous one was found to contain errors. (Read
"History of the Reformation of the Church in England," by J. H.
Blunt, Ch. I). Zwingli, writing to Luther, in commenting on his
translation of the Bible into German, says: "Thou dost corrupt the
word of God; thou art seen to be a manifest and common corrupter and
perverter of the Holy Scriptures; how much are we ashamed of thee!"
(Vol. II, DE SACRAMENTS, p.412). Here are some of his typical
corruptions: "Wherefore, brethren," St. Peter commands us, "labor
the more, that by good works you may make sure your vocation and
election" (2 Peter 1:10); But Luther omitted the words "By good
works." "We account a man to be justified by faith" (Romans 3:28).
Luther added the word "alone." Calvin's translations of the
Scriptures were equally faulty. A Protestant authority says: "Calvin
makes the text of the gospel to leap up and down; he uses violence
to the letter of the gospel, and besides this, adds to the text."
(See Molinaeus' TRANSLATION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, Part XI, p.110).
In his APOLOGY, Sec. 6, Mr. Burgess, a Protestant, says of the
English Protestant version: “How shall I approve, under my hand, a
translation which has many omissions, many additions; which
sometimes obscureth, sometimes perverteth the sense, being sometimes
senseless, sometimes contrary?"
So the
prohibition of the Catholic Church against Bible reading had
reference to the reading of faulty translations of the Scriptures.
Such faulty translations are not surprising, as the devil, too,
quotes the Scriptures dishonestly: In Matthew 4:1-11, we read: "At
that time, Jesus was led by the Spirit into the desert, to be
tempted by the devil... Then the devil took Him up into the holy
city, and set Him upon the pinnacle of the temple, and said to
Him: if thou
be the Son of God, cast thyself down. For it is written: That he
hath given his angels charge over thee.
"This we
read in the 9Oth Psalm; but there the prophecy was not spoken of
Christ, but of the just man; so the devil has quoted
the Scriptures dishonestly. As Satan changes himself into an angel
of light, and even from the Holy Scriptures prepares snares for
Christians, so now he uses the testimonies of Scripture itself not
to instruct, but to deceive.
THE
CATHOLIC BIBLE CONTAINS MORE BOOKS THAN THE PROTESTANT BIBLE
Why? For the
same reason that it contains any of the writings within its covers.
As already explained, and no man in this world can refute it, the
writings which the Protestants accept as inspired, they know to be
so only on The authority of the Catholic Church. The
Protestant Bible omits the following seven books from the Old
Testament:
Judith, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, Tobias, Wisdom, and the two books of
the Machabees. (Luther originally threw out 11 entire books!) These
books are inspired Sacred Scripture, and for twenty centuries, from
the compilation of the Old Testament canon by Esdras and Nehemias in
430 B.C., until the rebellion of the Protestants in the Sixteenth
Century, they were accepted by the faithful as God's revelation to
His people. They are still in the Catholic Bible.
Most of the
Protestant and Catholic versions of the Bible have the same books in
the New Testament. But the New Testament contains writings which
were not written by the Apostles. Luke and Mark were not Apostles at
all, and even Paul was not one of the original twelve. How could it
possibly be proved, outside the Catholic Church's authority, that
Mark's and Luke's writings were inspired? And how could one,
rejecting this Church's authority, account for the omission of
gospels written by St. Bartholomew and St. Thomas, and the acts of
St. Andrew, who wereapostles? Of these, several were regarded
by certain of the Fathers as part of Scripture, and were publicly
read in local Churches, while others in the second and third
centuries classed them as doubtfully inspired. Likewise, the Epistle
to the Hebrews, Revelations, James, Jude, 2nd Peter, and 2nd and 3rd
John were at first called into question in some parts of the Church.
HOW THE
CONTENTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT WERE DETERMINED
So the
collections of reputed inspired writings in different parts of
Christendom in the second, third, and fourth centuries varied
considerably, and it was at Church Councils at Hippo and Carthage
(held between 393 AD) that a list of authentic books was agreed
upon. Pope Innocent I, and afterwards Pope Gelasius (A.D. 494),
confirmed this list, and for the first time the New Testament was
capable of being bound up into one book as we have it now. How was
this question settled after so long a dispute? Purely and simply by
an appeal to the traditions existing in local churches where each
document had been preserved, and by the authoritative verdict of the
Church, judging according to those traditions. Hence, the
reliability of the Bible depends wholly on the authority of the
Roman Catholic Church! Protestants, in accepting the New
Testament as it stands, are acknowledging the authority of the
Catholic Church in the fourth and fifth centuries, and some of them
have candidly admitted this in writing. (See preface to Revised
Version of Protestant Bible.)
HOW OLD
ARE THE PROTESTANT CHURCHES?
The
Lutheran Church was founded in the year 1517 by Martin Luther, a
former priest of the Roman Catholic Church.
The Church of England (Anglicanism) was founded by
King Henry VIII in 1534 when he threw off the authority of the Pope
and proclaimed himself the head of the Church in England, because
the Pope refused to declare invalid his marriage with Queen
Catherine.
The Presbyterian denomination was begun in 1560 by John Knox
who was dissatisfied with Anglicanism.
The Episcopalian denomination was begun in 1784 by Samuel
Seabury who was dissatisfied with Presbyterianism.
The Baptist church was launched by John Smyth in Amsterdam,
Holland in the year 1606.
The Methodist church was launched by John and Charles Wesley
in England in 1744.
The Unitarians were founded by Theophilus Lindley in London,
in 1774.
The Jehovah's Witness Church was developed in 1872 by Charles
Russell.
The founder of The Salvation Army is William Booth, who quit
the Anglicans, and then the Methodists, and set up his own version
of Christianity in 1787. His own son, Ballinger, quit The Salvation
Army and did the same for himself in 1896.
Mrs. Mary Baker Eddy began the Christian Scientist religion in 1879,
basing it upon an outright denial of Original Sin and its effects.
The Mormon church, the Seventh-Day Adventists, the
Church of Christ, The Church of the Nazarene, or any of
the various Pentecostal Churches, etc. are also among the
hundreds of new churches founded by men within the past 150
years or so.
The Roman
Catholic Church was founded by God-made-man, Jesus Christ, in
the year 33 A.D. He said: "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will
build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against
it... Feed my lambs; feed My sheep" (Matt. 16:18,19; John 21:15,17).
He also said: "He who is not with Me is against Me, and he who
gathers not with me scatters" (Matt.12:30).
MARTIN
LUTHER
The
Protestant Revolution was begun by Martin Luther, a Catholic priest,
who, led astray by private judgment, set himself against the Faith
held for 1500 years. He decided that all Christians before him had
been in error. Is it possible to believe that Jesus founded a
Church to mislead the world, and then after 1500 years approved of
over 500 contradictory churches founded by men? But, you may
say, the Protestant Church is the Church of Christ, purified of
error, and only this purified form dates from Luther. I answer that
you must choose between Luther and Christ. Jesus said His Church
would never teach error (John 14:26); Luther says it did teach
error. If Luther is right, Christ is wrong; if Christ is right,
Luther and all his followers are wrong.
Luther's
chief errors are contained in the following propositions: (1) There
is no supreme teaching power in the Church. (2) The temporal
sovereign has supreme power in matters ecclesiastical. (3) There are
no priests. (4) All that is to be believed is in the Bible. (5) Each
one may interpret Holy Scripture as he likes. (6) Faith alone saves,
good works are superfluous. (7) Man lost his free will by original
sin. (8) There are no saints, no Christian sacrifice, no sacrament
of confession, and no purgatory.
Following
are some significant excerpts from Luther's writings and lectures,
as compared with the teachings of our Lord Jesus Christ. (Taken from
the hook CHRIST VS. LUTHER, edited by R. A. Short, copyright 1953 by
the Bellarmine Publishing Company, Mound, Minn.)
- On Sin
-
Christ: "Now
the works of the flesh are manifest, which are fornication . . .
murder . . . and suchlike. And concerning these I warn you, they who
do such things will not attain the Kingdom of God" (Galatians
5:19-21).
Luther: "Sin
boldly but believe more boldly. Let your faith be greater than your
sin. . . Sin will not destroy us in the reign of the Lamb, although
we were to commit fornication a thousand times in one day" (Letter
to Melanchton, August 1, 1521, Audin p.178).
Christ: "And
do not be drunk with wine, for in that is debauchery" (Eph. 5:18).
"Keep thyself chaste" (I Tim. 5:22).
Luther: "Why
do I sit soaked in wine? ... To be continent and chaste is not in
me" (Luther's diary).
- On Good
Works -
Christ:
"What will it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith, but
does not have works? As the body without the spirit is dead, so
faith without works is dead also" (James 2:14,26).
Luther: "He
that says the Gospel requires works for salvation, I say, flat and
plain, is a liar" ("able Talk, Weimer Edition, II, p.137).
- On
Truth -
Christ: "Do
not be liars against the truth. This is not the wisdom that descends
from above. It is earthly, sensual, devilish" (James 3:1~15). "Do
not lie to one another" (Col. 3:9). "The Lord hateth... a lying
tongue... a deceitful witness that uttereth lies. . . "(Proverbs
6:1&17). "A thief is worse than a liar, but both of them shall
inherit destruction" (Ecclus. 20:27).
Luther: "To
lie in case of necessity, or for convenience, or in excuse, would
not offend God, who is ready to take such lies on Himself" (Enserch
Conference, July 17, 1540).
- On
Marriage -
Christ:
"Whosoever shall put away his wife and marry another, committeth
adultery against her. And if the wife shall put away her husband,
and be married to another, she committeth adultery" ~ark 10:11-12).
Luther: "As
to divorce, it is still a moot question whether it is allowable. For
my part, I prefer bigamy" (DeWette, Vol.2, p.459).
- On Free
Will -
Christ: "Woe
to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It were better for
that man if he had not been born" (Matt. 26:24). "Let no man say
when he is tempted, that he is tempted by God; for God is no tempter
to evil" (James 1:13).
Luther:
"Judas' will was the work of God; God by His almighty power moved
his will as He does all that is in this world" (De Servo Arbitro -
Against man's free will). Accosted on all sides by charges of
heresy, even by many of his former associates in the Protestant
movement, Luther found refuge in this, the strangest of all his
beliefs. No man is accountable for his actions, Luther taught, no
matter how evil. Not even Judas!
Such are the
teachings of the first so-called "reformer" of Christ's Church! If
Luther was a man divinely inspired or called in an extraordinary
manner, why did God permit him to fall into so many absurdities in
points of doctrine?
"Luther
finally brought himself to indulge the pleasing delusion that the
Catholic Church was the detestable kingdom of Antichrist . . . that
he himself was John the Evangelist... "(From the book LUTHER, P.65).
So you see
the heresies, divisions, confusion, etc. resulting from the private
interpretation of the Scriptures. Unless there is a church
in the world, from the days of our Lord, which declares unmistakably
(infallibly) who Jesus is, and what He taught, He might just as well
have revealed nothing!
CHRIST
DID ESTABLISH SUCH A CHURCH, AND IT IS THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH
When
Christ left us and ascended into Heaven, He gave His powers to the
Church He had founded: "All power has been given Me by My Father; go
then" (in virtue of this power that I delegate to you) "teach all
nations to keep My commandments. He who hears you, hears Me; he who
despises you, despises Me" (Matt. 28:1&20; Luke 10:16). 50 the
Church is invested with the authority of Jesus Christ; she speaks
and commands in Our Lord's name. The difference between Protestants
and Catholics lies in the attitude of dependence on and of obedience
to the living authority of the Church, which teaches and governs in
the name of Christ. The Catholic accepts the Church's doctrines, and
regulates his conduct according to those doctrines, because he hears
in the Church, and her head the Sovereign Pontiff, the voice of
Christ. The Protestant admits a certain truth because he "discovers"
it, or imagines himself to do so, by his personal lights. Claiming
the right of private interpretation (despite 2 Peter 1:20; 3:16) and
reading the Bible according to his reason alone, he takes or leaves
what he will. Each one then, keeping his faculty of choosing,
becomes his own sovereign pontiff. The Protestant admits; the
Catholic believes. As soon as the Church speaks, the Catholic
submits in all obedience as to Christ Himself. St. Isidore
(Archbishop, Doctor, and Saint) stated: "We, as Catholics are not
permitted to believe anything of our own will, nor to choose what
someone has believed of his. We have God's apostles as authorities,
who did not themselves of their own wills choose anything of what
they wanted to believe, but faithfully transmitted to the
nations, the teachings of Christ." In the Old Testament God spoke to
the Israelites from the midst of the two Cherubim atop the Ark of
the Covenant: "There will I give orders, and will speak to thee over
the propitiatory, and from the midst of the two Cherubim, which
shall be upon the Ark of the Testimony, all things which J will
command the children of Israel... "(Exodus 25:22). Today He speaks
to us through the Catholic Church. She, alone, speaks with His
Voice.
THE
CATHOLIC CHURCH CLAIMS TO BE INFALLIBLE IN HER TEACHINGS
In order to
keep His Church in the truth, Christ sent His Spirit - the Spirit of
Truth (John 14:17). "When the Spirit of truth is come, He will teach
you all truth" (John 16:13); "He will teach you all things, and
bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you"
(John 14:26). (So nothing of what the divine Word spoke to men is to
be lost)! "He will abide with you forever; and He shall be in you"
(John 14:16,17). It is by the Holy Spirit, then, that the Church is
ever to possess the truth, and nothing can rob her of it; for this
Spirit, who is sent by the Father and the Son, will abide
unceasingly with and in her.
The Holy
Spirit is the principle of the Church's life. He makes Himself
responsible for her words, just as our spirit is responsible
for what our tongue utters. Hence it is that the Church, by
her union with the Holy Spirit, is so identified with truth, that
the apostle did not hesitate to call her "the pillar and ground of
the truth" (1 Tim. 3:14-15). Consequently, the Church has to
be infallible in her teaching; for how can she be deceived herself,
or deceive others, seeing it is the Spirit of Truth who guides her
in all things and speaks by her mouth? He is her soul; and when the
tongue speaks, the soul is responsible. The man who does not
acknowledge the Church to be infallible, should, if he be
consistent, admit that the Son of God has not been able to fulfill
His promise, and that the Spirit of truth is a Spirit of error. He
thought he was but denying a prerogative to the Church, whereas, in
reality, he has refused to believe God Himself It is this
that constitutes the sin of heresy. Want of due reflection may hide
the awful conclusion; but the conclusion is strictly implied in his
principle.
In the year
52, all the Apostles came together at Jerusalem, under St. Peter, to
talk over the affairs of the Church. This was the first Council of
the Church, and the story of it is told in the Acts of the Apostles,
Chapter 15. The Councils are an Apostolic institution, and the
Apostles, when they instituted them, acted under the commission they
received from Christ; otherwise they could not have published the
decisions of their Council with the words, "It seemed good to the
Holy Ghost and to us" (Acts 15:28).
The Apostles
spoke with unerring authority, and their words were received not as
human opinions, but as Divine Truths. "When you have received from
us the word of God, you received it not as the word of men,
but as the word of God" (1 Thess. 2:13).
THE POPE
IS NOT INFALLIBLE IN ALL HIS ACTS
The
President of the United States does not always act as President. No
one would attribute presidential authority to his views on hunting,
or yachting, or on drama. Even when he presides over a white House
function he is not always using his presidential prerogatives. No
one would attach the full authority of the United States Government
to the remarks he makes to a deputation of Presbyterians, Jews, or
Catholics. Even when speaking in a cabinet meeting, or making his
official speech at the opening of Congress, he does not intend to
throw the full weight of his authority into his utterances. It is
only when signing an Act of Congress or a treaty with some foreign
nation that the full and highest exercise of his presidency comes
into play. Then, and then alone, does he act as ruler of the
Country, committing the Government to the deed, and binding the
whole nation. As it is with the President of the United States, so
it is with the Pope. In his private acts as a Christian or Bishop,
or in his jurisdiction of the government of the Church, he might
make a mistake or fail in prudence. Therefore, the Bishop of Rome,
the Pope, can make a mistake - unless he is speaking under
certain conditions. These conditions are: (1) when he is speaking
"ex cathedra" (from the Chair of Peter); and (2) manifests his
intention of defining a doctrine (3) of faith or morals (4)
officially binding the whole Church. At such a time the Pope's
teaching is infallible; that is, at such a time he is assisted,
watched over, by the Holy Spirit so that he does not use his
authority and his knowledge to mislead the Church. The Pope is not
inspired; he receives no private revelations; he does not carry in
his mind the whole of Christ's teaching as a miraculous treasure on
which to draw at will. He has learned the faith as we learned it,
from his catechism and from his study of theology. If he wishes to
know the two sides of a dispute he must examine it as we must. When
preparing to make a definition in his office of supreme teacher, he
first gives the matter to his theologians. They examine the sources
of the doctrine in Holy Scripture and Tradition. These sources are
called "The Deposit of Faith." The "Deposit of Faith" preserved by
the Catholic Church includes: (1) Doctrines clearly taught in the
Bible; (2) Doctrines obscurely taught in the Bible, and requiring
the authority of the Church to decide their true interpretation; (3)
Doctrines not mentioned in the Bible at all, for example: the
abrogation of the Jewish Sabbath, with the obligation of observing
Sunday instead; the practice of eating meat with blood, which was
forbidden for a time by the Apostles (Acts 15:20). The "Deposit of
Faith" is the body of truth divinely proclaimed by Our Lord through
His Apostles for our belief. These truths of Revelation were
complete at the death of the last Apostle - St. John - who died in
the year 99 A.D. These truths, which we must believe in order to be
Catholics, were all given to us by that time. The dogmas (doctrines)
of the Church never can suffer change. They are today precisely what
they were at the beginning of the Church. There are no new
doctrines, and there can be no modification of old ones. "The
doctrine of faith which God revealed," says Vatican Council I
(1869-1870), "is proposed, not as a m |
