Let us judge Catholics by the Bible


CONTENTS
If It’s About the Catholic Church . . . Ask A Catholic!

Is It Catholic or ^^Roman” Catholic?

What About Adding To The Word of God?

Peter, The Pope, and Infallibility

Seven Sacraments —No More . . . No Less

Where Is Purgatory Mentioned In The Bible?

One Mediator and Intercessor^ Christ, The Redeemer

Monks, Nuns and Friday Abstinence



WAf the Knights of Cofumhus

Advertise Catholic Faith

The xeason is simple. We Catho-
lics want our non-Catholic friends

and neighbors to know us as we

really are and not as we are some

times mistakenly represented.

We are confident that when
our religious Faith is better un-

derstood by those who do not

share it, mutual understanding

will promote the good-will which

is so necessary in a predominant-

ly Christian country whose gov-

ernment is designed to serve all

the people—no matter how much

their religious convictions may

diflPer.

American Catholics are con-

vinced that as the teachings of

Christ widely and firmly take

hold of the hearts and conduct

of our people, we shall remain

free in the sense that Christ

promised (John VIII, 31-38),

and in the manner planned by

the Founding Fathers of this

republic.

Despite the plainly stated will

of the Good Shepherd that there

be "one fold and one shepherd,”

the differences in the understand-

ing of Christ’s teaching are

plainly evident. It has rightfully

been called "the scandal of a

divided Christianity.”

If there is anything which will

gather together the scattered

flock of Christ, it is the nation-

wide understanding of the

Savior, what He did and how He
intended mankind to benefit by

the Redemption.

To this end, we wish our

fellow-Americans to become ac-

quainted with the teachings of

Christ as the Catholic Church

has faithfully presented them,

since the day the apostles in-

vaded the nations of the world

in willing and courageous obedi-

ence to Christ’s command: "Go,

therefore, and make disciples of

all nations .
.

(Matt. XXVIII,

19).

SUPREME COUNCIL

KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS
Religious Information Bureau

4422 LINDELL BLVD. ST. LOUIS 8, MO.

© Knights of Columbus 1951



“If It’s About The Catholic Church

... ASK A CATHOLIC!”

The above is the subtitle of
a leaflet published by the
Home Mission Board of the
Southern Baptist Conven-
tion. The title of the leaflet
is "Ask a Catholic!"

The origin of the title
and the purpose of the leaf-
let are set forth in its open-
ing paragraphs.

"In recent months you
have no doubt noted advertise-
ments in newspapers telling all who
wish factual information about the
teachings of the Catholic Church
to "ask a Catholic”.

"Taking that advice we will ask
our Catholic friends these ten
questions:

1. Where in the Bible does it
mention praying to Mary or to
saints?

2. Where in the Bible does it
say that either Peter or a pope is
infallible?

7. Where in the Bible are
seven sacraments men-
tioned?

8. Where in the Bible is
confession of sins to a priest

mentioned?

9. Where in the Bible
does it say a church can

add to the teachings of

God’s Word?
10. Where in the Bible

does it say that Mary is a mediator
between God and man?”

It is encouraging to find those

who are interested in questions
pertaining to Catholic belief and

practice turning to informed Cath-

olic sources for their information.

Too often, people get it from
sources that are most unreliable.

And too often people who are in-
terested in the Catholic answers to

questions such as the above do not

realize that Catholics are anxious

to give them the right answers.
3. Where in the Bible is a "Mass”

mentioned?

4. Where in the Bible is purga-
tory mentioned?

5. Where in the Bible is the
authorization for nunneries or
monasteries mentioned?

6. Where in the Bible is the eat-
ing of meat on Friday called a sin?

These questions are sincere and

reasonably clear. They deserve and
will be given equally sincere and

clear answers.

Would that the answers could
be equally brief! But if they were,

they would be too general to be
clear. Such questions are not satis-

factorily answered by one or more

1



references to the Bible because they

expect more than that. The use of
such Catholic terms as "Pope”,

"Purgatory”, "monastery” and "the
Mass” in the questions demands an
explanation of what these terms
mean — what things and ideas they
represent, so that their presence in

the Bible can be recognized or the
reason for their absence from the
Bible will be understood.

Since each of the questions is

concerned with "Where does the
Bible mention—” or "Where does
the Bible say—”an important cau-
tion is in order. It should be borne
in mind that Catholics do not go
to the Bible looking for mere
words. We try to understand the
ideas and things which the Bible
teaches.

When we find these ideas and
things, we speak and write about
them, using words and phrases
which are not always found in the
Bible. This is in every way right
and reasonable.

Nowhere does the Bible itself
demand that its readers adhere to
Biblical terminology in speaking

about what it teaches. To do so
would be impossible in a world
where so many languages are in use.

Like Christians in the past,

Christians today tend to develop

and use their own terms, names
and expressions when they speak of
what they consider to be Scriptural
truth. For example, as you read
books which purport to give state-
ments of Baptist belief, you will
meet such statements as "the New
Testament churches were independ-
ent, self-governing democratic
bodies . . .”, but . nowhere in the

Bible will you find the expression
"democratic bodies”. "Hereditary

sin” is often used in explanations

of Baptist belief, but this name
cannot be found in the Bible. The
"Christian Sabbath” is frequently

used for the Lord’s Day, but no such
name is found in the Bible. As a
matter of fact, the very title

"Bible”, which is given to the book
containing the inspired Scriptures,

will be found nowhere in the book
itself.

It cannot be wrong, therefore,
and it should not be unexpected
that we Catholics have our own
names and expressions when we
speak of the ideas and things which
we find in the Bible. If we find
that the Bible speaks of a place

and a state after death which can-
not be identified as Hell or Heaven,
we have a perfect right to call it
"Purgatory” or any other name
which we deem appropriate. If we
find it more convenient to use the
term "Mass” to designate the Serv-

ice in which we do what Christ
did and what He charged us to do
at the Last Supper, can anyone
reasonably object that the Mass is
not in the Bible merely because the

word is not there?

This must be emphasized be-
cause, unfortunately, there are

those who, with little apparent con-

cern for the true meaning of the
Bible, place an exaggerated import-

ance on the use of Biblical words
and language of the English trans-

lation of the Scripture. We shall
have frequent occasion to repeat

this caution in the answers to the

ten questions which we welcome
the opportunity to give.

2



We are pleased to find our-
selves addressed as "Catho-

lics” in the leaflet we are
considering, because many
object to our use of the

title "Catholic Church”.

They insist we should say
"Roman” Catholic Church
and that we should call our-
selves "Roman Catholics”.
And when we do not do so
in public print, especially when
dealing with matters of a strictly

religious nature, we are accused of
offending against all codes of truth,

fair practice, public honesty, and

so on.

It may not be out of place,
therefore, to get this difficulty out

of the way and to make it very
plain that we do not use the title
"Roman Catholic” for three good
reasons. 1 ) It is a nickname pinned
on our Church — and we do not
like nicknames. 2) In the sense

intended by those who demand
that we use it, the title "Roman
Catholic” involves a contradiction

— and as such, it is hardly an ap-
propriate title for our Church.

3) It is not the historical title of

our Church, nor the one which is
sanctioned by popular usage.

Why do we say it is a nickname?

Let us look at the record

and find out.

The "Oxford English Dic-
tionary” is generally recog-

nized as being one of the

highest existing authorities

on the meaning and deriva-
tion of English words, and
is not likely to be suspected '

of Catholic bias. Under the
heading "Roman Catholic”,

we read: "The use of this com-
posite term in the place of the
simple Roman, Romanist, or Rom-
ish, which had acquired an invidi-
ous sense, appears to have arisen
in the early years of the Seven-

teenth Century. For conciliatory

reasons, it was employed in the
negotiations connected with the

Spanish Match (1618-1624) and
appears in formal documents . .

.

after this date, it was generally
adopted as a noncontroversial term

and has long been the recognized

legal and official designation,

though in ordinary use, "Catholic”

alone is very frequently employed”

(New Oxf. Diet. VIII 766).
It should be noted that "Roman

Catholic” is said to be a substitute

for "Roman”, "Romanist”, "Rom-
ish”, which had acquired an in-

vidious sense. Very true! This term

3



was adopted by hostile usage early

in the Seventeenth Century, but

even in 1582, attacks upon the
Catholic Church were using this
name with considerable freedom.
"The starting point,” writes Her-
bert Thurston in a tract entitled

"The Name 'Roman Catholic’ ”,
"would seem to be found in the
unwillingness of the average Eng-

lish Protestant to abandon the term
"Catholic” to the adherents of the

older Faith. In Germany, Luther
had omitted the word "Catholic”
from the Creed, but this was by
no means the case in England. The
majority of the Reformers, includ-

ing even a number of those whose
sympathies were in general decided-
ly on the side of the Puritans, not
only were unwilling to concede
any monopoly of the name "Catho-
lic” to their opponents but loudly

asserted that the partisans of Rome
were no true Catholics and that
the reformed religion alone could

justly claim the title.”

**Popish Catholics’"

Thus we find them writing and
speaking about the "Popish party”,

(Philpot), "Catholics after the

Pope’s making”, "the Pope’s Catho-

lic religion”, "the Pope’s Catholics”

(John Foxe). On the assumption
that there might be different kinds
of Catholics, it was easy to pass
from "Pope’s Catholics” to "Romish
Catholics” and "Papists”; and this
is what in fact happened. In a
book written in 1587, entitled "A
Deliberat Answere”, Robert Crow-
ley contrasts "Popish Catholics” or

"Romish Catholics” with "Protest-
ant Catholics”, meaning thereby all

earnest followers of the reformed
religion. The combination "Roman
Catholic” was being used at the
same time and even earlier in anti-
Catholic books such as "A Checke
or Reproofe” by Wilburn, pub-
lished in 1581.

But while "Roman Catholic”
seems undoubtedly to be a more
polite brand for Catholics than
"Romish Catholics” or "Popish
Catholics”, the context in which
the expression appears is far from
courteous. And no evidence has
been revealed that English Catho-
lics of those days welcomed or
acquiescently accepted such theo-

logical nicknames but rather re-
sented them for what they meant
and were intended to mean — a
spurious variety of Catholic. They
resisted the name "Roman Catho-
lic” until it was absolutely forced
upon them.

The New Oxford Dictionary is
probably right in suggesting that

the title "Roman Catholic”, as the
English quasi-official designation of

the Church which recognized the
Bishop of Rome as its visible head,
dates from the Spanish Marriage
negotiations of 1618-1624. King
James I in early proclamations and

addresses made reference to his
Catholic subjects as "Popish” or

"Romish” and went out of his way
to declare them "falsely called
Catholics but truly Papists” (Speech

in Parliament, May l604). But in
dealing with the Spaniards and no

doubt out of consideration for their

Catholic feelings, a more courteous
tone was employed and the term

used to designate the religion of

the Spanish was "Roman Catholic”

4



and "Catholic” alone was some-

times used.

From this time on, it appears
that Official English documents

commonly used the form "Roman
Catholic” in a conciliatory mood
which was gradually less resented,

but not officially accepted by Catho-

lics, even though the title was
creeping into legal language and
popular usage. In 1897, the ad-

visors of the King of England
raised objections against receiving

officially any address from the
Catholic archbishop and bishops in
which they called themselves
"Catholics”. The only permissible
style was declared to be "Roman
Catholic”. Even the form "Bishop
of the Catholic and Roman Church
in England” was not allowed. Thus
the name "Roman Catholic” was
made compulsory by the State.

This brings up the second reason
why we cannot accept the name
"Roman Catholic”. In the sense
intended by non-Catholics who in-
sist upon the title, it involves a
contradiction and at the very best,
is ambiguous.

What He Meant
When the Cardinal, Archbishop

Vaughn, was compelled in 1901 to
employ the title "Roman Catholic”
in official dealings with the King,

he did so, reserving to himself the
right to explain on a public oc-
casion, the sense in which he used
the title. "By it (the title 'Roman
Catholic’), you mean one thing,”
he said, "and we another. It there-
fore becomes an equivocal term
and if I deliberately use it as such,
I equivocate ... if I should use it

in my own and in the Catholic
sense and not in yours, I owe it to
you and to myself to state frankly
that we are using the term in two
different senses”. (Snead Cox, Life

of Cardinal Vaughn II, 235). He
declared that "The term 'Roman
Catholic’ has two meanings; a
meaning that we repudiate and a
meaning that we accept.” After
showing that according to Protest-
ants, "Catholic” was a genus — a
kind—of which "Roman”, "Anglo-”,
"Greek,” etc. were species—or Cath-

olic meant a circle divided into
Roman, English, and Greek sec-
tions, he went on to explain the
sense acceptable to the Catholic

Church.

Truly Catholic

"With us the prefix 'Roman’ is
not restrictive to a species or a

section but simply declaratory of

Catholic. It explains the meaning
of Catholic applied to the religion

of Christ and asserts its unity. But
in another way, the word 'Roman’
bears the same relation that the
center bears to the circumference

of a circle. All the radii rest in

their common center, the whole
circumference is thus brought into

unity with its center. This is to

be Catholic.
"
'Roman’ as prefixed to 'Catho-

lic’ is therefore declaratory that the

central point of Catholicity is

Roman, the Roman See of Peter”.
(The Tablet -Sept. 14, 1901).

This goes to the very heart of

the matter. A Church cannot be
catholic—universal, world-wide, and

at the same time be localized or
restricted to a certain country or

5



to a certain nation, no matter where
its people may be. But a Church
which is world-wide — universal —
catholic, can have its unifying head-

quarters in the city of Rome and
it is in this sense that the Catholic

Church is ’’Roman”.
The full name of our Church is

’’the Holy Catholic Apostolic
Roman Church”. ’’Roman” is added
not to restrict the meaning of
’’Catholic” but simply to mark the
visible center of unity; and since it
must have a center of unity some-
where, it is obvious that ’’Roman”,

far from neutralizing the meaning
of the word "Catholic”, serves
rather to confirm it and to make
the catholicity of the Church more
striking and unmistakable.

The History
Since it is said that the use of

the title "Catholic” instead of

"Roman Catholic” is a "deception”
and using words in a "double
sense”, it is well to point out that

we are building no argument on a
mere name. We do not say that
because it is called Catholic ours

is the True Church. We do main-
tain that the Church which today,
and through history, looks to the
Bishop of Rome as the successor of
St. Peter and the Vicar of Christ,
is legitimately called "Catholic”.

This is its official name, the name
by which it has always designated
itself and by which it has been
designated by others. It is its his-
torical name, its proper name by
which it is distinguished in history
and in the common speech of man-
kind. No other Church or ecclesi-
astical body, worthy of serious con-

sideration, has ever been known
and distinguished among men by
the name "Catholic”. In the early
days of Christianity, the Donatists

claimed it, but could not appropri-

ate it. They are known in history
only as "Donatists”. That Church
alone with the Pope at its head
has borne and bears that title and
when speaking of ourselves, we as
rightfully call ourselves "Catholics”

as others are right in calling them-
selves "Methodists”, "Lutherans”,

"Anglicans”, "Baptists”, etc.

If the name is an argument in
our favor in the minds of some,
that is no reason why we should
change our name. We are not
obliged to change our name be-
cause others have changed their
Faith and sought religious authority
elsewhere. Unquestionably, the

name "Catholic” is a strong pre-
sumption in our favor and that
advantage is rightfuly ours. We
could not surrender it without

being disloyal to Christ and false
to history.

All this is more than quibbling
over a name. Christ intended His
Church to be catholic, we use the
small "c” in speaking of the es-

sential characteristic which He
gave His Church, which was to
teach ALL men, ALL things what-
soever He had commanded, ALL
times. This is the idea and the fact

of catholicity which Christ built
into His Church. He Himself gave
His Church no name and we do
not go to the Scriptures, which
have been translated into countless

languages, looking for names, but

for things. His Church in the world
today must be catholic in fact and

6



possess the catholicity which He
promised, no matter what name
it bears.

But, as we have said, the name
"Catholic” has come down to us
from earliest Christian times. Ig-
natius, who died for his Faith in
107 A. D., appears to have been

the first to have recorded the title:

"Where Christ is,” he wrote, "there
is the Catholic Church”. (Ad
Symrn. n. 8, P. G.). Some time
later, the martyrdom of Polycarp

(167 A. D.) was recorded and he

was called the "bishop of the
Catholic Church in Smyrna”. (Ad
Eph. n. 3). In the same century,
referring to a certain Marcion and

Valentinus, Tertullian wrote: "It

is agreed that they lived not so

long ago, generally speaking, in the

reign of Antoninus, and that they

first believed in the doctrine of

the Catholic Church in the Church
of Rome...” (De Praescrip. n. 30).

Well Known
Most explicit is Augustine: "The

Christian religion is to be held by
us,” he wrote, "and the communion
of that Church which is catholic,
and is called Catholic, not only by
its own members, but also by all its
adversaries. For in spite of them-

selves . . . when speaking not with
their fellows, but with strangers,

they call the catholic Church noth-
ing else but the Catholic Church.

They cannot be understood unless
they distinguish her by that name by
which she is designated by the whole
world.” (De Ver. Relig. n. 12).
We make no rash and unwar-

ranted claim when we say that we
are known as "Catholics” today and
our Church in popular usage is
called the "Catholic Church”. Go
into any town or city in the land,
ask any lad or hotel clerk or

policeman the location of the

"Catholic” Church and you will be
correctly directed without insisting

that it is the "Roman Catholic”
Church that you desire to visit.

Proper Name
The name "Catholic” was not

monopolized in the Sixteenth Cen-

tury for controversial purposes. It

is the name handed down continu-
ously to us through history. We
use this name ourselves and we ask
those not of our Faith to use it

because it is our customary and

proper name. Common usage has
never sanctioned any other.

However, since "Roman Catho-
lic” has lost most of its invidious

meaning. Catholics will not get

their blood pressure up when this
title continues to appear in public

print. We, ourselves, will use it, if
need be. But let no one say, in the
face of facts, that it is the proper

name of our Church.

7



WHAT A]
TOTHE\(

o
o

30UT ADDING \
J^ORDOFGOD? i

>

Where in the Bible does it
say a church can add to the
teachings of God’s word?

This is the ninth ques-

tion in the list, and the first

which we shall consider in
order to introduce some
semblance of order in the

subject matter with which

the questions deal.
|

lljl

0000000000000 d 0 0 0 0 0 0*

clarification. When we read
"where in the Bible does it
say "a” church can add to
the teaching of God’s word”,
there appears to be at least
an insinuation that there is

more than one Church. "A”
church is not Scriptural

language but that of post-

Reformation confusion. In

The answer is, of course,
that nowhere does the Bible say a

Church can add to the teaching of

God’s word. In fact, it says the

very opposite.

We do not take this stand mere-
ly because St. John in the Apoca-

lypse (Revelations), referring to

"the words of prophecy of this

book,” says: "If anyone shall add

to them, God will add unto him
the plagues that are written in this

book” (22:8). When the Apostle
speaks of "adding to the words of

prophecy of this book”, he meant
his book alone. He was not re-
ferring to the whole Bible. Our
reason for saying that the Bible

condemns any addition to the
teaching of the Word of God is
not based upon a faulty interpre-
tation of this text.

There is something else in the

proposed question which needs

"the’

"my’

the

the New Testament it is
Church or, in one instance,
(Christ’s) Church. And when
New Testament speaks of

"churches”, it is always the Church
in particular places as in Ephesus,

Corinth or Jerusalem. This means
the same Church in dijSferent places,
not different Churches. Following

the New Testament, we shall speak
of "the” Church.

Our answer that the Church can-
not add to the teaching of the

Word of God is based upon the
meaning of "the Word of God”
in the New Testament and the
function of the Church as far as

the Word of God is concerned.
The expression "the Word of

God” is used over and over again
in the New Testament. Sometimes
it means a decree of God (Romans
9:28), or commandments given by
God in the Old Testament (Mark

8



7:13; Gal. 5:14), or a divine

promise (Romans 9:6), or a prayer
composed of quotations from the
Old Testament (I Tim. 4:5), and
even divine prophecies of future

events (Apoc. 1:2).

More often, however, it signi-
fies the body of truth which God
has revealed to us through Jesus
Christ and which was taught by
His Apostles. It was Christ Who
gave the Word of God the Father
to the Apostles (John 17:14). And
they kept the Word of God (John
17:6; 7:16). This Word of God
according to which the Apostles
urged their hearers and readers to
conform their lives is the teaching
of Christ, the doctrine of the Chris-

tian religion (Titus 2:5; I John
1:10; 2:14).

Revealed Truth
Those who announce the gospel

are said to speak the Word of God
(Acts 4:31; 13:46; Phil. 1:14; Heb.

13:7), to proclaim the Word of
God (Acts 13:5; 17:13), to teach
the Word of God (Acts 18:11).
The hearers of the gospel of

Christ are said to hear the Word
of God (Acts 13:7), and to receive
the Word of God (Acts 8:14;
11 : 1 ).

The meaning of the expression
"the Word of God,” therefore, is
usually God’s revealed truth made
known by Christ (Luke 5:1; 8:11-
21) or taught by the Apostles (John
17:20; Acts 2:41; 4:4; 6:2; 10:44;
8:5). It is Christ’s own teaching
(John 5:24; 8:31; 37:51; 12:48;
14:23). And that of His Apostles
(Col. 3:16; Heb. 6:1; I John 2:5).

"God,” says St. Paul (Heb. 1:1),

"who at sundry times and in divers
manners spoke in times past to the
fathers by the prophets, last of all
in these days has spoken to us by
his Son . . .” What he taught is the
"Word of God”.
How was the Word of God to

be communicated to mankind un-
altered and unchanged? We find
the answer by examining in the
New Testament what Christ and
His Apostles said and did. And we
must not forget for a moment, as
we read the record of what Christ
said and did, that THIS IS GOD
MAKING THE CHURCH
WHAT HE INTENDED IT
TO BE.

Teachers

Early in His public life, Christ
chose from the rank and file of His
followers certain ones who were
called His Apostles and His clear-
cut intention was that they would
form a teaching body — ". . . he call-
ed to him men of his own choosing
and they came to him. And he ap-
pointed twelve that they might be
with him and that he might send
them forth to preach” (Mark 3:13-
14). Then he began to reveal to
them the Word of God which he
taught to the public in parables —
"He spoke the Word to them (the
people) according as they were
able to understand it; but without

parables he did not speak to them.

But privately he explained all these
things to his disciples” (Mark 4: 34).

This special training of His

Apostles is plainly the preparation

of a body of teachers. The instruc-
tions which He gave when He
first sent them to preach the Word

9



of God to the people of Israel
(Matt. 10:5-32) made His purpose
incontestably clear and He could
not have been more explicit than
during His last days on earth when
He said to the eleven Apostles
collectively: "...all power in
heaven and on earth has been given
to me. Go, therefore, and make
disciples of all nations . . . teaching

them to observe all that I have
commanded you, and behold, I am
with you all days, even unto the
consummation of the world” (Matt.
28 : 19-20).

To Last Forever

He looked far into the future.
The teaching body in the Church
which He said He Himself was
building (Matt. 16:18) was to en-
dure until the end of the world.
Only after the Word of God had
been preached in the whole world,
to all peoples, will the consumma-
tion of the world take place (Matt.

24:14).

This teaching body would never
fail "Behold, I am with you all
days”. When we find the Scrip-
tures stating that "God is with
anyone”, it always means the spe-
cial assistance of God is assured
in the accomplishment of the pur-
pose for which it is given. In this
case, it was the commission to teach
the Word of God to all men unto
the end of the world. The assistance,
then, corresponding to this com-
mission would be such as would
necessarily preserve the body of
teachers from error in teaching the
Word of God. Thus there could
never be any question of them
adding to the teaching of the Word

of God at any time. No, never! He
would be with them all days, not
intermittently — at this time or at
that — but continually. Moreover,
He promised them the protection
and assistance of an "Advocate”,
the Holy Spirit, Who would dwell
with them forever, "the Spirit of
truth” (John 14:17).

Thus after Christ left the earth,
when we see this teaching body at
work in the Acts of the Apostles,
we find that "(they) spoke the Word
of God with boldness” (Acts 4:31).
They called upon the assistance of
Christ in filling the place among
the twelve vacated by Judas (Acts
1:25). They were conscious of the
guidance of the Holy Spirit, the
Advocate, in their decisions when
they used such language as: "For

the Holy Spirit and we have de-
cided...” (Acts 15:28). But it is
in the activity and teaching of the
Apostle Paul that we learn how the
apostolic body of teachers was to
be perpetuated and how the Word
of God was to be transmitted to
generations yet unborn.

Preaching Authority

Especially pointed are Paul’s

recommendations to Timothy, one
of his converts, who became his
fellow missionary and who was later
put in charge of the Church in
Ephesus. Paul himself was con-
scious of the way in which Christ,
the teacher of the Word of God,
had identified Himself with His
Apostles as a teaching body "He
who hears you, hears me and he
who rejects you, rejects me . .

.”

(Luke 10:16). So Paul spoke of

God manifesting His Word

10



"through the preaching committed

to my trust by the command of
God our Savior” (Titus 1:3).
To Timothy (II Tim.) Paul

wrote: "Preach the word, be urgent

in season, out of season ... (4:2),

hold to the form of sound teaching
which thou hast heard from me
. .

. (1:13). Take in what I tell thee
for the Lord will give thee under-

standing in all things ... (2:7), be
strengthened in the grace which is
in Christ Jesus; and the things that

thou hast heard from me through
many witnesses commend to trust-
worthy men who shall be compe-
tent in turn to teach others. .

. (2:2),

continue in the things that thou

hast learned and that have been
intrusted to thee, knowing of whom
thou hast learned them, for from
thy infancy, thou hast known the
Sacred Writings which are able to
instruct thee unto salvation by the
faith which is in Christ Jesus. All

Scripture is inspired by God and
useful for teaching; for reproving,

for correcting, for instructing in

justice; that the man of God may
be perfect, equipped for every

good work. I charge thee in the
sight of God and Christ Jesus...
PREACH THE WORD . . .”(3:14-
17; 4:1-2).

Perpetuation

Here we find an Apostle charg-
ing his successor to preach the

Word of God even as the Apostles
had been charged by Christ to do
so. The word of the body of
teachers — the Apostles — which
Christ had formed in His Church
was to be carried on by their suc-
cessors whom they left in all places

where they founded and organized
Christ’s Church. Moreover, Tim-
othy, the immediate successor of
St. Paul (II Tim. 1:6) was to
choose other "trustworthy men who
shall be competent in turn to teach
others”. Thus was the body of
teachers originating with Christ
and His Apostles to be perpetuated
until the end of the world.
What was Timothy charged to

preach and to commend to other
trustworthy men as teachers? The
Word — the Word of God which
he had heard from Paul during the
previous years of companionship
and which he read in Paul’s letters.
Here we have the two sources of
the Word of God from which the
successors of the Apostles could

learn the Word of God — the
teaching of the Word of God by
chosen and competent men and the
inspired Scriptures which contain
the Word of God. But the sole
method of propagating the Word
of God which Christ and His Apos-
tles commanded was preaching and
teaching. "Preach the Word!”

Not Bible Alone

This should be made clear be-
cause it is an important point on
which many have gone wrong,
falsely persuaded by the unproved
but often repeated statement that

the sole source in which the Word
of God is found is the Bible, and
that Christ intended future genera-

tions to receive the Word of God
solely by reading the Bible.

We have seen the method chosen
by Christ to publish the Word of
God unto all generations. It was by
the preaching and teaching of a

11



body of men, chosen, prepared,
commissioned, and especially as-
sisted and protected for that divine
purpose. Nowhere did Christ
charge men to read the Scriptures
as the sole source of the Word of
God which He taught and which
He directed His Apostles to teach.

It pleased God, however, for the
confirmation of faith in the Word
of God to inspire some who from
the beginning were eye-witnesses,
or companions of those who were,
to make a written record of the
chief events and teachings of the
Church’s Founder; and also to pre-
serve certain inspired letters which,

at various times, the Apostles wrote

to their converts and brethren. It
is important to remember that these
writings were addressed to those

who had already been taught the
Word of God. They were not
written "as to those who do not
know the truth, but as to those who
know it...” (I John 2:21). No
New Testament writer wrote for
the purpose of making disciples,
but for the profit of those who
were already believers. The charge
to make disciples of all nations was
carried out then as it is now—by
the voice of the teaching Church.

**Search The Scriptures”
Basing their views on a mis-

translation of the genuine Biblical

text, some contend that Jesus com-
manded the reading of the Scrip-
tures when He said (John 5:39)
"Search the Scriptures . . .” But this
is not a command. The correct
version is a simple declaration.

"You search the Scriptures because

in them you think you have life
everlasting. And it is they that bear
witness to me, yet you are not
willing to come to me that you may
have life.” Many modern Protestant
versions have made this correction.

In the passage cited, Jesus was
not exhorting the Jews to read the
Scriptures — the Old Testament. He
was rebuking them for erroneously
thinking that by consuming their
time in poring over the Scriptures,

they had eternal life. They were
more concerned with the mere
reading than with what they read,
and they failed to understand the
prophecies which pointed to Him
Who could give them everlasting
life. This does not mean that our
Lord spoke disparagingly of Bible

reading — far from it! He read the
Old Testament Himself and quoted
from it in His discourses.

Paul, likewise, commended Tim-
othy for his familiarity with the

Scriptures. This, of course, meant
the Old Testament, as probably
very little of the New Testament
had been written when Timothy
was a child. And Paul took occasion
to point out the usefulness of all

the inspired Scriptures to the teach-

er of the Word of God, who must
instruct, reprove and correct others.

By no reasonable stretch of the
imagination, however, can his coun-

sel to Timothy concerning the use-

fulness of Sacred Scripture be

rightly considered a command
which would make Bible reading
obligatory for all His followers as

the sole means of learning the

Word of God.

12



Not only in his dealings with
Timothy but also in his dealings

with the churches which he found-

ed, Paul made it perfectly clear
whence they were to learn the

Word of God. Writing to his con-
verts in Thessalonica, he told them
plainly: "...stand firm, and hold

the teachings that you have learned,

whether by word or letter of ours”
(II Thess. 2:15). He refers to the
teachings which he had received

from Christ Himself, "for I have

received from the Lord what I also
delivered to you” (I Cor. 11:23).

They learned the Word of God
from what he taught them orally
and in writing. Here again, we
have the two mutually complimen-

tary sources of the Word of God
from which the successors and

disciples of the Apostles were to

draw the Word of God.
"It is clear,” wrote St. John

Chrysostom, "that all was not trans-

mitted to use by writing. Many
things worthy of belief have come
to us without having been writ-

ten. That is why we hold the
teachings of the Church equally
worthy of belief” (P. G. 62, 488).
This is why today Catholics go
with confidence to the teaching

body of their Church, linked as it
is in historical continuity with the

body of teachers who succeeded the
Apostles, and from whom they re-
ceived the Word of God as it was
taught to the Thessalonians by
word and by letter.

In view of the promised assist-
ance of Christ and His Holy Spirit,
we Catholics know that the teach-
ing body of the Catholic Church
cannot add to the Word of God.
This would be the "adulteration
of the Word of God” condemned
by St. Paul (II Cor. 2:17). It
would be an adulteration by way
of adding human teachings to the
deposit of revealed truth which

was closed with the death of the

last Apostle. "O Timothy, guard
the deposit! Avoid the vain and
fruitless discussions and disputa-

tions of knowledge falsely so styled”

(I Tim. 6:20).

13



PETER, THE POPE,
AND INFALLIBILITY

Where in the Bible does it
say that either Peter or a

Pope is infallible?
This question is double-

barreled since it concerns

the Apostle Peter and his

successors called "The Pope”
— any Pope.

So it is asked — where in
the Bible does it say that

Peter was infallible? And
the answer is: nowhere in the Bible

does it say that Peter was infallible.

Likewise, nowhere in the Bible

does it say that God is infallible.
The Bible simply doesn’t use the
word "infallible”.

Are we, therefore, to conclude
that God is not infallible? Not at
all! When we examine all that the
Bible tells us about the perfection

of God, we must admit that He is
infallible, as becomes God, in the

very fullest sense that the word
"infallible” can bear. And when
we examine all that the New Testa-
ment tells us about the spiritual
authority and power which our
Lord bestowed upon Peter in re-
lation to the other Apostles and

His whole Church, we must also
admit that Peter was infallible in
a restricted sense, as becomes a
mere man.

Let us examine some of
the things which the New
Testament tells us about

Peter.

Peter was one of the
twelve disciples who, as we
have previously seen, were

especially chosen by Christ

(John 6:71) and prepared
to be His Apostles to teach

the Word of God to all
mankind (Matt. 28:19-20). All
power is given to me, said Christ,
go therefore teach all nations. Our
Lord could not have used clearer

language in imparting to them
collectively -'as a body of teachers
— the power and authority to teach
all that He had commanded them.

Christ’s language was equally
clear and unambiguous when, after

stating that the Church was an
authoritative tribunal which all

were obliged to hear (Matt. 18:15-

18), He said: "...whatever you
shall bind on earth shall be bound

also in heaven; and whatever you

loose on earth shall be loosed also

in heaven”. Here He was speaking
to the Twelve collectively—as a

body—and although these words
indicated a power to rule rather

than a power to teach, attention is

called to them here to emphasize

14



the fact that Christ intended to

confer authority and power on
them all, and actually did so.

But Christ also intended the
Twelve to have a leader. There was
one who was to be chief among
them. When a dispute arose con-
cerning which of them was reputed
to be the greatest (Luke 22:24-34),
Christ took the occasion to teach

them a lesson: "Let him who is
greatest among you become as the
youngest, and him who is the chief,
as the servant". He who is chief
among them should put his author-
ity at the service of the others. He
did not say they were equal, but

He did go on to say that they were
all judges in His kingdom — the
Church.

Who was chief among them?
It is significant that He turned at
once to Peter and told him that
all (collectively) would be sub-
jected to a severe trial and went
on to say: "But I have prayed for
thee, that thy faith may not fail;
and do thou, when once thou hast
turned again, strengthen thy

brethren”. His express purpose in
praying especially for Peter as an
individual was that he would not
lose faith in Him as the Messias
and that after his repentance for
denying that he even knew Him,
(a falsehood in a moment of fear
and weakness), he should strength-
en the faith of the others. The
permanence of the faith is the se-
curity of the Church; but the per-
manence of the faith is especially
identified with Peter. Thus Christ
chose to use Peter to strengthen

the faith of the others after He
had left them.

Was Peter given a position of
chief and leader among the
Twelve? What does the record
say? He received all the authority
and spiritual power which all the
Apostles collectively received, but

he received more. He, singly and
individually, received an office of

headship and leadership that was
super-added to the powers given to
the Apostles as a group.

Here is a quick review of Christ’s
dealings with Peter as an indi-
vidual.

We have already mentioned the
fact that Christ made him the con-
firmer of his brethren’s faith.

There was also the occasion when
Peter first confessed his faith:

"Thou art Christ, the Son of the
living God” (Matt. 16:13-19) and
Jesus changed his name from
Simon to "Rock”— Peter, and said
to him: "...upon this rock I will

build my Church, and the gates
of hell shall not prevail against it.

And I will give thee the keys of
the kingdom of heaven; and what-
ever thou shalt bind on earth shall
be bound also in heaven, etc”. It
was God Who spoke and they were
not idle and ineffective words. Who
will dare to limit the bounds of
the power here conceded? It
should be noted that to Peter alone

was it said that he would stabilize
the Church which Christ would
build so that it would not fall be-
fore the powers of evil...^o him
alone would be given the keys of
the kingdom of heaven — a symbol
of power and authority in the
Church. Here is a grant of power
to bind and to loose that after-
wards was extended to the other

15



Apostles also. But that God chose
to make it to Peter first means
something. To Peter singly was
given in promise what was subse-
quently bestowed upon the rest
collectively and with him.

Power and authority given to
an individual to be exercised by
him individually is distinct from
authority and power given to a
group to be exercised collectively.
Authority exercised by an indi-
vidual is more independent than
that of a group due to their de-
pendence upon common action.
Peter received the authority that

all the Apostles received and some-
thing added in relation to them —
leadership. He alone was to be
Peter — the Rock — he alone was
to be the key bearer. He alone was
to be the chief in the body of
teachers which Christ authorized
to bring the Word of God to
all men.

But this was only a promise
made by Christ to Peter. The ful-
fillment of the promise took place

when Christ had risen from the
dead; the work of the Redemption
was accomplished; the Ascension
was at hand; and all things were
ready for the action of the Church
to commence. In the presence of
the other Apostles, He singled out
Peter, saying: "Simon . . . dost thou
love me more than these do?”
Three times Christ asked Peter:
"Lovest thou me?”. . . and three
times the Lord charged Peter:
"Feed my lambs . . . feed my sheep”
(John 21:15-17).

Thus the Savior made one man
— Peter — the shepherd of His
flock. The Lord had previously de-

clared: "I am the Good Shepherd
. . . and other sheep I have that are
not of this fold. Them also I must
bring . . . and there shall be one
fold and one shepherd” (John
10:10-17).

It is impossible to conceive

language which would express
more positively a delegation of
authority over the universal fold

of God. No limitation is hinted at.
The entire flock is committed to
Peter’s care.

The Apostles understood the
significance of the Lord’s words
when He spoke of His Church as
His flock, because we find them
referring to the Church as the
"flock of God” (I Peter 5:2).
St. Paul, addressing the presbyters

of Ephesus, said: "Take heed to
yourselves and to the whole flock
in which the Holy Spirit has placed
you as bishops, to rule the Church
of God...” (Acts 20:28).

Referring to His flock as "my”
sheep and "my” lambs, Christ ap-
pointed Peter to feed and tend
them in His place ... to be a vice-
shepherd ... to be Christ’s vicar

over His flock on earth.

So if we consider all Christ’s
dealings with Peter as an individual

and ask who is the chief and
leader, it all amounts up to Peter’s
supreme authority. He alone is the
Rock, the key bearer, the confirmer

of his brethren, the shepherd of

Christ’s whole flock. All these

figures of speech used in Christ’s

words to Peter express supreme

authority in relation to the other

Apostles and the whole Church.

Comparing carefully the conferring
of authority on Peter and on all the

16



Apostles, it is striking that they

received nothing without him and
he alone received an authority in-
cluding and exceeding theirs.

As the teaching body was
charged to make known God’s
Word to all men to the end of the
world — a permanent mission, this
would be done by the Apostles and
their successors (bishops) with

Peter and his successors (Popes)
in their midst as the Rock, the

key bearer, the confirmer of his

brethren, and the supreme pastor of
Christ’s whole flock — the Church.
This is why there has always been
the Episcopacy (bishops) and the
Papacy (Popes) in the Catholic
Church. There always has been and
always will be — a hierarchy.

Christ had said to His Apostles:
"He who hears you, hears me”. He
had thus identified their voice with
His. Should not their voice be free

from error as was His own? So to
the body of teachers with Peter at
their head, Christ made two im-
portant promises — promises which
He as God could certainly fulfill.
First, He promised that He Him-
self would be with them forever
until the end of the world. It has
been explained elsewhere in this
pamphlet (p. 10) that this special
promise meant special assistance in
the achievement of the mission
which He had given all the Apos-
tles collectively as teachers of the

World of God, but also to Peter
singly at their head, as the con-

firmer of his brethren and the
shepherd of the whole flock. This
could only mean special assistance
for Peter in his special office.

The second promise was the as-

sistance of the Holy Spirit. It was
at His last supper with His
Apostles on the night before He
died (John 14: 16, 17,26). They
were troubled when He told them
that He must leave them. And He
said: "I will ask the Father and He
will send you another Advocate to
dwell with you forever, the Spirit
of Truth . . . He will dwell with you
and be in you”. Another Advocate
means that until then, He had been
their helper, comforter, guide and

protector. Another Advocate will
watch over their interests, help
their cause and take care of their
needs. It is clear that Jesus con-

sidered His Apostles as a body of
men which would go on until the
end of time. They would be per-
petuated by a succession that would
never be broken. He declared that
the Holy Spirit would be with
them forever.
The Advocate, He declared, is

the "Spirit of Truth”, because He
would teach the Church the in-
fallible truth forever.

"The Advocate, the Holy Spirit,
whom the Father will send in my
name, he will teach all things and
bring to your mind whatever I
have said to you”.

This is an important promise.
The assistance of the Holy Spirit
would consist primarily in bringing
to their minds what Jesus had
taught them. This assistance of

another Advocate would be effec-
tive as long as Jesus, their Advo-
cate, would be no longer with them
in the flesh (John 16:12) —

a

horizon that extended far beyond
their lifetime. He would cause
them to know whatever Jesus had

17



told them and to understand
progressively the deposit of truth

(John 16:13) which Jesus had re-
vealed. It is on this assistance that
the body of teachers in the Catho-
lic Church has always leaned in its
teaching mission down through
the years.

So Christ s
,

promise gave assur-

ance that when He left the world,
divine guidance was not taken
from those who would carry on the
work of preaching the Word of
God to all nations. "The Spirit of
Truth . . . will teach you all the
truth” (John 16:13). There was no
danger that any of the Word of
God would be lost, forgotten or
adulterated. The Spirit of Truth
would see to that.

These promises made to the
teaching body of the Church —
the Apostles and their successors
— are nothing more than a promise
of divine guidance when they
would announce to men what God
has spoken to us by His Son, Jesus
Christ (Heb. 1:1). This is what
the Catholic Church means by the
word "infallibility”. Nothing more,
nothing less.

Like each of the other Apostles,

Peter heard these promises of

Christ assuring him that he would
have divine guidance in carrying
out the common work Christ had
given them to do. But Peter also
heard these promises of divine as-
sistance and guidance as the holder
of a special office in which Christ
had placed him — as the Rock, the
key bearer, the confirmer of his
brethren and as pastor of the whole
flock of Christ. If any of the
Apostles was infallible, certainly

Peter was, as the confirmer of his
brethren and the preserver of the
faith of Christ’s Church.

If the Apostles were troubled at
the prospect of carrying on the
mission Christ gave them and
needed the assurance of divine
guidance and assistance in making
disciples of all nations, what about
their successors? Such guidance
and assistance was even more neces-
sary after the death of the Twelve
who had received the Word of
God from Christ’s own lips. There
can be no doubt but that Peter’s
office was intended to continue
after him. If not, why was it in-
stituted at all? That is an important
question; and it is followed by
another equally as important. What
about the successor of St. Peter

in the teaching body of the Church?

Christ had promised the assist-
ance and guidance of the Holy
Spirit, not in a general, vague sort
of way. The promise was given to
a definite body of teachers each
with a definite job to do. Peter’s

successor fell heir to Peter’s job

which carried with it the assurance
of divine guidance and assistance
such as had been promised to Peter.

This is what is meant by infalli-
bility of the Pope. When Christ
promised divine guidance and as-
sistance to Peter and his successors
in teaching the Word of God, He
promised infallibility to the Pope.

"Pope” is the name by which the
successor of St. Peter is designated

in order to distinguish him from
other bishops who are the success-
ors of the other Apostles. The
word "Pope” is not in the Bible
and it does not need to be. The

18



important thing is that Peter and

Christ’s promise to Peter and his

successors are there — no matter
what words we may use to desig-
nate them today.

Put yourself back in the year

70 A.D. Peter is dead, and another

man named Linus has taken his
place and is carrying on what Peter
had been charged to do. Would
you not expect him to teach you
the Word of God as this had been
delivered to the Apostles? The
words of St. Paul: "Guard the de-
posit’’ are ringing in his ears.

Christ had made no promise of
divine inspiration for writing to

His Apostles or their successors,

so you would have no right to
expect divinely inspired epistles

from him, even if he wanted to
write a few. Infallibility is not

inspiration.

He did not receive the Word
of God directly and immediately
from Christ Himself as did the
Apostles, so he will have no new
revelations from God for you. In-
fallibility is not revelation. But he
can faithfully deliver and explain

to you the truth Christ revealed
and which the Apostles passed on
to their successors. Remembering
the promises of Christ, you would
have a right to expect that he
would have the assistance and
guidance of God in teaching you
the Word of God without error.
You would have no right to

expect him to be sinless or in any

way incapable of sin. Christ made
no such promise to His Apostles
or their successors. In fact. He
foresaw the scandals that were to
come, even those in high places.
Infallibility is not sinlessness.

Nor would you have any right
to expect him to be incapable of
mistakes and errors in his private
life or even in the routine ad-
ministration of the affairs of the

Church. The protection from error
promised by Christ was limited to
the teaching of revealed truth.

You would have no right to
expect him to utter an infallible
answer to every religious question

you might put to him. The divine-
ly promised protection from error
was meant to enable him in his
official capacity as the pastor of the

whole flock to teach the whole
Church.

When Christ looked into the
future and promised to be with
the teaching body of the Church,
He looked further than the teachers
and their teaching. He saw the
people who were obliged to believe
the teaching of the Apostles and
their successors. The Faith of the
Church, the whole Church, needed
to be protected from error, so He
promised freedom from error to
the body of teachers in order to
insure freedom from error to the
Faith of the people. Infallibility

is for the people and this is why,
as they say, "Catholic people are

so sure of themselves”.

19



SEVEN SACRAMENTS
NO MORE... NO LESS

Three of the ten questions

which we are considering
deal with what are called
"Sacraments”. These ques-

tions and their answers can

easily be combined.

Where in the Bible are
seven Sacraments mention-

ed, and in particular the
"Mass” or the concession of
sins to a priest?

Before examining the passages

in which the Bible mentions these

things, it is well to point out that

the answers to previous questions

should make it clear that even
though there were no indication
of seven Sacraments in the Bible,

this would be no reason to con-
clude that there are less than seven

or none at all.

The Sacraments were possessed
by the Church and in daily use long

before a single line of the New
Testament was written. The Chris-
tians for whom the New Testament
was composed knew about them
from the Apostles and their suc-
cessors. The accounts of our Lord’s
last supper with His Apostles,

given in the Gospels and in

St. Paul’s First Epistle to the

Corinthians, are rather an allusion

to a thing well known than a

description of it. At the
time St. Paul wrote, the

priesthood and the Euchar-
ist had been in daily opera-
tion for twenty-five or

thirty years, and every
Christian knew by the evi-
dences of his senses the full

details of both. Nothing
could be further from the
truth than to suppose that

the early Christians, or Christians

at any date, were intended to ob-
tain their knowledge of the priest-
hood and the Eucharist merely or
mainly from the Scriptures. In the
New Testament, when this was
first written, they and the other
Sacraments were institutions on
which the Church was founded.
People were being received into

the Church by Baptism, were re-
ceiving the Holy Spirit through
the imposition of hands in Con-

firmation, were having their sins

forgiven, were being married ac-

cording to Christ’s teaching, and

were praying over and anointing

the dangerously sick.

The number of the Sacraments
is sufficiently established, when we
find seven Sacraments in the Word
of God as this has been consistently
preached and practiced down

20



through the years by the Church,
drawing its teaching from what the
Apostles taught by word and by
letter.

How do we know the number
of the various inspired books which
make up the Bible, and what they
are? Nowhere in the Bible is a
list and the exact number given.
Divine inspiration of the human
author of a book is an act of God
and He alone can know the authors
whom He has inspired. The in-
spired character of one or many
books could be made known only
by God revealing. And we know
the exact number of the inspired
books and what they are because
this was made known to us by
the Church teaching this truth as
contained in the Word of God.
This is equally true of the number
of Sacraments which Christ left
in His Church.

Yes, the Scriptures mention the
Sacraments, but in so doing, the

word "sacrament” is not used. The
thing is there but not the name.
What we call "Sacraments” others
sometimes prefer to call "ordi-
nances”. The word "Sacrament”
which Catholics in the Western
World have used to distinguish
clearly between rites that are and
those that are not Sacraments is

derived from the Latin word
"sacramentum”, which, in its re-
ligious usage, meant the same as
"mystery”— something sacred, hid-
den and secret. Among Greek
Catholics, Sacraments have always
been called mysteries.

The name "Sacrament” is given
to a combination of words and
actions performed by certain min-

isters whom Christ uses to produce
certain effects in the world today
— mainly sanctity. Thus, in the
Sacrament of Baptism, the audible
words (I baptize thee in the name
of the Father, and of the Son, and
of the Holy Spirit) and the visible
action (washing), employing a
visible and tangible thing (water),

are used by Christ through the per-
son baptizing to produce a spiritual
and invisible effect (a gift of grace
— the removal of sin — sanctity) in
the baptized. It produces the desired

effect because it was ordered by
Christ and is used by Him. This
is a rite — an established ceremony
— which makes us holy and simul-
taneously signifies the special ef-

fects which each of the Sacraments
was meant to produce. The institu-
tion of Sacraments was Christ’s
way of getting in touch personally
with each individual in the "all

nations” to whom He sent His
Apostles with the words: "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”
(Matt. 28:19).

The Bible does not use our
language and say "Christ instituted
this Sacrament or that Sacrament”,

and it doesn’t have to. All we need
find in the Bible is the explicit or

implicit statement that a rite used

by Christ or by His Apostles gives
the Holy Spirit and His gifts, that

it effects and develops the Chris-
tian life which Christ came on
earth to bring, and we have the
divine institution of that rite. It

belongs to God alone to produce
grace through a rite and Christ

21



alone, as the sole mediator between
God and men, could have made
known that fact.

Baptism
Baptism, of course, is mentioned

in the Bible over and over again.

St. Paul speaks of the use Christ

makes of it and the effect pro-
duced when he wrote to the
Ephesians: "...Christ loved the

Church, and delivered Himself up
for her, that he might sanctify her,
cleansing her in the bath of water

(also Titus 3:5) by means of the
word...” (5:25-26). Here we
find a visible thing composed of
a double element — the water used
to cleanse, and the word: in the

name of the Father and of the
Son, etc, used by Christ to sanctify
the members of His Church.

That Christ intended to produce
this effect through the medium of
others whom He associated with
Himself is evident from the words
of the Apostle John: "Jesus made
and baptized more disciples than
John (the Baptist)—although Jesus
Himself did not baptize, but His
disciples . . .” (John 4:1).

It is through the Sacrament of

Baptism that Christ makes people
Christians by giving them a new
Christian life: "Unless a man be
born again of water and the Holy
Spirit, he cannot enter into the

kingdom of God” (John 3:5).

The Eucharist
Almost as frequently as Baptism,

the Eucharist appears in the New
Testament as a rite to which Christ
gave the standing and the signific-
ance of a Sacrament. Practically the

whole sixth chapter of St. John’s
Gospel is devoted to our Lord’s
promise of the Eucharist. "I am the
Bread of Life. He who comes to
me shall not hunger and he who
believes in me shall never thirst
. . . unless you eat the flesh of the
Son of Man and drink His blood,
you shall not have life in you . .

.

For my flesh is food indeed, and
my blood is drink indeed. He who
eats my flesh and drinks my blood,
abides in me and I in him.”

Here is how St. Paul records the
fulfillment of that promise: ". . . the

Lord Jesus on the night in which
he was betrayed, took bread, and
giving thanks, broke, and said.
This is my body which shall be
given up for you; do this in re-
membrance of me.’ In like manner,
also, the cup, after he had supped,
saying, This cup is the new coven-
ant in my blood; do this as often
as you drink it, in remembrance of
me. For as often as you shall eat
this bread and drink the cup, you
proclaim the death of the Lord
until he comes’ ” (I Cor. 11:23-26).

There are two important features
of what Christ did and said that
need to be underlined. First, He
stated the significance of the bread

and wine, which He changed into
His Body and Blood and which He
gave them to eat and drink. He
spoke of them as food and, when
consumed, they were nourishment.

By His Body and Blood, under the
appearance of bread and wine. He
gave them spiritual nourishment
for the Christian life which had

been implanted in them at Baptism.
Moreover, in this way. He and
each of the Apostles present were

22



intimately united in a spiritual

manner. The visible appearance of
bread and of wine signified the
invisible effects which Christ pro-
duced — the strengthening of the
Christian life that He had likened
to the life drawn by the branches
from the vine (John 15).

What He had done, He charged
and empowered them to do like-
wise. This is a Sacrament.

Secondly, in doing what He had
done. He assured them "You will
proclaim the death of the Lord”.

The body they received under the
appearance of bread, apparently

separated from His blood, was to
be offered up for them. The
blood which they received under
the appearance of wine, apparently

separated from His body, was His
blood of the new covenant. The
blood of animals shed in sacrifice

sealed the old covenant — the blood
of Christ in His sacrifice on the
Cross sealed the new covenant of
God with His people. Thus at the
Last Supper, He represented the
bloody sacrifice which showed forth
His death which He offered to His
Heavenly Father in satisfaction for
for the sins of mankind.

What He had done — He charged
and empowered them to do. This
is a Sacrifice.

The partaking of the Eucharistic
Bread and Wine is called "Com-
munion” in the Catholic Church
today. And the sacrificial offering
of the Eucharistic Bread and Wine
from the preparatory to the con-
cluding prayers, we call "The Mass”.

Confirmation
The Acts of the Apostles give

abundant evidence that the rite of
imposing hands was considered by
the Apostles not only to signify

but also to effect the descent of the

Holy Spirit on those who had been
baptized (Acts 8:14-18; also

19:5-6), but this imposition of

hands must be performed by those
who have received the plentitude
of the Spirit — the Apostles (Acts
8 : 12 - 16).

We have here all the elements
of what Catholics call a "Sacra-
ment”—Confirmation. The signific-
ant ceremony of the imposition of
hands by which it is intended to

communicate to another some
favor, quality or excellence, usually

of a spiritual kind, is extremely

ancient and was practiced in Old
Testament times (Gen. 48:14

Num. 27:8-23). Christ likewise
used this ceremony on several oc-
casions. When they imposed hands
on the newly baptized, however,
the Apostles used it with a new
and distinct significance—the com-
munication of the Holy Spirit, His

grace and gifts. This meant the
development of the Christian life

in the baptized and a strengthening
which, as confirmed Christians,

they needed in living and publicly
confessing their Faith.

Ordination

But the imposition of hands was
also used by the Apostles for an-
other and different purpose. They
deputed their office to their suc-

cessors by imposing hands upon
them. We find that the significance
of the imposition of hands in this

rite, which we call the Sacrament
of Order, is the Holy Spirit con-

23



ferring an office and the grace to
exercise it well. This can be easily
verified in St. Paul’s words to
Timothy: "...stir up the grace of
God which is in thee by the laying
on of my hands” (II Tim. 1:6;
also Acts 6:6). Since Timothy was
Paul’s successor as Bishop of the
Church in Ephesus, these words
make it clear that it is the Chris-
tian rite for the ordination of the

successors of the Apostles. Likewise,

it was to be the rite whereby they
should ordain their successors, (I

Tim. 5:22). The altogether distinct
and special purpose of this imposi-
tion of hands makes it a distinct
Sacrament.

Matrimony
The ceremony of Christian mar-

riage is not mentioned in the Bible
— probably because it consists sim-
ply and essentially in the exchange

of marriage vows between a Chris-
tian man and woman. But the New
Testament mentions Christian mar-

riage and the Catholic Church
teaches that it is a Sacrament.

When we examine the teaching
of Jesus Christ on marriage, it is
clear that it was His intention to
elevate it from the sad state into
which it had fallen in the world at
large and among the Jews. He in-
sisted that it is a union between
one man and one woman and that
this union is indissoluble. He plain-
ly considered marriage to be sacred,

since it is God Who joins the
married couple. St. Paul adds that

it is sacred for a most sublime
reason.

The principle point which St.
Paul stressed in writing to the

Ephesians (5:21-33) is that, since
the coming and death of Christ,
Christian marriage is something
different than marriage was before.
The union of husband and wife
is now similar to and should be
modeled after the union between
Christ and His Church. The union
of husband and wife is that of one
man and one woman until death
and is holy with the holiness of the
union between Christ and His
Church.

To a quotation from Genesis:
"The man shall leave his father
and mother, and shall cleave to
his wife, and they two shall be one
flesh,” St. Paul adds the following

reflection: "This is a great mystery;

I mean in reference to Christ and
the Church”. He does not state that
the rite of Christian marriage is a

Sacrament, but he indicates that

the union of husband and wife is

not only similar to the union be-

tween Christ and His Church but
that the marriage union is a title

to the assistance of the grace of

Christ and the Holy Spirit to make
it holy.

According to St. Paul, Christian

marriage has a significant character.

It signifies the union between

Christ and His Church. The fact
that this union of Christ and His
Church is the model of Christian
marriages means that they should
be patterned after it and marriage,
thus understood and practiced by
Christians, will therefore exemplify

the union of Christ and His
Church. This is the Scriptural basis

for the teaching of the Catholic

Church that Christian marriage is
a Sacrament.

24



Last Anointing

Much more explicit is the New
Testament when we consider the
Sacrament of Extreme Unction, or

the Last Anointing. In the Epistle

of the Apostle James (5:14-15),

we find a brief description of this
Sacrament. "Is anyone among you
sick?”, he wrote. "Let him bring
in the presbyters of the Church and

let them pray over him, anointing

him with oil in the name of the
Lord. And the prayer of faith will
save the sick man and the Lord
will raise him up, and if he be in
sins, they shall be forgiven him.”

St. James is writing to Christians

and telling them what to do. When
one of them is dangerously ill, he
should call in those who could
perform the desired rite — the pres-
byters of the Church. The New
Testament uses this name for cer-
tain leaders of the first Christian

communities who were superior to
laymen and deacons but inferior
to the Apostles and their principal
successors who established the,se
communities. These are the same
"presbyters of the Church” whom
the Holy Spirit has placed in the
whole flock "as bishops to the
Church of God” (Acts 20:17-28).

What the presbyters of the
Church are to do is then indicated
and it is something established and
official. They will pray over him —
supplicate God in his behalf — and
at the same time anoint him with
oil — a strengthening and comfort-
ing action. All this is done in the
name of the Lord. Their acting in
the name of Christ means that they
act in a religious manner and are

not applying merely a natural

remedy of some kind; and it means,
also, that they are acting as mini-

sters delegated to act in the name
of Christ Himself.

The effects of the rite are both
physical and spiritual, and they
both concern the sick man’s sal-

vation. The prayer of faith in
behalf of the anointed person will

bring salvation whether this in-

volves the restoration of his health

or not. If it pleases God to do so.
He will raise him up. Certainly a
restoration of health should be
prayed for. But what is more im-
portant, if he be in sins, they shall

be forgiven. We find in this pass-
age an established Christian rite
and a spiritual effect produced
when it is used by the Church.

Confession

It is not out of place to point

out that in connection with the

Sacrament of Penance in which

sins committed after Baptism are
forgiven and the confession of sins
to a priest, mentioned in one of
our questions, St. James concluded

his description of the rite of

anointing the sick with this ex-

hortation: "Confess, therefore, your

sins to one another and pray for
one another that you may be saved.”
Does the Bible, therefore, say we
should confess our sins only to

God? These are interesting words,
which should be carefully consid-
ered by anyone who is concerned
about where the confession of sins
to a priest is mentioned in the

Bible. There are Scripture scholars

who find in these words the con-
fession of sins to a presbyter of the

25



Church or what Catholics call a
"priest”.

This much is certain, St. James
speaks expressly of the confession

of sins. No matter to whom the
sins are to be confessed, — the con-
fession of sins itself is necessary.

But to whom? "One another” are
his words. What do these words
mean?

Further on in the same Epistle

(5:9), exhorting Christians to be
patient, St. James uses these words:
"Do not complain against one an-
other”. Does this not mean: those
who have reason to complain
should not complain against those
who give cause for complaint?

St. Paul used similar language

in writing to the Ephesians (5:21):

"Be subject to one another”. Did
he not mean subjects obey those
in authority over you — wives obey
your husbands — children your
parents — slaves your masters? He
certainly did not mean to be sub-
ject to anybody or everybody.

When St. Paul says to the Colos-
sians (3:13) that they should

"teach one another”, does he not
mean that those who are in a posi-
tion to teach should teach those

who need to be taught?
No, "to one another” does not

always mean anyone or everyone.
The sense depends upon what is
done to one another.

Consider, therefore, what St.
James said: "Confess your sins to
one another.” Could he not have
meant: "Confess your sins to those
who are delegated to forgive sins
— the presbyters of the Church?”
At any rate, that brings up the
question: Did Christ delegate His

Apostles and their successors to
forgive sins, and was this a Sacra-
ment?

Penance
If Christ did not depute His

Apostles to forgive sins, then His
words to them (John 20:19-23)
after His Resurrection are unintell-

igible. Standing in the midst of

them. He said: "As the Father hath
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
forgive, they are forgiven them;

and whose sins you shall retain,
they are retained.” Not merely did
He promise the Holy Spirit, He
then and there communicated the
Holy Spirit to them and His pur-
pose is clear. They were to forgive
and to retain sins.

The forgiving of sins is often
mentioned in the Bible and there
is no mistaking its meaning: a
sinner is delivered, freed from his
sin, his guilt no longer exists and
he is just before God (Romans
5:5; 8:14, sq.; James 2:23).

Now God alone possesses in His
own right the power of forgiving
sin which is always in some way
an offense against Him. After Jesus
had forgiven the sins of a paralytic,
it was objected that God alone can
forgive sins and He did not deny
this but went on to prove by the

miracle of the paralytic’s instan-

taneous and complete cure that

"the Son of man on earth has the
power to forgive sins” (Luke
5:21 sq.).

It was precisely this divine
power which Jesus delegated to

26



His Apostles. It was to render
them capable Af exercising this
power, that He communicated to
them the Holy Spirit. It was for
this reason that He delegated His
mission and His authority to them
(John 22:21); and His mission was
to deliver men from their sins
(Matt. 1:21)— to justify sinners
(Matt. 9:13; Luke 5:32).
He told them, also, to retain sins,

and this was just as much a part
of His command as was the for-
giving of sins. Moreover, by these
words He determined the nature
of the act whereby, as His ministers,

they were to exercise the power
given to them.

Whether they would forgive or
retain sins was left to their judg-
ment and this judgment evidently
could not be based on chance or
caprice. According to their judg-
ment, men would either remain
sinners or be freed from sin —
they would be guilty or not guilty
in the eyes of God. He plainly
intended to oblige His Apostles
to act prudently and justly, to
take into account the degree ojf the

sinner’s guilt and the sincerity of
his repentance. In order to fulfill

this obligation, if they were to
judge justly or prudently whether
they should forgive or retain, they

needed to know two things — what
were the sinner’s sins and was he
truly sorry. How could they ascer-
tain these facts except by confes-

sion on the part of the sinner?
It cannot be denied, therefore,

that in authorizing and obliging
the Apostles to forgive and retain
sins, our Lord laid a corresponding
obligation of confessing their sins

on the part of sinners seeking for-
giveness. In so doing. He estab-
lished the rite known in the Catho-
lic Church as the Sacrament of
Penance, or as it is commonly
called "Confession”. The sinner con-
fesses his sins and professes his
sorrow for them, the sincerity of
which sorrow is indicated by his
determination, with the help of
God, to commit these sins no more.
The priest — a presbyter of the
Church — judges him worthy of
forgiveness and in the name of
God, forgives him.

Isn’t it possible that when St.
James referred to the confession of
sins in connection with the anoint-

ing of the sick, he may have been
referring to the conjunction of two

Sacraments?

What we have said about the
Sacraments in the Bible is not and
was not meant to be an answer
to all the questions which can be
raised concerning the Seven Sacra-

ments. It has been our sole purpose

to show any sincere inquirer that
the teaching of the Church that
there are seven Sacraments can be
supported by the Word of God
as it is found in the Bible.

27



JC JC j<. Jt. - J*. Jt.

WHERE IS PURGATORY ’

MENTIONED IN THE BIBLE? ,
Uc V - ->c-

The answer to this question
does not require a treatise

on Purgatory. For a discus-
sion of this subject, we refer
the reader to our free

pamphlet "WHAT HAP-
PENS AFTER DEATH?”
Perhaps no one point of

Catholic belief is so widely

misunderstood and misre-

presented as this one, and

it will pay anyone interested in

the facts to procure this pamphlet.

However, before we go looking
for Purgatory in the Bible, it is

wise to have the right notion of

what we are looking for.

The Catholic Church believes,
on the authority of God revealing,
that there is a state after death

which is commonly called Purga-
tory. This was not always the name
used. For many centuries in the
early history of the Church, it was

called "the darksome way”, "a place

of sighs and tears”, "a place of
'

cleansing flames”, "a place of transi-

tory fire and purgatorial punish-

ment”. Finally, in the Thirteenth

Century, the name "Purgatory”,
which is most appropriate, ob-
tained common and established
usage.

Catholics are required to believe

only two things about Purg-
atory. First, we believe that
they go to Purgatory who
have died free from serious
sins and are the friends of

God and who have, there-
fore, saved their souls, but

who have not, during life,
completely met all the re-
quirements of an all-merci-

ful, an all- just God, Who
holds us responsible for all our sins.

We also believe that the prayers
of the living, especially those which

we offer through Christ in the
Sacrifice of the Mass, can move
God to be merciful to people in
Purgatory.

Now, the question is: do we find
this in the Bible? The answer will
be found in the 13 th Chapter of

the Second Book of Machabees in
the Old Testament. On the day
after his victory over Gorgias, the

governor of Idumea, Judas Macha-

beus, the leader of the Jews, to-

gether with his company discovered

under the tunics of the Jewish

soldiers who were slain in battle,
valuables which had been taken as

plunder from the temple of idols

in Jamnia. This was contrary to the

law of the Jews (Deut. 7:26) and

Judas and his men considered their

28



death to be a punishment from
God.
The inspired author goes on to

say: "Then they all blessed the just
judgment of the Lord who had
discovered the things that were

hidden.

"And so betaking themselves to
prayers, they besought him, that

the sin which had been committed

might be forgotten.

"But the most valiant Judas ex-
horted the people to keep them-

selves from sin for as much as
they saw before their eyes what
had happened, because of the sins

of those that were slain. And mak-
ing a gathering, he sent twelve
thousand drachmas of silver to

Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered

for the sins of the dead, thinking

well and religiously concerning the
resurrection.

"(For if he had not hoped that
they that were slain should rise
again, it would have seemed super-
fluous and vain to pray for the
dead). And because he considered
that they who had fallen asleep
with godliness, had great grace laid
up for them.

"It is therefore a holy and whole-
some thought to pray for the dead,
that they may be loosed from sins.”

Several important points should

not go unnoticed in this passage.
1. After the unlawful plunder

was found on the soldiers, their
Jewish kinsmen gathered in private
prayer for the fallen soldiers that

their sin "might be effaced from
the mind of God”.

2. Thereafter a public sacrifice

of expiation (Lev. 4:2-35) was of-
fered in the temple in order to

satisfy for their sins and to assure
the dead soldiers divine absolution

from their sins.

3. These sins had not robbed
them of godliness, else it would
have been vain to pray with hope
in their future resurrection. Yet
prayer was offered to the just and
merciful God. And it was expedient
to offer public sacrifice in satis-

faction for their sins even though
they had saved their souls.

4. From all of which the inspired
author concluded, no longer speak-
ing of Judas and the dead soldiers
in particular, but of the dead in

general — no longer speaking of
particular sins of transgressing the

Law which these soldiers com-
mitted, but of any sins—no longer
approving of the prayer of Judas
and his men only, but recommend-
ing it to everyone: "It is a holy

and wholesome thought to pray for
the dead that they may be loosed
from sins”.

It is impossible to understand

how the Bible could mention the
Catholic belief in Purgatory more
clearly than this.

Judas Machabeus did not doubt
the future resurrection of the fallen

soldiers. But their future resurrec-
tion was nonetheless affected by
the sins committed in the pillage
of Jamnia. They would one day
rise again and would enjoy the
recompense of those who slept in
the Lord or prayer for them would
have been in vain. But beforehand
they needed to be freed from their
sins by public sacrifice in the
temple.

It must be admitted that in the
thought of the inspired writer, these

29



soldiers were not lost forever. At
the same time, due to their sins,
they did not enjoy the great grace
that was laid up for them. They
were clearly in a state in which
they needed to be loosed from their
sins and in which they could be
helped by the prayers of the living.
And the Bible recommends the
whole idea to everyone.

By this time, the reader may
have thumbed through his Bible,
only to discover that the Second
Book of Machabees and this whole
passage is nowhere to be found.
He may ask: Why isn’t it there?

That is a good question. It
happens to be a question that any-
one whose Bible does not contain
this Book should not only ask him-
self, but should also take steps to
settle to his own satisfaction. Too
many accept without question the
well-bound, well-printed volume
with the title "Holy Bible" on the
cover in gold letters as the real
thing. But is it? How do they know?
Why don’t they find out?

There have always been those
who did not hesitate to tamper with
the Scriptures. Passages have been
rephrased to fit their preconceived

ideas and opinions, words have
been inserted and others conveni-
ently omitted—in fact, whole books
have been eliminated—for the same
purpose.

Catholics have no trouble in an-
swering the question "What is the
genuine and complete Bible?" Well
aware of the danger after centuries
of experience with spurious Bibles,
the Church insists that all — clergy
and laymen alike — use only those
versions of the Bible which have

been carefully checked with the
oldest and most authentic versions
available to Scripture scholars over
a period of nineteen centuries.
The question of why various

books or portions were removed
from the Bible has been discussed
in our free pamphlet "BUT DO
YOU REALLY UNDERSTAND
THE BIBLE?” and will not be con-
sidered here. However, in settling
the question of why the Second
Book of Machabees was removed
from the list of inspired books
which make up the Bible, two other
questions must be faced by every
sincere Christian.

Why do you find the Christians
of earliest Christian times using

this Book as part of God’s inspired
word? It is something more than
coincidence that in the Epistle to

the Hebrews, there seems to be re-
markable allusion (11:35-36) to
the suffering of Eleazar and the
seven brothers (II Mach. 6: 19-28).

In the second century after Christ,

the Pastor of Hermas (140-154
A.D.) refers to II Mach. (7:23) in
speaking of "God who created the
world" (Vision I, 3,4). Later, about

235 A.D., Clement of Alexandria
and Cyprian (258 A.D.) speak of
the book. Hippolytus of Rome (255
A.D.) used the book in his com-
mentary on the Scripture as also
did Origen (352 A.D.).

Thus in all parts of the Church
— in the East and in the West —
this book was received by the early
Christians. And it seems obvious
that if this book was part of the
Scriptures then, it still is and should

be today.

Why was this book removed from

30



the list of inspired books and who
excluded it from some Bibles?
The pioneer was Martin Luther.

In the disputation of Leipsig, he

was pressed by John Eck to declare
if he still believed in Purgatory.

He responded that "in truth, in all
of Scripture, there is not one word
on the subject”. When the passage

of the Second Book of Machabees
was proposed as evidence, he simply
rejected the whole thing by reject-
ing the two Books of Machabees as
having been erroneously placed on
the list of inspired Scriptures. He
did not believe in Purgatory or the

value of prayers for the dead, so

the Books of Machabees had to go!

4 FREE BIBLE PAMPHLETS
If you want a fuller and better understanding of the Bible

— its history, meaning and proper place in your religious
life, write for FREE copy of:

"The Bible Is A Catholic Book"

"But Can It Be Found In The Bible"

"Do You Really Understand The Bible"

"The Bible Is Not Our Sole Guide"

•

Supreme Council

KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS
Religious Information Bureau

4422 UNDELL BLVD. ST. LOUIS 8, MO.

31



ONE MEDIATOR AND INnRCESSOR-

CHRIST, THE REDEEMER

Where does the Bible men-
tion praying to Mary or to
saints or that Mary is a
mediator between God and
man?

In some people s minds,
the act of prayer is asso-

ciated exclusively with an
act of adoration of God,

but it should not be. We
may adore God when we
pray to Him, but this does not
mean that we adore some other
human being when we direct an
act of prayer to him.

The act of prayer which is re-
ferred to in the question we are
considering is the simple act of

asking a favor of another. We pray
when we ask a favor of a friend.
Prayer can be addressed to anyone

who is in a position to grant the
request which the prayer contains.

Not only do we find the early
Christians addressing prayers to

God, but to other Christians, as
well. Consider carefully the follow-

ing words of St. Paul: "I beseech
you, brethren, through our Lord

Jesus Christ, and by the charity
of the Holy Spirit, that you help
me in your prayers to God”
(Romans 15:30). In thus address-
ing a prayer to his fellow Chris-

tians, was he offending God
or robbing Him of any of
the honor which is His due?
On the contrary, he was
but following out Christian

teaching: "...pray for one
another, that you may be
saved, for the unceasing

prayer of a just man is of
great avail” (James 5:16).

"We beseech yoii, Mary,
through our Lord Jesus Christ, and

by the charity of the Holy Spirit,
that you help us in your prayers
to God”. By substituting the name
"Mary” or any Saint in the place
of "my brethren”, in St. Paul’s
prayer, you have identically the
same prayer which the Catholic
Church offers to Mary and the
Saints.

This is the practice of prayer

identical with that which the Bible
shows to have been the practice

of the Apostles and early Christians.

Can anyone doubt that St. Paul
who asked for the prayers of his
brethren, would hesitate to include

among these brethren Mary, the
Mother of Jesus Christ? So the

same kind of prayer which we offer
to Mary and the Saints is men-
tioned in the Bible.

"But Mary and the Saints to

32



whom you pray are dead’^, it will
be objected. "The Bible speaks only
of prayers to the living”.

Such a question coming from
those who have no idea or hope
in a future life makes sense, but
not coming from Christians who
profess to believe in survival after

death and in the reality of the
future life. In Mary’s case, she most
certainly is not to be classed among
the dead. Her Assumption into
Heaven means that her body, re-
enlivened by her soul, was raised
from the grave and she is alive in
Heaven together with the blessed
saints who will have their bodies
restored at the end of the world.
They, too, all live.

It is the privilege of the Chris-

tian to have the full assurance of

a future life and to look upon the
life after death as more truly real
than the life we at present know.
This assurance is founded upon
faith, not conjecture or opinion —
faith which is no less certain than
actual personal experience. We do
not lose our friends when they
die; we gain them if they die as
friends of God. "As I live,” said our
Lord, "so shall you live also.” Mary
and the saints are in Heaven and
Heaven is the abode of the living.
Have Mary and the saints who

are with Christ ceased to love us
and to be concerned about our
affairs? No, we believe in the
communion of saints — an oft-
forgotten article of our Creed.

"Far be from us,” wrote St.
Bernard (On the Death of Mal-
achy), "the thought that that love
which we have seen so active upon
earth should be lessened or de-

stroyed in Heaven . . . the love of
those who have gone before us,
and passed through the valley of
the shadow of death, cannot fail,
for love is stronger than death, yet,

the breadth of Heaven enlarges
men’s hearts, not contracts them;

fills them with more love, not
empties them of what they had
before. In the light of God, the
memory is brightened and strength-
ened, not obscured; what was not
known is now learned; not what
was known, unlearned; in a word,
it is Heaven and not earth,” and
Heaven is not a land of separation
or of forgetfulness.

There is but one Body of the
faithful, whether in Heaven or
upon earth, and Jesus Christ is
their Head and through Him there
is a communion between all the
members of His Body. Those who
have entered into their rest have

not thereby ceased to be our

brethren and to love us. Nor have
they ceased to love God and to
have an interest in all that con-

cerns His honor and glory, and the

salvation of men’s souls.

If Mary and the saints are liv-
ing, can anyone deny that they are

in a position to know that we seek
their prayers? The enjoyment of the
blessed life of Heaven does not
deprive them of the power of
knowledge, rather it is increased.

That there is knowledge in Heaven
of what goes on in this world is
clear from Christ’s own words:
".

. . there will be joy among the
ai>gels of God over one sinner who
repents” (Luke 25:10). God surely
can cause Mary and the saints to
know what goes on in this world.

33



That He actually does so is cer-
tain from the assurance Christ gave
that they are "equal to the angels"

(Luke 20:36) and although He was
speaking of the blessed in Heaven
after the resurrection of the body,

Mary does have her body restored
and the saints do not need their
bodies to be capable of knowledge,

any more than do the angels who
have no bodies.

Mary and the saints are no long-
er affected by time and space in the
way that we are while on earth.
They are not subject to the difficul-
ties and imperfections of commu-
nication that we are. Nothing
prevents Mary and the saints from
knowing our petitions to them as
soon as they are formed in our
minds and hearts and to present
them to God. They know these
things in God Whom they see face
to face.

Those who find fault with pray-
er to Mary and the Saints usually
do so on the ground that they are
thereby exhalted to a position on
a par with Christ. But St. Paul,
they tell us, says: "There is one

God, and one mediator between

God and men, himself man, Christ
Jesus, who gave himself a ransojn
for all...” (I Tim. 2:5). Christ it

is ". . . who is ever living to make
intercession for us” (Heb. 7:25).

But what did he mean when he
spoke of Jesus Christ as our Medi-
ator? Did he not refer to the fact
that Christ alone was the Redeemer
of mankind — that as man He died
and offered His death as a re-
demptive sacrifice? Catholics make
no such claim for Mary today —
and they never did. It is true that

she was associated with the Media-
tor in His redemptive mission, as
we have explained in our free
pamplet "YES... THE MOTHER
OF GOD WILL HELP YOU”. In
fact, she was associated more close-
ly than were His chosen Apostles.
This does not, however, make her
a "mediator” in the sense that this

term has when it is applied to
Jesus Christ, nor do Catholics say
that it does.

Likewise, Christ our Redeemer is
ever living to make intercession for
us. He Who is our Intercessor is
also our Redeemer, Who intercedes
on the strength of the Sacrifice
He alone has made for us. Neither
Mary nor any Saint could be our
Intercessor in the sense in which
Christ is.

But, we ask, because Jesus Christ
as our Redeemer is the sole Medi-
ator between God and men, ever
living to make intercession for us,
does this mean that the terms
"mediator” and "intercessor” cannot

be used in other senses and applied

to others for different reasons? The
dictionary justifies the use of the

term "mediator”’ in the sense of

one who acts as the intermediary
in effecting something, bringing

something about, communicating

something, and the like.

Many do not seem to realize that
St. Paul spoke of Jesus Christ as

the one Mediator between God and
men and this does not exclude the
possibility or even hint at the in-

congruity of there being inter-

mediaries between ]esus Christ and

other men. Indeed, the whole Bible

takes such mediation for granted.

Mary, the Mother of Jesus, was

34



the medium through which Jesus
Christ came into this world as man:
"...God sent his Son, made of a
woman” (Gal. 4:4). She, out oi
her own heart’s blood and from the
substance of her body, supplied the

wherewithal from which was fash-
ioned the body of Him Whose
death on the Cross won our Re-
demption and reconciliation with
God the Father. She willingly con-
sented to become the mother of
our Redeemer when this was an-
nounced to her (Luke 1:38). Jesus
Christ could have come into the
world in other ways, but the Divine
Plan called for the Savior to have
a body which would come into
existence through the regular chan-

nel of a human mother’s womb. In
that sense, we are indebted to Mary.
She was the medium, or, if you
will, the Mediatrix, through which
Christ became one of us. Mary is
not the mediator between God and
men; Jesus Christ alone is that,
but it is a historical fact, which no
one can deny, that she was the
medium through which He came
into this world and became a mem-
ber of the human race.
We find more than one kind of

mediation in the Bible. When John
the Baptist pointed out the world’s
Savior with the words: "Behold the
Lamb of God who takes away the
sin of the world” (John 1:29),
he served as the iriedium which
brought the attention of John the
Evangelist and Peter to our Lord.
The Baptist was the medium
through which Jesus Christ became
known to those Apostles. The
Baptist who spoke the words was
the mediator between them and

Jesus Christ.

Similarly, when Andrew went in
search of Simon Peter to lead him
to Jesus, he, Andrew, became the
medium which led Peter to the feet
of his Redeemer (John 1: 40-42).
Jesus could have made Himself
known directly to these men, but
He chose to work through others
as He has chosen to do ever since,
down through the centuries. The
story of Christ in the Gospels which
is read by a man who has never
known Christ makes the author of
that Gospel a mediator. Matthew,
Mark, Luke and John are mediators.
Any preacher who proclaims Christ
and His message is a mediator, but
— let it be repeated over and over
again — not between God and men,
but between Jesus Christ and men.

Anyone who administers the
Sacrament of Baptism and thus be-
comes the instrument of the bap-
tized party’s regeneration, is a

mediator. The one who baptizes
is of little consequence in himself,

but the rite which Christ pre-
scribed as essential to salvation is

of the utmost consequence. It
makes little or no difference who
administers the rite, whether he be
saint or sinner, male or female,
believer or infidel; it is obedience

to Christ’s direction which counts
and He, the one Mediator between
God and men, must have imparted
some powerful and mysterious ef-
ficacy to that simple rite for so
much to depend on it. "He who
believes and is baptized shall be
saved” (Mark 16:16). The one who
does the baptizing becomes a
mediator according to the diction-

ary’s definition of the term. Let it

35



be repeated once more, not a medi-

ator between God and men, but
between Jesus Christ and men.

Similarly, when Jesus Christ
commissioned the Apostles to go
teach all nations all that He had
commanded, to baptize them and
to forgive sins. He was interposing
their ministry of preaching, bap-

tizing, and forgiving between Him-
self and others. The Apostles, then,
by the very appointment of Jesus
Christ, became intermediaries be-
tween Himself and men, that men
might come to have faith in Jesus
Christ and share in the benefits
of His unique mediation before the
throne of Him, Who "alone has
immortality and dwells in light in-
accessible, whom no man has seen
or can see, to whom be honor and
everlasting dominion” (I Tim. 6: 16).

So' important, in fact, is this

mediation of the Apostles and their
successors in the Christian ministry,

that St. Paul does not hesitate to

declare to Timothy: "Take heed
to thyself and to thy teaching, be
earnest in them. For in so doing,

thou wilt save both thyself and
those who hear thee” (I Tim. 4: 16).
The words which are to be especi-
ally noted here are those which
say that Timothy saves others who
hearken to his preaching of the

Word. If he saves others by bring-
ing to them the saving knowledge
of Jesus Christ, by that same token
he is a mediator of salvation be-
tween men and Jesus Christ, and
so is any other minister who by
delivering the Gospel message or

by baptizing brings Jesus Christ to
men and men to Jesus Christ.

Another Biblical example of
mediation is particularly to the
point raised by our questions. In
the marriage feast of Cana, (John
2:1-11), the wine ran out in the
midst of the festivities. This was
painfully embarrassing to the bride
and groom. Mary, with considera-
tion for their feelings, called the

situation to the attention of her

Son. And, although His hour for
performing His first miracle had
not yet come. He nevertheless, be-
cause He could not find it in His
heart to refuse her anything, mir-

aculously supplied wine at her
request. In this instance, Mary was
a mediatrix. Our Lord surely sensed
the situation, but He waited until
it was called to His attention by
Mary.

Because Marys prayer was so
effective in this case, and induced
her Son to anticipate the time when
He planned to perform His first
miracle, many believe in the power
of her prayers. They believe that
she is our Mediatrix, not between

God and men, but between men
and her Son Who is the sole Med-
iator between God and men. They
pray to her, not that she by her

own authority or by any personal
resources of her own, may give us
graces and blessings, but that she

may appeal on our behalf to her
Divine Son, Who in turn will make
intercession for us before Him
Who is the source of every good
and perfect gift (James 1:17).

36



#>V#«VV^«V^V4V^VV#4VV#V#V#VVV#V#V#V!»V#«VV<»Vi»V^«V^VV#«>V^V#V!»«V^VV#«V%VV#V#iV«ViV«VV#«V«VV#^V«VV'#«V|^

I
MONKS, NUNS, AND |

I FRIDAY ABSTINENCE !
^4>#>#> #>#>>>>>>#>>> >#>«>#>#>
4#«#V#>«V%V%>V# V# iVV#4V«V«r# «•#«V #

Where in the Bible is the
authorization for nunneries

or monasteries mentioned?

Where in the Bible is
the eating of meat on Fri-

day called a sin?

These may appear to be
unrelated questions, but

they aren’t. Both are con-
cerned with laws and dis-

cipline of Christian life as

authorized by the Catholic Church.

The laws of the Church as such
won’t be found expressly stated in

the Bible. But the matters with
which these laws deal, and which
they apply to Christian life in a

practical manner, will be found
there.

Consider first the Catholic prac-

tice of abstaining from meat on
Friday. The Church has applied
this law almost everywhere in the
world, for a very simple and Scrip-
tural reason. Our Lord was very
explicit when He said: “If anyone
wishes to come after me, let him
deny himself, and take up his cross
daily and follow me” (Luke 9:23)-
In the light of these words, it looks

very much like everyone who is
worthy to be called a Christian is
going to be found practicing self-
denial.

Now self-denial does not
mean refraining only from
that which is wrong, but
refraining from that which
is in itself good. It is deny-

ing oneself things which
could be lawfully done and
enjoyed. Left to their own
devices, how many Chris-
tians consistently live up to
this evident command of

Christ? Very few! The experience
of the Catholic Church over the
centuries has borne this out. So, in

order to insure the practice of at

least a minimum of self-denial, the
Church has ruled that Catholics the
world over deny themselves meat
on one day of each week — Friday.

But why Friday? It could be
any other day of the week, but
Friday happens to be the day on
which our Lord performed the
supreme act of self-denial. He not
only carried His cross, but on it.
He gave up His life for us. That
fact we must never forget and ever
honor. What better day for Chris-
tians to practice self-denial ... to

obey His command? So the Church,
not the Bible, has specified Friday

and who will dare to say this is
contrary to the Bible?

There is nothing wrong with

37



good meat anywhere or at any time.
So why deny oneself meat? For the
obvious reason that meat is a uni-
versal food. Can a food be named
that is more common to mankind
all over the world, than the flesh

of animals living on dry land? No
doubt, in choosing as the object

of universal self-denial, the Church
had an eye on what St. Paul said
about abstaining from meat being
good (Romans 14:21), but bread
or fish or eggs might have been
chosen. When you come right down
to it, what more universal food can
be found for the catholic, the uni-
versal Church, in which there is
to be common and collective self-
denial?

Importance of Friday

There are those who do not like
the idea of members of the Church
the world over adhering to the same
practice of self-denial, but they
forget the unity Christ expected

to prevail among His disciples
(John 17:21). Others say that Fri-
day, as a designated day, is not
mentioned in the Bible. Of course
it isn’t, but as we have said, the
Friday on which Christ died is —
and we do not wish to forget it.
When anyone cries "regimenta»

tion”, referring to the Church’s

determination of the day and man-
ner in which we practice the self-
denial ordained by Christ Himself,
we point to Christ deputing His
Apostles and their successors:
".

. . teach them ( their followers
among the nations) all things I
have commanded” (Matt. 28:19)...
and when He said: . . whatsoever
you shall bind on earth, shall be

bound also in Heaven” (Matt.
18.18), He could have meant noth-
ing less than the moral binding of
conduct through the making of
laws.

Now what about monasteries or
nunneries? As the dwellings in
which monks and nuns live, they
are nowhere authorized in the
Bible. Neither are Lutheran, Bap-
tist, or Methodist seminaries, par-

sonages, or rectories. There is no
good reason why they should be.

But this question, most probably,
inquires if the lives led by Catholic
monks and nuns are authorized in
the Bible. Nuns and monks, of
course, are religious women and
men (who may be ordained priests
or not) all of whom live a com-
mon life approved and regulated
by the Church in which they prac-
tice Christ’s counsels of poverty,

chastity, and obedience. Do we find
such a life authorized in the Bible?

The answer is easily found.

*'Come Follow Me’’

There is little need to tarry over

Christ’s recommendation of obedi-

ence and poverty. There can be
no doubt but that both are clearly
indicated in His answer to the

wealthy man who had kept the
Commandments of God from his
youth, but who wanted to do more.
"If thou wilt be perfect,” He said,
"go, sell what thou hast and give
to the poor . . . and come follow me”
(Matt. 19:21). It was not a com-
mand, but it most certainly was a
counsel that authorized special

obedience and detachment from
worldly possessions.

It is the celibate life, the chaste

38



unmarried life of monks and nuns,
which is the chief concern of those

who ask the "monastery and nun-
nery” question. Why don’t priests
and nuns get married?

Unfortunately, there are always

those who are anxious to mind the
other fellow’s business for him.

What is worse, their motives in so
doing are often based on rash
judgments. Such people need to be
told that Catholic priests and nuns
choose not to get married. No one
is obliged to be a priest or a nun.
But since the Church has made the
celibate life a required condition

for the life of a priest or a nun,
they freely choose this kind of a
life because they want to be priests
or nuns.

Celibacy

But there are those who sin-
cerely want to know what is behind
the required celibacy of priests and
nuns. "Is it authorized by the
Bible?”, they ask. If by "authorized”
is meant commanded by the Bible,
the answer is: No. It is merely a
law of the Church. But if by
"authorized” is meant encouraged
and commended by Christ and His
Apostles as their teaching is

recorded in the Bible, the answer
is: Yes.

We find our Lord expressly
recommending celibacy cliosen for
religious motives (Matt. 19:11-12).
But He immediately added that
such a life of self-denial is not
meant for all. Only the few who
have a special calling are to under-
take such an obligation: "Let him
accept it, who can.”
Anyone who asks "Is celibacy

authorized by the Bible?” should
read thoughtfully the Seventh
Chapter of St. Paul’s Epistle to the
Corinthians, especially where he
says: "For I would that you all
were as I am, myself; but each one
has his own gift from God, one
in this way, and another in that.
But I say to the unmarried and to
widows, it is good for them if they
so remain, even as I” (I Cor. 7:7-8).

St. Paul was a celibate and the rea-
son why he recommended celibacy
for those who can live such a life
is stated subsequently in the same
chapter: "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. And the unmar-
ried woman, and the virgin thinks
about the things of the Lord, that

she may be holy in body and in
spirit. Whereas she who is married
thinks about the things of the
world, how she may please her
husband. Now this I say for your
benefit, not to put a halter upon
you, but to promote what is proper
and to make it possible for you to
pray to the Lord without distrac-
tion” (7:32-35).

A Good Reason
Not only the recommendation of

celibacy but its purpose is plainly

evident in St. Paul’s words. The
unmarried man is free from the
worries, anxieties, responsibilities

and claims on his time and atten-
tion, which arise from marriage
and family life. A married man can-

39



not devote himself wholly to the

work of the ministry; he must needs
devote himself wholeheartedly to

his family as well. Whereas the un-
married man is free to give his
whole attention, time, love, and de-
votion to the service of those in-

trusted to his care, and he can thus
accomplish mlore for the spread of

the Kingdom of God on earth.
So there is plenty of authoriza-

tion for the celibate life in the New
Testament, but it is not made a
matter of obligation. It is presented

as a closer and more perfect way of
serving the Lord and His interests,
but it is not commanded. Conse-
quently, for several centuries in the

Church, a married clergy and
priesthood and episcopate existed,

although at the same time, many
members of the clergy were celi-
bates. It was not until several
centuries had elapsed before the
Church began to make celibacy a
matter of obligation for those who
wished to enter the ministry of the

priesthood. One of the earliest
laws was made by the Council of
Elvira in Spain in the Fourth Cen-
tury, and thereafter, one Church
Council after another ruled in the

same way until within a hundred
years or so, the law was universal
in the Western World. But it has
been the practice of the Church in
Eastern and far Eastern countries
to ordain married men, but after
their ordination, unmarried priests
were not permitted to marry. Thus

the Catholic Church knows what
it is to have a married and un-
married clergy.

With the intention of imitating
Christ, women began living a re-
ligious life together in the Third
Century. We find that Augustine,
Bishop of Hippo in North Africa,
established convents for women
and celibacy was their mode of
life approved by the Church.

This insistence upon celibacy for
priests and nuns, of course, implies
no disregard, no failure to appreci-
ate the holiness and nobility of
Christian marriage. The Catholic
priests and nuns who deny them-
selves the happiness of marriage

and family life are the last ones
in the world who can reasonably
be accused of looking down upon
marriage. In season and out, they
have constantly taught that Matri-

mony is a most sacred union, noble
in purpose and instituted by God
Himself. As we have pointed out
elsewhere in this pamphlet, the

Church teaches that marriage is a
Sacrament — that the very perman-
ency of the union resulting from

the vows of husband and wife to
remain faithful to each other unto

death, becomes a channel through

which the help of God’s grace flows

to strengthen husband and wife,

father and mother, to be faithful

to their vows and to discharge per-
severingly and conscientiously the

sacred responsibilities of parent-

hood.

40



KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS - RELIGIOUS INFORMATION BUREAU
4422 Lindell Blvd., St. Louis 8, Missouri

List of pamphlets available at the above address. One title may be requested at a time free

of charge. Several titles, complete sets, and quantities of individual pamphlets may be ordered

at for each pamphlet, plus postage.

3. The Bible is a Catholic Book

5. Christ’s Seven Sacraments

6. The Holy Sacrifice — the Catholic
Mass

7. Why the Catholic Church says "Inves-
tigate” — Masons, Inquisition, Nuns

8. Speaking of Tolerance — Controver-
sial periods in history

9. These Men They Call "Knights”
10. Why Catholics Believe As They Do

— Existence of God, Immortality
11. A Short Story of the Popes
12. Let’s Stick to Moses — Ten Com-

mandments explained

13. But Can It Be Found in the Bible? —
Bible not sole rule of faith

14. What Happens After Death?
15. Yes ... I Condemned The Catholic

Church

16. What Do You Mean "Only One True
Church”?

17. But How Can Educated People Be
Catholics?

18. No ... Belief in God is not Enough!
19. The Real Secret of Successful Mar-

riage

20. The Way to Everlasting Life . . . The
Catholic Church

21. Is the Catholic Church a Menace to
Democracy?

22. But Do You Really Understand the
Bible? — Rules for understanding

23. A Letter to Our Non-Catholic Neigh-
bors — Aspects of Catholic faith

24. Yes, the Mother of God Will Help
You!

25. What Makes a Woman Choose Such
a Life? — Life of a Catholic Nun

26. I’ll Tell You Why I Am a Catholic
27. Why So Many Decide to Become

Catholics — Convert stories
28. Let Us Judge Catholics by the Bible

— Prayer to Saints, unmarried priests
29. But Would Christ Call You A Chris-

tian?

30. But Do You Understand What God
Told Us? — Apostles’ Creed

31. Should Children Learn About God-
in School?

32. The Bible Is Not Our Sole Guide
33. This Was the Faith of Our Fathers
34. These Are Our Seven Deadly Enemies

— Seven capital sins explained
35. Let’s Test Catholic Loyalty — A Good

Catholic is a good citizen

36. Remember the Sabbath . . . Keep It
Holy — The "Sabbath Question”

37. I Am a Catholic Priest
38. But Why the Candles, Holy Water

and Beads ? — Sacramentals
39. The Reformation. Was It Reform or

Revolt?

40. Why I Had to Embrace the Catholic
Faith — Convert stories

41. Yes, Miracles Happened at Fatima

42. Does the Bible Contradict Itself? —
Peter the Rock, Faith and/or Works

43. I Was Warned About the Catholic
Church! — Religious Liberty

44. Why a Woman Needs the Catholic
Faith!

45. The Early Years of the Catholic
Church — First three centuries

46. Yes ... A Priest Can Forgive Your
Sins — Sacrament of Penance

47. But Why Don’t You Pray to the
Saints? — Communion of Saints

48. God’s Story of Creation — Genesis
49. Is the Catholic Church Out of Place

Here? — Catholicism and Loyalty
50. This Is the Catholic Church — Creed,

Sacraments, Mass, Commandments
5 1 . Revelation ... A Divine Message of

Hope — Revelations or Apocalypse
52. Does It Pay to be a Catholic? — How

to be a Catholic

53. Think About Death and Start to Live
— Catholic attimde toward death

54. What Do You Find Wrong With
the Catholic Church?

55. His Name Shall Be Called God With
Us — Divinity of Christ

56. The Infallible Church, Truth or Trick-
ery? — Church of the Scriptures

57. Tell Us About God . . . Who Is He?
Existence and nature of God

58. The Word Was Made Flesh-
Humanity of Christ

59. Let Us Pray—Prayer
60. Gift of the Holy Spirit—Confirmation



Learn All About

THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
By Mail ... At No Cost!

You can easily investigate Catholic faith and worship
in the privacy of your home.

Just send us your name and address and advise that
you desire to learn about the Church by mail.
We will send you an interesting course of instruc-

tion which is short, yet complete.
The book explaining Catholic faith and worship is

written in an easy-to-understand form, and there are
six tests sheets to be checked. There is no writing to
do, and nobody will call on you unless you request it.
You merely mail your marked test sheets to us. We

correct them and return them to you. This enables
you to determine how well you understand the book
and on what points further explanation by mail may
help you.

There is no cost to you, no obligation.

Wri/e today to:

Supreme Council

KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS
Religious Information Bureau

4422 LINDELL BLVD.
ST. LOUIS 8, MO.

Imprimatur:

JOSEPH E. RITTER
Archbishop of St. Louis

St. Louis, June 22, 1951

Published in United States of America

13th Reprinting, March, 1961