What Rome teaches

Chapter I.— Infallibility 25

Chapter II.— The Political, Social and Moral Consequences of the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility. . . 48

Chapter III. — The Roman Catholic Church Teaches that all Protestants Will be Damned, and that Protestants Have no Religion 62

Chapter IV.— The Plan of Salvation as Taught by

the Roman Catholic Church 75

Chapter V.— The Plan of Salvation as Taught by the Roman Catholic Church (continued)— The Confessional 104

Chapter VI.— Salvation Through Mary 131

Chapter VII.— The Moral Effects of the Roman Catholic Plan of Salvation 150

Chapter VIII.— The Sacrifice of the Mass— Celibacy of the Clergy — Purgatory and Masses for the Dead 161

Chapter IX.— The Doctrine of Intention 196

Chapter X.— What Rome Does 208 iv CONTENTS.

Chapter XI. — Rome's Interference in Political Mut-

tors 221

Chapter XII.— The Roman Catholic Church's Attitude in Rej^ard to tlu^ Marriajje Tie and the Temperance Question 245

Chapter XIII.— The Roman Catholic Church on the Results of Her own System of Education. — Some Facts ahout Roman Catholic Control of the Liberty of the Press 2G0

Chapter XIV.— The Duty of Christian People 273

Appendix. — I. No Salvation Outside the Church of Rome. II. The Evil of Indulgences, III. Roman Catholic Opinion of Protestants. IV. The Church and the Bible 277

INTRODUCTIOlSr.

I HAVE often been asked where a book could be obtained which would give a clear and correct account of the doctrines taught by the Koman Catholic Church. It is very easy to make charges against that Church which are mere personalities, but wc need something better ; we need facts, and facts that cannot be disputed. The question is not what does some priest say, of whom we have asked a question as to the teaching of his Church, but what does his Church say in her authorized formularies. There is no Church which teaches so clearly and so positively as the Church of Rome ; and in fact Rome prides herself on this very point, and with reason. Hence there can be no difficulty whatsoever in knowing what the Church of Rome teaches, if we go to the right sources of information.

Unfortunately for the cause of truth, misrepresentations have been made by ignorant, though well-intentioned persons, and unfortunately also, when Roman Catholics are asked about the religious teachings of their Church, they do not always reply by telling the plain triitli, for tlicy are well aware that the plain truth would shock and scandalize Protestants. This is especially true when there is question of the practice of devotion to the Virgin Mary. Koman Catholics will toll you that they do not look to her as a mediator ; but we can prove from authorized books of the Church of Rome that they do look to her as a mediator, and pray to her as such.

I may add that it would be well if in controversy, or, asT prefer to say, in conversation with Roman Catholics, Protestants would confine their statements to what is actually to be found in the authorized books of the Church. This is more important than might be supposed ; your case is seriously weakened if you make a charge which you cannot prove, and there is no necessity for such charges. There is quite enough unscriptural teaching in the authorized formularies of Rome, without making charges which are open to dispute. I would add also, that it is necessary to present these matters from a Roman Catholic point of view, if you hope to benefit Romanists ; otherwise they will not understand your point of view, or they will find some loophole of escape from your argument ; and though they may know that you are quite correct in your statetnents, they will in some cases take advantage of your ignorance.

The whole question is far too important to admit of anything but the most serious treatment. Rome is advancing in power in this country with giant strides. She has her organized camps, her well-drilled militia, both si)iritual and temporal. We must be ready to meet lier advances. How little is being done to prepare a future generation for the fast-coming time when

Rome will control tlie country politically ! It will then be only the affair of a brief moment to establish the Inquisition, and to put your children in prison if they demand an open Bible. See what is done to-day in Mexico, where Francis Penzotti has been thrown for six months into a horrible and loathsome dungeon for no other reason than because he circulated the Scriptures. Rome does not do this to you now, because she is not yet strong enough ; but you can judge what she will do in America when she has power, by what she is doing at the present time elsewhere. You have been warned in time. God will surely hold you accountable if you do not give heed to the warning!

There is another matter also which should be considered. While Rome denounces every effort on the part of Protestants to enlighten each other as to the true teaching of the Church of Rome, and declares that it is ^' uncharitable" to speak of such things she does not think it uncharitable to teach that every Protestant will be eternally lost. She teaches this doctrine, as I will show presently, as an infallible truth, which none may dare to deny ; if they deny it, they do so at the peril of their own salvation. Who then is uncharitable ? Rome, who sends all Protestants to eternal flames, or Christians, who warn all whom they can that this is not the teaching of Christ ?

Every day in the year, in this free country, Rome teaches the youth of her Church that every Protestant 13 doomed to eternal death when he departs this life. She denounces the religion of all Protestant Churches carefully and repeatedly in her catechisms, and turns it into ridicule in every way possible. Now is it not time to hear the other side ? Is it not time for Protestants

H INTRODUCTION.

to learn a little of what Roino teaches ; and while liomo is teaching her children to avoid and abhor the Protestant religion, should not Protcstiints be tauglit to bi'warc of Rome ? No doubt if Protestants denounced Pome as systematically as Pome denounce? Protestant*, llu'ie would be a mighty outcry, and we would hear endless complaints of the '* uncharitabluness " of Protestants.

Every Roman Catholic bishop takes an oath at liis consecration, which binds him to persecute Protcstiints. (See infra,, p. 59.) If any minister took a similar oath to persecute Romanists, what an outcry there would be !

The reader will see that I have been very careful in this work to give authority which cannot be disputed. There is no point on which Rom 3 insists more strongly than on her right to educate the young. She is wise. When the mind of the young has been carefully filled with the doctrines of Rome, and taught, as only Rome can teach, that it is a deadly sin to reason or think, then the work is accomplished. It is a very miracle of grace if a Roman Catholic in latei years ever leaves the Church, so terrible are the fetters in which he is bound ; and alas I Protestants are every day helping to bind these fette.s closer, instead of helping to break the bonds asunder I

At the earliest dawn of reason the Roman Church begins her distinctive teaching. The first prayer the little child is taught is the '^Ilail Mary ; '* the first image it looks upon is the image of Mary ; it is taught to trust in Mary, to look to Mary, and to believe in Mary, before it can realize that there is a God. Protcstiints seldom estimate the immense power of early religious teaching. Rome knows it but too well

Would to God that every Protestant child was as well taught from the dawn of infancy to love God as every Catholic child is to love Mary ! So strong is the power of early impression, that it is almost impossible for the Roman Catholic to realize that there is even the least harm in devotion to Mary ; on the contrary, he is convinced from early instruction, that his only safety for eternity lies in his devotion to her. Remember that all his earliest predispositions and prejudices are in favor of trusting his salvation to Mary. All this I will presently prove from the authoritative statements of the Roman Catholic Church.

I now proceed to show from what sources I prove what I have said, or will yet say ; and as my object is to compress as much as possible in a short space, I will be as brief as the nature of the subject will allow.

The first religious instruction which the Roman Catholic child receives is from pictures, and the next from the catechism. The object to be gained by pictures is very important ; the mind of the child is impressed through his seeing, before he can understand fully what he hears. I do not say that the image of Mary is the only devotional object shown to the child, but most assuredly it is the principal one. Of course the Catholic would justify this by saying that the mother and child cannot be separated, for the child is shown as a helpless infant, taken care of and dependent on his mother.

Thus the young are impressed from the first with the superior power of the mother ; thus they are prepared later to say the indulgenced and therefore infallible prayer, '^ Sweet heart of Mary, be my salvation.'^

The child must jvsk the mother of the Saviour to intercede with lier hcl loss offspring , so the habit of looking first to Mary is formed, and her power impressed on tlie mind from infancy.

No time is lost in teaehing the catechism. The catechism first tauglit is called a *' Catechism of Cliristian Doctrine." It was published by order of the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore, was authorized by the late Cardinal M.Closkey of Xew York, and was approved by Cardinal Gibbons, April G, 1885, as Apostolic Delegate. This makes the catecliism the authoritative explanation of l^ic doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, and no one dare dispute what it teaches It is published by Sadlicr cv: Co., the Roman Catholic publishers of Xew York.

This catechism is the first whicli is tiiught to the children in parocliial schools. Before I proceed to the next book of authorized instruction, there is an importiint remark to be made. It will have been observed that this catechism is called a '' Catechism of Christian Doctrine." The tit^e is noteworthy for more than one reason. It is absolutely misleading to Protestants, and I fear it is intended to be such. It is not long since a Methodist minister had a dispute with a Roman Catholic priest on the teaching of the Church of Rome. The priest retorted that all his Church desired was to teach ** Christian Doctrine.'' The minister was delighted, and so expressed himself ; but the minister's idea of Christian Doctrine and the idea of the priest were jis far asunder as heaven and earth. Thus it is that Protestant honesty is no matcli for Roman Catholic duplicity, and hence it is absolutely necessary for Protestants to study for themselves what Rome teaches, so that they may not be deceived either intentionally or unintentionally.

In this very catechism of so-called ^' Christian Doctrine/' children are taught to trust in the '^superabundant satisfactions of the Virgin Mary and the Saints'' (page 40). But the minister in question did not know this ; the priest relied on his ignorance.

The next catechism goes a little further, and is intended for more advanced pupils. This book is, if possible, more fully endorsed ; it is called a '' Catechism of Catholic Doctrine." Why the Christian is left out I do not know. This catechism is especially approved for parochial schools by the Pope and Sacred Congregation of the Propagation of the Faith. Thus the reader has the advantage of seeing for himself exactly what the Church of Eome teaches in those parocljial schools of which we hear so much. • It is indeed desirable that the American people should study this matter carefully ; they will then know just what would be taught in the public schools if Eome could control them. They will also learn why American bishops and priests object to the public schools.

In the authorization given by the Sacred Congregation (in Eome), the words are, '^ Fro scholis parocliialihus ; " so there can be no mistake about the matter. I wish also to call attention in a special manner to the approbation of Cardinal Gibbons ; it is very important in view of certain statements which he has made lately in an ex-officio manner. In his authorization of this catechism, dated Baltimore, January 3, 1888, he says that these catechisms are '^ strongly marked by soundness of doctrine, simplicity and plain-

V: INTRODUCTION.

11088 of laiigiiiige, li spirit of faith mid tlevotion, and precision in defining and expressing ( atliolic truths."

Cardinal (libbons is therefore bound by every word contained in these catechisms. This should be noted, because tiiere is a remarkable dilTerence between some of his public utterances and the opinions, or rathei the doctrines, taught by liis authority. That his real opinions are stated in these books no one can deny. His other statements arc a sort of society mantle, to be put otl or on as occasion serves, and which are used to cloak wliat could not be openly proclaimed.

Tlic third catechism from which I will quote is a large volume, and is intended for quite advanced })upils. This is a most important work for our present purpose ; I therefore give the title of this work in full. It is called '*A Familiar Explanation of Catholic Doctriije for the Family and more Advanced Students in Catholic Colleges, Academies and High Scliools ; for Persons of Culture, Old as well as Young, with a Popular Refutation of the Principal Modern Errors.*' The copy of this work now before me is dated 1888, and bears the same imprimatur and recommendation of Cardinal Gibbons. The importance to Protestants of a careful study of this catechism as a sure guide to the true teaching of Rome cannot be overestimated. I liope to save ministers and students much time and labor by giving copious extracts from this work, about the authority of which there cannot be a moment's question. I have also the advantage of knowing just how it is explained, where explanation is needed, in Roman Catholic schools ; though indeed, as Cardinal Gibbons lias truly said, the *^ plainness '' is so great that explanation is scarcely necessary.

This catechism bears also the strongest commendation from nearly every bishop in the United States. The great point is not these approbations of bishops, however valuable, but the fact that the teaching of this catechism, as well as that of the other catechism, is infallible, because it is the authorized teaching of the Roman Church. What they say, the Pope says ; and what the Pope says, God says. One bishop expresses the hope that it will be ^' thumbed by every hand, Catholic, Protestant and Infidel."

The author of the catechisms, the Rev, Father Miiller, has written a long and elaborate preface to that last mentioned which demands a passing notice. He strongly urges that the catechism should be taught in English in this country, no matter what may be the nativity or language of the learner, and gives the very sensible reason that business is done in English, through the medium of the English tongue, and that later in life the catechism will be forgotten if it is not learned in the language with which the learner must eventually become familiar. He states that many Germans ask to have their ^^ religion " taught to them in English, having learned it in their youth in German, and having now forgotten in great part the use of their mother tongue (Preface, p. v.). I will call attention to some points in this catechism, later, which are of great importance for the better understanding of what Rome teaches, and what is scarcely less important, what she teaches at the present day.

I will call attention to only one point in regard to infallibility. The writer says (p. xi.): ^*^Nor can a discussion of doctrinal points be of any great use to one who is not thoroughly convinced of the Divine

It INTRODUCTION.

uuthority of the Church. This being oucu accepted, everything follows logically, as a matter of course. Hence no one should be admitted to the one fold of Christ who does not firmly hold and declare that the Roman Catholic Church, ruled by the successor of St. Peter, is God's whole and sole appointed teacher of tlie Gospel on earth. However familiar persons may be witli doctrines, or however much they may believe our dogmas, without holding this the fundamentiil truth of Catholic faith they should not be allowed to join the Church."

This statement is further enforced in suggestions for teaching children the doctrines of the Konum Church. And here I may say that as one of my objects is to^vrite a book which shall contain in as small a space as possible all that is taught by Rome, I will use the word Rome, or Church of Rome, as an abbreviation. Indeed, in this catechism and elsewhere, the words ''Roman Catholic " are seldom used by the Romanist compilers of the catechism. Hence it should not be a cause of offence (which I am desirous to avoid), if we use the siime term.

In the preface (p. vii.) we find the following : ''A Catechism of Catholic Doctrine is intended for children, who are naturally inclined to believe what they are taught. " Surely all children are naturally *' inclined to believe what they arc taught." '' Let them be taught first what they are to believe," he continues, opposing the plan of another compiler of catechisms, who first explains the doctrine to be believed. I wish to call special attention to this, because it is in this way that Rome teaches so effectively. She takes the child at the very dawn of reason, and before the child has received any other religious ideas slie impresses her teaching. Hence it is that a Romanist so seldom forsakes his religion. All that can be done (and we know what that all means) by early impression is done, and done at the very moment when the doing is most effective to make the child believe this religion, and still more, to terrify it as to the future consequences of disbelief. Indeed in teaching the Roman catechism, sisters and other teachers are desired to make the children learn the question as well as the answer ; so important is it considered that verbal accuracy should be secured.

The next source of the information which we have prepared for the reader is the authorized '' Books of Devotion of the Roman Church.^' These books are of the utmost importance. For example, if a priest telL you that the Roman Church does not worship the Virgin Mary, you have only to look at her authorized '* Books of Devotion ^' to know whether he speaks the truth or is wilfully deceiving you. I regret to say that there is a great deal of wilful deceit on this and other subjects ; but evidence of this is so easy to obtain, if we only know where to look for it, that we are inexcusable if we are deceived when we have access to reliable sources of information.

There is no devotion more widely practised in the Church of Rome than that of wearing the scapular. A book has been published, and is in the widest circulation, which fully and clearly explains the teaching of the Church of Rome on this subject. It is not a matter on which there can be a moment's doubt, or a moment's hesitation. The book is now before me. It is called "The Scapular Book." It is published with the approbation of the Most Rev. John Hughes, D D., late

Archbishop of New York. Rut ovcii if this book had not the api)robiition of uii un-hbishop. it would be invahiable as an cvidenco of t'.ic infallibk' teaching of the Church of Rome ; for the doctrines which it sets forth liave been approved by no less than four Popes : these Popes are Alexander V., Clement VII., Pius V., and Gregory XIII. {" Scapular Book/' p. 97).

Further : Pope John XXII. issued a Bull March 3, 1522, which, according to the teaching of Rome, is of course infallible. In this lie says : " I accept tlien this Holy Indulgence. I corroborate it, and confirm it on earth, as Jesus Christ, by reason of the merits of his glorious Mother, has conceded it in heaven."

This book, the title of which is ''The Scapular Book,*' is published by the Roman Catholic Publishing House of P. J. Kennedy, New York. We can also know wliat Rome teaches by the Indulgenced Prayers used by Roman Catholics. These prayers are important as evidence of authorized Roman Catholic teaching. They may be found in all Roman Catholic Prayerbooks and Books of Devotion. These prayers are of great importance, as evidence of the authorized teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, for they are carefully considered before they are authorized, and a grant of an '' indulgence *' for repeating them invests them with even a verbal infallibility, for Rome would not declare that they would bring such grace to the soul if they were not an accurate expression of her doctrinal teaching. I do not propose to make much use of these prayers, because I do not wish to make this volume too large, and any one who has Roman Catholic friends can easily see a Roman Catholic Prayer-book ; but I would empliasizj! the fact that such prayers asare 'Mndulgenced " are authorized by the Church and are therefore a true expression of her dogmatic teaching. 1 say this because I have often found, when Roman Catholics are pressed with the manifest idolatry expressed in these prayers, that they excuse it by saying that they are not obliged to believe the expressions used in them'. It is important that Protestants should not be deceived by such a statement. They are' authorized by the Fopes, past and present, and hence they express the faith of the Church ; indeed it would be a strange thing if a Church published and authorized prayers for the use of her children which were of a doubtful character. Hence such prayers as this : " Sweet heart of Mary, be my salvation/' which is indulgenced, and a favorite prayer of the devout Romanist, is a very plain expression of the faith and teaching of the Roman Catholic Church as to the power of Mary to save the sinner. I might quote hundreds of other prayers expressing a similar faith in Mary as a saviour, but one will suffice. The word ^^indulgenced'' will be fully explained later. Here I may say briefly, that when a prayer is "indulgenced" the saying of it lessens the time of punishment in purgatory.

There is one more book from which I will quote as an authority of great importance. This book is called "Faith of Our Fathers," i nd the author is Cardinal Gibbons. Nothing more need be said therefore as to the authoritative character of its teaching. This book has had a circulation of probably a million. Roman Catholics, always, alas! far more zealous than Protestants to propagate their religion, have lent, given and sold thousands of copies of this work to Protestants^ and probably more harm to the cause of truth has been

(lone Dv this Ijook tlian will ever he undone by any (Miristiiin i>ul)r('ation. Tlie position of the writer, his supposed liberal tendencies, and the Jesuitical manner in whicli tlie book is written, form a combination difficult to combat. The Bulls of Popes may also be (luoted. The originals are not easy of access, but in every case tliey can be verified tlirongb Roman Catholic sources.

Before I proceed to the substance of tliis work, I wish to say a few words ; few, but very important, as to what the "Roman Catholic Church does not believe.

Serious harm has been done to the cause of truth by writers and speakers \\\\o have not verified tlieir quotations, or who have been so ignorant of the very doctrines which they were condemning that they have made the most ludicrous blunders. It should be remembered that educated Konum Catholics in this country understand the chief doctrines of their religion; hc^nce, if a bhmder is made, they detect it at once. It should also be remembered that the lower classes of Romanists do not always understand their religion. Hence in arguing with such persons a different line of presentation is needed. For the lower classes Rome simply requires a verbal knowledge of tlie catechism. They are to believe what tliey arc taught and dare not question it, or if they do so, they are taught it is at the peril of their eternal salvation. There is not a Church in the world which requires unreasoning submission, except the Church of Rome. The value to the Church of exacting this unreasoning submission is obvious. The result is before the world in the tenacity with whicli the fear-dominated Romanist refuses to discuss tlie subject of religion with any one whom he has been taught is already damned because he does not believe in the infallibility of the Church.

At the jH-escnt age Rome has found it necessary to provide some catechisms such as those from Avhich I quote in this work, in which there is some explanation of her doctrines. But even in these catechisms the learner is plainly told that he must accept the explanations as well as the doctrine without question.

The Romanist who is beginning to see the light of truth is discouraged when he hears violent denunciations of opinions which he never held, and which his Church never taught. Again there are certain doctrines of the Romish Church which are looked at from one point of view by Protestants, and from quite another point of view by Romanists. It is worse than useless to argue with a Romanist from your point of view, for you are simply charging him with believing what he does not believe, and what he knows he does not believe. You lose your influence with him, and perhaps make him lose his temper with you, and grievous harm is done ; indeed it is far better to drop the subject for the time when there is evidence of any heat on either side. There are few of us so advanced in Christian love as to be able to enforce the Master's doctrine in the Master's way. It is much easier to denounce than to explain. It is much easier to call down fire from heaven than to kindle the sweet flame of divine love in the heart. It is true that our dear Lord did denounce in the severest language the Scribes and Pharisees, but the denunciations were few, and the loving entreaties were many. It maybe a supreme duty to denounce Rome at times, but the times are not of frequent occurrence. It is always the duty of every

Christina to win souls to Clirist, and we can always try to win by explanation, by loving w oids and by earnest, faithful prayer.

The principal points on which Protestants are apt to make serious mistakes in denouncing Koman doctrines are, first, on the (juestion of the infallibility of the Pope. Protestants think, and not indeed without some reason, that infallibility means that the Pope cannot sin. This is not the Roman Catholic doctrine. AVe shall discuss the doctrine of the infallibility of the Pope, with explanations and proof from Roman sources, in the first chapter of this book, so that only a few words need be said here as to what Kome does not teach. The lives of some of the Popes have indeed been so notoriously wicked that it would be impossible for Rome to claim sinlessness as one of the qualifications of a Pope. A Pope may be a very wicked man, but he is infallible all the same ; and what we have to do is to combat the real errors of Rome, and not those which do not exist. To persons of ordinary intelligence it will be obvious that, in a case like this, the more clearly we understand the theory of our opponent the better for us, as well as for him. Nothing weakens a good cause so much as a poor defence ; above all, if arguments are brought forward which are of no value, and which can easily be shown to be of no value. I speak on this subject from personal and painful experiences. It is not my intention to allude in any way to my past history in the present work, but there is one i)oint on which I will say a word.

In my early years 1 heard a great deal of discussion on the errors of the Church of Rome. For the most part the accusations which J heard against Rome were not accurately stated, because they consisted of exaggerated representations of real evils, or of accusations of evils which did not exist. In later life this was very unfortunate for me. When I learned for myself that much which I had heard asserted with such vehemence was untrue, I came to the not very wise conclusion that all that I had heard against Rome was false ; and I believe that such conclusions from such results are far more common than is generally supposed. If facts had been stated and carefully proved, then indeed I would have been well prepared to meet the arguments of Rome. If the great and real evils of the Church of Rome had been stated calmly and dispassionately, then indeed I would have been forewarned Unhappily it was not so. I have lived to see the same mistake made at the present day. I have heard some lecturers, and often I have heard persons in private life, denounce evils which do not exist, and make assertions about the creed and teaching of the Church of Rome which a Roman Catholic child could have refuted. My object therefore in the present work is to give facts, and, as I have said, to give authority for statements about the teaching of Rome from Roman Catholic sources. Moreover I have the advantage of knoAving how Rome explains her dogmas — not a small advantage, as I well know, for I have heard the most serious mistakes made in this matter also. To give one example : I have often heard Protestants accuse the Romanists of worshipping a piece of bread or a "wafer god." Now the Romanist does not do this, and he knows that he does not do it ; so that all accusations to this effect are simply worse than useless. It is true that what is called *'The Host" in the Roman Catholic Church is u piece of bruail, but it should be remembered tlmt the Romanist believes that it has been changed into the body and blood of Christ before he worships it. The difTerence is immense. We who do not believe in this change know that what Konie bows down before is bread, but it is not wise to put the argument on this ground, and to accuse the Romanist of worshipping bread when he does not believe what he worships to be bread. What we have to do is, not to charge him with donig what he does not do, but to show him that he is mistaken in his belief, which is a very different matter.