What is the Catholic catechism?

XX. Trent, in 1545-63, to condemn the Reformation. At this council was settled what was to be the future doctrine of the church of Rome; and its Catechism is now always appealed to as the standard authority of that church.

The Catholic church is holy in doctrine, in the means of holiness, in the fruits of holiness, and, lastly, in the divine testimony of holiness. She is holy in doctrine, especially in that of the Unity and Trinity, in the incarnation, death, and atonement of the Son of God. And she has always been the same. If she was holy in doctrine in the apostles' age, she is holy in it now.

Certain truths are at the foundation of Christianity itself as a whole. Others have to do with its efficacy or the making of it good towards men. There are, thirdly, some which relate to the means of its reception, and even of its communication. Thus, for instance, we find at the very root of Christianity the existence of one God, the Trinity, the divinity of Jesus, His humanity, and such like doctrines. Just as the existence of one God was the fundamental truth of Judaism, and the truth alters not, so likewise the revelation of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and, in connection with that, the revelation of the Person of Jesus, distinguish essentially Christianity. Roman Catholic theology admits this.

The "Catholic" definition would be found in the "Explanatory Catechism," No. 9. For Cardinal Newman's Theory of Belief, see the psychological analysis of it in Mellone, "Leaders of Religious Thought" (1902). According to Maher, a living Catholic professor, Newman's faith would be no more than opinion ("Psychology," p. 328). See the Cardinal's "Grammar of Assent," chapters 4, 6, 7. Another representative of Catholicism comes near to the Expositor's view in treating Faith as belief on Divine testimony (Rickaby, "First Principles," part ii., chapter 8).

179 N*. Well, Mr. O., we have patiently listened to you, and you have given us a summary of Milner, or indeed what may, as you say, be found briefly in any Roman Catholic catechism — the common doctrine of the Roman Catholic body, though of course more fully developed in one book than in another. As to Indians, Americans, Canadians, etc., all coming to the same worship, there is a very simple reason for it; they are all on the same ground. Not one understands a word that is said, for it is all in Latin, and where the service is only an outward form, kneeling to a wafer when a bell rings, of course all can do it together. But there is a point which you have assumed, which, when I have answered your statements, I shall touch upon: whether God has not shewn us in His word that through the sin of man the church outwardly in this world would lose this unity and catholicity of character and sanctity too. Not surely that the unity of the body of Christ as built up by Him for eternity would be lost. That cannot fail, nor the gates of hell prevail against it; but does that blessed security, assured by Christ's power to what He builds, affirm that, as an outward body and whole system in the world trusted to man's faithfulness, it would continue in its integrity to the end? I affirm that God in His word teaches us the contrary. There is another point which presses very strongly upon me, which I will with the Lord's help touch upon. It will suffice to speak of it at the close as a most weighty one, and as to which the ground on which the Roman argument stands is profane.

188 Dr. Milner assures us distinctly of the same thing; though he, sensible of where it placed him, seeks to smother it up in a note to make it less apparent, calling it a vulgar objection (Letter 11 on True Rule). "I believe the Catholic church; and, therefore, everything which she teaches, upon the motives of credibility, namely, her unity, sanctity, etc., which accompany her." Nothing can be clearer than that these statements shew that THE ROMAN CATHOLIC SYSTEM HAS No DIVINE GROUND OF FAITH AT ALL. All rests on motives of credibility (that is, the rules of ordinary human thought where we may be misled), not on any divine testimony. There is no divine faith. I do not deny individuals may through grace have it from God, though in the system and in spite of it; but Romanism has no divine testimony or faith as its basis for my soul, but motives of credibility only.

Again, the word of God teaches that "the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanseth from all sin." Blessed truth! just what our conscience needs, in order to have boldness to go before God, and enter into His presence, as knowing Him to be a gracious and loving Father. Now the doctrine of purgatory teaches me that the blood of Jesus does not thus purge me; that I must go and suffer in some fire, of which they themselves can give very little account, in order to be purged before I can appear in God's presence; and remark here, this purging fire is for the faithful, for those who have profited by all that which what they call the church has at its disposal for the good of souls. A good catholic, as they call him (who has confessed to a priest, received absolution and the viaticum, and extreme unction, everything that can be done for him by what they declare to be the church), goes to purgatory after all, and will (in every case he can) have masses said for the repose of his soul, though the church has done its best for him while living.

N*. Well, but I may interpret the decrees of Trent and the Catechism wrong. They are much more obscure than the most of the New Testament. And as to this being in Greek, the decrees and the Catechism are in Latin, and you are not going to tell me that the poor Romanists read them to know their faith; and if I go to the pastor, I am with a fallible man, and can have no divine faith. No, with the word of God I have a divine foundation for my faith, whereas you have none at all. Hence, M., though you have no right to quote the scriptures to me, because you say we cannot tell they are the word of God, and you have not yet proved what and where the true church is; yet, as I do believe they are the word of God, I shall make no objection to your quoting them, so that we will return to the point we left, only it was very important to shew that you Romanists have no divine ground for your faith at all. Your principle is that we cannot tell if the scriptures be the word of God. Hence I cannot have a divine faith in the revelation given. I cannot tell if it is a revelation. If it is, it has divine authority, and I must listen to it. As to the church, you have not proved anything about it yet. But I shall listen to all you say from the word, because, though you have no right to use it, I do not want to cavil, and I own it to be God's word. We were speaking of "Go and teach all nations, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always to the end of the world."

But, again, you give us the usual marks of unity — sanctity catholicity, apostolicity, and add infallibility, perpetual visibility. The first four are given in "Milner's End of Controversy"; indeed they are the well-known marks as given in the Catechism of the Council of Trent. Nowhere is the truth given as a mark of the true church. This is strange — still more strange, since in your definition of the church, the profession of the true faith is made essential to it.

177 The Apostles' Creed says, "I believe in the holy Catholic church," and the Nicene, "one Catholic and apostolic church." The church, then, is one, holy, catholic, and apostolic.