Thursday, March 04, 2010

The Catholic Catechism Against Heretics

x
x





Here's fun little document I found over on the Catholic Answers forum. The Catechism from (1846) itself can be found here. This may be one the most fun documents I've found in a long time.
Here are some choice questions and answers:

Q. Did Luther obey this command of God by keeping his vows?
A. No; he violated all the three; he apostatized,—he married Catherine de Boré, a nun, like himself under vows, and he utterly disobeyed every ecclesiastical authority.

Q. What inference do you draw from all this?
A. That Protestantism cannot be the religion of Christ; because, if the Church of Christ required reformation, a God of purity and holiness would never have chosen such an immoral character—an apostate, a wholesale vow-breaker, a sacrilegious seducer—for that purpose.

Q. What induced Luther to attack the ancient Catholic faith and invent a new creed?
A. Pride and jealousy. Pride. Leo having granted an Indulgence, Luther's pride was mortified, because the commission to preach that Indulgence was given to the order of St. Dominic, and not to his own.

Q. To what did he allow himself to be driven by this pride and jealousy?
A. To attack the doctrine of Indulgences itself.

Q. Would the Catholic Church have blamed Luther had he merely attacked the abuses or avarice of individual Catholics?
A. No, certainly. He erred in this, that under pretence of reprehending abuses, he assailed the true faith on the subject of Indulgences.

Q. What hypocritical pretences did Luther make in 1517, during these disputes?
A. He pretended that he wished to teach nothing but what was conformable to Scripture, to the Holy Fathers, and approved by the Holy See.

Q. What inference do you draw from all this?
A. That he was either a hypocrite who did not intend to fulfil his promises, or that he was quite satisfied of the truth of the doctrines which he impugned, since otherwise he could not conscientiously promise silence and obedience.

Q. What other consequences do you draw?
A. That a man swollen with pride, envy, jealousy—a disobedient hypocrite—was not the person to be chosen by God to reform abuses if any such existed.

Q. What was the effect of these works, in which he spoke of nothing but "evangelical liberty?"
A. These works produced disturbances, sedition, and amongst other evils, the German War of the Peasants, who committed every sort of excess, declaring that the rich had no exclusive right to their property, that every thing should be held in common, because in the 2nd chapter of the Acts, it is said, that all property was common amongst the first Christians.

Q. What lesson do you learn from this portion of Luther's conduct?
A. That the man who wantonly disobeys all authority, both ecclesiastical and civil—the man who perverts the sacred Scripture, for the purpose of exciting sedition and anarchy, and propagating evident heresy and schism—cannot possibly be the ambassador of heaven.

Q. Did Luther hearken to the paternal advice of his sable director?
A. He listened so well, that he allowed himself to be persuaded that the devil was right and he was wrong, so that the enemy of man came off victor; and though Luther in the same book calls the devil the most artful and lying deceiver, he here chose to follow his advice rather than that of the Church.

Q. Can any one reasonably believe that the change in religion brought about by Luther is the work of God?
A. No one can believe it, unless he be utterly ignorant of the true nature of religion, and very unlearned in the matters of history.

Q. Why do you make this answer?
A. Because, in the first place, the author of the Reformation is not a man of God; secondly, because his work is not the work of God; thirdly, because the means which he used in effecting his purpose are not of God.

Q. Why do you say Luther is not a man of God?
A. Because he has left us in his works abundant proof, that if God saw a need for any reformation in his Church, such a man as Luther would not be selected to carry God's will into effect.

Q. What have you to blame in Luther's works?
A. They are full of indecencies very offensive to modesty, crammed with a low buffoonery well calculated to bring religion into contempt, and interlarded with very many gross insults offered in a spirit very far from Christian charity and humility, to individuals of dignity and worth.

Q. If neither the author of Protestantism, nor his work itself, nor the means he adopted to effect his purpose, are from God, what are his followers obliged to?
A. They are obliged, under pain of eternal damnation, to seek earnestly and re-enter the true Church, which seduced by Luther, they abandoned: If they be sincere, God will aid them in their inquiry.

Q. What is the situation of the man who does not at once acquit himself of this obligation?
A. He is the victim of mortal heresy and schism; the thing he calls a church has no pastors lawfully sent or ordained; hence, he can receive none of the Sacraments declared in Scripture to be so necessary to salvation.

7 comments:

zipper778 said...

And yet today the Roman Catholic Church calls us Evangelicals "seperated brethren" instead of heretics. Nothing changed since this catechism was given, so why is it okay today to be a follower of the works of Luther? What a goofy church the Roman one is.

James Swan said...

Yes, I thought someone would catch that.

Rhology said...

Q. What inference do you draw from all this?
A. That Protestantism cannot be the religion of Christ; because, if the Church of Christ required reformation, a God of purity and holiness would never have chosen such an immoral character—an apostate, a wholesale vow-breaker, a sacrilegious seducer—for that purpose.


Hmm, now what if we rewrote that just a tad?

Q. What inference do you draw from the behavior of the Popes of the pornocracy?
A. That Romanism cannot be the religion of Christ; because, if the Church of Christ required one vicarious shepherd to infallibly guide her, a God of purity and holiness would never have chosen such an immoral character—an apostate, a wholesale vow-breaker, a sacrilegious seducer, a greedy powermonger, a polygynist fornicator—for that purpose.


Special pleading much? If all that doesn't matter for Rome, why should it matter for Geneva and Wittenberg, even if it were all true about Luther?

Rhology said...

(subscribing)

Rhology said...

Q. What is the situation of the man who does not at once acquit himself of this obligation?
A. He is the victim of mortal heresy and schism; the thing he calls a church has no pastors lawfully sent or ordained; hence, he can receive none of the Sacraments declared in Scripture to be so necessary to salvation.


And would the modern Church say the same thing about its pro-baby-murder congregants? Hahahahahaahaaaaaa, no.

James Swan said...

Rho,

If I had more time, and if I were as clever as Steve Hays, it would be fun to put together a Catechism against current Romanism.

Perhaps I'll forward the idea to Hays. He has the smarts, and by his wirtten output, the time as well.

louis said...

The point about moral behavior and its relation to Godly office is the one that jumped out at me. How do you even make that claim with a straight face, given the morals of some popes?

Of course, in the information age, you can't. Which is why the Roman church has changed its tune on so many things.