More from Rumble & Carty: Radio Replies



 THE TEACHING AUTHORITY OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
477. Rome's claim to interpretative authority, based on an obviously doctored text of the Bible can only appeal to those who have not heard the voice of the true Shepherd.

It used to be the Protestant tradition that the Catholic religion is opposed to the Bible. Now when a man has that fixed idea firmly embedded in his mind, he gets a shock when he hears the Bible quoted in favor of Catholicism. The stronger the texts are, the greater his shock. But some people never dream that they may have been laboring under a delusion. They refuse to entertain the idea that they have been wrong all their lives. The texts quoted seem to point to Catholicism all right, but to them it simply cannot be true. So they seek an excuse for not believing what they cannot refute. Every text which seems to favor Catholicism cannot mean what it says, but must obviously be "doctored." And they are so sure that they alone are truly guided by God that anyone impressed by the case for the Catholic religion must be regarded as not having heard the voice of the true Shepherd!

478. Other Churches claim to have given the Bible equal study, and claim equal value for their interpretation.

Since no non-Catholic Churches claim to be infallible, but admit their constant liability to error, they cannot even claim equal value for their interpretations. Moreover, apart from their divergence from the Catholic interpretation, they differ amongst themselves. That would not be, had they all equally arrived at the correct sense of the Bible. As a matter of fact, all practically nullify the claims of each as a reliable guide to the meaning of Scripture.

479. Protestantism and Catholicism are founded on the same basic principles, their differences being due to different interpretations of the Bible.

They are not founded on the same basic principles. In basic principles they are diametrically opposed. What is the basic principle of Protestantism? It is belief in what one thinks the Bible to mean. If a man thinks the Bible to support this or that doctrine, then it surely does so; for he cannot imagine that he might be wrong. He makes an act of faith in his own judgment. But the Catholic basic principle is very different. Instead of deciding for himself what is or is not the teaching of Christ, the Catholic is taught that teaching by the Catholic Church. He knows that his own judgment is quite likely to be wrong, but that the Catholic Church cannot be wrong. How different are the basic principles of the two religions can be judged from results. For the Protestant principle leads to endless diversity, while the Catholic principle leads to a world-wide and international unity.


480. But the Catholic believes in the Catholic Church because he thinks the Bible supports it.

That is not so. The Bible does support it, of course. But even if he never saw a Bible, the Catholic would have sufficient ground for his judgment. He knows that the Catholic priest does not preach merely his own opinions, as does the Protestant minister. He knows that his Church is not a particular sect, but a vast united universal Apostolic Church, whose history shows the allegiance of innumerable saints and martyrs. And such a Church is impossible to account for by merely human forces. It is God's work on the very face of it. Merely human institutions have always tended to fluctuation, change, and disintegration. Empires have crumbled. No human being can get even one nation to agree, say, on political matters. How could a mere man persuade over 400 millions drawn from all nations to agree on religious matters — millions who differ on almost every other conceivable subject? The Catholic has reasonable grounds for his acceptance of the Church as the teacher of mankind in religious matters; and he submits to her authoritative teaching in matters of faith and morals, rather than decide for himself what the Bible must mean.

481. My point is, since Protestantism and Catholicism differ as to what the Bible means, who is to say which is right?

On Protestant principles, there is no one who could do so. And that is the basic fallacy of Protestantism. It offers no certainty, and can offer no certainty, as to what God does really teach. Yet it is essential that in so grave a matter we should have certainty. The Catholic Church alone can give it.

482. If you quote the Bible, the Protestant will quote the Bible; so we are back to our point of view of the Bible, and there is no means of deciding the issue.


For a Catholic the issue does not depend on the Bible, even though the Bible does corroborate Catholicism. No Protestant can prove his beliefs from the Bible, or even that they ought to be proved from the Bible. You say that Protestants cannot prove their position, and that Catholics cannot prove theirs. It's a matter of conjecture and opinion. Protestants may be right or Catholics may be right. Neither has proof, and we must be content to do without proof. I admit that that is the logical result of the Protestant principles on which you argue; and for that reason Protestantism must end in uncertainty and doubt. That in itself should be enough to prove that it cannot be the religion of Christ.

483. How will the problem be solved?

Only by abandoning the Protestant principle of personal and private judgment, and accepting the doctrines taught clearly and definitely by the Catholic Church. She is the only tribunal in the world with authority from God to teach all nations, and endowed with infallibility in order that she may not lead men into error. And for two thousand years she has both fulfilled and proved her mission under the protection and guidance of the Holy Ghost.

484. Do you not think that the dogmatic demands of the Roman Catholic Church constitute the difficulty for most people?

If so, it is because they have not the right idea of faith, nor the will to submit to the teaching authority of Christ. When Christ, the very Son of God, reveals the truth, that truth must not be accommodated to our mental variations; our own mental outlook must be adjusted to that truth. We cannot take what suits us, and reject what does not. Thus St. Paul wrote, "The knowledge of God brings into captivity every understanding unto the obedience of Christ." 2 Cor 10:5. God has the right to demand the obedience of the intelligence as well as of the will; and that obedience is manifested by the acceptance of dogmatic truth revealed by Him.

485. Is not Truth infinite and incomprehensible?

Ontological and Divine Truth as identified with the Being of God is infinite and incomprehensible. But not all logical and derived truth is infinite and incomprehensible. There is a difference between truth of being and truth of thought concerning that being. The created mind can attain and comprehend truth derived from the consideration of created things. It can attain a genuine though inadequate knowledge of uncreated truth insofar as God deigns to reveal that information and insofar as human thought can express it.


486. Is a human being who says that he knows a thing to be the truth with dogmatic certainty capable of comprehending what is truth and what is not?

He is certainly capable of comprehending that a thing is true and its opposite false, even though he cannot comprehend the full inner nature of the thing he knows to be true. For example, I know from historical evidence that Christ lived. I know that He established the Catholic Church. I know that He promised to be with that Church all days till the end of the world. I know that He wrought certain works which proved His claim to be God, and no ordinary man. All that is human knowledge on my own human level. I take His word for it that He has left Himself really present in the Eucharist. I do not fully comprehend the inner nature of His presence there. But I do understand by my human faculties the truth or falsity of facts. It is true to say that He is there; it is false to say that He is not there. I assert the truth with dogmatic certainty — a certainty based on the knowledge that the Infinite and All-perfect God must know the truth, and could not tell a lie.

487. The human mind is limited; acquires knowledge painfully and slowly; and frequently has to renounce what it once thought to be true. Is any religious belief, then, justified in dogmatic assertion?

Not if it be a question of merely human opinions derived by our own processes of thinking from more or less probable premises. But one who is quite conscious that he is preserved by God from error in declaring a truth revealed by God Himself is certainly justified in speaking with dogmatic certainty. And under certain conditions, well known and defined, the Catholic Church has this promised assistance of God where His revelation is concerned, so that her official dogmatic definitions are infallibly correct.

Excerpts from Radio Replies by Rumble & Carty

1. Please give me evidence that God exists. I have never had any such evidence for I do not accept the Bible.
What do you mean by evidence? Some people think that evidence must be seen and touched, as an animal sees a patch of grass and eats it. But men are not mere animals. They have reason, and can appreciate intellectual evidence. For example, the evidence of beauty in music or in painting is perceived by man's mind, not by his senses. An animal could hear the same sounds, or see the same colors, without being impressed by their harmony and proportion. Apart from the Bible altogether, reason can detect sufficient evidence to guarantee the existence of God.

2. What is this evidence for God's existence, apart from the Bible?
There are many indications, the chief of which I shall give you very briefly: The first is from causality. The universe, limited in all its details, could not be its own cause. It could no more come together with all its regulating laws than the San Francisco Harbor Bridge could just happen, or a clock could assemble itself and keep perfect time without a clock-maker. On the same principle, if there were no God, there would be no you to dispute His existence. A second indication is drawn from the universal reasoning, or if you wish, intuition of men. The universal judgment of mankind can no more be wrong on this vital point than the intuition of an infant that food must be conveyed to the mouth. The stamp of God's handiwork is so clearly impressed upon creation, and, above all, upon man, that all nations instinctively believe that there is a God. The truth is in possession. Men do not have to persuade themselves that there is a God. They have to try to persuade themselves that there is no God. And no one yet, who has attained to such a temporary persuasion, has been able to find a valid reason for it. Men do not grow into the idea of a God; they endeavor to grow out of it.
The sense of moral obligation confirms these reasons. In every man there is a sense of right and wrong. A man knows interiorly when he is doing wrong. Something rebukes his conduct. He knows that he is going against an inward voice. It is the voice of conscience, dictating to us a law we did not make, and which no man could have made, for this voice protests whether other men know our conduct or not. This voice is often quite against what we wish to do, warning us beforehand, condemning us after its violation. The law dictated by this voice of conscience supposes a lawgiver who has written his law in our hearts. And as God alone could do this, it is certain that He exists.

Finally, justice demands that there be a God. The very sense of justice among men, resulting in law-courts, supposes a just God. We did not give ourselves our sense of justice. It comes from whoever made us, and no one can give what he does not possess himself. Yet justice cannot always be done by men in this world. Here the good often suffer, and the wicked prosper. And, even though human justice does not always succeed in balancing the scales, they will be balanced some day by a just God, who most certainly must exist.
3. You, as a Priest, argue to a clock-maker. I, as a rationalist, ask,
"Who created your uncreated clock-maker?"
That is not a rational question. I say that the universe is obviously created, and that what is created supposes a Creator who is uncreated, or the problem goes on forever, the whole endless chain of dependent beings as unable to explain itself as each of its links. It is rational to argue to an uncreated clock-maker. It is not rational to ask, "Who created this uncreated clock-maker?" God was not created. If He were, He would be a creature and would have a creator. His creator would then be God, and not He Himself. God always existed. He never began, and will never cease to be. He is eternal.