| OCR Text |
Show Did j non-Catholic Queries, and Mm limn ' MMlllS4W'- eWe-- CI' I would give worlds to believe but cannot. Will op jTa ' God condemn me for something: I cannot help? God. who is ini.jiitcy just, will condemn only (,pc those wlio knowingly and delibcralely oonirnit griev- ):oj r ous sin and die unrepentant. ?o ''f t If, as you say, you cannot at present believe, I ;u' J;r assure you that this condition of mind is only tom- 'n.. porary. Your duty is plain, vniii" Do not expect 1o he alJe to jrrasp everythinjer vhun-h in Christianity, for God's revelation cannot be j l.'y adequately known to any Iranian intellect. Do not es.'.)(J look for mathematical evidence for the truths of jje failh. but study carefully the Christian evidences r ton v illi a view to obtaining- a pood working certainty il 1 hat excludes all doubting. Do not be dismayed by lisiiV difficulties, remeralering, as Cardinal Newman well ,"v,r u said, that ten thousand difficulties 3o not make one all is doubt. Do not rationalize, asking with Xico- M; demus: "How can these things be done?" (John jst?j iii. -); or the unbelieving Jews at Capernaum: ni.-iii "How can this man give his flesh to eat?" (John inR vi, ::)); but rather: "Is this Jesus who teaches re- ;,t generation and ihe Real Presence indeed God rc- ve&ling His divine truth to men?" Remember that ; it v although your reason may demand sufficient proof 'i!. c( a revelation before accepting it, it is not the "fr standard of revealed truth. Ask God's pardon for ! ne j all your sins, for wickedness blurs the spiritual i.Hii vision of many an unbeliever, as St. Paul teaches: '"J 5h: "The eensual man perceJveth not these things that ;I.1fh re of the spirit of God, for it is foolishness to him, miup and he cannot understand, because it is spiritually t for' examined" (I. Cor. ii, 14). It is frequently a short "SSUI tep from the confietor to the credo; from the act rf sorrow to the act of faith. Earnest, heartfelt ihHti PTayer will be answered infallibly, if we come to that God with the humble and docile spirit of a child. 711 v "If any man will do the will of Him, he shall know w of the' doctrine, whether it be of God" (John vii, ;.ring J7). "If you ask the father anything in. ily name, s;aiJ He will give it you" (John xvi, 23). Tour account of Christ rests on the four Gospels, r ,(1 How are we pure today that they are gremiln his-ar his-ar di tory? They may have been written longr after the r c-a; events they record; or again, what guarantee is he m there that we have the original statement of Chrisms' Chris-ms' tianity after so many years? ,",U1'1 It is impossible for us to discuss in a few words ull t the genuinity or authenticity of the four Gospels. i o Xo clear-headed man. however, can in conscience 18 f'"1 : reject them after he has carefully studied the ques- y0 tion. We merely outline some of the chief argu- 'iursc mrnts. y hk . The four Gospels are quoted verbatim or in bP r paraphrase br writers of the first three centuries, ! trfanu viz.: Pope Clement of Rome (96 A. D.). the Doc- l.uto. trine of the Twelve Apostles (80-1:0), the Epistle rii,lk rf Rarnabas (120-130). Ignatius, martyr (105-117), Poly.-arp (108), Papias (125), Justin (160). Tatian (,ut (17), lho Muratorian Fragment (190-210), Tren- i car nms (177). Tertullian (199). Clement of Alexau- ;"n ' dria (192). Origen (230), etc. 'j.p1",' 2. The early enemies of Christianity the Jew. ,-ty ibe heretic and the pagan although they ridiculed " ow ano! perverted the Gospels, never dreamt of denying ,p-f their genuinity, for they realized the utter impos- ,'ly ' sibility of so futile an argument gaining credence, prop n. Another witness is the number of apocryphal r'"n." pr.t-pels written by heretics to spread their false doctrines, or by the orthodox as pious forgeries to 'Htio complete tle Gospel narrative. Their very exist- ari ' nice testifies to the four Gospels, as a counterfeit 0.'r coin eviaipuces the existence of a true original. .11 .i 4. The very fact that the four Gospels were uni- n. vr aJly accepted in the fourth century by the !!UjVj ' I'.ttlirrs men tenacious of tradition and haters of iavr. every novelty of doctfi"c points conclusively to P'jbs their genuineness. Considering, too, their great :j!m-f love and revoTene of the Scriptures, no writer, no Mil t mutter how clever, could foist a new Gospel on them, any more than a history of the Revolution written today could pass current with the Ameri- :-t! c;ui ieople as a document of the eighteenth cen- :,. There was likewise no danger of jhe Gos- ,'K y. p l undergoing any substantial change. The Gos- "i f ; pel, were known and read in all the churches, copies ' j'j1 and versions were being continually made, the early will teachers of Christianity quoted them frequently . op from their pulpits and in their writings; any j. change would instantly be met with a mighty pro-t pro-t !. from both pastors and people, as we see in the U' i -.i-e .f tlie heretical and Jewish perversions of the ''.'v Sacred Sriptures. ,'n Some unbelievers have accused the Gospel ;u writers of ignorance, superstition, fanaticism, and nf y even deliberate fraud, the better to controvert their ' ".,(' testimony. But an earnest, sincere student of the j h. (iospels will tind. on the contrary, that they were j men of truth who related what they themselves l,", had scon and heard (I. John i, 1-13; II Peter i. 6); s ad they told f miracles performed and doctrines ! preached publicly before tmlelievers (John xviii, f.t M-2). which none dared gainsay: they had no , ;i possible motive for deception, for they went coun- nan or 1o ir. current Jewish and pagan ideas and knew rl r that they would mfjt persecution and death; they , tll( won many converts and helped in the foundation ;iil ' i.f ,-i religion which stands unique in ihe world by surl ' its sublime doctrine of faith and morality. Xo ex- 'J.' phmntion will account for ihe fact, save that they were true speakers sent by God. 10 ;' Ought not the words of Christ at the Last Sup-iFj10 Sup-iFj10 j.cr (Matt, xxvi, 2) be understood in a figurative n ; Rut carefully consider them: !'.,at !Iatt. xxvi. 26-28: "And whilst they were at ,;j0l supper, .lesus took bread and blessed and broke, and it 1 1 s pave to His disciples, and said: 'Take ye and eat; this is my body.' And, taking Ihe chalice, He gave 'uv thanks, and gave to them, saying: 'Drink yc all of .. I. 1 his. for this is My blood of the Xew Testament, c 'i which shall be shed for mam unto the remission '"eve -Mark xiv, 22-24: "And whilst they wore ating, sprr- .lesus took bread, and blessing, broke, and gave to m:a them and said: "Take ye, this My body.' And hav- fj-r ing taken the chalice, giving thangs, He gave it Avr. to ihem. And they all drank of it. And he said !if: to them: "This is My blood of the Xew Testament, 1 whih shall be shed for many.'" Iv'ri Luke xxii, 19-20: "And taking bread, He gave 11 . i . 1 hanks and brake, and gave to them, saying: "This tne is My body, which is given for you. Do this for a 1 j.'1,! commemoration of Me.' In like manner the chalice '.an' also, after He had supped, saying: 'This is the iaii' i chalice, the Xew Testament in Mv blood, which shall v:, i: be shed for you.' " j? t 1- Cor. xi, 23-25: "The Lord Jesus law took bread, and giving thanks, broke and said: 'Take ye and eat: This is My body, which shall be "f"! delivered for you; this do for the commemoration ulisi of Me.' In like manner also the chalice, after -lie : iy t' had supped, saying: 'This chalice is the Xew Trs"- "edj' lament in My blood; this do ye, as often as ycfu j ,',;,; f-hall drink, for the commeroation of me.'" (Of. p it ; Ijceture, v. On the Real Presence, p. 189 et seq). ,!rTf"1 . St. Cyril answered this objection in the fourth f . 'I, century: "Since Christ Himself affirms thus of! h the bread, 'this is My body.' who is so daring as ! '''lit: to doubt it? And since He affirms, 'this ': is My" :.,j " blood,' who will deny that it is His blood ? At Cana of Galileo : '". by an act 6f His will, turned miioi water into wine, v k i! resembles blood, and is He .Z' i not to be credit J .vhen He changes wine into ..'njj blood! Theref o v, full of certainty, let us reeeige iuiy the body and bio' i oi' Christ; for under the form a!-'ni of bread is given to thrte His body, and under the I l form of ine His blood" (Catech, Mystagog., 4, 1,2). I li'h bile bi-le un 5 . ' ' ?'" The words of St. Luke are most clear (xxii, 19, 20) : "This is My body now given for you," that is, the very body that was. to be offered on the cross; "this is My blood new shed for you," that is, tho very blood that was to flow from His sacred heart. When, therefore, ft Prote.ta.nt interprets these simple sim-ple words of our Nav-or, "This is My body this is My blood," to mean this , is a figure or symbol of My body and blood, he must slioWome valid reason for denying the Lord's statement of the Catholic doctrine of the Real' Presence. That was no. time to- speak in misleading figures fig-ures of speech, for our Lord was making His last testament, ami instituting a sacrament and a saera-fice saera-fice which would last until His second coming (Luke xxii. 19; I. Cot. xi, 26.: Would He, the Infinite Wisdom, and the lover of souls, use words which were calculated 'to deceive the greater number of His people for all time, and lead them into the ; idolatry He came expressly to abolish I Shall Chris- tians hesitate between the "black or white spirit" that told the figurative meaning to Ulrich Zwinkli in a dream, and tin? constant voice of Eastern and Western Christendom from the beginning? The literal interpretation of the words of Christ is also plainly taught a secovi -time by St. Paul: "The Chalice of Benediction which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ ? And the bread which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord?" (I. Cor. x. 16). The word "partaking," used several times in the following verses (18, 20, 21), refers to a real sharing in the sacrifices of the pagans; why then, in verse 16, should it not refer to a real partaking of the body of the Lord? I. Cor. xi, 27-29 is even more explicit: "Therefore, "There-fore, whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall bo guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. But let, a man prove himself; and so let him eat of that bread and drink of the chalice. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord." "Plain and simple reason," says Cardinal Wiseman, Wise-man, "seems to tell us that the presence of Christ's body is necessary for an offense committed against it. A man cannot be 'guilty of majesty,' unless the majesty exists in the -object against which his crime is committed. In like manner, an offender against the Blessed Eucharist cannot be described as guilty of Christ's body and blood if these be not in the sacrament" (Lectures on the Eucharist, pp. 318. 319). Again, if Christ is not really present, how can the Apostle denounce the unprepared communicant as guilty of grievous sin for "not discerning the body of the Lord?" Does not God absolutely forbid us to make any graven images or bow down to them? (Ex. xx, 5). yet you Catholics bow to statues, the crucifix, etc. God prohibits here' and elsewhere in the Scripture Scrip-ture the making of idols (pesel) and worshipping them. "Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven thing. Thou shalt not adore them or serve them" (Ex. xx, 4, 5). This is evident from the context, for God gives the reason of the prohibition: prohi-bition: "I am the Lord thy God, mighty, jealous," etc.; that is to say, one who wants the undivided love of His people, and is jealous of. strange gods or idols representing them. If the text meant an absolute and perpetual prohibition, we would have God prohibiting here what He commands elsewhere. For God Himself expressly ordered images to be mad and used for legious purpose,", viz. : the golden gold-en tehrubim (Ex. xxr, IS), the brazen serpent (Xum. xxi, 8: John iii, 14), and "divers figures and carvings in the Temple of Solomon (III Kings vi 29-35). The Ark of Covenant; for example, received re-ceived the same veneration that Catholics pay to images: "And Josue fell flat on the ground before the ark of the Lord until the. evening" even-ing" (Josue vii, 6; II Kings vi). Logically, if the commandent refer not to the idolatrous worship of images, but absolutely "to the making of any graven grav-en thing" whatsoever, Protestants ought to destroy all the statues of our great men and burn all the portraits of their relatives and friends. The Israelite prostrating himself before the king, the Englishman saluting the throne, the American soldier sol-dier saluting the flag all should fall under the ban of this peculiar command of God. . We can readily understand that the Jewish discipline dis-cipline on this matter was most strict, because of their proneness to niiitate the. idolatry of the pagans pa-gans amongst whom they lived. Tho same difficulty diffi-culty met the early Christians, whose great struggle strug-gle was directed against the idolatorship of the pagan... pa-gan... And yet the catacombs leveal to us clearly by the many paintings, gilded glasses, etc., that have come down to us representing various scenes in the life of Christ, His Mother, the Apostles Apos-tles and other saints of the Old Law and the Xew that the mind of the early Christians was identical iden-tical with that of Catholics of today. For the witness wit-ness of Christian antiquity read "Faith of Catholics," Cath-olics," vol. iii. pp.' 303-318. Does not St. Paul allow divorce? (I. Cor. vii, 12-15.) St. Paul is not ppeaking of the sacramental marriage mar-riage between Christians at all. He says (I. Cor. vii, 15): "If any brother have a wife that believeth not, and she consent to dwell with him, let him not put her away. And if any woman have a husband that "believeth" not, "and he consent to dwell with her. let her not put away her husband. But if the unbeliever depart, let him depart": For a brother or sister is not under servitude in such eases. But God hath called us in peace." The Catholic church teaches that even by the law of nature marriage is commonly indissoluble; , but God can dissolve it, as He did under the Old Law. The only instance under the Xew Law of the dissolution of the bond of natural marriage is the one here mentioned by St. Paul, known as the Pauline privilege. If in a marriage between a Christian and one not baptized the unbeliever refuses re-fuses to live with the Christian or is willing to do so but strives to pervert or tempt the Christian to mortal sin, the latter, after having fulfilled certain conditions laid down by Church law, is free to marry mar-ry again. But it must be borne in mind that this refers exclusively to a marriage contracted between unbaptized persons, one of whom afterwards becomes be-comes a baptized Christian. |
