/&r/n//?/<?//o; /j' PV.

By REV. A. W. TERMINIELLO





?
I

Most Frequently Asked

About The

Catholic Church

By

Non - Catholics

+

By REV. A. W. TERMINIELLO



NIHIL OBSTAT: Rt. Rev. William J. Cusick, D.D., P.A.,

Censor Librorum.

IMPRIMATUR: ^ Most Rev. T. J. Toolen, D.D., LL.D.,

Archbishop-Bishop of Mobile-Birming-

ham.

Copyright 1956

by

Arthur W. Terminiello

OeacfeBfi^



Foreword

At the insistent urging of many of my con-

freres who are familiar with the work of the

PASTOR’S FIRESIDE Radio and TV programs

during the past eight years, I have decided to

publish the forty questions most asked during

these question and answer programs. These ques-

tions represent, likewise, the mostly frequently

asked questions during eight additional years of

street preaching.

It is hoped that this pamphlet will be helpful

to the clergy in understanding the problems of

non-Catholics; and that those who are interested

in the Catholic Church will receive from them the

necessary impetus to signify their interest to

some priest of their choice. In this regard I can

speak for all my brothers in the priesthood. Any

one of us would feel it a God-given privilege to

consult with you, advise you and instruct you if

you so desire.

REV. A. W. TERMINIELLO





Chained Bibles?

Is it not true that the Church chained

Bibles in the Middle Ages

?

The Church DID chain Bibles in the Middle

Ages; and for the same reason that the Telephone

Company chains its directories to the booth—to
prevent people from STEALING them.

We must remember that each Bible had to be

copied by hand and that it took the lifetime of a

monk to do this. According to standards today,

each one of these Bibles would probably be worth

$10,000. Records have been compiled which show

that there were 5,000 chained books in 11 Protes-

tant and 2 Catholic libraries. The Reformers,

likewise, chained their Bibles in their churches

for at least 300 years. Therefore, Catholics were

not alone in chaining Bibles.

1



Oldest Bibles?

Which is older, the Catholic or non-

Catholic version of the Bible?

The Catholic version is more than 1000 years

older than any non-Catholic version.

(a) The source of the Catholic version (which

contains the seven missing books) is called

the “Septuagint Version,” and dates to 280

B.C., and was the one used by Christ and the

Apostles. The source of the non-Catholic

version (the Massoretic Text) did not come

into existence until about 1000 years later.

(b) The canon, or official list of books, was es-

tablished by the Council of Carthage in 397.

It was more than a thousand years later

(1534) that the first non-Catholic Bible, the

Lutheran, came into existence as a complete

Old and New Testament.

2



Bible Differences?

What ate some of the differences be-

tween the Catholic and the Protestant

versions of the Bible

?

The chief difference is in the omission of seven

complete books and parts of two others from the

Old Testament in the Protestant versions. The

books omitted are:

These omissions should certainly be a matter

of concern and investigation. The entire Christian

world accepted them as the inspired Word of God

until the Reformation. If they did not belong

there, then God had permitted the entire Chris-

tian world to be led astray for more than a thou-

sand years. On the other hand, if they DO belong
there, then Protestants are being deprived of a

good portion of revelation and the inspired Word.

No one would presume to say that anything in-

spired by God is unimportant.

Ecclesiasticus

Baruch

Tobias

Judith

Wisdom

I Macabees

II Macabees

Esther (part)

Daniel (part)

3



Bible Alone?

Why is the Bible alone not sufficient as

our rule of faith or guide to the teaching

of Christ?

The Bible alone is not sufficient as a guide to

Christ’s teaching, because:

(a) It was not CHRIST’S way.

Only two of the Apostles wrote Gospels; and

only five wrote Epistles. All would have done

so if it were Christ’s intention to spread the

Gospel by the circulation of books. On the
contrary, the Apostles were commissioned to

teach and preach in His name.

(b) The Bible alone is not a SAFE guide.

There are many millions who cannot read.

And there are many passages which are diffi-

cult to understand. St. Peter admits this in

speaking of the Epistles of St. Paul.

“In these epistles there are certain things

difficult to understand, which the un-

learned and the unstable distort, just as

they do the rest of the Scriptures also, to

their own destruction.”

2 Peter 3:16

4



(c) The Bible alone is not COMPLETE.

“There are, however, many other things

that Jesus did; but if every one of these

should be written, not even the world

itself, I think, could hold the books that

would have to be written. Amen.”

St. John 21:25

(d) The Bible alone is not CLEAR. Read Acts

18:26-31.

Likewise we see the hundreds of denomina-

tions, all of which claim to get their religion

from the same Bible, believe contrary doc-

trines.

6



Traditions of Men?

By what right does the Catholic Church

teach doctrines which are not found in

the Bible ? Is this not what St. Mark

calls “Making the word of God of no ef-

fect through your traditions?” or what

St. Matthew calls “Teaching for doc-

trines, the commandments of men” ?

This certainly would present a problem for

the sincere seeker after truth who believes that
all revelation is found in the Bible and the Bible

ALONE.

By tradition we mean the official interpreta-
tion of the teaching Church, clarifying the written

teachings of the Apostles. It also includes the

UNWRITTEN teaching of the Apostles and the
Church, handed down through the Fathers, the

councils, the decisions of the Popes and the liturgy

of the Church

Scripture is certainly the basis for this tradi-

tion. Christ sent His Apostles to teach:

“All power in heaven and in earth has

been given to me. Go, therefore, etc.”

St. Matt. 28:18-19

6



i They were to teach with His authority and to

teach all things He taught. They were to go and

PREACH

:

“Go into the whole world and preach the

gospel to EVERY creature.”
St. Mark 16:15-16

They were to be WITNESSES

:

“In Jerusalem in all Judea and Samaria,

and even to the utmost parts of the

earth.”

Acts 1:8

Nowhere is there a command to WRITE any-
thing. And so the Church has the duty and the
commission to teach all things that Christ taught

whether or not those things have been committed

specifically to Holy Scripture.

Tradition itself is mentioned by St. Paul:

“Hold to the form of sound teaching which

thou hast heard from me.”

II Tim. 1:13

Not only was His written word to be obeyed;
but also the doctrine committed to them by speech.

“The things which thou hast heard from

me through many witnesses, commend
•j-n to trustworthy men, who shall be com-

petent in turn to teach others.”

II Tim. 2 :2

:7



In other words, the teaching of Paul was to

be handed down through teachers who were to
follow him. In Romans he says:

“How then are they to call upon Him
whom they have not believed? But how
are they to believe Him whom they have
not heard? . . . And how are men to
preach unless they be sent?”

Romans 10:14-15

We must remember that before the last
Apostle, St. John, died, there had already been a

succession of four Popes—St. Peter (33-67), Linus
(67-79), Cletus (79-91), Clement (91-100).

These men who were accepted by the whole
Christian Church as the supreme authorities in

matters of faith and morals, were teaching be-

fore the New Testament was completed. All the
Apostles, moreover, except John, were dead BE-

FORE the entire New Testament was written.

So Catholics do not believe that they are

teaching doctrines of MEN, or the traditions of
men, or commandments of men. They are teach-

ing DIVINE tradition.

In the texts mentioned in the question, Mat-

thew 15:9 and Mark 7:13, Christ is speaking of

the Pharisees and their UNREASONABLE com-
mandments.

8



Luther Discover Bible?

Was it not Luther who discovered the

Bible, and was he not the first to trans-

late it into the language of the people

?

Of course, this is a falsehood. Luther, him-

self, in his Table Talks said, “When I was young

I acquainted myself with the Bible— read the
same often, so that I knew where any reference

was contained and could be found when anyone

spoke about it.” Luther’s translation of the New
Testament was not published until 1522, and his

version of the Old Testament was not published

until 1534.

Catholics, between the years 1466 and 1522,

had already published fourteen complete editions

of the Bible in high German and five in low Ger-
man. During this same period of time, that is,

from 1450 to 1520, Catholics had also published

156 Latin, 6 Hebrew editions of the Bible, besides
II complete editions in Italian, 10 in French, 2 in

Bohemian, 1 in Flemish, and 1 in Russian.

The objection to Luther’s translation is
summed up by a non-Catholic as follows:

“He has in many places confused, stulti-
fied and perverted the old trustworthy

text to its great disadvantage, and also

9



poisoned it with heretical glosses and

prefaces — he almost everywhere forces
the Scriptures on the question of faith

and works, even when neither faith nor

works are thought of.” (Janssen, History

of the German People, XIV, 425).

The same author points out 1,400 inaccuracies.

Bunsen, another Protestant, mentions 3,000 in-

accuracies.

We know that he ridiculed the Book of Ec-
clesiastes, that he rejected the Epistle to the He-

brews and the Apocalypse as not being Apostolic,

and that he called the Epistle of St. James, “An

Epistle of straw.” He changed the meaning in
Romans 3:20 and Romans 4:15 by adding the

word “only.” Likewise, he added the word “alone”

in Romans 3:28. When this was pointed out to
him, he made this comment

:

“If your new papist makes much ado
about the word ‘alone’ just say straight

out to him: ‘Dr. Luther will have it so,

and says, papist and donkey are one and

the same things; thus I will and am
Determined to have it; my will is the
reason’.”

10



Search the Scriptures?

Are we not told in John 5:39 that the

Bible is the only source of faith : “Search

the Scriptures, for in them ye think ye

have eternal life and they are they which

testify of me.” (K . J.). . . . So, too, in

II Timothy, 3 : 1

6

- 1

7

, where we are told

that all Scripture “is given by inspira-

tion of God and is profitable for doc-

trine, for reproof, for correction, etc.” ?

These texts do not prove that Scripture alone

is the guide or rule of faith. In the first text

(John 5:39), Christ is not telling the Jews to read

the NEW TESTAMENT to find His gospel be-
cause the New Testament did not exist. He is

rather insisting upon the fact that they gain

no profit from their own reading of the OLD
TESTAMENT because they fail to recognize Him
as the Messias. The word “search” is in the indi-

cative and not the imperative mood.

11



Christ is talking here to the Bereans who

read the Scriptures to see whether He had cor-

rectly cited the Old Testament and whether His

interpretation was true.

The text of II Timothy likewise proves noth-

ing in this regard because St. Paul is speaking to

Timothy at a time when a good portion of the

New Testament had not yet been completed. This

is evident from the preceding verse which is sel-

dom quoted along with verses 16 and 17. Verse

15 reads as follows in the King James version:

“And that from a child thou hast known

the sacred Scriptures, which are able to

make thee wise unto salvation through

faith which is in Christ Jesus.”

Certainly St. Paul is not talking of the NEW
Testament, but rather of the OLD. From the Old

Testament, of course, Timothy could get a knowl-

edge that would lead him to accept Christ and

His teachings as he did.

12



Christ’s Church — Corrupt?

Is it not true that the Catholic Church

became so corrupt before the 16 (7? Cen-

tury that it was no longer the Church

of Christ?

So-called “reformers” have chosen different

points of history at which the Church of Christ

was supposed to have become corrupt. No matter

what point is chosen, it must then be admitted

that UNTIL that particular time, the Catholic

Church (the only one then in existence) was the

true Church of Christ. To admit CORRUPTION

OR APOSTASY, is to say that Christ failed in

establishing a church—either because He COULD
not, or He WOULD not keep His promise.

Three texts of Scripture prove that Christ

made the promise that His church would go on

until the end of time:

(1) Matthew 28:18-20. Christ promised that He

himself would remain with the Church until

consummation of the world.

13



(2) Matthew 16:18. His promise to Peter that

He would build His church upon him as a

rock and that the gates of hell would not

prevail against it.

(3) John 14:16. Christ promised to send the

Holy Ghost to abide with the Church forever.

These promises were made by the Son of God;

and therefore. He INTENDED to keep them, and

WAS ABLE to keep them.

Although individuals, large groups of men, and

even entire nations, have apostatized from the

God, we can never say that the Church itself

apostatized; for this would mean that Christ had

not kept His promises.

14



Undemocratic?

Does your Church not deprive Catholics

of the democratic freedom of thought

which is enjoyed by Protestants?

The Church does not claim to be a democracy

;

and no Catholic resents the fact that he is not

allowed to carry freedom to the extent of license.

No sane person would want the privilege of deny-

ing absolute truth.

Furthermore, it is not for the individual to

choose the type of government he would like in

the church. The type of government was chosen

by the Christ Himself and was a government

based upon authority in teaching and discipline.

Christ Himself taught with authority, chang-

ing even the Mosaic Law. Matthew 5:20-23).

He conferred this same authority on His
Apostles:

“And whatever thou shalt bind upon earth
shall be bound in heaven, and whatever

thou shall loose upon earth shall be

loosed also in heaven.”

St. Matthew 16:19

15



The Apostles exercised this authority as we

read throughout the Acts of the Apostles.

Likewise St. Paul wrote to the Galatians:

“But even if we or an angel from heaven

should preach a gospel to you other than

that which we have preached to you, let

him be anathema.”

Galatians 1:8

St. John, in his second Epistle, wrote:

“If anyone comes to you and does not

bring THIS doctrine, do not receive
Him.”

II John 1:10

Furthermore, the Apostles were commissioned

to go and teach in the NAME of Christ and with
the AUTHORITY of Christ. If there are teachers,
there must be students, and the students must

accept the authority of the teacher.

Catholics, of course, do enjoy freedom of

thought. This freedom is limited only by absolute

truth. No one is free to say that the sum of two
plus two equals five.

So, too, in the government of the Church

the Church was founded upon Peter as the rock

as we shall see in another question.

16



Peter - or - Christ — the Rock?

Christ made Himself the rock founda-

tion in Matthew 16 : 18 . . . . Does the

Church not usurp the power of Christ

by claiming that Peter was the rock

foundation and the Popes his successors

?

A careful reading of Matthew 16:18 in the
light of St. John 1 :41 should show us that Christ,

in speaking of the rock, was referring to Peter

and NOT of Himself. Of course we all admit that

Christ is the founder of His Church. But St. Peter

was the one chosen to be the temporal ruler of

this church. St. John tells the story of the meeting

of St. Peter and our Lord in St. John 1:42 when

Christ said to him:

“Thou art Simon, the son of John; thou

shalt be called Cephas” (which inter-

preted is Peter).

The word “Peter” in Aramaic which Christ

was speaking meant “a rock.” Christ was follow-
ing the practice among Orientals of changing the
name of a person to signify a new function which
he was to perform. Two years later, Christ was

17



actually to change the name of Simon and to

promise to build His Church upon PETER.

“Thou art Peter (i.e., a rock), and upon

this rock I will build my church.”

St. Matt. 16:18

A reading of this chapter from 13 to 20 will
show that PETER was the one who was to be the
rock. The LORD first asked for a sign of faith
from Peter. Peter said, “Thou art the Christ, the

Son of the living God.” He then rewarded him,
“Blessed art thou Simon Bar-Jona—because flesh
and blood has not revealed this to thee but my
Father in heaven.” And then He changed his
name.

“And I say to thee, thou art Peter, and
upon this rock I will build my Church
and the gates of hell will not prevail

against it.”

St. Matt. 16:18-20

Certainly Christ would not CONFOUND
GRAMMATICAL CONSTRUCTION by saying, “I
say to thee (speaking to PETER), thou art Peter
(and then changing in the same sentence), upon

this rock (that is, upon Me), I will build my
church.”

In the very next verse he then goes back TO
PETER, “And I will give to THEE the keys of the
kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shall

18



bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and what-

soever THOU shall loose on earth shall be loosed

in heaven.”

He FULFILLED this promise after His resur-

rection when He commanded Peter to feed His

lambs and also His sheep. St. John 21:15, 17.

Peter EXERCISED this jurisdiction:

(a) His name was always first on the lists of

Apostles.

(b) He proposed the election of an Apostle to

succeed Judas. Acts 1:21-26.

(c) He preached the first sermon on Pentecost

Sunday. Acts 2.

(d) He worked the first miracle. Acts 3:6-8.

(e) At the council of Jerusalem, all the Apostles

submitted to his authority. Acts 15:7-12.

History proves that from that time on, both

in the East and the West, the successor of Peter

was acknowledged to be the supreme head of the

Church. Since that day there have been 265 suc-

cessors to St. Peter. That this was Christ’s plan

is found in the same chapter where He said that
the Church founded upon THIS rock foundation
was to endure until the end of time and that the
gates of hell would NOT prevail against it. The
Church was to have the same foundation, for if
the Church was to go on there must be successors
who would carry on the work of Peter, the rock.

19



You Invite Me — I Can’t Invite You
. . . Why?

Why is it that Catholics invite us to

their Churches and will not go to ours

when we invite them

?

When we as Catholics invite you to our Church

we are not asking you to commit sin. We are not
asking you to do anything which would violate

your conscience. As a logical Protestant you must

admit that one church is as good as another. This

is based on private judgment, the fundamental

doctrine of Protestantism. Every Protestant

MUST ADMIT that every other person is just as
correct as he is, and has the same right to worship

God in any way he chooses This would mean that

the Catholic Church, too, is as good as any other

Church; and there would be no guilt attached to

attendance at a Catholic Church.

On the other hand Catholics believe that Christ

decided what form of worship He wanted. He was

God and had the right to say that He would be

worshipped in this way or that way. We believe

20



that He established only ONE form of worship,

and intended us to participate in THAT FORM.

We are not free to say we would rather do it

OUR way. Therefore for a Catholic to participate
in any other form of worship would be a violation

of his conscience; and this means sin. Therefore,

when you invite us (in all good faith) to worship

with you, you are in effect asking us to commit

sin. We, of course, know this is not your intention.

Catholics are, however, permitted to partici-

pate with non-Catholics in services such as mar-

riages, funerals, etc.

21



Only “Accept” Jesus?

Is it not sufficient to “Accept Jesus’ ’ in

order to be saved through the merits of

Jesus Christ

?

Christ could not have made mere “acceptance”

of Himself sufficient for salvation since the ob-

servance of some of the commandments is re-

quired by natural law. His plan included not only

hope or “acceptance” but also the observance of

the commandments, faith, baptism, etc.

“Not everyone who says to me ‘Lord,

Lord’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven;

but he who does the will of my Father

in heaven shall enter the kingdom of

heaven.”

St. Matt. 7:21

22



What Difference Which Church?

Is it not true that all Churches are good,

and that it makes no difference what we

believe as long as we live right?

No, this is not true for:

(a) This would mean that truth and falsehood

were equally pleasing to God.

(b) That the unity for which Christ prayed would

be an impossibility.

(c) It DOES make a difference what we believe
as well as what we do.

“He who believes and is baptized shall be

saved, but he who does not believe shall

be condemned.”

St. Matt. 16:16

“He who hears you, hears me; and he who
rejects you, rejects me; and he who re-

jects me, rejects Him who sent me.”

St. Luke 10:16

“But if he refuse to hear even the Church,

let him be to thee as the heathen and the

publican.”

St. Matt. 18:17

23



Faith vs. Good Works?

How do you explain the Catholic posi-
tion with regard to good works when

St. Paul teaches that a man is justified

by faith: “Therefore we conclude that

a man is justified by faith, without the

deeds of the law (Romans 3 : 28 ).

Outside the Catholic Church the average per-

son has an entirely erroneous idea of the Catholic

Church’s position on the question of good works.

No Catholic has ever taught that a person can be

SAVED by good works. Certainly he can be
JUSTIFIED by faith, but not by faith alone.

“We are justified by a faith that worketh
by charity.

Gal. 5:6

We believe that the human race was redeemed
by the death of Christ on the cross, but that more

than the acceptance of this is necessary. It is

necessary for each individual to personalize this

atonement of our Lord by his own co-operation,
i.e., by faith, baptism, the keeping of the com-

mandments and observing all things that Christ

has taught.

24



Furthermore, good works are necessary in

order to help a person persevere in the state of

grace or friendship with God. He has told us this
when He said that he who gives a glass of water

in His name, gives it to Him; that we must love

our neighbors as we love ourselves; that we must

do good to those who hate us and persecute us;

that we must feed the hungry and clothe the

naked; and perform all the other corporal and

spiritual works of mercy.

For God to ignore these good works, and not

attach merit to them, would be unjust. He Him-
self says this through St. Paul.

“For God is not unjust that He should
forget your works.”

Hebrews 6:10

Those who are doubtful about the place of
good works in the plan of Redemption should read

the Epistle of St. James, Chapter 2:

(14) “What will it profit, my brethren, if a man
says he has faith, but does not have works?

Can the faith save him?”

(17) “So faith too, unless it has works, is dead

in itself.”

(18) “But someone will say, ‘Thou hast faith, and
I have works. Show me thy faith without
works, and I, from my works, will show thee
my faith’.”

25



(20) “But dost thou want to know, O senseless
man, that faith without works is useless?”

(24) “You see that by works a man is justified,
and not by faith only.”

(26) “For just as the body without the spirit is

dead, so faith also without works is dead.”

Likewise, in I Corinthians 13 :2.

“And if I have prophecy and know all

mysteries and all knowledge, and if 1

have faith, so as to remove mountains,

yet do not have charity, I am nothing.”

Therefore, although a man is not SAVED by
works, yet works are pleasing in the sight of God,

and HAVE VALUE since they are done for Him.
They thus help the individual to preserve in the

state of grace or friendship with God.

26



Salvation for Protestants?

Can Protestants be saved

?

Protestants who sincerely believe that they

are in the right church CAN be saved provided

they die without UNREPENTED mortal sin.

If these persons are not baptized, it is possible

for them to have baptism of desire, that is, if

these persons do all they know God expects of

them, we say they have baptism of desire. This

means they WOULD desire baptism if they knew

its importance since they do all else that God has

required as far as they know. These persons be-

long to what is called “the Soul of the Church.”

27



Assurance of Salvation?

Why is it that Catholics do not believe

in “Assurance of Salvation” here and

now?

Because we believe that man remains free to

serve or offend God throughout his entire life,

and that we are saved only when our life is com-

pleted by death. We likewise believe that as long
t
'

•
.

•

*

as there is life, there is the possibility of offend-

ing God and losing our souls.

To have a positive here-and-now assurance of

salvation is contrary to experience and Scripture.

It would presume:

(1) That there is no possibility of future sin,

either; ;

(a) Because the assured CANNOT SIN.
Scripture tells us, however, that even the

JUST man shall fall seven times seven.

Proverbs 24:16

28



We are likewise told that if we imagine

that we can remain sinless we are de-

ceiving ourselves.

“If we say we have NO SIN we de-

ceive ourselves.”

I John 1:8

(b) Or because sin will not be IMPUTED

to us.

(c) Or because we WILL repent before it is

too late. This would mean that the “ac-

ceptance of Jesus” had taken away our

free will, as would, indeed, happen in

either of the above assumptions.

Scripture proves that this is not the teaching

of the Apostles. St. Paul, who certainly had “ac-

cepted Jesus,” was not thereby SURE of his

salvation.

“But I chastize my body and bring it into

subjection, less perhaps after preaching

to others, I myself should be rejected.”

I Corinthians 9:27

“Therefore let him who thinks he stands,

take heed lest he fall.”

I Corinthians 10:12

29



Catholics do have MORAL certainty from the
words of Scripture in many places, for example:

“He that eateth this flesh shall live for-

ever.”

St. John 6:52

“Is any man sick among you? Let him

call in the priests of the church who will

anoint him with oil in the name of the

Lord, etc.”

James 5:14

“Whose sins you shall forgive they are

forgiven them; whose sins you shall re-

tain they are retained.”

St. John 20:22, 23

This moral certainly is based upon the fact

that we are doing all that we can, with the help

of God, to save our souls.

30



East or West?

Is the Orthodox Greek Church the same

as the Roman Catholic Church

?

The Catholic Church is divided geographically

into two great divisions, the East and the West.

In the East there is a further division of churches

into those which are in communion with the Pope

and those which are not. Those which are con-

nected with Rome are called “UNIATE,” or more

correctly, “Eastern CATHOLIC Churches.” Those

which are not connected with Rome are called

Orthodox Churches.

The Greek Church is one of these Eastern

Churches, and in Greece, this Church is divided

into those who are united with Rome and those

who are not. That is, the Catholic Greek Church

and the Orthodox Greek Church.

The Orthodox Eastern Churches are divided

into many branches and acknowledge the su-

premacy of five Patriarchs — Constantinople,
Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Cyprus.

31



In essential matters, the Orthodox Churches

believe as the Western Church for the most part.

However, they do not accept the authority of the

Pope. Their priests are validly ordained and their

bishops validly consecrated. Priests are allowed

to be married men, provided they marry before

they become deacons.

Their liturgy is similar to the Catholic Eastern

liturgy, but different from the Western liturgy

except in essential parts such as the consecration.

32



Unmarried Priests?

Why is that Catholics priests do not

marry ?

The Church has always considered marriage

as a Sacrament and something sacred. The fact

that priests do not marry is not a condemnation

of marriage. The reason is that priests VOLUN-

TARILY give up the married state in order that

they may give themselves entirely to the service

of God and the care of His people. This is a dis-

ciplinary law of the Church; and the Church, for

good reason, may dispense from the law.

St. Paul gives this as the reason in his Epistle

to the Corinthians:

“I would have you free from care. He who
is unmarried is concerned about the

things of the Lord, how he may please
God. Whereas, he who is married is con-
cerned about the things of the world,

how he may please his wife; and he is
divided.”

I Cor. 7 :32, 33

In the Eastern Churches connected with Rome,

priests are permitted to be married men provided
they marry before they become deacons.

33



Infallible Humans?

How can Catholics claim that a mere
human being can be infallible

?

It is strange to hear such an argument from

individuals who believe that every human being,
learned and unlearned alike, is infallible through

the principle of private judgment i.e., that one

man’s judgment is as good as another, and that

everybody’s judgment is correct.

Infallibility means that God guarantees that

in matters of faith and morals the Pope cannot

make a mistake.

Infallibility DOES NOT mean that the Pope
cannot sin; nor does it mean that he cannot make
a mistake in other matters such as history,

politics, science and the like. Only when he de-

clares a certain truth to be a matter of revelation

is he infallible.

There are four conditions which are necessary

in order that the Pope be infallible:

(1) He must speak as the chief pastor and
teacher of the Church. The words he uses

must make it clear to all that he is speaking

as the head of the Church in a matter of faith

or morals.

34



(2) He must be speaking to the universal Church,
that is, to Christians everywhere in the

world.

(3) He must speak “ex cathedra,” that is, offi-
cially, with supreme apostolic authority.

(4) It must be on a matter of faith or morals,

and not on any other subject. Proof for this

is found in St. Paul’s first Epistle to Timothy

where he speaks of the Church of Christ as

“the pillar and mainstay of truth.” Likewise,

in St. John’s Gospel, “I will ask the Father

and He will give you another advocate, to
dwell with you forever.”

Likewise, we know from Scripture that Christ
promised that the gates of hell would not prevail

against the Church and that He promised to be
with the Church until the end of time. If these

promises mean anything, they mean that Christ
would protect the Church in its TEACHING of
the truth because He established this Church pri-
marily as a teaching Church.

This does not limit discussion or debate among
its members, because the Church uses this pro-

tection of the Holy Ghost only in extreme cases

where it is necessary to settle the truth of a

question; and this, always on fundamental truths.

35



Dipping or Pouring?

Why doesn’t the Church baptize by

immersion as do all other Churches?

The Church recognizes either of the three

forms of Baptism as valid:

(1) Immersion—or dipping.
(2) Infusion—or pouring.
(3) Aspersion—or sprinkling.

In any form it is necessary that the minister

have the proper intention, i.e., to remove original

sin.

The Church uses pouring for practical reasons

since it would be impossible to dip a baby, a per-

son in prison or a person in a hospital.

Although it is true that until the 13th Cen-

tury, the Church usually baptized by dipping, we
do find authority for POURING in one of the
oldest books of Christianity, the Didache, or the

“Doctrine of the Twelve Apostles,” which dates

back to the year 98. In this book we read:

“Baptize in the name of the Father and of

the Son and of the Holy Ghost in running

water, but if thou hast no running water,

baptize in other water, and if thou canst

not in cold, then in warm. But if thou

hast neither, pour water three times on

the head in the name of the Father and
of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.”

36



Baptism of Infants?

Why does your Church baptize infants

?

They cannot acknowledge Christ.

In instituting the Sacrament of Baptism,

Christ made no exceptions. His command was:

“Teach ye all nations, baptizing them,

etc.”

St. Mark (16:15) likewise makes no excep-

tions :

“Go into the whole world and preach the

gospel to every creature. He who be-
lieves and is baptized shall be saved, but

he who does not shall be condemned.”

In this passage Christ speaks plainly and says

that UNBELIEF is sufficient to incur damnation
but that FAITH does NOT insure salvation un-
less it is accompanied by baptism. His command

in John 3:5 includes all, “Unless a man be born
again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into

the kingdom of God.”

In addition to those examples, there are the

“household” passages where entire families were

baptized and where we PRESUME there must
have been children in some of them.

37



These household Scripture texts, however, are

relatively weak. But the tradition of the Church

is so conclusive that some Protestants lay aside

the “Bible alone” principle and baptize infants

on the strength of Catholic tradition.

Recent discoveries in the Roman catacombs
prove that infant baptism was common in the
primitive Church. Thus a certain Murtius Verinus

placed on the tomb of his children the inscription

:

“Verina received (baptism) at the age of ten

months, Fiorina at the age of twelve months.”

Above another tomb we read: “Here rests
Archillia, a newly-baptized (infant) ; she was one

year and five months old, died February 23rd.”

38



Why Not Confess to God Instead

of to a Mere Man?

Why is it Catholics go to confession to

a mere man in order to confess their sins

?

Is it not easier to go directly to God?

Yes, it is easier to go to God, and probably

this is why Christ did not chose this method.

We confess to a man, not because he himself
has the power to forgive sins, but because he acts

as an agent, or a judge, in the name of God, and

forgives sins in His name.

The words of institution prove that Christ in-

tended specific confession of sins:

“He, therefore, said to them again, ‘Peace

be to you! As the Father has sent me,
I also send you.’ When He had said this.
He breathed upon them and said to them,
‘Receive the Holy Spirit; whose sins you
shall forgiye, they are forgiven them,

whose sins you shall retain, they are

retained’.”

St. John 20:21, 22

39



By these words Christ gave to His Apostles
the power EITHER to forgive OR to retain. In
order to exercise this judicial power it is neces-

sary for the sinner to accuse himself specifically

of his sins. Most sins are committed in secret and

the priest-judge would have no other way of
knowing these sins, except by specific confession.

Furthermore, the priest as a judge must give

a penance or work of satisfaction which is pro-

portionate to the sins and helpful to the sinner.

This he can do only if he knows what sins have

been committed.

The fact that the priest is a sinner, as are all

men, does not affect the power which he exercises.

The power comes to him from his office. The same

is true with a President or with a judge in our

civil courts. The private lives of these individuals

does not affect the authority which they have

under the Constitution.

\

40



Unpardonable Sin?

Are there sins that God cannot pardon?

Does not Christ speak of this sin against

the Holy Ghost in Matthew 12:31-32?

There is no sin which God cannot and will not

pardon. This is evident from the text in I Timothy

where we read:

“This is good and agreeable in the sight

of God our Saviour, who wishes all men

to be saved and to come to the knowledge

of the truth.”

I Tim. 2 :3, 4

St. Matthew, in Chapter 12, is speaking of the

Pharisees who attributed the miracle of the
curing of the blind and dumb to the devil. We
read this in verse 24 of the same chapter:

“But the Pharisees, hearing this, said,

‘This man does not cast out devils except
by Beelzebub, the prince of the devils’.”

The unpardonable sin, then, for the Pharisees

and for all people is the wilful rejection of the

grace of God. Wilful rejection means that the

sinner refuses to repent despite all the graces

God bestows upon him. He will not receive God’s
pardon because he will not ask for it, and will not

do what is necessary to obtain it. As long as he
remains in this condition, of course, he cannot be

pardoned.

41



Real Body — Real Blood?

Do Catholics really believe they are re-

ceiving the Body and Blood of Christ

in Communion

?

Christ instituted the Holy Eucharist on the

night before He died, i.e., on the first Holy Thurs-

day, when He changed bread and wine into His

Body and Blood; and then commanded His

Apostles to do what He had done in commemora-

tion of Him.

“And while they were at supper, Jesus

took bread, and blessed and broke, and

gave it to His disciples, and said, ‘Take

and eat
;
this is my body.’ . . . And taking

a cup, He gave thanks and gave it
to them, saying, ‘All of you drink of

this; for this is my blood of the new
covenant’.”

St. Matt. 26:26, 28

Our Lord meant literally to change the bread

and wine into His body and blood instead of

leaving us a mere symbol or memorial of His

passion.

42



We know this from the words of His promise

to do this in St. John’s gospel, Chapter 6. The

important words of this chapter are

:

(a) John 6:52, “The bread that I will give is my

flesh for the life of the world.”

(b) John 6:52, “. . . unless you eat of the flesh of

the Son of man, ye shall not have life in you.”

(c) John 6:56, “For my flesh is food indeed and

my blood is drink indeed.”

These and other texts must be taken literally

because the entire context demands it; and be-

cause any other interpretation would involve us

in absurd consequences. The words, “Eat my flesh
and drink my blood” in a figurative interpretation
would mean to “persecute or hate bitterly.” In

this sense, it would mean that our Lord would
promise those who hate Him, eternal life and
glorious resurrection.

The grammatical construction of the phrases,

“This is My Body,” and “This is My Blood,” does
not admit of a figurative or symbolic meaning.

When the verb “to be” is used, the antecedent
must always be identical with the consequent,

i.e., “This” must be identical with “My Body.”
Therefore, there must have been a change of

substance.

4a



The Apostles understood Christ to speak

literally.

“The cup of benediction which we bless,

is it not the sharing of the blood of

Christ, And the bread that we break, is

it not the partaking of the body of the

Lord?”

I Cor. 10:16

“Therefore, whoever eats this bread or

drinks the cup of blessing which we

bless, unworthily, will be guilty of the

body and the blood of the Lord.”

I Cor. 10:27

This has been the continuous belief of Chris-

tianity until the time of the Reformation.

44



Why Latin?

Why is the Mass celebrated in Latin

?

(a) Because Latin is the official language of the

Church. It was adopted as such because it

was at one time the official language of a

large part of the civilized world.

(b) Latin is a dead language and therefore the

meaning of words remains constant.

(c) To preserve the uniformity of the Mass in

different countries and at different times.

Latin makes it possible for a person to be

able to follow the Mass as easily in China as

in America.

45



Communion— One Form?

Why do you deny the people the right
to receive Communion under the form

of wine as well as bread?

Protestants argue the necessity for receiving

under both forms from three passages of Scrip-

ture:

<1) St. John 6:55:

“He who eats my flesh and drinks my
blood, has life everlasting.”

<2) St. John 6:57:

“He who eats my flesh, and drinks my
blood, abides in me and I in him.”

For each one of these passages where eating

AND drinking are mentioned together, there is
another passage which mentions eating alone. For

example

:

<1) St. John 6:59:

“He who eats this BREAD shall live for-
ever.”

*(2) St. John 6:52:

“This BREAD that I will give is my flesh
for the life of the world.”

46



The third text used as an argument against

the Catholic practice is:

“Therefore, whoever eats this bread OR.

DRINKS the cup of the Lord unworthily,,
will be guilty of the body AND the blood
of the Lord.”

I Cor. 11:27

The King James Version changed the reading

“OR drink” to “AND drink.” However, the read-

ing “OR drink” has such overwhelming evidence

that the King James Revised and the Standard1

Revised Versions have gone back to this Catholic

reading. The Catholic reading COULD BE PARA-

PHRASED as follows, if we break it down into*
its grammatical parts:

“Whoever shall eat this BREAD UN-
WORTHILY, shall be guilty of the body

AND the blood of the Lord.”

Likewise

:

“Whosoever shall drink the CHALICE of
the Lord unworthily shall be guilty of

the body AND the blood of the Lord.”

This is so because Christ is present entirely

under EITHER form.

47



However, the important thing is not the mode

of reception, for just as in Baptism, our Lord left

the form to BE DETERMINED by the Apostles
and their successors. The important thing in the

reception of Holy Communion is that we receive

the Body and Blood of Christ really and actually.

This fundamental fact is ignored in a discussion

of the manner of reception.

The truth of the real presence is brought out

very clearly in this passage which is so often

quoted by Protestants, I Corinthians 11:27, where

we read that a person who RECEIVES CHRIST
unworthily is GUILTY of the Body and the Blood
of Christ. Without the real presence this passage

would be meaningless. There could be no guilt

attached to the reception of a mere memorial.

48



One Mediator—

?

Does not Scripture in I Ttm. 2 :

5

tell us

that there is only one mediator ? Why,

then, do Catholics pray to the Saints

and to Mary?

Again, this is an example of taking a text out

of its context. As a matter of fact Protestants as

well as Catholics do use prayers of SECONDARY
mediators. Do you not ask your minister to pray

for you? Do you not ask your friends to pray for

you? If no SECONDARY mediator is necessary,
then why ask them to pray for you? Why not go
directly to God?

As with all Christians we believe that all

graces come to us through Christ as the PRI-

MARY mediator. This does not mean, however,
that we should not go to God the Father or to

the Holy Ghost directly. The logical inference

from the literal translation of I Tim. 2:5 is that

we must ALWAYS go to Christ first. On the con-
trary, we have the words of Christ Himself telling

us that when we pray we should say, “Our Father

who art in heaven, etc.”

49



That the text of I Tim. 2:5 is NOT to be taken
literally is evident from other sources of St. Paul.

“I beseech you, therefore, brethren,

through our Lord Jesus Christ, and by

the charity of the Holy Ghost, that you

help me in your prayers for me to God.”
Rom. 15:30

Likewise in the Apocalypse (or Revelations)

we read

:

“And when He had opened the scroll, the
four living creatures and the twenty-four

ancients fell down before the Lamb,

having each of them a harp, and golden

bowls full of incense, WHICH ARE THE
PRAYERS OF THE SAINTS.”

. Apoc. 5:8

Also in this same inspired Book:

.
“And the smoke of the incense of the

prayers of the Saints ascended up before

God, from the hand of the angel.”

The Catholic belief is based upon the doctrine

of the Mystical Body of Christ, i.e., that all bap-

tized Christians are members of the Mystical
Body of Christ and that all are working for the

same objectives, the glory of God and the salva-
tion of souls. The very act of going to an inter-
mediary and asking him to go to Christ is an

50



acknowledgment that we believe all graces and

blessings can come only from Christ. Further-

more, it does not seem logical that we be per-

mitted to ask living human beings to intercede
for us, and yet be forbidden to ask thp saints of

God to pray for us.

We pray to Mary because her influence with
her Son is greater than that of any other saint-

On earth the power of this intercession was-
proved at the marriage feast of Cana where

Christ performed His first miracle before the time

set by Divine Providence, because Mary had asked
Him to do so. (St. John 2:1-11).

The power of this intercession still exists iir

heaven since the mother-Son relationship still

exists and because we have so much evidence of
this intercession here on earth, i.e., the appari-

tions at Lourdes, Fatima, etc.

51



Mary - Worship?

Where do you find Scripture for your

worship of Mary

?

Catholics do not “worship” Mary in the sense

that we worship God. We do not make her equal

to God, nor a substitute for God, nor a sort of a

“goddess.” We consider her a creature of God

—

but the purest of creatures, and the one whom

God must love above all creatures because of her

purity and her function as the mother of the

Redeemer. Instead of worshipping Mary, we

venerate or honor her.

We honor Mary:

(1) Because she is the mother of Jesus, the Son

of God. Certainly this fact alone makes her

unique among all the millions of creatures of
all times. We honor men and women of the
world for less dignity and less important

work.

(2) Because Mary was honored by God the
Father, Who chose her as the mother of His
Divine Son, and sent His angel to announce

this choice to her.

52



“Now in the sixth month, the angel
Gabriel was sent from God to a town of

Galilee, called Nazareth, to a virgin be-

trothed to a man named Joseph, of the
House of David, and the virgin’s name

was Mary.”

St. Luke 1 :26, 27

(3) Because the Son loved her as His own mother.

“But when the fullness of time came, God

sent His Son, born of a woman, born

under law.”

Galatians 4:4

The following texts of Scripture demonstrate

the honor paid to Mary. The sincere seeker will

want to read the entire texts.

Gen. 3:15—The “WOMAN” who would crush the
head of the serpent. Can any other woman
But Mary be suggested?

Isa. 7 :14—Prophecy of the virgin birth.
Luke 1:26-28—The Annunciation by the angel.
Luke 1:39-56—The Visitation: “Blessed art thou

among women. . . .”

Matt. 2:11—Visit of the Magi.
Matt. 2:14-21—Flight into Egypt.

53



Luke 2:41-50 — Loss of the child Jesus in the
temple.

Luke 2 :51, 52—The Child went down to Nazareth
and was subject to them. .

John 2:1-11—Marriage feast at Cana.
John 2:12—She went to Carphanaum with Jesus.
John 19:25-25—Foot of cross.
Mark 16:1-10—At tomb.
Acts 1:15—Pentecost.
Apocalypse (Revelations) 12:1-17— The “WOM-

AN” clothed with the sun. What other
woman can be suggested but Mary?

54



Idol - Worship?

Is it not true that Catholics worship

images contrary to Exodus 20 : 3 - 5 /*

The first commandment forbids the making

of graven images “TO ADORE THEM.” This is
found in the Book of Exodus, where we read:

‘/Thou shalt not have strange gods before

me. Thou shalt not make to thyself a
graven thing, nor the likeness of any-

thing that is in heaven above, or in the

earth beneath, nor of those things that

are in the waters under the earth. Thou

shalt not adore them, nor serve them.”

By this we are forbidden to make images to
take the place of God, or to adore them, or serve

them. This is the sin of idolatry.

That it was NOT the intention of God to for-
bid the use of images is evident from the fact

that the same inspired writer, in Exodus 25, com-

mands the Jews to make two golden cherubims
for the ark of the covenant in the temple. Like-

wise, in the Book of Numbers, God commanded

Moses to make a brazen serpent, so that the Jews
might look upon it and be saved from the attack

of the fiery serpent.

55



t

Therefore, images are forbidden ONLY if we
attribute to them a power that belongs to God

alone, or if we worship them as gods.

“Thou shalt make also two cherubims of

beaten gold, on the two sides of the

oracle.”

Ex. 25:18

“And the Lord said to him : Make a brazen
serpent, and set it up for a sign; who-

soever being struck shall look on it, shall

live.”

Num. 21:8

Why do we use pictures and images?

We use pictures and images:

(a) To remind us of the virtues of the particular

saint, or of the Blessed Mother;

(b) To remind us that we should imitate their

virtues;

(c) To help us concentrate on our prayers;

(d) To honor that particular saint, or the Blessed

Mother, who are God’s heroes.

56



Brothers of Christ?

After the birth of Christ, Mary was just

like any other married woman. Scrip-

ture tells us that she was virgin until

after the birth of Christ and that Christ

was her first-born son and that Christ

had other brothers

?

Most Protestants will put Mary on the pedestal

of virginity at least until Christ was born. This

would be difficult to deny in view of the prophecy

of Isias in Chapter 7 that a virgin would conceive

and bear a son; and in virtue of the appearance

of the angel to the virgin who was espoused to
Joseph.

But then they would take her from the pedestal

as a unique creature of God and say that she lived

a normal married life after the birth. They base
this on three particular passages of Scripture

which are badly misunderstood by most people.

A. The “BROTHERS” OF CHRIST. Matthew
13:55, 56;

“Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not His

mother called Mary, and His brethren

James and Joseph and Simon and Jude?

And His sisters are they not all with
us?”

57



We must not forget the answer, the rebuke of
our Lord in verse 57

:

“Jesus said to them, ‘A prophet is not

without honor except in his own country,

and in his own house.’ And because of

their unbelief He did not work many
miracles there.”

Matthew 13:57, 58

Catholic and non-Catholic students of Scrip-

ture are not agreed as to who were the parents
of James and Joseph and Simon and Jude. Most

Catholic scholars believe that they are the cousins

of the Lord, their mother being Mary, the wife of

Cleophas (Clopas). They come to this conclusion

by comparison with other texts, i.e., John 19:25.

We also know that in the Old Testament the
word “brother” or “brethren” was not reserved

for blood brothers but for other relatives also.

It was used:

1. FOR ALL RELATIVES.

Genesis 29:15:

“And Laban said unto Jacob, ‘Because

thou art my brother, should thou,
therefore, serve me for naught’.”

We know that Jacob was the nephew of
Laban.

58



2. KINSMEN.

Genesis 13:8:

“Abram therefore said to Lot . .

.

‘Let

therefore there be no quarreling be-

tween my herdsmen and thy herds-
men for we are all brethren’.”

3. ALSO FOR NIECES.

Genesis 12:13.

So also in everyday use today we call our

preacher brother and the preacher calls us brother.

But we are not brothers. In our union halls we

salute each other by the title “brother.” In our

lodges the same is true.

In this particular text if Simon and Jude and

James and Joseph were cousins, as they probably

were, they could not be CALLED “cousin” for
there was no word in Aramaic for cousin. If we
suppose that these were blood brothers we will

have to admit they were bom AFTER Christ

—

since no one today questions the virginity of

Mary PRIOR to the birth of Christ.

But in John 7:3, 4 and also in Mark 3:21 we
see these “brothers” rebuking our Lord. Now
it was unthinkable among Jews for a younger
brother to take such a role. Still further, in the

story of the crucifixion in John 19, we read that
the dying Lord gave His mother into the keeping

of St. John. This would not be done if He had

59



other living brothers. Lightfoot, who was a non-

Catholic scholar, said:

“It is inconceivable that our Lord would

thus have snapped asunder the most

sacred ties of natural friendship.”

The most important argument, however, is

found in the fact that nowhere in the New Testa-
ment is anyone else EXCEPT Jesus called the
“SON” of Mary. He is always pointed out as HER
Son. Nor is SHE ever called the MOTHER of
anyone else. She is always referred to as the

mother of JESUS.

B. FIRST-BORN. Matthew 1:25. The next
argument by the objectors to the virginity of

Mary is found in this text where Christ is called

the first-born. From this, the presumption is

drawn that there were other children. However,

this is not the usual meaning of the word “first-

born.” A family may only have one child and
that child is the first-born. In the Old Testament

we find examples of this in:

(a) Num. 18:15: The first-born son was to
be given to God. This son was to be given

BEFORE any other sons were born and
even if NO OTHER sons were born.

(b) Exodus 3:2: “Sanctify every first-born

that openeth the womb among the chil-
dren of Israel.” This was to be done BE-

FORE others were born and even if NO
others were born.

60



C. THE WORD “UNTIL” in the same chap-
ter of the same text (Matthew 1:25) where we

read “and he knew her not until she brought forth

her first-born son.” This work, however, does not

mean that he DID know her AFTERWARDS. It
refers to what has already been done and not to

the future.

For example: In Genesis 8:6, 7, we read that
Noah sent forth a raven which did not return

UNTIL the waters dried up. As a matter of fact
the raven NEVER returned, even after the waters
dried up. So, too, in Psalm 109: “Sit thou at my
right hand UNTIL I make thy enemies my foot-
stool.” Now, of course, Christ will continue to sit

at the right hand even after enemies are made
the footstool of God.

As Catholics we believe in the perpetual vir-
ginity of Mary before, during, and after the birth
of Christ. After the birth of Christ she lived in

the home with her Son whom she knew by revela-
tion to be “the Son of God.” There was no place

for selfish personal feelings when she was so
absorbed in the love for her Son. It is like looking

directly into the sun; we see nothing except the
sun. So in heaven we will know God, see God and
there will be no reason for turning our attention

to the creatures of the world or of thinking of

ourselves. This was true, likewise, of Mary, living,
as she was, with the Son of God.



Never Divorce?

Your Church makes no exceptions when

it comes to divorce. How then do you

explain the exception Christ Himself

permitted in the case of adultery in St.

Matthew 19:9.?

The text St. Matthew 19:9 reads as follows:

“But I say to you, ‘That whosoever shall

put away his wife, except for immorality,

and marries another commits adultery’.”

St. Matt. 19:9 (cf. St. Matt. 5:32)

Jewish law at the time of our Lord did not

permit absolute divorce. It did, however, permit

separation for the cause of adultery. However,

another school of teachers among the Rabbis
taught that even this was not cause for separa-

tion, or “limited divorce.”

Christ is settling this dispute by permitting

separation for the cause of adultery, but does not

allow remarriage in such a case. The text would
read as follows:

“But I say to you, ‘That whosoever shall

put away his wife—and this separation
62



is not permitted except for the cause

of fornication—makes her to commit
adultery’.”

The Law of God expressed by Christ is clear
and definite in the New Testament, and since it
is the word of God, neither the Church nor any-

one else is at liberty to change this law. What
is the law?

“And He said to them, ‘Whosoever puts

away his wife and marries another, com-

mits adultery against her, and if the

wife puts away her husband and marries

another, she commits adultery.”

St. Mark 10:11, 12

Sometimes separation is permitted for a good

reason. In such cases the Bishop may permit
divorce also if this is necessary to secure legal

protection for the innocent party and the children.

However, this is always with the understanding

that no second marriage can be considered valid

after this separation.

“But to those who are married, not I, but
the Lord, commands that the wife is not
to depart from her husband, and if she

departs, that she is to remain unmarried

or be reconciled to her husband. And let
not a husband put away his wife.”

I Cor. 7:10, 11

63



Vain Repetition?

When you say the Rosary, is this not

vain repetition condemned by Matt.

6 : 7 ?

The Rosary is indeed a repetition of prayers

. . . but NOT vain repetition ... or useless repeti-
tion.

In this passage of St. Matthew, our Lord is

condemning the Pharisees who “loved to stand in

the corners of the streets that they might be seen

by men.” They talked to God only to be seen by

men.

Our Lord never condemned repetition in

prayer. He Himself repeated the self-same prayer

three times in the Garden of Gethsemani. (Matt.

26:39, 42, 44). The blind man repeated his prayer
and was cured by Christ. (Matt. 20:31). We are
told that the angels of God in heaven never cease

repeating, night and day, the canticle: “Holy,

Holy, Holy, Lord God Almighty.” Apoc. 4:8.

Repeated prayers are not necessarily mechani-

cal or unnecessary. The girl who is in love does
not rebuke her boy friend for repeating the state-

ment that he loves her.

In the Rosary, Catholics repeat the Scriptural

prayers: the Lord’s Prayer (Matt. 6) and the

Angelic Salutation, or “Hail Mary,” found in

Luke 1:28.

64



Why Purgatory?

Where do you find purgatory and pray-

ing for the dead in the Bible

?

Purgatory is a place and state where those go

for a time, who die with no unrepented mortal

sins on their souls, but who still have either venial

sins, or who still have temporal punishment due

either for venial sins or repented mortal sins.

We can prove the existence of purgatory from
Holy Scripture and from reason.

1. OLD TESTAMENT ... in II Macabees we
read:

“And making a gathering, he sent twelve

thousand drachms of silver to Jerusalem

for sacrifice to be offered for the sins

of the dead. ... It is therefore a holy

and wholesome thought to pray for the

dead that they may be loosed from sin.”

Among non-Catholics this book is generally
not accepted as the word of God. However, no

one denies that it IS a reliable book of history.

As such, it proves that the Jews believed in the
existence of a place in the next world where sins

COULD be forgiven. We know this cannot be hell
from which there is no escape; nor can it be

65



heaven, for nothing unclean can enter there. We
know also that Christ did not correct this belief

as He would have done if it were not true.

2. NEW TESTAMENT . . .

(a) In the Apocalypse (XXI, 27, we are

told:

“And there shall not enter into it

anything defiled. . . .”

If there were no purgatory, this would mean

that God would have to send a person who died
with only the slightest venial sin on his soul to

hell with all those who have committed horrible

crimes.

(b) In St. Matthew’s Gospel (V, 26) St.

Matthew is here speaking of hell. But

by inference we are told that there IS

a place we can LEAVE in the next
world

:

“Amen, I say to thee, thou wilt not

come out from it til thou has paid

the last farthing.”

From this text we conclude that there must
be a purgatory, or third place, where some atone-

ment CAN be made after death. This cannot be
hell, for we know there is no escape from hell.
Nor can it be heaven, for nothing unclean can

66



enter heaven. There must, then, be a third place.

And this place we call “purgatory.”

(c) Again we read in St. Matthew (XII,

32) that the sin against the Holy Ghost

cannot be forgiven EITHER in this
world OR in the world to come. We
conclude from this that there ARE
sins which can be forgiven in the next

world. But they cannot be forgiven in

hell, and could not exist in heaven.

Therefore, there must be a third place

where they CAN be forgiven. This
place we call “purgatory.”

3. REASON ALSO PROVES the existence of
purgatory. Most people are not such great sinners

when they die as to deserve hell; nor are most

people prepared to go immediately to heaven.

God’s goodness and mercy demands a place of

purifying for the slight sins of those who have
tried to live according to His law.

67



The Lord’s Prayer— Why Not
the Same?

I
"

'
;

Why is it that Catholics do not say the

Lord's Prayer as it is found in Scrip-

ture, with the ending, “For Thine is the

kingdom and the power and the glory

forever"?

Catholics do say the Lord’s Prayer as it is

found in Scripture; and even as it is found in

YOUR version of Scripture.

We do not condemn the Doxology, “for thine
is the kingdom and the power and the glory for-

ever.” It is a beautiful prayer. However, it is not

Scriptural.

The Doxology is found in the King James

Version, it is true. The King James Revised Ver-

sion, however, omits it and makes a marginal note

that some manuscripts have this but that the

better ones did not. So, too, the Revised Standard

Version says in the footnote under Matt. 5:15:

68



“Other authorities, some ancient, add in some

form ‘for thine is the kingdom and the power

and the glory, forever. Amen’.” Therefore, we

might say that NON-CATHOLICS are not using

the text of the Lord’s Prayer found in the latest

versions of their own Bible.

Why is there a difference? Most probably
this Doxology was due to a marginal note made

by some copiest of the Bible back in the early

church. Later it crept into the text of some of

the ancient manuscripts.

69



Cain’s Wife?

W7?o was Cains wife ? From Genesis

4:17 it is evident that he had to marry

•a pre-Adamite woman.

In the first place Catholics do not believe in

the existence of pre-Adamite people, but rather

believe in the unity of the human race descended

from Adam and Eve who were the first parents.

It was not the intention of the inspired writer

to name all the children of Adam and Eve. As a

matter of fact they did not. The Bible names

three sons, Cain, Able and Seth, and then it goes

on to say that Adam “begat sons and daughters.”

(Gen. 5:4).

Therefore, Cain married one of his sisters.

This marriage of blood relatives was, of course,

necessary in order that the human race might

be begun.

70



The Drink Problem?

How can the Catholic Church tolerate

drinking?

The Church does not tolerate EXCESSIVE

drinking anymore than it permits excess in any

other thing. Human actions are divided into three

categories—good, bad, and indifferent. Indifferent
actions are those which can become good or bad

depending upon the use or abuse made of them.

For instance, eating is an indifferent act. It be-

comes good when it is done for the purpose of

maintaining health and strength. It becomes sin-

ful, of gluttony, when it is done to excess. So too

with gambling, smoking, dancing, and many other

indifferent actions.

Drinking can be good if done for reasons of

health or innocent recreation. Its abuse, or drunk-

enness, is always evil and sinful.

Scripture does not condemn drinking as such.

In the Bible it has been calculated that there are

117 references to drinking as something good. We
have an example of this in St. Paul who RECOM-

MENDED drinking. Writing to Timothy he says

:

71



“Do not still drink water but use a little wine

for thy stomach’s sake, and for thy frequent

infirmities.” (I Tim. 5:23).

Our Lord Himself was accused by the Phari-

sees of being a man who was “a glutton and a

wine-drinker.” (Matt. 11:19). Also our Lord Him-

self at the marriage feast of Cana changed water

into wine. He performed a miracle in order that

those there might drink wine. Certainly we can-

not accuse our Lord of doing anything which

would be sinful. Therefore the drinking of alco-

holic beverages is an indifferent act; it becomes

evil by abuse and by excess.

72



Why Hats in Church?

Why is that in the Catholic Church

women must wear hats

?

The practical reason is so that the woman’s

hair, which is her pride and glory, will not be a

distraction to others. Likewise, it has always

been a custom of etiquette in Old and New Testa-
ment times for a woman to cover her hair as a
sign of her subservience to men. St. Paul uses

this reason:

“Judge for yourselves; does it become a

woman to pray to God uncovered?”

I Cor. 11:13

“Every man praying or prophesying with
his head covered, disgraces his head. But

every woman praying or prophesying
with her head uncovered disgraces her

head, for it is the same as if she were

shaven.”

I Cor. 11:4, 5

St. Paul is here insisting on the natural sub-

ordinate position of women, particularly in church

affairs. He is settling a dispute which had arisen
among the Corinthians where certain women here,
as in other Greek cities, enjoyed a great deal of

liberty. At meetings many had presumed to at-

73



tend without veil and even to speak. And St. Paul

condemns this practice as improper and contrary

to custom.

Catholic women, then, keep their heads covered

out of respect for the house of God and for the

real presence of our Lord in the Blessed Sacra-

ment which is on the altar.

Shaved Heads of Nuns?

Is it true that nuns shave their heads

and why do they do this?

Most religious orders of women do crop their

hair or cut it short.

They do this as symbolic of the life they are

leading which is a life of self sacrifice for God

and a renouncing the things of the world. A
woman’s hair is considered her crowning glory

and is often a source of vanity. In order to avoid

this vanity the nun covers her head and cuts her

hair short.

74



“Call No Man Father”?

Why do Catholics call their priests

“Father” when the Bible says . . . ‘Call

no one on earth your father; for one

is your Father, who is in Heaven”

(Matt. XXIII, 9).

Catholics call their priest “Father”

:

I. Because he IS a Spiritual Father to them.

(a) In infancy he baptized them and, there-

fore, was the instrument . . . the agency

... of their spiritual REBIRTH just as
the physical fathers of Catholics are re-

sponsible for their PHYSICAL birth.
< *

(b) He gives them spiritual FOOD for their
souls whenever they receive the Body and

Blood of Christ in Holy Communion. “For

my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is
drink indeed.” (Jn. VI, 57). PROVIDING
NOURISHMENT IS ANOTHER OBLI-
GATION OF A FATHER.

V (c) In confession, the priest not only forgives

.

sin in the name of Christ, but also AD-
VISES them as to the best way to over-

75



come their difficulties . . . spiritual and

material. THIS, TOO, IS THE DUTY OF
A FATHER.

(d) Like a father, the priest is always at the

death-bed of a Catholic to console and

assist him. No Catholic would WANT to
die without a priest — HIS SPIRITUAL
FATHER—beside him.

Therefore, a priest does not DEMAND this
title. Catholics call him “Father” as a sign of the

affection he shares with their natural parents,

and because he shares with them the duties and

obligations of a parent.

II. Because the Bible does not mean that NO
man should be called “Father.”

1. Cruden’s Concordance (which is a non-

Catholic concordance) at the beginning of the

citation under the word “father” says:

“In addition to its common use, this word
is also used in the sense of seniors ... of

ancestors . . . founders of trades or pro-

fessions . . . head of the inhabitants of

a town, etc.”

The word “Father” is found almost a 1000

times and only about half of these refer to God.

The others refer to HUMAN BEINGS who are
called “Father.”

76



2. It was not the intention of Christ that NO
man should be called “Father.”

(a) In Matthew XIII, 1-3 .. . He is admonish-

ing the people to follow the teachings of

the Pharisees . . . but not their example

:

“But do not act according to their

works.”

According to these verses, no master is to

be followed who would lead us away from

Christ.

(b) Christ Himself permitted and used the

word FOR OTHERS than God.

(a) In John 4:12, He did not correct the
Samaritan woman who said: “Art
thou greater than our father Jacob

who gave us the well? . . .”

(b) In John 8:56, He Himself used the
term for Abraham: “Abraham your

father rejoiced that he was to see

my day . . .”

3 . Saint Paul, following the example of Christ,

did not take these words in their literal sense.

(a) He calls the Corinthians his spiritual
children : “For although you have ten

thousand tutors in Christ, yet you have

not many fathers. For in Christ Jesus,
through the gospel, did I beget you.”

(I Cor. 4:15)

77



(b) He calls Timothy his “beloved SON in the
faith.”

(I Tim. 1:2)

(c) He speaks of the Corinthians as his CHIL-
DREN : “. . . but I admonish you as my
dearest children.”

(I Cor. 4:14)

(d) He tells the Philippians that the proof of
Timothy’s loyalty is to be found in the

fact that he had served Paul in the Gospel

as “a Son with the FATHER.”
(Phil. 2:22)

(e) See also: I Thes. 2:11.

III. If we adhere to the literal interpretation:

1. All honorary titles would be forbidden.

Judges, mayors, etc., could not be called

“Your Honor.” Presidents, ambassadors,

etc., could not be called “Your Excellency.”

2. Physicians could not be called “Doc-

tor” and ministers could not be called

“Reverend.”

78



3. We could not call our own male parent
“Father” for there would be no exceptions

under the literal interpretation.

4. Likewise we could no longer call Washing-

ton the “Father of the Country.”

5. We could not use the expression “Mister”
for this is equivalent to “Master” and the

same text says, “Neither be ye called

masters. . . .”

6. Nor could we use the term “Sir” for this

is a contraction of “Sire” which means

“Lord” or “Master.”

THEREFORE, this text of St. Matthew is not

to be taken literally or as a general law. Catholic

priests do not DEMAND this title. It is for them
a source of HUMILITY rather than of PRIDE,

for it reminds the priest of his OBLIGATIONS

as a spiritual FATHER to his flock.

79



Why Fish on Friday?

Why is it that Catholics have to eat fish

on Fridays

?

In the first place. Catholics do not HAVE to

•eat FISH on Fridays. They may eat anything

they like EXCEPT MEAT.

Friday is a day of abstinence from meat for

Catholics in order that this little sacrifice will be

a work of satisfaction for the sins they have com-
mitted. ... The Church COMMANDS IT just as a
mother will insist on her child making restitution

for something the child may have stolen; or will
insist on eating nourishing food. The Church is

a mother and knows that unless we are constantly
reminded we will not make satisfaction for our
sins.

Meat is not considered as something BAD by
Catholics. If so, the Church would certainly not

permit it on every day EXCEPT one. It would be
bad EVERY day.

Friday is chosen because this is the day on

which our Lord died to atone for our sins and to

remind us that we should offer our sacrifices in
union with His sacrifice on the cross.

80









Index

>

Page

Chained Bibles? 1

Oldest Bible? 2

Bible Differences? 3

Bible Alone? 4

Traditions of Men? 6

Luther Discover Bible? .. 9

Search the Scripture? 11

Christ’s Church — Corrupt? 13
ndemocro*tic . 15

Peter or Christ — The Rock? 17
I Can’t Invite You — Why? 20
Only “Accept” Jesus? 22

What Difference Which Church? .. 23

Faith vs. Good Works? » 24

Salvation for Protestants? 27

Assurance of Salvation? 28
L'n Wpct ^ 31

Unmarried Priests? .. 33

Infallible Humans? : 34
Dipping or Pouring? 36

Baptism of Infants? - . 37

Why Not Confess to God? - 39
Unpardonable Sms? _ 41
Real Body — Real Blood? - 42
Whv Latin ? 45
Communion — One Form? .... 46
Amo MaHiator ? 40

Mary-Worship? 52

Rynthpi*? of Christ V 57

Npvpt Divnree? fi2

11 1 1 H t •••aaa««<«*aaaaaaaa«M.aaaaaaaaaaaa«aaa«a*aaaaaaaaaaaa««aaaaaaaaaaaaaa«aaaa«aaaaa«aaaaaaaa«a. aaaaaaaaa ^I
Whv Purffatorv 7 A5
The Lord’s Prayer — Why Not the Same? 68
Cain’s: Wife? 70V/XAXXI O TV XX V • ataaa<MMa»aaaaaaaaHiaaail**(iMaaaaaaaatlM«Naaaaaaaraaaatatagaaaa*Mauaa*ataa«aMia»aaa*aaaaaaa>aataaaMa 9 V

The Drink Problem? 71
Why Hats in Church? 73
Shaved Heads of Nuns? 74
Call No Man “Father”? 75
Why Fish on Friday? 80