---
CATHOLIC TRUTHS
FOR
PROTESTANTS
---Compiled from various sources By
Jerald Franklin Archer ---
multi enim venient in nomine meo dicentes ego sum Christus et multos seducent
Mt24:5 For many will come in my name saying, I am Christ. And they will seduce many. ---
Seek the Truth where Truth is Found.
If you are a Protestant, then you are most certainly following Christianity, yet it is of someone’s design other than Christ. The simple math here is Christ founded His church on Pentecost and gave St Peter the authority to lead it and pass on His teaching and interpretations guided by the Holy Spirit with an
unbreakable line of succession from apostle, to apostle, down to our current Papacy and Magisterium which retains that tradition and knowledge. Whatever Protestant sect you belong to was founded by a man (or woman) at some point. And if it contradicts the teaching of the Catholic Church, it is not the truth, but in fact the absence of truth (i.e. a lie). If one “protests” the truths and teachings of the Catholic Church, they protest the teachings and the truth of Christ Himself.
The articles and book included in this collection are by no means exhaustive, but they are sufficient to point out the truth of where you might be in your journey to eternal salvation, whether it be applied to ones own, or the assistance of another. The materials will be beneficial for the Catholic apologist in their work, and very necessary for the protestant in their search for the truth . God Bless You.
A Note About the Collection
In presenting these brief papers, I should state that what is contained in them is not personal opinion, but rather Truths taught by the Catholic Church. It is hoped that by some reading the documents, and seriously considering the utmost importance of attaining eternal salvation, that many will come to the Catholic Church. Perhaps you are on a journey now of seeking out truth and direction, if so, one cannot find a better path to Christ than following the Road to Rome. These texts will hopefully help in that journey and answer many questions protestants (or anyone) may have about the Church.
he term Evangelization literally means “to preach the gospel and encourage conversion to the heart and mind of Jesus." Preaching the gospel is the art of delivering a public discourse, sermon or witness on behalf of Jesus Christ.
The National Directory for Catechesis (NDC) places evangelization at the core of ministry to fire a new energy and commitment to proclaim the Gospel. Everyone in ministry must appreciate the fact that evangelization and a comprehensive catechesis are in some way part of their own responsibilities.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church defines evangelization as: “the proclamation of Christ and His Gospel by word and the testimony of life, in fulfillment of Christ’s command.”
Evangelization means bringing the good news of Jesus into every human situation and seeking to convert individuals and society by the divine power of the Gospel itself. Catholic Evangelization has three goals:
* to bring about in all Catholics such an enthusiasm for their faith that, in living their faith in Jesus, they freely share it with others.
* to invite all people in the United States, whatever their social or cultural background, to hear the message of salvation in Jesus Christ so they may come to join us in the fullness of the Catholic Faith. * to foster Gospel values in our society, promoting the dignity of the human person, the importance of the family and the common good of our society, so that our nation may continue to be transformed by the saving power of Jesus Christ.
Evangelization Ministries are called to assist the Archbishop and the Archdiocese to carry out this mission. The Archdiocesan Evangelization Commission offers leadership for resources and assistance to parishes in all areas of Catholic Evangelization. This Ministry guides and facilitates this mission through the formation and support of leadership and catechists through prayer and witness, and the development of programs, processes and resources. In the fulfillment of this mission, we are to witness God’s unconditional love and to bring Christ’s healing presence to our world.
Where does Catholic evangelization come from?
Catholic evangelization is deeply rooted in Scripture, in the very person of Jesus Christ, and mandated anew by the Second Vatican Council. Jesus Christ is the Good News for us. At His Ascension to the Father, Jesus commanded his disciples to carry out His message when He said: All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age. (Matthew 28:19-20) This passage is known in tradition as “the Great Commission.”
On December 8, 1975, Pope Paul VI published his Apostolic Exhortation: On Evangelization in the Modern World (Evangelii Nuntiandi). It was inspired by the Synod of Bishops of 1974 and is considered to be the “watershed” document for contemporary evangelization. It gives to Catholics a renewed focus on evangelization. As a result of that document, Catholic interest in evangelization has been renewed and the energy the Church seeks to devote to this work has been expanded.
Pope Paul VI teaches that evangelization is the Church’s essential mission. “Evangelization is in fact the grace and vocation proper to the Church, her deepest identity. She exists in order to evangelize, that is to
say, in order to preach and teach, to be the channel of the gift of grace, to reconcile sinners with God, and to perpetuate Christ’s sacrifice in the Mass, which is the memorial of His death and glorious resurrection.” The object of Catholic evangelization is conversion to Jesus Christ in and through the Church. The Gospel is the good news of salvation in and through Jesus. For us, it is the evangelization message that we are called to proclaim and to witness.
The Catholic Church is currently, under the sound direction of Pope Benedict XVI, engaged in the widespread return to traditional values and practices. The faithful are witnessing a great age in the Church concerning the return to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in the Extraordinary Form (the Tridentine Latin
Mass). As the Mass is the most important aspect of the Church, it is a great start that will ultimately foster
other positive returns to traditions of devotion and prayer. The true Catholics are remaining true to the faith, by propagating strong moral values in the home, government, workplaces and public school systems and are involved in many anti-abortion campaigns and correcting the many misinterpretations of Vatican 2. The consideration of these points are important, as the results of modernism and liberal thinking has caused many problems in the Church, as well as society, which are now being corrected by more conservative thinking and practices. Today, despite the many whom believe the Church is “on its way out” or “is corrupt beyond repair” or other such myths are now seeing a vast increase in vocations and many returning to the Church again. The Church is becoming truly “Catholic” again. One must remember that most that claim to hate the Church, often know nothing about Her. I hope the papers presented here will clear up that unnecessary and error-filled belief system, as knowledge of the truth is a step to practicing it and teaching it to others, respectively.
Although the Catholic Evangelist is attempting to convince others of Truth, this is easier said than done and impossible to expect to achieve in a single dialogue session. Many that will oppose Catholic Truth are fully convinced of their position, but are usually at a loss as to how to defend it as a “truth”. This can be a barrier to progress, and should be considered as a given state, a state of which it is the Catholic Evangelists duty to alter. Be courteous and realize that more education is probably needed than hell-fire preaching or exacting phrases. These elements are useful in certain instances, but one will always attract more flies with a spoonful of sugar, than a gallon of vinegar.
Never condemn the others’ point of view, but rather charitably consider they are just mis-informed or ignorant of certain points. If they are aware of Catholic Truths, and still maintain error as truth, there is a problem. It is not an impossible problem, but a serious one that should be handled with delicate means and prayer. When a person’s eternal salvation is at stake, the option of just giving up on that person is never to be considered. The most logically intelligent move one could make at the point of encountering invincible ignorance is to give the situation time. Never allow an argument to develop from a discussion. In the position that the Catholic Evangelist is in, there is no room for error—Truth is to be presented without compromise or any personal shading. There can be only one Truth, and the Catholic Church teaches this.
The Catholic Evangelist is presenting unadulterated Truth which cannot be disproved, even by the most learned Bible scholar in the world, with even the most attractive of arguments. But Truth cannot be contradicted with another “truth”. This is against all the Bible teaches, and usually leads the listener on using deceptive methods of literal scriptural interpretation. This does not allow the listener to know biblical truths, but creates more confusion once those truths are realized using Catholic teaching. Avoid becoming indifferent or accepting that which will please the opponent. There is nothing that the opponent can say that could disprove the teachings of the Church, If they are professing Christ, and attempt to such a act,
according they are disproving Him at the same time. They are making Christ out to be a liar, but do not realize this. It may not be prudent to say this outright in a discussion, but rather to systematically exhibit, through careful references and proofs, that their statements seem to say that Christ was wrong, but Luther was correct.
across, then it is not inappropriate to use that method. The use of the Bible for correction is a noble act, it is the practice of interpreting it by one’s own limited understanding that creates problems. There is nothing that the Catholic Church does not teach that is not in the Bible itself. Opponents of the Church will attempt to often disprove the Church by the very source by which Her teachings and doctrines are derived.
The Catholic Evangelist’s mission is to bring a soul to the FULLNESS of Christ (thus to salvation), to aid in understanding the Church and Her teachings, which are the teachings of Christ and to rest the mind of the wandering seeker as best as possible. One must keep in mind that the journey is always continuing and there will be questions asked throughout the lifetime of the person. The wisest person on earth is unable to systematically offer anyone a “simple” plan of salvation. Anyone who attempts to do such a task should be viewed with a questionable eye. Not everyone, who professes Christ, follows Christ, but may have other ulterior motives in mind. These sorts of individuals cause more confusion by eliminating it, and often really believe all they preach, as it is an easy way. It is the proverbial “wide road” that Christ speaks of. The road to salvation is difficult and very few find it.
When a Catholic Evangelist is in the process of educating another, they offer some light that will be useful on the dark and difficult journey. The light is Christ, and the Church and all that She teaches (which is all Bible based) is the road map. Her Holy Sacraments are the refreshments and strengths along the way. They are necessary, as gasoline is necessary in an automobile to keep it running. Oil and water must be employed in the machinery as well, to keep the whole unit working well. The individual is responsible for the
maintenance of their souls, just like one maintains an auto. In most protestant philosophies the essentials are really missing (even though some consider themselves as following fundamentals as taught in the
Bible), although it is believed they are there. Sola Scriptura Christians fail to see where they are going, as
they are unable to read the map (which they believe is scripture alone). The great problem lies in too many map-readers who are in disagreement, which in turn fosters disunity, which fosters confusion, which fosters false doctrines and equally false prophets. The Church exercises Her AUTHORITY, as given to Her by Christ Himself. This authority, both in teachings and doctrines are passed down by successions of the Popes, the Vicar of Christ on earth , the hierarchy of the Church is necessary in order for everything to run smoothly, so it is vital that it exists. Too many “myths” are propagated in the media today that confuse, rather than educate. The Magisterium exists to teach, not to dictate. In the end, one can either accept the
truth or not. Eternal salvation is a choice decision, but one must seek proper, sound and solid direction in
order to get there safely. The Catholic Church exists to both teach, preserve and save souls where and when She can. It is a matter of following what Christ taught, not what we believe or think He taught.
When one considers that for over 1500 years the Catholic Church was the only Church of Christ on earth, but is somehow now invalid (usually for the most absurd reasons), is saying that Our Lord Jesus Christ was a liar. The major points of the differences between the Catholic Church and that of the multitude of diverse “sects” existing today is that of ORDER and UNITY. The greatest difference is in the Church’s
recognition of the Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist (Holy Communion)—this is where Christ literally is present in the sacred host, and therefore is literally present in the Church Herself. No other church or sect can claim this truth.
Christ himself instituted the Church for a reason—to provide safe direction to obtaining eternal salvation. The Church exists in order to get the traveler to Heaven in a safe and secure manner, but never guarantees arrival to the final destination is secure. It is an often difficult task to be a devout and serious Catholic. One must make certain sacrifices and practice the obedience to authority that Christ commanded us to do.
Once saved, always saved ? Not quite. It is commonly agreed by most followers of Christ that He died for
our sins, but this does not mean that an individual is “off the hook” for the rest of their lives against committing sins just because they are “born again”. This is unfortunately how the belief of being once saved, always saved, according to some (not all) of the protestant preachers is propagated. In the heat of the revival, wishful thinkers or persons who are just ignorant otherwise, may erroneously interpret this as a reality. The alter-call is a wonderful sign of accepting Christ into ones life, but the maintenance of sanctity is life long. It is a sad reality that some protestant preach do teach this error as really being the truth. The protestant born again philosophy is extremely dangerous to ones eternal salvation, as it presumes the grace and mercy of God. Catholic recognize the event of one’s acceptance of Christ as a “conversion’ experience
which is very individual and never happens overnight. One is not simply “saved”, but rather one, as St. Paul states, must work out their salvation with fear and trembling. The Church aids this attainment to eternal salvation in many ways. The Holy Sacraments of Penance and Holy Communion are the chief means to really being saved, or attaining eternal salvation. The Church is a secure and safe guide where errors can be avoided, as since Christ founded the Church, there can be no errors either in doctrines or spiritual practices taught by Her.
In Jesus, through Mary,
TRUTH
Truth (Anglo-Saxon tréow, tryw, truth, preservation of a compact, from a Teutonic base Trau, to believe) is a relation which holds (1) between the knower and the known — Logical Truth; (2) between the knower and the outward expression which he gives to his knowledge — Moral Truth; and (3) between the thing itself, as it exists, and the idea of it, as conceived by God — Ontological Truth. In each case this relation is, according to the Scholastic theory, one of correspondence, conformity, or agreement (adoequatio) (St. Thomas, Summa I:21:2).
Ontological truth
Every existing thing is true, in that it is the expression of an idea which exists in the mind of God, and is, as it were, the exemplar according to which the thing has been created or fashioned. Just as human creations — a cathedral, a painting, or an epic — conform to and embody the ideas of architect, artist, or poet, so, only in a more perfect way, God's creatures conform to and embody the ideas of Him who gives them being. (Q. D., De verit., a. 4; Summa 1:16:1.) Things that exist, moreover, are active as well as passive. They tend not only to develop, and so to realize more and more perfectly the idea which they are created to express, but they tend also to reproduce themselves. Reproduction obtains wherever there is interaction between different things, for an effect, in so far as it proceeds from a given cause, must resemble that cause. Now the cause of knowledge in man is — ultimately, at any rate — the thing that is known. By its activities it causes in man an idea that is like to the idea embodied in the thing itself. Hence, things may also be said to be ontologically true in that they are at once the object and the cause of human knowledge. (Cf. IDEALISM; and Summa, I:16:7 and 1:16:8; m 1. periherm., 1. III; Q.D., I, De veritate, a. 4.)
Logical Truth
The Scholastic Theory
To judge that things are what they are is to judge truly. Every judgment comprises certain ideas which are referred to, or denied of, reality. But it is not these ideas that are the objects of our judgment. They are merely the instruments by means of which we judge. The object about which we judge is reality itself — either concrete existing things, their attributes, and their relations, or else entities the existence of which is merely conceptual or imaginary, as in drama, poetry, or fiction, but in any case entities which are real in the sense that their being is other than our present thought about them. Reality, therefore, is one thing, and the ideas and judgments by means of which we think about reality, another; the one objective, and the other subjective. Yet, diverse as they are, reality is somehow present to, if not present in consciousness when we think, and somehow by means of thought the nature of reality is revealed. This being the case, the only term adequate to describe the relation that exists between thought and reality, when our judgments about the latter are true judgments, would seem to be conformity or correspondence. "Veritas logica est adaequatio intellectus et rei" (Summa, I:21:2). Whenever truth is predicable of a judgment, that judgment corresponds to, or resembles, the reality, the nature or attributes of which it reveals. Every judgment is, however, as we have said, made up of ideas, and may be logically analyzed into a subject and a predicate, which are either united by the copula is, or disjoined by the expression is not. If the judgment be true, therefore, these ideas must also be true, i.e. must correspond with the realities which they signify. As, however, this objective reference or significance of ideas is not recognized or asserted except in the judgment, ideas as such are said to be only "materially" true. It is the judgment alone that is formally true, since in the judgment alone is a reference to reality formally made, and truth as such recognized or claimed.
The negative judgment seems at first sight to form an exception to the general law that truth is
correspondence; but this is not really the case. In the affirmative judgment both subject and predicate and the union between them, of whatever kind it may be, are referred to reality; but in the negative judgment subject and predicate are disjoined, not conjoined. In other words, in the negative judgment we deny that the predicate has reality in the particular case to which the subject refers. On the other hand, all such predicates presumably have reality somewhere, otherwise we should not talk about them. Either they are real qualities or real things, or at any rate somebody has conceived them as real. Consequently the negative judgment, if true, may also be said to correspond with reality, since both subject and predicate will be real somewhere, either as existents or as conceptions. What we deny, in fact, in the negative judgment is not the
reality of the predicate, but the reality of the conjunction by which subject and predicate are united in the assertion which we implicitly challenge and negate. Subject and predicate may both be real, but if our judgment be true, they will be disjoined, not united in reality.
But what precisely is this reality with which true judgments and true ideas are said to correspond? It is easy enough to understand how ideas can correspond with realities that are themselves conceptual or ideal, but most of the realities that we know are not of this kind. How, then, can ideas and their conjunctions or disjunctions, which are psychical in character, correspond with realities which for the most part are not psychical but material? To solve this problem we must go back to ontological truth which, as we saw, implies the creation of the universe by One Who, in creating it, has expressed therein His own ideas very much as an architect or an author expresses his ideas in the things that he creates except that creation in the latter case supposes already existent material. Our theory of truth supposes that the universe is built according to definite and rational plan, and that everything within the universe expresses or embodies an essential and integral part of that plan. Whence it follows that just as in a building or in a piece of sculpture we see the plan or design that is realized therein, so, in our experience of concrete things, by means of the same intellectual power, we apprehend the ideas which they embody or express. The correspondence therefore, in which truth consists is not a correspondence between ideas and anything material as such, but between ideas as they exist in our mind and function in our acts of cognition, and the idea that reality expresses and embodies — ideas which have their origin and prototype in the mind of God.
With regard to judgments of a more abstract or general type, the working of this view is quite simple. The realities to which abstract concepts refer have no material existence as such. There is no such thing, for instance, as action or reaction in general; nor are there any twos or fours. What we mean when we say that "action and reaction are equal and opposite", or that "two and two make four", is that these laws which in their own proper nature are ideal, are realized or actualized in the material universe in which we live; or, in other words, that the material things we see about us behave in accordance with these laws and through their activities manifest them to our minds.
Perceptual judgments, i.e. the judgments which usually accompany and give expression to acts of
perception, differ from the above in that they refer to objects which are immediately present to our senses. The realities in this case, therefore, are concrete existing things. It is, however, rather with the appearance of such things that our judgment is now concerned than with their essential nature or inner constitution. Thus, when we predicate colours, sounds, odours, flavours, hardness or softness, heat or cold of this or that object, we make no statement about the nature of such qualities, still less about the nature of the thing that possesses them. What we assert is:
* that such and such a thing exists, and
* that it has a certain objective quality, which we call green, or loud, or sweet, or hard, or hot, to distinguish it from other qualities — red, or soft, or bitter, or cold — with which it is not identical; while:
* our statement further implies that the same quality will similarly appear to any normally constituted man, i.e. will affect his senses in the same way that it affects our own.
Accordingly, if in the real world such a condition of things obtains — if, that is to say, the thing in question does exist and has in fact some peculiar and distinctive property whereby it affects my senses in a certain peculiar and distinctive way — my judgment is true.
The truth of perceptual judgments by no means implies an exact correspondence between what is perceived and the images, or sensation — complexes, whereby we perceive; nor does the Scholastic theory
necessitate any such view. It is not the image, or sensation-complex, but the idea, that in judgment is referred to reality, and that gives us knowledge of reality. Colour and other qualities of objective things are
idea itself is not a sensation, nor is it of a sensation. Ideas have their origin in sensible experience and are indefinable, so far as immediate experience goes, except by reference to such experience and by
differentiation from experiences in which other and different properties of objects are presented Granted, therefore, that differences in what is technically known as the "quality" of sensation correspond to differences in the objective properties of things, the truth of perceptual judgments is assured. No further correspondence is required; for the correspondence which truth postulates is between idea and thing, not between sensation and thing. Sensation conditions knowledge, but as such it is not knowledge. It is, as it were, a connecting link between the idea and the thing. Differences of sensation are determined by the causal activity of things; and from the sensation-complex, or image the idea is derived by an instinctive and quasi-intuitive act of the mind which we call abstraction. Thus the idea which the thing unconsciously expresses finds conscious expression in the act of the knower, and the vast scheme of relations and laws which are de facto embodied in the material universe reproduce themselves in the consciousness of man.
Correspondence between thought and reality, idea and thing, or knower and known, therefore, turns out in all cases to be of the very essence of the truth relation. Whence, say the opponents of our theory, in order to know whether our judgments are true or not, we must compare them with the realities that are known — a comparison that is obviously impossible, since reality can only be known through the instrumentality of the judgment. This objection, which is to be found in almost every non-Scholastic book dealing with the subject, rests upon a grave misapprehension of the real meaning of the Scholastic doctrine. Neither St. Thomas nor any other of the great Scholastics ever asserted that correspondence is the scholastic criterion of truth. To inquire what truth is, is one question; to ask how we know that we have judged truly, quite another. Indeed, the possibility of answering the second is supposed by the mere fact that the first is put. To be able to define truth, we must first possess it and know that we possess it, i.e. must be able to distinguish it from error. We cannot define that which we cannot distinguish and to some extent isolate. The Scholastic theory supposes, therefore, that truth has already been distinguished from error, and proceeds to examine truth with a view to discovering in what precisely it consists. This standpoint is epistemological, not criteriological. When he says that truth is correspondence, he is stating what truth is, not by what sign or mark it can be distinguished from error. By the old Scholastics the question of the criteria of truth was scarcely touched. They discussed the criteria of valid reasoning in their treatises on logic, but for the rest they left the discussion of particular criteria to the methodology of particular sciences. And rightly so, for there is really no criterion of universal application. The distinction of truth and error is at bottom
intuitional. We cannot go on making criteria ad infinitum. Somewhere we must come to what is ultimate, either first principles or facts.
This is precisely what the Scholastic theory of truth affirms. In deference to the modern demand for an infallible and universal criterion of truth, not a few Scholastic writers of late have suggested objective evidence. Objective evidence, however, is nothing more than the manifestation of the object itself, directly or indirectly, to the mind, and hence is not strictly a criterion of truth, but its foundation. As Père Geny puts it in his pamphlet discussing "Une nouvelle théorie de la connaissance", to state that evidence is the ultimate criterion of truth is equivalent to stating that knowledge properly so called has no need of a criterion, since it is absurd to suppose a knowledge which does not know what it knows. Once grant, as all must grant who wish to avoid absolute scepticism, that knowledge is possible, and it follows that, properly used, our faculties must be capable of giving us truth. Doubtless, coherence and harmony with facts are pro tanto signs of truth's presence in our minds; but what we need for the most part are not signs of truth, but signs or criteria of error — not tests whereby to discover when our faculties have gone right, but tests whereby to discover when they have gone wrong. Our judgments will be true, i.e. thought will correspond with its object, provided that object itself, and not any other cause, subjective or objective, determines the content of our thought. What we have to do, therefore, is to take care that our assent is determined by the evidence with which we are confronted, and by this alone. With regard to the senses this means that we must look to it that they are in good condition and that the circumstances under which we are exercising them are normal; with regard to the intellect that we must not allow irrelevant considerations to weigh with us, that we must avoid haste, and, as far as possible, get rid of bias, prejudice, and an over-anxious will to believe. If this be done, granted there is sufficient evidence, true judgments will naturally and necessarily result. The purpose of argument and discussion, as of all other processes that lead to knowledge, is precisely that the object under discussion may manifest itself in its various relations, either directly or indirectly, to the mind. And the object as thus manifesting itself is what the Scholastic calls evidence. It is
the object, therefore, which in his view is the determining cause of truth. All kinds of processes, both mental and physical, may be necessary to prepare the way for an act of cognition, but in the last resort such an act must be determined as to its content by the causal activity of the object, which makes itself evident by producing in the mind an idea that is like to the idea of which its own existence is the realization. The Hegelian theory
In the Idealism of Hegel and the Absolutism of the Oxford School (of which Mr. Bradley and Mr. Joachim are the leading representatives) both reality and truth are essentially one, essentially an organic whole. Truth, in fact, is but reality qua thought. It is an intelligent act in which the universe is thought as a whole of infinite parts or differences, all organically inter-related and somehow brought to unity. And because truth is thus organic, each element within it, each partial truth, is so modified by the others through and through that apart from them, and again apart from the whole, it is but a distorted fragment, a mutilated abstraction which in reality is not truth at all. Consequently, since human truth is always partial and fragmentary, there is in strictness no such thing as human truth. For us the truth is ideal, and from it our truths are so far removed that, to convert them into the truth, they would have to undergo a change of which we know neither the measure nor the extent.
The flagrantly sceptical character of this theory is sufficiently obvious, nor is there any attempt on the part of its exponents to deny it. Starting with the assumption that to conceive is "to hold many elements together in a connexion necessitated by their several contents", and that to be conceivable is to be "a significant whole", i.e. a whole, "such that all its constituent elements reciprocally determine one another's being as contributory features in a single concrete meaning", Dr. Joachim boldly identifies the true with the conceivable (Nature of Truth, 66). And since no human intellect can conceive in this full and magnificent sense, he frankly admits that no human truth can be more than approximate, and that to the margin of error which this approximation involves no limits can be assigned. Human truth draws from absolute or ideal truth "whatever being and conservability" it possesses (Green, "Prolegom.", article 77); but it is not, and never can be, identical with absolute truth, nor yet with any part of it, for these parts essentially and intrinsically modify one another. For his definition of human truth, therefore, the Absolutist is forced back upon the Scholastic doctrine of correspondence. Human truth represents or corresponds with absolute truth in proportion as it presents us with this truth as affected by more or less derangement, or in proportion as it would take more or less to convert the one into the other (Bradley, "Appearance and Reality", 363). While, therefore, both theories assign correspondence as the essential characteristic of human truth, there is this fundamental difference between them: For the Scholastic this correspondence, so far as it goes, must be exact; but for the Absolutist it is necessarily imperfect, so imperfect, indeed, that "the ultimate truth" of any given proposition "may quite transform its original meaning" (Appearance and Reality, 364).
To admit that human truth is essentially representative is really to admit that conception is something more than the mere "holding together of many elements in a connexion necessitated by their several contents". But the fallacy of the "coherence theory" does not lie so much in this, nor yet in the identification of the true and the conceivable, as in its assumption that reality, and therefore truth, is organically one. The universe is undoubtedly one, in that its parts are inter-related and inter-dependent; and from this it follows that we cannot know any part completely unless we know the whole; but it does not follow that we cannot know any part at all unless we know the whole. If each part has some sort of being of its own, then it can be known for what it is, whether we know its relations to other parts or not; and similarly some of its relations to other parts can be known without our knowing them all. Nor is the individuality of the parts of the universe destroyed by their inter-dependence; rather it is thereby sustained.
The sole ground which the Hegelian and the Absolutist have for denying these facts is that they will not square with their theory that the universe is organically one. Since, therefore, it is confessedly impossible to explain the nature of this unity or to show how in it the multitudinous differences of the universe are "reconciled", and since, further, this theory is acknowledged to be hopelessly sceptical, it is surely irrational any longer to maintain it.
but a means to this end. Ideas, hypotheses, and theories are but instruments which man has "made" in order to better both himself and his environment; and, though specific in type, like all other forms of human activity they exist solely for this end, and are "true" in so far as they fulfil it. Truth is thus a form of value: it is something that works satisfactorily; something that "ministers to human interests, purposes and objects of desire" (Studies in Humanism, 362). There are no axioms or self-evident truths. Until an idea or a judgment has proved itself of value in the manipulation of concrete experience, it is but a postulate or claim to truth. Nor are there any absolute or irreversible truths. A proposition is true so long as it proves itself useful, and no longer. In regard to the essential features of this theory of truth W. James, John Dewey, and A.W. Moore in America, F.C.S. Schiller in England, G. Simmel in Germany, Papini in Italy, and Henri Bergson, Le Roy, and Abel Rey in France are all substantially in agreement. It is, they say, the only theory which takes account of the psychological processes by which truth is made, and the only theory which affords a satisfactory answer to the arguments of the sceptic.
In regard to the first of these claims there can be no doubt that Pragmatism is based upon a study of truth "in the making". But the question at issue is not whether interest, purpose, emotion, and volition do as a matter of fact play a part in the process of cognition. That is not disputed. The question is whether, in judging of the validity of a claim to truth, such considerations ought to have weight. If the aim of all cognitive acts is to know reality as it is, then clearly judgments are true only in so far as they satisfy this demand. But this does not help us in deciding what judgments are true and what are not, for the truth of a judgment must already be known before this demand can be satisfied. Similarly with regard to particular interests and purposes; for though such interests and purposes may prompt us to seek for knowledge, they will not be satisfied until we know truly, or at any rate think we know truly. The satisfaction of our needs, in other words, is posterior to, and already supposes, the possession of true knowledge about whatever we wish to use as a means to the satisfaction of those needs. To act efficiently, we must know what it is we are acting upon and what will be the effects of the action contemplated. The truth of our judgments is verified by their consequences only in those cases where we know that such consequences should ensue if our judgment be true, and then act in order to discover whether in reality they will ensue.
Theoretically, and upon Scholastic principles, since whatever is true is also good, true judgments ought to result in good consequences. But, apart from the fact that the truth of our judgment must in many cases be known before we can act upon them with success, the Pragmatic criterion is too vague and too variable to be of any practical use. "Good consequences", "successful operations on reality", "beneficial interaction with sensible particulars" denote experiences which it is not easy to recognize or to distinguish from other experiences less good, less successful, and less beneficial. If we take personal valuations as our test, these are proverbially unstable; while, if social valuations alone are admissible, where are they to be found, and upon what grounds accepted by the individual? Moreover, when a valuation has been made, how are we to know that it is accurate? For this, it would seem, further valuations will be required, and so on ad infinitum. Distinctively pragmatic criteria of truth are both impractical and unreliable, especially the criterion of felt satisfaction, which seems to be the favourite, for in determining this not only the personal factor, but the mood of the moment and even physical conditions play a considerable part. Consequently upon the second head the claim of the Pragmatist can by no means be allowed. The Pragmatist theory is not a whit less sceptical than the theory of the Absolutist, which it seeks to displace. If truth is relative to purposes and interests, and if these purposes and interests are, as they are admitted to be, one and all tinged by personal idiosyncrasy, then what is true for one man will not be true for another, and what is true now will not be true when a change takes place either in the interest that has engendered it or in the circumstances by which it has been verified.
All this the Pragmatist grants, but replies that such truth is all that man needs and all that he can get. True judgments do not correspond with reality, nor in true judgments do we know reality as it is. The function of cognition, in short, is not to know reality, but to control it. For this reason truth is identified with its consequences — theoretical, if the truth be merely virtual, but in the end practical, particular, concrete. "Truth means successful operations on reality" (Studies in Hum., 118). The truth-relation "consists of intervening parts of the universe which can in every particular case be assigned and catalogued" (Meaning of Truth, 234). "The chain of workings which an opinion sets up is the opinion's truth" (Ibid., 235). Thus, in order to refute the Sceptic, the Pragmatist changes the nature of truth, redefining it as the definitely
precisely what the Sceptic seeks to prove, namely, that our cognitive faculties are incapable of knowing reality as it is. (See PRAGMATISM.)
The "New" Realist's theory
As it is a first principle with both Absolutist and Pragmatist that reality is changed by the very act in which we know it, so the negation of this thesis is the root principle of "New" Realism. In this the "New" Realist is at one with the Scholastic. Reality does not depend upon experience, nor is it modified by experience as such. The "New" Realist, however, has not as yet adopted the correspondence theory of truth. He regards both knowledge and truth as unique relations which hold immediately between knower and known, and which are as to their nature indefinable. "The difference between subject and object of consciousness is not a difference of quality or substance, but a difference of office or place in a configuration" (Journal of Phil. Psychol. and Scientific Meth., VII, 396). Reality is made up of terms and their relations, and truth is just one of these relations, sui generis, and therefore recognizable only by intuition. This account of truth is undoubtedly simple, but there is at any rate one point which it seems altogether to ignore, viz., the
existence of judgments and ideas of which, and not of the mind as such, the truth-relation is predicable. We have not on the one hand objects and on the other bare mind; but on the one hand objects and on the other a mind that by means of the judgment refers its own ideas to objects — ideas which as such, both in regard to their existence and their content, belong to the mind which judges. What then is the relation that holds between these ideas and their objects when our judgments are true, and again when they are false? Surely both logic and criteriology imply that we know something more about such judgments than merely that they are different.
Bertrand Russell, who has given in his adhesion to "The Program and First Platform of Six Realists", drawn up and signed by six American professors in July, 1910, modifies somewhat the naïveté of their theory of truth. "Every judgment", he says (Philos. Essays, 181), "is a relation of a mind to several objects, one of which is a relation. Thus, the judgment, 'Charles I died on the scaffold', denotes several objects or
'objectives' which are related in a certain definite way, and the relation is as real in this case as are the other objectives. The judgment 'Charles I died in his bed', on the other hand, denotes the objects, Charles I, death, and bed, and a certain relation between them, which in this case does not relate the objects as it is supposed to relate them. A judgment therefore, is true, when the relation which is one of the objects relates the other objects, otherwise it is false" (loc. cit.). In this statement of the nature of truth: correspondence between the mind judging and the objects about which we judge is distinctly implied, and it is precisely this
correspondence which is set down as the distinguishing mark of true judgments. Russell however, unfortunately seems to be at variance with other members of the New Realist school on this point. G.E. Moore expressly rejects the correspondence theory of truth ("Mind", N. S., VIII, 179 sq.), and Prichard, another English Realist, explicitly states that in knowledge there is nothing between the object and ourselves (Kant's Theory of Knowledge, 21). Nevertheless, it is matter for rejoicing that in regard to the main points at issue — the non-alteration of reality by acts of cognition, the possibility of knowing it in some respects without its being known in all, the growth of knowledge by "accretion", the non-spiritual character of some of the objects of experience, and the necessity of ascertaining empirically and not by a priori methods, the degree of unity which obtains between the various parts of the universe—the "New" Realist and the Scholastic Realist are substantially in agreement.
Moral truth, or veracity
Veracity is the correspondence of the outward expression given to thought with the thought itself. It must not be confused with verbal truth (veritas locutionis), which is the correspondence of the outward or verbal expression with the thing that it is intended to express. The latter supposes on the part of the speaker not only the intention of speaking truly, but also the power so to do, i.e. it supposes (1) true knowledge and (2) a right use of words. Moral truth, on the other hand, exists whenever the speaker expresses what is in his mind even if de facto he be mistaken, provided only that he says what he thinks to be true. This latter condition however, is necessary. Hence a better definition of moral truth would be "the correspondence of the outward expression of thought with the thing as conceived by the speaker". Moral truth, therefore, does
diverse from the thing as conceived by the speaker. It is important to observe, however, that the expression of the thought, whether by word or by sign, must in all cases be taken in its context; for both in regard to words and to signs, custom and circumstances make a considerable difference with respect to their interpretation. Veracity, or the habit of speaking the truth, is a virtue; and the obligation of practising it arises from a twofold source. First, "since man is a social animal, naturally one man owes to another that without which human society could not go on. But men could not live together if they did not believe one another to be speaking the truth. Hence the virtue of veracity comes to some extent under the head of justice [rationem debiti]" (St. Thomas, Summa Theologiæ II-II.109.3). The second source of the obligation to veracity arises from the fact that speech is clearly of its very nature intended for the communication of knowledge by one to another. It should be used, therefore, for the purpose for which it is naturally intended, and lies should be avoided. For lies are not merely a misuse, but an abuse, of the gift of speech, since, by destroying man's instinctive belief in the veracity of his neighbour, they tend to destroy the efficacy of that gift.
Sources
For Scholasticism see: scholastic treatises on major logic, s.v. Veritas; Etudes sur la Vérité (Paris, 1909); GENY, Une nouvelle théorie de la connaissance (Tournai, 1909); MIVART, On Truth (London, 1889); JOHN RICKABY, First Principles af Knowledge; ROUSSELOT, L'Intellectualisme de St. Thomas (Paris, 1909); TONQUEDEC, La notion de la vérité dans la philosophie nouvelle in Etudes (1907), CX, 721; CXI, 433; CXII, 68, 335; WALKER, Theories of Knowledge (2d ed., London, 1911); HOBHOUSE, The Theory of Knowledge (London, 1906).
Absolutism: BRADLEY, Appearance and Reality (London, 1899); IDEM, Articles in Mind, N.S., LT, LXXI, LXXII (1904, 1909, 1910); JOACHIM, The Nature af Truth (Oxford, 1906); TAYLOR, Elements of Metaphysics (London, 1903); Articles in Mind, N.S., LVII (1906), and Philos. Rev., XIV, 3.
Pragmatism: BERGSON, L'Evolution Créatrice (7th ed., Paris, 1911); DEWEY, Studies in Logical Theory (Chicago, 1903); JAMES, Pragmatism (London, 1907); IDEM, The Meaning af Truth (London, 1909); IDEM, Some Problems of Philosophy (London 1911); MOORE, Pragmatism and Its Critics (Chicago, 1910); ABEL REY, La théorie de la physique (Paris, 1907); SCHILLER, Axioms as Postulates in Personal Idealism (London, 1902); IDEM Humanism (London, 1902); IDEM, Studies in Humanism (London 1907); SIMMEL, Die Philosophie des Geldes (Leipsig, 1900), iii.
New Realism: Articles in Journal of Philosophy, Psychology, and Scientific Methods (1910, 1911), especially VII, 15 (July 1910); MOORE, The Nature of Judgment in Mind, VIII; PRICHARD, Kant's Theory af Knowledge (Oxford, 1910); RUSSELL, Philosophical Essays (London, 1910); IDEM, Articles in Mind N.S., LX (1906), and in Proceedings af the Aristotelian Society VII.
About this page
APA citation. Walker, L. (1912). Truth. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved June 28, 2010 from New Advent: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15073a.htm
MLA citation. Walker, Leslie. "Truth." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 15. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1912. 28 Jun. 2010 <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15073a.htm>.
Transcription. This article was transcribed for New Advent by Kevin Cawley.
Ecclesiastical approbation. Nihil Obstat. October 1, 1912. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.
Contact information. The editor of New Advent is Kevin Knight. My email address is feedback732 at newadvent.org. (To help fight spam, this address might change occasionally.) Regrettably, I can't reply to every letter, but I greatly appreciate your feedback — especially notifications about typographical errors and inappropriate ads.
An Open Letter To Non-Catholics
My Dear Friend,
More than likely, if you have managed to keep your sanity in today's sad and sinful world, you may have been scandalized even at what has been happening in the Catholic Church. At the present time, she seems to have fallen prey to all the snares of Satan set to trap not only the weakest of men but also the most brilliant of theologians. How is it, you may well ask, that as a Catholic I can still profess allegiance to my Church? With the help of our dear Lord, and that of His most blessed Mother, I will try to explain. To begin with:
THE CATHOLIC CHURCH WAS FOUNDED DIRECTLY BY CHRIST
In the Old Testament the Jewish Tabernacle was the work of God - not man. It was God who drew up its plan, giving its exact dimensions, stipulating the materials to be used in its construction, describing its sacred furnishings and vessels for the service, and the vestments and ornaments for the priests who would minister therein. He gave it a suitable constitution, appointed its rulers, and defined the extent of their power. (See Book of Exodus, chapters 25 through 31, entire Book of Leviticus; Book of Numbers, chapters 1, 3 through 8, and 17 and 18.) 50, since the Tabernacle of the Old Law (which was but a shadow, a figure, of the Church to come) was the work of God, surely the Church of the New Testament (the substance, the reality) must likewise be the work of God.
It is easily shown that it was Christ Himself, not His followers, not even His Apostles, who established the Church: Christ declared His intention of founding a Church, by the institution of a living authority, when He said to Simon Peter: "Thou aft Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:18). Now, if Christ intends personally to build His Church, it is not to be the work of man. Christ Himself will therefore give it all the necessary elements of a true social body, and, consequently, a ruling authority. And, that there might be no room for doubt, He added: 'and I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven" (Matt. 16:19). This authority was actually established and the Church founded, when Our Lord after His resurrection said to Peter: "Feed My lambs; feed My sheep" (John 21:15,17). During His mortal life Christ Himself was the visible head of the infant Church, but after His Resurrection the office of visibly feeding the flock was to be discharged by another, to whom Christ gave the necessary authority and office. And as the followers of the Law of Moses under the Old Testament formed one compact body, so too were the followers of Christ to be One Body: 'One Lord, one faith, one baptism" (Ephesians 4:5). From the moment when first the Church, after the descent of the Holy Ghost, appeared before the world, we find a compact, fully organized society, with the apostles at its head. "They, therefore, who received his (Peter's) word were baptized; and there were added in that day about three thousand souls. And they were persevering in the doctrine of the apostles, and in the communication of the breaking of bread, and in prayers" (Acts of the Apostles, 2:41,42).
It was by the preaching of the apostles, it is true, that the faithful were gained for the Church; but it was not the apostles who devised the plan of this body, made baptism the condition of membership, appointed the first supreme head, and invested him with authority. It was Christ Himself who did all this, and by so doing founded the Church. A "church of the future" is, therefore, no less absurd than a Christian religion of the future, for the
CHRIST ESTABLISHED A VISIBLE CHURCH
In the New Testament we learn that Christ was visibly on earth but a very short time; that the term of His public teaching comprised only three years, which was occupied chiefly with the instruction of twelve men, who, under a chief, were to constitute His first representative corporate teaching body; they would be commissioned by the Son of God to "go forth and teach all nations" in His name (Matt. 28:18,19). They would have successors in office, since the Kingdom of Christ was not only to be world-wide, but would endure until the end of time: "of His Kingdom there shall be no end" (Luke 1:33). And though Jesus would return to Heaven, He would not be disassociated from His visible teaching body: "Behold, I am with you all days, even unto the consummation of the world" (Matt. 28:20). If men employ every means in their power for the perpetuation of their work, can we imagine that God left His great work to drift along unguided and unprotected? If the Bible teaches anything plainly it is the visibility of Christ's Church. It is composed of rulers and subjects: "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, which He has purchased with His own blood" (Acts 20:28). Its members are admitted by a visible, external rite (Baptism); they must hear, and obey: "He who hears you, hears Me; he who rejects you, rejects Me" (Luke 10:16). Christ compares His Church only to things visible: a "flock" (John 21:15-17), "a sheepfold" (John 10:16), a "city seated on a mountain" (Matt. 5:14), a "kingdom" (Matt. 13). He calls it "My Church" (Matt. 16:18), (not "Churches") "The Church" (Matt. 18:17). Fittingly, then, does this Kingdom of God upon earth merit the designation of St. Paul: "The Church of the living God" (1 Tim 3:15).
Pope Pius XI in an encyclical of January 6, 1928 on "Fostering True Religious Unity" states: "The Church thus wonderfully instituted could not cease to exist with the death of its Founder and of the Apostles, the pioneers of its propagation, for its mission was to lead all men to salvation without distinction of time or place. 'Going therefore, teach ye all nations' (Matt. 28:19). Nor could the Church ever lack the effective strength necessary for the continued accomplishment of its task, since Christ Himself is perpetually present with it, according to His promise: 'Behold, I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world' (Matt. 28:20). Hence not only must the Church still exist today and continue always to exist, but it must ever be exactly the same as it was in the days of the Apostles. Otherwise we must say - which God forbid - that Christ has failed in His purpose, or that He erred when He asserted of His Church that the gates of hell should never prevail against it" (Matt. 16:18).
Forty-seven times the word "Church" is found in the Old Testament, and in each passage it means but one Church, one way of worshiping the Lord before the coming of Christ. That was the Jewish Church - the religion and the Law of Moses established by God. From no other altars did God receive the sacrifice of prayer. They were all abominations to Him. "He who turneth away his ears from hearing the law, his prayer shall be an abomination" (Proverbs 28:9). In the New Testament, twenty-four times "the Church" is mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles, and you find but one Church mentioned. Sixty-eight times St. Paul speaks of "the Church" in his Epistles, everywhere meaning but the one Church of God. St. John speaks of "the Church at Ephesus," "at Smyrna," "at Philadelphia," etc., but these were different dioceses. They all belonged to the Catholic Church under Peter.
CHRIST FOUNDED AN APOSTOLIC TEACHING BODY
After Christ appointed Apostles to carry on the work He had begun, He bade them go and teach all nations, baptizing those who would believe, and teaching them to observe whatsoever He had commanded. The Apostles were sent, not as mere messengers, but as ambassadors bearing Christ's authority and power, and teaching and ministering in His name and person, so that in hearing them men were hearing Him, and in despising them they were despising Him (Matt. 28:1&20; Luke 10:16). In order that they might carry out this commission, Christ promised them the Spirit of Truth. "I will ask the Father, and he shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you forever. The spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, nor knoweth him: but you shall know him, because he shall abide with you, and shall be in you. He will teach you all things, and bring all
the lives of its present members, even to the end of time. "Behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world" (Matt. 28:20). In thus constituting the apostolic body, Christ was in reality constituting His Church. The Church was no mere collection of individual believers, but a definite organization, which was to be the pillar and ground of truth: "I write these things to thee hoping to come to thee shortly, but in order that thou mayest know, if I am delayed, how to conduct thyself in the house of God, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and mainstay of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:14,15). It was to be founded on a rock. "Thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build My Church" (Matt. 16:18). The Church taken as a whole comprises teachers and believers, but its essential constitution lies in the existence of a teaching authority, guaranteed by Christ to be infallible. "Thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it, (Matt. 16:18).
Such was the original constitution of the Church; and as the Church was to last for all ages, it is natural to suppose that it should always continue to exist according to its original constitution - that is to say, as an apostolic teaching body. There are no signs that this organization was a temporary expedient, to die out alter a few years and leave a totally different system in its place. He did not say to His Apostles: "Lo! I am with you even to the end of your lives;" but "Lo! I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world." So that those to whom He addressed Himself were to live to the end of the world! What does this mean, but that the Apostles were to have successors, in whom their rights were to be perpetuated? Successors whom Jesus would ever assist by His presence and uphold by His power. The work founded by a God,out of His love for man, and at the price of His own precious Blood, must surely be imperishable!
PETER IS MADE CHIEF SHEPHERD OF CHRIST'S CHURCH THE POPES SUCCEED PETER
The unique place of primacy Peter enjoyed among Jesus' apostles is especially evident from three Bible texts: Matt. 16:1~19; Luke 22:31 sqq, and John 21:15 sqq. The first passage tells us how our Savior changed Peter's name, by calling him "Kepha," the Aramaic word for "rock," which in Latin is "Petros," from which derives the English "Peter." So "Peter" means "rock." (Formerly he had been known as "Simon.") By this symbolic act, the Lord meant to designate Peter as the foundation of the Church He intended to establish; Peter was to be the sign of stability, permanence, and unity. In this same passage, moreover, Peter is promised both the keys to heaven's Kingdom and the power to bind and to loose. Luke 22:2~32 is the text relating a controversy among the disciples. On this occasion Christ foretold that Peter was about to be put to the test by Satan: "Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat" Luke 22:31). This test occurred, of course, at the hour of Calvary. "I tell you, Peter . . . that the cock shall not crow today, until you have three times denied that you know Me" (Luke 22:34). But the prayer of Christ, said for Peter in particular, would save him, so that he in turn might "confirm his brethren" in faith: "But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren" (Luke 22:32). Again, therefore, Peter is the rock and bulwark of the faith. In John 21:15 sqq, Jesus fulfills His pledge to give Peter the keys of heaven. This is the beautiful passage in which Peter is made shepherd of Christ's universal flock. The Acts of the Apostles show us how Peter functioned in his role of chief shepherd. He is the primary spokesman for the apostles; even though we read of Peter's "standing with the Eleven," it is Peter who speaks. He is the principal preacher, the pacesetter for apostolic endeavor. Read, for example, Acts 1:1~26; 2:1440; 3:1-26; 4:8; 5:1-11; 5:29; 8:1~17; etc. That Peter eventually went to Rome - clearly through the Spirit's guidance - is the testimony of St. Ignatius of Antioch (died 107), as well as several other ancient chroniclers. As early as the first century, too, Pope St. Clement I, a successor of Peter in Rome (even though St. John the Apostle still lived), demonstrates possession of full responsibility for the whole Church
THE APOSTOLIC TEACHING BODY CONTINUES TO THE PRESENT DAY
Passing through the ages, we find the same Apostolic system of teaching. Down to the sixteenth century, there existed in Christendom no other than this idea. The Bishops were looked upon as successors of the Apostles, and their unanimous teaching under the Pope was regarded as absolutely trustworthy - as truly representing the doctrine of Christ. The Church as a whole could not possibly fall into error - this was guaranteed by the promises of Christ: "The gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matt 16:18); and those who claimed scripture in support of new doctrines, and against the prevailing doctrine of the Church, were regarded as heretics and rebels against Christ, and against His authority delegated to the Church.
THE CHURCH CAME TO BE KNOWN AS THE "CATHOLIC" CHURCH
The following is quoted from the book "Outlines of European History" by James Breasted and James Robinson, copyright 1914, which was used as a textbook at Classen Public High School in Oklahoma City in the 1930's. (So it is not a Catholic school history book.): "It was not until about the third century that Christians came to call their Church Catholic' (meaning 'universal'). The Catholic Church embraced all true believers in Christ, wherever they might be. To this one universal Church all must belong who hoped to be saved" (page 308). And then it quotes St. Cyprian (died 258) as follows: "whoever separates himself from the Church is separated from the promises of the Church... He is an alien, he is profane, he is an enemy; he can no longer have God for his father who has not the Church for his mother. If any one could escape who was outside the Ark of Noah, so also may he escape who shall be outside the bounds of the Church." (Note: Breasted & Robinson's text errs, however, as to the date the Church came to be called "Catholic." St. Ignatius of Antioch (died 107) called the Church "Catholic" in his writings.)
So until the Sixteenth Century when Martin Luther broke away from the Catholic Church, the overwhelming majority of Christians were Roman Catholics.
THE PROTESTANT REBELLION
The Protestant rebellion continues to be in fact what its adherents call it today - a protest, and themselves Protest-ants, Protestants. A protest against what? Against Christ's divinely constituted teaching authority in the world
- His Church - and the substitution of the Bible, interpreted by each individual, in its place. This ran counter to the almost unanimous conviction of Christendom for fifteen hundred years!
WHAT WERE THE CAUSES OF THE PROTESTANT REBELLION?
First, there had been a gradual relaxation of discipline, which had weakened authority and opened the way to many scandals and unpunished abuses in the ranks of the clergy. "At the close of the Middle Ages and dawn of the new era, the Papacy had been too eager in the pursuit of humanistic aims, had cultivated too exclusively merely human ideals of art and learning, and at the same time had become entangled in secular business and politics, and was altogether too worldly" (Grisar, "LUTHER", V. p.427). Moreover, in Germany at this time the Bishops were mostly younger sons of princely or noble houses who were quite unfitted for their spiritual work. And as for the lower clergy, secular and religious, while many were zealous to diffuse religious knowledge by catechetical teaching, sermons, instructive publications and educational work in the elementary and middle schools, many others were quite neglectful of these sacred duties.
So there were abuses in the Church then, as there are today, and as there always will be. But "Blessed is he who shall not be scandalized in Me" (Luke 7:23). Christ did not guarantee His Church from scandal, but from error: "When He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will teach you all truth" (John 16:13). There were scandals in the
falsehood; James and John quarreled over supremacy; St. Peter and St. Paul were at variance over circumcision, and St. Paul excommunicated one of the faithful for unspeakable lust. The Church is made up of men, not angels. The triumph of the Church is not in being composed of sinless mortals, but in supplying sinful men with means to carry on the struggle against their vicious tendencies. But Jesus by His divine power granted that His Church, even though composed of weak and sinful men, would never teach error. The Church may have needed house cleaning in the sixteenth century, but the way to clean house is not to dynamite it. A child may have a very dirty face and yet be absolutely pure in body and soul. "I am black but beautiful," sings the Church to all men in the words of Solomon (Canticles 1:4); that is, although the Catholic Church, the very Body of Jesus Christ in time and space, may appear to the eyes of men as it were black and contemptible; but inwardly, that is, in its faith and morals, fair and beautiful in the eyes of God.
You cannot heal a diseased member of the body by cutting it off. Cut away a member of the body from the heart's blood, and it dies. The spark of life animating the body does not follow the severed member. The spark of life remains with the body, and the severed member begins to disintegrate and decay. This is precisely what happened to the followers of the revolution of the sixteenth century, as we shall soon see. "It follows that those who are divided in faith and in government cannot be living in one and cannot be living the life of its one divine Spirit" (Encyclical of Pope Pius XII, "The Mystical Body of Christ").
No people can form by themselves a congregation or church, claiming that they follow the teachings of Christ. Christ did not say: "Thou art Luther and upon this rock I will build my Church" (or "Thou art Calvin, Knox, King "Among you there will be lying teachers who will bring in Henry VIII," etc.). Numberless are the false churches, destructive sects . . . and many will follow . . . "(2 Peter 2:1,2)... "and by pleasing speeches, and good words, seduce the hearts of the innocent" (Romans 16:18). "In the last times, some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to spirits of error and doctrines of devils . . . " (1 Tim. 4:1-2); "For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine: but according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having to themselves itching ears: and will turn away their hearing from the truth" (2 Tim. 4:34)."They received not the love of truth that they might be saved. Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying" (2 Thess. 2:1~11). "There is a way that seemethjust to a man, but the ends thereof lead to death" (Proverbs 14:12).
CAUSE OF THE RAPID SPREAD AND ESTABLISHMENT OF PROTESTANTISM
How was it possible that the Revolution became so widespread in such a short period of time, and that whole nations gave up the faith of their forefathers? One cause which greatly contributed to the defection was that the civil rulers in Germany, Scandinavia, England, and elsewhere, took advantage of the disorder, seeing in the rebellion a coveted opportunity of gaining absolute control over the people and of confiscating the property of the Church; and they gave to the leaders of the rebellion a support without which the revolt everywhere would have failed utterly.
The traitorous political ambition of France helped set up Protestantism permanently in Europe. It was Cardinal Richelieu (1585-1642), Prime Minister and real ruler of France under Louis XIII, who, to ensure the political victory of France in Europe, took the side of the Protestant princes of Germany against the Catholic Emperor, Ferdinand II, at the most critical moment of the Thirty Years' War between the forces of Protestantism and Catholicism. Cardinal Richelieti hired the Protestant military genius, Gustavus Adolphus, for five tubs of gold, to enter the war against the Catholics. The defeat of Ferdinand made impossible his dream of a Europe united again as one family by the Faith, so close to realization but for the treachery of the French Cardinal.
