Defending Truth & Contending For The Faith?

I came across the following odd quote using WordPress.com’s “tag surfer feature”. I am not surprised by the content, per se… I have been dealing with non-Catholic and anti-Catholic apologists for over a decade. I usually respect them as sincere, and never take it personally.

But what I find odd… well first read it first for yourself…

<!–[if gte mso 9]> Normal 0 MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 <![endif]–> The Roman Catholic religion claims that the Bible does not contain all the truths which a Christian is bound to believe (The Faith of Our Fathers, p. 72). Catholicism also says the Bible does not contain everything God taught about salvation (A Catechism for Adults, p. 52); is not clear and intelligible (The Faith of Our Fathers, pgs. 70, 152); is a dead book (Question Box, p. 67); and does more harm than good (Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, p. 274). These, and many other comments against the Bible, reveal that Catholicism is not a loyal friend of the Bible but a forceful enemy that needs to be confronted. Roman Catholicism constantly seeks to undermine, weaken, oppose and nullify the Bible from its God-ordained place of authority.

SOURCE: http://defendingcontending.com/2008/10/28/quotes-404

The thing of it is, I HAVE read The Faith Of Our Fathers by James Cardinal Gibbons. In high school, it actually kept me Catholic when I was preparing to leave the Catholic Church. I have read it (and done so more than once) and didn’t recall anything of the sort being attributed to that text in the actual book.

But I haven’t read it for at least 10 years… so fair is fair, some due diligence to see what this gentleman is possibly referring to, I used Google Books (The Faith of Our Fathers is public domain) to check out the pages cited. You can do the same.

So having read the full text of each page cited (at least using the page numbers offered compared to the online edition which matches up with the TAN edition, as the TAN edition – that I owned – was a facsimile reproduction of the same…)  I am still just as befuddled.  In each instance, the pages offered aren’t even related to discussion of Scriptures.

So my question to Mike Gendron is, what are the exact quotes you found in The Faith of Our Fathers  that back up your assertions?  Have you read the book, or are you quoting from someone who claims to be quoting it?

About these ads

8 Responses to Defending Truth & Contending For The Faith?

  1. The Pilgrim says:

    I have e-mailed Mike Gendron regarding this for an explanation.
    Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

    – The Pilgrim

  2. From Faith of our Fathers (p. 108) –

    Quote – “We must, therefore, conclude that the Scriptures alone cannot be a sufficient guide and rule of Faith, because they could not, at any time, be within the reach of every inquirer; because they are not of themselves clear and intelligible even in matters of the highest importance, and because they do not contain all the truths necessary for salvation.”

    Hope that helps to clarify the misquote of the page numbers.

    The Desert Pastor

  3. Bob says:

    Directly following that clip is this quote

    “God forbid that any of my readers should be
    tempted to conclude, from what I have said, that
    the Catholic Church is opposed to the reading of the
    Scriptures, or that she is the enemy of the Bible.
    The Catholic Church the enemy of the Bible!
    Good God, what monstrous ingratitude, what base
    calumny is contained in that assertion!”

  4. Thank you Bob.

    The Desert Pastor:

    Actually, it doesn’t rally help to clarify the misquote of the page numbers… It rather looks like efforts were made to scramble and find something that seems damning when in fact the pages cited were in no way related to the claims that were being made.

    How was the error made for three different page numbers, none of which (as shown below) had anything to do with the subject matter being discussed?

    * Where did you get the original quotes?
    * Have you read the full text of TFOOF?

    Page 72 reads as such:

    …whose extend of territory our Republic is only a province, was unable to crush the Church or arrest her progress. In a short time, we find this colassal Empire going to pieces, and the Head of the Catholic Church dispensing laws to Christndeom in the very city from which the imperial Caesars had pro-mulgated their edicts against Christianity!

    During the fifth and sixth centuries, the Goths and Vandals, the Huns, Visigoths, and Lombards and other immense tribes of Barbarians, came done wlike a torrent from the North, invading the fairest portions of Souther Europe. They dismembered the Roman Empire, and sept away nearly every trace of the old Roman civilization. They plundered cities, levelled churches, and left ruin and desolation after them. yet, though conquering for awhile, they were conquered in turn by submitting to the sweet yoke of the Gospel. And thus, even the infidel Gibbon observes, “The progress of Christianity has been marked by two glorious and decisive victories over the learned and luxurious citizens of the Roman Empire; and over the warlike Barbarians of Scythia and Germany who subverted the empired and embraced the religion of the Romans.” [Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, ch. xxxvii. p450.]

    Mohammedianism took its rise in the seventh century in Arabia, and made rapid conquests in Asia. In the fifteenth century, Constantinople was captured by the followers of the false prophet, who even threated to subject all Europe to their sway.

  5. page 70 reads:

    …against it.” [Matt. xvi. 18.] Our blessed Lord clearly intimates here that the Church is destined to be assailed always, but to be overcome, never.

    In the last words recorded of our Redeemer in the Gospel of St. Matthew, the same prediction is strongly repeated, and the reason of the Church’s indefectibility is fully expressed: “Go ye, teach all nations,…. and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.” [Matt. xxviii. 20.] This sentence contains three important declarations: 1st, The presence of Christ with His Church, “Behold I am with you;” 2d. His constant presence, without an intreval of one day’s absence, “I am with you all the days;” 3d. His perpetual presnce to the end of the world, and consequently the perpetual duration of the Church, “Even to the consummation of the world.”

    Hence it follows tha thte true church must have always existed from the beginning; it must have had not one day’s interval of suspended animation, or seperation from Christ, and must live to the end of time.

    None of the Christian communons outside the Catholic Church can have any reasonable claim to Perpetuity, since, as we have seen in the preceeding chapter, they are all of recent origin.

    The indestructibility of the Catholic Church is truly marvellous, and well calculated to excited the admiration of every reflecting mind, when we con-sider the number and variety, and the formidable power of the enemies with whom she has to contend…

  6. page 152 reads:

    …reference to the divinity of Jesus Christ. Our Saviour was acknowledged to be God from the begining of the Church. Yet His divinity was not formally defined till the Council of Nicaea in the fourth century; and it would not have been defined even then, if it had not been denied by Arius. And who will have the presumption to say that the believe in the divinity of our Lord had its origin in the fourth century?

    The following has always been the practice prevailing in the Church of God from the beginning of her history. Whenever Bishops or National Councils promulgated doctrines or condemend erros, they always transmitted their decrees to Rome for confrimation or rejection. What Rome approved, the universal Church approved; what Rome condemned, the Church condemned.

    Thus, in the third century, Pope St. Stephen reverses the decision of St. Cyprian of Carthage, and of a Councils of African Bishops regarding a question of baptism.

    Pope St. Innocent I., in the fifth century, condemns the Pelagian heresy, in reference to which St. Augustine wrote this memorable sentence: “The acrs ot two councils were sent to the Apostolic See, whence an answere was retured: the question is ended. Would to God that the error had also ceased.”

    In the fourteenth century, Gregory XI. condemns the heresy of

    Wickliffe.

  7. Now let us take a look at page 108:

    ..voice givs assurance, amid the fierces storms, that all is well.

    3d. A rule of Faith, or a competent guide to the heaven, must be able to instruct in all the truths necessary for salvation. Now the Scriptures alone do not contain all the truths which a Christian is bound to believe, nor do they explicityly enjoin all the duties to which he obliged to practice. Not to mention other examples, is not every Christian obliged to sanctify Sunday, and to abstain on that day from unnecessary servile work? Is not the observance of this law among the most prominent of our sacred duties? But you may read the Bible from Genisis to Revelation, and you will not find a single line authorizing the sanctification of Sunday. The Scriptures enforce the religous observance of Saturday, a day which we will never sanctify..

    The Catholic Church correctly teaches that our Lord and His Apostles inculccated certain important duties of religion which are not recorded by the inspired writers [see John xxi. 25; II. Thess. ii. 14.] For instance, most Christians pray to the Holy Ghost, a practice which nowhere is found in the Bible.

    We must, therefore, conclude that the Scriptures alone cannot be sufficient guide and rule of Faith, because they could not, at any time, be within the reach of every inquirer; because they are not of themselves clear and intelligible even in matters of the highest importance, abd because they do not contain all the truths necessary for salvation.

  8. for good measure, we do well to look at page 109, for greater context:

    Directly following that clip is this quote

    God forbid that any of my readers should be tempted to conclude, from what I have said, that the Catholic Church is opposed to the reading of the Scriptures, or that she is the enemy of the Bible. The Catholic Church the enemy of the Bible!
    Good God, what monstrous ingratitude, what base calumny is contained in that assertion! As well might you accuse the Virgin Mother of trying to crush the Infant Savior at her breast, as to accuse the Church, our Mother, of attempting to crush out the existence of the Word of God. As well might you charge the patriotic stateman of attempting to destroy the constitution of his country, while he strove to protect it from being mutilated by unprincipaled demagogues.

    For fifteen centuries, the Church was the sole guardian and depository of the Bible; and if she really feared that sacred Book, who was to prevent her, during that long period, from tearing it in shreads and scattering it to the winds? She could ahve thrown it into the sea, as the unnatural mother would throw away her offspring, and who would have been the wiser for it?

    Whas has become of those millions of once famous books which were written in past ages? They have nearly all perished. But amid this wreck of ancient literature the Bible stands almost a solitary monument, like the Pyramids of Egypt amid the surrounding wastes. That venerable Volume has survived the wars and revolutions and the barbaric…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 90 other followers

%d bloggers like this: