APOLOGETICS

How to Explain and Defend

The Catholic Faith

Father Frank Chacon

and
Jim Burnham

San Juan Catholic Seminars

CONTENTS
Letter from Bishop Donald Pelotte

Introduction

A Beginner's Guide to Apologetics

Practical Points on Bible Reading

The Eucharist

Appendix 1: The Early Church Fathers' View of the Eucharist

The Canon of the Bible

10

The Bible Alone?

13

Apostolic Authority: Peter and the Papacy

14

Marian Doctrines

18

Appendix 2: The Protestant Reformers' View of Mary

20

Questions Asked about Mary

21

Confession

24

Scandals in the Church

25

Prayer to the Saints

27

Purgatory

30

Miscellaneous Questions

34

1. "Call no man father"?

8. Insufficiency of Redemption?

2. Statue Worship?
3. Constantine and Paganism?
4. Mass a Sacrifice?
5. Baptism: Merely Symbolic?
6. Why Infant Baptism?
7. Saved by Faith Alone?

9. Assurance of Salvation?
10. Tradition Condemned?
11. Changing Doctrines?
12. Why are Priests Celibate?
13. Does Denomination Matter?
14. Which Church Did Jesus Found?

DIOCESE OF GALLUP
711 SOUTH PUERCO DRIVE

P. 0. Box 1338 Gallup, New Mexico 87305 Telephone (505) 863-4406

F e b r u a r y 21, 1994

M r . Jim B u r n h a m , P r e s .
San Juan Catholic Seminars
PO Box 5253
Farmington, NM 87499-5253

Dear M r . B u r n h a m :
I am happy to send this letter of endorsement for your "Beginning
Apologetics: How to Explain and Defend the Catholic F a i t h . " I have reviewed
the t e x t c a r e f u l l y and found t h a t it is well w r i t t e n and doctrinally sound.
As I indicated to you in my letter of December 24, 1993 I believe y o u r
booklet will serve a good purpose in providing a tool for our Catholic people
to explain and defend our f a i t h against those who are antagonistic or t r y i n g
to do us harm. By the end of S p r i n g we should finally be receiving the English
Edition of the New Universal Catechism. Because of its limited scope. Beginning
Apologetics should be seen within the broader teaching context of the Catechism
and I believe it can serve as a good local supplement to the Catechism.
In closing, I would ask that you refer to the letter of Father Lawrence
O ' K e e f e , my judicial vicar dated December 23, 1993. In this letter to you he
suggests you send me the p e r t i n e n t documentation relating to the San Juan
Catholic Seminars so t h a t I can consider giving official Episcopal approval of
this organization.
Jim, t h a n k you for all t h a t you do.
e f f o r t s in a special w a y .

May the Lord continue to bless all y o u r

ppatprnallv !rt Phrist

Most R e v . Donald E. Pelotte, SSS, P h . D .

Bishop of Gallup

INTRODUCTION
On January 24,1999, Pope John Paul II isssued a "call to arms" for Catholics
to aggressivly confront the challenge of Protestant evangelism. Addressing more
than a million people in Mexico City, the Holy Father urged Catholics to ignore
the seductions of "fallacious and novel ideologies" and to spread the word of
the Church. "Don't fail to respond to the Master who calls. Follow him to
become, like the apostles, fishers of men. Make Christ s word reach those who
still don't know him. Have the courage to bear witness to the gospel on the
streets and in the town squares, in the valleys and mountains of this nation!"
Vatican II in its DECREE ON THE APOSTOLATE OF THE LAITY said: "This sacred Synod earnestly exhorts laymen, each according to his natural gifts and
learning, to be more diligent in doing their part to explain and defend Christian
principles (no. 6).
The Catholic Church today is being challenged vigorously by non-Catholic
evangelizers. Unfortunately, many Catholics feel ill-prepared to defend their
faith in the face of these attacks.
San Juan Catholic Seminars is an organization of lay Catholics devoted to
explaining and defending Catholic doctrine. Our purpose is to strengthen
Catholics in their faith by helping them to charitably defend the most commonly
challenged Catholic beliefs. We are also commited to resolving doctrinal
divisions among Christians by inviting fallen-away Catholics and non-Catholics
to consider the biblical basis for Catholic beliefs.
We hope this booklet will give Catholics the basic tools to effectively answer
the challenges of the many religious groups that come knocking on our doors
and to correct some of the misconceptions non-Catholics have about the Catholic
Church and its teachings.
We have several other booklets and materials available on apologetics. Please
take a look at our mini-catalog at the end of this booklet. We offer bulk discounts
so that you can easily strengthen your family and friends. For more information,
or for bookstore pricing, please contact us at:
San Juan Catholic Seminars
P. O. Box 5253
Farmington, NM 87499-5253
FAX: (505) 327-9554
Phone: (505) 327-5343

A BEGINNER'S GUIDE TO APOLOGETICS

"Apologetics" simply means giving a
reasoned explanation for your faith. A
Catholic apologist charitably explains and
defends Catholic doctrine using Scripture,
history, and common sense.
Apologetics fulfills the command of St.
Peter: "Always be ready to give an explanation to anyone who asks you for a reason
for your hope, but do it with gentleness and
reverence...'" (1 Pet 3:15-16). A beginning
apologist must remember the following
points:
1. Holiness. Base apologetics on the love
of God and His Truth. An apologist who is
not concerned with personal holiness will
not be very effective.
2. Charity. Remember that you are a
missionary, not a debater. Your goal is to
explain and evangelize, not to win
arguments. You must have charity at all
times, even in the most heated discussions.
3. Unity. Begin by stressing that we agree
with other Christians on many important
points. Acknowledge the sincerity and zeal
of our separated brothers in Christ.
4. Study. Be prepared to study at least 30
minutes three times per week. Read the Bible
20 minutes, and use the other 10 minutes to
read a good Catholic catechism. In your
study of the Bible, concentrate on the New
Testament. Be sure to highlight important
passages and use the cross-references and
footnotes.
5. Equal time. Do not allow the nonCatholic evangelizer to take up all the time
or ask all the questions. Divide the time

equally and ask him a few challenging

questions of your own.
6. Focus. Insist on staying on the main
issues during the discussion. Don't let the
other person ask a dozen different questions
and expect you to answer them all in ten
minutes. Explain the need to stay focused
and to allow plenty of time for answers. The
chief concern is to shed light on the truth,
not to make cheap debating points.
7. Topics. Do not feel obligated to stick
with the subjects non-Catholics bring up
especially if you're not familiar with them.
Insist on talking about the Eucharist at the
start of your discussion because it is so
important and because it divides Catholics
from virtually all Protestants. (See p. 7.)
8. Interpretation. Do not accept the
Protestant interpretation of a verse when it
contradicts Catholic doctrine. Read it
yourself in context and show how the verse
can be interpreted to support the Catholic
position. Protestants often distort Bible
verses to fit their denominational teaching.
9. Canon of the Bible. Show how the
Bible was put together by the Catholic
Church. Stress the fact that Christianity was
around for 350 years before the canon of the
New Testament was determined. (See p. 10.)
10. Historical perspective. Have nonCatholics stand back and look at Church
history. Get them to see that many Protestant beliefs were unheard o/for 1500 years
after Christ established His Church. Never
end a discussion without stressing the fact
that all the early Church Fathers were

Catholic in their beliefs. Know a few of the

early Church Fathers well: especially St.
Ignatius of Antioch, St. Justin Martyr, and
St. Irenaeus. (See p. 9.)
11. Knowledge. Explain Catholic beliefs
clearly. This is your primary task. Keep a
good catechism handy for this purpose.
Don't try to defend a doctrine that you don't
understand. If you don't know the answer
to a question, honestly admit it and tell them
you will get back to them later on the subject
after you have done some study.
12. Tempers. Begin and end the discussion with prayer. Keep control of your
temper. Apologize if you lose it. Calmly end
the discussion if the other person becomes
abusive in his approach. Insist that they
refrain from abusive attacks on Our Lady
and the Eucharist. Ask them simply to state
where they disagree and why.
13. Expertise. Don't be afraid if you are
not an expert in Catholic doctrine. You don't
have to be; just give them what you know.
If you can make just one good point, or
correct just one misunderstanding, you have
already accomplished a lot. Besides, the very
fact that a non-Catholic met a Catholic who
is polite, knowledgeable about the Bible, and
concerned about saving souls will itself
leave a good impression of the Catholic
Church.
14. Caution. Be careful whom you let into
your home! Being an apologist doesn't mean
throwing away common sense when it
comes to trusting strangers.

PRACTICAL POINTS ON BIBLE READING

1. Get a Bible that is comfortable to read.
Large print is generally best for most people.
Those who have difficulty reading should
get giant print.
2. Choose a good translation of the Bible.
The three versions approved for liturgical
use in this country are the 1970 NEW
AMERICAN BIBLE (NAB), t h e JERUSALEM
BIBLE, a n d t h e REVISED STANDARD VERSION
CATHOLIC
EDITION
(RSVCE).
We
recommend the NAB, with the RSVCE as a

back-up. 1

3. Use Bible tabs and a soft cover Bible.

This allows you to find verses quickly.
Remember that time is critical in apologetics. You don't want to spend your 15 minutes
looking up a Bible passage. Practice, and
become proficient at quickly finding verses.
4. Pick a Bible that has newspaper-type
columns. These are easier to read, and make
passages easier to identify. Choose a Bible
that has the cross-references and footnotes
on the same page as this saves time. It is
also helpful if your Bible has a dictionary
and doctrinal index at the end.

Greek or Hebrew meanings of the words.2

Splitting hairs over the precise meaning of
the original Greek and Hebrew words is
often used as a diversionary tactic by
Fundamentalists. Emphasize that the best
Greek and Hebrew scholars were involved
in giving us the standard modern versions
and that you are willing to use any of these.
Stress that doctrinal differences are almost
never due to bad translations. We have
excellent translations in our time, both
Catholic and Protestant. The differences
arise over what the words, accurately
translated, mean. What we need are good
cross-references, Church history, and reason.
7. Underline or highlight verses and
makes notes in your Bible. Your study Bible
is not a decoration or family heirloom.
8. Don't try to memorize exact chapter
and verse, except for a few very critical
passages. Memorize the chapter or
chapters. If you have highlighted well, the
doctrinally important verse will stand out
immediately when you get within a chapter
or two of it.

5. Avoid arguments over translations.

You can almost always defend the Catholic
position from any translation. (There are
exceptions: for example, the Jehovah's
Witnesses have a very mangled translation
called the NEW WORLD TRANSLATION, which
you should avoid.)
6. Stay away from arguments over the
1

Unless noted, we have used the NEW AMERICAN BIBLE, 1970,

1986, throughout this booklet.

2 Obviously, a knowledge of Greek and Hebrew can be very

useful for studying the Bible and refuting misinterpretations.
However, you can be an effective apologist without knowing
any biblical languages.

THE EUCHARIST
Catholics believe that the Eucharist is the
literal body and blood of Christ. Virtually
all of the more than 25,000 different
Protestant denominations believe Christ is
only present symbolically in the Eucharist.
Because the Eucharist is such an important doctrine, and because it divides us from
nearly all Protestants, a Catholic must insist
on discussing the Eucharist in any apologetic
dialogue, and he must be prepared to discuss
it well.
In order to defend the biblical basis for
the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, read and study the following passages:
all of John 6
Mk 14:22-24
1 Cor 10:14-17
1 Cor 11:23-29

Mt 26:26-28
Lk 22:17-20
Lk 24:30-35

Protestants often cite John 6:35: " l a m the

bread of life; whoever comes to me will
never hunger; whoever believes in me will
never thirst." They claim that when Jesus
calls Himself the "bread of life" He is simply
saying that if we believe in Him, He will
nourish us spiritually, just as bread nourishes
us physically. Protestants claim that we "eat"
and "drink" Jesus, our spiritual food, by
coming to and believing in Him.
However, we must read the rest of this
Eucharistic discourse, especially verses 4858, where Jesus tells us exactly what He
means by calling Himself "bread." The bread
Jesus is speaking of is not merely a symbol
for spiritual nourishment. Jesus tells us
plainly that the bread is His own flesh (verse
51), which we must eat in order to have
eternal life. When Jesus explains that the
bread of life is literally His flesh, we must
accept His clear words.

Be able to "walk" a non-Catholic step by

step through John 6. Begin by reading Jn
4:31-34 and Mt 16:5-12, which describe
Jesus speaking about food in a symbolic or
figurative way. The disciples interpret Him
to mean real food. Note how Jesus shows
them in plain, unmistakable language that
He is only speaking figuratively.

Many Protestants claim that, in John

6:60-70, Jesus explains that He was only
speaking symbolically in the previous
verses. They focus on verse 63, "It is the
spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no
avail The words I have spoken to you are
spirit and life." Be prepared to deal with this
objection as follows:

Compare this with Jn 6:51. Jesus says we

must eat His flesh in order to have life. In
Jn 6:52, the Jews interpret Him literally.
Jesus then repeats again and again (verses
53-56)in the clearest possible language
that we must eat His flesh and drink His
blood in order to have eternal life. Take
special note of verse 55: "my flesh is true
food and my blood is true drinkfthis is
not the language of symbolism.

(a) Jesus' Eucharistic talk ends with verse

58 (see verse 59). The dialogue of verses
60-70 occurs later and deals with faith, not
the Eucharist.
(b) The word "spirit" is nowhere used in
the Bible to mean "symbolic." The spiritual
is just as real as the material.
(c) In verse 63, Jesus is contrasting the
natural or carnal man ("the flesh") with the

spiritual or faith-filled man. Read 1 Cor

2:14-3:4 for a good explanation of what
Jesus means by "the flesh." Note that Jesus
says "my flesh''' when discussing the Eucharist. He says "the flesh" when referring
to the carnal man who will not believe
anything beyond his senses and reason. No
Christian believes that Jesus' flesh is "of no
avail," for His flesh was the means of our
redemption.
(d) Note that the unbelieving disciples
leave Jesus after verse 63they would not
have left at this point if Jesus had assured
them that He was only speaking
symbolically. This is the only time recorded
in the New Testament that any of Jesus'
disciples left Him because they found a doctrine of His too hard to accept. Of the twelve
Apostles, apparently only Judas rejected the
Eucharist (Jn 6:70-71).
Now read the other Eucharistic Bible
passages. Again and again the biblical language indicates the Real Presence of Christ
in the Eucharist. Note the strong language
of St. Paul in 1 Cor 11:27, "whoever eats
the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord
unworthily sins against the body and blood
of the Lord "
In the Aramaic language that Our Lord
spoke, to symbolically "eat the flesh" or
"drink the blood" of someone meant to
persecute and assault him. See Ps 27:2;
Isaiah 9:18-20; Isaiah 49:26; Micah 3:3; 2
Sam 23:15-17; and Rev 17:6, 16. Thus, if
Jesus were only speaking symbolically about
eating His flesh and drinking His blood, as
the Protestants say, then what He really
meant was "whoever persecutes and
assaults me will have eternal life." This,
of course, makes nonsense of the passage!

Consider Christ's use of bread and wine

at the Last Supper. Bread and wine are not
normal or natural symbols of flesh and
blood. Yet in all four Last Supper accounts
(Mt 26:26-28; Mk 14:22-24; Lk 22:17-20;
1 Cor 11:23-25) Jesus tells us plainly that
"this IS my body" and " this IS my blood."
Never is there a hint that He is speaking
symbolically. Either the symbols would have
been clearly explained if He were speaking
symbolically (which is not the case) or Jesus
spoke literally (which is the case!).
Occasionally, a non-Catholic will insist
that we Catholics, because of our belief
about the Eucharist, engage in cannibalism
and violate the biblical prohibition on the
drinking of blood. It was exactly this
misunderstanding that led the unbelieving
Jews and disciples in John 6 to reject Jesus
when He spoke about the need to eat His
body and drink His blood. The believing
disciples were rewarded for their faith at the
Last Supper. Jesus revealed to them that they
would receive His body and blood in the
sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, not in the
bloody, cannibalistic way the unbelievers
had imagined.
All the early Church Fathers believed
in the Real Presence (see Appendix 1, page
9). Until the Reformation, all Christianity
accepted the Real Presence of Christ in the
Eucharist. Even Martin Luther affirmed the
doctrine.3 Note that all the Churches that

3 "Who, but the devil, hath granted such a license of wresting

the words of the holy Scripture? Who ever read in the Scriptures, that my body is the same as the sign of my bodyl or, that
is is the same as it signifies? What language in the world ever
spoke so? It is only then the devil, that imposeth upon us by
these fanatical men.... Not one of the Fathers, though so numerous, ever spoke as the Sacramentarians: not one of them
ever said, It is only bread and wine; or, the body and blood of

broke away before the Reformation

(Orthodox, Coptic, Armenian) still believe
in the Real Presence.
Finally, mention some of the great Eucharistic miracles that God has given us to
confirm the Real Presence of Christ in the
Eucharist. Joan Cruz's EUCHARISTIC
MIRACLES4 is an excellent resource for this
purpose. Many of these miracles have been
scientifically verified.

Appendix 1: Early Church

Fathers on the Eucharist
St. Ignatius of Antioch, a disciple and
contemporary of the Apostle John, wrote
(around 110 A.D.) concerning certain
heretics: "They abstain from the Eucharist
and from prayer, because they do not confess
that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior
Jesus Christ, Flesh which suffered for our
sins and which the Father, in His goodness,
raised up again.''''5
In another letter St. Ignatius writes, '7
desire the Bread of God, which is the Flesh
of Jesus Christ... andfor drink I desire His
Blood, which is love incorruptible.''''6

Christ is not there present. Surely it is not credible, nor possible, since they often speak, and repeat their sentiments, that
they should never (if they thought so) not so much as once,
say, or let slip these words: It is bread only, or the body of
Christ is not there, especially it being of great importance,
that men should not be deceived. Certainly in so many Fathers, and in so many writings, the negative might at least be
found in one of them, had they thought the body and blood of
Christ were not really present: but they are all of them unanimous." (LUTHER'S COLLECTED WORKS, Wittenburg Edition,
no. 7, p. 391).

St. Justin Martyr wrote in his apology

to the emperor at Rome (around 150 A.D.):
"We call this food Eucharist; and no one else
is permitted to partake of it, except one who
believes our teaching to be true.... For not
as common bread nor common drink do we
receive these; but since Jesus Christ our
Savior was made incarnate by the word of
God and had both flesh and blood for our
salvation, so too, as we have been taught,
the food which has been made into the
Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down
by Him, and by the change of which our
blood and flesh is nourished, is both the
Flesh and the Blood of that incarnated
Jesus"i
St. Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons and a pupil
of St. Polycarp who had been taught by St.
John the Apostle, wrote (around 195 A.D.):
"He [Jesus] has declared the cup, a part of
creation, to be His own Blood, from which
He causes our blood to flow; and the bread,
a part of creation, He has established as His
own Body, from which He gives increase to
our bodies ."8
St. Cyril of Jerusalem, in a catechetical
lecture given in the middle of the fourth
century (350 A.D.), said: "Do not, therefore,
regard the bread and wine as simply that;
for they are, according to the Master's
declaration, the Body and Blood of Christ.
Even though the senses suggest to you the
other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge
in this matter by taste, but be fully assured
by the faith, not doubting that you have been
deemed worthy of the Body and Blood of
Christ.'*>

(Rockford, 111.: TAN Books, 1988).

5 LETTER TO THE SMYRNAEANS 6, 2; William A. Jurgens, THE
FAITH OF THE EARLY FATHERS (Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1970), Vol. 1, p. 25, #64.
6 LETTER TO THE ROMANS 7, 3; Jurgens, p. 22, #54a.

7 FIRST APOLOGY, 66, 20; Jurgens, p. 55, # 1 2 8 .

8 AGAINST HERESIES, 5, 2, 2; Jurgens, p. 99, #249.

9

CATECHETICAL LECTURES: [MYSTAGOGIC 4], 22, 6;

Jurgens, p. 361, #846.

10

THE CANON OF THE BIBLE

Thinking Christians realize that if God has
revealed Himself to man, we must be able
to know with assurance where that
revelation can be found. Since we are staking
our salvation on the truth of God's word,
we need to know exactly and infallibly
which books contain divine truth.
Otherwise we might look to the words of
men for the Word of God. Thus we need an
authoritative list (canon) of the inspired
books of the Bible. "Canon" means a measuring standard. The canon of Scripture
refers to a standard, or official list of inspired
books that make up the Bible.
T H E O L D TESTAMENT ( O T )

Why do Catholic and Protestant Bibles

have a different number of books in the
OT?
The Protestant OT is based on the
Palestinian (or Hebrew) canon used by
Hebrew-speaking Jews in Palestine. The
Catholic OT is based on the Alexandrian
(or Greek) canon used by the Greekspeaking Jews throughout the Mediterranean, including Palestine.
The city of Alexandria in Egypt possessed
the greatest library in the ancient world and
during the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphus
(285-246 BC), a translation of the entire
Hebrew Bible into Greek was begun by 70
or 72 Jewish scholarsaccording to
traditionsix from each of the twelve tribes.
From this Alexandrian translation
(completed between 250-125 BC) we get the
term "Septuagint," Latin for 70 (LXX), the
number of translators.

popular because Greek was the common

language of the entire Mediterranean world
by the time of Christ. Hebrew was a dying
language (Jews in Palestine usually spoke
Aramaic), and so it is not surprising that the
Septuagint was the translation used by
Jesus and the New Testament writers. In
fact, 300 quotations from the OT found in
the New Testament are from the Septuagint.
Remember also that the entire New Testament was written in Greek.
The Septuagint contains 46 books. The
Hebrew canon contains only 39. Why are
there seven fewer books in the Hebrew
canon?
The Hebrew canon was established by
Jewish rabbis at Jamnia, in Palestine about
the year 100 A.D., perhaps in reaction to the
Christian Church, which was using the
Alexandrian canon. The Jews at Jamnia rejected seven books from the Hebrew canon
found in the Septuagint-Wisdom, Sirach,
Judith, Baruch, Tobit, and 1 and 2
Maccabees (as well as portions of Daniel
and Esther)-chiefly on the grounds that they
could not find any Hebrew versions of these
books which the Septuagint supposedly
translated into Greek. 10
The Christian Church continued to use the
Septuagint. When the Church officially
decided which books comprise the canon of
the Bible (Councils of Hippo, 393 A.D., and
Carthage, 397 A.D.), it approved the 46
books of the Alexandrian canon as the
canon for the OT. For sixteen centuries the
Alexandrian canon was a matter of
10

This Greek translation of the OT was very

The Council of Jamnia used four criteria to determine their

canon. They accepted only those books which were: (1) writ-

11

uncontested faith. Each of the seven rejected

books is quoted by the early Church Fathers
as "Scripture" or as "inspired," right along
with the undisputed books."
In 1529 Martin Luther proposed the
Palestinian canon of 39 books in Hebrew as
the OT canon. Luther found justification for
removing the seven books from the Bible in
the old concerns of St. Jerome and the
Council of Jamnia that the Greek books had
no Hebrew counterparts. However, research
into the Dead Sea Scrolls found at Qumran
has discovered ancient Hebrew copies of
some of the disputed books,12 making their
rejection unsupportable on those grounds.
But here is the real question: Which OT
would you rather usethe OT used by
Jesus, the NT writers and the early Church,
or the OT used by the Jews who rejected
Christ and persecuted Christianity?
If your Bible includes the seven books,
you follow Jesus and the early Church. If
your Bible omits the seven books, you
follow the non-Christian Jews at Jamnia and
Martin Luthera man who wanted to throw
out even more books (James, Esther,
Revelation), and who deliberately added the
word "alone" to Sacred Scripture in his
German translation of Romans 3:28.

THE NEW TESTAMENT (NT)

The first word of the NT was written about

50 A.D. (1 Thess), the last word between 90100 A.D. (Rev), for a total of 27 books, all
of which are accepted as canonical and
inspired by Catholics and Protestants alike.
The question is, who determined the NT
canon of inspired books? The Bible didn't
fall from heaven pre-printed, so where did
we get it? How do we know we can trust
every book?
Various bishops developed lists of
inspired books:
Mileto, Bishop of Sardis, c. 175 A.D.
St. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, 185 A.D.
Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea, c. 325 A.D.

Pope Damasus in 382 A.D., prompted

by the Council of Rome, wrote a decree listing the present OT and NT
canon of 73 books.
The Council of Hippo (in North Africa)
in 393 A.D. approved the present OT
and NT canon of 73 books.
The Council of Carthage (in North
Africa) in 397 A.D. approved the same
OT and NT canon. This is the council
which
many
Protestants
and
Evangelicals take as the authority for
the NT canon of books.
Pope St. Innocent I (401-417) in 405
A.D., approved the 73-book canon and
closed the canon of the Bible.

ten in Hebrew; (2) in conformity with the Torah; (3) older

than the time of Ezra (c. 400 B.C.); and (4) written in Palestine.
11
Some of the Fathers include Polycarp, Irenaeus, Clement,
and Cyprian. For a collection of patristic quotations from each
of the disputed books, see "The Fathers Know Best: Old Testament Canon" in the October 1993 issue of THIS ROCK magazine (Vol. 4, No. 10, pp. 25-27).
2A1EW CATHOLIC COMMENTARY ON HOLY SCRIPTURE (Nash-

ville, Tenn.: Thomas Nelson, 1975), p. 22.

The canon of the Bible was officially

determined in the fourth century by
Catholic councils and Catholic popes.
Until the canon was decided, there was
much debate. Some were of the opinion that
certain canonical books, Hebrews, Jude,
Revelation, 2 Peter, were not inspired,

12

while others held that certain noncanonical

books, Shepherd of Hermas, Gospels of
Peter and Thomas, the letters of Barnabas
and Clement, were inspired. The formal
Church decision settled the matter for the
next 1100 years. Not until the Reformation
was there any more debate about the contents
of the Bible.
Historically, the Catholic Church used
her authority to determine which books
belonged to the Bible, and to assure us
that everything in the Bible is inspired.
Apart from the Church, we simply have no
way of knowing either truth.
Martin Luther himself admits, " We are
obliged to yield many things to the Papists
[Catholics]that they possess the Word of
God which we received from them, otherwise we should have known nothing at all
about JY."13 Luther is admitting that Christians owe their Bible to the efforts of the
Catholic Church.
Luther's statement supports our argument
that without the decisions of the Church,
we would not know which books of the
Bible are inspired. As St. Augustine says,
"/ would put no faith in the Gospels unless
the authority of the Catholic Church directed
me to do so." 14 St. Augustine recognizes that
the only way to determine which books are
inspired is to accept the teaching authority
of the Catholic Church.
CRUCIAL POINTS

(1) Historically, the Bible is a Catholic

book. The New Testament was written,

13 COMMENTARY ON ST. JOHN, ch. 16.

14

CONTRA EPISTOLAM MANICHAEI, 5, 6.

copied, and collected by Catholic Christians.

The official canon of the books of the Bible
was authoritatively determined by the
Catholic Church in the fourth century.
Thus it is from the Catholic Church that the
Protestants have a Bible at all.
(2) Logically, the Church with the authority to determine the infallible Word of God,
must have the infallible authority and
guidance of the Holy Spirit. As we have
seen, apart from the declarations of the
Catholic Church, we have absolutely no
guarantee that what is in the Bible is the
genuine Word of God. To trust the Bible is
to trust the authority of the Church which
guarantees the Bible. It is contradictory for
Protestants to accept the Bible and yet
reject the authority of the Catholic
Church.
Logically, Protestants should not quote the
Bible at all, for they have no way of
determining which books are inspired
unless, of course, they accept the teaching
authority of the Catholic Church.

13

THE BIBLE ALONE?

Almost all Protestants follow the doctrine
of Sola Scriptura. This doctrine claims that
the Bible alone is the authority in matters of
faith. Fundamentalists will begin by saying:
"Let's agree that the Bible is the sole rule of
faith." A Catholic must answer with a firm,
"NOP* They are really asking you to reject
Sacred Tradition and the authority of the
Church.
We must show them that Christ left a
Church to teach, govern, and sanctify in
His name until the end of time. To reject
that authority is to reject Christ and His
Gospel. We Catholics accept the Bible as an
authority in matters of faith because it is
God's inspired Word. However, we cannot
accept it as the only rule of faith for the
following reasons.
It goes against the BIBLE. Scripture tells
us that Christ left a Church with divine
authority to govern in His name (Mt 16:1320, 18:18; Lk 10:16). Christ promised that
this Church would last until the end of time
(Mt 16:18, 28:19-20; Jn 14:16). The Bible
also tells us that Sacred Tradition is to be
followed alongside Sacred Scripture (2
Thess 2:15, 3:6).
The doctrine of sola scriptura is not
found in Scripture. In fact, the Bible tells
us that we need more than just the Bible
alone. The Bible confirms that not everything Jesus said and did is recorded in
Scripture (John 21:25) and that we must also
hold fast to oral tradition, the preached
Word of God (1 Cor 11:2; 1 Pet 1:25). In 2
Pet 3:15-16, we are warned that Sacred
Scripture can be very difficult to interpret,
which strongly implies the need for an
authoritative interpreter. Finally, 1 Tim 3:15

reassures us that the Church is "the pillar

and foundation of truth."
It goes against HISTORY. The history of
the Bible attests that it was the Church exercising its Apostolic authority that determined what is and is not Scripture. We need
the authority of the Church to tell us what
belongs in the Bible (1 Tim 3:15).
It goes against COMMON SENSE. Any
written document meant to play a crucial role
in determining how people live must have a
living, continuing authority to guard,
guarantee, and officially interpret it.
Otherwise, chaos reigns as everyone interprets the document according to his
personal whim.
For example, the Founding Fathers of this
country put together a magnificent document
to be authoritative in determining how this
country would be governed: the U. S.
Constitution. They also established a living,
continuing authority to guard, guarantee, and
officially interpret the Constitution: the
Supreme Court.
The Founding Fathers knew that without
a living authority the Constitution would
lead to endless divisions as every one acted
as his own interpreter. God certainly has
more wisdom than the founders of this
country. He would never have left a
written document to be the only rule of
faith without a living authority to guard
and officially interpret it.
In summary, the splintering of Christianity into over 25,000 denominations is the direct fruit of the Bible-alone doctrine. This
idea does not come from God and was unheard of for 1500 years before the
Reformation.

14

APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY
Protestants reject apostolic succession in
general and the teaching authority of the
bishop of Rome in particular. You should
focus on papal authority because it has
strong support in Scripture, and it can be
easily traced historically.
SCRIPTURE

In the OT, when God established His

Covenant with the nation of Israel, He provided for a living, continuing authority in
the Mosaic priesthood (see 2 Chr 19:11; Mai
2:7.) This authority did not end when the
OT Scripture was written; rather, it
continued as the safeguard and authentic
interpreter of Sacred Scripture.
When Christ established His Church, the
New Israel, He set up a living, continuing
authority to teach, govern, and sanctify
in His name. This living authority is called
"Apostolic" because it began with the twelve
Apostles and continued with their
successors. It was this Apostolic authority
that would preserve and authentically
interpret the Revelation of Jesus Christ. This
same Apostolic authority determined the
canon of the Bible, and will preserve the
teachings of Jesus Christ in all their fullness,
and uncorrupted from error, until the end of
time.
Among the twelve Apostles, St. Peter is
clearly the head. Know Matthew 16:13-19
well: " And so I say to you, you are Peter
/Rock/, and upon this rock I will build my
church, and the gates of the netherworld
shall not prevail against it. I will give you
the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in
heaven; and whatever you loose on earth
shall be loosed in heaven.''''''

PETER AND THE PAPACY

Jesus changes Simon's name to Peter,

which mean "rock." 15 Our Lord says this
rock will be God's way of preserving the
Church from corruption until the end of time.
Our Lord knew St. Peter would be dead by
70 A.D. Therefore Christ must have intended
the office of Peter to last until the end of
time. St. Peter is given the "keys to the kingdom of heaven." 16 This is an awesome gift.
To nobody else does Christ give this ruling
power. Ask non-Catholics to reflect on this
unique privilege instead of trying, by verbal
acrobatics, to explain away the title "Peter."
15

Many Protestants argue that Jesus is not building His

Church on Peter by pointing out that, in the Greek text, the
word used for Peter is Petros, a masculine noun, while the
word used for rock is petra, a feminine noun. Petros means
"small stone," while petra means "massive rock." They claim,
therefore, that the "massive rock" (petra) upon which Christ
will build His Church must not refer to Peter the "small stone"
(Petros) but rather to Peter's profession of faith or to Jesus.
However, Jesus spoke Aramaic, which leaves no room for
the Greek Petros/petra distinction. In Aramaic, the word for
rock is kepha. What Christ said was, "You are Kepha (Rock)
and upon this kepha (rock) I will build my Church." In Aramaic, the identification of Peter as the rock is clear.
Why does the Greek use two different words for Peter and
the rock? Because the Greek word for rock, petra, is feminine. It would not be appropriate to give a man a feminine
name. So the translator gave petra a masculine ending and
rendered it Petros. Since petros was a preexisting word meaning "small stone," some of the original word-play was lost.
But no early Church Father, including those who spoke Greek
as their mother-tongue, ever saw a distinction between Peter
and the rock. They are unanimous in teaching that Peter is the
rock on which Christ built His Church.
16
Jesus is drawing this image of "the keys" from Is 22:1922. From this context, at least three concepts are included.
(1) The keys are a symbol of the authority given to the chief
officialthe Prime Ministerof the Kingdom of David. (2)
The Prime Minister is a father-figure. Remember, "Pope"
comes from the Italian word for "Papa"father. (3) The office implies dynastic succession. The office of Prime Minister continued as long as the Kingdom of David continued.
Catholics believe that Christ is the King, and that the Pope is
the "Prime Minister" of His heavenly kingdom, the Church.
Christ is the Head of the Church; the Pope is His earthly representative.

15

Ask them why Jesus would give this

tremendous authority to St. Peter and not
intend for it to be passed on. If the early
Christians needed an authoritative leader,
later Christians would need one even more.
After all, many of the early Christians heard
the Gospel from Christ Himself and knew
the Apostles personally. After all the Apostles died, the Church would have even
greater need of the power of the keys when
enemies would try to corrupt the teachings
of Christ.
Although all the Apostles as a group were
given the power to "bind and to loose" in
Mt 18:18, St. Peter received this power individually at the time he was given the
"keys." Point out that Jesus would not have
guaranteed to back up the doctrinal teachings
of St. Peter and his successors unless He
was also going to protect them from teaching false doctrine in their official
capacities as Shepherds of the Church.
Also know Lk 22:31-32 and John 21:1517. In the passage from St. Luke, Jesus prays
that Peter's faith would not fail; Peter in turn
would strengthen the other disciples. In the
passage from St. John, Jesus clearly makes
Peter the shepherd of His Church. So St.
Peter is the rock on which Christ builds His
Church. He is given the "keys of the
Kingdom;" and he is made shepherd of
Christ's flock: solid biblical evidence that
Jesus made St. Peter the first Pope. The
popes are Christ's vicars, the visible and
earthly heads of Christ's Church while Christ
is the invisible and supreme head.

Moses as well as the Law of Christ. Notice

that there was much discussion among the
Apostles and presbyters. However, after
Peter spoke, the assembly fell silent. His
statement ended the discussion. This council
obviously considered St. Peter's authority
final.
Some Fundamentalists claim Acts 15
shows that James, not Peter, was the head
of the Church. Since James the Less (not
James, the brother of John) gives the concluding remarks at the council of Jerusalem
and also recommends some marriage and
dietary regulations for the Gentiles, they
conclude that James must be the head of the
Church.
We must remind Fundamentalists to read
the Gospels, where St. Peter is unmistakably
presented as a leader among the Apostles,
whereas St. James the Less is not.17 Ask
Fundamentalists to read the first twelve
chapters of Acts, which describe the early
Church in Jerusalem. Every chapter (except
6 and 7, which describe Stephen's
martyrdom) shows St. Peter in a leadership
position while St. James appears only
briefly, and never in a leadership role.18 In
Galatians 1:18-19, we are told that Paul went
17

Peter often spoke for the rest of the Apostles (Mt 19:27;
Mk 8:29; Lk 12:41; Jn 6:69). The Apostles are sometimes
referred to as "Peter and his companions" (Lk 9:32; Mk 16:7;
Acts 2:37). Peter's name always heads the list of the Apostles
(Mt 10:1-4; Mk 3:16-19; Lk 6:14-16; Acts 1:13). Finally,
Peter's name is mentioned 191 times, which is more than all
the rest of the Apostles combined (about 130 times). After
Peter, the most frequently mentioned Apostle is John, whose
name appears 48 times.
18

Be familiar with Acts 15. This gives an

account of the first Church council, the
Council of Jerusalem. Called at the request
of St. Paul, this council met to decide
whether Gentiles had to follow the Law of

Peter is conspicuously involved in all the Church's important "firsts." Peter led the meeting which elected the first successor to an Apostle (Acts 1:13-26). Peter preached the first
sermon at Pentecost (Acts 2:14), and received the first converts (Acts 2:41). Peter performed the first miracle after Pentecost (Acts 3:6-7), inflicted the first punishment upon
Ananias and Saphira (Acts 5:1-11), and excommunicated the

16

to Jerusalem after his conversion specifically

to confer with Peter. He stayed with Peter
15 days. In contrast, Paul visited James only
briefly during this time.
At the council of Jerusalem in Acts 15, it
was St. Peter's statements that settled the
serious doctrinal dispute that was the reason for the council. As we saw earlier, St.
Peter's statements silenced the assembly of
presbyters and the Apostles (including St.
James).

As an Apostle, St. Peter certainly considers his authority to be greater than that of
an ordinary elder. After all, St. Peter goes
on to admonish these "fellow elders" (1 Pet
5:2-4) as one having authority over them.
In calling them fellow elders, St. Peter is
simply acknowledging the obvious: like
himself, they are also Church leaders. For
Fundamentalists to insist that Peter, as an
Apostle, had no greater authority than an
ordinary elder, shows how little they appreciate what Scripture says about the great office of Apostle.

We know from Church history that St.

James was the Bishop of Jerusalem and, as
Acts 21:15-25 describes, he was concerned
for Jewish Christians in Jerusalem who felt
their ancient customs threatened by the great
number of Gentile converts. This
background explains why St. James made
the concluding remarks at the council and
asked Gentiles to respect certain Jewish
practices. Fundamentalists are grasping at
straws when they claim that Acts 15 proves
that James, instead of Peter, was the head of
the Church.

Many Fundamentalists quote Gal 2:1114 as well, attempting to show that Peter was
not infallible19 and that Paul did not consider him the head of the Church. This
position is not supportable. First of all, if
they think Peter was not infallible, why
do they accept his two letters as inspired
and, therefore, infallible? We must accept
that all the Apostles were infallible. After
the Apostles, the popes individually and the
bishops as a group in union with the pope,
are infallible.

Fundamentalists will also cite 1 Peter 5:1

to claim that Peter was not the head of the
Church. They note that Peter, in addressing
some elders (Church leaders), calls himself
a fellow elder. They therefore conclude that
Peter had no more authority than any other
elder. But this is just like the President of
the United States saying, "My fellow
Americans." This would certainly not
indicate that the President has no more
authority than an ordinary citizen.

St. Paul correcting St. Peter for weak behavior is no different from St. Catherine of
Siena correcting weak popes in the Middle
Ages. There was no doctrine involved. St.
Peter himself had settled the doctrinal point
at the Council of Jerusalem. St. Paul
corrected St. Peter for being unwilling to
confront the Judaizers from Jerusalem. Remember, St. Paul was among those who fell
silent at the Council of Jerusalem once St.
Peter spoke.

first heretic, Simon the magician (Acts 8:21). Peter is the first
Apostle to raise a person from the dead (Acts 9:36-41). Peter
first received the revelation to admit Gentiles into the Church
(Acts 10:9-16), and commanded that the first Gentile converts be baptized (Acts 10:44-48).

19

"Infallible" means incapable of teaching error in matters

of faith and morals. It does not mean impeccable: incapable
of committing sin.

17
HISTORY

Please note that the early Church always

accepted the Bishop of Rome as head of the
Church. In about 80 A.D., the Church at
Corinth deposed its lawful leaders. The
fourth bishop of Rome, Pope Clement I, was
called to settle the matter even though St.
John the Apostle was still alive and much
closer to Corinth than was Rome.20
St. Irenaeus, who was taught by St.
Polycarp (a disciple of St. John the Apostle), stresses that Christians must be united
to the Church of Rome in order to maintain the Apostolic Tradition. He then lists
all the bishops of Rome up to his time.21 St.
Irenaeus presents this teaching as something
taken for granted by orthodox Christians.
20

St. Clement died about 80 A. D., some 20 years before the

last Apostle, St. John, died. Although St. John was still alive
in Ephesus, which was much closer to Corinth than was Rome,
the Corinthians appealed to the Bishop of Rome because he
had the "keys" of authority. Pope Clement wrote to the Church
at Corinth: "You, therefore, who laid the foundation of the
rebellion, submit to the presbyters and be chastened to repentance, bending your knees in a spirit of humility" (FIRST LETTER TO THE CORINTHIANS, 57, 1; Jurgens, p. 12, #27.)
And again, "If anyone disobey the things which have been
said by Him through us, let them know that they will involve
themselves in transgression and in no small danger." (FIRST
LETTER TO THE CORINTHIANS, 59, 1; Jurgens, p. 12, #28a.)
21
St. Irenaeus was bishop ofLyons from about 180-200 A.D.
He is considered one of the greatest theologians of the immediate post-Apostolic period. In his work AGAINST HERESIES,
St. Irenaeus makes the following statement about the Church
of Rome and the successors of St. Peter: "But since it would
be too long to enumerate in such a small volume as this the
successions of all the Churches, we shall confound all those
who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction
or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the
successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient
Church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the
two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, that Church
which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to
us after having been announced to men by the Apostles. For
with this Church, because of its superior origin, all the
Churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole

For 250 years the Roman Emperors tried

to destroy Christianity through persecution.
In the first 200 years of Christianity, every
Pope but one was martyredthe Romans
certainly knew who the head of the
Church was!
A Roman Emperor's greatest fear was a
rival to the throne. Nevertheless, the emperor
Decius (249-251 A.D.), one of the harshest
persecutors of the early Christian Church,
made the following remark: "/ would far
rather receive news of a rival to the throne
than of another bishop of Rome"22 Decius
said this after he had executed Pope Fabian
in 250 A.D.
REASON

Finally, appeal to reason. Ask Fundamentalists this question. Suppose that the
owner of a company had called all the employees together and announced that he was
going to be gone for a while. During his
absence, he was going to give the keys of
the company to John Doe and that whatever
John Doe commanded would be backed by
him. Would you have any doubt that John
Doe was going to be in charge of the company while the boss was away? Of course
not! Then why can't Fundamentalists accept
that this is exactly what is described in Mt
16:13-19?

world; and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have

maintained the Apostolic tradition" (3, 3, 2; Jurgens, p. 90,
#210). St. Irenaeus then goes on to name all the Popes succeeding Peter up to his timetwelve in all (3, 3, 3; Jurgens,
p. 90, #211). The complete list of Popes from St. Peter to
Pope John Paul II264 in allcan be found in any public
library.
22
CHRISTIAN HISTORY, Issue 27 entitled "Persecution in the
Early Church" (1990, Vol. IX, No. 3), p. 22.

18

MARIAN DOCTRINES
Fundamentalists think Catholics give too
much honor to the Blessed Virgin Mary.
They reject the four defined doctrines on Our
Lady: (1) her Divine Maternity (that she is
the Mother of God); (2) her Perpetual
Virginity (that she remained a virgin
throughout her entire life); (3) her Bodily
Assumption; and (4) her Immaculate
Conception.
Fundamentalists often want to discuss
Marian beliefs immediately. Insist on
starting with more basic differences:
Apostolic authority, the Eucharist, or the
"Bible alone" idea. However, you should be
prepared to eventually discuss Marian
doctrines.
Before beginning a discussion on the four
major doctrines, ask Fundamentalists why
they think it is so wrong to honor the mother
of our Savior. Remind them that God
honored her above all creatures by making
her the mother of His Son. In honoring Mary,
the Catholic Church is following the
example of God Himself. Mary's special
privileges were given to her by God, not
men.
Read Luke 1:26-56. Note how the
Archangel Gabriel shows Mary great honor
in his greeting. See how Elizabeth, "filled
with the Holy Spirit," calls Mary blessed
twice in just four short verses. Under the
guidance of the Holy Spirit, Elizabeth gives
Our Lady great honor with the words, "And
how does this happen to me, that the mother
of my Lord should come to mel"
In verse 48, Our Lady prophesies that all
ages will call her blessed. Ask Fundamentalists why they don't call her Blessed Virgin

Mary as Catholics do. They call her Mary

or perhaps Virgin Mary, but almost never
Blessed Virgin Mary. Let them see that it is
Catholics who are being biblical here and
not Fundamentalists.
Once you have established the biblical
basis for giving special honor to Our Lady,
you can begin discussing the four major
Marian doctrines. Don't try to deal with all
four doctrines at once; this takes a lot of time
and can involve many difficulties and side
issues. For apologetic purposes insist on
focusing on Mary's title of Mother of God
for these reasons:
(1) This is her first and greatest privilege;
the other privileges follow from this one. If
they can understand and accept this doctrine,
they will grasp the others more easily.
(2) It is the easiest to defend doctrinally,
biblically, and historically.
(3) The three great pillars of the ReformationLuther, Calvin, and Zwingliall
accepted this doctrine wholeheartedly.
Most Protestants are shocked to learn that
although the founders of Protestantism
rejected many Catholic doctrines, they
insisted on honoring Mary as Mother of
God and Ever-Virgin (see Appendix 2,
page 20).
DOCTRINAL BASIS

All Christians believe that Jesus was born

of the Blessed Virgin Mary. They also
believe that although Jesus has two natures
(one divine and one human), He is one
Divine Person. Since this one person was
born of Mary, she truly is the Mother of the
one Divine Person: in short, the Mother of
God.

19

If a person denies that Mary is the Mother

of God, whether he realizes it or not, he is
denying the Incarnation. He is saying
either that Jesus is not God, or that Jesus is
two personsone human and one divine.
Protestants ask: How can Mary, a creature,
be the mother of God the Creator? We
answer that when the eternal Son of God became man, He assumed a human nature,
which made it possible for Him to be born
of a woman just as we are.
BIBLICAL BASIS

(a) Luke 1:43: Elizabeth calls her "mother

of my Lord." In the NT, "Lord" refers only
to God.
(b) Mt 1:23: "Behold the virgin shall be
with child and bear a son, and they shall
name Him Emmanuel, " which means "God
is with us."
(c) Luke 1:35: "the child to be born will
be called holy, the Son of God."
(d) Gal 4:4: "But when thefullness of time
had come, God sent His Son, born of a
woman."
EARLY CHURCH FATHERS

"For our God, Jesus Christ, was conceived by Mary in accord with God's
plan..."23 (St. Ignatius, 110 A.D.)
"The Virgin Mary,... being obedient to His
word, received from an angel the glad tidings
that she would bear God."24 (St. Irenaeus,
180-199 A.D.)
Remind Protestants that if they look at
Church history they will find that Mary's
title of Mother of God was not rejected until
23 LETTER TO THE EPHESIANS, 18, 2; Jurgens, p. 18, #42.
24

AGAINST HERESIES, 5, 19, 1; Jurgens, p. 101, #256a.

429 A.D. In that year a bishop named

Nestorius promoted the heresy that Jesus
was two distinct persons', and that Mary was
only the mother of the human person. In 431
A.D., the Council of Ephesus condemned this
heresy. It did not surface again in Christianity until after the Reformation. A correct
belief about Mary leads to a correct belief
about Jesus.
In regard to the other three Marian doctrines, biblical passages in support of them
are not explicit and we have to rely on
Apostolic Tradition and the teaching authority of the Church.
Assumption. The doctrine doesn't specify
if Mary died; it merely states that after the
completion of her life, she was taken body
and soul into heaven. Note that Elijah and
Enoch were assumed into heaven, just as the
righteous will be at the end of time (see Gn
5:24; 2 Kg 2:11; 1 Thess 4:17; Heb 11:5).
Why is it hard to believe that God gave His
mother this privilege? No city ever claimed
her body. There is no record of her relics or
remains anywhere.
Immaculate Conception. The doctrine
doesn't say that Mary didn't need a savior.
Like all the OT saints, Mary was saved
through the anticipated merits of Jesus.
Mary's salvation was simply more perfect.
By God's grace, she was preserved from sin
at her conception. In contrast, we are
cleansed from sin after our birth.
Perpetual Virginity. Mary's perpetual
virginity was not challenged in the early
Church until the time of St. Jerome (around
400 A.D.). This doctrine was not rejected by
the founders of Protestantism. Note that
"brothers" in the Bible can also mean
"relatives." If Jesus had blood brothers, He

20

would not have entrusted Mary to John, but

to one of them. Two so-called "brothers" of
Jesus (Mt 13:55)James and Josephare
identified as sons of another Mary, the wife
of Clopas (compare Mt 27:56 and Jn 19:25).
APPENDIX 2 THE PROTESTANT
REFORMERS' VIEW OF MARY

Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli, the three fathers of the Reformation, each affirmed the
Catholic doctrines that Mary is the Mother
of God and a Perpetual Virgin.
MARY AS MOTHER OF GOD

Martin Luther: "In this work whereby she

was made the Mother of God, so many and
such good things were given her that no one
can grasp them.... Not only was Mary the
mother of Him who is born [in Bethlehem],
but of Him who, before the world, was
eternally born of the Father, from a Mother
in time and at the same time man and God.''''25
John Calvin: "It cannot be denied that
God in choosing and destining Mary to be
the Mother of His Son, granted her the
highest honor.... Elizabeth calls Mary
Mother of the Lord, because the unity of the
person in the two natures of Christ was such
that she could have said that the mortal man
engendered in the womb of Mary was at
the same time the eternal God."26
Ulrich Zwingli: "It was given to her what
belongs to no creature, that in the flesh she
should bring forth the Son of God."21

MARY AS PERPETUAL VIRGIN

Luther: "It is an article of faith that Mary

is Mother of the Lord and still a virgin. ..
Christ, we believe, came forth from a womb
left perfectly intact."2*
Calvin: "There have been certain folk who
have wished to suggest from this passage
[Matt 1:25] that the Virgin Mary had other
children than the Son of God, and that
Joseph had then dwelt with her later; but
what folly this is! For the gospel writer did
not wish to record what happened afterwards; he simply wished to make clear
Joseph s obedience and to show also that
Joseph had been well and truly assured that
it was God who had sent His angel to Mary.
He had therefore never dwelt with her nor
had he shared her company.... And besides
this Our Lord Jesus Christ is called the firstborn. This is not because there was a second
or a third, but because the gospel writer is
paying regard to the precedence. Scripture
speaks thus of naming the first-born whether
or no there was any question of the
second."29
Zwingli: "7firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure
Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God
and in childbirth and after childbirth forever
remained a pure, intact Virgin"30
We should ask Fundamentalists to
honor Mary as much as the founders of
their own Protestant tradition did.

27
25

Weimer, The Works of Luther, English transl. by Pelikan,

Concordia, St. Louis, v. 7, p. 572.
26
Calvini Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Braunschweig-Berlin, 1863-1900, v. 45, p. 348, 35.

Zwingli Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Berlin, 1905, in

Evang. Luc., Op. comp., v. 6,1, p. 639.
2
8 Works of Luther, v. 11, pp. 319-320; v. 6, p. 510.
29
Sermon on Matthew 1:22-25, published 1562.
30 Zwingli Opera, v. 1, p. 424.

21

QUESTIONS ASKED ABOUT MARY

1. Why do Catholics adore Mary, who is
just a human being?

says that "ALL HAVE SINNED and are deprived of the glory of God"

Catholics do not adore Mary; we venerate

and honor her. Why? The angel calls her "full
of grace" and one who has "found favor
with God" (Lk 1:28, 30 RSVCE); Elizabeth,
filled with the Holy Spirit calls her "blessed
among women" (v. 42); and Mary herself
declares that "all generations shall call me
blessed" (v. 48). Catholics, following
Scripture, always call her blessed. Do you?

Luke writes that Mary is full of grace,

highly favored. Lk 1:37: "For with God
nothing shall be impossible." She is the
"woman" of Gen 3:15 whose enmity with
Satan and sin is absolute. She is the Ark of
the Covenant (Ex 25:11-21) made to hold
the living Word of God: a holy tabernacle
made not of the purest gold, but of the purest
flesh. St. Paul is emphasizing the universal
aspect of sin extending to Jews and Gentiles
alike. Babies have not sinned; Adam and Eve
before the fall had not sinned; Jesus never
sinned. These are some exceptions that fall
outside St. Paul's condemnation. Mary is
another.

2. Why do Catholics call Mary the

"Mother of God"? Wouldn't this mean
Mary existed before God, or that she is
older than God?
We call Mary Mother of God because she
gave birth to Jesus, who is God. We follow
the Spirit-filled Elizabeth who declared in
Luke 1:43: "how does this happen to me,
that the mother of my Lord should come to
me?" Jesus is true God and true man: two
natures in one undivided Person. By being
the Mother of Jesus, Mary is also the Mother
of God, the Second Person of the Holy
Trinity. Mary did not give birth merely to a
human nature, but to a person, the Son of
God who took from her flesh a pure human
nature. Lk 1:35: "the child to be born will
be called holy, the Son of God." Gal 4:4:
"God sent His Son, born of a woman." If
Jesus is truly God-made-man, then Mary is
truly the Mother of God. Obviously, Mary
did not exist before God. Jesus is the Son of
God from all eternity, who became also the
Son of Mary in time.
3. Why do Catholics believe Mary was
immaculately conceived? Romans 3:23

4. If Mary never sinned, she doesn't need

a Savior. So why does Mary say in Luke
1:47: "my spirit rejoices in God MY
SAVIOR."

Mary was saved by the merits of Christ,

just as we are. The difference between Mary
and other Christians is that her salvation
from sin was more perfect. While we are
freed from original sin at our baptism, Mary
was preserved from original sin at her
conception. But Jesus is the Savior in both
cases.
5. Why do Catholics believe that Mary
was a Perpetual Virgin? Matt. 13:55-56
says that Jesus had brothers and sisters.
Catholics are not alone in this belief.
Protestant Reformers Martin Luther, John
Calvin, and Ulrich Zwingli also defended
the perpetual virginity of Mary. The Hebrew
and Aramaic languages spoken by Christ

22

and His disciples do not have separate words

for "brother," "cousin," or "near-relative."
For example, in the original Hebrew, Lot is
called Abraham's "brother" (Gen 14:14). Yet
we know that Lot was Abraham's nephew
(Gen 11:27). The Jews used the word
"brother" for any near relative, without
necessarily meaning "blood-brothers."
6. Why do Catholics believe that Mary
was assumed body and soul into heaven?
Scripture does not record the Assumption
of Mary, so we depend on Apostolic
Tradition for our belief. However, the Assumption is not anti-scriptural. In fact,
Scripture gives every indication that such a
thing could occur. Consider the unusual ends
of certain righteous people: Enoch, who was
taken to heaven without dying (Heb 11:5);
and Elijah, who was whisked into heaven
by a fiery chariot (2 King 2:11). Matthew
27:52 suggests a bodily assumption before
the Second Coming, and most Protestants
believe in the "rapture" based on the events
described in 1 Thess 4:17 and 1 Cor 15:52.
Mary is simply the first to be "raptured."
7. Why did the Catholic Church invent
the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception
in 1854, and the Bodily Assumption in
1950?
The Catholic Church officially defined the
doctrines in 1854 and 1950, respectively. She
did not "invent" them at that time, any more
than she "invented" the doctrine of the
Trinity when she officially defined it in 325,
or "invented" the New Testament when she
officially determined the canon in 393 and
397. The Catholic Church was merely
codifying a belief which always existed in
the Church, and was expressed in the writings of the early Church Fathers.

8. Is a Catholic required to believe in the

Immaculate Conception and Assumption
of Mary?
Yes. All Catholics are required to believe
everything that the Church teaches.
Officially defined doctrines are called
dogmas, which every Catholic must accept
in order to be a faithful Catholic. When these
two doctrines were infallibly defined, they
became binding dogmas of faith.
9. Is a Catholic required to believe in the
Church-approved apparitions of Mary,
such as Fatima and Lourdes?
No. Catholics have the assurance of the
Church that these revelations are orthodox
and worthy of belief, but they are not doctrine or an addition to public revelation
(which ended with the death of the last
Apostle). Therefore a Catholic is free to
accept or reject these officially approved
apparitions.
10. Why do Catholics pray to Mary? 1
Tim 2:5 says "there is ONE mediator between God and man, the man Jesus Christ
(RSVCE)."

Catholics ask for Mary's intercession for

the same reason that we ask for a fellow
Christian's intercession: "the fervent prayer
of a righteous person is very powerful"
(James 5:16). Because Jesus is the one
mediator between earth and heaven, we
intercede for one another as members of
Christ's body. If fellow saints praying for
us on earth do not destroy Christ's role as
the one mediator, neither do glorified saints
praying for us in heaven. Mary is the greatest
saint. Why wouldn't you seek her powerful
intercession?

23

11. Why do Catholics call Mary

"Blessed" and honor her with prayers and
devotions, like the Rosary?
Scripture calls her "blessed" and promises
that all generations will invoke her by that
title (see question 1). We honor Mary
because of her great privileges: she was
conceived without sin, became the mother
of God while remaining a virgin, and was
assumed bodily into heaven. There she
reigns as queen of heaven and earth, mother
of the Church, God's greatest creature, and
mankind's greatest boast. We honor her
because Jesus honored her (perfectly
obeying the fourth commandment), and we
are called to imitate Jesus.
12. Is the "Hail Mary" Scriptural?
Yes, the first part of the prayer is taken
verbatim from Scripture. "HAIL, FULL OF
GRACE, THE LORD IS WITH YOU!" (Luke
1:28). "BLESSED ART THOU AMONG WOMEN,
AND BLESSED IS THE FRUIT OF THY WOMB "

(v. 42)JESUS. The second part is based

on Scripture. HOLY M A R Y " y o u have
found favor with God" (v. 30)MOTHER
OF GOD"mother of my Lord" (v. 43)
PRAY FOR US SINNERS(as we pray for one
another)NOW AND AT THE HOUR OF OUR
DEATH. AMEN.

13. Isn't the Rosary a kind of repetitious

prayer condemned by Jesus in Mt 6:7?
In Mt 6:7, Jesus is not condemning all repeated prayers, only prayer repeated "in the
manner of the pagans. " Jesus is teaching
Christians that they are not to pray with the
pagan attitude that the more you repeat a
prayer the more likely you are to be heard
(see 1 Kings 18:25-29 for an example of this
pagan mentality). A Christian who thinks he
needs to repeat a prayer in order to be heard

in heaven has a problem with faith. This is

the error Jesus is correcting. Notice that
Jesus repeats the same prayer three times in
the Garden of Gethsemani (Mt 26:44). The
publican who humbly repeated, "O God, be
merciful to me, a sinner" (Lk 18:13) went
home justified. The four living creatures in
heaven repeat day and night, "Holy, holy,
holy is the Lord God Almighty, who was, and
who is, and who is to come" (Rev. 4:8).
These verses show that prayer repeated with
the proper attitude is very pleasing to God.
The Rosary, recited devoutly, fulfills part of
the biblical exhortation to "pray without
ceasing" (1 Thess5:17).
14.Aren't Catholics superstitious for believing that medals of Mary and relics of
saints can perform miracles?
The Catholic Church teaches that only
God can perform a true miracle. But we also
know that God can act either directly or
through secondary agents, like people. God
sometimes even performs miracles through
inanimate objects in order to show the
intercessory power of a particular saint. A
man came back to life when he, contacted
the bones of the holy prophet Elisha (2 Kings
13:20-21). God performed miraculous cures
through Peter's shadow (Act 5:15-16) and
through handkerchiefs that had touched St.
Paul (Acts 19:11-12), showing the great
intercessory power of St. Peter and St. Paul.
Medals of Our Lady and relics of saints have
no power to cause miracles in themselves.
Rather, God performs miracles through these
m e d a l s and relics to show the great
intercessory power of Mary and the saints.

24

CONFESSION
Virtually all Protestants deny that Christ
gave His disciples the power to forgive sins.
To discuss the sacrament of confession well,
you need to know Jn 20:19-23.
When Jesus bestowed on the disciples the
power to forgive sins, He did it on Easter
Sunday. This is significant because of the
connection of the Resurrection with spiritual
life. Notice that He conferred the power by
breathing on the Apostles. The only other
time that God breathed on anyone was when
He breathed life into the first human being
(Gn 2:7). Ask Fundamentalists to think about
these powerful symbols and how they
signify an awesome life-giving power given
to the disciples. Note that Jesus gives the
disciples the authority to forgive, and not
to forgive. This means a priest has to hear
the sins in order to know whether to forgive
them or hold them bound.
Fundamentalists say they confess their
sins to God while Catholics confess their sins
only to priests. Wrong. Catholics always
confess their sins to God. They do it directly
as well as through His ministers because that
is what God requires, as clearly taught in
Scripture.
Know 2 Cor 5:17-20. St. Paul explains
how the Apostles are ambassadors of
Christ's work of reconciliation. What does
this mean but that they share in the ministry
of Christ and forgive sins in His name? Also
know James 5:13-16. James makes clear
that the sins of the sick are forgiven in this
sacrament of annointing. He specifies that
the presbyters (priests) must be called. They
obviously had a power the ordinary Christian
did not: the power to forgive sins. Otherwise,
why didn't James simply ask ordinary,

fellow Christians to pray over the sick as is

the case in numerous other passages?
Many Protestants believe that sins are
wiped away in Baptism. This means they
believe that their ministers are used by God
as His instruments in the forgiveness ofsins
through a sacrament, Baptism, which they
administer. Catholics believe that the priest
is used by God as His instrument for the forgiveness of sins in three sacraments:
Confession, Anointing, and Baptism. The
disagreement here is not in principle. It is
true that most Fundamentalists do not
believe that sins are wiped away through
Baptism. However, we can point out that
they all believe that God can use their
ministers as instruments in His physical
healing. Why wouldn't God do the same
with spiritual healing, which is more important?
Finally, return to John 20:21: "As the
Father has sent me, so I send you.'''' The
Apostles are to continue the mission of
Christ. The essence of that mission is THE
FORGIVENESS OF SINS. Jesus knows our
human nature. He provided sacramental
confession to give us several important gifts:
humility, the certainty of forgiveness,
spiritual direction, and help to overcome
self-deception and rationalization in matters
of sin.
Clearly, Christ gave His disciples the
power to forgive sin. This power was intended to be passed on, since Christ knew
people would sin until the end of time. Early
Church history confirms that Christians
believed this power was passed on to the
Apostles' successors (see Jurgens: #493,
#553, #602, #637, and #855a).

25

SCANDALS IN THE CHURCH

In the past several years, the Catholic
Church in the United States has been hit with
one scandal after another. Many of these
crimes involve priests in acts of pedophilia.
This is a hideous sin, and in priests it is truly
an abomination. As a Catholic, you can be
sure that you will be asked questions about
this. How do you respond?
Acknowledge the situation honestly. Don't
try to explain it away. Tell people that
scandals have badly wounded the Church
in this country. Also, admit that many
mistakes have been made by our Church
leaders in handling this issue. Now they are
dealing with this problem in a forthright way.
In some cases, the Vatican is directly
intervening.
Many Fundamentalists will try to use
these scandals to attack celibacy, and to
challenge the claim that the Catholic
Church is the true Church. You must be
prepared to respond to both arguments.
CELIBACY

Celibacy has nothing to do with pedophilia or other sex scandals involving

priests. Most pedophiles are married men.
We are seeing pedophilia in major institutions everywhere, not just in the Catholic
Church. Remind Fundamentalists that a few
years ago we had one television evangelist
after another involved in sex scandals, some
involving perverted sex. All of these
televangelists were married. Nobody
blamed these scandals on the institution
of marriage! Nobody demanded that
Protestant ministers renounce marriage.

People do not get involved in sex scandals because they are married or celibate.
They commit these sins because they fail
God as individuals. You don't judge marriage by those who break their marriage
vows. Neither should you judge celibacy by
those who break their celibacy vows.
Marriage and celibacy should both be
judged by those who are faithful to their
vows.
Remember, about one-half of all marriages break up. Does this mean that we
should get rid of marriage? Of course not!
It means we should work to strengthen
married couples in their vocation. Similarly,
the Church is not going to get rid of celibacy
because a very few priests break their vows.
We know that marriage is a good thing
because it was instituted by God, and made
a sacrament by Christ. We know that
celibacy is good because it was praised by
Jesus (Mt 19:10-12), and strongly recommended by St. Paul for those who would
devote themselves entirely to the ministry
(1 Cor 7:32-35). We all know that millions
of Christians have led saintly lives as both
celibate and married people.
THE TRUE CHURCH

Scandals in the Church are not an argument against the Catholic claim to be the
true Church. In the OT, we find baby
sacrifice and temple prostitution involving
leaders of the OT religion (Jer 32:32-35; 2
Kgs 23:7). Of the twelve Apostles, one betrayed Christ, one denied Him, one refused
to believe in His Resurrection, and they all
abandoned Him at the Garden of Gethsemani.

26

The Catholic Church is both human and

divine. Because it is human, it will have
scandals. Because it is divine, it will last
forever. Scandals are found in all denominations; they have nothing to do with the
Catholic Church being the true Church.
What St. Paul wrote concerning the Jews
applies also to Christians: "What if some
were unfaithful? Will their infidelity nullify
the fidelity of God? Of course not!" (Rom
3:3-4). Christ's faithfulness to His Church
remains even when some of its members are
unfaithful (see 2 Tim 2:13).
Scandals do not prove that the Catholic
Church is false. They only prove what is
obvious: that the Church contains sinners
as well as saints, tares along with the wheat.
In the parable of the wheat and the weeds
(Mt 13:24-30), Our Lord makes clear that
good and evil will exist side by side until
the end of time. Mt 13:47-48 also confirms
that the Church contains good and bad
members alike.

27

PRAYER TO THE SAINTS

Is it biblical to ask the saints in heaven
to pray for us? Catholics say yes, since we
are all part of the communion of saints. Most
Protestants say no, even though many of
them recite the Apostles' Creed. Thus, they
profess to believe in the "communion of
saints," but usually they cannot explain what
this means. What does it mean to believe in
the communion of saints? Does this belief
give us the biblical foundations for the
doctrine of intercessory prayer?
COMMUNION OF SAINTS

As the word suggests, the communion of

saints refers to the bond of unity among all
believers, both living and dead, who are
committed followers of Christ. In Christ, we
are made part of God's family (1 Tim 3:15),
children of God (1 John 3:1), joint heirs with
Christ (Rom 8:17), and partakers of the
divine nature (2 Pet 1:4). This family
communion of saints is known to Catholics
as the Mystical Body of Christ.31 We are
joined in a supernatural union as members
of Christ's own body, and thus as members
of one another. Each of us participates in
the divine life of Christ Himself.
Know the image of the Vine and the
Branches (John 15:1-5). Remind nonCatholics that because we as branches are
connected to Christ the vine, we are also
connected to each other. It is the life and
grace of Jesus that gives us life and unites
us in our common pilgrimage to heaven.

St. Paul emphasizes this unity in Christ's

body in 1 Cor 12:12-27 (especially v. 2527) and in Rom 12:4-16. Know these
passages.
INTERCESSORY PRAYER

What we have said about the communion

of saints gives us the biblical reasons why
Catholics ask the saints to intercede for them:
(1) All Christians are members of
Christ's body and one another
(Rom 12:5 and many others).
(2) Jesus has only one body (Eph 4:4;
Col 3:15).
(3) Death cannot separate Christians
from Christ or from one another
(Rom 8:35-39).
(4) Christians are bound in mutual love
(Rom 12:10; 1 T h e s s 5 : l l ; Gal 6:2).
We are members of Christ's one body,
united in His divine life even beyond the
grave, and concerned with each other's
salvation and growth in God's family. In that
union, we call for help and support from our
older brothers and sisters who have already
won their crown of glory.
Just as in our human families we naturally turn to our siblings for aid and example,
how much more should we turn to our
supernatural family for help and inspiration.
Several objections are directed against the
Catholic position on intercessory prayer.
The saints are dead.
Catholics practice necromancy, communication with the dead, which is condemned
(Dt 18:10-11).
OBJECTION

31

The teaching that the Church is the Body of Christ is found

throughout the NT: 1 Cor 10:16; Gal 3:28; Eph 1:22-23, 4:4,
4:15-16, 5:21-32; Col 1:18, 3:15.

1:

28

Answer: Necromancy means summoning

forth spirits from the shadowy underworld
(OT "Sheol"), in order to converse with
them. By asking the saints in heaven to
intercede for us, Catholics are not conjuring
roaming spirits or communicating in any
"spiritualistic" way. So prayer to the saints
has nothing to do with necromancy.
Nor are the saints dead. The saints in
heaven are alive and with God: "He is not
God of the dead, but of the living" (Mk
12:26-27). In Mark 9:4, Jesus is seen conversing with Elijah and Moses. Jesus tells
the Good Thief: "Amen, I say to you, today
you will be with me in Paradise''' (Lk 23:43).
In fact, the saints in heaven are more alive
than we are. They are free from all sin. They
enjoy the fullness of God's life-giving
presence. Flooded with God's love, they care
more about us now than they did on earth.
Just as Paul asked fellow believers (saints)
to pray for him (Rom 15:30; Col 4:3; 1 Thess
5:25; Eph 6:18-19; 2 Thess 3:1), now we
can ask Paul and the other saints in heaven
to pray for us. We are not cut off from each
other at death, rather we are brought closer
through the communion we share in Christ.
We know that angels and saints place the
prayers of the holy ones at God's feet (Tob
12:12; Rev 5:8; Rev 8:3-4), supporting those
prayers with their intercessions. The martyrs
underneath the heavenly altar cry out for
earthly vindication (Rev 6:9-11), showing
they are aware of, and concerned with,
earthly affairs. The angels and saints in
heaven will intercede for us before the throne
of God if they are petitioned in prayer.
OBJECTION 2: 1 Tim 2:5 says there is

one mediator between God and man. Isn't

prayer to the saints in violation of 1 Tim
2:5?

Answer: 1 Tim 2:5 must be understood

in the light of 1 Peter 2:5: "letyourselves be
built into a spiritual house, to be a holy
priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices
acceptable to God through Jesus Christ."
St. Peter says that Christians share in the one,
eternal priesthood of Jesus Christ. Jesus is
mediator between God and man because of
His priesthood. Therefore, to share in
Christ's priesthood means to share in His
mediatorship, both in heaven and on earth.
1 Tim 2:5 confirms that we share in
Christ's mediation, when we read it in
context. In verses 1-7, St. Paul asks Christians to participate in Christ's unique mediation by offering prayers and intercessions
for all men: "this is good and pleasing to
God." We are called to unite ourselves to
the one mediator Christ, "who gave himself
as a ransom for all" by praying^or all men,
through Christ.
Because Christians share in the priesthood
of Christ, we share in a lesser and
dependent way in His unique mediation,
interceding for all men.
Fellow Christians on earth intercede for
each other in prayer without contradicting
the unique mediation of Jesus Christ. Likewise, there is no contradiction of 1 Tim 2:5
if the saints in heaven intercede for us with
their prayers. All prayer, whether in heaven
or on earth, is in Christ and through Christ,
our one mediator and high priest.
The principle is this: although God alone
possesses all perfections, we can
participate in God's perfections by
sharing in His divine life. For example, the
Bible says only God is good (Mk 10:18).
Yet we can share in that absolute Goodness:
" Well done, my good and faithful servant"
(Mt 25:23).

29

Jesus shares many of His unique roles with

Christians in lesser ways. Jesus is the
Creator of all things (Jn 1:3; Col 1:16-17),
and yet He shares this role with men and
women in procreation. Jesus is the only
Shepherd (Jn 10:11-16), yet He delegates
this role to St. Peter (Jn 21:15-16) and later
to others (Eph 4:11). Jesus is the eternal
High Priest, mediating His once-for-all
sacrifice for our redemption (Heb 3:1, 7:24,
9:12, 10:12), and yet Christians are also
called to join in Christ's priesthood, as we
have seen (1 Pet 2:5; Rev 1:6, 5:10).
Obviously, Christ is the unique and primary Creator, Shepherd, and Priest, but each
Christian participates in these roles in
subordinate ways. By sharing Christ's
divine life, Christians also share in Christ's
role as the only mediator.
OBJECTION 3:

The saints in heaven

can't hear us.

Answer: Why not? Aren't they more alive
now than when they were with us? The
medium of communication is Christ
himselfthe vine between the branches. We
and the saints form one communion, one
body of Christ, being members of Him and
members of one another. Heb 12:1 tells us
that we are surrounded by "a cloud of witnesses." How could those watching be
unconcerned about our welfare? Look at Rev
5:8 and Rev 8:3. The petitions offered as
incense to God must be for those who still
need help, the holy ones on earth. They are
offered by those who can help the most, the
holy ones in heaven.
In the parable of Lazarus and the rich man
(Lk 16:19-30), the departed rich man is able
to pray to Abraham and intercede for his
brothers. This implies that there can be

communication across the abyss, and that

fraternal charity extends beyond the grave.
We are certain that the saints in heaven
enjoy the face to face vision of God (1 Cor.
13:12; 1 Jn 3:2). It is in this vision that they
are aware of our prayers to them.
OBJECTION 4: How can saints hear all

these prayers, from all different people, all

the time? It must sound like a deafening
babble.
Answer: Heaven has no space or time.
Everything appears to God as one eternal
present. Like God, the saints are outside of
the limitations of space and time. Our earthly
way of knowing is limited and incomplete.
"At present, we see indistinctly, as in a
mirror, but then face to face. At present I
know partially; then I shall know fully, as
I am fully known" (1 Cor 13:12). Our
heavenly way of knowing is full and perfect.

30

PURGATORY
In order to defend the doctrine of Purgatory, you must explain two preliminary
distinctions: (1) between guilt and punishment; and (2) between mortal and venial sin.
Does God forgive the GUILT of sin and still
require PUNISHMENT (reparation, atonement, expiation)?
Ask King David. In 2 Sam 12:13-14 we
read: "David said to Nathan, 7 have sinned
against the Lord.' Nathan answered David,
'The Lord on His part has forgiven your sin:
you shall not die. But since you have utterly
spurned the Lord by this deed, the child born
to you must surely die.'" God forgave the
guilt of David's sin, but He still required
reparation in the form of suffering. A man
might forgive a teenager for breaking his
window, but still insist that he repair the
damages.
Where does Scripture distinguish between
MORTAL and VENIAL sin?

1 Jn 5:16-17 proves degrees of sin, distinguishing between deadly sin and sin that
is not deadly. James 1:14-15 reads: "each
person is tempted when he is lured and
enticed by his own desire. Then desire
conceives and brings forth sin, and when
sin reaches maturity it gives birth to death "
St. James distinguishes desire from sin, and
beginning sin from mature sin which brings
death. Sin which brings death to the soul is
mortal. Sin which only wounds and
disfigures the soul is venial.
What if you die with only venial sins?

The souls of those who die in the perfect

state of grace, without the least sin or reparation due to sin, go directly to heaven. The
souls of those who die in the state of unrepented mortal (deadly) sin go directly to hell.
What about the middle sort of people: those
who die in the state of grace, but with
venial sin or with unpaid reparation due
to forgiven sin? They do not merit hell: they
are still in the state of grace; yet they are not
pure enough for heaven, where "nothing unclean will enter" (Rev. 21:27).
What does the Bible say about this?
God is perfect holiness.
Is 6:3: "'Holy; holy, holy is the Lord of
hosts!' they [the Seraphim] cried one to
the other"
We are called to that same holiness.
Mt 5:48: "So be perfect, just as your
heavenly Father is perfect."
1 Pet 1:15-16 -."...as he who called you is
holy, be holy yourselves in every aspect
of your conduct, for it is written, 'Be holy
because I am holy.'"
Without perfect holiness, we cannot see
God in heaven.
Heb 12:14: "Strive for peace with everyone, and for that holiness without
which no one will see the Lord."
Rev 21:27: "...nothing unclean will enter
it [heaven]."
What happens to the faithful who die
without perfect holiness or with sin that is
not deadly? The biblical, logical, and
historical answer is Purgatory.

31

Purgatory comes from the verb "purge"

meaning "to purify or cleanse." We should
keep this notion of purification in mind
when explaining this doctrine.
What is the Catholic belief about Purgatory?
Purgatory is a temporary state of purification for the imperfect saints. The
souls of the just who have died in the state
of grace but with venial sins or with reparation due for forgiven mortal and venial sins
are fully cleansed in Purgatory so that they
may enter heaven. In Purgatory all remaining
reparation for sin is made; all remaining selflove is purged and purified until only love
of God remains.
Remember these three points:
(1) Only imperfect saints in the state of
grace enter Purgatory. It is not a "second
chance" for those who die in unrepented
mortal sin.
(2) Purgatory exists for purification and
reparation. The effects of sin are purged.
The punishments due to sin are paid.
(3) Purgatory is only temporary. Once
the imperfect saints are purified they enter
heaven. Everyone in Purgatory will go to
heaven. Purgatory will then cease to exist.
Only heaven and hell will remain eternally.
Is Purgatory Scriptural?
First, we should note that the word
"purgatory" is not found in Sacred Scripture. This is not the point. The words
"Trinity" and "Incarnation" are not found
in Scripture, yet these doctrines are clearly
taught there. Likewise, the Bible teaches
that an intermediate state of purification
exists. We call it Purgatory. What is

important is the doctrine, not the name.

Where is the doctrine of Purgatory referred
to in the Bible?
Mt 12:32: "And whoever speaks a word
against the Son of Man will be forgiven; but
whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will
not be forgiven, either in this age or in the
age to come.'''' Jesus implies that some sins
can be forgiven in the next world. Sin
cannot be forgiven in Hell. There is no sin
to be forgiven in heaven. Any remission of
sin in the next world can only occur in
Purgatory.
1 Cor 3:15: "But if someone's work is
burned up, that one will suffer loss; the
person will be saved, but only as through
fire. " This cannot refer to eternal loss in hell,
for there no one is saved. Nor can it refer to
heaven, for there no one suffers. It refers,
then, to a middle state where the soul
temporarily suffers loss so that it may gain
heaven. This is essentially the definition of
Purgatory.
1 Pet 3:18-20: "For Christ also suffered
for sins once, the righteous for the sake of
the unrighteous, that he might lead you to
God. Put to death in the flesh, he was
brought to life in the spirit. In it he also went
to preach to the spirits in prison, who had
once been disobedient while God patiently
waited in the days of Noah during the
building of the ark, in which a few persons,
eight in all, were saved through water"
1 Peter 4:6: "For this is why the gospel
was preached even to the dead that, though
condemned in the flesh in human estimation,
they might live in the spirit in the estimation
of God. " Note that it is a prison for
disobedient spirits, and yet they were saved
when Jesus preached to them. This is not

32

hell, because no one is saved from hell. This

is probably not the "limbo of the fathers,"
(often called "Abraham's bosom," where the
righteous souls of the OT waited until Christ
opened the gates of heaven), because this is
a place for disobedient spirits. One cannot
imagine that St. Peter is describing the
waiting place of such righteous OT saints
as David and John the Baptist when he mentions disobedient spirits.
St. Peter is describing a temporary state
for disobedient souls who were eventually
saved. At the very least, it proves that a third
place can exist between heaven and hell. At
the very most, it proves the Catholic doctrine
of Purgatory.
The clearest affirmation of the existence
of Purgatory comes from the Greek
Septuagint: the Old Testament Scriptures
used by Christ, all the NT writers, and the
councils of Hippo and Carthage (which
authoritatively determined the "canon" of
inspired books of the Bible).
2 Maccabees 12:44-46: "...for if he were
not expecting the fallen to rise again, it
would have been useless and foolish to pray
for them in death. But if he did this with a
view to the splendid reward that awaits those
who had gone to rest in godliness, it was a
holy and pious thought. Thus he made
atonement for the dead that they might be
freed from this sin. " It is impossible to aid
souls in heaven (they have no need), and
equally impossible to aid souls in hell (they
have no hope). Praying for the dead
presumes souls in a middle state where
atonement for sin can be made.
This passage from Maccabees is a
PROOF text. It explicitly affirms an inter-

mediate state where the faithful departed

make atonement for their sins. 2 Maccabees

was so contrary to the "justification by faith
alone" theology of the Reformers that Martin
Luther chose to remove it (along with six
other books) from the Old Testament.
This takes us back to the question of the
canon of the Bible: How do you know which
books really constitute the Bible? By whose
authority do you trust that the books upon
which you stake your eternal salvation really
are inspired?
Do you rely on the private judgment of a
renegade priest, Luther, who also wanted to
throw out Esther, James and Revelation, and
thought nothing of adding a word to his
translation of Romans?
OR, do you accept the divinely-protected
judgment of the Catholic Church who used
her authority around the year 400 A.D. to
determine the official canon of the Bible.
This is the same Bible (less seven books)
used by the Protestants to attack the very
authority of the Church who gave it to them.
Even if 2 Maccabees is rejected as
Scripture, there can be no doubt that, as
history, the book accurately reflects the
religious character of the Jews of the
second century BC. A little more than one
hundred years before Christ, Jews prayed
for their dead (and still do today).
In fact, some of the earliest Christian liturgies (worship services) include prayers for
the dead. Ancient Christian tomb inscriptions from the second and third centuries frequently contain an appeal for prayers for the
dead.32 This practice makes sense only if
early Christians believed in Purgatory even
if they did not use that name for it.

33

Tertullian, writing in the year 211 A.D.,

presents the practice of praying and sacrificing for the dead as an established custom:
"We offer sacrifices for the dead on their
birthday anniversaries.'1''33 The practice of
praying for the dead was universal among
Christians for fifteen centuries before the
Reformation.

In short, if the Jews, St. Paul, and the early

Christians prayed for the dead, we should
have no fear of praying for them as well.
Praying for the dead presumes an
intermediate state of purification, whatever
you may call it. Catholics call it Purgatory.

Are there any New Testament passages that

refer to prayers and practices performed
for the benefit of the deceased?
2 Tim 1:16-18: "May the Lord grant
mercy to the family of Onesiphorus because
he often gave me new heart and was not
ashamed of my chains.... May the Lord grant
him to find mercyfrom the Lord on that day.'"
St. Paul prays for his departed friend
Onesiphorus, which makes sense only if he
can be helped by prayer.
I Cor 15: 29-30: "Otherwise, what will
people accomplish by having themselves
baptized for the dead? If the dead are not
raised at all, then why are they having
themselves baptized for them?" In his argument for the resurrection of the body, St.
Paul mentions (without condemning or
approving) the practice of people having
themselves baptized for the benefit of the
dead, who cannot be helped if there is no
intermediate state of purification. 34

32

The epitaph of Abercius [ 180 AD] reads: "The citizen of a

prominent city, I erected this while I lived, that I might have a
resting place for my body. Abercius is my name, a disciple of
the chaste shepherd who feeds his sheep on the mountains
and in the fields, who has great eyes surveying everywhere,
who taught me the faithful writings of life. Standing by, I,
Abercius ordered this to be inscribed; truly I was in my seventy second year. May everyone who is in accord with this
and who understands it pray for Abercius" (Jurgens, p. 78,
#187).

33

THE CROWN, 3, 3; Jurgens, p. 151, #367.

On the grounds of sola scriptura, Protestants have no way
to refute the Mormon practice of baptism for the dead. They
must have recourse to the Fathers and Church Tradition to
prove that Christianity never endorsed this practice.
34

34

MISCELLANEOUS QUESTIONS
/. Why do Catholics call their priests
"father," when Jesus commands us in
Matthew 23:9 to "call no man father?"
In Matthew 23:1-12, when Jesus tells us
to call no man "father" or "teacher," He is
using figurative language to emphasize that
all legitimate authority and truth ultimately
come from God. We are not to take these
passages literally.
Throughout the Bible men are called
fathers and teachers. Both Catholics and
Protestants call earthly men fathers and
teachers. St. Stephen and St. Paul call the
Jewish religious leaders "fathers" (Acts 7:2
and 22:1). St. Paul calls the Corinthians "my
beloved children.... for I became yourfather
in Christ Jesus through the Gosper (1 Cor
4:14-15; also see 1 Thess 2:11, 1 Tim 1:2,
and Tit 1:4). St. Paul became their spiritual
father because he cooperated with God in
giving them spiritual life, just as biological
fathers cooperate with God in giving
physical life. Catholics call their priests
"father" because, like St. Paul, priests
cooperate with God in giving spiritual life
to their flock by preaching the Gospel and
administering the sacraments.
2. Why do Catholics worship statues in
violation of Exodus 20:4-5?
Catholics certainly don't worship statues,
or anything created. The Catholic Church
teaches that only God is to be worshipped:
to worship anything created is to commit the
serious sin of idolatry. In Ex 20:4-5, God
prohibits the making of images for the
purpose of worshipping them. But God does
not prohibit image-making altogether. In
Ex 25:18-19, God commands Moses to make
statues of angels (cherubim). In Num 21:8,

God tells Moses to make a bronze serpent

(seraph), which the Israelites had to look
upon in order to be healed. The Jews also
used many carved images in the Temple,
including cherubim, oxen, lions, palm trees,
and flowers (1 Kings 6 and 7).
Catholics use statues and other images
to call to mind the holy people they represent: Jesus, the angels, and the saints. For
the same reason, Protestants use Christmas
nativity scenes to depict the same holy
people: Jesus, the angels, and the saints.
Catholics simply use statues and images in
devotions all year around.
The rejection of statues and other images
in Church devotional life is a heresy known
as "iconoclasm." It was first seen in
Christianity in the eighth century when the
wicked Emperor Leo the Isaurian, influenced by the new religion of Islam (founded
in 622 A.D.), began attacking the use of
statues and icons in the Church. In the
Second Council of Nicea in 787 A.D., the
Church condemned this heresy. It did not
resurface in Christianity until the Reformation.
3. Didn 7 the Catholic Church become
pagan after Constantine became emperor?
Constantine's Christian mother, St. Helena, raised him with Christian beliefs
(although he delayed baptism until his
deathbed). He defeated the pagan general
Maxentius under the standard of the
Christian cross in 312 A.D. The next year
Constantine signed the Edict of Milan which
officially ended the Roman persecution of
the Church. It is absurd to think he attempted
to paganize the Church. In 361 A.D., the

35

emperor Julian the Apostate launched a

persecution of the Church in an attempt to
bring back paganism. This would not have
been necessary if the Church had become
pagan at the time of Constantine (312-337
A.D.). A careful study of the first 300 years
of Christianity reveals that Catholic doctrines such as the Eucharist, Apostolic authority, and the Pope as the successor of St.
Peter, were believed by Christians from the
very beginning. They certainly did not arise
after Constantine.
4. Is the Mass really a sacrifice?
Fundamentalists reject the Catholic
teaching on the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass
for two reasons. They claim the Mass violates many passages in Hebrews which tell
us Jesus was only sacrificed once, and that,
without the shedding of blood, there is no
forgiveness of sins (Heb 9:22,25,28,10:1112). They think Catholics teach Jesus is
sacrificed again at every Mass. They cite
Catholic catechisms which teach that in the
Mass Jesus is offered in an unbloody manner.
The Catholic Church teaches that the one,
all-sufficient, bloody sacrifice of Jesus at
Calvary is made present at each Mass in an
unbloody manner. Christ is not re-sacrificed
at each Mass; rather the Mass re-presents
the one sacrifice of Calvary. Thus, the
efficacy (effectiveness) of the Mass comes
entirely from the one, bloody sacrifice of
Calvary.
The passages referred to in Hebrews
compare the many sacrifices of the OT religion, which could not atone for sin nor
reconcile mankind to God, with the one
sacrifice of Christ which did atone for all
sins and reconcile mankind to God. Hebrews
also stresses that the bloody sacrifices of
animals in the OT prefigured the bloody
sacrifice of Christ for the remission of sin.

The Mass, also known as the Lord's

Supper or the Eucharist, repeats what happened at the Last Supper. At the Last Supper Our Lord turned bread into His body,
and said that this body would be offered up
(sacrificed) for us. He turned wine into His
blood, and said that this blood would be shed
(sacrificed) for us. Clearly, at the Last
Supper, Jesus made His future sacrifice at
Calvary present. He then commanded His
disciples to repeat this mystery. In 1 Cor
11:26, St. Paul tells us that in the celebration
of the Eucharist we "proclaim the death of
the Lord until He comes." Thus, the Last
Supper, which made the sacrifice of Calvary
present, will continue to be repeated in the
Mass until the end of time. In this way,
Christ's once- for-all sacrifice will be made
present to the faithful until the end of time.
5. Does baptism regenerate, or is it only
a symbolic washing?
Most Fundamentalists believe that baptism is only a symbolic washingan ordinance, not a sacrament. Catholics believe
that baptism is a sacrament of the NT instituted by Christ. Catholics believe that
through baptism all sin, original and actual,
is wiped away. The life of God, called sanctifying grace, is infused into the soul, and a
person is born again of water and the Holy
Spirit (Jn 3:5). Jesus made baptism a
condition for entering heaven (Jn 3:5; Mk
16:16). In Acts 2:38, St. Peter says that
through baptism our sins are forgiven and
we receive the Holy Spirit. St. Paul says that
we are given new life (regeneration) through
baptism (Rom 6:4). Titus 3:5 tells us that
we are saved " b y the washing of
regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit
(RSVCE)," which refers to baptism. 1 Peter
3:20-21 says that "baptism ... saves you
now."

36

In essence, Fundamentalists confuse the

baptism of Jesus with the baptism of John
the Baptist. John's baptism was only a
symbolic washing. However, John says that
Jesus' baptism would give the Holy Spirit,
whereas his own did not (Mt 3:11). At the
time of the Reformation, many Protestants
rejected baptism as a sacrament of
regeneration because it did not fit with their
new and unorthodox notion of justification
by faith alone.
Jesus would not have made baptism a
condition for entering heaven if it were only
symbolic. The writings of the early Church
Fathers show that they all taught that water
baptism regenerates. The idea that baptism
is only a symbolic washing arose centuries
later with the Reformation.
6. Why do Catholics baptize infants?
Fundamentalists believe that baptism is
only a symbolic washing signifying that a
person has accepted Jesus as his Lord and
Savior. According to them, since an infant
cannot accept Jesus as Lord and Savior
(because he does not have the use of reason), baptism is meaningless for him.
However, Jesus requires baptism for
entering heaven (Jn3:5; Mk 16:16). St. Paul
tells us that all are born with Adam's sin and
thus need baptism (Rom 5:18-19). Jesus
makes clear that children are not to be kept
away from Him (Mk 10:14). The Apostles
baptized entire households (Acts 16:15, 33;
1 Cor 1:16). This would include infants. No
Bible passage prohibits infant baptism.
The early Church Fathers were clear that
the baptizing of infants was a practice that
came from the Apostles themselves. That
infants lack the use of reason does not
prevent them from becoming part of the New

Covenant through baptism. In the OT, a child

became part of the Old Covenant through
circumcision. This was done eight days after
birth, long before the child could choose for
himself whether or not to be part of the
Chosen People. Just as parents in the OT
supplied the decision for the child's
circumcision until he could confirm this
decision at the age of reason, so in the NT
parents stand in for the child at his baptism
until he can confirm this decision at the age
of reason.
7. Aren V we saved by faith alone as St.
Paul says in Romans 3:28?
When St. Paul says,"For we consider that
a person is justified by faith apart from
works of the law," he is teaching that the
works of the OT Mosaic law, such as
circumcision, could not bring salvation. In
the NT, faith does bring salvation, provided
it is made alive by charity. Saving faith is
active: it is "faith working through love"
(Gal 5:6).
In 1 Cor 13:2, St. Paul tells us that faith
without love (charity) is nothing (it cannot
save). Charity means love of God, and Jesus says that if we love Him, we will keep
His commandments (Jn 14:21). When the
rich man asks Jesus what he must do to be
saved, Jesus answers: "keep the commandments" (Mt. 19:16-17). Thus it is clear from
Scripture that faith alone is not enough for
salvation. We must also have charity and
keep God's commandments.
St. James condemns the idea that we are
saved by faith apart from good works: "See
how a person is justified by works and not
by faith alone.35... Forjust as a body without
a spirit is dead, so also faith without works
is dead '' (Jam 2:24, 26).

37

The Catholic Church teaches that we are

saved by God's grace alone. Grace enables
us to have the saving faith that works in love
(Eph 2:8-10). All good works must be done
in the grace of God to have any supernatural
value.
8. If the redemptive work of Christ is allsufficient, why do Catholics insist on
various good works and penances?
Fundamentalists think that because
Catholics teach salvation depends on faith
and good works, Catholics must not believe
the redemptive work of Christ is sufficient.
They see good works, penances, Purgatory,
prayer to the saints, and the sacraments, as
unnecessary additions to the completed
work of Christ. Fundamentalists have this
notion because they confuse salvation with
redemption.
Catholics firmly agree with Protestants
that the redemptive work of Christ is
complete and all-sufficient. Through His
suffering, death, and resurrection, Jesus
redeemed everyone: He paid for all sins and
made it possible for anyone to be saved.
However, we know that not everyone is
automatically saved.
All Christians admit that people can fail
to be saved by refusing to repent, or by
refusing to cooperate with God's grace in
others areas. Although the redemptive work
of Christ is complete, the merits of His
redemption must still be applied to each

35Luther's battle cry, "justification by faith alone," is expressly

contradicted by Scripture, which explains why he called the
book of James (a part of God's infallible Word) "an epistle of
straw."

person in order for him to be saved. Thus, a

person must repent (Mt 4:17), believe in Jesus (Acts 16:31), keep the commandments
(Mt 19:16-17), and live a life of charity (1
Cor 13:1-3), as Scripture plainly teaches. A
Catholic who performs good works in Christ
isn't denying the completed work of Christ's
redemption; he is depending on it.
9. Can you lose your salvation once you
accept Jesus as Lord and Savior?
Most, though not all, Fundamentalists
believe that once you accept Jesus as your
Lord and Savior, it is impossible to lose your
salvation. This doctrine is known as "once
saved, always saved." Like many other
Protestant doctrines, this teaching was unheard of before the Reformation.
Mt 24:13 tells us that we must"persevere
to the end" in order to be saved. St. Paul
says the same thing in 2 Tim 2:12: that we
must hold out to the end if we want to reign
with Christ. In Rom 11:22, Christians are
warned that they will be cut off if they don't
persevere in the kindness of God. Hebrews
6:4-6 describes people who are sharers in
the Holy Spirit (born-again Christians) but
then fall away from God.
Remember St. Paul's advice: "work out
your salvation with fear and trembling" (Phil
2:12). Who should have more assurance of
salvation than St. Paul? Yet he says: "I drive
my body and train it, for fear that, after
having preached to others, I myself should
be disqualified' (1 Cor 9:27). Scripture is
very clear: Christians can lose their
salvation.
The Catholic Church teaches we must die
in sanctifying grace in order to be saved. Any
mortal sin leads to a loss of sanctifying grace

38

and the risk of eternal damnation if we

should die in this state.
10. Why does the Catholic Church base
some of its doctrines on tradition instead
of basing them all on the Bible? Isn't
tradition condemned in the Bible (Mt 15:3;
Mk 7:9; Col2:8)?
Fundamentalists think all tradition is
condemned in Scripture. But the Bible
speaks of two kinds of tradition: human and
apostolic. Bad human tradition is condemned. In Mt 15:3 and Mk 7:9, Jesus
clearly condemns human tradition that sets
aside the commandments of God. In Col 2:8,
St. Paul tells us to beware of false reasoning
"according to human tradition." But in
condemning erroneous human traditions
(small "t"), neither Jesus nor St. Paul is
condemning Apostolic Traditions (capital
"T"), the deposit of divine truths that Jesus
orally entrusted to the Apostles.
The Bible actually commands following
Apostolic Traditions. St. Paul commends the
C o r i n t h i a n s for f o l l o w i n g apostolic
traditions (1 Cor 11:2). St. Paul commands
the Thessalonians to keep them: "Therefore,
brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the
traditions that you were taught, either by an
oral statement or by a letter of ours" (2
Thess 2:15; see also 2 Thess 3:6). Obeying
St. Paul, the Church bases its doctrines on
Sacred Scripture and Apostolic Tradition.
11. Hasn'tthe Catholic Church changed
its doctrines through the years?
Fundamentalists often accuse the Catholic
Church of changing its doctrines, or
inventing new ones. Usually they are
confusing Church doctrines with Church
disciplines. A doctrine is an unchangeable

truth revealed by Godsuch as the Virgin

Birth, while a discipline is a changeable
regulationlike the priest facing the people instead of the altar during the Mass.
The Catholic Church teaches there can be
no new doctrines since the death of the last
apostle. The Apostolic deposit of faith was
delivered once and for all (Jude 3). The
eternal truths of God must be lived out in
different times, cultures, and places. Church
disciplines which help us live out these truths
are therefore adapted as conditions in the
Church change.
We must also remember that doctrines can
develop, in the sense of being understood
more fully and made more explicit. These
fuller insights are passed on by the Church
through its teaching office (Magisterium).
This is not invention, but proper growth.
Whenever a Fundamentalist insists that the
Catholic Church has changed its doctrines,
you can be sure that he has either confused
a discipline with a doctrine, or else mistaken
true doctrinal development for a new invention.
12. Why does the Catholic Church forbid
its priests to marry? Doesn't St. Paul call
forbidding marriage a "doctrine of devils"
(1 Tim 4:1-3)?
The Catholic Church does not forbid
marriage; the Church upholds the great
dignity of marriage. Marriage is considered
a holy sacrament that symbolizes the union
of Christ with His Church (Eph 5:21-33).
The Church only forbids marriage, as a
matter of discipline, to those men who
choose to become priests. No one is forced
into the priesthood. Those who wish to
become priests are asked to renounce sex
for the sake of the kingdom of God.

39

Remember, Jesus praises those who would

freely renounce sex for the kingdom of God
(Mt 19:12).
St. Paul's denunciation of those who
forbid marriage applies to those who reject
marriage entirely, as though it were an evil
in itself. St. Paul is warning against a false
spirituality which holds that any part of
God's good creation (including marriage) is
evil (1 Tim 4:3-4).
St. Paul obviously is not condemning
celibacy. St. Paul was himself single (1 Cor
7:8), just as Jesus was. St. Paul strongly recommends celibacy for those who would
devote themselves entirely to the ministry
(1 Cor 7:32-35). Since St. Paul does not
absolutely command celibacy for all fulltime ministers, the Catholic Church teaches
the requirement of celibacy is a discipline,
not a doctrine. Thus, the Church allows
certain exceptions to this requirement: for
example, married Anglican priests who become Catholic can continue to be married
even if they become Catholic priests.
Ask Fundamentalists why they have so
few, if any, celibate ministers, especially
since St. Paul encourages it so strongly for
full-time ministers of Christ.
13. Does it make any difference which
Christian denomination I join?
Although it is very clear in Scripture and
early Church history that Christ left only one
Church, today we have over 25,000
Christian denominations. Does it matter
which of these you join? It most certainly
does! If Christ founded only one Church,
then all the other Christian churches were
founded by men. Although they believe
much that is true, and have many members
who are sincere Christians, we simply cannot

choose any of them over the Church founded

by Christ.
14. How do we determine which is the
Church founded by Christ?
The Church founded by Christ must go
back in history to the time of Christ; its
doctrines must be the same as those of the
Apostolic Church; and its leaders must be
able to trace their authority back to the
Apostles (see p. 14). Thus, history, Apostolic doctrines, and Apostolic authority are
the sure guidelines for determining which
Church Jesus founded. Only the Catholic
Church meets these requirements.
HISTORY. Any objective history book will

show that only the Catholic Church has

existed since the time of Christ. 3 6 No
Protestant denomination found today existed
before 1517 A.D.
A P O S T O L I C D O C T R I N E S . The early

Church Fathers are our indispensable link

to Apostolic Christianity. Their writings tell
us what the first Christians believed. A
careful study of the early Church Fathers
shows they all taught distinctively Catholic
doctrines.
APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY. The Bible and

Sacred Tradition are very clear that Christ

left a Church that would be governed by a
hierarchy of bishops, presbyters, and
deacons with the successor of St. Peter as
the head. Only the Catholic Church has such
a governing hierarchy that can trace its
authorityin an unbroken succession
back to the Apostolic authority established
by Christ Himself.
36

The word "Catholic" first appears in a letter of St. Ignatius

of Antioch (110 A.D.) to distinguish Christ's Church from
heretical groups (Jurgens, p. 25, #65). The word "Christian"
also originated in Antioch (Acts 11:26). St. Ignatius' letter
indicates that, by 110 A.D., the original Christian Church was
already well known as the "Catholic Church."

Can You Answer

these Questions?
Why do you Catholics call your priests "father"
when the Bible clearly says "call no man father"
(Mt 23:9)?
Why do you Catholics stress good works when the
Bible says salvation is by faith alone (Eph 2:8-9)?
Why do you Catholics pray to Mary and the
Saints when the Bible says Jesus is the "one
mediator between God and man" (1 Tim 2:5)?
Why do you Catholics believe in Purgatory when
the word "purgatory" isn't found in the Bible?
Most Catholics can't. But you don't have be tongue-tied the next time your nonCatholic friend asks one of these questions. Learn to explain your faith clearly,
defend it charitably, and share it confidently with the help of these three booklets:
BEGINNING APOLOGETICS

1:

BEGINNING

2:

APOLOGETICS

BEGINNING APOLOGETICS

2.5:

HOW
HOW
YES!

TO

EXPLAIN AND

TO ANSWER

DEFEND

JEHOVAH'S

YOU SHOULD

THE

CATHOLIC FAITH

WITNESSES AND

BELIEVE IN

HOW TO ANSWER JEHOVAH'S

THE

MORMONS

TRINITY

WITNESSES

These handbooks give simple, compelling answers to the most common objections Catholics get about their faith. Discover how easy it is to show the biblical
basis for all these Catholic doctrines: the Eucharist, the papacy, Confession,
Mary, purgatory, prayer to the saints, the Trinity, and many more.

Isn't it time we Catholics stop scratching our heads

and start standing up for the truth?
SEE CATALOG AND ORDER FORM ON THE INSIDE ON BACK COVER