"Catholic Ads Reviewed"
This article is a review of the Catholic Ad in the Sunday Ledger, September 16, 1951, and the ad frankly admits that such CATHOLIC TEACHING as the Mess, Purgatory, confession to a priest, praying to Mary, and those seven Sacraments are NOT MENTIONED in the Bible. We are glad they have admitted this much (we knew it however, before) but I have a book, mailed me by some Catholic, titled: "Catholic Religion Proved By Protestant Bible" in which scripture (the Bible) is used in an effort to prove all the above-mentioned CATHOLIC TEACHING. How can the BOOK prove these doctrines, by, the Bible, if (as the Sunday Ad says) they are not mentioned in the Bible? There is ONE thing in which Catholics are consistent; they are consistent in their inconsistency.
The ad says, "... everything contained in the Bible is true, yet the Bible is not the source of all truth...the church existed long before the Bible was completed...millions lived and died in the Savior's truth without ever having seen a Bible." Now, while Catholics are constantly boasting of their RESPECT "for" the Bible, they shew their DISRESPECT, for it, by saying people can be saved "without" the Bible. The Bible is GOD'S TRUTH and though some may have lived and died in the Savior's truth not ever having seen a Bible it does not mean they were saved by TRUTHS different to the TRUTHS contained IN the Bible. It simply shows that before these TRUTHS were put in BOOK FORM people were taught these same TRUTHS by word of mouth (inspired men) and they obeyed the same TRUTHS. The Bible (scriptures) is a record of what inspired men taught; the "inspired book" takes the place of "inspired men." It is simply an effort, on the part of Catholics to disparage the Bible (and no wonder; it is a great stumbling-block to the Catholic Church) by teaching men can be saved by Catholic doctrine, without the Bible, because "many lived and died not ever having seen a Bible."
Catholics think they have a point when they say, "the Bible not only does not mention the Mass and purgatory, by name, but neither does it mention the word Bible." Certainly we know this but, remove the word Bible, from the front of the book, and no HARM is done to the scriptures. However, remove the words Mass and purgatory from Catholic teaching and view the irreparable HARM done Catholicism. Purgatory and Mass have not even been found on the "cover of the book" much less within the book. "Furthermore," says the ad, "no where within its coven is it stated what are the writings which contain the inspired Word of God." There is no dispute between Catholics, Protestants, and Us, as to what constitutes the N. T. scriptures (and the New Testament is the Law of Christ by which we are saved) so, why quibble about that? There was no difference regarding the Old Testament until the 15th or 16th century, when Catholics added the apocryphal books (which we have before proved spurious). The ad continues, "...the Catholic Church, preserved and collected the scriptural writings and put them between the covers of a book." This is plain falsehood (and if Catholics will debate these issues we can go further into detail) but the last book of the Bible, was written by John about 96 A.D. and that was 510 years before Boniface III was appointed the first Pope by Phocas, a wicked emperor.
The claim is made by Catholics that the books of the Bible were gathered together into one volume and approved by them in 390 or 397 A.D. at the council of Hippo or, Carthage, but the Sinaitic manuscript dates back to about 350 A.D. and it is a COPY of a COPY. If this manuscript is that old the original was older. The point is this: the collection of the books of the Bible existed earlier than Rome claims to have decided upon the canon. The Sync version and the old Latin were translations made early in the second century (according to scholars) which shows the Bible, as we now have it, was translated from Greek and circulated in different countries long before the council of Hippo. The Catholic claim is false and misleading and we challenge them to PROVE, in discussion, to the contrary.